GOD AND SCIENCE
Q1
A literal interpretation of the Scriptures is an old age way of reading the scriptures and finding meaning. Literal interpretation gives words their accurate meaning without consideration of any figurative nature involved. Schmidt, MacCormack, and Langer commonly agree that people need to abandon literal interpretation and use new approaches to deriving meaning from scripture. However, they all disagree on the nature of the religious language and the reforms needed. The three take on different approaches and reasoning as to the nature of language. A literal interpretation of scriptures is considered meaningless and makes it difficult to describe scripture writings. This paper looks at the different approaches undertaken by the three as regards the nature of the religious languages and the reforms needed. Typically, religious language refers to statements made that concerns God or gods. Literal interpretation and reforms are aimed at giving scriptures a different way of understanding and comprehension the scriptures.
Langer argues that communication is a product of symbolization. Symbols are the most effective way of communicating. Language has been the primary form of communication and was originally the main form of passing information. Langer focuses on the use of symbolism arguing that the mind is good at creating symbols most of the time. In opting for the use of figurative speech, Langer is devising a form of language that has been the best way of communication since time immemorial.
On the other hand, MacCormack argues that metaphor is the best tool to express scriptures, as it is a good and understandable way of communicating knowledge. MacCormack further reiterates that the use of metaphor creates precise meaning and helps express similarities. He further argues that it eliminates ambiguities. Considering that language primarily seeks to pass meaning of content, MacCormack stresses that metaphor offers the best way in which such knowledge and information can be understood. Differently, Schmidt argues that what is important is the purpose for which the meaning is used instead of the words used. In other words, Schmidt gives priority to the intention of the words instead of the objects itself. The difference in attitude by the three is vast and diverse. From the basis of the argument, it becomes rather difficult to find a common ground for the approaches. All the three approaches are based on the outcome or meaning of the scriptures or wording used.
Q 2
Several philosophers have given out their views and formed theories to address uniformity in nature that would eventually rule out miracles caused by God that would break the laws of nature. Bube uses the “God of the gaps” theory in which he argues that scientific knowledge are proof enough that God exists (Schroeder, 106). God used natural happening such as the weather, rains, and mobile objects to reach out to man and intercede in their lives. For instance, if an individual falls sick and heals miraculously, it was welcomed as God’s miracle. However, if the infected person goes for drugs from a doctor and recovers, it is attributed to the power of the human mind. The connection is, according to Bube, that people should view God from a Biblical point of view and the world as a separate object from Him. In relation to science and miracles, Einstein contends that everyone who involves himself in scientific pursuit eventually becomes influenced by the idea of a higher law of life, a being superior to man.
Einstein held that miracles are acts of excellent communications from God and are a clear manifestation of greater spirit than that of man. Miracles are ways of communication in which the superior spirits reach out and communicate to man. Einstein’s view is almost similar to Bube’s theory and way of thinking in which both of them appreciate the existence of a higher power capable to break out the principles of uniformity. With Einstein’s view, “that science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind” is a clear manifestation that Einstein rules out uniformity in nature (Schroeder, 189). In his view, science is possible and can conform to nature. On the other hand, Tillich believes that miracles showed revelation of the potentiality of a formed nature and linked with the mystery of God. In his view, miracles form part of God and are a clear manifestation of His supreme powers.
Tillich only acknowledges that, nothing in nature can rule out the worldly miracles brought about by God. Tillich’s theory is slightly different from that of Einstein as Tillich emphasizes on God manifesting himself through the miracles and is part of the created nature. Most explanations of the philosophers are a combination of both the supernatural and the natural explaining why their theories correlate. Smith and Spivey contend that signs and wonders indicate the presence of a supreme being, God, who is working on the universe. They believe that miracles are not in any way destructions of the natural laws of nature. They both contend that God’s mighty power is at work all the time in the universe although in more restrained ways. Their theory or believe tend to differ slightly from that of the other philosophers in that they put great emphasis on the presence of God in all actions.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|
Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]