Things Are Not as They Seem: Defense and Vindication of Theism and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Connection with Philosophy and History and with Special Reference to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Dr. Ivey: I read your chapter 3 and what an in-depth primer you provide the reader here. This is not for the layman Christian. This is the more intellectual/cerebral bent. What does hold you back are the long paragraphs and the inadequate pitches. You can do better there. Good solid prose for this entry. BACKED!

I can use your comments on my book when you get the chance. Cheers!

JC
The Obergemau Key

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

Hi James, I think your line “I respect your opinions; they are different from mine, however” sums it up well. I know that you “don't say anything here with disdain, condescension, ridicule, or sarcasm”. Me neither, but for what it’s worth, here’s my two cents worth! Your book is a venture into “Christian Apologetics.” Therefore your intention is to defend Christianity against… That is the question. Some focus on Islam, some on militant Atheism, some on Evolutionism, etc. Your book seems to focus on generic brand Americans (by which I mean those who primarily have a Secular Humanistic worldview, that we might call Agnostic. Now, (and this is where my opinion is different to yours), correct me if I am wrong, you wish to win over these unbelievers by showing them the evidence for God (especially in the realm or at the level of quantum mechanics). Therefore your approach to Christian Apologetics is of the “Evidentialist” variety – nothing wrong with that per se. However, my own approach is “Presuppositionalist”. That is where I am coming from when I look at your book. If I have understood you correctly (though I’m now not sure that I have), you have presupposed (contrary to the Bible’s internal evidence) eg, that Moses did not write the book of Deuteronomy. Fair enough, I’m sure the reader would like to know why you think this when so many of us Christians think that the Bible (internally) clearly states that Moses is it author. Though, keep in mind that we believe that Moses had in his person writings that survived the Flood (such as the toledoth or “the genealogy of Adam” Gen. 5:1).
This brings me to my main point which, as I mentioned to you before, has to do with theology. Yes, fallible humans wrote the Bible, but the Bible says that they “were moved by the Holy Spirit” and that “all Scripture is God breathed” (2 Pet. 1:21 & 2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore each of the human authors got it 100% correct (and not just mostly correct, and that we humans must decide which bits of the Bible are wrong). You seem to me to be suggesting that we need to pick and choose from the Bible when you say that the Scriptures are “infallible in general principles”. Eg, nowhere does the Bible give us any impression that human beings are 1 to 2 million years in existence. Sure, we can talk about the supposed age of the universe on account of starlight and the speed of light, but we are not talking about stars but rather you and me and our ancestors. Jesus speaks of our first parents Adam and Eve as being created in the beginning of creation (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). I suppose I’d better “bottom line” this letter otherwise so as not to waste too much more of your time! Yes, I read the whole of your book rather quickly. I am now going through it a bit more slowly. Why? Because you have lots of valuable nuggets of information therein. Do I agree with the overall premise of your book? Well, I need to qualify my tentative “yes” answer. Your book comes across as an apologetic for Theistic Evolution rather than Christianity. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Theistic Evolution seeks to marry the teachings of the Bible with Evolutionary Theory. In other words the Evolutionists presuppositions are used for interpreting the Bible. However, it seems to me that Christian Apologetics should be about defending Christian Philosophy and Christian Theology rather than defending Evolutionary Philosophy. Sure, (in Scripture) God condescends to talk to us in language we humans can relate to. No, He doesn’t use the language of the Quantum Physicist (thank God!) However, He did give us the Scriptures because we are fallen creatures and as such we “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. Therefore, when we study the sun, the moon and the stars, when we study things at a quantum level, when we study anything in His creation, we ought to do so by using the Scriptures as our spectacles (Calvin). Otherwise, we will continue to be biased and lean on our own understanding rather than on God’s revelation to fallen men such as you and me. I would like to see your book defend the Triune God even at the quantum level. In other words, and as you are alleging in your book, even Quantum Physics is revelation of the Triune God – every bit as much as the sun, the moon and the stars (Psa. 19) or the birds and animals (Gen. 2:19) or the trees, birds, animals, creeping things, and fish (1 Kings 4:33). Dr. Ivey, you’re nearly there (at least with me!), but work hard at getting your readers excited about the discovery of the revelation of triune God found at the quantum level. But please, let the Triune God speaking in His Word be your only guide! Sorry if I have come across as too harsh in the above, I don’t mean to… Every blessing upon you and yours, Neil Cullan McKinlay.

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

Great Material! I will be using some of this in my life! Very applicable and easy to read! Thank you!

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

Dear James,

I have read a bit of chapters 10-15 and here bellow are some of my deductions:

“Common sense is a major part of the New Covenant of the New Testament …” - Wow. No doubt. The mosaics needed know this. Unfortunately, they failed to.

“Christianity the Most Attractive Faith … On the other hand, when we note that those who are against Jesus are emphatically so, we accumulate more evidence yet for His credibility” – paradoxically true, which you have gone on to prove your assertion with “The greater the person, the more pronounced are both the yea and nay opinions with regard to that person=s credibility and the more the person is either liked or disliked with no shades of gray in this respect.”


Yours on John 3:16, “… it seems that beauty inevitably and always accompanies truth; this passage is also simple” – is credible.

With my mind of your said Both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking of expressing a desire to explore the mind of God, I am found of asking too many questions regarding the scriptures. Lately, while asking the pastor of my local church about a scriptural paradox, the pastor snapped, “If you want to understand God, you will loose your mind; and if you don’t submit to God, you will loose your soul. I already thankful that even with the little that I have in your “Things Are Not as They Seem: How Science, Philosophy, and History, Particularly Modern Physics, Are Leading Us Back to the Bible”, a lot of my unrelenting scriptural questions are asked. May God bless for this piece of work.

James, whatever you have scripted down, is as heavy as lead that only little at time needs to be sipped.

I will read on.

JULIUS B [Destined to Triumph]

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

QUOTE] I think many people out there that don't believe in God should read this. In this day and time disbelief seems to be everywhere, but I don't stress. they will all know how wrong they were very soon. Great start. I'm giving high stars. Best of luck
Jennie Lyne Hiott
Hearts and Lies

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

There is good advice and wisdom in your book and I love the title.

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

New Christian Apologetics. James - I see I last looked at your book over three months ago. I continued the read.

Ch.2. I love the way you point out the assumption of some individuals that we modern people are more intelligent than those who lived thousands of years ago, in spite of the fact that, by their own admission, evolution is a very slow-going process. Wish I could think of such clever retorts when someone challenges me - but then it's not about repartee, is it.
Perhaps you could put each point as a seperate paragraph.
Maybe you should deal with the triangle proof. I have a feeling I'd relate to that example better. We all have different types of minds, and your book is so important, you should cater for all.
I'm so glad I KNOW the truth absolutely within myself without having recourse to arguments.
Your description of the very best thing possible for cognitive individuals speaks to me much better than the bandied-about word of 'heaven'.

There are some editorial nits and typos to be ironed out in the text. Have you discovered The Impeccable Editor on this site? The book is on my shelf, and I've bought an hour of excellent professional advice (6 pages!). There's no way I can afford to have my whole book done, but I've learned enough to enable me to make improvements down the line.

I love the Galileo saying.

Dont you mean Hawking expresses his belief that a First Cause IS needed for the Universe to be able to exist, and he implies that he would be satisfied with the theory OF the Arche, were there enough evidence in its favour... Or have I misunderstood?

Your work makes so much sense to the non-scientific mi9nd. And I'd love it if you lightened the journey with more fun tales like that of the turtle.

You have two mays in the first sentence of the Contents of Conscience.
I dont think you need all those he/shes and his/hers.

Please tell the professor story in proper format, giving each speaker a separate line in the dialogue.

And you really need to have shorter chapters - I have to stop now!

I'm maxi-starring you again, and will have to find a place for you on my shelf some time or other.

Jane. (Breath of Africa).

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

a fascinating book with an amazing title [almost a book on its own]. set out well and a must read for all...
backed with six stars...
read SEASONS...

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

Okay, Jim, I finally got round to reading your chapter 2, on the comparison of faiths. This is a very erudite and scholarly analysis, with a worthy central precept: respect for individuals of all faiths, regardless of the faith itself. This is something I subscribe to too. As to the subject of Buddhism, well, there are a couple of fundamental misconceptions that I would humbly like to correct. First, the historical Buddha taught over a period of some 50 years, and a lot of his earlier teachings - like the 4 Noble Truths and the extinction of passion/desire - gave way to deeper (Mahayana) teachings which essentially said that a) everyone has Buddha/God within them; b) happiness or Buddhahood could be achieved in a single lifetime (so no need for reincarnation); and c) it could be achieved not by extinguishing desire (or denying life) but by transforming these desires into enlightenment (through action-based human revolution). His final teaching, the Lotus Sutra, taught additionally that Buddhahood WAS life, and that it could only be attained through love and respect for oneself and others in equal measure. In short, Jesus's message exactly, except that in modern-day Buddhism (cf Soka Gakkai - Nichiren Buddhism) there are no priests, no temples, and no rules/laws except a fundamental respect for Life.

I enjoyed reading this, and will definitely shelve at some point. The fact that you shelved ME, Jim, is demonstration of a man who lives his words. Respect for other faiths indeed!

6 stars, and blessings.

Joe Kovacs
Rupee Millionaires

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

What a precious piece of writing. You must have done a lot of research and spent hours writing - for every line is powerful and believable (for me at least). I was reminded of the writing of Tozer and Francis Schaefer. Well done. This is a book for a serious scholar/seeker and I hope others come by to read your work.
Blessings
jennifer

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

I always enter into reading books like this with a bit of trepidation. Some of them attempt to prove that God exists while others try to explain that he doesn’t. But all of them I’ve experienced so far (until now) take a combative approach to their point-making which threatens to alienate even those who somewhat agree with their philosophy, much less those on the opposite side of thought.

Things Are Not as They Seem: Defense and Vindication of Theism and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Connection with Philosophy and History and with Special Reference to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is different. This is more of a study guide for those who are trying to determine if God exists, are searching for proof, and want to know what it would mean in their life to come to that conclusion. Science, often painted as the enemy of Christianity, is used here to help explain and prove the existence of a higher power. It’s a fascinating position put forward by author James F. Ivey, M.D. and had me really diving in and considering matters of faith. And it was done in a very neutral, light handed way that never triggered my “you are being manipulated” senses.

I think a simplification of the title is probably in order if the author wants to get more people to read this excellent tome. Something on the order of “God and Jesus in Science and History” might bring in more readers, which would be a noble goal for a powerful work like this.

John Breeden II
Old Number Seven

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

Nicely done! Where I have tentatively stuck my toe in the water with my The Four Pillars of the Kingdom, you have dove headfirst into Plantinga/Craig territory. I will read more In days to come and most likely back.

Joe Brooks
The Four Pillars of the Kingdom

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

It is clear that this text is extremely well-written, well-researched and extremely contemplative.
Although biassed toward a certain viewpoint, as philosophical works tend to be, the book is not forceful or judgemental; it does not disparage the reader that does not agree with the viewpoint it promotes.

I confess that I have only read a small amount of your work, for the simple reason that I fear myself being drawn into a time-consuming debate. I am an atheist and cannot resist a philosophical discussion, few of which have a timely end. I find that theists (of any creed) and atheists can both raise many valid points, but that, in the end, belief always comes down to personal opinion and predisposition rather than empirical evidence or logical examination.

I applaud your work and the style in which it is written, and wish you the best with it. Perhaps in a couple of months, after the business of my wedding has passed, I will have some time to revisit your book and see what discussion arises!

I'd like to offer a few pointers for your pitch. Take them or leave them!:

“We begin to consider that Christianity may be the answer to our most ultimate questions, especially in that it correlates well with philosophy, physics, and history.”
I would rephrase this ‘we begin by considering whether…’ or ‘the book begins by demonstrating that…’
The ‘most’ in ‘our most ultimate questions’ is redundant. The ultimate questions are final, total and beyond limit, as per the definition of ‘ultimate’.


“We see that faith is crucial, that we can have it for entirely logical and rational reasons, and that it has several aspects. We see that science supports Christianity more than it opposes. We see that science cannot account for the very Beginning. We see that we have little knowledge, but much belief, that we have great know-how but little understanding. We imagine what kind of God would be most likely to exist and find that the God of the Christian Bible fits our ideas well. We note that the effect Jesus had on history is what we might expect if God came to earth. We note how difficult it must be for God to reveal Himself while allowing us to think for ourselves. We think big and discover that things are not as they seem, that our senses do not show us ultimate reality. We try to think timelessly because God is not in time. We find that mind subordinates matter.”

I would replace your first ‘we see’ with ‘the book will demonstrate’, and each following ‘we see’ or ‘we note’ with ‘it will demonstrate’ or ‘it will establish’. In place of ‘we think big’ and ‘we try to think timelessly’ I would write ‘the book will encourage the reader to “think big”’ and ‘It encourages the reader to think timelessly’. I would replace ‘we find’ with ‘it will show’.

I hope you find this helpful.
Many thanks for your backing.

David Southam
Author of The Keeper of the Sightless Eye

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

Dear Dr. Ivey your book is so marvellous that i have nothing to say except that its an excellent work that is well written, well researched and contemplative. Highly Rated and on my WL for backing in near future. I will be reading more of your book and will learn a lot from it.

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

The topics you've chosen to write about are usually thought of as separate topics and read about in isolation of each other. I applaud your attempt to include them all into a single book. There are definite connections between physics, quantum machanics, christianity, the mind and our reasoning capacity, and everything else you're connecting. The book will be a hard sell because it is difficult to follow and there is little rest before the reader is asked to move on to another idea. Nevertheless I've added the book to my watchlist. My favorite quote so far is "the ultimate reality lies in the realm of being". I wholeheartedly agree. This idea is very healing for those that can grasp it and I'm grateful for your consciousness of it. goldfromstraw (new member, book yet to be uploaded)

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

Dear James,
Your book is beautifully written and presented, for the person with the intellect and time to read it. Congratulations on the work you have done, the wealth of research and knowledge you have gained, and more especially the fact that you live what you preach, which is attested to by the stability and faith of your family and extended family. It is not a book that I can back I'm sorry, but only because I believe you would have a fairly limited audience in this day and age, since there are comparatively few who would take the time and effort to read and study a book of this nature. Zondervan are open to submissions of academic reference books and resources for professional ministers and students of theological colleges. Perhaps it would be worth making a direct submission.
I do hope you will take the time to look at THE GOD PLEASERS, which is written for a very different audience, but, I believe, is a useful tool for Christians also.

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

James,
I found your book absolutely fascinating. I can't pretend I understood it all (!) but I think I deciphered enough to be blown away in places. Your knowledge is amazing and I think a book like this is much needed, to strike a balance against the plethora of books trying to disprove intelligent design.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
Melissa
Lessons in the Dark

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

Thanks for the messsage so very kind of you James. You know I love a good intellectual discussion and writings about science as it says on my google profile, and always found these things interesting. I know that there will be a huge audience I have no doubt for many of the philosopical and conclusive and even inconclusive theories and facts along the way as science and religion merge. I wish you the best, well written and thought provoking on many levels, also intriguing and heartfelt.
Saera
The Wizard Of Crescent Keep

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

Hi James,

I am not the scholarly type in the least bit, but I am methodical. So I started reading your first chapter with the thought that I should jump ahead to chapter two to get the nitty gritty of your book. But because of my need to follow the natural order of things, I did read chapter one, and to tell you the truth, I’m glad I did. There were quite a few things that I found very enlightening and beneficial to strengthening my faith in Jesus.

First let me say, I know formatting a book on Authonomy does not lend itself to the eye-catching appeal and simplicity that a hard-bound book can offer. Still, I could imagine your first chapter being split up into its various sections separated with blank pages or title pages. I suppose you could do this on Authonomy as well on they would have to be separate chapters.

I am glad you included a glossary. I’m almost embarrassed to say that I never understood what quantum meant, but now I do, thanks to you!

I appreciated your orientation and preface section, taking care not to offend readers of other faiths and views by apologizing for the actions of weaker and less mature brothers and sisters of the Christian faith. At the same time you make no apologies for the work of Jesus Christ or the faith and call He has placed on your life

Your personal experience and profession gives strength to what you have to say, especially in regards to the science and the spiritual realms colliding. It was beautiful to see how God has blessed you and your family with protection. I could relate so well…

I loved your Shortcomings, Dilemmas, and Charge of Christians section – humbling, confirming, and challenging. James, your work is a well thought out, convincing, non-exclusive statement of your faith. Your respect for God and his highest creation is what gives your writing and humble view clout. You make me proud to be called a Christian. Six stars!

Dianna Lanser
Nothing But The Blood

I now have a second book on Authonomy. James Apologist

Dr. Ivey,
You got my attention. I backed your book after reading the intro. It looks like a deep read. I expect it will take a while to get through it. Thank you for offering it up. If you get time, feel free to read my Chronicles of the Mind, Parables and Possibilities. It is much shorter than yours, with short chapters.
Jim Gilliam

I now have a second book on Authonomy . James Apologist

Dr. Ivey,
You got my attention. I backed your book after reading the intro. It looks like a deep read. I expect it will take a while to get through it. Thank you for offering it up. If you get time, feel free to read my Chronicles of the Mind, Parables and Possibilities. It is much shorter than yours, with short chapters.
Jim Gilliam

Hi James,

I am not the scholarly type in the least bit, but I am methodical. So I started reading your first chapter with the thought that I should jump ahead to chapter two to get the nitty gritty of your book. But because of my need to follow the natural order of things, I did read chapter one, and to tell you the truth, I’m glad I did. There were quite a few things that I found very enlightening and beneficial to strengthening my faith in Jesus.

First let me say, I know formatting a book on Authonomy does not lend itself to the eye-catching appeal and simplicity that a hard-bound book can offer. Still, I could imagine your first chapter being split up into its various sections separated with blank pages or title pages. I suppose you could do this on Authonomy as well on they would have to be separate chapters.

I am glad you included a glossary. I’m almost embarrassed to say that I never understood what quantum meant, but now I do, thanks to you!

I appreciated your orientation and preface section, taking care not to offend readers of other faiths and views by apologizing for the actions of weaker and less mature brothers and sisters of the Christian faith. At the same time you make no apologies for the work of Jesus Christ or the faith and call He has placed on your life

Your personal experience and profession gives strength to what you have to say, especially in regards to the science and the spiritual realms colliding. It was beautiful to see how God has blessed you and your family with protection. I could relate so well…

I loved your Shortcomings, Dilemmas, and Charge of Christians section – humbling, confirming, and challenging. James, your work is a well thought out, convincing, non-exclusive statement of your faith. Your respect for God and his highest creation is what gives your writing and humble view clout. You make me proud to be called a Christian. Six stars!

Dianna Lanser
Nothing But The Blood

Thanks for the messsage so very kind of you James. You know I love a good intellectual discussion and writings about science as it says on my google profile, and always found these things interesting. I know that there will be a huge audience I have no doubt for many of the philosopical and conclusive and even inconclusive theories and facts along the way as science and religion merge. I wish you the best, well written and thought provoking on many levels, also intriguing and heartfelt.
Saera
The Wizard Of Crescent Keep

James,
I found your book absolutely fascinating. I can't pretend I understood it all (!) but I think I deciphered enough to be blown away in places. Your knowledge is amazing and I think a book like this is much needed, to strike a balance against the plethora of books trying to disprove intelligent design.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
Melissa
Lessons in the Dark

Dear James,
Your book is beautifully written and presented, for the person with the intellect and time to read it. Congratulations on the work you have done, the wealth of research and knowledge you have gained, and more especially the fact that you live what you preach, which is attested to by the stability and faith of your family and extended family. It is not a book that I can back I'm sorry, but only because I believe you would have a fairly limited audience in this day and age, since there are comparatively few who would take the time and effort to read and study a book of this nature. Zondervan are open to submissions of academic reference books and resources for professional ministers and students of theological colleges. Perhaps it would be worth making a direct submission.
I do hope you will take the time to look at THE GOD PLEASERS, which is written for a very different audience, but, I believe, is a useful tool for Christians also.

The topics you've chosen to write about are usually thought of as separate topics and read about in isolation of each other. I applaud your attempt to include them all into a single book. There are definite connections between physics, quantum machanics, christianity, the mind and our reasoning capacity, and everything else you're connecting. The book will be a hard sell because it is difficult to follow and there is little rest before the reader is asked to move on to another idea. Nevertheless I've added the book to my watchlist. My favorite quote so far is "the ultimate reality lies in the realm of being". I wholeheartedly agree. This idea is very healing for those that can grasp it and I'm grateful for your consciousness of it. goldfromstraw (new member, book yet to be uploaded)

I REALLY appreciate your kind words, Adeel, especially after what I wrote to you. I do feel you would profit by some work on writing technique, but that does not mean I think I am wonderful in this respect. I definitely have a ways to go. The main thing I intend to do is read my work out loud and see how it sounds re flown and smoothness and how it makes a person feel in general. Thank you again and more later. Jim James Apologist. Dr. Ivey your book is so marvellous that i have nothing to say except that its an excellent work that is well written, well researched and contemplative. Highly Rated and on my WL for backing in near future. I will be reading more of your book and will learn a lot from it.

Dear Dr. Ivey your book is so marvellous that i have nothing to say except that its an excellent work that is well written, well researched and contemplative. Highly Rated and on my WL for backing in near future. I will be reading more of your book and will learn a lot from it.

The book is on my WL for reading and backing. I will come back with my comments in next couple of days.

Your comments are excellent, and I may very well utilize all of them. Thank you, David. I have a second book that is better than the first. It is on the same subject and is not quite complete. Jim (James Apologist)

It is clear that this text is extremely well-written, well-researched and extremely contemplative.
Although biassed toward a certain viewpoint, as philosophical works tend to be, the book is not forceful or judgemental; it does not disparage the reader that does not agree with the viewpoint it promotes.

I confess that I have only read a small amount of your work, for the simple reason that I fear myself being drawn into a time-consuming debate. I am an atheist and cannot resist a philosophical discussion, few of which have a timely end. I find that theists (of any creed) and atheists can both raise many valid points, but that, in the end, belief always comes down to personal opinion and predisposition rather than empirical evidence or logical examination.

I applaud your work and the style in which it is written, and wish you the best with it. Perhaps in a couple of months, after the business of my wedding has passed, I will have some time to revisit your book and see what discussion arises!

I'd like to offer a few pointers for your pitch. Take them or leave them!:

“We begin to consider that Christianity may be the answer to our most ultimate questions, especially in that it correlates well with philosophy, physics, and history.”
I would rephrase this ‘we begin by considering whether…’ or ‘the book begins by demonstrating that…’
The ‘most’ in ‘our most ultimate questions’ is redundant. The ultimate questions are final, total and beyond limit, as per the definition of ‘ultimate’.


“We see that faith is crucial, that we can have it for entirely logical and rational reasons, and that it has several aspects. We see that science supports Christianity more than it opposes. We see that science cannot account for the very Beginning. We see that we have little knowledge, but much belief, that we have great know-how but little understanding. We imagine what kind of God would be most likely to exist and find that the God of the Christian Bible fits our ideas well. We note that the effect Jesus had on history is what we might expect if God came to earth. We note how difficult it must be for God to reveal Himself while allowing us to think for ourselves. We think big and discover that things are not as they seem, that our senses do not show us ultimate reality. We try to think timelessly because God is not in time. We find that mind subordinates matter.”

I would replace your first ‘we see’ with ‘the book will demonstrate’, and each following ‘we see’ or ‘we note’ with ‘it will demonstrate’ or ‘it will establish’. In place of ‘we think big’ and ‘we try to think timelessly’ I would write ‘the book will encourage the reader to “think big”’ and ‘It encourages the reader to think timelessly’. I would replace ‘we find’ with ‘it will show’.

I hope you find this helpful.
Many thanks for your backing.

David Southam
Author of The Keeper of the Sightless Eye

It is clear that this text is extremely well-written, well-researched and extremely contemplative.
Although biassed toward a certain viewpoint, as philosophical works tend to be, the book is not forceful or judgemental; it does not disparage the reader that does not agree with the viewpoint it promotes.

I confess that I have only read a small amount of your work, for the simple reason that I fear myself being drawn into a time-consuming debate. I am an atheist and cannot resist a philosophical discussion, few of which have a timely end. I find that theists (of any creed) and atheists can both raise many valid points, but that, in the end, belief always comes down to personal opinion and predisposition rather than empirical evidence or logical examination.

I applaud your work and the style in which it is written, and wish you the best with it. Perhaps in a couple of months, after the business of my wedding has passed, I will have some time to revisit your book and see what discussion arises!

I'd like to offer a few pointers for your pitch. Take them or leave them!:

“We begin to consider that Christianity may be the answer to our most ultimate questions, especially in that it correlates well with philosophy, physics, and history.”
I would rephrase this ‘we begin by considering whether…’ or ‘the book begins by demonstrating that…’
The ‘most’ in ‘our most ultimate questions’ is redundant. The ultimate questions are final, total and beyond limit, as per the definition of ‘ultimate’.


“We see that faith is crucial, that we can have it for entirely logical and rational reasons, and that it has several aspects. We see that science supports Christianity more than it opposes. We see that science cannot account for the very Beginning. We see that we have little knowledge, but much belief, that we have great know-how but little understanding. We imagine what kind of God would be most likely to exist and find that the God of the Christian Bible fits our ideas well. We note that the effect Jesus had on history is what we might expect if God came to earth. We note how difficult it must be for God to reveal Himself while allowing us to think for ourselves. We think big and discover that things are not as they seem, that our senses do not show us ultimate reality. We try to think timelessly because God is not in time. We find that mind subordinates matter.”

I would replace your first ‘we see’ with ‘the book will demonstrate’, and each following ‘we see’ or ‘we note’ with ‘it will demonstrate’ or ‘it will establish’. In place of ‘we think big’ and ‘we try to think timelessly’ I would write ‘the book will encourage the reader to “think big”’ and ‘It encourages the reader to think timelessly’. I would replace ‘we find’ with ‘it will show’.

I hope you find this helpful.
Many thanks for your backing.

David Southam
Author of The Keeper of the Sightless Eye

Nicely done! Where I have tentatively stuck my toe in the water with my The Four Pillars of the Kingdom, you have dove headfirst into Plantinga/Craig territory. I will read more In days to come and most likely back.

Joe Brooks
The Four Pillars of the Kingdom

I always enter into reading books like this with a bit of trepidation. Some of them attempt to prove that God exists while others try to explain that he doesn’t. But all of them I’ve experienced so far (until now) take a combative approach to their point-making which threatens to alienate even those who somewhat agree with their philosophy, much less those on the opposite side of thought.

Things Are Not as They Seem: Defense and Vindication of Theism and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Connection with Philosophy and History and with Special Reference to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is different. This is more of a study guide for those who are trying to determine if God exists, are searching for proof, and want to know what it would mean in their life to come to that conclusion. Science, often painted as the enemy of Christianity, is used here to help explain and prove the existence of a higher power. It’s a fascinating position put forward by author James F. Ivey, M.D. and had me really diving in and considering matters of faith. And it was done in a very neutral, light handed way that never triggered my “you are being manipulated” senses.

I think a simplification of the title is probably in order if the author wants to get more people to read this excellent tome. Something on the order of “God and Jesus in Science and History” might bring in more readers, which would be a noble goal for a powerful work like this.

John Breeden II
Old Number Seven

What a precious piece of writing. You must have done a lot of research and spent hours writing - for every line is powerful and believable (for me at least). I was reminded of the writing of Tozer and Francis Schaefer. Well done. This is a book for a serious scholar/seeker and I hope others come by to read your work.
Blessings
jennifer

Okay, Jim, I finally got round to reading your chapter 2, on the comparison of faiths. This is a very erudite and scholarly analysis, with a worthy central precept: respect for individuals of all faiths, regardless of the faith itself. This is something I subscribe to too. As to the subject of Buddhism, well, there are a couple of fundamental misconceptions that I would humbly like to correct. First, the historical Buddha taught over a period of some 50 years, and a lot of his earlier teachings - like the 4 Noble Truths and the extinction of passion/desire - gave way to deeper (Mahayana) teachings which essentially said that a) everyone has Buddha/God within them; b) happiness or Buddhahood could be achieved in a single lifetime (so no need for reincarnation); and c) it could be achieved not by extinguishing desire (or denying life) but by transforming these desires into enlightenment (through action-based human revolution). His final teaching, the Lotus Sutra, taught additionally that Buddhahood WAS life, and that it could only be attained through love and respect for oneself and others in equal measure. In short, Jesus's message exactly, except that in modern-day Buddhism (cf Soka Gakkai - Nichiren Buddhism) there are no priests, no temples, and no rules/laws except a fundamental respect for Life.

I enjoyed reading this, and will definitely shelve at some point. The fact that you shelved ME, Jim, is demonstration of a man who lives his words. Respect for other faiths indeed!

6 stars, and blessings.

Joe Kovacs
Rupee Millionaires

This work has elements of brilliance but I personally think it needs editing into a more accessible format. At the moment it reads too much like an academic thesis to be a popular choice for most. However, it is a thought provoking testament and if it were shorter, with fewer quotes and references and more people could easily relate to, I would have been tempted beyond chapter 3. But then I am not of a scientific bent, neither am I religious (yet not godless) so it did well to take me thus far. I would find some of the arguments more convincing if they were not interspersed so frequently with declarations of the writer’s strong Christian faith. I want to be convinced and informed by arguments linking science, philosophy and God without being reminded so much of the author’s personal view; I know what he believes.
Having spent years on my own book- ‘The Eternal Circle’ and still editing, I appreciate the thought and labour that has gone into this. Backed

I return from Amsterdam tomorrow night, James. Will check out your chapter then - look forward to exchanging views.

Joe

a fascinating book with an amazing title [almost a book on its own]. set out well and a must read for all...
backed with six stars...
read SEASONS...

Hello Bill -- Thank you for your comment. I truly appreciate it. I do have some feelings that are, however, different from yours. First, though, thanks for pointing out the math error. I know that very well – must have been working half asleep, or had a senior moment.
Excellent point re narcissism; I obviously didn't think of it.
Thanks also re pointing out the typo re Eddington.
I will take a look at what I wrote about Aristotle. I didn't mean to promote him. I am much more a fan of Plato. However, Aristotle practically was the entire curriculum of the early universities, from about 1100 until about 1500. Perhaps he did not understand what we call the scientific method today, but he began the development of it. I think that his living 2400 years ago is good reason to cut him some slack; he did pretty well considering he was the ultimate beginner of the whole scientific process (Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes were sort of "pre-beginners.") He had virtually nothing in the way of shoulders to stand on. Thomas Aquinas certainly thought a lot of him.
I am a conservative Christian, but I'll stick with my ideas re Gandhi and others of his ilk (of which there are practically none). In John 3:17-21, we see, "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest this deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light , that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." I don't think this basically fits Gandhi. I don't think he categorically rejected Jesus; he admired Him, but he no doubt saw Him as the God of the oppressors and could not do anything that placed him in any way in their camp. I don't think Gandhi loved darkness or that his deeds were evil. My main point is that I think it most conservative to believe that Jesus can do what he pleases regardless of our doctrine. Who are we to tell Him who is damned? He knew/knows Gandhi's heart, and He is merciful. I will not say Gandhi is not damned; that is up to Jesus. It appears to me, however, that he is a prime candidate for Jesus' making an exception, and I believe Jesus is great enough to be able to make an exception. G. may not even need an exception as, again, you and I do not know his heart as Jesus did and does.
I do not, ever, renounce Christianity. The books to which you refer may have been written by those who were interested in the welfare of the British Empire even though it was, in some ways, oppressive. Even Churchill, with Einstein one of the two greatest men of the 20th century and possibly the greatest statesman ever, thought Ghandi was a nut case. I do not in any way believe in salvation by works, but I do believe Jesus can do as He pleases with regard to salvation.

Hi, There is a BIG PROBLEM with # 41 in your introduction. 10 to the -2 power = 1/100 NOT minus 100, 10 to the -3 power = 1/1000, not minus 1000. (10 to the -1 power = 1/10).

On more of a nit-pik, Narcissists are people who adore themselves, but they might also be sociable. They don't have to be isolated. Look at Bill Clinton. Look at a lot of politicians, movie stars, CEOs etc. O. J. Simpson's problem was self-adoration, which led to homicidal jealousy when his wife or ex-wife was with a younger man. But he was also very sociable.

# 2 under Proper Names, It's Sir Arthur Eddington not Sir Arthur Addington

I have issues with promoting Aristotle too much. He never quite understood the Scientific Method, i.e, conducting experiments to confirm or disprove theories / conjectures He made statements which he said were facts when one is able to disprove these statements with simple experiments. In some ways he is a valuable role model because he lived a life which emphasized thinking, self-discipline and study over pleasure seeking, but, science really took off when people saw that they needed to conduct experiments, and needed to be skeptical of theories which had no verifiable evidence in their favor. He was a pagan in the worst sense of the word in some respects because he favored the use of torture in seeking the truth in criminal matters - which means that tough criminals go free but innocent people who can withstand the torture will be convicted because they confessed under torture to crimes they didn't commit. And this influence from Aristotle had an evil influence on medieval churchmen.

I like what you say about the Book of James and how you mention this before you mention Pascal's Wager.

You run into problems when you say you believe Gandhi is in heaven. And you had just finished saying that most Christians in the USA pay lip service to Christianity! The scriptures are perfectly clear: one must believe in Jesus to be saved. When you say that one may reject Christ, as Gandhi did, yet still attain heaven, by being altruistic and Gandhi-like, you renounce Christianity. There are books out there which say Ghandi had big flaws, but, even if he was wonderful as his admirers say, he still rejected Christ. You are saying that one needn't accept Christ as Lord and Savior to go to heaven. That's rejection of Christianity. Some key scriptures to recall are John xiv. 23-26, John xv. 6, II Thess i. 8, Galatians i. 8, Hebrews ix. 11-28, John iii. 16. I discuss all these in my `Constitutional history of the Western World' which you might like. I explain II Thess i. 8 - fire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of jesus Christ. It's a very controversial scripture and needs to be explained. Sincerely Bill Etem

Hi, There is a BIG PROBLEM with # 41 in your introduction. 10 to the -2 power = 1/100 NOT minus 100, 10 to the -3 power = 1/1000, not minus 1000. (10 to the -1 power = 1/10).

On more of a nit-pik, Narcissists are people who adore themselves, but they might also be sociable. They don't have to be isolated. Look at Bill Clinton. Look at a lot of politicians, movie stars, CEOs etc. O. J. Simpson's problem was self-adoration, which led to homicidal jealousy when his wife or ex-wife was with a younger man. But he was also very sociable.

# 2 under Proper Names, It's Sir Arthur Eddington not Sir Arthur Addington

I have issues with promoting Aristotle too much. He never quite understood the Scientific Method, i.e, conducting experiments to confirm or disprove theories / conjectures He made statements which he said were facts when one is able to disprove these statements with simple experiments. In some ways he is a valuable role model because he lived a life which emphasized thinking, self-discipline and study over pleasure seeking, but, science really took off when people saw that they needed to conduct experiments, and needed to be skeptical of theories which had no verifiable evidence in their favor. He was a pagan in the worst sense of the word in some respects because he favored the use of torture in seeking the truth in criminal matters - which means that tough criminals go free but innocent people who can withstand the torture will be convicted because they confessed under torture to crimes they didn't commit. And this influence from Aristotle had an evil influence on medieval churchmen.

I like what you say about the Book of James and how you mention this before you mention Pascal's Wager.

You run into problems when you say you believe Gandhi is in heaven. And you had just finished saying that most Christians in the USA pay lip service to Christianity! The scriptures are perfectly clear: one must believe in Jesus to be saved. When you say that one may reject Christ, as Gandhi did, yet still attain heaven, by being altruistic and Gandhi-like, you renounce Christianity. There are books out there which say Ghandi had big flaws, but, even if he was wonderful as his admirers say, he still rejected Christ. You are saying that one needn't accept Christ as Lord and Savior to go to heaven. That's rejection of Christianity. Some key scriptures to recall are John xiv. 23-26, John xv. 6, II Thess i. 8, Galatians i. 8, Hebrews ix. 11-28, John iii. 16. I discuss all these in my `Constitutional history of the Western World' which you might like. I explain II Thess i. 8 - fire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of jesus Christ. It's a very controversial scripture and needs to be explained. Sincerely Bill Etem

New Christian Apologetics. James - I see I last looked at your book over three months ago. I continued the read.

Ch.2. I love the way you point out the assumption of some individuals that we modern people are more intelligent than those who lived thousands of years ago, in spite of the fact that, by their own admission, evolution is a very slow-going process. Wish I could think of such clever retorts when someone challenges me - but then it's not about repartee, is it.
Perhaps you could put each point as a seperate paragraph.
Maybe you should deal with the triangle proof. I have a feeling I'd relate to that example better. We all have different types of minds, and your book is so important, you should cater for all.
I'm so glad I KNOW the truth absolutely within myself without having recourse to arguments.
Your description of the very best thing possible for cognitive individuals speaks to me much better than the bandied-about word of 'heaven'.

There are some editorial nits and typos to be ironed out in the text. Have you discovered The Impeccable Editor on this site? The book is on my shelf, and I've bought an hour of excellent professional advice (6 pages!). There's no way I can afford to have my whole book done, but I've learned enough to enable me to make improvements down the line.

I love the Galileo saying.

Dont you mean Hawking expresses his belief that a First Cause IS needed for the Universe to be able to exist, and he implies that he would be satisfied with the theory OF the Arche, were there enough evidence in its favour... Or have I misunderstood?

Your work makes so much sense to the non-scientific mi9nd. And I'd love it if you lightened the journey with more fun tales like that of the turtle.

You have two mays in the first sentence of the Contents of Conscience.
I dont think you need all those he/shes and his/hers.

Please tell the professor story in proper format, giving each speaker a separate line in the dialogue.

And you really need to have shorter chapters - I have to stop now!

I'm maxi-starring you again, and will have to find a place for you on my shelf some time or other.
Jane. (Breath of Africa).

There is good advice and wisdom in your book and I love the title.

I really appreciate it, Jennie. Thank you! Jim James Apologist

I think many people out there that don't believe in God should read this. In this day and time disbelief seems to be everywhere, but I don't stress. they will all know how wrong they were very soon. Great start. I'm giving high stars. Best of luck
Jennie Lyne Hiott
Hearts and Lies

I think many people out there that don't believe in God should read this. In this day and time disbelief seems to be everywhere, but I don't stress. they will all know how wrong they were very soon. Great start. I'm giving high stars. Best of luck
Jennie Lyne Hiott
Hearts and Lies

Dear James,

I have read a bit of chapters 10-15 and here bellow are some of my deductions:

“Common sense is a major part of the New Covenant of the New Testament …” - Wow. No doubt. The mosaics needed know this. Unfortunately, they failed to.

“Christianity the Most Attractive Faith … On the other hand, when we note that those who are against Jesus are emphatically so, we accumulate more evidence yet for His credibility” – paradoxically true, which you have gone on to prove your assertion with “The greater the person, the more pronounced are both the yea and nay opinions with regard to that person=s credibility and the more the person is either liked or disliked with no shades of gray in this respect.”


Yours on John 3:16, “… it seems that beauty inevitably and always accompanies truth; this passage is also simple” – is credible.

With my mind of your said Both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking of expressing a desire to explore the mind of God, I am found of asking too many questions regarding the scriptures. Lately, while asking the pastor of my local church about a scriptural paradox, the pastor snapped, “If you want to understand God, you will loose your mind; and if you don’t submit to God, you will loose your soul. I already thankful that even with the little that I have in your “Things Are Not as They Seem: How Science, Philosophy, and History, Particularly Modern Physics, Are Leading Us Back to the Bible”, a lot of my unrelenting scriptural questions are asked. May God bless for this piece of work.

James, whatever you have scripted down, is as heavy as lead that only little at time needs to be sipped.

I will read on.

JULIUS B [Destined to Triumph]

Great Material! I will be using some of this in my life! Very applicable and easy to read! Thank you!

Hello James,

The citations at the beginning of your book are gems. They generate a lot of interest into reading your book. It was thoughtful of you to start with them.

“ … the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance…” - I find this citation of Paul Davies, The Mind of God, very interesting in sense that as man searches for life on other solar planets as well as other stars’ planetary systems, it is important to know that there may be life but unlike that of man who has spirit with soul that is housed in a body.

Further more, in the glossary, I have like how you have defined Kingdom of God, likening with the world’s but without space and time.

“45. pre-Socratic philosophers – Greek philosophers of before the time of Socrates,” – shyly, here aren’t we taking about Egyptians?


Reading on.

JULIUS B [Destined to Triumph]

I'd be interested to learn about Egyptian philosophers, Julius. There were some great philosophers in Greece before Socrates, of which I think the best was Parmenides, who lived about generation before Socrates. I have included him in my book, where you can read about him in the third from the last paragraph of Chapter 3. Logos here means "rational accounting. Another impressive one of these was Xenophanes. He also believed in a single God, and, as I remember, believed this god created by thought and that he moved all things but himself was unmoved. I am in Alaska; otherwise, I could get into my reference books and tell you more about him and other pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. I really appreciate your asking friends to back my book. Jim James Apologist

Hello James,

The citations at the beginning of your book are gems. They generate a lot of interest into reading your book. It was thoughtful of you to start with them.

“ … the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance…” - I find this citation of Paul Davies, The Mind of God, very interesting in sense that as man searches for life on other solar planets as well as other stars’ planetary systems, it is important to know that there may be life but unlike that of man who has spirit with soul that is housed in a body.

Further more, in the glossary, I have like how you have defined Kingdom of God, likening with the world’s but without space and time.

“45. pre-Socratic philosophers – Greek philosophers of before the time of Socrates,” – shyly, here aren’t we taking about Egyptians?


Reading on.

JULIUS B [Destined to Triumph]

Hi James, I think your line “I respect your opinions; they are different from mine, however” sums it up well. I know that you “don't say anything here with disdain, condescension, ridicule, or sarcasm”. Me neither, but for what it’s worth, here’s my two cents worth! Your book is a venture into “Christian Apologetics.” Therefore your intention is to defend Christianity against… That is the question. Some focus on Islam, some on militant Atheism, some on Evolutionism, etc. Your book seems to focus on generic brand Americans (by which I mean those who primarily have a Secular Humanistic worldview, that we might call Agnostic. Now, (and this is where my opinion is different to yours), correct me if I am wrong, you wish to win over these unbelievers by showing them the evidence for God (especially in the realm or at the level of quantum mechanics). Therefore your approach to Christian Apologetics is of the “Evidentialist” variety – nothing wrong with that per se. However, my own approach is “Presuppositionalist”. That is where I am coming from when I look at your book. If I have understood you correctly (though I’m now not sure that I have), you have presupposed (contrary to the Bible’s internal evidence) eg, that Moses did not write the book of Deuteronomy. Fair enough, I’m sure the reader would like to know why you think this when so many of us Christians think that the Bible (internally) clearly states that Moses is it author. Though, keep in mind that we believe that Moses had in his person writings that survived the Flood (such as the toledoth or “the genealogy of Adam” Gen. 5:1).
This brings me to my main point which, as I mentioned to you before, has to do with theology. Yes, fallible humans wrote the Bible, but the Bible says that they “were moved by the Holy Spirit” and that “all Scripture is God breathed” (2 Pet. 1:21 & 2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore each of the human authors got it 100% correct (and not just mostly correct, and that we humans must decide which bits of the Bible are wrong). You seem to me to be suggesting that we need to pick and choose from the Bible when you say that the Scriptures are “infallible in general principles”. Eg, nowhere does the Bible give us any impression that human beings are 1 to 2 million years in existence. Sure, we can talk about the supposed age of the universe on account of starlight and the speed of light, but we are not talking about stars but rather you and me and our ancestors. Jesus speaks of our first parents Adam and Eve as being created in the beginning of creation (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). I suppose I’d better “bottom line” this letter otherwise so as not to waste too much more of your time! Yes, I read the whole of your book rather quickly. I am now going through it a bit more slowly. Why? Because you have lots of valuable nuggets of information therein. Do I agree with the overall premise of your book? Well, I need to qualify my tentative “yes” answer. Your book comes across as an apologetic for Theistic Evolution rather than Christianity. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Theistic Evolution seeks to marry the teachings of the Bible with Evolutionary Theory. In other words the Evolutionists presuppositions are used for interpreting the Bible. However, it seems to me that Christian Apologetics should be about defending Christian Philosophy and Christian Theology rather than defending Evolutionary Philosophy. Sure, (in Scripture) God condescends to talk to us in language we humans can relate to. No, He doesn’t use the language of the Quantum Physicist (thank God!) However, He did give us the Scriptures because we are fallen creatures and as such we “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. Therefore, when we study the sun, the moon and the stars, when we study things at a quantum level, when we study anything in His creation, we ought to do so by using the Scriptures as our spectacles (Calvin). Otherwise, we will continue to be biased and lean on our own understanding rather than on God’s revelation to fallen men such as you and me. I would like to see your book defend the Triune God even at the quantum level. In other words, and as you are alleging in your book, even Quantum Physics is revelation of the Triune God – every bit as much as the sun, the moon and the stars (Psa. 19) or the birds and animals (Gen. 2:19) or the trees, birds, animals, creeping things, and fish (1 Kings 4:33). Dr. Ivey, you’re nearly there (at least with me!), but work hard at getting your readers excited about the discovery of the revelation of triune God found at the quantum level. But please, let the Triune God speaking in His Word be your only guide! Sorry if I have come across as too harsh in the above, I don’t mean to… Every blessing upon you and yours, Neil Cullan McKinlay.

Hello Dr. Ivey:

What a monumental accomplishment you have in this book! I appreciate this book on so many levels. I am amazed and refreshed that, as high a level as your mind operates, you continue to embrace the simplicity of faith as your foundation. You not only embrace the traditional, propositional gospel of salvation as a means of avoiding hell, but your work exudes the Kingdom of God in all of its fullness.

You do tend to sometimes take the long, scenic route over brevity of words, and the sheer volume of your writing may tend to be intimidating, but that is your style and I am confident that you have a huge audience who would gladly say, "Bring it on!"

God's richest, most abundant blessings to you and may He bless and multiply the effectiveness and impact of this book upon the thinking of the world of Christendom in ways that you cannot even begin to imagine! You are truly a forerunner.

James Revoir