From the faith position, the argument goes something like this (I am generalizing about many evangelical and conservative Christians -I realize that this does not represent the experience or beliefs of all people of faith):
A large number of people believe in God. They base this belief on a combination of personal experience and revelation. We have books that claim to contain the words and acts of God. We have subjective experiences that we believe are the result of God interacting with us. We observe effects in our life and in the social, political and natural world that we attribute to the activities of God.
From these experiences and observations, we come to believe that God has a tangible impact on our lives and the workings of the world. By tangible impact, we mean measurable, noticeable - that God is potent and effective. Isaiah 55:10-11:
quote:The success of science in the past few hundred years has been to describe how the world works without reference to God (not in denial of God, but reflecting the understanding that supernatural intervention is not needed for all natural processes so far identified). So far, no cause-and-effect has been demonstrated to depend on God, and no experiments have been successful in detecting God's activities.
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
To be sure, there are many, many stories of things happening that are attributed to God - healings, recoveries, fortuitous happenings, incredible coincidences, chains of events leading to results that people feel can only be the action of God - but so far, no way to demonstrate that belief in the laboratory or in the field to a "scientific" level of proof.
This stands in stark contrast to the success of science in understanding how the natural world works.
The "creation science" and ID movement is an attempt to rectify this imbalance by demonstrating the power and effectiveness of God in terms that cannot be denied. So far, this attempt has not been successful. This has resulted in some people of faith "declaring victory" anyway, and trying to convince the rest of the world that areas of uncertainly, complexity and debate represent the genuine activity of God. The world's response has been skeptical.
For now, it seems that the kind of hard proof people of faith are looking for is not forthcoming. It makes sense to keep looking - but integrity demands that we be up front about how the search is going - full of confidence and faith, yes, but declaring victory - not yet.
Of course, there is another approach - to consider the possiblity that the world that science uncovers is the world God has made. God may not be detectable via science because what science reveals is what God does - all of it. In ways that we obviously do not understand, perhaps God makes his will known though what we perceive to be the natural processes we experience everyday. If this is true, then we will never (or always) find God via science. This does not make science any less useful, but it can make science less threatening.
6 comments:
Greg, of course science is not a threat to Christians. Science developd out of the Christian world view. (Oppenheimer, Whitehead, Butterfield.)
But the point is that many scientists who are heard by the public, Dennet, Dawkins, Sam Harris, Provine, Lewontin, etc. DO claim that science substantiates ATHEISM and attack Christians specifically.
Look at the KU speaker series, Richard Dawkins will be here just before the election promoting his book tour on the new book The God Delusion and declaring how evolution allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheists.
I know they like to lie over at KCFS and pretend like Dawkins, Dennet, and that crowd do not exist but I KNOW you KNOW better.
A couple of things to think about -
1. Dawkins uses what he knows about science to support a conclsion he has reached - that God does not exist. You and I do the same thing, but reach a different conclusion. This does not make science either atheistic or theistic - it is an attempt to describe accurately the natural world.
2. No one I am aware of at KCFS pretends that Dawkins does not exist. Most folks say that Dawkins has no more scientific basis for his atheisitc views than Behe does for his theistic views. I challenge you to open a thread with just that premise, and see how folks react.
I would, but they would ban me, just like they banned a couple of friends of mine who tried exactly what you suggest.
But you know that Greg.
That group is dominated by a core of atheists will smear anyone who opposes them.
They tolerate you because they see you as a fellow traveler.
And FTK quit because she knew banning was coming.
But I challenge YOU to do so, and if you say that Dawkins has no more scientific basis for his views than Behe has for his, then the conclusion that Dawkins has reached using what he know about science...as you say...must be fallacious.
JB, this is nonsense. Give it a try. I for one would like to hear an intelligent articulation of the creationist viewpoint. People get banned for trollish behavior, not for expressing ideas.
If FTK was going to get banned (which I doubt), it would have been for her increasingly angry behavior, not for disagreeing with the folks there.
Do a search for Dawkins on the KCFS site, and you will see regular comments making exactly my point - that neither a Dawkins type of a Behe type are able to make their case (either that science supports atheism or that it proves the existence of God).
The difficulty of course is that if you think Behe has a right to use science to make a case FOR God, then why do you object if Dawkins uses the same approach? And if you say that Dawkins is out of line using science to support an atheistic worldview, why is Behe justified in his use of science to support faith?
I challenge your assertion that anyone has been banned for making a statement like that.
Here is a recent quote from Jack Krebs, the forum admin and KCFS president:
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001972;p=1#000003
"From Jack, as both KCFS president and admin of this forum:
Ulyanov, I will explain this one time, only.
Dawkins is an atheist who believes what he knows about science, and evolution, supports his atheism.
Many others (let's take Ken Miller and Keith Miller - unrelated - as examples) are Christians who believe that what they know about science, and evolution, supports their Christian beliefs.
Science is embraced by people of many different faiths.
Dawkins does not speak for science any more or less than the Miller's do when they discusses their religious beliefs.
This is extremely clear.
If you wish to discuss this issue, feel free to. But do not use this forum for asserting or insinuating that just because of Dawkins, science or evolution is inherently atheistic."
Hi, guantanamera121212
math homework help grade 7-10 help me write an essay for free ict coursework help woodlands junior history homework help
Post a Comment