In A Lift
Friday, September 29, 2006
Not very well argued, unfortunately.
Why Answered Prayer Will (Usually) Be Indistinguishable From Chance
Monday, September 25, 2006
Fulfilled prayer makes a wonderful testimony, but a bad apologetic. Mainly because when you pray "God help me find such a thing" or "God heal this person in Jesus' name" you usually don't get the answer you're hoping for. On the other hand, your prayer might be answered. But, you know, while it will be incredible for you, it won't really be for others. Fulfilled prayer is still a very subjective experience (objective fulfilment notwithstanding).
But don't despair if you've managed to find your long lost wallet after a week of hard prayer and looking, and nobody else thinks its so great.
Of course, that hardly means that finding your wallet isn't all that great. It's wonderful- you prayed to God, and now you've found it.
Cynically speaking, one wonders whether you would've found it with or without recourse to prayer.
We can say the same for healings of sicknesses or other things as well. We really can't know whether it was answered prayer or nature merely taking its course.
But such a distinction, I think, is not supportable by the Bible. As Ephesians 1:11 puts it:
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will
Also known as Providence, it is God's constant control over every single thing. So we really can't make a dichotomy (of sorts) between divine intervention and natural processes, because both are controlled by God. So miracles of Providence is what fulfilled prayers are.
So that's the reason answered prayers are usually indistinguishable from chance- because God uses "chance" to answer prayer.
Oh yeah...one other thing I learned and always keep in mind: God always answers prayer. It's just that it will be a yes, a no, or a not yet.
But don't despair if you've managed to find your long lost wallet after a week of hard prayer and looking, and nobody else thinks its so great.
Of course, that hardly means that finding your wallet isn't all that great. It's wonderful- you prayed to God, and now you've found it.
Cynically speaking, one wonders whether you would've found it with or without recourse to prayer.
We can say the same for healings of sicknesses or other things as well. We really can't know whether it was answered prayer or nature merely taking its course.
But such a distinction, I think, is not supportable by the Bible. As Ephesians 1:11 puts it:
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will
Also known as Providence, it is God's constant control over every single thing. So we really can't make a dichotomy (of sorts) between divine intervention and natural processes, because both are controlled by God. So miracles of Providence is what fulfilled prayers are.
So that's the reason answered prayers are usually indistinguishable from chance- because God uses "chance" to answer prayer.
Oh yeah...one other thing I learned and always keep in mind: God always answers prayer. It's just that it will be a yes, a no, or a not yet.
Some Observations...
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Maybe this can become something regular. I'm no expert on world affairs or politics or whatever. I do have the urge to comment on things happening once in a while.
One thing that amused me was Chavez's rant against George Bush. His ravings aside, now the Venezuelan President fears his death. Paranoia? Lunacy? I dunno. I'm laughing either way.
And another thing to note why peace in the Middle-East probably will not be achieved until Israel goes bye-bye.
I'm a right-winger when I like it and a left-winger when I don't feel like it. Does that make sense? (For the second time!)
Hopefully.
:P
One thing that amused me was Chavez's rant against George Bush. His ravings aside, now the Venezuelan President fears his death. Paranoia? Lunacy? I dunno. I'm laughing either way.
And another thing to note why peace in the Middle-East probably will not be achieved until Israel goes bye-bye.
I'm a right-winger when I like it and a left-winger when I don't feel like it. Does that make sense? (For the second time!)
Hopefully.
:P
Hmm...
I noticed most posts formatting (in their own post-pages) got a little screwy, with usually all the text being a link. Any ideas what's wrong?
Maybe it's me and my wonderful formatting that got back to me eventually. I'll never know :)
I do notice that the text reverts back to normal after a link in that post.
Maybe it's me and my wonderful formatting that got back to me eventually. I'll never know :)
I do notice that the text reverts back to normal after a link in that post.
I Liked The Old Condominium...
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Where I used to live...
I'll certainly miss it. It was very nice; the scenery especially.
Darwin, Dawkins (And All That)...
Friday, September 22, 2006
If you've been reading my blog for awhile now (and may I cynically add: which you most likely have not), you'd notice a lack of posts of evolution.
I have a tendency to rush into subjects I've just known for five minutes. Hopefully that doesn't occur nowadays.
Well, anyway, I've been really, really cautious about commenting on evolution, because I'm just really not that keen to comment on this area. Obviously because some parts of it are over my head, but mainly because I see this as the domain of expert scientists and philosophers, and I am neither.
But of course, some commentary must come out from me, now and then. Well, here's some.
I've recently read Dawkins Blind Watchmaker and...was I convinced? Nope, but he made a very, very good argument. But may I say it's nothing but sophistry? I suppose maybe it's just me not being convinced, whereas others are. But it would take a naive layman to think Dawkins has made a factual case. I think that people will be more taken up with the stories Dawkins tells (they are good, they are coherent) than the facts about his stories, as they are. Maybe you might be convinced as he tells us about the evolution of the eye, but then again, the structure of the eye is something that takes a molecular biologist to fully understand. And most of us certainly aren't one.
Again, I suppose it's nothing but brick headedness on my part. But do excuse me if I don't jump for joy everytime I see Dawkins jumping into another "explanation" and say "Right on!", because it certainly is much deeper than a Darwinian story.
But that's just one book, by one author. But then again, Michael Ruse said that if you're not convinced after reading this book, you'll never be. I suppose I'll never be, or maybe I might be after I've done enough reading.
In fact I've read very few stuff from the other side. The creationist and ID sides, that is. No books (maybe one, but that's more on the philosophy of naturalism), and some articles only.
It will be a long time, as I've only started. Maybe after reading all those evo-devo books I can get my hands on, and comparing them with the critiques, then maybe I can draw a conclusion and a solid position.
But until then...
Maybe until then.
Did that make sense?
P.S.- I actually have read more stuff on sociobiology than evo biology. I find the former way more interesting.
=)
I have a tendency to rush into subjects I've just known for five minutes. Hopefully that doesn't occur nowadays.
Well, anyway, I've been really, really cautious about commenting on evolution, because I'm just really not that keen to comment on this area. Obviously because some parts of it are over my head, but mainly because I see this as the domain of expert scientists and philosophers, and I am neither.
But of course, some commentary must come out from me, now and then. Well, here's some.
I've recently read Dawkins Blind Watchmaker and...was I convinced? Nope, but he made a very, very good argument. But may I say it's nothing but sophistry? I suppose maybe it's just me not being convinced, whereas others are. But it would take a naive layman to think Dawkins has made a factual case. I think that people will be more taken up with the stories Dawkins tells (they are good, they are coherent) than the facts about his stories, as they are. Maybe you might be convinced as he tells us about the evolution of the eye, but then again, the structure of the eye is something that takes a molecular biologist to fully understand. And most of us certainly aren't one.
Again, I suppose it's nothing but brick headedness on my part. But do excuse me if I don't jump for joy everytime I see Dawkins jumping into another "explanation" and say "Right on!", because it certainly is much deeper than a Darwinian story.
But that's just one book, by one author. But then again, Michael Ruse said that if you're not convinced after reading this book, you'll never be. I suppose I'll never be, or maybe I might be after I've done enough reading.
In fact I've read very few stuff from the other side. The creationist and ID sides, that is. No books (maybe one, but that's more on the philosophy of naturalism), and some articles only.
It will be a long time, as I've only started. Maybe after reading all those evo-devo books I can get my hands on, and comparing them with the critiques, then maybe I can draw a conclusion and a solid position.
But until then...
Maybe until then.
Did that make sense?
P.S.- I actually have read more stuff on sociobiology than evo biology. I find the former way more interesting.
=)
