Showing posts with label John Lennox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Lennox. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Clearly and Succintly
We also need to be prepared to distinguish between what Scripture actually says and what we think it means. It is Scripture that has the final authority, not our understanding of it. --John Lennox Seven Days that Divide the World (Kindle location 315)
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Faith and Evidence
I find it quite interesting that it is not enough for we as Christian believers to simply deal with those who do not believe in our faith and seek to articulate and defend our positions to them. No. For some reason, we also must deal with one another and oftentimes to seek to articulate and defend our positions to one another. Oftentimes, when we engage in such debates, non-believers can simply sit on the sidelines and watch us go at one another all the while laughing at our inter-squad rivalries.
It would be nice if we did not have to have such inter-squad arguments. It would be nice if we could have an agreed upon methodology of interpreting Scripture, formulating doctrine, and defining practice. But, alas, Pandora's Box has been opened, and we cannot stuff all the entities back into it. And so we must wade through the varying theologies and methodologies to seek the Truth and hopefully be grasped by it at some point.
One of the great struggles in the Christian faith has been the interpretation of Scripture and how we view the documents called the Old and New Testaments. Much ink has been spilled in how to view these documents throughout the ages from the earliest decades of Christianity to the present, and, in some cases, the arguments of how to handle these documents has gotten rather heated.
In our own cultural situation (North America, U.S.A.) perhaps the most heated debates on how to deal with the biblical canon are between those holding to biblical inerrancy and those who embrace the historical/critical methods of interpreting scripture.
I am of the opinion that each side takes its particular position too far in its effort to prove its credibility oftentimes ending up with the following exchange:
"You historical/critical folks do not take the Bible seriously enough and you try to manipulate it to say what you want to say."
"Well, we believe and worship the God of the Bible and not the Bible itself!"
The accusations on both sides are flawed. Each side takes the Bible very seriously--there is no doubt about that. Yet, each side fails to recognize some very basic truth as well. I believe some of these differences can be reconciled if we view the Bible in a particular manner--as evidence.
Professor John Lennox in one of his lectures found on Youtube said the following:
We have a job to do to explain what John does in his Gospel so brilliantly. That faith is not something that just happens to people. It’s a response to evidence–these things are written...in order that you might believe. Here is the basis, and faith is based on evidence. Otherwise, by definition, you wouldn’t need the New Testament. If faith is believing where there is no evidence, then the greatest faith is shown by those people who never read the New Testament. Because it is evidence, I am sorry to say, but I am not sorry to say.
This is a very important statement in my estimation. And as I have thought about it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Here is why:
Evidence demands interpretation, and it does not tell the full story. Those who hold to the inerrancy of scripture would do well to remember this.
Consider the analogy with dinosaur bones. (I am sorry. I cannot help but use this example as my son is a huge dinosaur fan.) The bones tell us an awful lot about anatomy. They give us a great glimpse of what the skeletal features of these creatures looked like. But, we also know these are the basics. There are much more to dinosaurs than just bones. In a very real way, we have to fill in some blanks. There is interpretation which must be done especially in regards to behavior. How did the dinosaurs act? Hunt? Move in their environment? How fast could they move? Were they warm blooded or cold blooded or did different species have different blood types? We can make some very good guesses based upon the bones, but the full truth actually escapes us. There is no way to fully verify.
The God of the Bible can be viewed similarly (please allow that I realize no analogy is complete). Scripture gives us the bones in a very real way. We see God revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We see God revealed in how He acted in the Old and New Testament. We see God revealed in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, fully divine and fully human. However, there is much which begs interpretation. There is much which begs to be filled in. There is much to God which we still do not know. Given the tremendous advances in technology, how indeed does God view genetic engineering? The use of fossil fuels? The role sporting events now play in our nation? The rise of science? The fact that we interact so much over our computers and phones?
If we are true to ourselves, we will answer that we truly do not know for sure. We can get a pretty good idea, but the full Truth is just beyond our grasp, and the best we can hope for is to be grabbed by it.
And just like a paleontologist has to put together a skeleton based upon his or her knowledge of anatomy, we too have to put together the pieces of God as revealed as the Trinity. We know the fullest revelation of God is in the person of Jesus, and so we must look to Him as the example as we move forth in our talk about God. So, as we look at Jesus, does the "bone" regarding the stoning of disobedient children in Deuteronomy 21 fit? Obviously not. Furthermore, Jesus Himself told us that some bones are not to be dealt with any longer (dietary laws). Based upon the evidence of Jesus, we have a great guide to wade through some of the issues regarding inerrancy in the Bible.
However, there are a couple of things that we are not allowed to do. We are simply not allowed to rearrange the skeleton in whatever fashion we desire. I mean, when a paleontologist puts together a mess of dinosaur bones, he/she does not take a bone away just because it doesn't seem to fit his/her own imagination of what a dinosaur looked like. If a full skeleton of a dinosaur is found, and the bones are arranged in a certain way in the ground, the paleontologist does his or her best to deal with the skeleton as it is and tries to work with the bones as they are presented. One cannot manipulate the pieces and rearrange them to fit one's preconceived notions.
There are more than a few who involve themselves in the historical/critical methodology who do just this. They take the evidence presented in the Bible and arrange it to fit their own ideas of what God is like. They are more than comfortable saying, "Well, this bone/saying of Jesus doesn't fit what I think God/Jesus is really like, so this must be made up by a particular community; it must be legend; it must be an invention in the mind of a particular scribe who is trying to push his own agenda."
Evidence demands to be interpreted--not thrown out because one does not like it. And too many scholars enjoy trampling on pieces of scripture because they do not like it and it does not fit their own ideas of what God/Jesus is/should be like. Indeed, this is tampering with the evidence instead of truly wrestling with it.
And so, what do we have if we view the Bible as evidence? Where do we arrive if we assume this book is God's people writing down how God has revealed Himself throughout history?
We have something we must take very seriously--but realize there are limitations. We have something concrete and unchanging: beyond manipulation--but some blanks that beg to be filled in. We have guidance in wresting with the tough issues of our day without having to come across as completely dogmatic and thinking we have it all figured out. We also have the ability to invite other eyes to come and view the evidence--to see if they can uncover things as well.
It seems to me, that viewing scripture as evidence of God and His work gives us a path forward to navigate in the rough seas generated by two particular views of Christianity which are highly incompatible
It would be nice if we did not have to have such inter-squad arguments. It would be nice if we could have an agreed upon methodology of interpreting Scripture, formulating doctrine, and defining practice. But, alas, Pandora's Box has been opened, and we cannot stuff all the entities back into it. And so we must wade through the varying theologies and methodologies to seek the Truth and hopefully be grasped by it at some point.
One of the great struggles in the Christian faith has been the interpretation of Scripture and how we view the documents called the Old and New Testaments. Much ink has been spilled in how to view these documents throughout the ages from the earliest decades of Christianity to the present, and, in some cases, the arguments of how to handle these documents has gotten rather heated.
In our own cultural situation (North America, U.S.A.) perhaps the most heated debates on how to deal with the biblical canon are between those holding to biblical inerrancy and those who embrace the historical/critical methods of interpreting scripture.
I am of the opinion that each side takes its particular position too far in its effort to prove its credibility oftentimes ending up with the following exchange:
"You historical/critical folks do not take the Bible seriously enough and you try to manipulate it to say what you want to say."
"Well, we believe and worship the God of the Bible and not the Bible itself!"
The accusations on both sides are flawed. Each side takes the Bible very seriously--there is no doubt about that. Yet, each side fails to recognize some very basic truth as well. I believe some of these differences can be reconciled if we view the Bible in a particular manner--as evidence.
Professor John Lennox in one of his lectures found on Youtube said the following:
We have a job to do to explain what John does in his Gospel so brilliantly. That faith is not something that just happens to people. It’s a response to evidence–these things are written...in order that you might believe. Here is the basis, and faith is based on evidence. Otherwise, by definition, you wouldn’t need the New Testament. If faith is believing where there is no evidence, then the greatest faith is shown by those people who never read the New Testament. Because it is evidence, I am sorry to say, but I am not sorry to say.
This is a very important statement in my estimation. And as I have thought about it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Here is why:
Evidence demands interpretation, and it does not tell the full story. Those who hold to the inerrancy of scripture would do well to remember this.
Consider the analogy with dinosaur bones. (I am sorry. I cannot help but use this example as my son is a huge dinosaur fan.) The bones tell us an awful lot about anatomy. They give us a great glimpse of what the skeletal features of these creatures looked like. But, we also know these are the basics. There are much more to dinosaurs than just bones. In a very real way, we have to fill in some blanks. There is interpretation which must be done especially in regards to behavior. How did the dinosaurs act? Hunt? Move in their environment? How fast could they move? Were they warm blooded or cold blooded or did different species have different blood types? We can make some very good guesses based upon the bones, but the full truth actually escapes us. There is no way to fully verify.
The God of the Bible can be viewed similarly (please allow that I realize no analogy is complete). Scripture gives us the bones in a very real way. We see God revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We see God revealed in how He acted in the Old and New Testament. We see God revealed in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, fully divine and fully human. However, there is much which begs interpretation. There is much which begs to be filled in. There is much to God which we still do not know. Given the tremendous advances in technology, how indeed does God view genetic engineering? The use of fossil fuels? The role sporting events now play in our nation? The rise of science? The fact that we interact so much over our computers and phones?
If we are true to ourselves, we will answer that we truly do not know for sure. We can get a pretty good idea, but the full Truth is just beyond our grasp, and the best we can hope for is to be grabbed by it.
And just like a paleontologist has to put together a skeleton based upon his or her knowledge of anatomy, we too have to put together the pieces of God as revealed as the Trinity. We know the fullest revelation of God is in the person of Jesus, and so we must look to Him as the example as we move forth in our talk about God. So, as we look at Jesus, does the "bone" regarding the stoning of disobedient children in Deuteronomy 21 fit? Obviously not. Furthermore, Jesus Himself told us that some bones are not to be dealt with any longer (dietary laws). Based upon the evidence of Jesus, we have a great guide to wade through some of the issues regarding inerrancy in the Bible.
However, there are a couple of things that we are not allowed to do. We are simply not allowed to rearrange the skeleton in whatever fashion we desire. I mean, when a paleontologist puts together a mess of dinosaur bones, he/she does not take a bone away just because it doesn't seem to fit his/her own imagination of what a dinosaur looked like. If a full skeleton of a dinosaur is found, and the bones are arranged in a certain way in the ground, the paleontologist does his or her best to deal with the skeleton as it is and tries to work with the bones as they are presented. One cannot manipulate the pieces and rearrange them to fit one's preconceived notions.
There are more than a few who involve themselves in the historical/critical methodology who do just this. They take the evidence presented in the Bible and arrange it to fit their own ideas of what God is like. They are more than comfortable saying, "Well, this bone/saying of Jesus doesn't fit what I think God/Jesus is really like, so this must be made up by a particular community; it must be legend; it must be an invention in the mind of a particular scribe who is trying to push his own agenda."
Evidence demands to be interpreted--not thrown out because one does not like it. And too many scholars enjoy trampling on pieces of scripture because they do not like it and it does not fit their own ideas of what God/Jesus is/should be like. Indeed, this is tampering with the evidence instead of truly wrestling with it.
And so, what do we have if we view the Bible as evidence? Where do we arrive if we assume this book is God's people writing down how God has revealed Himself throughout history?
We have something we must take very seriously--but realize there are limitations. We have something concrete and unchanging: beyond manipulation--but some blanks that beg to be filled in. We have guidance in wresting with the tough issues of our day without having to come across as completely dogmatic and thinking we have it all figured out. We also have the ability to invite other eyes to come and view the evidence--to see if they can uncover things as well.
It seems to me, that viewing scripture as evidence of God and His work gives us a path forward to navigate in the rough seas generated by two particular views of Christianity which are highly incompatible
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
The Probability of Life
I've had an interesting month or so when it comes to discussing the origins of life and its probability.
Last week's final post on God in school elicited a response from a friend who is a science teacher, and is someone I respect tremendously. She outlaid what I knew to be true but didn't articulate clearly in my post.
Many teachers are forced to teach certain curriculum and have no say in how it is presented.
I think that is unfortunate, particularly when covering evolution and the origins of life.
Please understand this important point: I adhere to evolutionary theory as an explanation as to how life evolved on our planet. I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute is unguided evolution based on the probability of life originating and then evolving as rapidly as it has.
Please allow me to explain using the origin of life on our planet: DNA.
There is little dispute among the biological community that the first forms of life on our planet were simple bacteria. There is little dispute that the building blocks of these bacteria are proteins composed of the DNA molecule. There is little dispute regarding the DNA molecule and how it is in a double-helix shape composed of nucleotides. These are composed of nucleobases (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine), recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into anymore detailed scientific terms. Please bear with me. I think this is extremely important.)
Now, in the simplest of bacteria, there are hundreds of thousands of nucleobases. This is important. The human DNA has over 3 billion base pairs, dwarfing bacteria. So, we are talking about the very, very basics. Simple, correct? And with the trillions of planets that must exist in our universe, life should be a slam dunk? Correct?
Richard Dawkins, noted biologist and atheist gives the origins of life a one in a billion chance. As such, he is a firm believer in the existence of life throughout the universe. But I wonder where he got that one in a billion figure? Is it that small? And yes, I believe it is too small.
Interestingly enough, in a debate between Dawkins and John Lennox, who is a mathematician, Lennox states that he cannot believe that life developed randomly. Dawkins, either sympathetically or condescendingly says, "I know that." I think Dawkins would do well to study some mathematics and try to understand why Lewis says what he says.
I think I get it, and here is why:
The first nucleotide would be either a G,A,T, or C. It has a one in four chance of being the correct one or 25%. Not too bad a chance. But let's extend that down to ten places. Each place has a one in four shot, so we get 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4.... or 1/4^10. That's a 1/1,048,576 chance that all 10 would come together. The odds are getting much smaller--already passing Dawkin's one in a billion chance. So, let's extrapolate down another 10 spots. 1/4^20 or 1/1,099,511,627,776. Those odds are essentially nil, zero, not a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks, and we are only to the 20th nucleotide. Would you ascribe such a coming together of chemicals to chance? Even if you have hundreds of billions of planets out there, do you really believe that number comes even close to lessening the odds? Statistically, not a chance. At all.
Somehow in the primordial soup that was our planet nearly 3 billion years ago, life emerged as these chemicals came together to form it. You can say that it happened by chance that these chemicals somehow did this on their own, but that's not exactly a very rational statement in light of the math. It's possible that it could have happened in such a fashion, but it is definitely more rational to believe that it didn't just happen on its own.
So, once again, we are left with three options presented to us regarding the origins of life:
1. Pure chance--mathematically laughable.
2. In an impossibly large number of parallel universes, we happened to be in the one that was just right--not evidence based as there is no way to measure or observe some sort of parallel universe by definition. One must adhere to this option purely by faith.
3. Life was create--the most probable of the three given the numbers along with the fact that our universe began out of nothing and is finely tuned.
In our school systems, when it comes to teaching biology and the origins of life, #1 and #2 can be freely taught without repercussion despite the known difficulties. I am of the persuasion that option #3 needs to be added as an option in our educational system. It seems the most rational position.
Last week's final post on God in school elicited a response from a friend who is a science teacher, and is someone I respect tremendously. She outlaid what I knew to be true but didn't articulate clearly in my post.
Many teachers are forced to teach certain curriculum and have no say in how it is presented.
I think that is unfortunate, particularly when covering evolution and the origins of life.
Please understand this important point: I adhere to evolutionary theory as an explanation as to how life evolved on our planet. I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute is unguided evolution based on the probability of life originating and then evolving as rapidly as it has.
Please allow me to explain using the origin of life on our planet: DNA.
There is little dispute among the biological community that the first forms of life on our planet were simple bacteria. There is little dispute that the building blocks of these bacteria are proteins composed of the DNA molecule. There is little dispute regarding the DNA molecule and how it is in a double-helix shape composed of nucleotides. These are composed of nucleobases (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine), recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into anymore detailed scientific terms. Please bear with me. I think this is extremely important.)
Now, in the simplest of bacteria, there are hundreds of thousands of nucleobases. This is important. The human DNA has over 3 billion base pairs, dwarfing bacteria. So, we are talking about the very, very basics. Simple, correct? And with the trillions of planets that must exist in our universe, life should be a slam dunk? Correct?
Richard Dawkins, noted biologist and atheist gives the origins of life a one in a billion chance. As such, he is a firm believer in the existence of life throughout the universe. But I wonder where he got that one in a billion figure? Is it that small? And yes, I believe it is too small.
Interestingly enough, in a debate between Dawkins and John Lennox, who is a mathematician, Lennox states that he cannot believe that life developed randomly. Dawkins, either sympathetically or condescendingly says, "I know that." I think Dawkins would do well to study some mathematics and try to understand why Lewis says what he says.
I think I get it, and here is why:
The first nucleotide would be either a G,A,T, or C. It has a one in four chance of being the correct one or 25%. Not too bad a chance. But let's extend that down to ten places. Each place has a one in four shot, so we get 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4.... or 1/4^10. That's a 1/1,048,576 chance that all 10 would come together. The odds are getting much smaller--already passing Dawkin's one in a billion chance. So, let's extrapolate down another 10 spots. 1/4^20 or 1/1,099,511,627,776. Those odds are essentially nil, zero, not a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks, and we are only to the 20th nucleotide. Would you ascribe such a coming together of chemicals to chance? Even if you have hundreds of billions of planets out there, do you really believe that number comes even close to lessening the odds? Statistically, not a chance. At all.
Somehow in the primordial soup that was our planet nearly 3 billion years ago, life emerged as these chemicals came together to form it. You can say that it happened by chance that these chemicals somehow did this on their own, but that's not exactly a very rational statement in light of the math. It's possible that it could have happened in such a fashion, but it is definitely more rational to believe that it didn't just happen on its own.
So, once again, we are left with three options presented to us regarding the origins of life:
1. Pure chance--mathematically laughable.
2. In an impossibly large number of parallel universes, we happened to be in the one that was just right--not evidence based as there is no way to measure or observe some sort of parallel universe by definition. One must adhere to this option purely by faith.
3. Life was create--the most probable of the three given the numbers along with the fact that our universe began out of nothing and is finely tuned.
In our school systems, when it comes to teaching biology and the origins of life, #1 and #2 can be freely taught without repercussion despite the known difficulties. I am of the persuasion that option #3 needs to be added as an option in our educational system. It seems the most rational position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)