"Faith and Fiction"

 

There is a popular website I use from time to time called Truth or Fiction. It can be helpful when trying to weed through the mass of information or misinformation that one is bombarded with through today's media streams. 

However, it does have its limits, for instance, if you ask it the question "Is it true God created the world?" You get a long list of related questions to which none gives you an answer. If you ask it "Is evolution true?" you get the same response. Now you can find people who will answer those questions for you, but they range from nut cases to people truly trying to answer you the best way they can from both sides of the issue. But you don't find yourself in any better shape, only more information affirming both questions and it is certain both cannot be true. 

In case you are wondering, you can't find out if it is true that God exists there either, you can't even find out if Faith is truth or fiction. And that brings me to the subject of this post, is there a definable difference between faith and fiction?  Let us begin with a couple of definitions:

Definition Faith

Definition Fiction

As you can see, giving a dishonest answer could easily be done if you are not careful in the application of definitions. I have a friend who will not accept any definition of faith other than (2):b: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. It is difficult to discuss the validity of faith and its actual substance with someone who will go no further than that simple definition. His assertion of my faith in Christ and a belief in God is it's nothing more than fiction. He sometimes refers to it as blind faith and as long as he is confined to that small window he will never understand.

Faith is an English word, so we really need to back up to the original language in the context of the faith we are defining. In Gal_2:16 the scriptures state, "yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

The Greek word used there that comes over to us in English is πίστις (Pistis). Pistis can mean proof, belief, or state of mind in classical rhetoric (the practice and teaching of rhetoric in ancient Greece and Rome). Philip Rollinson suggests rhetoric (the art or study of using language) in the classical sense can be seen as a 'counterpart of dialectic'(dialectic resembles debate), which seeks not to persuade but to find the appropriate means of persuasion in any given situation. These means are to be found in various kinds of proof or conviction (Pistis). Therefore, when the Christian speaks of faith, he is not speaking of something arrived at beyond any evidence or proof, nor is he leaping into something blindly. He is speaking from his reasoning faculties by which he has been persuaded through his understanding of a sure conviction of certain truths. 

In our Declaration of Independence, we read the statement: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The term "self-evident" by definition is evident without proof or reasoning; producing certainty or conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind. That's a strong language produced by our founding fathers concerning God as the creator. It is truth such as 2+2=4. It is an equation that is self-evident, you need not have two apples to add to two more apples to know you have 4 apples. The certainty of God as creator was that sure in the mind of the founders. 

It will be said of course my reasoning is flawed, for one can see apples and they can't see God. The fact you can see apples has nothing to do with the self-evident truth that 2+2=4. The equation is invisible, it only becomes visible when applied to the material world. The seeing of the apples only made visible the truth that was self-evident. God's existence is metaphysical, yet He becomes visible when applied to the material world, the seeing of creation only makes visible the self-evident truth of the Creator.  Romans 1:20 ESV (20)  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 

The self-evident truth of 2+2=4 bares upon the mind as a result of knowledge obtained by reason and understanding producing such a said conviction of truth. One with Dyscalculia might not be able to come to that conviction from a lack of reasoning ability in the area of mathematics. The self-evident truth that produces faith in Christ is likewise lacking in the unbeliever because of spiritual Dyscalculia so to speak, their understanding and reasoning are unable to come to the conviction of that truth. 1st Corinthians 2:14 ESV (14)  The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

If you only allow for the simple definition "(2):b: firm belief in something for which there is no proof." you don't even arrive at the meaning of the word in question. You are holding to a superficial definition in order to remain in your current state of unbelief. Faith πίστις (Pistis) is not some vapor or imagination of the mind, it is a state of mind concerning the conviction of certain truths produced by reason and understanding of one's intellectual faculties. The lack of that ability such as in Dyscalculia does not make mathematics fiction. Neither does the lack of that ability in spiritual things make those things fiction. The Christian has faith πίστις (Pistis) because he has been given the ability to reason and understand spiritual truths. Ephesians 2:8 ESV (8)  "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,"

When Lee Strobel (Bachelor of Journalism degree) and Yale Law School (Master of Studies in Law degree) and (taught First Amendment law at Roosevelt University) converted from Atheism to Christianity it wasn't because he became smarter or dumber, it was because after two years of investigation to prove God did not exist, his reasoning faculties brought to his understanding the truth of the Gospel which produced his faith πίστις (Pistis). The grace of God was present as in Eph 2:8 to use the means of his discoveries to bring him to such a conviction of mind. While in a state of unbelief, he refused to accept the evidence presented in the Gospel, then grace came and his understanding was enlightened. 

The human race lives in a religious world, 75% of the people on this planet believe in a god or gods as described in Romans 1:25. Romans 1:25 ESV

(25)  because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

  This leaves Romans 1:20 standing like a pillow of written evidence in the proclamation of its truth.  They may not know who or what, but they know something brought this all into being by what they can observe. The other 25% know, but suppress the truth (Romans 1:18). Romans 1:18 ESV

(18)  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

The rational mind knows all this did not just happen, the whole book of  Romans demonstrates the condition the human race finds themselves in and the state of mind by which they reason. They suppress the truth about God to escape his existence or change him into something acceptable to their making. They put forth scientific theories to explain God away, but they are left without excuse. 

Matt Dillahunty hosts a television webcast "The Atheist Experience" where he amusingly makes fun of Christians who call in to express their faith πίστις (Pistis). It is amazing how little the Christians know about their bible when calling in, I have listened to many, and I have not heard one of whom Matt did not make look foolish. Granted Matt is a professional at what he does and has hosted the show for 20 years, I dare say he has heard about every angle. Knowing most Christians know very little about their faith πίστις (Pistis) makes his job even easier. However, I have also noticed, that no matter how foolish he makes them look, how twisted he ties up their reasoning, their faith πίστις (Pistis) remains unmoved. Matt of course simply accuses them of being delusionally unable to let go of their (Blank) stupid god and their (Blank) stupid book. The first 300 years of Christianity were filled with much more than simply looking foolish, they were told to let go of their stupid god and their stupid book or be burned alive or fed to lions, and their faith πίστις (Pistis) remained unmoved, it has been 2000 years now and that still remains true. The truth they conceived in their mind was self-evident. Once the mind sees the truth of the Gospel the heart is compelled to remain unmoved even upon the threat of death itself. 

The self-evident truth of mathematics can be seen when counting apples or oranges (Pun Intended), likewise, the self-evident truth of God's existence is seen in creation. It has been said to me, prove to me there is a God and I will believe, I say look at creation. Of course, that answer is rejected and I am then referred to the theory of evolution as proof otherwise. Logic is rejected and a myth is offered in its place. If I am driving down the road and observe a beautiful garden, logic immediately dictates the self-evident truth it belongs to somebody. The observance of the order and design determine it to be so. To suggest that it all just happened over time and produced this beautiful garden is to cast all logic aside. It may be said, prove to me that a gardener exists, I can't see him, I can't hear him, I can't feel him, he, therefore, doesn't exist. I just say, look at the garden, but the logic is rejected. I am told something like, if the gardener wanted to be seen, he would show me some kind of evidence that could be tested and proved. Again, I simply say, (look) (at) (the) (garden). 

The observance of the Universe demands the same logic. The mathematics observed in creation is beyond any natural explanation. The Mandelbrot set is but one source of evidence demonstrated in the Cosmos which demands the knowledge of a Creator by the sheer logic of reason. The Christian faith is not a belief in something for which there is no proof, it is a faith based on self-evident truths evidenced in creation itself.

David 

"The Christian and Science"

 

"Those who assert that the mathematical sciences make no affirmation about what is fair or good make a false assertion; for they do speak of these and frame demonstrations of them in the most eminent sense of the word. For if they do not actually employ these names, they do not exhibit even the results and the reasons of these, and therefore can be hardly said to make any assertion about them. Of what is fair, however, the most important species are order and symmetry, and that which is definite, which the mathematical sciences make manifest in a most eminent degree. And since, at least, these appear to be the causes of many things—now, I mean, for example, order, and that which is a definite thing, it is evident that they would assert, also, the existence of a cause of this description, and its subsistence after the same manner as that which is fair subsists in." - Aristotle, In Metaphysics [MacMahon] Bk. 12, chap. 3.

It seems prior to our modern understanding of science, scientific thought was primarily philosophical. Plato and Aristotle were the primary influences in all these areas of study. Aristotle followed Platonic understanding to a great degree, however, Aristotle continue to try and improve upon his teachers' philosophy and put forth his own ideas. In the above painting, the two are portrayed together, with Plato pointing upward putting forth the idea of absolutes. Aristotle is shown with his fingers spread wide and thrust down toward the earth emphasizing the acts of individuals or things in particular. 

However, they both held to the Geocentric view of the earth. It was Christianity that gave rise to the modern scientific view of the Solar System referred to as Heliocentrism. 

Copernicus was a doctor of canon law as well as a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. Copernicus’ great contribution, which revolutionized astronomy, was to disprove the astronomical system of the ancient Egyptian astronomer Ptolemy (a.k.a. Claudius Ptolemaeus c. 90-168 AD) and later Plato and Aristotle.

Copernicus's views were received with some skepticism as Aristtleism had become mixed with church doctrine and certain passages in the Bible were being interpreted literally as a defense of Geocentrism. However, after finally being convinced to publish his view on the astronomical system, he did so on the basis of his Christian conviction stating it was his, "loving duty to seek the truth in all things, in so far as God has granted that to human reason."

It would be Galileo that would face the most severe attacks for being a proponent of a Heliocentric view. Galileo moved into a more modern view of scientific study and away from the philosophical understanding of science and would refer to St. Augustine stating:  ". . . a most useful doctrine of St. Augustine's, relative to our making positive statements about things which are obscure and hard to understand by means of reason alone. Speaking of a certain physical conclusion about the heavenly bodies, he wrote: "Now keeping always our respect for moderation in grave piety, we ought not to believe anything inadvisedly on a dubious point, lest in favor to our error we conceive a prejudice against something that truth hereafter may reveal to be not contrary in any way to the sacred books of either the Old or the New Testament." - Galileo, letter to Duchess Christina

It is the idea that in our reason we can conclude certain things to be true that facts may later determine to be false. Geocentrism was being held by the Church, not because of observation but the interpretation of scripture. Therefore it was concluded that scripture was saying something it did not say. Galileo was highly criticized because it was thought he was contradicting the clear teaching of scripture, his argument was he certainly was not. He was only challenging a wrong interpretation of scripture. 

Galileo pointed to two positions, one which has always plagued the church stating: "they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense." and that of observational science stating:  "Copernicus never discusses matters of religion or faith, nor does he use an argument that depends in any way upon the authority of sacred writings which he might have interpreted

erroneously. He stands always upon physical conclusions pertaining to the celestial motions, and deals with them by astronomical and geometrical demonstrations, founded primarily upon sense experiences and very exact observations. He did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scriptures when they were rightly understood" - Galileo, letter to Duchess Christina

His point is, that philosophy alone is insufficient in scientific matters, and relying upon scripture interpretation to determine the same is not wise. The Bible is not a scientific book, yet it contains truth, therefore one need not fear any scientific discovery to contradict Biblical truth. Our modern understanding of the way we view science does not conflict with what the Bible teaches. Alfred North Whitehead who wrote primarily at the beginning on mathematics, logic, and physics stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian worldview. 

J.Robert Oppenheimer, whose achievements in physics included the Born–Oppenheimer approximation for molecular wave functions, work on the theory of electrons and positrons, the Oppenheimer–Phillips process in nuclear fusion, and the first prediction of quantum tunneling would echo the same sentiments as Whitehead, though neither men were known to be Christians. Oppenheimer believed that if it were not for the rationality of God in the Christian belief, the incredible labors of scientists would be without hope.

Our problems today arise not because Christianity and Science are at odds with one another, but because science has done what previously had plagued the church, they moved into the philosophical realm of explanation. They have mixed the truth of their discoveries with philosophical reasonings to develop credible theories of cosmic events. 

Having done so, they are able to present us with amazing discoveries that are indeed truly fascinating. However, not yet having discovered or observed the full and complete picture, they then fill in the gaps with their philosophical reasonings of how those discoveries came about and developed. Since their philosophical reasonings are not rooted in Biblical truth but are in fact opposed to it, their theories naturally find themselves in opposition to Christian thought. Thus we have our apparent conflicts between Christian beliefs and the scientific community. There is a comparatively small group of scientists who do hold to Biblical truth much like Copernicus and Galileo. It is here we find those referred to as Creationists, they take those fascinating discoveries and apply them to the Biblical truth they understand, and from there try to develop a creatable workable model for the Cosmos. 

One such example is distant starlight. With all the advances in technology and the measurability of the speed of light, it is an observable fact the stars are billions of light-years away. Since the creation account in Genesis only allows for 6 to 10 thousand years of earth history, you can say, "Houston, we have a problem!" The scientific community at large induces the Big Bang theory as an explication for this with an evolutionary process of billions of years to our present day. Presto, they have the answer. However, all they have is the distance of the stars and the speed of light as their observable facts. A big bang and billions of years of time are philosophical applications to explain the facts they have observed. For they did not observe the big bang, nor have they observed billions of years, those philosophical answers are used to explain what they have discovered. Admittedly that is a simplified version, for there are many complex factors involved, but it is the essence of the issue. 

What is not talked about very much is the problems with the Big Bang and billions of years, the starlight provides very difficult problems for that model too. In the big bang, we are told, the light could not have been exchanged and the universe was expected to have many variations of temperature, but this was not the case when measured. To explain this difficulty they induce“inflation of the universe.” In other words, very quickly after the big bang, the fabric of space in the universe supposedly expanded very quickly (faster than the speed of light), then instantly slowed to the rate we see today. But what caused all that?

They suggest that some field existed that caused inflation. There is no direct evidence of inflation; that is, there is no independent evidence. Inflation was invented to solve the horizon problem. We have some very fascinating observable facts, but they don't tell the whole story. So what we call the Big Bang is a mixture of fact and imagination to try and explain a cosmic event. It is their imagination that is in contradiction to Biblical truth and not the observable facts. 

Creationists as well have observed these fascinating facts, but they do not have the full picture to work with either. Therefore they postulate from a different perspective and offer models for this cosmic event as well. Some are more credible than others, remember, we don't have a full picture of the event, so whichever side we approach it from, we must postulate what may have occurred. 

Some of these advancements are light in transit on the day of creation. This has several problems, so many have abandoned this idea in recent times. Then there is the speed of light decay, which had some promise, but also many difficulties. 

Dr. Russell Humphreys has a model called the “White Hole” cosmology. He surmises a white hole is like a black hole, except that matter flies outward from a white hole whereas matter falls into a black hole. Near the boundary of a black hole or a white hole, space and time are distorted. According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, this distortion can be described as stretching the fabric of space, and time progresses at different rates depending upon where you are. This would be akin to (Job 9:8 ESV verse (8)  who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the sea;). However, Mr. Humphreys has the same problem as the Big Bang group, his model is not observable or reproducible, but it is workable with fewer problems.

Dr. John Hartnett in a different model unlike White Hole cosmology where the bounded universe was in four dimensions, assumes five dimensions. Like the Humphreys model, the Hartnett model also relies on time dilation, a massive amount on earth. He postulates that most of this occurred on day 4 of creation week resulting from space expansion as God was creating galaxies. So time was running at different rates with six days passing on earth but more time passing elsewhere. Much of this dilation of time would have occurred during creation week, as opposed to Humphrey’s model where it occurred all along at a more steady rate. Hartnett has produced some interesting results and both models are still in development

.

There are a number of other very interesting theories that have been developed by creation scientists that are very plausible. Several offer explanations that present much fewer problems scientifically than the present Big Bang theory currently does. The problem of distant starlight actually turns out to be a bigger problem for the evolutionary model than it does for creation models. The bottom line is that Christians and science have nothing to fear from one another, they are best of friends. 

Keep studying the plain text,

David