Graham Scharf

Recent Activity

• 

  Graham signed the petition | almost 3 years ago

  Ask Congress to Improve the Lives of Children Worldwide
• 

  Graham signed the petition | almost 3 years ago

  Tell Congress to Stand Against Global Hunger
• 

  Graham commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Petition: Thank Politicians Who Say "No" to Creationists

  Mark, I'll try to answer your charge for historicity with a link: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/54_The_Bible/2629_Why_I_Trust_the_Scriptures/
  
  But I'll admit up front that it won't satisfy you. Nor can any argument that I could offer (and there are many of them).
  
  The Bible does not meet your criteria of reliability; nor does it pretend to. It is not a scientific document (althought many Christians treat it as though it is). It is, in its own words, "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." In Lesslie Newbigin's words, it is a stone of stumbling to every structure of which it is not the cornerstone.
  
  You're right. Your assumptions about the world are incompatible with the Christian gospel. I don't want to gloss over that, or try to persuade you that the Christian way of living in the world ought to be respectable in your eyes.
  
  You offered the example of Galileo, who in the face of execution, was compelled by faith in what he had seen to press forward against the grain of his society. Christians now are in a similar place - not with regard to the shape of the earth, but with respect to the purpose of human history. Seeing what others do not see, we maintain that it is true (and not merely true for those who choose to believe it) and offer it to the world.

• 

  Graham commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Poll: Should I Delete the Creationist Comments?

  I should introduce myself. I am (I assume) one of those to whom Clay refers as a "fundamentalist illiterate" and a prime example of "human folly" that spouts "gibberish."
  
  I would ask this question: As a teacher (which I am) does it show intellectual integrity to silence those with whom I disagree? Does it show that I am committed to honest inquiry?
  
  The incident of the orginal post was praising the courage of those who publicly disagree with the status quo. Do you show the same courage if you de-vowel or delete the comments of those with whom you disagree? Or does it show more respect of your listeners to allow them to separate the wheat from the chaff?

• 

  Graham commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Petition: Thank Politicians Who Say "No" to Creationists

  Mark, are you honestly suggesting that Jesus did not live?

• 

  Graham commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Petition: Thank Politicians Who Say "No" to Creationists

  Likewise, Mark, I want to thank you for a thoughtful reply.
  
  To answer your concern, I was using your first definition of dogma:
  "1 a: something held as an established opinion; especially a definite authoritative tenet"
  
  I think that your second paragraph does an excellent job of setting forth dogma:
  
  "You can't reasonably compare the two methods of viewing the world (science and religion) as somehow separate but equal.  The whole point of science is to create valid models of reality.  Religion is based largely on faith without evidence.  After all, if you have evidence you don't need faith."
  
  This is your established opinion or authoritative tenet (dogma, under definition 1a) that guides your inquiry, and divides science and religion as separate but UNequal - one dealing with reality (science) and one dealing with opinions (religion/faith).
  
  Please forgive my apparent use of a straw man. However, I'm not convinced that it is a straw man, even if there are some sorts of non-scientific knowledge that you admit. I understand you to be saying that my knowledge which rests on faith does not meet your criteria of validity - scientific evidence - and therefore is inferior and mythical. Is that a fair read of your comment?
  
  Finally, I'm glad that you turned the tables on Pascal's wager, because I think that you are absolutely right. In fact, the Apostle Paul was far more bold in writing to the Christians in Corinth. He said:
  
  "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins [and under the just anger of God]. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15:14-19)
  
  I am willing to own that, and not to diminish it. My claim is not that science is wrong, but that it is limited in scope. By defition it cannot address issues of purpose or meaning, because those categories are bracketed by scientific inquiry. Science can tell us, with amazing force and clarity EFFICIENT causes (cause and effect) but not FINAL causes (purpose).
  
  My claim is that the good news of Christ, (that is, that the God who created all things for Himself, and was estranged from His creation through our rebellion, is reconciling all things to Himself in the death, ressurrection and ascension of Jesus) is the purpose and meaning of human history that science cannot supply.
  
  I know that this claim is not verifiable on scientific grounds, and do not attempt to offer it as such. This, I will happily admit, is my dogma, the 'definitive authoritative tenet' which give purpose and guidance to both life and science as one unity (not separate and unequal). I offer it rather as testimony, of one who has seen and experienced it.
  

• 

  Graham commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Petition: Thank Politicians Who Say "No" to Creationists

  Thanks, Chris, for your respectful reply.
  
  Mark, to you comment that religion is based on dogmatism: I have to agree. Every system of belief - including science and religion - is grounded in a foundational set of assumptions, the dogma that undergirds all future thought. The dogma guides the faith exercised.
  
  For example, the commitment to the validity and reliability of the scientific method guides the faith of scientists as they seek answers that are consistent with the foundational assumptions. It IS faith, commitment to an understanding of the way the world is, that guides scientists, particularly at the frontiers of science. When Einstein pressed his theory of relativity, he expressed confidence in the system, even though no one could validate his theory at first.
  
  Given the obvious explanatory power of science, the question is not whether or not it is valid, but the extent to which it is valid. Above, Liane stated: "The point of this whole discussion (though people seem to lose sight of that) is that science should be taught in science classrooms. Religion is for churches, temples, and mosques. Period."
  
  On what ground is this 'point' made? Why should science exclude religion? And why should religion exclude science? The 'point' seems to rest on a dogmatic assumption that all true knowledge can be validated by the scientific method; anything that cannot be tested by this method cannot properly be called knowledge, and belongs to the 'private' sphere of 'faith,' and 'opinion.' This, too, is dogma. It is a commitment to a way of understanding and living in the world that, like religious faith, entails risk if the assumptions turn out to be false.

• 

  Graham commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Petition: Thank Politicians Who Say "No" to Creationists

  Mark, it is clear that you have been reading the Bible, or at least searching it. I would encourage you to read Romans and 1 & 2 Corinthians. Both deal with the anger, wrath and judgement of God that you proof-text here. And in both of them this is the central message: that God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not counting our sins against us. He is forgiving traitors and welcoming them into His family - at the cost of the death of His own Son.
  
  And in 1 Corinthians, you will find one of your conclusions echoed: "For the word of the cross [of Jesus] is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
  
  We who are Christians need to be more honest and straightfoward in saying this. Our faith is not a socially respectable one; it is either true, and gives meaning to all human existence, or it is is false and foolish. We hold it out to the world with confidence that the good news of Jesus IS true, even though it does not, and cannot, meet the criteria of scientific knowledge. That is the center of our living hope.

• 

  Graham commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Petition: Thank Politicians Who Say "No" to Creationists

  William, you have employed multiple techniques from rhetoric 101: the straw man, name calling and belittling, and topic avoidance. It is disingenuous to blame these things exclusively on those with whom you disagree. Indeed, this whole thread began in praise of those who have courage to disagree. Let's treat all of them with respect, not only those with whom we already agree; for that shows no courage at all.

• 

  Graham commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Petition: Thank Politicians Who Say "No" to Creationists

  Clay, thanks again for keeping the thread open, and apologize for the dig.
  
  Would you consider writing a separate post about respectful educational dialogue with folks who share fundamentally different assumptions? It seems like that is what is running beneath all of this - on both sides of the stream.
  
  Thanks again.
  
  Graham