Tuesday, July 3, 2007
It all Begins at the Beginning

“In the beginning God…” OR “In the beginning BOOM?”

Recently, there have been quite a few comments in Indiana blogs about the new Creation Museum in Kentucky.  More than a few have poked fun at the idea that God created earth.  Science has disproved it, they say.

The implications of each view are quite astounding.  Either we are intentional creations of an all-powerful God or we are chance happenings, something that has come to be because two particles billions of years ago happened to intersect.

Our views, then, of truth must flow accordingly.  Those who believe that an all-powerful God created us believe in some set of truth.  This truth comes from God.  This truth is actually true, not something that can be voted up or down.  What was true in 2007 will be true in 2008.  Two plus two equals four.  That will always be true, or it was never true in the first place.

But what I find interesting is how Science has “proved” that we are all just creations of chance, but somehow absolute order has evolved from it.  This is a convenient position for those who make science absolute.  Instead of acknowledging the philosophical emptiness their theories have created, they instead cling to values and moral codes that can only be supported by our view- that an all-knowing God is the source of truth.

Even they understand (even if they will never acknowledge it) that society just can’t be governed by chance.  It needs absolutes, black and white, and right and wrong.  Otherwise, who could say that Adolph Hitler was wrong?  He was a lawfully elected leader supported by a majority of German citizens at the time.  So who can declare him evil?  If we believe those scientists who dismiss the Divine, then we must believe that no one can declare Hitler evil or good- for who has the authority?  Or perhaps we should accept that right is determined by might.  So what if Hitler would have won?  Would all Jews be exterminated and would that be considered OK?  I have yet to hear a solid philosophical explanation for truth based on chance.

Ultimately science can’t answer all our questions.  Although we embrace science, we can’t make its every conclusion absolute.  We understand that there are other forces at work in this world.  To ignore them would be foolish.

Veritas Rex.

Comments: (7)



"In the beginning..." -- Some would say this 'truth' is nothing more than myth or story. They would also say there are other myths and stories which aren't to be taken literally, but to be understood as simply giving general guidance or teaching.

My question is: How do we decide what's myth and story, and what actually is truth? Do we vote (like the Jesus Seminar folks)? Is it up to denominational leaders? Is it up to us personally? Who gets to decide?

Do we get to pick and choose the truth we like, and disregard the stuff we don't as myth and story? And poor Jesus...it looks as though He swallowed the whole Genesis thing hook, line, and sinker. (Yeah, He even thought the Jonah and the big fish thing was true as well!)

The Founders of our Constitution and Bill of Rights believed in writing the 1st amendment to allow the "free exercise of religion" because they truly believed that in the "market place of ideas", Christ would reign. They believed that if ideas, theories, and myths were allowed to be discussed and debated in the public square, that the Truth of the real, living God would win out.

This is my sincere belief in seeking truth, that any man who earnestly seeks with his whole heart in finding the truth will find it. The truth of God strikes a cord in your heart that nothing else fills.

The curly-headed kid gets the point. The proper debate we should be having is about the nature and origin of truth. All world views should be examined with that in mind.

Congratulations on your new blog. Your goal is excellent -- we wish you well.

We've featured your new blog today from IndyChristian.com.

Ms Luidhardt wrote: "Instead of acknowledging the philosophical emptiness their theories have created, they instead cling to values and moral codes that can only be supported by our view- that an all-knowing God is the source of truth."

Have you never heard of pragmatism? Or independant objective truth? None of that philosophical viewpoint need derive from a god. A moral code may be pragmatically defined on the basis of science's understanding of human behavior and the workings of human society and individual rights. Within which science recognizes the importance of the family or an extended family group/tribe (ie. it takes a village... dang, that was Hillary). All without any god, such truths are individually objective.

An excellent point. Look for a future post on Veritas Rex to address that very issue.

Thanks, IndyChristian, for the compliment and encouragement.