Science and Religion

When one boils it down to fundamentals, there is a war of worldviews being waged in American society today.  One view is that of the naturalist or materialist that says the natural or material world is all there is.  If science cannot demonstrate it or prove it then is doesn't exist.  That there is nothing outside of or transcendent to the natural world.

The theist and Christian worldview says that there is a personal creator who is transcendent of and separate from the natural world, indeed He created it.

Now what is interesting in this debate is that the naturalist tries to use science to show that belief in God is like believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. That we either believe in the reality of science or we have faith in our religion.  This is really a false choice. 

Today science is becoming a huge part of the development of evidence for theism and the Christian worldview.  Whether you talk about the creation of the universe, the design of the universe, the specificity of design in life, the origin of life, or the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, science and scientific discovery are making enormous contributions.  The more we know, the more we are led to the worldview that God does exist and that Jesus was who he said he was.

The view that science can play no role in theology is simply wrong. 

It is true that whether it be naturalism or theism/Christianity that you choose there is a leap of faith that needs to occur. But what do you base that leap on? If one bases it on the evidence, much of it scientific evidence, it becomes a greater leap of faith to be a naturalist/atheist than to be a Christian.  As Norm Geisler and Frank Turek said in their book of the same title, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist".

Separation of Church and State

No phrase stimulates more argument than the phrase "separation of church and state".  If we take a close look at American history we find that in the last 50 years or so the phrase has been turned on its head. 

First look at the phrase incorporated in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  There are two distinct concepts elaborated in this clause.  First is that Congress cannot establish a state religion.  The idea coming from the Reformation in Europe a couple centuries before the constitution was written.  During the Reformation church leaders wanted the government out of the church and a return to the Bible instead of the state mandating religious practice.  Richard Hooker (1554 - 1600) was the first to use the phrase 'separation of church and state'.  In America, a minister by the name of Roger Williams (1603-1683) was the first to use the phrase.  Their purpose was to get the government to leave the churches alone to practice their religion as they saw fit and not be told by the state how to worship.  This was a fundamental concern of the Founding Fathers as it was one of the main reasons people came to America, to be able to worship freely.

In a response letter to a Baptist Church in 1802 who had written expressing the concern that the new nation not interfere with religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson used the term "a wall of separation between church and state".  He did so, if one reads the entire letter, to assure the Baptists that the new government would not interfere with the free exercise of their religion. 

You see there was a fundamental difference, understood by the Founding Fathers, between 'church' and 'religious expression'.  It is that 'church' describes an institution, not the religious expression.  Government was to stay out of the business of establishing a state church.  This is the intent of the first part of the clause, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'.  This is the establishment clause.  The second part is the part that refers to religious expression and there too the government is to stay out.  It does not say that the government has to be totally secular or that we are to be completely free from religion in our public places.

Indeed, in 1853, nearly a century after the Constitution was written, the Supreme Court held in a decision, "had the people, during the revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in the cradle.  At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and its amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect.  In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity.  That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their decendents."  Two months later the House Judiciary Committee said, "The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ."  Go ahead, look these up.  They are in the Congressional Record.

It is clear that the intent of the framers of our republican form of government were solidly steeped in biblical principles, particularly the New Testament.  These men were Christians who saw the necessity of Christian and Biblical principles to be the foundation of our government and our society.  The idea of a separation of powers came from the Bible.  The idea of representative government is biblical. America is truly a Christian nation.

Let me be clear.  This does not mean, in any way, that America should not allow other forms of religious expression.  Indeed the principle is that all forms of religious expression should be allowed.  During the founding of our nation there were Jews, Muslims, and Confucions involved in the revolution.  But the vast majority of the Founding Fathers saw the Bible and Christianity as being the source of the principles upon which the country should be founded and by which the country should operate forever.

This is why I say, the Founding Fathers believed in 'freedom OF religion' not 'freedom FROM religion'. 

One of the most established facts of the Resurrection of Jesus is the empty tomb.  Even the most ardent skeptic has to admit that the tomb of Joseph of Aramathea was found empty.  It would have been easy for anyone to dismiss the resurrection story by simply providing the body.  But no one ever has.  One has to ask themselves, what happened to the body of Jesus of Nazareth?  Where did he go?  The New Testament tells us, but of course that is the account the skeptics want to dismiss. 

In comparison to other world views, I find it fascinating that Buddha's tomb is occupied, Confucius's tomb is occupied, Mohammed's tomb is occupied, Jesus' tomb is empty.

An even more compelling aspect is that Jesus, while he was alive, predicted his rising from the dead.  If someone today were to make the claims that Jesus made in his day they would be labeled a fool or a nut case.  Jesus said to the doubters and skeptics of his day that he would give them a sign.  One sign that will demonstrate who I am and that I speak the truth.  That sign would be that he would rise from the dead after three days in the tomb. 

So with the empty tomb, what is the most plausible explanation?  Philosophers and theologians and skeptics have for centuries tried to answer that question.  I think it is important that we try to answer it ourselves.  In doing so, one should maintain logical consistency with the historical facts that we know and be open to the idea that a miracle may have occured here.

C.S. Lewis - The Great Sin

C.S. Lewis in his book "Mere Christianity" outlined what he called the Great Sin.  In today's world this is more true than ever.  It truly takes a measure of humility to realize that there is more to life than yourself and your earthly pursuits.  The following is a excerpt from C.S. Lewis's book and I think it well describes man's problem today. 

"I now come to that part of Christian morals where they differ most sharply from all other morals.  There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which everyone in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people, except Christians, ever imagine that they are guilty themselves.  I have heard people admit that they are bad-tempered, or that they cannot keep their heads about girls or drink, or even that they are cowards.  I do not think I have ever heard anyone who was not a Christian accuse himself of this vice.  And at the same time I have very seldom met anyone, who was not a Christian, who showed the slightest mercy to it in others.  There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves.  And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.

The vice I am talking of is pride or self-conceit; and the virtue opposite to it, in Christian morals, is called humility.
Pride leads to every other vice; it is the complete anti-God state of mind.

It is the comparison that makes you proud; the pleasure of being above the rest.  Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone.

In God you come up against something which is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself.  Unless you know God as that — and, therefore, know yourself as nothing in comparison — you do not know God at all.  As long as you are proud you cannot know God.  A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.

We must not think Pride is something God forbids because He is offended at it, or that Humility is something He demands as due to His own dignity — as if God Himself was proud.  He is not in the least worried about His dignity.  The point is, He wants you to know Him: wants to give you Himself.  And He and you are two things of such a kind that if you really get into any kind of touch with Him you will, in fact, be humble — delightedly humble, feeling the infinite relief of having for once got rid of all the silly nonsense about your own dignity which has made you restless and unhappy all your life.  He is trying to make you humble in order to make this moment possible:  trying to take off a lot of silly, ugly, fancy dress in which we have all got ourselves up and are strutting about like the little idiots we are.  To get even near it, even for a moment, is like a drink of cold water to a man in a desert."

I urge everyone to get in touch with God and relieve the thirst inside of you. 

Pascal quote

Pascal, the famous French philosopher, once said, "God has given evidence sufficiently clear for those with an open heart, and sufficiently vague so as not to compel those whose hearts are closed".

America's heritage

Revisionist history is a serious problem in education today.  Revisionism by omission is the worst kind of revisionism.  It simply leaves out vital information so that people simply don't know about certain key truths.  This is especially true in regards to the founding fathers of our country.  American was founded on Biblical principles, by deeply religious Christian men, who, overwhelmingly, based their ideas of government on their understanding of the Bible.  The American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution express unique and new ideas of that time.  Never before had the ideas and principles outlined in these documents been written down as a basis for establishing a government.  Where did these ideas come from?  How did these men discover these concepts?  The Bible was overwhelmingly the main source for these ideas, as well as the writings of many preachers and theologians of the period.  All historians recognize the relevent contribution of John Locke's work, "Two Treatises of Government".  If one researches John Locke's life, you find him to be a what we now consider to be a renaissance man – an individual skilled in numerous areas and diverse subjects. He had been well-educated and received multiple degrees from some of the best institutions of his day, but he also pursued extensive self-education in the fields of religion, philosophy, education, law, and government – subjects on which he authored numerous substantial works, most of which still remain in print today more than three centuries after he published them.  Indeed, he wrote extensively on Christian apologetics.

This is another truth which is forgotten or ignored today.  America was founded as a Christian nation.  We are to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Truth

All Truth is Absolute – It is true for all people, in all times, and in all places.  You do not have to believe it for it to be true.  This simple concept seems to escape people today.  We are subject to the relativism of today where everyone's version is true.  There are no absolute truths, according to our culture.  WRONG!!!  There are abosolute truths.  They do exist!

This is step one in beginning to understand truth, acknowledging that it exists.

Arguments for the existence of God

There ars some very compelling arguments for God's existence. In order to understand or appreciate them one must be open to the idea. Common sense tells us that if oue mind is already made up, then change is extremely difficult. People abhore change. They are afraid of it. I ask, what is it that we are really afraid of? There are five really strong arguments for God's existence. As a disciple of Dr. William Craig, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Mike Licona, and Ravi Zacharias, I have much to share and see these five positions as compelling. 1. The Cosmological argument. 2. The argument from Design, or the Teleological argument. 3. The moral argument 4. The birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 5. The argument of personal experience I will have much to say on each of these. Expect a dose of common sense with each.

Welcome

As a student of history, the Bible, and culture, I will be commenting on all three. I have a wealth of info to share and I hope to generate civil discourse through this blog. I don't have a bunch of letters behind my name, although I am a college graduate. What I can offer are viewpoints sculpted through 62 years of a wide range of experiences. Many of them I will be sharing on this blog so that readers can get to know me better.

So here goes my first post.