November 3, 2015

From Gary... Wonder, serendipity and blessings


This picture reminded me of one of my favorite musicals, Brigadoon. To me, it has the same quality of reserved splendor as the movie and the serendipity that leads to joy. For those of you who have never seen the movie, follow this link to obtain a little more information... Brigadoon and "go home with Bonnie Jean".  Something similar is found in Scripture- read on...

Acts, Chapter 11 (WEB)

 1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.  2 When Peter had come up to Jerusalem, those who were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men, and ate with them!”


  4  But Peter began, and explained to them in order, saying,  5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision: a certain container descending, like it was a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners. It came as far as me.  6 When I had looked intently at it, I considered, and saw the four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky.  7 I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter, kill and eat!’  8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered into my mouth.’  9 But a voice answered me the second time out of heaven, ‘What God has cleansed, don’t you call unclean.’   10 This was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven.  11 Behold, immediately three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent from Caesarea to me.  12 The Spirit told me to go with them, without discriminating. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house.  13 He told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying to him, ‘Send to Joppa, and get Simon, who is called Peter,  14 who will speak to you words by which you will be saved, you and all your house.’  15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning.  16 I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John indeed baptized in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit.’   17 If then God gave to them the same gift as us, when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?” 



  18  When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life!” 

Like the picture, some things seem almost too good to be true and I imagine that is how the brethren in Judea must have felt. But when God's acceptance of the gentiles became apparent to them, they rejoiced!!  Today, God has given us many blessings and when we realize them, we too, will rejoice. Look for them and be amazed!!!

From Gary... Bible Reading November 3



Bible Reading  

November 3

The World English Bible

Nov. 3
Isaiah 29-32
Isa 29:1 Woe to Ariel! Ariel, the city where David encamped! Add year to year; let the feasts come around;
Isa 29:2 then I will distress Ariel, and there will be mourning and lamentation. She shall be to me as an altar hearth.
Isa 29:3 I will encamp against you all around you, and will lay siege against you with posted troops. I will raise siege works against you.
Isa 29:4 You will be brought down, and will speak out of the ground. Your speech will mumble out of the dust. Your voice will be as of one who has a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and your speech will whisper out of the dust.
Isa 29:5 But the multitude of your foes will be like fine dust, and the multitude of the ruthless ones like chaff that blows away. Yes, it will be in an instant, suddenly.
Isa 29:6 She will be visited by Yahweh of Armies with thunder, with earthquake, with great noise, with whirlwind and storm, and with the flame of a devouring fire.
Isa 29:7 The multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel, even all who fight against her and her stronghold, and who distress her, will be like a dream, a vision of the night.
Isa 29:8 It will be like when a hungry man dreams, and behold, he eats; but he awakes, and his hunger isn't satisfied; or like when a thirsty man dreams, and behold, he drinks; but he awakes, and behold, he is faint, and he is still thirsty. The multitude of all the nations that fight against Mount Zion will be like that.
Isa 29:9 Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.
Isa 29:10 For Yahweh has poured out on you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes, the prophets; and he has covered your heads, the seers.
Isa 29:11 All vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is educated, saying, "Read this, please;" and he says, "I can't, for it is sealed:"
Isa 29:12 and the book is delivered to one who is not educated, saying, "Read this, please;" and he says, "I can't read."
Isa 29:13 The Lord said, "Because this people draws near with their mouth and with their lips to honor me, but they have removed their heart far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men which has been taught;
Isa 29:14 therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men will perish, and the understanding of their prudent men will be hidden."
Isa 29:15 Woe to those who deeply hide their counsel from Yahweh, and whose works are in the dark, and who say, "Who sees us?" and "Who knows us?"
Isa 29:16 You turn things upside down! Should the potter be thought to be like clay; that the thing made should say about him who made it, "He didn't make me;" or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding?"
Isa 29:17 Isn't it yet a very little while, and Lebanon will be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field will be regarded as a forest?
Isa 29:18 In that day, the deaf will hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind will see out of obscurity and out of darkness.
Isa 29:19 The humble also will increase their joy in Yahweh, and the poor among men will rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.
Isa 29:20 For the ruthless is brought to nothing, and the scoffer ceases, and all those who are alert to do evil are cut off--
Isa 29:21 who cause a person to be indicted by a word, and lay a snare for the arbiter in the gate, and who deprive the innocent of justice with false testimony.
Isa 29:22 Therefore thus says Yahweh, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob: "Jacob shall no longer be ashamed, neither shall his face grow pale.
Isa 29:23 But when he sees his children, the work of my hands, in the midst of him, they will sanctify my name. Yes, they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.
Isa 29:24 They also who err in spirit will come to understanding, and those who grumble will receive instruction."
Isa 30:1 "Woe to the rebellious children," says Yahweh, "who take counsel, but not from me; and who make an alliance, but not with my Spirit, that they may add sin to sin,
Isa 30:2 who set out to go down into Egypt, and have not asked my advice; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to take refuge in the shadow of Egypt!
Isa 30:3 Therefore the strength of Pharaoh will be your shame, and the refuge in the shadow of Egypt your confusion.
Isa 30:4 For their princes are at Zoan, and their ambassadors have come to Hanes.
Isa 30:5 They shall all be ashamed because of a people that can't profit them, that are not a help nor profit, but a shame, and also a reproach."
Isa 30:6 The burden of the animals of the South. Through the land of trouble and anguish, of the lioness and the lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent, they carry their riches on the shoulders of young donkeys, and their treasures on the humps of camels, to an unprofitable people.
Isa 30:7 For Egypt helps in vain, and to no purpose; therefore have I called her Rahab who sits still.
Isa 30:8 Now go, write it before them on a tablet, and inscribe it in a book, that it may be for the time to come forever and ever.
Isa 30:9 For it is a rebellious people, lying children, children who will not hear the law of Yahweh;
Isa 30:10 who tell the seers, "Don't see!" and to the prophets, "Don't prophesy to us right things. Tell us pleasant things. Prophesy deceits.
Isa 30:11 Get out of the way. Turn aside from the path. Cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us."
Isa 30:12 Therefore thus says the Holy One of Israel, "Because you despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and rely on it;
Isa 30:13 therefore this iniquity shall be to you like a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking comes suddenly in an instant.
Isa 30:14 He will break it as a potter's vessel is broken, breaking it in pieces without sparing, so that there won't be found among the broken piece a piece good enough to take fire from the hearth, or to dip up water out of the cistern."
Isa 30:15 For thus said the Lord Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, "You will be saved in returning and rest. Your strength will be in quietness and in confidence." You refused,
Isa 30:16 but you said, "No, for we will flee on horses;" therefore you will flee; and, "We will ride on the swift;" therefore those who pursue you will be swift.
Isa 30:17 One thousand will flee at the threat of one. At the threat of five, you will flee until you are left like a beacon on the top of a mountain, and like a banner on a hill.
Isa 30:18 Therefore Yahweh will wait, that he may be gracious to you; and therefore he will be exalted, that he may have mercy on you, for Yahweh is a God of justice. Blessed are all those who wait for him.
Isa 30:19 For the people will dwell in Zion at Jerusalem. You will weep no more. He will surely be gracious to you at the voice of your cry. When he hears you, he will answer you.
Isa 30:20 Though the Lord may give you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, yet your teachers won't be hidden anymore, but your eyes will see your teachers;
Isa 30:21 and when you turn to the right hand, and when you turn to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, "This is the way. Walk in it."
Isa 30:22 You shall defile the overlaying of your engraved images of silver, and the plating of your molten images of gold. You shall cast them away as an unclean thing. You shall tell it, "Go away!"
Isa 30:23 He will give the rain for your seed, with which you will sow the ground; and bread of the increase of the ground will be rich and plentiful. In that day, your livestock will feed in large pastures.
Isa 30:24 The oxen likewise and the young donkeys that till the ground will eat savory provender, which has been winnowed with the shovel and with the fork.
Isa 30:25 There shall be brooks and streams of water on every lofty mountain and on every high hill in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall.
Isa 30:26 Moreover the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven days, in the day that Yahweh binds up the fracture of his people, and heals the wound they were struck with.
Isa 30:27 Behold, the name of Yahweh comes from far away, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke. His lips are full of indignation, and his tongue is as a devouring fire.
Isa 30:28 His breath is as an overflowing stream that reaches even to the neck, to sift the nations with the sieve of destruction; and a bridle that leads to ruin will be in the jaws of the peoples.
Isa 30:29 You will have a song, as in the night when a holy feast is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one goes with a flute to come to Yahweh's mountain, to Israel's Rock.
Isa 30:30 Yahweh will cause his glorious voice to be heard, and will show the descent of his arm, with the indignation of his anger, and the flame of a devouring fire, with a blast, storm, and hailstones.
Isa 30:31 For through the voice of Yahweh the Assyrian will be dismayed. He will strike him with his rod.
Isa 30:32 Every stroke of the rod of punishment, which Yahweh will lay on him, will be with the sound of tambourines and harps. He will fight with them in battles, brandishing weapons.
Isa 30:33 For his burning place has long been ready. Yes, for the king it is made ready. He has made its pyre deep and large with fire and much wood. Yahweh's breath, like a stream of sulfur, kindles it.
Isa 31:1 Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they don't look to the Holy One of Israel, and they don't seek Yahweh!
Isa 31:2 Yet he also is wise, and will bring disaster, and will not call back his words, but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of those who work iniquity.
Isa 31:3 Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When Yahweh stretches out his hand, both he who helps shall stumble, and he who is helped shall fall, and they all shall be consumed together.
Isa 31:4 For thus says Yahweh to me, "As the lion and the young lion growling over his prey, if a multitude of shepherds is called together against him, will not be dismayed at their voice, nor abase himself for the noise of them, so Yahweh of Armies will come down to fight on Mount Zion and on its heights.
Isa 31:5 As birds hovering, so Yahweh of Armies will protect Jerusalem. He will protect and deliver it. He will pass over and preserve it."
Isa 31:6 Return to him from whom you have deeply revolted, children of Israel.
Isa 31:7 For in that day everyone shall cast away his idols of silver and his idols of gold--sin which your own hands have made for you.
Isa 31:8 "The Assyrian will fall by the sword, not of man; and the sword, not of mankind, shall devour him. He will flee from the sword, and his young men will become subject to forced labor.
Isa 31:9 His rock will pass away by reason of terror, and his princes will be afraid of the banner," says Yahweh, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem.
Isa 32:1 Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in justice.
Isa 32:2 A man shall be as a hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the storm, as streams of water in a dry place, as the shade of a large rock in a weary land.
Isa 32:3 The eyes of those who see will not be dim, and the ears of those who hear will listen.
Isa 32:4 The heart of the rash will understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers will be ready to speak plainly.
Isa 32:5 The fool will no longer be called noble, nor the scoundrel be highly respected.
Isa 32:6 For the fool will speak folly, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice profanity, and to utter error against Yahweh, To make empty the soul of the hungry, and to cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
Isa 32:7 The ways of the scoundrel are evil. He devises wicked devices to destroy the humble with lying words, even when the needy speaks right.
Isa 32:8 But the noble devises noble things; and he will continue in noble things.
Isa 32:9 Rise up, you women who are at ease! Hear my voice! You careless daughters, give ear to my speech!
Isa 32:10 For days beyond a year you will be troubled, you careless women; for the vintage shall fail. The harvest won't come.
Isa 32:11 Tremble, you women who are at ease! Be troubled, you careless ones! Strip yourselves, make yourselves naked, and put sackcloth on your waist.
Isa 32:12 Beat your breasts for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine.
Isa 32:13 Thorns and briars will come up on my people's land; yes, on all the houses of joy in the joyous city.
Isa 32:14 For the palace will be forsaken. The populous city will be deserted. The hill and the watchtower will be for dens forever, a delight for wild donkeys, a pasture of flocks;
Isa 32:15 Until the Spirit is poured on us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is considered a forest.
Isa 32:16 Then justice will dwell in the wilderness; and righteousness will remain in the fruitful field.
Isa 32:17 The work of righteousness will be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and confidence forever.
Isa 32:18 My people will abide in a peaceful habitation, in safe dwellings, and in quiet resting places.
Isa 32:19 Though hail flattens the forest, and the city is leveled completely.

Isa 32:20 Blessed are you who sow beside all waters, who send out the feet of the ox and the donkey.

 Nov. 3
1 Timothy 3

1Ti 3:1 This is a faithful saying: if a man seeks the office of an overseer, he desires a good work.
1Ti 3:2 The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;
1Ti 3:3 not a drinker, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 one who rules his own house well, having children in subjection with all reverence;
1Ti 3:5 (but if a man doesn't know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the assembly of God?)
1Ti 3:6 not a new convert, lest being puffed up he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have good testimony from those who are outside, to avoid falling into reproach and the snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Servants, in the same way, must be reverent, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for money;
1Ti 3:9 holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 Let them also first be tested; then let them serve if they are blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Their wives in the same way must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let servants be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For those who have served well gain for themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
1Ti 3:14 These things I write to you, hoping to come to you shortly;
1Ti 3:15 but if I wait long, that you may know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
1Ti 3:16 Without controversy, the mystery of godliness is great: God was revealed in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, and received up in glory. 

From Jim McGuiggan... CONSISTENT REALISM

CONSISTENT REALISM

Is there no one you'd die for? Gladly die for? Gladly die for in a heartbeat?
Every day in hamlets and villages and towns and huge cities there are people who are dying for those they love. Sometimes the death is sudden and violent but in the vast majority it is a longer dying process where lovers deprive them themselves to keep their beloved ones alive. They deny themselves sufficient food so that others might eat, deny themselves sleep so that others might rest and be cared for, deny themselves adequate clothing so that others might be warmed; they worry about others and are driven by love into lives that are a long crucifixion and into an early grave.
They aren't few in number—they live and die in their multiplied millions; generation after generation. They wander cities looking for work, any kind of work, any hours, any conditions to get money to feed their young, their aged or their sick; together they wander the earth to to find a protected place for their families as they are presently doing in the great European Exodus. This great wandering will cease to be a gripping news item as it now is—and should bebut the daily, ceaseless, generation after generation self-giving that goes unheralded will still be going on.
It's those of us who are comfortable who view all this as “heroic” and that's no bad thing but those who live that way view it as inevitable. They love and while it's true that love sets free it's also true that love leaves them no choice. In their millions they don't have time or energy to think about how their lives are interpreted by the comfortable. To call them heroes because they love their beloved ones would make no sense to them—”And what else would we do?” they'd say.
The wonderful music of Paul Williams [by far my favorite song writer] has now gone out of style; it doesn't reflect the way the world actually sounds. The popular music is feverish, wild, loud, saturated with sensation that knows nothing of commitment, starkly taking without giving, pregnant with gutter speech and devoid of mystique and sneering at what it calls “sentimentalism”—it's realistic, we're told, and that is the central issue. So Williams' music is “old-fashioned” and [though he's anything but dead and forgotten] it's not in step with the grand drift of popular music. Maybe so, but “You & Me Against the World” is as realistic as songs about smash-and-grab sexual experiences; his “Loneliness” is as true to the human condition as any of the “we want it all and we want it now” songs and his “Flash” is as happy and true as any “curse society and everybody in it” productions.
The call to realism is no bad thing but if we're going to be realistic we need to be thoroughly realistic. The rape of a child by a morally-deranged father is a fact but so is the pure love of children—one is as real as the other! People trafficking is a heart-stopping reality but so is the life of someone like Toyohiko Kagawa, so are the tens of thousands of “Child Haven” enterprises in every major country. The brutal religions and their ruthless adherents who without apology promote and practice heartless violence are real but so is the faith that has Jesus Christ as its throbbing center. Realism will insist that there are hypocrites but consistent realism will insist that there are millions of the genuine. There's Hitler but there's Frank and Nini Lott; there's Pol Pot and Papa Doc but there's also a Toyohiko Kagawa. Realism must take into account the good as well as the evil. There's a Nero but there's also a Paul, there's a cross on which people are murdered but there's also a Jesus of Nazareth who dies on one of them.
It is a strange and complex world where a Jesus is murdered on a cross and the baleful Tiberius sits on a throne. It makes no sense to fasten our eyes on the spellbinding reality of Jesus Christ and deny the stupefying reality of the stake of torment he died on. Equally it makes no sense to ceaselessly note the instrument of torture and death and ignore the young man [who is God being a man] who hangs there. The NT will force us to look at the reality of corrupt and murderous authorities but it confronts us with the resurrected and glorified Jesus Christ who conquered them.
It insists he conquered them for the world, as one sufferer among the countless sufferers; he did it not simply for himself and to please the Holy Father, he did it for the entire human family and in doing it for us all he is the revelation of God.
We mustn’t speak the gospel as if God found it difficult to love us. Sinners love not only their own, they also love strangers and even enemies; are we to speak of God as though he finds it difficult to do what countless numbers of sinners  do? God calls his followers to love their own and the stranger and the enemy but has a hard time doing it himself?
A one-sided realism that denies or completely ignores the goodness in the world strips the world of glory and gallantry and makes it a place of unrelieved gloom, it promotes unyielding despair and calls nobody upward to brawl against the evil invisible force that moves like a plague or a starving parasite that feeds on the human family. But a one-sided realism can also produce sentimentalism that turns its blind eyes heavenward [as a blind person will sometimes do] to enjoy only “the sunny side of doubt” [Tennyson].
Tomorrow millions of Christians will gather to “participate in the body of Christ” as they Supper together. In this they will bear witness to [“proclaim”--1 Corinthians 11:26] the One who in himself and on the cross embodies the kind of realism Christians in their best moments embrace. Through him they know about suffering and death and, like him, they seek no exemption from those harsh realities but through him they know about the triumph of life and righteousness over death and evil.
As the NT teaches us, in a believer's baptism as they enter into union with the slain but resurrected Jesus Christ, the believers take into account the meaning and purpose of Christ's self-giving death and they say, “Dear God, count me in.” So it is as they gather and together they feed on the living Christ they also renew their covenant in and with him who said, “This is my blood of the new covenant” the believers again say, “Dear God count me in.”
This means that in his name and for his sake they will commit themselves to embody the Story they teach and sing and pray and reflect on and bear witness to. They will commit to being people who are part of a vast ocean of moral goodness but they will do that in his name, in the name of the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. They will be congregations of balanced realism and followers of the Holy One who in and as Jesus Christ is the one true realist.
Spending Time with Jim McGuiggan

In Science We Trust by Jerry Fausz, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1139

In Science We Trust

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxillary staff scientist Dr. Fausz holds a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from Georgia Tech.]
Our society places a great deal of faith and trust in Science. The reverence that many in our society grant to Science is clearly illustrated in a 1998 article published in Science magazine. The article is a compilation of essays and poetry submitted by the students of Holmdel High School in New Jersey: writings which were, in fact, solicited by the 150th anniversary committee of Science (Jackel, et al., 1998).
For example, a young lady named Megan McIlroy begins her essay, titled “What Science Means to Society,” with the words, “In a society where all aspects of our lives are dictated by scientific advances in technology, science is the essence of our existence” (Jackel, et al., emp. added). The following is a poem written by Brian Sze in the same article:
“Seesaw of the Spirit”
As science develops, religion declines,
Because religion begins where science ends.
As more and more knowledge fills our minds,
Religious influence lessens.
Religion was based on assumed claims,
Which through time have been proved wrong
.
But the Church has been too strict to change,
Which has been its downfall all along.
Creation gives us an account
Of man and woman’s first acts,
But evolution seems paramount,
Because it is supported by facts
.
So now we are presented with a choice.
Scientific knowledge or conviction?
Everybody has a voice
In answering this controversial question
(Jackel, et al., emp. added).
In one additional example, Jenitta Kwong begins her essay, titled “Science as Livesaver,” with “Science is everything to me,” and in her concluding remarks suggests that, without science, “Life would be meaningless” (Jackel, et al.).
How is it that high school children come to the conclusion that Science dictates all aspects of our lives to the extent that life would have no meaning without Science? From what do they deduce that a presumed “seesaw” between science and religion culminates in a controversial question? It is difficult to believe that very many individual scientists or technologists would suggest such a philosophy regarding science and religion. Most likely, these sentiments reflect values that have been passed on to these children by certain educators, their parents, and/or various friends or mentors with whom they may have associated. In short, our society has in some way conveyed to these children that Science has a position of ultimate importance in their lives that is, sadly (and mistakenly), terminally at odds with faith and religion. Perhaps most strikingly, this misconception has also occurred with very little, if any, input from Science itself.
No doubt, science and technology have given us many conveniences that seem, at least in a shallow sense, to have vastly improved the quality of human existence, but is that enough to suggest that Science is everything? Is the importance placed on Science by our society warranted? More important, does Science pose a better explanation for the meaning of life than religion? To add context to these questions, it is useful to examine the statements and writings of those who hold a preeminent position in the scientific arena.
The fact is, Science goes farther than just claiming preeminence over religion and belief in God in many of these statements. In 2006, several scientists at a conference in La Jolla, California advocated militant eradication of God and religion from society to be replaced completely with the precepts of science. At this conference, cosmologist Stephen Weinberg stated: “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion.... Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.” And celebrated evolutionist Richard Dawkins said: “There’s a certain sort of negativity you get from people who say ‘I don’t like religion but you can’t do anything about it.’ That’s a real counsel of defeatism. We should roll our sleeves up and get on with it” (as quoted in Lyons and Butt, 2007).
Others have simply approached the debate by claiming that science makes God and religion irrelevant. Famous theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking recently wrote: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” adding, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” These statements appear in Hawking’s 2010 book titled, ironically, The Grand Design (Hawking and Mlodinow, p. 181). Hawking goes on to explain:
The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can’t understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science “God,” but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions (p. xx).
Here Hawking again attempts to de-emphasize God in favor of Science. Even more, there is a subtle attempt in the last statement to replace God with Science in suggesting that the “laws of science” might be called “God.”
Accomplished scientists such as Hawking and Weinberg, high profile evolutionist Dawkins, and a group of high school students from New Jersey seem to be in agreement that Science holds a place of preeminence over everything, even overshadowing religious conviction. They present science as an omniscient benefactor that gives us everything we need and tells us everything we need to know—very much as many relate to God.
Science, though, has a few things to say about its own “omniscience” that have a direct bearing on the question of whether or not it has eliminated the need for God. Furthermore, these observations have much to say regarding the supposed preeminence of science in our society.

SCIENTIFICALLY UNCERTAIN

Prior to the 20th century, science and the Universe were believed to be strictly and objectively “deterministic,” meaning that all constituent elements of the Universe could be uniquely characterized and even predicted by fixed natural laws with straightforward (though sometimes complex) closed-form mathematical representations or models. For example, mathematical equations can be formulated for the motion of an object in space using Newton’s Laws of Motion and for the orbits of planets and artificial satellites using Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion. This deterministic way of looking at the cosmos is often referred to as “classical physics” or “classical mechanics.” Interestingly, while many of the results of classical mechanics have been shown to have a limited domain of validity, engineers still successfully use the concepts daily in building bridges, designing automobiles, navigating aircraft, and launching satellites into near Earth orbit.
During the past century, however, the theory of relativity and theorems accompanying the birth and growth of the emerging field of quantum mechanics cast doubt on this view of determinism in the minds of many scientists. Most notably, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of 1927 stipulated that the position and momentum of sub-atomic particles could not both be uniquely determined to an arbitrary degree of accuracy. That is, there will always be uncertainty in the measurement of at least one of these values that severely limits accuracy when one tries to measure both. Heisenberg’s result has since been extended to other pairs of measurements for subatomic particles, such as energy and spin. These momentous results present a fundamental limitation on the ability of Science to uniquely determine the complete state of the Universe at any given time.
Scientists initially believed that the uncertainty phenomenon was simply a consequence of taking measurements. For example, one might bounce a photon of light off of a subatomic particle and measure its position based on the return speed of the photon. In doing so, however, the momentum of the subatomic particle is changed and can no longer be determined accurately. Thus, the observer and his measurements have a profound effect on the resulting observation (Davies, 1984, p. 49). Dean Overman states: “What one observes depends to some extent on how one observes. The observer cannot be removed from the subject of the observation” (Overman, 1997, p. 29).
On the other hand, many scientists have interpreted the results of quantum mechanics to imply that the Universe itself is inherently non-deterministic. Scientific philosopher Paul Davies refers to this interpretation as “the ‘party line’ which maintains that quantum fuzziness is inherent in nature, and irreducible” (1984, p. 42). Thus, these scientists believe that quantum theory is an apt description of the reality of the Universe, rather than simply describing the effect the scientist has on the system when trying to take measurements. Notably, Albert Einstein, who helped formulate quantum theory, militantly disagreed with this interpretation as we see from one of his most well-known quotes, “God does not play dice.” Einstein believed that
behind the quantum world of unpredictable fuzziness and disorder lay a familiar classical world of concrete reality in which objects really possess well-defined properties such as location and speed and move according to deterministic laws of cause and effect (Davies, 1984, p. 42).
While scientists clearly do not agree on the correct interpretation of quantum theory, one thing that both sides agree on is that the uncertainty of the theory is inescapable and “irreducible,” as Davies describes it. The Uncertainty principle has a profound effect on the ability of Science to fully characterize the Universe. The “fuzziness” of quantum mechanics ensures that Science will remain unable to explain the Universe at its most basic level. Perhaps this can most readily be seen in the inability of Science to even determine the underlying meaning of its own quantum theory.

MATHEMATICALLY INCOMPLETE

In 1931, an Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel formulated and proved a theorem that stipulated “for any consistent mathematical system there exists within the system a well-formed statement that is not provable under the rules of the system” (Overman, p. 27). This result, known as Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem, implies that a mathematical system can be shown to be consistent, but will be unable to prove its own consistency within the rules of the system, thus cannot be shown to be “complete.” This fact has serious implications for scientific investigation, since mathematics is almost always utilized as a framework for organizing scientific thought and making application of resulting scientific principles. Scientific laws can be very often recognized more by their mathematical formulation than their narrative text.  For instance, while many recognize the equation E=mc2 as a statement from the Relativity Theory of Albert Einstein, few would recognize the statements of the theory underlying that famous formulation.
Certainly, mathematical research subsequent to the work of Gödel has identified very specific, limited mathematical systems that are “self-consistent,” that is, they are both consistent and complete. However, these limited results are not relevant to consideration of the First Incompleteness Theorem in a context that involves formulating scientific understanding and characterization of the entire Universe as opposed to a limited mathematical system. Thus, Gödel’s theory presents a critical impediment to the idea that Science can ever remove the possibility of God from a full understanding of the Universe. As Overman explains:
Gödel’s theorem demonstrates that mathematics is incomplete because the system leaves unanswered the truth or falsity of certain mathematical propositions which are the logical results of valid mathematical inferences (p. 28).
Since Science relies almost entirely on mathematics for developing and expressing its premises and results, Gödel’s theorem and proof should give great pause to anyone placing their total confidence in Science. Mathematical incompleteness will not pervasively limit scientific endeavor since mathematical constructions of closed systems can be both consistent and complete. However, as Science continues to pursue an explanation and corresponding model of the Universe as a whole, “at any moment a contradiction could arise and shake the system down to its foundations” (Overman, p. 28) due to the inability to show both consistency and completeness of the mathematical framework involved.

THE UNKNOWABLE

Related to the idea of “incompleteness” formulated by Gödel is the concept of “undecidability.” Researchers have conceived many undecidable problems in mathematics and logic. A well-known example from logic is the so called “liar’s paradox,” which is
contained in the statement by Epimenides, a Cretan, who asserts, “all Cretans are liars.” If one assumes that Epimenides is telling the truth, then he is lying. But he cannot be lying because we have assumed he is telling the truth (Overman, p. 26).
Conversely, if we assume Epimenides is lying, then his statement becomes self-contradictory. The liar’s paradox is a logically undecidable proposition.
As for mathematics, mathematician Gregory Chaitin formulated an uncomputable number known as Omega (Ω), which represents the probability that a computer program will halt when its input is a random string of binary numbers. In general, probabilities fall between 0 and 1, where zero represents an event having no chance of occurring (zero probability) and 1 represents certainty. Davies suggests that Ω is “close to 1, because most random inputs will appear as garbage to the computer” and cause it to crash (1992, p. 133). However, Davies goes on to point out that the expansion of Ω beyond the first few digits is totally random, which implies there can be no algorithmic means to generate Ω.
What is most interesting, though, about Chaitin’s result is that Ω is representative of “halting” problems for computer programs, in general, which have been shown to be mathematically undecidable. This prompts Davies to suggest: “So knowing merely the first few thousand digits of omega would give us access to a solution of all outstanding mathematical problems of this type” (1984, p. 134). However, since Ω is completely random beyond the first few digits, it is uncomputable. The implications of this fact are further discussed by Davies:
Unfortunately, being an uncomputable number, omega can never be revealed by constructive means, however long we work at it. Thus, short of a mystical revelation, omega can never be known to us. And even if we were to be given omega by divine transmission, we would not recognize it for what it was, because, being a random number, it would not commend itself to us as special in any respect (1992, p. 134).
This quote is truly remarkable. Of course, we might argue quite reasonably that if such a number were to be given “by divine transmission,” such a transmission might likely include an indication of the meaning and importance of the data. That would certainly be the proper way to view divine revelation.
However, Davies’ statements raise an engaging question regarding that which is unknowable. In some sense, all of nature is a form of divine transmission (“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork”—Psalm 19:1). Yet there is so much we do not understand and, it appears, can never understand. Perhaps it is true that the heavens also declare the boundaries of scientific knowledge. It certainly appears to be true that mathematics and science pose a hard limit on the extent of what Science can ultimately “know.”

BEHOLD THE GREAT AND POWERFUL…SCIENCE?

In the movie classic The Wizard of Oz, there is the familiar, seminal moment when the true “Wizard of Oz” is about to be discovered by Dorothy and her companions. At that moment, the “Wizard” desperately and frantically states: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” (Fleming, 1939). Certainly, scientists are aware of the limitations implied by results such as the Incompleteness Theorems, the Uncertainty Principle, and the incomputable problems of mathematics. But this awareness does not stop Science, or at least certain of its most prominent representatives, from continuing to present Science as the omniscient benefactor that so many believe it to be. When scientific beliefs and theories, like manmade global warming and Darwinian evolution, are challenged, often the scientific community will attack the challenger, instead of addressing the merits of the challenge itself, almost as if to say, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
But scientific achievement is replete with modern examples of its own limitations. Overman comments:
The limits of our reasoning powers raise the question whether scientific explanations for the origin of the laws of physics, the Big Bang, or the origin of life are issues which fall into…the indeterminate category represented by Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem (p. 28).

Origin of Universe

Scientists continue to be conflicted regarding how the entire Universe came into existence in the first place. The longest prevailing theory (besides divine Creation), of course, is the so-called Big Bang theory—still the front-runner according to many scientists. However, researchers like Stephen Hawking have exerted significant effort to replace the Big Bang Theory due to their inability to explain the Big Bang singularity and how it came into existence. In fact, Hawking once observed that, at the Big Bang singularity, “the laws of science and our ability to predict the future would break down” (1988, p. 117).
The difficulties with the Big Bang theory are, at least in part, a consequence of quantum theory and the Uncertainty Principle. As noted, the Uncertainty Principle limits accuracy in making measurements at a sub-atomic level. This limit, however, has an exact numerical characterization known as Planck’s constant, a physical constant associated with quantum mechanics that was first derived as the proportionality constant between the energy of a photon and the frequency of the photon’s wave form. In short, light can be treated as a particle (photon) or a wave, and Planck’s constant helps define the relationship between the two. As it turns out, Planck’s constant also happens to be the minimum amount of uncertainty that exists between the product of the momentum and position of a subatomic particle. It thus sets the boundary on the accuracy of those measurements in the formulation of the Uncertainty Principle.
This factor is related to uncertainty at the beginning of the Universe (according to the Big Bang model) due to another constant known as Planck time (Williams, 2010). Planck time is the time required for light to travel the distance of one Planck length. Both Planck time and Planck length are derived from Planck’s constant, the gravitational constant, and the speed of light. Remember that Planck’s constant provides a numerical limit on how accurately Science can characterize sub-atomic behavior. Thus, it might come as no surprise that Planck time imposes a hard limit on theoretical, naturalistic models of the beginning of the Universe. These models are unable to “predict” in any way what may have been occurring in the first 5.39x10-44 seconds (Planck time) of the Big Bang model. If you are not familiar with scientific notation, this number can be written as a decimal point followed by 43 zeros followed by 539. This is an extremely small amount of time, but large enough to befuddle scientists concerned with promoting the Big Bang theory. [NOTE: We are not claiming that scientists actually know what happened from Planck time onward, but merely noting that they cannot know what happened before.]
One of the most prominent theories on the beginning of the Universe in recent years suggests that our Universe is just one of a large number of possible universes brought about by quantum fluctuation. Hawking describes the theory this way:
One picture of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe is then a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. Many tiny bubbles appear, and then disappear again. These represent mini-universes that expand but collapse again while still of microscopic size…. A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow large enough so that they will be safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate…. These correspond to universes…in a state of inflation (Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010, pp. 136-137).
Note here that our own Universe is considered to be “in a state of inflation.” It is theorized that with such a large number of universes to “select” from, it is possible that a universe such as ours would exist. Specifically, Hawking says:
There seems to be a vast landscape of possible universes. However…universes in which life like us can exist are rare. We live in one which life is possible, but if the universe were only slightly different, beings like us could not exist (2010, p. 144).
This idea has mathematical tractability, subject of course to mathematical incompleteness and the potential of undecidability. With the inherent limitations of mathematics and logic, as well as the self-admitted impotence of Science with respect to predicting anything inside of Planck time, one might wonder how Professor Hawking can state with such certainty that universes like ours would be “rare.” In truth, we would have no way to know if every universe emerging from this hypothetical fluctuation wasn’t exactly like ours. Generally speaking, given the scientifically determined inability of Science to fully characterize our own Universe, verifying the existence and characterizing the nature of other possible universes seems quite a chore—pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Medical Science

Advances in medicine are often held up as some of the most impressive accomplishments of Science. Many of the essays in the Science article (mentioned at the beginning of this article—Jackel, et al., 1998) included references to advancements in the field of medicine. Eradicating Small Pox and treatment advances brought on by the Germ Theory of medicine are certainly some of the most impressive accomplishments of mankind. Even in the field of medicine, however, serious limitations in the ability to achieve desired results can be seen.
For example, the U.S. government claims that in 2013 it will spend $29.7 billion on AIDS research, and that at least $25 billion has been spent on AIDS research per year starting in 2009 (Kaiser…, 2013). That amounts to over $100 billion spent on AIDS research in the last five years without finding a cure. Certainly, new life-extending treatments have been developed as a result of this research. But the primary objective of scientific endeavors in AIDS research, that is, a final cure for the viral infection, remains unrealized with no indication that it is likely to come anytime soon.
Similarly, cancer research has been carried on throughout most of our lifetimes with enormous levels of government and private funding. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the money is simply spent by bureaucrats with Science having little say. A 1999 report on sources of cancer research funding indicates that one of the top funding agencies for cancer research publishes its results in the “open scientific literature” and “reviews its strategic research plan with the research community each year and publishes it” (McGeary and Burstein, 1999, p. 4) Again, many new treatments continue to be discovered, but a basic understanding of cancer, allowing for a cure instead of physically grueling treatments, still eludes researchers.
The science of medicine may one day cure AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and maybe even the common cold. However, when Science is unable to design a camera that can remotely compare to the human eye, or a microphone that performs as well as the human ear, it is no surprise that Science doesn’t have sufficient understanding of the human body to cure a disease, even with incredible amounts of funding being poured into research. Until those goals of modern medicine are achieved, Science as a whole might prefer for us to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

CONCLUSION

Science is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics, and the undecidable and uncomputable problems of mathematics and logic show us that scientific omniscience is impossible—which further implies that scientific omnipotence is unachievable.
Mathematical incompleteness tells us that facts from outside of the system are required to prove the system to be both consistent and complete. Science relies implicitly on mathematics for the useful formulation of scientific or natural laws. Furthermore, anything outside of the system (i.e., the physical Universe) is irrelevant to science since it cannot be observed and therefore cannot be measured and/or modeled. Perhaps even more fundamental, the uncertainty principle limits the ability of Science to characterize or measure that which is observable. Thus, in actuality, Science is impotent in the ability to understand even that which is in its purview.
Quantum theory is fundamental to one model of the beginning of our Universe, which suggests that many universes bubbled out of a quantum fluctuation and one of those bubbles grew into everything we can observe. This is ironic because it is the uncertainty principle of quantum theory and the concept of Planck time that places impassable limitations on the ability of Science to understand such a phenomenon. Thus, in order to formulate its model, Science is using the very tools that place some of the elements of the model outside of its bounds.
Hopefully, the answers to the questions at the beginning of this article are clear. Science as an omniscient benefactor is a non sequitur. Science is certainly not omniscient and has no hope of ever being so. It also follows that, while Science has shown much success in meeting some apparent needs of society, it is ultimately incapable of providing everything we need—such as cures for some of our most prevalent infirmities.
The true contributions of Science to our society should never be discounted. Society, though, should take much greater care in where it decides to place its trust. Conversely, Science would only make itself that much more of a boon to society by embracing its limitations and operating more fully within them, instead of hiding behind the wizard’s curtain and pretending to be the omniscient benefactor that society wants to make it.
In the biblical Old Testament, God challenged Job, saying, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth? Tell me, if you have understanding” (Job 38:4). The origin of our Universe represents one of the pursuits of Science that is, in fact, outside the normal bounds of scientific endeavor. It cannot be empirically modeled, no physical measurements can be made and, as God points out to Job, no man was there to make direct observation.
More to the point, God inspired Solomon, king of the Jews, to write: “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Here we see that God not only wants us to understand that we were not there at the beginning of the Universe and have no basis of understanding that event, but also that He has created the Universe with built-in limitations on the extent of man’s ability to characterize it. He has made us fundamentally a part of the system. As Overman states: “[T]he observer cannot be removed from the subject of the observation” (p. 29). Paul Davies also discusses the profound impact that the observer has on the system being observed, as a consequence of quantum effects (1984, p. 49). Being part of the system, we have no hope of characterizing what we observe to its most fundamental level and, as Solomon relates to us, that is a direct consequence of God’s design.
So as we discuss the limitations of Science illustrated by scientific laws like the Uncertainty Principle and the Incompleteness Theorem, we see that we are merely discovering manifestations of design constraints that God Himself placed on the Universe when He created it. These principles were put in place by God’s design as sure as Newton’s Laws, Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion, or Einstein’s Relativity Theories were, providing further evidence for the existence of design in the Universe and the God Who developed that design. Furthermore, we see this all the more clearly through a realization of our own inherent limitations to understand His work “from beginning to end.”
[NOTE: Although neither God nor His creative activity can be directly observed, indirect evidence for His existence can be gathered through scientific observation (e.g., evidence of design that leads to the conclusion that He exists).]

REFERENCES

Davies, Paul (1984), Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Davies, Paul (1992), The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Fleming, Victor, Dir. (1939), The Wizard of Oz (Hollywood, CA: Warner Brothers Pictures).
Hawking, Stephen (1988), A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam Books).
Hawking, Stephen and Leonard Mlodinow (2010), The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books).
Jackel, Robert, et. al. (1998), “Science—Far More Than Required High School Coursework,” Science, 20:1858-1860, March.
Kaiser Family Foundation (2013), “U.S. Federal Funding for HIV/AIDS: The President’s FY 2014 Budget Request,” http://kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/u-s-federal-funding-for-hivaids-the-presidents-fy-2014-budget-request/.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2007), “Militant Atheism,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2051&topic=24.
McGeary, Michael and Michael Burstein (1999), “Sources of Cancer Research Funding in the United States,” National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine,http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Disease/NCPF/Fund.pdf.
Overman, Dean (1997), A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
Williams, Matthew (2010), “Planck Time,” Universe Todayhttp://www.universetoday.com/79418/planck-time/.