03.20.08
Posted in Uncategorized at 11:30 am by Administrator
I’ve discussed so far the words faith, reason, and science. Now I’d like to do religion. As with in the previous post, I shall start with the Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry.
religion 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural 2) devotion to a religious faith 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes, and practices 4) a cause, principle, or belief held to with faith and ardor
Since the entry includes the word religious in two of the definitions, religious shall follow next.
religious 1) relating or devoted to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity 2) of or relating to religious beliefs or observances 3) scrupulously and conscientiously faithful 4) FERVENT, ZEALOUS
Does anyone else find it a bit irritating when the dictionary uses the word it’s defining within the definition? Oh well. I’ll just assume definition 2 is referring to definitions 1, 3, and/or 4.
As a little exercise, let’s take our modern understanding of science and see if any of the above definitions apply. I’m doing this because of the big stink regarding science and religion these days.
science 1) an area of knowledge that is an object of study; esp :NATURAL SCIENCE 2) knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method
That’s the dictionary definition. Does it have anything in common with religion? Well, I already mentioned in an earlier post that science can encompass the supernatural. Of course, the word religion itself does not have as a definition “belief in God or the supernatural,” but the first definition of religious does indeed encompass such meaning. Yet the first definition of science is quite interesting. Science especially relates to natural science, but it is not necessarily exclusive to natural science.
Now on to the second definition of science. It gets really interesting here, because now we have the term scientific method, which is a specific institutionalized system of practices. This is a partial fulfillment of the third definition of religion. Nonetheless, a partial fulfillment of a definition means little or nothing, since a concept has to fulfill every single requirement of at least one definition to be categorized under that word.
And here we come to a certain group of people who, in trying to exclude the supernatural from science, actually undermine their own cause. I am speaking of the secular humanists, who staunchly denounce God and the supernatural. This is important, because it is an acknowledgment of an ultimate “reality”. This fulfills definition 1 of religious! Furthermore, because it fulfills the requirements for the word religious, and because the secular humanists apply their “reality” to science and the scientific method, they have fulfilled all of the requirements of definition 3 of religion! This also applies to proponents of the less extreme view that science cannot observe the supernatural.
1″Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3″Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Matthew 7:1-5
I’ve been going on all this time about the definition of religion in today’s culture. Here comes the real issue for the Christian–the definition of religion according to God.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
James 1:27
And I’ll leave it here with no further commentary, except to say that it is a science, in one sense of the word, to know how to avoid “being polluted by the world.”
Permalink
03.18.08
Posted in Uncategorized at 10:22 am by Administrator
It’s been a while since I’ve updated this blog here. To start things up again, I would like to discuss the meaning of several words that are woefully misused in today’s society. I have recently come across someone (who I will not name) who has shown an incredible lack of understanding and critical thinking, despite her counter claims and position as an instructor at a higher learning institution. Namely, she claims that in her class, students are required to separate faith and reason. Reason is to be used in the classroom and faith is to be kept in church. How does she apply this? It seems that anyone who brings up any argument in favor of Genesis and Exodus being accurate, original history is using faith, while any “investigation” into how the Bible was “really” fabricated is touted as reason. This is an ancient history class, where she likes to claim that Genesis was “borrowed” from the Babylonian Enuma Elish and Hebrew law was “borrowed” from King Hammurabi’s Code.
So, let’s get down to an analysis. The following two definitions are from The Merriam Webster Dictionary. First, I’ll define reason.
reason: 1) a statement offered in explanation or justification 2) GROUND, CAUSE 3) the power to think : INTELLECT 4) a sane or sound mind 5) due exercise of the faculty of logical thought
Now faith.
faith: 1) allegiance to a duty or a person: LOYALTY 2) belief and trust in God 3) complete trust 4) a system of religious beliefs
The meaning of faith in the original New Testament Greek (presumably the type that the instructor thinks she’s talking about) is up next. These are all from Strong’s Concordance.
pistis, from [peitho]; persuasion, i.e. credence; mor. conviction (of relig. truth, or the truthfulness of God or a relig. teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstr. constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself–assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.
peitho; a primary verb; to convince (by argument; true or false); by anal. to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); refl. or pass. to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):–agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) confident, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.
Used five times in the New Testament is the word oligopistos, which is found only when Jesus is rebuking someone for having little faith.
oligopistos; from [oligos] and [pistis]; incredulous, i.e. lacking confidence (in Christ):–of little faith.
Used once in the New Testament is elpis.
elpis; from a primary elpo (to anticipate, usually with pleasure); expectation (abstr. or concr.) or confidence:–faith, hope.
So far, I think it’s rather self evident that faith and reason are being misused by a number of people today. Yes, it is because of faith that I disagree with this professor’s [read: Sadducee’s] claims. It is not, however, “blind faith.” It is faith grounded upon evidence and reason. Evidences internal and external to the Bible indicate that the accounts in it are true history and not fabrications taken from pagan Mesopotamian myths and laws. My faith is supported by reason. On the other hand, the instructor’s “reason” is actually based upon faith. She has faith in the claims of secular humanists. She has faith in human reasoning and its ability to accurately describe the world. She has faith that the God is not a real and ever present entity in this universe, and by extension, she has faith that the world can be accurately described without mention of a true God.
Some readers may ask what my “reason” is based upon, and this is actually a very good question. It is based upon the axiom (assumption) that humans are capable of thinking logically in order to describe the world. The reason for this is that God created humans with this ability. Does this sound like circular reasoning? It probably would be, but let me phrase it this way: I have faith (trust) that the Bible is true. This is a starting point; it is assumed. However, this faith is validated through reason. This reason includes such evidences as apparent design in nature and the accuracy of the Bible’s description of human nature and of historical events. In biblical times, faith in God was validated by the miracles carried out by God in full view of the people. The core faith of Christianity is grounded upon an incredible evidence: the resurrection of Christ.
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. I Corinthians 15:12-20
If this does not seem like reason, you’re being unreasonable. Paul wasn’t basing his affirmation of Christ’s resurrection on “well, that’s what my heart says.” He had actually met the Lord Christ, as had the disciples! Now, if you believe they were lying, then that’s a matter of the validity of the evidence, but it is not an argument against their reason.
I don’t think I’ve done an analysis of the word religion here yet. Perhaps some time I’ll get around to that (how many times have I been saying that sort of thing?). In any case, for further reading on the issue of faith, take a look at the following link:
http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html
Permalink
