Following is Tom Elliott's answer to my objections. My objections are in bold.
sent: Mon, 08 Jan 96 21:46:03
First of all this is not my site. I simply saw your site and felt you might find it useful.
Psychology does have its values, and what is going on inside the human phyche is important. There is however a distinction between "objective" and subjective". One of the greatest watersheds in human thought is found in the question "Is there any such thing as objective reality, or is it all subjective?"
By and large the "Eastern" (forgive my lumping these traditions together - it is for brevity only.) approach has been to deny the ultimate reality of the universe as we experience it, and depend on some sort of subjective approach to find a reality "beyond" what we can experience and verify through the "scientific method".
The other approach is to accept the physical universe at face value and ask questions. Any system that excludes "any" class of questions is not to be trusted (in my view). Everything is subject to human examination and question. All answers reguarding the reality of the universe are objective. I blong to this second approach.
If there is an ultimate reality, then various competing explanatins cannot be equal. Only one can be correct (if indeed any of them are). The best evidence to date supports the Christian explanation. You must understand that when I (or Hugh Ross, or any of the other folks who believe as we do) speak of Christianity we are not refering to what you called the "Christian tradition".
Rather we refer to: 1) The belief that the book known as the Bible is in fact the revelation of the personal being who created the entire universe. A real God who is not afraid of any questions you or I may ask about him. And 1) The belief that the Jesus of that revelation is a real person who is in fact, in some way we do not completely understand, the God we acknowledge as worthy of our admiration. And 3) Acceptance of the provision that Jesus made to restore our broken relationship with Him. This includes rejection of "alternate traditions". If There is a "Real" God who has revealed himself to us, it would be the height of folly to effectively tell him "I will figure it all out myself. I do not need you." If there is any evidence that there is a better explanation for the universe it will have to convince us on the basis of something "Outside the human phyche", it will have to be willing to answer any question put forth in genuine seeking.
Todays physics may not have all the answers. I think any real scientist would have to agree with that. On the other hand, because you do not understand the superstring theories does not mean that there are not people who do understand them reasonably well. It is clearly not true that no progress in physics has been made since Bohr and Einstein. Clear that is unless you reject the "objective reality" of the universe. And to point out that the latest advances in todays science are consistent with the revelation of the Bible, in no way precludes future improvements in our understanding of the nature of the world. The point is there is no question which is "bad" to ask. And if science can be seen to support an understanding already accepted from existing evidence outside of modern physics, that is simply additional evidence - objective evidence - for us to use.
Contemplation may well give us new places to seek, but there is no reason not to use all sources if we are seeking the "Truth".
Last modified on: June 27, 2005.