t f p g+ YouTube icon

No Fear

Bookmark and Share

June 23, 2010 Tags: Education

Today's video features Os Guinness. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of BioLogos. You can read more about what we believe here.

In this video Conversation, Os Guinness discusses the need for bridging the gap between science and faith for a group that he calls the “missing middle”.  Guinness notes that this “missing middle” group needs intelligible, thoughtful, and practical ways to integrate their understanding of science and Christian faith.

Guinness notes that Christians should relate their faith to all sorts of issues, including science, and should have no fear of doing so.  Guinness quotes George Whitfield, who said, “[I’m] never better than when I’m on the full stretch for God.”  In the same way, Christians should feel confident when they find themselves "on the full stretch" in reconciling their understanding of science-and-faith issues, even if doing so appears at first to pose a threat their faith.     

Instead of being fearful of how to reconcile two seemingly disparate worldviews, believers must be confident in truths—scientific or otherwise—because all truth is God’s truth.

Commentary written by the BioLogos editorial team.

Os Guinness is an author, social critic, and founder of the Trinity Forum. He has been a guest scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies and a guest scholar and visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is a frequent speaker at political and business conferences around the world and has written or edited more than 25 books.

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Page 2 of 2   « 1 2
cranium - #19046

June 25th 2010

Comment removed by moderator.

merv - #19106

June 26th 2010

I think my prior post was clear about some of this, but just to reiterate:

to your question #1 above:  yes (black & white)

to #2:  yes (black & white)

to #3:  Gray, black, white, & rainbow all in a glorious mix: 
              in other words:  both / and;  huge middle playground

to #4:  (God / no God)  definitely black & white   (no middle ground)

I am fairly agile actually, though ‘athletic’ may be overstating it a bit.  I (& perhaps you too) get a fair amount of exercise jumping to conclusions! 


Rad - #19199

June 26th 2010

Cranium, merv’s been answering your questions for literally the past 20 posts.  you obviously aren’t able to understand where he is coming from.  and to be honest, it sounds like your attacking his and every other christian scientist’s (not the tom cruise kind) character and intellect.  and here’s a quick point about the boiling point analogy.  Its temperature is at boiling point because of the burner under it.  And Guess what else, someone turned the burner on.  Your lack of ability to comprehend the idea that God works through natural processes and your attack of everyone who does is getting somewhat annoying. 

cranium - #19201

June 26th 2010

Gees Rad, I think you’ve grabbed the wrong end of the stick! It appeared that there was a struggle for people to understand where I was coming from. And I am not attacking anyone, I am debating the topic. I’m not debating whether god exists or not.

Merv, it does appear that you have caught on to what I am trying to say.

Now, in regard to #3, this is where we diverge.

Sure, a scientist can say ‘these two roses cross-polinated to create a new species’ or ‘that planet’s moon was created by two object colliding and part fracturing off’., it wasn’t done by god reaching out, touching it and going ‘ping!’.

Yet if we look deeper, who created the roses? Who created planets? Or, for Red’s example, who created the person who turned on the burner?

That is the ultimate question - was it god or not? So as I said earlier, scientists can dabble. But ultimately, they have to choose between god or no god.

Therefore any ‘middle ground’ is illusory.

merv - #19206

June 26th 2010

Your last post here seems to hint that you’re open to God’s actions, but only at the “poof!” level.  As Rad suggests, I don’t think you understand where Christians who aren’t scared of science are coming from .... or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that you refuse to agree with it, whether you understand it or not.

I’ll simply add here, though, that I’m not saying every question always has middle ground (see my last posts).  But I’m saying some clearly do while you seem to be insisting there is no such thing as middle ground anywhere. apparently!  If you posture a statement along side its negation, then in a logical sense the middle-ground is removed.  But in the world of many camps of thought messily arguing about overlapping things, it makes little sense to pick two specific camps and pretend that everyone is only allowed to dwell in those two specific camps.


here to see the whole of the ‘Miracles & Science essay’ which already has its part 1 posted.  The last half of that essay elegantly lays out what I’m trying to help you understand.  His arguments may be lost on you as well.  But if you want to try, there it is.


merv - #19208

June 26th 2010

Sorry the link above didn’t work—-guess you would have to cut & paste or just find the same link where I got it at the top of the ‘Miracles and Science, Part 1’ thread.


cranium - #19226

June 27th 2010

‘Christians who aren’t scared of science’ are only holding the door ajar. They dare not open it fully. What hapens if they discover a non-god origin of the universe?

Like I said Merv, scientists with faith can dabble in scinece but there will always be that elephant in the room. What will happen in the ultimate chain of events?

The guys at Uncommon Descent, the Creation Museum and other places claim to be scientists too. Hm.

‘open to god’s actions’ - no, but that’s got nothing to do with the point of this topic.

Gregory - #19228

June 27th 2010

“What hapens if they discover a non-god origin of the universe?” - cranium

Which ‘non-god origin’ did you have in mind? Please be specific.

What could be original or ‘agently originate’ other than God (and inbreathed human-social action)?

Or were you using ‘origin’ as a verb rather than as a noun?

Christian scholars can say what ‘scientism’ means and what the dangers are. Can you, cranium? Or does it not (Kerouak, Madonna, Mettalica, Nietzsche, Camus, Zacharius, Solomon) even really matter?

Gregory - #19229

June 27th 2010

“I suggest you go back and read what I have said, again. All my comments have been in regard to the division between religion and science.” - cranium

What difference would it make in your own mind and in the eyes of readers if you did something like substitute ‘division’ in the above sentence with ‘relationship’?

Does ‘division’ have a more or less negative meaning than ‘relationship’?

cranium - #19249

June 27th 2010

Fell out of the pulpit did you Gregory?

‘Origin’ as a verb.

Well, christian scholars would consider it dangerous, wouldn’t they. Which one of several thousand references would you like as to its meaning?

Same sort of ‘relationship’ as Obama and Palin. I think that might be more accurately construed as ‘division’.

Merv - #19324

June 28th 2010

Many thinking Christians have taken to heart the lessons (beginning with Galileo) of the 17th, 18th, & 19th centuries and no longer try to set up artificial objections against “certain scientific outcomes” as being threatening to faith.  Other Christians back to Aquinas and even Augustine were already there long before modern science was on the scene.  There is nothing to fear about our study of origins because, as Gregory asked you, what could possibly be discovered about God’s world that “shoves God out?”.  Nothing.  If that is wrong, please provide the necessary counter-example (even a hypothetical one!)

For continued replies to your repeated challenges and queries, I will simply refer you back to this and all the previous posts.  As you re-state your contrary position, just go up and re-read my replies.  As near as I can tell you aren’t producing anything to support your points, but just re-stating what you’ve already declared to be true.  If you have a new thought, I’ll respond to it.

p.s. you said “The guys at Uncommon Descent, the Creation Museum and other places claim to be scientists too.”
If I claim to be a Rhodes Scholar, does that make me one?

cranium - #19347

June 28th 2010

What could be discovered? That the universe came into being by means other than god. What if the ‘big bang’ or some alternative is proven? Then where do scientists of faith stand, let alone anyone else. Ah, of course, you’ll just take it another step back along the chain won’t you. Yet the more science proves itself, the more noticeable is the absence of any empirical evidence for god.

From what I’ve observed of certain Rhodes Scholars Merv, you may not wish to claim to be one even if you were

Robert Byers - #19512

June 29th 2010

Well we biblical creationists say a good case has not been made. Thats why we exist as a organized movement. We are making our case.
Origin subjects are not science ones. Theories are not made but rather untested hypothesis are paraded about as theories like in actual science.
The great Henry Morris , creationisms Martin Luther, always said that origin issues from either camp were not testable in most of their claims. So not science. Yes they are subjects where conclusions can be made like in History scholarship from research and thinking. yet the scientific method is not applicable about past and gone processes.

Nope. there is not a mussy middle in these issues as the author of the thread said.
There is right and wrong and presumptions and processes to conclusions on that.
Historical Christianity and many modern Christians accept Genesis etc and many modern christians do not.
So its up to both sides to prove their case as far as can be done.
Right now creationism is driving in the pickets and firing soundly on the front lines of the evolution thumpers.
Its getting louder not quieter.

Page 2 of 2   « 1 2