God vs. Science

[cloudyday2]

There is no really a God versus science thing, not here in the eastern Europe at last, I think that's just something made up by sick minds. In Constanta, in my country, the main doctor of Neurosurgery is also a priest, would you go and tell him that science and God are opposite? Maybe with some made-up God of your minds, but not with the real, living God.

Many scientists have been believers. Isaac Newton was an unorthodox Christian ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton ).

All it takes for a scientist to be religious is a little bit of cognitive dissonance. The ability of humans to live in blissful ignorance does not eliminate the conflict between God and science. If there is a conflict between God and science, then we need to reexamine our definition of God. Maybe God can be made viable with some tweaking, or maybe God must be discarded.

 

[cloudyday2]

If we found scientific evidence for this god, I would immediately assume it is a life form that exists within the universe. The being becomes, essentially, Q from Star Trek than the being described in the religions such as Judaism and Christianity. A powerful life form, yes, but one that isn't different than us fundamentally.

Of course, the Bible says man was made in God's image. That implies a fundamental similarity. I would say God needs to be similar to humans to have a relationship.

Let's say God is omniscient. I would claim that such a God is dead. Part of life is being surprised. If God is omniscient then he can't be surprised. He must be bored to death.

 

[LoAmmi]

Of course, the Bible says man was made in God's image. That implies a fundamental similarity. I would say God needs to be similar to humans to have a relationship.

Our ability to discern and reason are how we are created in His image. We are, however, completely different beings. Our limited nature ensures that.

Let's say God is omniscient. I would claim that such a God is dead. Part of life is being surprised. If God is omniscient then he can't be surprised. He must be bored to death.

A person in a coma is then already dead?

 

[Wryetui]

Many scientists have been believers. Isaac Newton was an unorthodox Christian ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton ).

All it takes for a scientist to be religious is a little bit of cognitive dissonance. The ability of humans to live in blissful ignorance does not eliminate the conflict between God and science. If there is a conflict between God and science, then we need to reexamine our definition of God. Maybe God can be made viable with some tweaking, or maybe God must be discarded.

The worst thing you can do is to think that the "god" you atheists on the west attack and criticize so much is the same real, living God which's worship Orthodoxy still keeps. It is not a surprise for me to see that the crisis of faith you have there on the west is because this distorted, corrupted and poisoned fake idea of god you made up, certainly this doesn't touch us or my Church. I know personally four orthodox priests that have a doctorate on Philosophy and I haven't met an atheist doctor yet in my country. We live in different worlds, you are comfortable with protestant and catholic christianity, but that is not the case here in the east where christianity is still preserved in its orthodox and pure form, where the image of God is clear, pure and we can behold Him in all His glory. If you want to know a little more about this because I may not have sounded very clear, you can read this short but good article to see our orthodox view on all the "faith" you have there: http://www.asna.ca/resources/dawkins-delusion.pdf

 

[cloudyday2]

Our ability to discern and reason are how we are created in His image. We are, however, completely different beings. Our limited nature ensures that.


A person in a coma is then already dead?

To discern and reason, don't you need two states - before discernment and after discernment? That means God needs time and God also must NOT be omniscient (otherwise he could never discern or reason).

Personally, Q is more interesting to me than a God who is so transcendent that He is inert.

 

[LoAmmi]

To discern and reason, don't you need two states - before discernment and after discernment? That means God needs time and God also must NOT be omniscient (otherwise he could never discern or reason).

No. You're looking at it way wrong, in my opinion. He isn't part of space and time, He is outside of it. Time is what happens to us within the Universe. Without the Universe, there is no time. So, something outside of the Universe is not subjected to the time experience within it.

I understand your desire to reduce everything down, but it doesn't work once we're dealing with the supernatural.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. You're looking at it way wrong, in my opinion. He isn't part of space and time, He is outside of it. Time is what happens to us within the Universe. Without the Universe, there is no time. So, something outside of the Universe is not subjected to the time experience within it.

I understand your desire to reduce everything down, but it doesn't work once we're dealing with the supernatural.

No, indeed, it doesn't work. Because the supernatural card can be used to justify anything.

 

[cloudyday2]

The worst thing you can do is to think that the "god" you atheists on the west attack and criticize so much is the same real, living God which's worship Orthodoxy still keeps. It is not a surprise for me to see that the crisis of faith you have there on the west is because this distorted, corrupted and poisoned fake idea of god you made up, certainly this doesn't touch us or my Church. I know personally four orthodox priests that have a doctorate on Philosophy and I haven't met an atheist doctor yet in my country. We live in different worlds, you are comfortable with protestant and catholic christianity, but that is not the case here in the east where christianity is still preserved in its orthodox and pure form, where the image of God is clear, pure and we can behold Him in all His glory. If you want to know a little more about this because I may not have sounded very clear, you can read this short but good article to see our orthodox view on all the "faith" you have there: http://www.asna.ca/resources/dawkins-delusion.pdf

Thanks. I read the pamphlet in the link. It's amusing how Eastern Orthodoxy claims to be "right believing", but they can't decide what they believe. I was a member of a Serbian Orthodox church in the US for a couple of years. I read lots of books trying to learn what it was that I was supposed to believe as an Orthodox, but none of the books were consistent. I had experienced a psychotic breakdown, and religiosity was a symptom. I was having hallucinations, and I couldn't decide if they were guidance from God or guidance from Satan. That is why I tried so hard to understand what Orthodox believed, but I couldn't.

 

[LoAmmi]

No, indeed, it doesn't work. Because the supernatural card can be used to justify anything.

I never make any claims that I can prove what I believe. So, I don't use it to justify anything, as I have nobody I attempt to justify it to. But, yes, once we introduce a being transcendent to the Universe with supreme knowledge and power, it becomes a bit hard to reduce it down.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I never make any claims that I can prove what I believe. So, I don't use it to justify anything, as I have nobody I attempt to justify it to. But, yes, once we introduce a being transcendent to the Universe with supreme knowledge and power, it becomes a bit hard to reduce it down.

My point was that you could claim anything by claiming that it is "beyond the universe" and therefore exempt to whatever principles are at work within the universe.

 

[LoAmmi]

My point was that you could claim anything by claiming that it is "beyond the universe" and therefore exempt to whatever principles are at work within the universe.

You could, sure.

 

[Wryetui]

Thanks. I read the pamphlet in the link. It's amusing how Eastern Orthodoxy claims to be "right believing", but they can't decide what they believe. I was a member of a Serbian Orthodox church in the US for a couple of years. I read lots of books trying to learn what it was that I was supposed to believe as an Orthodox, but none of the books were consistent. I had experienced a psychotic breakdown, and religiosity was a symptom. I was having hallucinations, and I couldn't decide if they were guidance from God or guidance from Satan. That is why I tried so hard to understand what Orthodox believed, but I couldn't.

I am sorry for your experiences but I am afraid to say that they have nothing to do with Orthodoxy. And we have it pretty clear in what we believe and how, your misunderstanding comes from a poor theological understanding, and that's ok, I'm not saying this to insult you, I have a poor theological understanding too, one cannot be a theologist until they are a saint hehe I am just saying that there are things that are either hard to understand and to grasp or they are not to be understood, and that's something weird for us when we live in a society in which everything has to follow our logic and have to be understanded, but through lived experience all becomes clear.

I pray for you to return to the Church of your God, there is no place like home.

 

[cloudyday2]

Some Christians "believe that a relationship with God is key". The language of a "personal relationship with God" is largely an Evangelical construction--and can have different meanings depending on who you ask ranging from definitions that I could agree with to more mystical constructions which I would not agree with.

It's not that non-Evangelicals would reject that we have a relationship with God, but we would arguably frame it with perhaps more strict theological language. So it's a good idea to define what a "relationship with God" even means at a theological level.

For example I certainly don't have a similar relationship to God as I have with say my friends, my father, my grandparents, or my brother. I can't send God a text, or go grab a beer with God, I can't call Him up on the phone and ask if He wants to watch a movie.

Moving past that, however, I fail to see why God's transcendence would exclude His immanent presence (and thereby making Him personally present in some capacity by which to relate to or encounter the world or individuals.

As a Christian I come to the gathered worship of the Faithful to hear God's Word preached and receive God's Sacraments; whereby there is indeed, in faith, a real and true encounter of the Transcendent Deity. Because God condescends to meet men by His Word, and God condescends to meet men in His Supper; in the Supper by which I receive the real and actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God-Man, I indeed have a visceral, tangible encounter with the Almighty. Indeed, I receive the flesh and blood of the invisible and transcendent God. That, of course, is an admitted paradox and is part of the holy mystery of the Eucharist. Christ said "This is My body ... do this for the remembrance of Me" and, indeed, it is so.

-CryptoLutheran

I was trying to think of a good response to your post. In the process I reread this link from an Orthodox website about relationships to God. If you read the complete text, it's interesting how much this parallels your post. There is one comment that seems to differ from what you said about drinking beer with God, so I was curious if you disagree or agree:

In the Orthodox Church we believe that God reveals Himself to us in truth. This means, basically, that as human beings we have the inherent ability to know God directly and simply i.e., personally. Just as Enoch and Noah “walked with God,” (Gen. 5:24, 6:9), and just as Moses “spoke with the Lord face to face, as a man speaks to a friend,” (Ex. 33:11), so are we able to enter into the same intimate communion with the Triune God. The knowledge of God that is the outgrowth of becoming united with Him is what we call theology. As such, all genuine theology is not merely the knowledge about God, but the knowledge of God – because it is experiential in nature.

http://www.pravmir.com/the-science-of-sciences/#ixzz3fyvTpKkP

I always interpreted this to mean that God should be capable of interacting with humans as though he is a person, but maybe I misunderstand. If God isn't a person that I can interact with, then why should I care about God?

 

[Wryetui]

http://www.pravmir.com/the-science-of-sciences/#ixzz3fyvTpKkP

I always interpreted this to mean that God should be capable of interacting with humans as though he is a person, but maybe I misunderstand. If God isn't a person that I can interact with, then why should I care about God?

That post describes our theology very good. And yes, you are right, God is not only a person, but three persons within the same Godly essence, so it's an eternal communion of three persons. Our God is personal, not a lost idea like in islam, not a faraway dream, but a person that contacts with us and we are persons because something that is personal made us, that's why God made us in His image and likeness. Our God, so you can see how personal He is, became a human being just like me and you, so He can be closer to us, He could have remained distant in the skies, He could have redeemed us with simply a song or another thing, but He chose to be a human like us, to suffer like us, to sacrifice Himself for us and I simply cannot imagine more love than this...

 

[cloudyday2]

That post describes our theology very good. And yes, you are right, God is not only a person, but three persons within the same Godly essence, so it's an eternal communion of three persons. Our God is personal, not a lost idea like in islam, not a faraway dream, but a person that contacts with us and we are persons because something that is personal made us, that's why God made us in His image and likeness. Our God, so you can see how personal He is, became a human being just like me and you, so He can be closer to us, He could have remained distant in the skies, He could have redeemed us with simply a song or another thing, but He chose to be a human like us, to suffer like us, to sacrifice Himself for us and I simply cannot imagine more love than this...

Now if I say I have a strong personal relationship with God, because I met Him last Friday for a beer, most people would think I'm crazy. On the other hand, if I say I have faith that communion is a transcendental personal relationship even though it seems like an empty ritual to me,... doesn't that seem kind of unsatisfactory? If I say I feel calm during meditative prayer,... isn't that a bit disappointing too?

The problem is that the more tangible and relevant the relationship becomes, the more detectable it should be scientifically. Science seems to say there is no relationship, therefore God is not relevant.

 

[Wryetui]

Now if I say I have a strong personal relationship with God, because I met Him last Friday for a beer, most people would think I'm crazy. On the other hand, if I say I have faith that communion is a transcendental personal relationship even though it seems like an empty ritual to me,... doesn't that seem kind of unsatisfactory? If I say I feel calm during meditative prayer,... isn't that a bit disappointing too?

The problem is that the more tangible and relevant the relationship becomes, the more detectable it should be scientifically. Science seems to say there is no relationship, therefore God is not relevant.

I didn't understand what you meant there.

 

[cloudyday2]

I didn't understand what you meant there.

Most Christians believe the relationship with Jesus or God is extremely important, but the nature of the expected relationship varies. Pentecostals expect the relationship to be charismatic gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophesying, etc. Baptists who are skeptical of charismatic gifts expect the relationship to be deep insights into the Bible. Some Orthodox might expect the relationship to be found in the Jesus Prayer along with communion. Catholics probably have a similar expectation to Orthodox except different in style. In my case, I was hoping to really see God regularly and get some guidance too.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That post describes our theology very good. And yes, you are right, God is not only a person, but three persons within the same Godly essence, so it's an eternal communion of three persons. Our God is personal,

Don't you mean tri-personal? Polytheistic.

not a lost idea like in islam, not a faraway dream, but a person that contacts with us and we are persons because something that is personal made us, that's why God made us in His image and likeness. Our God, so you can see how personal He is, became a human being just like me and you, so He can be closer to us, He could have remained distant in the skies, He could have redeemed us with simply a song or another thing, but He chose to be a human like us, to suffer like us, to sacrifice Himself for us and I simply cannot imagine more love than this...

I can.

 

[xpower]

Watch if you want to.

http://www.johnlennox.org/jresources/2015-pascal-lectures-university-of-waterloo/

 

[Wryetui]

Most Christians believe the relationship with Jesus or God is extremely important, but the nature of the expected relationship varies. Pentecostals expect the relationship to be charismatic gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophesying, etc. Baptists who are skeptical of charismatic gifts expect the relationship to be deep insights into the Bible. Some Orthodox might expect the relationship to be found in the Jesus Prayer along with communion. Catholics probably have a similar expectation to Orthodox except different in style. In my case, I was hoping to really see God regularly and get some guidance too.

It doesn't matter how different man-made denominations think about what worshipping God is. God created a Church in which we can meet Him and redeem through Him, He planted wisdom into the Fathers of the Church and they developed this holy doctrines for us to have profound communion with Him. It doesn't matter what people think and if people think they are doing it right, pentecostals, baptists or whatever, they can think it but that wouldn't make it real.

You can't say God didn't gave you guidance, God always guides us, some of us are more pacient than others. St. Mary of Egypt spent in the desert 46 years to get redemption, how much time did you wait? If God "doesn't answer" our prayers as we want to we get mad, but that's not how it's meant to be done. God is not our servant, we must obey, respect and love God no matter if we are rejoicing in glory or if we are swimming in despair, that's why God gave Job all of those calamities, as an example for the world, so we can see that God's saints doesn't love Him only because He gives things to them, but unconditionally.