Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
This post is basically for other Christians, but anyone else should feel free to add comments. What I don't want to get into here, however, is a debate with non-believers regarding whether "faith presumptions" are reasonable to begin with. You will just have to accept for the sake of this discussion that us Christians have them.
I think one way of looking at our approaches to this issue is where, on a spectrum, we place our “faith presumptions”. By this I mean those things which we accept by faith, not by reason (even if reasonable), and would use as a starting point presumption against which all must be measured. For these things, we would use the word “since” when discussing them, rather than “if”. For example, starting at the far end of the spectrum, we would say:
“Since God exists . . .”
then all kinds of things.
And I think that all Christians would agree that we should qualify everything and measure everything, including our study of the natural world, by that “faith presumption”. There are many other “faith presumptions” common to all Christians, “Since God created everything”, “Since Jesus is the Son of God”, “Since Jesus came to die for our sins”, etc.
The question for the topic of origins is how far down you shift your “faith presumptions” and whether you shift it too far. Personally, I do say “Since God created everything . . .” and I think most would agree with this one. This is a presumption of faith, and from that starting point, and I would measure all scientific discoveries against this statement, so that the sentence might be completed “. . . however life started, it was part of His creation and His plan.", for example. Every conclusion I would reach about our understanding of nature would be seen through that lens and be interpreted by that presumption.
And, importantly, everything which was not compatible with that faith presumption would be ultimately rejected. Thus a statement that the universe was created without God would be rejected.
Stepping a bit further down the spectrum, I hold just as strongly to the idea that the Scripture is Holy and God’s messages to all of us. So, I would say “Since the Bible is God’s Holy Scripture . . .” and all is measured against that. I even go further and say that the Scripture is completely inerrant in the presentation of it’s intended message, so I would say “Since Scripture is inerrant in the presentation of the message intended by God . . .” without compromise on this idea.
Thus, any statement, by anyone, on any subject, that Scripture is not God's message to us because of X or Y would be rejected.
So, against all these “faith presumptions”, all else, including scientific inquiry, is measured. In this way, I can say with great conviction that, contrary to the assertion of many YEC's, I do not let scientific knowledge control Scripture. My “faith presumptions” trump all else, including what any scientist may say about the history of our planet or how it works. But in the areas not mandated by a faith presumption, I use the word “if” instead. “If God created by allowing a form of abiogenesis” or “If God created a literal Garden”.
What YEC’s do is shift their “faith presumption” all the way down to “Since God created the world in six 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago . . .” and then measure all against THAT. I have no problem with having faith presumptions against which we measure scientific conclusions. I do that myself. I just think that the YEC’s have made a “since” out of something that should be an “if”.
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
This post is basically for other Christians, but anyone else should feel free to add comments. What I don't want to get into here, however, is a debate with non-believers regarding whether "faith presumptions" are reasonable to begin with. You will just have to accept for the sake of this discussion that us Christians have them.
I think one way of looking at our approaches to this issue is where, on a spectrum, we place our “faith presumptions”. By this I mean those things which we accept by faith, not by reason (even if reasonable), and would use as a starting point presumption against which all must be measured. For these things, we would use the word “since” when discussing them, rather than “if”. For example, starting at the far end of the spectrum, we would say:
“Since God exists . . .”
then all kinds of things.
And I think that all Christians would agree that we should qualify everything and measure everything, including our study of the natural world, by that “faith presumption”. There are many other “faith presumptions” common to all Christians, “Since God created everything”, “Since Jesus is the Son of God”, “Since Jesus came to die for our sins”, etc.
The question for the topic of origins is how far down you shift your “faith presumptions” and whether you shift it too far. Personally, I do say “Since God created everything . . .” and I think most would agree with this one. This is a presumption of faith, and from that starting point, and I would measure all scientific discoveries against this statement, so that the sentence might be completed “. . . however life started, it was part of His creation and His plan.", for example. Every conclusion I would reach about our understanding of nature would be seen through that lens and be interpreted by that presumption.
And, importantly, everything which was not compatible with that faith presumption would be ultimately rejected. Thus a statement that the universe was created without God would be rejected.
Stepping a bit further down the spectrum, I hold just as strongly to the idea that the Scripture is Holy and God’s messages to all of us. So, I would say “Since the Bible is God’s Holy Scripture . . .” and all is measured against that. I even go further and say that the Scripture is completely inerrant in the presentation of it’s intended message, so I would say “Since Scripture is inerrant in the presentation of the message intended by God . . .” without compromise on this idea.
Thus, any statement, by anyone, on any subject, that Scripture is not God's message to us because of X or Y would be rejected.
So, against all these “faith presumptions”, all else, including scientific inquiry, is measured. In this way, I can say with great conviction that, contrary to the assertion of many YEC's, I do not let scientific knowledge control Scripture. My “faith presumptions” trump all else, including what any scientist may say about the history of our planet or how it works. But in the areas not mandated by a faith presumption, I use the word “if” instead. “If God created by allowing a form of abiogenesis” or “If God created a literal Garden”.
What YEC’s do is shift their “faith presumption” all the way down to “Since God created the world in six 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago . . .” and then measure all against THAT. I have no problem with having faith presumptions against which we measure scientific conclusions. I do that myself. I just think that the YEC’s have made a “since” out of something that should be an “if”.
This makes a whole lotta sense. Good explanation of it, too.
__________________ It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you basically implying some hold too strictly to the 6 day creation or what?
In the interests of full disclosure, I don't know if Genesis is even supposed to be understood literally or not. My interest in creation vs evolution and Big Bang, isasmuch as I care at all, are in the way certain people seem to be religiously opposed to discussing any other ideas even in the context of public education.
Incidentally, this might be just the right place to ask if anyone knows the specifics behind all the rivers in the garden of eden description?
__________________ "Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."
- William Penn
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"So - are you happy
With this vision you've created
Should have known you'd never rest
Til we're all incinerated
And you know you are the best."
-Thomas Dolby, The White City
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you basically implying some hold too strictly to the 6 day creation or what?
I think he is saying that all Christians necessarily make some assumptions based on faith. And as long as you stick to the core elements of the faith, and don't claim to override observed truths, then your faith and reality will never conflict, but rather harmonize. The problem is that some people hold trivial elements as core to their faith (special creation), and therefore have to reject the truth in order to retain their faith, or vice versa. So basically, I think Vance is trying to communicate that you should set up a position in your faith where you reject anything conflicting with it, but that some put that spot too far down the line of belief.
__________________ It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.
-George Orwell, 1984
Last edited by Bargainfluger; 24th February 2005 at 09:41 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Yes, that is a good summary, thanks. My point is that Christians SHOULD have what I have called "faith presumptions" against which they measure all else. Many Young Earth Creationists believe that Theistic Evolutionists don't have any such fixed measuring sticks, and thus are at the whim of scientific conclusions. This is wrong. We just don't let the hard and fast presumptions go any further than necessary or dictated by essential theological or exegetical requirements.
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
Yes, that is a good summary, thanks. My point is that Christians SHOULD have what I have called "faith presumptions" against which they measure all else. Many Young Earth Creationists believe that Theistic Evolutionists don't have any such fixed measuring sticks, and thus are at the whim of scientific conclusions. This is wrong. We just don't let the hard and fast presumptions go any further than necessary or dictated by essential theological or exegetical requirements.
Ah!
Great. I'm safe.
No idea about those rivers then eh?
__________________ "Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."
- William Penn
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"So - are you happy
With this vision you've created
Should have known you'd never rest
Til we're all incinerated
And you know you are the best."
-Thomas Dolby, The White City
challenged here in regards to Creation and Evolution.
Which is cool.
ex. I'll presume that I don't know "how" God created the universe therefore I have faith that He did.
Another poster will challenge me you don't know "if" God created the universe.
Or what material proof do you have.
I also presume that I don't know everything and no one else does either. I am happy to be educated on what I don't know but I always measure new knowledge critically before I accept it. I reject things too.
But I am not deliberately dense to things that don't fit into my worldview. Like holding to a literal 6 day Genesis Creation to protect my faith presumptions.
I think that God is omniscient and therefore has no need to fool me with an Earth that appears old. I trust and have faith that God is all knowing.
I am not afraid of the truth though not being omniscient I might not recognize or understand it if I see it.
Originally Posted by Vance
This post is basically for other Christians, but anyone else should feel free to add comments. What I don't want to get into here, however, is a debate with non-believers regarding whether "faith presumptions" are reasonable to begin with. You will just have to accept for the sake of this discussion that us Christians have them.
I think one way of looking at our approaches to this issue is where, on a spectrum, we place our “faith presumptions”. By this I mean those things which we accept by faith, not by reason (even if reasonable), and would use as a starting point presumption against which all must be measured. For these things, we would use the word “since” when discussing them, rather than “if”. For example, starting at the far end of the spectrum, we would say:
“Since God exists . . .”
then all kinds of things.
And I think that all Christians would agree that we should qualify everything and measure everything, including our study of the natural world, by that “faith presumption”. There are many other “faith presumptions” common to all Christians, “Since God created everything”, “Since Jesus is the Son of God”, “Since Jesus came to die for our sins”, etc.
The question for the topic of origins is how far down you shift your “faith presumptions” and whether you shift it too far. Personally, I do say “Since God created everything . . .” and I think most would agree with this one. This is a presumption of faith, and from that starting point, and I would measure all scientific discoveries against this statement, so that the sentence might be completed “. . . however life started, it was part of His creation and His plan.", for example. Every conclusion I would reach about our understanding of nature would be seen through that lens and be interpreted by that presumption.
And, importantly, everything which was not compatible with that faith presumption would be ultimately rejected. Thus a statement that the universe was created without God would be rejected.
Stepping a bit further down the spectrum, I hold just as strongly to the idea that the Scripture is Holy and God’s messages to all of us. So, I would say “Since the Bible is God’s Holy Scripture . . .” and all is measured against that. I even go further and say that the Scripture is completely inerrant in the presentation of it’s intended message, so I would say “Since Scripture is inerrant in the presentation of the message intended by God . . .” without compromise on this idea.
Thus, any statement, by anyone, on any subject, that Scripture is not God's message to us because of X or Y would be rejected.
So, against all these “faith presumptions”, all else, including scientific inquiry, is measured. In this way, I can say with great conviction that, contrary to the assertion of many YEC's, I do not let scientific knowledge control Scripture. My “faith presumptions” trump all else, including what any scientist may say about the history of our planet or how it works. But in the areas not mandated by a faith presumption, I use the word “if” instead. “If God created by allowing a form of abiogenesis” or “If God created a literal Garden”.
What YEC’s do is shift their “faith presumption” all the way down to “Since God created the world in six 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago . . .” and then measure all against THAT. I have no problem with having faith presumptions against which we measure scientific conclusions. I do that myself. I just think that the YEC’s have made a “since” out of something that should be an “if”.
__________________ "Consider the lilies is the only commandment I ever obeyed." -- Emily Dickinson
In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than out prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." _-Carl Sagan
Vance, in matters of Faith and science, you make entirely too much sense.
You are hereby banned from the Internet.
STOLEN MOD HAT OFF
__________________
Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be.
To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[being banned, not due to being too sensible, though!]
Lily:
Yes, indeed, your faith presumptions will be challenged all the time when you are dealing with other Christians who set theirs at different points on the spectrum or when you are dealing with those who have no faith presumptions at all. And this can be a good thing. From Christians whom you respect and who back up their position with solid exegesis, theology and good common sense, you might reconsider whether you have made a "since" out of what should be an "if" or the other way around.
In your discussions with those without any such presumptions, you can still learn a great deal and even solidify those areas in which you have no doubt.
What I think is most useful about this way of looking at it is that many Christians believe that those Christians who accept evolution or an old earth are just "giving in" to science and are just swallowing naturalistic materialism in science completely. As if we didn't have our own faith presumptions and hold to them just as strongly.
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
Last edited by Vance; 3rd March 2005 at 10:24 AM.
Reason: to add response to Lily
Linear Mode
