I’m glad the question didn’t offend, and I’m very pleased to read your answer. It very closely matches what I think – that it is the mindset as we ‘work’ that determines the worth of the work, not the work itself.

If Swain had the mindset of, say, “This great and wonderous universe, and yet so much misery in it – I want to learn as much as I can about the universe so I can help other people be healthier and happier” – well, firstly, it wouldn’t have been the same book! And it still wouldn’t, I think, be quite what God’s looking for, because the respect for and acknowledgement of God’s purpose is implied but not actually stated. But that would still be a long step from Swain’s pov, which was more like – “If I can just control the universe, I will be acknowledged as great and powerful, and that will make me happy.”

And science can be a part of that mistaken arrogance, as can using the power of words – but so can being the one holding the cake batter spoon when it’s time to share out the last of the icing.

Anyway – thanks again for your thoughts.

So thanks for calling on me to clarify my position: I don’t believe that all scientific endeavour is equal to playing God; rather, Swain’s scientific endeavours are tainted BECAUSE he’s trying to play God.

It was belief in a rational and knowable Creator that enabled modern science to get off the ground in the first place, and to my view, scientific endeavour is much like writing novels — we do it because God put it in us to do it. When we do it well (and doing it really “well” should involve acknowledgment of God), we glorify Him.

(Nice set of posts – crisp and to the point!)

I would try for a book, but it seems I already have one!

>>>In many ways, all of human history is a refusal on the part of man to admit that he is man and that God is God.

hmmmm.

I take your point about the arrogance of humanity, and our mistaken attempts to assign more importance to ourselves than we warrant.

But (and I might be misreading you here, please say if so!) it appears that you’re implying the application of science (and engineering) is ‘playing God.’

I don’t argue that Swain’s actions and words absolutely indicate a refusal to acknowledge limits to his own judgement. But it seems that your post here might be putting all scientific endevour in the same basket as Swain’s tainted work.

Or am I just wildly over-reading your post? If so, my apologies!

I’d jump at a chance for the free book if I didn’t already own one! I like your contest, but I’m head-scratching to try to think of another title with an antichrist type. I’m sure they are out there.

Anyway, I appreciated your thoughts on Man’s efforts to become God. Excellent.

Becky