Cameras of the Watchman: The Reality of the Relationship between Science and Theology

,

Part 1/3

Scott Symington

Medical Physicist, Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegiance Health

Initial draft September 1999, current version April 2015

Abstract

You are fast approaching an “orange” light, within just moments you naturally use viewpoints including physics, history, observation and ethics to arrive at a conclusion to either stop, or pass through. Similarly, most choices in life are best visualized when multiple valid viewpoints, or sources of knowledge, are turned on the subject. The question then arises: what, if any, interplay occurs between differing sources of knowledge, particularly ones as influential as science and theology? While the scholarship appears to diverge into the full range of possibilities, when recognizing accurate points, yet specificity of application in each proffered path, a clear direction emerges to a singular reality of the interaction. If two sources of knowledge are valid, providing unique, useful, and accurate information, and if these sources do interact, the sources will be in concord, even if coming from different viewpoints because each valid source will view the same reality. However, if one or both fields disallow proof, or if lack of data or influential-external factors are involved with the viewers (people), then the interaction will likely display both concord and conflict in a complex contextualized history. Yet, this complex history will trend over time, as the knowledge bases grow in accuracy, conforming towards the reality of the mutually supportive relationship between two valid sources. This paper will progress though: an illustration and definitions, a flowchart displaying our progress through each intersection of possible relationships, thought-provoking examples, and an explanation of relationship between science and theology that has the successful predictive model and demonstrative trend-line.

Part 1. Introduction

One of the earliest memories I have involves a pretty good story. I was on a class field trip and so young that the eight of us were all holding hands with each other, during the entire time at a museum. We sat down in a circle, still holding hands, with myself at one end, the teacher in the middle, and the last student at the other end holding the hand of the museum worker, who was reading us a story.

Almost immediately I lost interest in the story and noticed that there was an open electrical outlet on the wall next to me. Within moments I went through the basic scientific method:

1) Observation or problem: if I jam my fingers into that open outlet, will the shock just get me, or will it make it all the way to that museum reader?

2) Hypothesis: my past history did show that even touching the metal prongs of a night light will shock me, and I heard stories of others touching sticks to electric fences and getting shocked, and, and my mom gave a brief physics lesson noting electricity can travel through some things, so it may make it through a line of connected people. I included views from science, personal history, even ethics, but failed to place much weight on ethics.

3) Test and Data: so, I jammed my fingers into the open-ended wires in the outlet, and sure enough, the back-straightening jolt instantly went through the line of us and terminated with the unsuspecting museum employee.

4) Analysis: my hypothesis was correct and totally worth the effort.

Since childhood, we naturally and efficiently integrate different sources of knowledge when facing a problem to solve, or decision to make. On your way home tonight, you may find yourself fast approaching a traffic light that is “orange”, within just moments you naturally use viewpoints including physics (you don’t actually do a napkin calculation, but consider momentum and road friction); history, you consider occurrences yourself or others have had; observation, check for any nearby police officers; and ethics, wondering if you may put others at risk of injury, to arrive at a conclusion to either stop, or pass through.

Similarly, many choices in life are best visualized when multiple valid viewpoints, or sources of knowledge, are turned on the subject. The question then naturally arises: what, if any, interplay occurs between differing sources of knowledge, particularly ones as influential as science and theology. While the scholarship appears to diverge into the full range of possibilities, considering this vast scholarship on the issue provides two unexpected and significant features: a) each proffered path contains accurate points, and b) each currently proffered theory is restricted to only being applicable to a specific subset of the relationship between science and theology. Taken together, these two unexpected features leads one directly to a singular reality of the interaction between science and theology.

This paper will progress though: an illustration and definitions, a flowchart displaying our progress through each intersection of possible relationships, thought-provoking examples, and an explanation of the relationship between science and theology that has the successful predictive model and demonstrative trend-line.

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 9.39.19 PM

Part 2. An Illustration and Definitions

2.1 The Night Watchman of the Universe

Imagine yourself as the night watchman of the house of the universe. You are required to stay in the office of life, which gives only a marginal view of the rest of the house. But you have cameras, labeled: physics, philosophy, mathematics, theology, history, and others, which monitor different areas of the house through the respective unique points of view. While each camera sends back its own view and information, you can combine all the views at your terminal in the office, in order to have the most comprehensive possible coverage of the house.

Now and then you notice that some important large areas and some difficult corners cannot be fully illuminated by a camera. Therefore, you simply turn other cameras towards the same area. Even though the cameras will view the area from different points of view, they each still view the same thing and together cooperatively illuminate difficult areas. That is a good system, and the watchman can feel secure of being aware of as much as is possible.

Science and theology are not friends or foes, but different fields of study, or methods to gain knowledge about reality. If both the science cam and theology cam turn to the same aspect of the universe or reality, they together provide a wider field of vision, and not only more knowledge, but also a very productive way to verify or discredit the accuracy each of the points of view provide. Or maybe these two different camera views shouldn’t, or can’t intersect?

2.2 Definitions

Walking out of an Ann Arbor bookstore, I couldn’t stop reading an article by Stephen Jay Gould, “Dorothy, It’s Really Oz!” The narrow-sightedness displayed by the Harvard professor so captured my thoughts, that my focus became similarly constricted, and the myopic article was almost the last thing to pass through the mind of this myopic pedestrian.

Returning to the article, after almost being removed from the gene pool by inappropriate selective attention, I wrote a response article and realized something was wrong with our culture’s mechanism for naturally selecting out faulty ideas. That was over a decade ago, and while my article has evolved to incorporate new discoveries that bolster my position, SOMA, the faulty idea promoted by Gould, NOMA, may not have evolved, but certainly dominates the mental landscape where science and theology meet.

The late professor, author, and scientist was extremely intelligent, and Gould’s accomplishments may be longer than this article, while mine could be stated in a breath. But Gould was simply wrong, due to significant misconceptions of the concepts involved.

Considering the consistent miscommunication surrounding science and theology, it will be helpful to start with definitions of the key terms.

  • Science: “(A) systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.”[1]
  • Theology: An approach that builds and organizes knowledge from the study of areas relating to God, and knowledge provided by a divine authority.

Of course, a lot of details should be unpacked from these simple definitions, but simple is a nice place to start and to refer back to when these terms are used. The definition of science, provided by Wikipedia above, is a good one as it entails the most important component of science – the approach or scientific method. Yes, science can be defined as the search for causes, or in many other related ways, and the conceptions of science have changed over time with no agreed upon definition even now. Still, the basis for the great success of science is its approach to that search. The science camera provides its view of an issue by starting with a problem or question to answer, then developing a hypothesis, or model, which explains in detail how we think the world may work, next the explanations and predictions of the model can be tested. This testable model approach provides data, which if analyzed appropriately, allows us to follow the evidence into knowledge about reality.

Now science, however you define it, cannot claim exclusive rights on this approach, as it is the same approach each of us use naturally every day, even since childhood, as displayed with my shocking example, but science makes it an enterprise.

Some people choose to add to the definition of science, such as science applying only to issues testable by observation and repeatable experiment. Those are very good tests. On the other hand, such restrictions would render much of human experience outside the limits of scientific inquiry, including past events like the Big Bang, and some of the greatest endeavors in science, which were or still are based on inference to the best explanation. If one chooses to make the definition of science more restrictive, that person only shrinks the circle of what science is able to view or add knowledge within. Gould agrees with me here, and harshly notes the claim that “[The belief that an idea] must be dubious because the process has not been directly observed – smacks of absurdity and only reveals ignorance about the nature of science. Good science integrates observation with inference.”[2] The flexibility or diversity with which some define science impacts the breadth of the viewpoint, and the circle of knowledge the “science” viewpoint will circumscribe and will impact what people will perceive in the interaction between science and theology. However, the reality of the relationship between science, however, defined, and theology will only be impacted in the amount of interaction, not the specific way these two sources of knowledge will relate to each other. Bottom-line, science is a method of obtaining information about reality, and as such provides a circle of knowledge that can or cannot interact with the circle of knowledge provided by other views, including theology.

Most people seem to approach this issue as the relationship between “science and religion,” but “religion” is too convoluted as it involves how people organize around a theology, and includes more than will be covered here. “Theology” was chosen for specificity and simplicity. You could just define it as “the study of God.” The definition used here is more in-line with the definition of “science” as – bottom-line – both are approaches to learn things about reality. Some may want to add to this definition too, but the simple definitions provided above, with the focus on approaches and the knowledge encircled by these approaches, is what is meant in this paper when those terms are used.

[1] Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science.

[2] Stephen J Gould, “Dorothy, It’s Really Oz”, Time 154 (1999), Viewpoint. http://www.arn.org/docs/kansas/gouldks823.htm.

Part 3. A Flowchart

To begin, mutually exclusive theologies must be considered separately in their respective relationships with science, as the mutually exclusive relationships will obviously differ. Thomas Dixon, et al., supports this by noting that this study cannot progress in isolation from the reality of religious pluralism, and implied in Dixon’s point is the recognition of the law of non-contradiction as applied to the pluralism.[1]

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 9.43.38 PM

[1] Thomas Dixon, Geoffrey Cantor, and Stephen Pumphrey, Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives, Cambridge University Press (2010), 41.

3.1 First Intersection: Validity

The first point of intersection, when considering how two sources of knowledge relate to each other, is determining whether both sources are valid, or if one or both sources are not valid. The term “valid” is used here to mean a source of knowledge that provides unique and accurate knowledge about reality. Both science and theology are certainly valid in this sense, which I do not except anyone to accept without evidence, but will be evident in examples provided shortly.

An example, however, going the other route, would be the relationship between mathematics and astrology. Astrology is not a valid source of knowledge. This source does not provide accurate knowledge about reality. If an invalid source of knowledge does happen to interact with a valid source, then the interaction will either be one of non-interaction, unimportant interaction, a conflict where the two sources interact, or only insignificant or apparent concord. If not at a point of complete knowledge, then there can be apparent concord, but likely the trend over time will be increasing conflict as the quantity and quality of knowledge grows. For example, here is an intersection between mathematics and astrology from a challenge I posted to a claim supporting astrology:

Test it. Each week, have someone cut out all the horoscopes from the week before, but remove the labels “Capricorn”, “Gemini”, or whatever, and pick the one that precisely described your week. Did you pick your sign? Do this over a year and see how many you got right. Just picking the horoscopes out of a hat will result in ~10% of the time getting your sign, so how much more than 10% did you get? How accurate is your horoscope really? The more you do this test, the more your results are likely to conform to just randomly picking your horoscope blindly out of a hat. I am sure it is not “OMG so accurate!” as claimed in the article.

There is a bottom-line: if a source of knowledge, or the camera and circle of knowledge it provides, as illustrated with the watchman example, is not a valid source for knowledge about reality – turn that camera off. Such a camera only provides noise, and only interferes and is detrimental to the likelihood of making decisions that are best for you.

If, on the other hand, both sources of knowledge, or cameras, do provide valid views of reality, then we come to a second point of intersection: either these two sources do or do not interact.

3.2 Second Intersection: Interaction

With an understanding of the terms “science” and “theology” as they are used in this paper, we now proceed to how these terms interact. Some like to think that science and theology can’t play nice together, or further, cannot play together at all. Conversely, I believe there will be a day when little science and theology ideas and models will join hands as symbiotic [1] siblings and will be judged not by their point of view, but by the validity and productive output of their content. No offense in mutating Dr. King’s famous lines, actually, he would likely agree with the above thesis. And, in fact, science and theology have already been engaging in a mutually beneficial and supportive relationship, which, after explaining the NOMA and SOMA models, will be demonstrated with one of science’s greatest areas of discovery.

3.2.1 NOMA

An eminent paleontologist, the late Stephen Jay Gould, provided a good description of a very common thought regarding science and theology, in his article presented in Time. Gould was responding to the Kansas Board of Education’s consideration of removing the Big Bang theory and evolution from the state’s science curriculum. Gould correctly stated that such a move would limit the students’ view of reality to what the Board decides. This was a clear demonstration of religious people shutting off their science cam, and trying to force others to a similarly restricted view of the universe. Weak thinking.

Gould then spends the rest of his article supporting his declaration that “these two great tools of human understanding (science and religion) operate in complimentary (not contrary) fashion.”[2] The professor is close to hitting upon a rock-solid point, but then displays the fault-line in his reasoning by adding that science and religion work together “in their totally separate realms (my emphasis): science as an inquiry about the factual state (again, italics mine) of the natural world, religion as a search for spiritual meaning, and ethical values.”[3] In other words, in the science circle are contained all facts and truth about reality, while in the religion circle are “spiritual meaning and ethical values”. Sounds weak.

Yet, W.T. Stace, a philosopher of religion also thinks the two fields are independent, each consistent and complete in its own domain.[4] The U.S. National Academy of Science supports the independence view also with its statement:

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to put science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.[5]

The statement above not only depends on the logical fallacy of a strawman argument, but also glosses over the interaction by claiming religious faith “typically” involves supernatural entities, and this is not always the case as certainly theology makes claims about the natural world where science would interact.

Aside from the errors involved in the statement given above, there is something even more fundamentally faulty: does reality neatly separate itself, like high school subjects during my tenure as a student? So if we want facts about reality, then we must look in the science circle, while whatever Gould meant by “spiritual meaning” separates itself out, and lands only in the theology field of view?

Believers in NOMA, including other scientists and some contemporary theologians, for example, Wittgenstein and Randall and possibly Sam Harris, believe these two fields of study address fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life, and are too diverse to intersect, or accept some form of the non-intersecting models, and (excluding some like Dawkins and possibly Bill Nye “The Science Guy”) typically have no problem with those who want to use their theology camera, but expect those who do to keep that camera turned away from the area encompassed by science. Never the twain shall meet. This view, labeled “Non-Overlapping Magisterial” (NOMA) is illustrated below.

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 9.47.11 PM

[1]  I heard this term used by John Clayton of the Does God Exist? organization in the 1990’s in relation to the relationship.

[2] Gould, “Dorothy, It’s Really Oz.”

[3] Gould, “Dorothy, It’s Really Oz.”

[4] W. T. Stace, Time and Eternity: an Essay in the Philosophy of Religion (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952).

[5] National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academies Press, Washington (2008), 12.

In the years since Gould’s article, his NOMA belief has become the dominant popular understanding (or possibly the conflict model). Nevertheless, the popular belief is not always the one founded on reality. NOMA is valid, if and only if the following conditions are met:

NOMA is accurate, if and only if:

  • No area of life (or reality) can be addressed by both science and theology.
  • Theology cannot provide a testable, falsifiable scientific model.
  • Theology cannot add accurate knowledge to the “factual state of the natural world,” or to any area contained in the circle encompassed by science, and vice-versa with science into the theology circle.
  • Neither field can provide support, or denial, or interact with any knowledge encompassed by the other circle of knowledge.

NOMA artificially creates separate and unequal “magisteria,” or circles of knowledge. Both the religious people Gould chided in his article, and interestingly enough, Gould himself, based their positions on the misconception of “faith” as they conflate “faith” with a specific subset of faith, often referred to as “blind faith” or belief without supportive reasons, and incorrectly assumed knowledge about reality in the theology circle does not involve reasons, facts, supportive evidence, claims about the natural world, or testable models. So both sides in that Board of Education debate wanted to keep the two fields of study from mixing. I never knew Gould, and cannot claim he turned off his theology camera in his personal life, but he certainly disregarded it when trying to gain a picture of the “factual state of nature,” and thought it impossible for both cameras to point to the same area of reality and each provide the same, accurate, factual information.

And as far as scientism, the belief that all that can be known about our universe will be gained through science, not much space will be spent on this belief here, other writings have shredded this idea, maybe a century ago now. Briefly, you have to step outside the science circle to believe in scientism. One cannot prove through science that scientism is true – that is a philosophical claim. Proponents would have to know enough about reality to claim all that can be known will be made known through science. That is a bold claim without the evidence to rationally believe it. Even before beginning to utilize science, one must start with philosophical assumptions of realism, laws of logic, etc., and if you have to rely on philosophy to even do science, then science is not the all-in-all. Scientism is an invalid belief.

The night watchman described earlier is a person, and when people are involved, even the best system can fail. A watchman may decide to shut-off, or not pay attention to a camera, but disregarding a camera is only warranted if it fails to provide a unique point of view unattainable by the other cameras, and accurate information. Otherwise, that careless watchman self-inhibits the view, creating a blind spot.

People, acting as a watchman, may try to justify turning off the history cam because they don’t like to focus on the past, or the mathematics cam, claiming the wiring is bad. I have spoken to historians and mathematicians, and while they may be past-centered and wired differently, respectively, the view each provides is necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of reality. Stephen Hawking, and other physicists have openly declared their belief that the philosophy cam provides no new information not already provided by science. However, had their philosophy cam been turned on, then those physicists would have watched themselves step outside the circle of science and step right into the circle of philosophy; because their claim is a philosophical one – a bad one – and the philosophy camera would have shed light on that bad philosophy. Reality doesn’t disjoint itself to always fall neatly into one discipline or the other but instead is best determined when all possible cameras provide their views of the area (or subject in reality), allowing for diverse study and multiplied validation.

3.2.2 SOMA

The model I proposed in 1999, in response to Gould’s article, is called Symbiotic Overlapping Magisteria (SOMA), where different approaches to the study of reality, whether science, theology, philosophy, mathematics, history, and other fields, all have areas of life they may exclusively contain, but also have many areas of knowledge that can be simultaneously viewed by multiple fields, providing mutually beneficial and supportive interaction, which biologists would call a symbiotic relationship. This idea, as opposed to NOMA, is valid if and only if the following conditions are met:

SOMA is accurate, if and only if:

  • There is an area(s) of life that can be addressed by both science and theology.
  • Theology adds accurate knowledge to the “factual state of the natural world,” or to any area contained in the circle encompassed by science, and vice-versa with science into the theology circle.
  • In that intersection of the circles, inaccurate interpretations or understandings in the science or theology views can be called into question by the other, and areas of knowledge can also be confirmed by the two independent approaches.
  • Theology can provide a testable, falsifiable, scientific model.

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 9.49.33 PM

Only one example is needed to invalidate NOMA, and meet the criteria of SOMA, and that knock-out-shot example is found right from the start – the beginning. The study of the beginning of the universe is saturated with Nobel Prizes, top-rate scientists, some of the greatest discoveries of modern science, and claims from every worldview belief system and theology. The science and theology cams have both been focused directly on this issue, and what has been found in the intersection of these views?

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 9.49.43 PM

            3.2.3 One Example: A Knock-Out Shot

We exist, unless you are a first-year philosophy student or an obsessive Matrix fan, the existence of ourselves and the universe can be taken as a given, or a properly basic belief. If we exist, then our existence leaves only two possibilities: either our universe had a beginning, or it did not have a beginning. Those are the only two options. Simple.

So we have the first step in the basic scientific method, problem/question: Did our universe have a beginning? This question of origins is also one of the core or “big questions” in life and worldview beliefs. Also very useful, the different worldviews and science took the second step in the scientific method by providing their respective hypotheses or models, and divide clearly between these two options. Let’s consider what each model predicted before the evidence came in.

Christian theology will be focused upon since much of the scholarship regarding the interaction of theology and science concerns Christian theology, yet the reader may take any other theology and do the same comparisons that follow. As far as theology, the biblical model, millennia before modern science brought its tests, not only predicted the universe had a beginning but also provided the gold-standard that science seeks in its models – predictions that were unable to be known unless the model is on to something unique. Such as:

(1) The universe, and all that is a part of the universe, had a beginning (Genesis 1:1, compound use of Hebrew words “shamayim” (heaven) with “aretz” (earth), refers to everything of the entire universe; John 1:3, everything aside from God was created, was caused, and has a beginning).

(2) Time itself had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10; Jude 1:25).

(3) Space and time began together (Genesis 1:1; use of “bārāʾ” refers to divine creating something new out of what was not in existence before, and this happened at “the beginning”).

(4)-(5) The universe came from not anything visible or of this universe (Gen. 1:1; Heb.

11:3; John 1:3).

(6) The universe follows fixed laws (Jeremiah 33:25-6).

(7) The cause of the universe is given very specific properties, some of which include: uncaused, and outside of, or beyond space, time, matter and all nature.

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 9.51.29 PM

There are more, but these will do for now. As for the other models, possibly all theology models not tied to the Bible, predicted an uncaused, eternal universe, some with variations like an eternally cycling universe. Those in the scientific community generally accepted an eternal universe, as well as atheists in general; consider the first affirmation of Humanist Manifesto I.[1] If your worldview belief’s model is not provided, then add it on one-side or the other, beginning or no beginning.

3rd Step: Test the Models

It is important to keep in mind the Bible is not a scientific text, meaning its stated purpose is more of a love letter from God, explaining our situation, and giving Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. Therefore, care must be taken in not extrapolating beyond what the Bible is providing to make a claim in the area of science. Nonetheless, theologies, the biblical model included, make claims about the natural world, and when these are clear and specific, like the ones above, then these claims are simultaneously in both the domain of theology and of science. William Lane Craig echoes this idea: “When religions make claims about the natural world, they intersect the domain of science and are, in effect, making predictions which scientific investigation can either verify or falsify.”[2]

This is already not looking good for NOMA, if the theologically produced models are testable/falsifiable, NOMA is no mas, as these theologically elucidated areas are also in the realm of science. And it only gets worse for NOMA fans. Let’s look at the tests and analyses.

The evidence is in, and includes: some of the greatest discoveries of modern science, multiple Nobel Prize winners, Einstein’s field equations of General Relativity, Hubble’s telescope, Hawking’s space-time theorem, the microwave background radiation and ripples, and great quotes, such as Alexander Vilenkin’s noting, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”[3]

People have attempted the myriad of ways to get around the universe having a beginning in the finite past, typically I would provide a survey and the recognized refutations of those ideas, but for this discussion will leave that to the reader’s discretion. To not believe in the beginning of the universe, one would have to go against ALL the evidence. When one side of the argument has ALL the evidential support, and the other side has NONE, then even a graduate from Ohio State University can figure out what that means (I am a University of Michigan fan, whose football enjoyment has been greatly abused by that team to the south).

What science now knows:

(1) The universe and all that is a part of the universe had a beginning nearly 14

billion years ago.

(2)-(3) Time itself had a beginning and is linked with the universe, physicists and

astronomers use the phrase “space-time fabric” of the universe.

(4)-(5) There was nothing, not anything of our natural universe, then a super dense, super hot, the universe came into existence, and was so dense and hot that no light was able to be released until almost 400,000 years later.

6) The universe began expanding and cooling following fixed laws of nature.

7) Discoveries lead to specific properties of the cause of the universe.

Look again at the biblical model’s predictions. The phenomenal match between the biblical description and what modern science discovered has not been lost on those scientists involved.

  • Astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle was confronted with the points mentioned above about the beginning of the universe, but he believed the universe was eternal and ridiculed the idea of a beginning as “scientific Genesis.” He called the theory the “Big Bang” in his disbelief. The name stuck. Hoyle later remarked, “there is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible.”[4]
  • Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies said: “…astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world…. the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.”[5]
  • Nobel Prize winners Penzias and Wilson add respectively: “The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole.”[6] And, “Certainly there was something that set it all off…. I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis.”[7]

Mathematical physicist Frank Tipler sums up one of the conclusions: “From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.”[8]

[1] Raymond B. Bragg, Humanist Manifesto I, American Humanist Organization,

http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I (1933).

[2] William Lane Craig, “What is the Relation between Science and Christianity”, Reasonable Faith,

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-the-relation-between-science-and-religion (2014).

[3] Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.

[4] Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe, second edition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952), 109.

[5] Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1992), 14.

[6] Arno Penzias, interview in New York Times on March 12, 1978.

[7] Robert Wilson, interview with Fred Heeren,
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God (Day Star Publications, 2000), 157.

[8] Frank J. Tipler, The Physics Of Christianity (New York, Doubleday, 2007), Preface.

4th Step: Analysis & Conclusion

It is simply false to claim theology doesn’t make factual claims about the natural world. For example, the world religions make various and conflicting claims about the origin and nature of the universe and humanity. Therefore, the idea of non-interacting fields of science and theology, and NOMA, is falsified.

Theologies have produced scientifically testable models. The theological approach utilizing the Bible provided accurate factual knowledge about the natural world and did so in an area science also addresses. NOMA is double-falsified.

And from that point, science supported theology in that it exposes inaccurate theologies, and adjudicates between mutually exclusive ideas. Other theologies, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., predicted an uncaused, eternal universe; the worldview of atheism predicted the same; science and common thought even into the 1950’s held to the eternal universe. Therefore, science can support, deny, or interact with the subject(s) encompassed by the theology circle of knowledge. This triple-falsification invalidates NOMA and demonstrates the symbiotic relationship of SOMA precisely.

Just as science provides maintenance for theology, the reverse also occurs. While not attempting to be a science textbook, the theological text does account for properties in nature that can be tested. While all reasonable options need to be explored, just think if researchers gave more credence to the biblical model of the beginning, more time and effort could have been directed correctly, instead of focusing on faulty conceptions that science and other belief systems held even through Einstein’s time. Further examples are discussed in section 3.3.5.

We started at the beginning of the universe, and what is the next logical question? What was the cause of the universe? And again we find the same trail of evidence supporting SOMA and disproving NOMA. Because this paper is not focused on covering all the intersections, the cause of the universe and fine-tuning will not be covered here, but astronomer Robert Jastrow’s revelation is fitting: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”[2]

[1] Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1992), 106-107.

[2] Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1992), 106-107.

3.2.4 Relationship Described by Set Theory

What has been shown above can be described in basic set theory, and the Venn diagrams we experienced in elementary school. Set theory was originally developed and utilized in mathematics, so if my application or memory of set theory runs afoul, I would appreciate corrective comments to make the explanation more accurate and robust. A set is a collection of things or elements, for example, a set A includes all even numbers 1-10, while set B contains even numbers 6-20, which would be written as: A = {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}, B = {6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20}. Sets can even contain other sets, for example, if set A and B are both elements of set R, (written as A∈R and B∈R), then: R = {A, B} = {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20}. A union of sets means that you combine all the elements in the union, or joining of the sets, so the union of A and B would be: A È B ={2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20}. The intersection of sets means all of the elements that are in common between the sets. For example, the intersection of sets A and B would be A ∩ B = {6, 8, 10}. This can be illustrated with a Venn diagram.

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 9.55.26 PM 

As applied to the relationship between science and theology, let the knowledge obtainable through science be set S, the knowledge obtainable through theology be set T, and all the knowledge about reality be set R. So set S will include elements such as S = {helical structure of DNA, Maxwell’s equations, optics, black holes, the beginning of the universe, … }. Set T will include elements such as: T = {does God exist, what is God like, has this being communicated with us, objective morality, free will, inherent value/purpose of life, claimed historical events, after-life, NDEs, claims about numerous aspects of life, the beginning of the universe, … }. There are other sets or approaches that bring knowledge about reality, including (Ph)ilosophy = {laws of logic, realism, ethics, logical fallacies, deductive reasoning, inferential reasoning, … }, (H)istory, (M)athematics, (P)sychology, etc. Set R will include knowledge gained about reality from every set, including S and T, R = {S, T, Ph, H, M, P, …}.

For NOMA to be true, there can be no element (e) that is factual knowledge about reality, which can be found within (T)heology. Further, there can be no e that is found in both S and T; S ∩ T = Æ, these two sets must be disjoint.

But there are multiple elements, e’s = such as facts about the beginning and cause of the universe, which are found in the intersection: S ∩ T = {all matter, energy, and space had a beginning, time had a beginning, the cause is able to produce matter and energy from no “natural” thing ontologically prior, the universe follows fixed laws, … }. Formally, if e = the fact that the universe had a beginning, then S ∩ T = {e : e ∈ S ∧ e ∈ T }. Therefore, NOMA is false.

SOMA accurately describes the relationship between science and Christian theology. Notice how similar figure eight from Wikipedia is to my SOMA diagram, figure four. And, in that area of intersection, you could picture not just the Big Bang, but many other areas of knowledge to further establish this idea. For example, a psychology professor at a prominent university on the U.S. west coast, whose lectures were often overflowing with unregistered students and other professors, was once asked what was the key to a “good and happy life.” The professor responded that the most succinct and accurate prescription he had ever encountered for a healthy life was given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5: 1-12). P ∩ T = {e : e ∈ P ∧ e ∈ T }. The professor did not want his identity given due to possible repercussions for his theological statement, so you can take this example or leave it. But before you leave it, read the biblical passage yourself to consider the subject.

Additionally, the Bible has been scoured with the finest-toothed historical combs, due to the massive number of specific historical data provided. Critics have claimed numerous errors as had been found in any comparable writing. The accepted belief in historical studies was that there was not even writing during Moses’ time, the Davidic tunnel was a myth and excavation seemed to verify the inaccuracy, the Hittite people never existed, the alleged researcher Luke must have gotten many facts wrong in his gospel account. Further study revealed: the biblical account of writing during Moses’ time was correct, the Davidic tunnel was found and is a tourist attraction today, and thousands of artifacts now bring a wealth of information about the Hittites.

Regarding the reliability of Luke, and the biblical account in general, archeologists have targeted the biblical source as no other, and their results have been declared by top researchers in the field. William F. Albright, who is respected as possibly the top archeologist of this century, stated: “There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.”[1] Sir William Ramsay, considered one of the greatest archeologists to have ever lived, serves as another source. His schooling led him to believe that the scripture records were unreliable, but he had to consider biblical writings of Luke for a study of Asia Minor. His belief was completely reversed and he became a Christian through overwhelming evidence uncovered during his studies. Ramsay declared:

I began with a mind unfavorable to it (the truth of the biblical record), for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory (a theory that rejected the reliability of Luke’s writings) had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts (a book in the Bible that was written by Luke, who wrote one-quarter of the New Testament) as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed the marvelous truth… I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations.[2]

Then after 30 years of study, regarding Luke’s ability as a historian, Ramsay declared that “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” And to reinforce the check-ability aspect, Ramsay affirms: “Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.”[3] H ∩ T = {e : e ∈ H ∧ e ∈ T }.

If two sources of knowledge are valid, and if both view the same subject, then the views will show the same thing. And if a specific theology has a concordance in the intersection with science, or in other ways is demonstrated to be a valid source of knowledge about reality, then one would expect to see the same type of interactions with other valid sources of knowledge, such as philosophy, history, archeology, etc. Conversely, contradictory theologies to a valid one would likely demonstrate a trend in the opposite direction in the interaction with other valid methodologies for gaining knowledge. The biblical model again was and is the focus of most scholarly writings on the interaction, but the same comparisons can be done with other theologies and is left to the reader and other researcher’s discretion.

Bottom-line

The belief that science and theology cannot interact is mistaken. However, one can show that these fields of study have very different sources of data, and contain much in their respective circles of knowledge that is independent from the other’s circle – so the NOMA view is applicable, but only in this limited way. Keep this in mind (a model concerning the relationship between science and theology being partially accurate, but only applicable to a limited scope), as it will recur in other proposed models.

First, it has been demonstrated that indeed there are facts or knowledge about reality that can be cooperatively illuminated by both the theology and science cameras, or approaches, and fit simultaneously in both circles of added knowledge.

Second, both theology and science benefit from corrective and corroborative support from each other, and other fields of view, such as history, philosophy, etc. Theology provided a number of contradictory views about the beginning and cause of the universe, as noted in the predictions step, and science helped eliminate inaccurate viewpoints and provide support for the correct view(s). While benefitting from phenomenal verification regarding the beginning of the universe, Christian theology also obtained corrective support. The Aristotelian view about the earth being at the center of the universe was accepted by the culture and many in the church of Galileo’s time. While the account of Galileo’s trials has often been portrayed erroneously in many presentations I have witnessed, the church leadership, particularly a cardinal who got his ego tweaked by Galileo, did buy into the faulty idea and used a biblical passage to try to support it. Science provided knowledge about our solar system, which led to further research into the biblical passage and exposed faulty extrapolations from it made by some in the church.

Third, some theologies do not provide testable/falsifiable models, and some do. The ones that do can be checked throughout the history of discovery, in every field of knowledge. Trends are important indicators. You see trends in your grades, the economy, your health, and other areas, and trends speak loudly. If a theological or scientific view is valid, as time goes on, new discoveries and confirmation between different fields of study will increase, or the opposite, if the view is not true. Although over what time frame will the accurate trend arise? Who knows, as it depends on a number of factors, but we do have a considerable history of the development of knowledge and equally significant trends have emerged. Check for your self, the relationship between specific theologies and science, history, philosophy, and other fields do have demonstrative inclinations. More about the SOMA model later.

As scholars began rejecting the NOMA model, the recognition of the interaction and the modern dialogue between religion and science grew in popularity with Ian Barbour‘s 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion. Since that time, the study of the relationship has grown into a serious academic field, with academic chairs in the subject area, and dedicated academic journals, Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and Theology and Science. Articles are also found in mainstream science journals such as American Journal of Physics, Nature, and Science.

Institutions interested in the intersection between science and religion include the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, the Ian Ramsey Centre, and the Faraday Institute. Numerous scholarly works are available, as are numerous societies for promoting this dialogue, for example, the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology, the Science and Religion Forum, the Berkeley Center for Theology and Natural Science, and so on. Very significant on-going conferences sponsored by the Berkeley Center and the Vatican Observatory, in which prominent scientists like Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies have joined with prominent theologians like John Polkinghorne and Wolfhart Pannenberg to discuss the interactions and implications. The Templeton Foundation has awarded its million dollar Templeton Award in Science and Religion to integrative thinkers like the aforementioned Paul Davies, John Polkinghorne, and George Ellis for their work in science and religion. The dialogue between science and theology is so significant that both Cambridge University and Oxford University have established chairs in science and theology. The interaction between these two sources of knowledge has been the source of consistent and substantial scholarship.

With the NOMA model’s exposed limited applicability, and failures, and the movement of scholarship into the interaction models, what type of interaction has been found? This is the topic of part 2 of this series, which eliminates two other popular thoughts on either extreme.

[1] William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins Press, 1942), 176, as cited by McDowell, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 98.

[2] Sir William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 222, as cited by McDowell, NE, 63.

[3] Ramsay, BRDTNT, (1915), 222.

/by

The Truth about the Liberty Bell

The famous Liberty Bell of Philadelphia is known for the huge crack. However, it is the words that are found on it which tell the real story. Right in the middle of the bell the following words are found: “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof” (Leviticus 25:10). This particular scripture is amazing when you think of the early Americans having the freedom to PROCLAIM LIBERTY on days when they rang out the bell!

liberty-Bell

Dates like July 8th, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was first read out loud to the people of Philadelphia (notice it took a few days for the 56 signers to share their work with the people). Again in September of 1787, when our ever-changing Constitution was pasted, giving us the laws that still rule our land—the longest surviving Constitution in history.

It is often thought the Liberty Bell was cast for the Declaration of Independence. Makes sense; Liberty…Independence. But the reality is that the bell had already been hanging over Independence Hall (originally Pennsylvania State House) since 1751, some twenty-five years before it rang out in 1776. Naturally, this is not known as the “prophetic bell”…admittedly, it would be a cooler name. So what Liberty was being proclaimed to all the inhabitants from this bell all those years?

The story begins, as they often do, in the Tower of London (I kid, what a horrible start to any story). A young, devoted Christian named William Penn was locked in the most infamous prison in the world for participating in Christian activities in 1670. He was the son of an Admiral, whose personal friend was King Charles II. While William was in prison, his father died. Because his son was in prison and showed no sign of giving up his faith, Admiral Penn made arrangements with the king for his son. William was given a tract of land in the New World as his inheritance.

William specifically asked for this tract of land to be used as a refuge for religious freedom for all creeds. You see, he had spent over 10 years in and out of prison for proclaiming the Gospel he found in God’s word to people all over London. He understood what it was like to be muzzled for the Truth. He wanted the freedom to worship as he saw fit.

Therefore, Penn was on a ship in 1681 towards the New World. The tract of land given to William is what we know today as the state of Pennsylvania (Penn-after his father and Sylvania- “wooded land”).

As the son of the acclaimed Admiral and nobleman, William was very well educated and diplomatic. Upon arrival to the new world in 1682, he formed Philadelphia and paid for the land to the local Native Americans (he even signed the treaty, “I am your loving friend, William Penn.”). But with any new colony, there was a need for a government system to be established. He established the Charter of Privileges in 1701.

The Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges established property rights, religious freedom, and still acknowledged King and Country over the colony. The intent was to also establish how citizens should rule in Pennsylvania. One expert is particularly intriguing as one looks at the argument for “religious freedom” today compared to how it was originally intended to look according to this document:

“No person or persons inhabiting in this province or territory who shall confess and acknowledge our Almigty God and Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the World; and profess him or themselves obliged to live quietly under civil government, shall be in any case molested or prejudiced in his or her person or estate…And that all persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, shall be capable to serve this government in any capacity, both legislatively or executively.”

It would be nearly impossible today to imagine a document with this kind of jargon this would pass at any level of state or federal level. Yet, this was state-level the pre-cursor to the Constitution, in the state where most of America was born. And this was no passing document. It was valid until 1776, when Pennsylvania became a part of a new country, the United States of America.

In fact, this was such an amazing and revolutionary document that to commemorate the Charter’s 50th anniversary in 1751, the Liberty Bell was commissioned to honor the liberty and freedom that was proclaimed in a document written by William Penn. A man who truly understood what it meant to proclaim liberty after being muzzled by a government who did not allow him to preach the Gospel.

So the next time you see a history special debating when the crack came to the bell (scholars all debate when it officially cracked first…but most will agree the big crack we see today is the result of repairing a much smaller crack), think about how one man’s life truly had such a ripple effect on the foundation of America.

William Penn was not there to sign the Declaration of Independence or to give his input into our Constitution. But if George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were our Founding Fathers, then William Penn was our patriarch of America and America’s governing system.

Couple of notes:

I have heard an argument is that the liberty was not for ALL the inhabitants, i.e. women and slaves. Being a woman, I am grateful for the 19th amendment (and if you don’t know what that is, then you shouldn’t be arguing about women’s rights). But for the part of both slavery freedom and women’s rights, one should know that the 19th century abolitionists and 20th century suffragists often cited the Liberty Bell for their cause of freedom for all inhabitants! The truth of what the Bell stood for never changed, but man’s interpretation has.

 

The full scripture of Leviticus 25:10 has to do with the Year of Jubilee, the 50th year in which all debts were forgiven by the Law. The Liberty Bell commemorates the full story of not only the 50th year of the Charter of Privileges, but that with Christ we have a constant Jubilee with the debt of our sins forgiven.

 

 

For the full story of William Penn and his adventures…as well as other Founding Fathers, a good resource is In God We  Trust by Stephen McDowell

/by

The Deity of Christ in the Gospel of Mark

the-deity-of-jesusA view often propounded by contemporary skeptics is that the deity of Christ is not presented by the gospel of Mark and that the Christology of the gospels evolves from Mark’s gospel (generally thought to be the earliest written), which does not present Jesus as divine, to John’s gospel (generally thought to be the latest written), which does present Jesus as divine. To what extent, however, can this be considered true? Does the gospel of Mark really make no claims concerning Jesus’ divine status as many critics contend? In this article, I will argue for the deity of Christ using Mark’s gospel alone. Read more

/by

Was George Washington a Christian or a Freemason?

Many skeptics of Christianity claim George Washington was a freemason and not at all a Christian. Many Christians claim the opposite. So which is it? Our first President is, obviously, not alive today to really set the record straight. It would be very helpful if he were. Since he is not, to form a conclusion on what George Washington believed we have to dive into his writings and documentation from contemporaries, and build a case from there.

 

First, it should be noted the practices of freemasonry in the 18th century were not necessarily incompatible with Christianity. It is completely plausible for George Washington to be both a born-again Christian and a freemason. In fact, records show George Washington was associated with both.

 

But can we draw a conclusion he was more of one than the other?

 

As a freemason, George Washing was a “member” for over 30 years. In that time, he attended only 4 meetings total. Many freemasons want to paint him as their most famous member, which, they literally did paint portraits of him in freemason garb. But he never once sat for one of those, and most were done after his time. In fact, George Washington claimed the one painting done during his time to be “mason propaganda” to paint him as such.[1] Not that you could blame the freemasons, would there be a better face for any organization to associate with than the most famous person in the entire United States of America?

 

So he didn’t go to many meetings and he wasn’t that closely associated with the freemasons, but that doesn’t necessarily make George Washington a Christian.

george Washington praying

Records show, George Washington had a very close association with his home church, Christ Church, in Alexandria, VA. You can go to this church today and sit in the very church “box” which belonged to the Washington family. His adopted daughter, Nelly, (who was, in fact, his step-granddaughter) noted he rarely missed a Sunday, even if roads were bad and it took them over 2-3 hours to get there.

 

While he was traveling with his military and political career, which was indeed much of his career, record after record shows he attended church. Whether he was wintering at Valley Forge, or while he was in the First Continental and Constitutional Congresses in Philadelphia, he would attend services and fervently prayed. Right after he was inaugurated as President of the United States at Federal Hall in New York City, he immediately went to church to commit his presidency in prayer.

 

But as everyone knows, just going to church does not make you a Christian. The character of Christianity must be found in the person as well. Rev Henry Muhlenberg, an active Revolutionary who served with Gen Washington at Valley Forge, recorded that the General “rode around among his army…and admonished each and every one to fear God…and to practice Christian values.”[2]

 

George Washington’s family did not doubt his convictions as a Christian. Nelly wrote much later of George Washington’s beliefs. Claiming him to be a private and quiet man, but undoubtedly a Christian. She said, “It the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, “that they may be seen of men” [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].”

 

In his writings, George Washington very often attributed successes and happenstances to “ Divine Providence.” Many people have taken it to mean he did not believe in the power of Jesus Christ. However, “George Washington’s writings reveal 54 different titles [of the names for God].”[3]

 

And if he did not believe in Jesus Christ, how then would skeptics be able to define the following statement from George Washington’s prayer journal, “O eternal and everlasting God…Increase my faith in the gospels…daily frame me more and more into the likeness of thy son Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time attain the resurrection of the just unto eternal life.”

 

The lack of evidence for George Washington being an ardent freemason and the overwhelming verification (literal volumes of accounts) of his Christian character, one can make a good case George Washington was indeed a Christian, but also a believer of Jesus Christ. He drew his values from Christian sources and his hope from Christianity.

 

George Washington established his life and faith upon Christianity. Truly, a reflection of the nation he was so instrumental in founding. This is just one example of how America’s footing was founded on the root of Christianity.

 

 

[1] Findings concerning George Washington’s association with Freemasonry:
Barton, David (2005). The Question of Freemasonry and the Founding Father. Wallbuilders Press; Texas.

[2] Beliles, Mark A. & Stephen k. McDowell (1989). America’s Providential History. The Providence Foundation; Charlottesville, VA.

[3] Ibid.

/by

Our Founding Fathers: Were the Founding Fathers Really Christians?

While it might seem like a trivial question, the answer is actually the birthplace of our national identity.  The beliefs and convictions of our founding fathers lay the groundwork for interpreting our Declaration of Independence and Constitution—the documents that direct our daily freedoms.

According to Real Clear Politics, an average of several polls observed over the past couple of weeks, a staggering 65% of Americans feel the nation is heading in the wrong direction.[1] What is more worrisome is the lack of consensus on what direction is right.

Political pundits assert that this is because of a lack of leadership; Christians say it is because we have rejected God; atheists assert it is because we have too much religion. With so many varying opinions, how are we ever going to move forward to be the nation we once were?

At the Constitutional Congress on July 28, 1787, the Congress had been in gridlock for over a month. After all, deciding on a brand new government with the voice and opinions of 55 men was no easy task. But it took the voice of one man to bring order to that meeting and determining our nation’s foundation.

“How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly appealing to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings…I have lived, Sir, long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

constitutional-convention

Who said this? Benjamin Franklin.

For all of the critics who alleged that Franklin was a deist, is it unusual that he appealed to God to intervene in the affairs of men? What’s more, is that he is here quoting Jesus[2] at a government meeting?

This quote alone establishes that Benjamin Franklin, at least in the latter part of his life, was in fact not a deist.[3] While there is not enough time to dive completely into what Benjamin Franklin actually lived and believed (stay tuned at a later date for that discussion), these words allow him to be a variety of things. A deist is not one of them.

The result of this faith-ridden stance has been marked as the time when the Constitutional Congress began daily praying and attending church services…and subsequently established our revolutionary form of government in less than 6 weeks.

This Founding Fathers post will be the first of many in a new blog series that will seek to open the discussion on the Faith of our Founding Fathers.

Reestablishing our national identity requires looking to what that foundation was built on and who built it. To keep our foundation from being taken out from underneath us we must call to God for help.

President George Washington proclaimed, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

[1] Real Clear Politics averaged 6 polls conducted between 9/3-9/15/2014.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

[2] Matthew 10:29 “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.” (New International Version)

[3] Deism: 1. Belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with the rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ). 2. Belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. Dictonary.com.

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you.  Blessings, Jim Whiddon

 241. WISDOM “Although we develop our intellect, wisdom is understanding God’s perspective on his world. God is the author of wisdom, and he delights in providing it. In fact, Ecclesiastes 2:26 tells us, “To the person who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God.”

Excerpt From: Harris, Raymond. “The Heart of Business.”

242. CHRISTIANS AND POLITICS Assertion: “It’s wrong to force your views on other people. You can’t legislate morality. Christians involved in politics violate the separation of church and state.” Response: “Do you vote? When you vote for someone, are you expecting your candidate to pass laws reflecting your own point of view? Wouldn’t that essentially be forcing your views on others? How is that different from what you’re troubled about here? Is it your view that only nonreligious people should be allowed to vote or participate in politics, or did I misunderstand you?

Where, specifically, in the Constitution are religious people excluded from the political process? Can you give me an example of legislation that does not have a moral element to it?”

Excerpt From: Koukl, Gregory. “Tactics.”

243. PARADOX “A paradox is truth standing on her head to get attention.”

— G. K. Chesterton

244. SECOND CHANCES “There will come a time in your life when you think everything is ending – but that will only be the beginning.”

— Louie Lamore

245. WINNERS “Winners employ “blue heat” because it lasts longer, burns hotter, and is more precise than a wild orange flame. Winners rarely talk about the bottom line, profitability, or even success. Rather, they talk about a greater purpose—and invite you to join them.”

Excerpt From: Luntz, Frank. “Win.”

246. SELF PITY “Most people don’t care about your problems, and the rest are glad you have them.”

— Coach Lou Holtz

247. DECISIONS “It is better to make a mediocre decision promptly rather than a perfect decision too late.”

— Col. (Ret.) Ralph Peters

248. BOTTOM LINE “A boss in my youth had a sign on the wall reading, “Don’t tell me about the storms at sea. Just tell me when the ship’s coming in.”

Excerpt From: Murray, Charles. “The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead.”

249. ENTITLEMENT “Curmudgeons think that the twenty-somethings’ good opinion of themselves is especially inflated among graduates of elite colleges. Here’s what he CEO of a large corporation said to me when the topic came up: “We don’t even recruit at Harvard or Princeton anymore. We want kids from places like Southeastern Oklahoma State who have worked hard all their lives and share our values.”

Excerpt From: Murray, Charles. “The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead.”

250. DEVIL “Make a deal with the devil, and maybe the devil will kill you last.”

Excerpt From: Gutfeld, Greg. “Not Cool.”

/by

The Jewish Temple that may Prevent World War III

Israel is the most contested piece of real estate in the world. And the most contested piece of real estate within Israel is the temple mount in the old city of Jerusalem. Nearly every Jew believes that the Muslim Dome of the Rock, which dominates that thirty-six acre site, sits on the spot of all previous Jewish Temples, including the last one destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. Some Jews and Christians believe that the temple must be and will be rebuilt on that spot. Therein lies the problem. Can you think of a faster way to start World War III?

Thankfully, new evidence is just coming to light that might reveal a more peaceful solution. The Jewish Temple may not have been on the Temple Mount but just outside the current walls of the old city. I had the privilege of seeing this evidence several days ago along with a few others participating on our CrossExamined.org trip to Israel. Our guide was the man who uncovered the new evidence: Israeli archaeologist Eli Shukron.

Eli Shukron and Frank Turek outside the Western Wall at the Temple Mount, about 1,000 feet north of the City of David site.

Eli Shukron and Frank Turek outside the Western Wall at the Temple Mount, about 1,000 feet north of the City of David site.

Since 1995, Shukron has been digging up the twelve-acre area called the City of David that juts out from the southern wall of the old city of Jerusalem. He and his team have removed thousands of tones of dirt to discover, among other things, the Pool of Siloam where Jesus healed a blind person (John 9:7), and the once impenetrable fortress of the Jebusites that David and his men captured by sneaking up an underground water shaft (2 Sam 5:7-8).

Near that water shaft, about 1,000 feet south of the Temple Mount, Shukron discovered the remains of an ancient temple just a few feet from the Gihon Spring. Shukron led us about forty feet underground into the well-secured area. As the lead archaeologist, only he has the key. The excavated area is down to bedrock, which means there was no civilization below it.

The site has grooves cut into that bedrock for an olive press and sacrifice tables, and loops cut into the walls presumably to secure animals. Slightly uphill and to the left of the olive press is a long channel cut into the floor most likely designed to drain off blood. Behind it Shukron unlocked a steel box he had built to protect something on the floor. As he swung the doors open, we saw an ancient upright stone (called a “stele”) surrounded by a foundation of smaller stones.

Close up of the only Jewish stele found in Jerusalem (for biblical references to steles see Gen. 28:18, 31:45, 35:14, Josh. 24:26, 1 Sam. 8:12).

Close up of the only Jewish stele found in Jerusalem (for biblical references to steles see Gen. 28:18, 31:45, 35:14, Josh. 24:26, 1 Sam. 8:12).

“The Bible says Jacob took a stone and put small stones around it, and then put olive oil on top of that stone.” Shukron told me, referring to the stele Jacob erected in the town of Bethel (Genesis 28:18). “It is a connection between Jacob and God—the relationship between them.” Indeed, Jacob called the place he made, “God’s house.”

The Jews were known to set up stele to commemorate interactions with God (Gen. 28:18, 31:45, 35:14, Josh. 24:26, 1 Sam. 8:12). But according to Shukron, the stele he discovered is the only one ever found in Jerusalem. Could it mark the actual site of the real Jewish temple—God’s house?

“It certainly was a temple from the first temple period (circa 970-586 B.C.),” Shukron said. “But Solomon’s temple was on the Temple Mount.”

When I asked him what archeological evidence exists for the Temple Mount site, he offered very little in response. Perhaps the paucity of evidence is due to the political realities that prevent much digging there. On the other hand, quite a compelling case can be made for Solomon’s Temple being at Shukron’s site.

My co-host on the trip, Bob Cornuke, makes that case in a fascinating new book called Temple: Amazing New Discoveries that Change Everything About the Location of Solomon’s Temple. Cornuke picks up on the research of the late archaeologist, Ernest L. Martin, who in 1997 suggested that the biblical text and eyewitness evidence from the first century all point to the City of David as the actual temple location. Now there appears to be quite specific archaeological evidence as well. Cornuke and Shukron have been discussing this evidence for the better part of the last year. There are even a couple of pictures in Cornuke’s book from Shukron’s site. You can see those pictures and some of my own here.

Eli Shukron (right) reviews details of a temple he discovered 40 feet under the City of David with Bob Cornuke, author of the new book, "Temple."

Eli Shukron (right) reviews details of a temple he discovered 40 feet under the City of David with Bob Cornuke, author of the new book, “Temple.”

So why isn’t Shukron suggesting his site is where the temple was? If true, it would be the greatest archaeological discovery of all time! I had dinner with Eli, Bob and a couple of others to discuss that question.

First, there is the weight of the consensus site. If the true site is actually in the City of David, just how did the Temple Mount become the dominant site in the first place? Cornuke provides some plausible historical answers in his book. He also shows the text of the Bible and other historical witnesses seem to point to the City of David. Nevertheless, maybe the general consensus in favor of the Temple Mount is correct.

Second, as a noted Israeli archaeologist, Shukron would need to evaluate more of the evidence and the opinions of his colleagues before he would ever entertain making a shift on such a monumental question. The Temple Mount is so entrenched in tradition, politics, and Jewish identity—the Western Wall being the holiest Jewish site for prayer—that any shift in opinion would be met with great resistance. It’s not a shift one should make overnight.

However, Shukron is open to the possibility. He told us that the location of the Temple is certainly a topic worthy of debate. That debate could be ratcheted up when he presents his findings to a group of archaeologists at a conference in Jerusalem at the end of July.

If it’s not Solomon’s Temple, then whose Temple did Shukron discover? When I asked him that question, he just said, “we’ll see.” Is it possible his site could be the game-changing discovery that prevents World War III (at least until Armageddon)? We’ll see indeed.

In the meantime, I highly recommend you get Cornuke’s book to start your research into this politically explosive and fascinating question. He’s also available for questions at Bob@BaseInstitute.org. If you’d like to see the archaeological remains of the City of David and any other area of Israel, Eli Shukron provides an outstanding tour. Contact him at EliShu29@gmail.com.

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

,

151. YOU RETIRING? “Don’t put a period where God is putting a comma. Let Him punctuate your life story as He sees fit.” — Unknown

152. TAKE ACTION “Our grand business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance, but to do what lies clearly at hand.” –Thomas Carlyle

153. WHAT MAKES A MANLY MAN “A willingness to subordinate his own desires and aspirations to greater causes: his God, his nation, and his family. He put the welfare and security of others before his own. He knows he is blessed by a sovereign and loving God to be an American, and he believes his family is a gift from God for which he is responsible. Physical strength is never what makes a man manly. Rather, it is moral strength that identifies the true man.”
Excerpt From: Mansfield, Stephen. “Mansfield’s Book of Manly Men.

154. SELF-MADE MEN? “If you know history, you know that there is no such thing as a self-made man or self-made woman. We are shaped by people we have never met.” —David McCullough

155. EMPATHY “How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving, and tolerant of the weak and the strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these.”—GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER

156. ATTITUDE “I believe the single most significant decision I can make on a day-today basis is my choice of attitude. It is more important than my past, my education, my bankroll, my successes or failures, fame or pain, what other people think of me or say about me, my circumstances, or my position. Attitude . . . keeps me going or cripples my progress. It alone fuels my fire or assaults my hope. When my attitudes are right, there’s no barrier too high, no valley too deep, no dream too extreme, no challenge too great for me.
Yet, we must admit that we spend more of our time concentrating and fretting over the things that can’t be changed in life than we do giving attention to the one thing that can, our choice of attitude.”
Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Wisdom for the Way.”

157. G.K CHESTERTON CLASSICS:
“Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.”
“Do not free the camel of the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel.”
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
“I’ve searched all the parks in all the cities and found no statues of committees.”
“Moderate strength is shown in violence, supreme strength is shown in levity.”
“No man knows he is young while he is young.”
“One of the great disadvantages of hurry is that it takes such a long time.”
“People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.”
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.”
“There is no man really clever who has not found that he is stupid.”
“The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right.”
“To be clever enough to get all the money, one must be stupid enough to want it.”
158. GOLF “If you think golf is relaxing, you must not be playing it right.” — Bob Hope
159. GRAVEYARD The story goes that a fellow was walking past a cemetery when he noticed a tombstone with the following inscription:
“As you are now, so once was I.
As I am now, you are sure to be.
So may I say, as now I lie,
Prepare yourself, to follow me.”
The gentleman took out a piece of chalk and wrote underneath the inscription:
“To follow you I’m not content,
Until I know which way you went.”
Excerpt From: Wooden, John. “Wooden: A Lifetime of Observations and Reflections On and Off the Court.”
160. THE UNIVERSE “When Francis Bacon spoke of the mysteries of science, he made it sound as if God had set up an Easter egg hunt to entertain a pack of toddlers. God “took delight to hide his works, to the end to have them found out.”
Why would God operate in such a roundabout way? If his intent was to proclaim His majesty, why not arrange the stars to spell out BEHOLD in blazing letters? To seventeenth-century thinkers, this was no mystery. God could have put on a display of cosmic fireworks, but that would have been to win us over by shock and fear. When it came to intellectual questions, coercion was the wrong tool. Having created human beings and endowed us with the power of reason, God surely meant for us to exercise our gifts. The mission of science was to honor God, and the best way to pay Him homage was to discover and proclaim the perfection of His plans.”
Excerpt From: Dolnick, Edward. “The Clockwork Universe.”

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

141. MEN IN CHURCH “The church has to drag men kicking and screaming out of their lethargy. Men sit bored in church for years avoiding the vortex of the gospel’s “edge of your seat” drama. It’s impossible for most men to imagine Jesus being more exciting than football. They assume spirituality is a female thing. It’s not uncommon for men to bail on the church when faced with its implicitly high expectations. Having not read anything greater than the trade journal in their bathroom, the idea of thinking deeply and technically about God threatens to breach the wall of meticulously constructed mediocrity.”

Excerpt From: Byron Forrest Yawn. “What Every Man Wishes His Father Had Told Him.”

142. SUCCESS TO SIGNIFICANCE “Gold there is, and rubies in abundance, but lips that speak knowledge are a rare jewel.” — King Solomon

143. RAISING SONS “God has given fathers the assignment of saying, “Welcome,son. As imperfect as I may be, it is my desire to take the next couple of  decades and introduce you to God.” If you are a father, this is your assignment. This is your privilege.

Excerpt From: Rainey, Dennis. “Stepping Up.”

144. MONEY VS. SEX “Here is the message that the culture is broadcasting: If you cause unbearable pain to others while in pursuit of your sexual pleasure, you will find understanding and sympathy. However, if you are a businessperson causing even the slightest tinge of discomfort to others while in pursuit of profit and wealth, you will immediately and unconditionally be condemned as immoral.”

Excerpt From: Rabbi Daniel Lapin. “Thou Shall Prosper.”

145. PROTECTING MARRIAGE “I’ve established boundaries to protect my marriage. I’m doing battle for my marriage when I don’t meet with a woman by myself unless the door is open or there is a window so that others can observe. I don’t have lunch with other women alone. I don’t travel alone in a car with other women. I copy Barbara on e-mails written to women, and I don’t have private conversations with women on social websites without her knowing.”

Excerpt from; Rainy Dennis. “Stepping Up.”

146. SIGNIFICANCE “The greatest use of a life is to use it for something that will outlast it.” — William James

147. PATRIARCHS “I’ve found that once they reach their sixties and seventies, they begin to feel just as “left behind” as Beck Weathers. Many begin to feel useless, as if their families, their churches, and their communities no longer need them. Some lose their vision, become passive, and stop acting like men. They think their years of impact and accomplishment are over. Yet the Scriptures paint a different picture of this stage of life—it is a time when a man can perhaps have his greatest influence. But he must be willing to courageously step up if he doesn’t want to be left behind.”

Excerpt from: Rainey, Dennis. “Stepping Up.”

148. MOSAICS AND CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE “I want to suggest that the widespread desire for a life in the mainstream is one of the consequences of monumental change. This is not the first time mainstream credibility has inspired faithful believers. Think back to the biblical account of Daniel. Life in Babylon gave the young Hebrew the platform and opportunity to influence the broadest circles of political and societal power. God used Daniel and his peers, exiles in a pagan culture, to bring about his purposes. Could it be that the growing desire for mainstream influence among the younger generation is the work of God—preparing them to bring restoration and renewal to our culture?”

Excerpt From: Kinnaman, David. “You Lost Me.”

149. SPORTS “One of the great myths in America is that sports build character. They can and they should. Indeed, sports may be the perfect venue in which to build character. But sports don’t build character unless a coach possesses character and intentionally teaches it.”

Excerpt From: Joe Ehrmann, Paula Ehrmann & Gregory Jordan. “InSideOut Coaching.”

150. POWER OF GOVERNMENT “When [the president] takes office, he or she appoints 5,000 people to run a bureaucracy, nonmilitary nonpostal service of 2 million people, who hire 10 million outside outsource contractors—a workforce of 12 million people—that spends $3 trillion a year. That number is larger than the gross domestic product of all but four countries on the face of the earth.” “So the reason we’re doing what we’re doing…and the way we get progressive change, is to control government.”

Excerpt From: Witwer, Rob. “The Blueprint.”

 

 

 

 

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year in all genres. Each week, I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, Jim Whiddon

131. MEMORY “Scientists say that an average thought lasts no more than a minute before we lose it. What’s more, most of us find it impossible to learn more than one new concept every ten minutes.”

Excerpt From: Heinrichs, Jay. “Word Hero.”

132. WELFARE – BEN FRANKLIN “Benjamin Franklin, wrote: To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.”

Excerpt From: Ben Carson, M.D. “America the Beautiful.”

133.  POWER OF THE GOSPEL “We offer moralism as the remedy for behavioral problems. The gospel offers grace. What we call an addiction the cross calls slavery.”

Excerpt From: Byron Forrest Yawn. “What Every Man Wishes His Father Had Told Him.”

134.  BEWARE SUCCESS An old hillbilly went to the city one day and as he was walking down the street of the city he happened to see a department store with a leopard coat in the display window. The price of the leopard coat was $25,000. He said, “That ole cat was a whole happier before he was worth so much.” That is true of many of us. – Unknown

135. WISDOM VS FOLLY “Dead flies putrefy the perfumer’s ointment, and cause it to give off a foul odor; so does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor” (Ecclesiastes 10:1). Suppose you purchased a small vial of expensive perfume, took it home, and put it in a safe spot. Sometime later, you opened the vial and discovered a dead horsefly floating on top. The insect, now partially decayed, had putrefied the precious perfume. This is the source of the well-known phrase, a fly in the ointment. It’s Solomon’s vivid way of illustrating how a tiny bit of foolishness can destroy the powerful fragrance of a person’s dignity and reputation.”

Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”

136. TEAMWORK  “The purpose of an organization is to enable common men to do uncommon things.”

Excerpt From: Peter F. Drucker. “The Daily Drucker.”

137. LIFE IS SHORT

“Life is just a minute—only sixty seconds in it.

Forced upon you—can’t refuse it.

Didn’t seek it—didn’t choose it.

But it’s up to you to use it.

You must suffer if you lose it.

Give an account if you abuse it.

Just a tiny, little minute,

But eternity is in it!”

–Dr. Benjamin Elijah Mayes

138. LOVE “In my mind only pride can keep a father from telling his son he loves him. Characterize it as simplicity or stoicism, but it’s still pride” “You’re supposed to tell the people you love that you love them. Expressing affection is part of our makeup as human beings. Some men may see it as weakness, but this way of thinking is attached to a wrong understanding of masculinity. Biblical masculinity includes passion.”

Excerpt From: Byron Forrest Yawn. “What Every Man Wishes His Father Had Told Him.”

139. CONTENTMENT is looking back without regret, looking at the present without envy and looking at the future without fear.

–Ron Blue

140. WHO IS GOD? “He is tri-personal, one God in three persons, one What in three Whos.” “God is distinct from His creation. He isn’t a part of it; it isn’t a part of Him. He didn’t “arise” from it; it didn’t “arise” from Him. He spoke, and where nothing was before, it was.”

Excerpt From: Budziszewski, J. “How to Stay Christian in College.”

/by