I will return to one of my favorite topics–Richard Dawkins. His latest effort at trying to dislodge Creationism/Intelligent Design from its seat at the table is a new book, The Greatest Show on Earth. On his website he makes a statement as to why this book had to be written–which is downright comical–because high schools are not teaching biology properly. It has been rather amazing during this 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, that while virtually every secondary school is teaching evolution and almost all major museums are dedicated to perpetuating evolution and most major universities won’t even employ a Science professor who does not fall into line with Darwinian orthodoxy, that the American public, by and large, still understands it to be an inadequate answer to what they observe.
One of the reasons that Darwinian Evolution is such a hard sell has been made clear by Dawkins himself in a couple of well known statements:
“One of the greatest challenges to the [atheistic] human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.” Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 157-158.
In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins wrote: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”
The reason that Richard Dawkins and those like him have such a hard time convincing the masses of the obvious truth of evolution is not because the masses are stupid (as Dawkins would suggest) but because they are not blind.
Pastor Jeff
Im once again uncomfortable, and so I am sorry to disagree.
The truth is that many many people the world over including most of the scientific community believe that the theory of evolution whilst not being perfect is our best guess at the moment.
I say “best guess”, as in a scientific theory that has empirical evidence, and that can be tested and analysed to an extent.
The problem with religion when comparing itself to science is that it simply cannot be proved. Under any conditions.
If you successfully argue that evolution doesnt exist, then you have to explain where everything came from, and whilst Darwin had issues with his theory, blaming everything on an omnipresent god presents much much bigger problems.
The atheists are right when they say you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. If a scientific theory had been presented from a 2000 year old book, from zealous and devout eye witness accounts, without comparison or alternative argument, we would laugh it out of the university.
Religion will never win a fight against science as they are like comparing Geography with History.
This has always been the argument from atheists the world over. Show me the scientifically verifyable proof and I will believe.
The counter argument has always been from the believers of any religion. Believe me and you will see the proof.
The way I see it, if there is a god, and it really cares about me, and it really has a direct effect on my life, and it really did create the world I live in and the body I use, then it gave me a brian to use and develop. And my brain isnt happy with just “believing”, my brain needs proof.
It is why my first question when I talk to a believer is genuinely a curious “How can you know?”
By: Peter on October 20, 2009
at 9:48 am
Thank you for a very thoughtful response. While I realize that “blog commenting” is not the most advantageous setting for a “debate” I would like to speak to some of your ideas. First,depending on what you mean by “most of the scientific community,” there are a significant number of reputable scientists that find the idea of a completely naturalistic, unguided, random process ushering in the Universe as we know it almost borders on the absurd. This explains, I believe, why some have gone the way of “Intelligent Design” and some have come up with some pretty “unusual theories” (Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium,” Crick’s “panspermia,” etc.).
On another point–I think it is inaccurate to pose the debate as “scientific knowledge vs. religious faith.” Religion has to do with God, heaven, hell, salvation, morality, judgment, etc. Science has to do with coming to conclusions regarding the natural world based on observable and testable data. That is not a very technical definition, although it is probably one we could both agree on.
So, if that is the case, there is no evidence for Darwinian evolution and there is no evidence for a guided creation, there is simply evidence–and legitimate science would cause us to simply follow the results wherever they may lead. However, when we “a priori” determine that the conclusions must be naturalistic and God cannot in any way be part of the explanation–we have now moved out of a scientific explanation into a religious/philosophical conclusion–or, a debate between two belief systems (or religions).
Then there is the issue of ultimate origins. Where did things actually begin–did God speak it into being or did it “just appear.” The presupposition comes into play regardless of your starting point. Not to mention “irreducible complexity” and the problems it raises.
Also, I would heartily differ with your contention that believing in God makes about as much as much sense as believing in the tooth fairy (although as a child I thought the money under the pillow was kind of cool). Just as evolution cannot be “proved,” neither can the existence of God. However, the evidence for the existence of God, the historicity and reliability of the Scriptures, Jesus Christ and His resurrection is quite impressive. By evidence I mean both biblical and extra-biblical–historical and textual. But that is an entirely different discussion.
And I certainly do not treat faith as a “blind leap in the dark.” I dare not expect anybody that has come or is coming to faith in Christ to “park their brains at the door.”
Which, of course, brings us to your question–which, I might add must be asked of every atheist, agnostic, evolutionist, creationist, etc.–How do you know?
I didn’t really mean to turn this into a dissertation, but you made a series of legitimate claims that I felt were worthy of a response–thanks for both reading, thinking, and engaging the debate.
By: pastorjeffcma on October 20, 2009
at 2:57 pm
Well first with the last.
The truth is that the agnostic is the only one who is right. He will say “you dont know”, which when you think about your reply is the only conclusion you can legitimately come to since as you say there is no “evidence”.
So the next question is “what is evidence”.
Your tenet that there is no proof of evolution is simply incorrect. You just need to look at the story of the blue moon butterfly to see evolution at work.
The reason I appreciate evolution and think it to be true is on the back of 3 simple ideas.
1. Everything has a parent.
I have, my dog has, i understand from my gardening friend that roses can be cross pollinated, hence showing that they have parents too.
2. Living things have been around for a very long time.
You can argue against fossils if you wish, but I live on the Jurrassic Coast of England, and when I go walking on the beach I see fossils all around me. It doesnt take a scientist to guess this was once a living thing, but we have thousands of scientists who do believe exactly that.
3. Mutations exist.
Im not talking the elephant man here, but subtle tiny differences that can make just the difference. Its no wonder that farmers pay more for a good strong bull to impregnate their cows. From good stock they call it. Farmers arent stupid. They do what they think is best. They wouldnt do that if they thought nothing would happen.
Im not talking about massive change. What you call irreducible complexity, to me is a long series of very reducable tiny changes. And yes, i appreciate that there are examples that this theory isnt working, but no-one said we had all the information yet.
We have plenty to learn still. We dont have all the answers, but “God” doesnt fit into the gap. “God” is totally unprovable and therefore a pointless abstraction.
I maintain that within the scientific community the world over, there are considerably more scientists prepared to say that there is more “evidence” pointing towards evoultion, than there is “evidence” towards a god.
I appreciate that priests and such would say the opposite, but with all due respect, most of them dont have to study scientific methods, analysis and argument in the way that scientists do.
Please please dont suggest that I am arguing “science vs religion”, I go quite the other way. I say again, the two are not comparable. You can choose to believe in both if you want, most people do.
The benefit of science however, is that someone else can “prove” your theory wrong.
No-one can prove your belief in “god” wrong.
By: Peter on October 21, 2009
at 10:38 am
First, allow me to make a geographical statement–I would love to visit the Kilns and Bodleian library–but then I digress. I would agree with most of what you have said although I would see some different implications.
I do think that it is an unfortunate conclusion to affirm that the only person that knows the truth is the one who says you can’t know the truth. If that is the case then there are a whole lot of people, including us, that are wasting a whole lot of time, energy and ink attempting to understand reality. The point I meant to make regarding evidence is that the evidence itself is neutral–for instance, when you see a fossil on the beach, you have only seen a fossil–at that point it has told you nothing.
By the way, I completely agree with each of your major statements–everything has a parent, living things have been around for a very long time, and mutations exist–however, the problem still persists as to where the original “parent” came from. Also, minor changes which illustrate micro-evolution (which everybody affirms) hardly undergirds macro-evolution.
Next, I am not sure you understood my reference to “irreducible complexity.” The term was popularized by molecular biologist Michael Behe of Lehigh University in his book, “Darwin’s Black Box.” He comes from the perspective that Darwin could have no understanding in the mid 19th century of the amazing complexities of the inner workings of the cell which we are aware of today. Darwin went as far as to say “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species.
Behe uses as his prime example the bacteria flagellum. He purports that if that organism does not exist in complete form it is completely unworkable. Thus, it cannot be “reduced” and therefore could not have been formed by a series of small changes over time.
I will question one of your statements–”but God doesn’t fit into the gap”–why not?
By: pastorjeffcma on October 21, 2009
at 3:20 pm
To be honest an awful lot of people do waste their time over this topic, but then if we werent wasting our time over this, then we’d have to waste our time on something else, and I’d rather stand for something theoretical, but debatable rather than state an obvious but pointless truth. As many arguments as you can win with Decartes, they are pyrrhic victories.
So with my own feeling that Agnosticism, while probably being the most that we can say for sure, is just plain boring, lets move on.
The fossil on the beach. I think this is another large area of the problem. The fossil on the beach may prove nothing more to some than there is a fossil on a beach, but to me it proves that something lived here, and that something died a long long time ago, hence the problem.
For me, if that isnt proof, then nothing is proof, which brings us back to the agnosticism.
I said before that I didnt believe there were large evolutionary processes, just a series of very small ones. I also believe we dont have the technology to identify what those small ones are.
Which is unfortunate, but the way i see it, if an apple falls down a million times, you can extrapolate a theory of gravity, if the apple rises up once you don’t instantly throw the theory out, you look for underlying differences first, and then come up with another scientific theory, ie that gravity works but blowing it up works better.
What you don’t do is announce the whole thing is wrong and the boogeyman must have done it.
Science has never claimed to be complete, and never claimed to be perfect. Theories are changed over time and experience. They are developed over years and years of testing new ideas, mixing stuff together trying some different approach.
They are evolved, and I am absolutely sure that if you were to present Galileo with an x-box complete with flat screen tv and “halo” and a power supply, he would probably claim some form of irreducible complexity before screaming “forgive me lord” and running out the door naked.
Finally, for me, and for many scientists I imagine, the reason God doesnt fit in the gap, is simple. God as I said before is unprovable in any way.
We cant even theorise about God. No one can suggest that we have seen this happen, and maybe if this happened again and again to the nth degree we might get a God. That to me is a very good thing though. If we did have a way to extrapolate a God, if we could see where God came from, then we could one day imagine ourselves to be Gods which presents its own problems.
I strongly suspect even the most reasonable of zealots might think thats a step too far.
Im not saying there is a God or not. I’m merely saying that God and science are two totally different fields, which is exactly why God cannot fit into the gap.
God if used in relation to science becomes the equivilent to Einstein’s cosmological constant, a stop gap until more research proves someting else. In fact God has been used in this way for hundreds of years by all manner of scientists and theologians alike, and each time God has been inevitably replaced by something in our physical world.
Jumping to the conclusion of God doesnt stand up to any scientific definition, it cant be repeated, it cant be controlled, it cant even be understood, and so it is an intangible idea, and effectively useless to science.
Thats why scientists get so annoyed with religion, because they end up spending their hard earned money on disproving something which doesnt fit into our conception of proof.
You can look around and marvel at the world and claim that there must be a god. I often do, its hard to deny (and we can have a massive discussion about what god is), but what God isnt, in my opinion, is a usable factor when proving things scientifically.
By: Peter on October 24, 2009
at 12:07 am
One of the things I am appreciating about these interchanges is that all too often (and I am sure you have had similar experiences) when people engage in a similar back-and-forth dialogue there is a lot more heat than light–or volume than substance–so the measured, reasoned responses that we are having at least make the conversation intelligible if not meaningful.
Regarding Galileo and the x-box:
#1–One of the disclaimers that is regularly offered in defense of science is that it is a growing discipline and as more information is attained the hypotheses, theories, laws, etc. change accordingly–and I think that is a fair proposition. But, I would argue that the same courtesy ought to be given to religious thinking–in other words, if a man with the intellectual fortitude and the religious faith of a Galileo was alive today and confronted with current information I do not foresee that he would scream “forgive me Lord” and run out the door naked.
#2–If Galileo did find something that was as complicated (at that point in history) as an x-box, I don’t think his mind would automatically drift toward thoughts of wondering what random, chance, unguided mutations assembled this wonderful piece of machinery (whatever it is!). He would obviously wonder who invented, designed and assembled this (i.e. Paley’s argument).
Back to the God and Science issue. I agree that we do want a God that we are able to explain or completely understand–and I would even concur that God is not provable (as it seems from your comments that you mean by the scientific method). However, the Bible claims to be the revelation of God–while that is not a provable statement there is a great deal of empirical evidence that shows the Bible to be far superior (manuscript evidence, lack of corruption in the text etc.,) to any other book of antiquity. While that does not “prove” the existence/nature of God nor the divine nature of the Bible it does give solid ground for faith (as opposed to a blind leap in the dark). Therefore, if we work from what the Bible says as a possible hypothesis for what is (visible reality) and compare what is to what the Bible says ought to be–now we are at least not rejecting it out of hand just because it happens to be “religious.”
Instead, what normally happens is an interesting bit of disingenuous somewhat twisted logic. It looks like this. Almost all (yes–even Richard Dawkins) would agree that everything around us (from the scope of the universe to the intricacies of the cell) looks very suspiciously like it has been purposefully and intelligently designed. So even though there is this obvious appearance of design (science) it cannot be designed because there is no designer (religion/philosophy). However, when the Christian says since everything looks designed (science) there must be a designer (religion/philosophy), the evolutionist will quickly cry foul because the Christian (and he alone) has attempted to muddy the scientific water with religion.
Years ago when Carl Sagan produced “Cosmos,” he made a very interesting statement toward the beginning–he said, “we will follow the truth wherever it leads.” Is that really the case?
By: pastorjeffcma on October 24, 2009
at 10:36 pm
First, forgive me, I actually meant if we could go back in time to Galileo’s age and present him with an X-box. I believe something so strange and unnatural as this, from the use of plastics, to the electricity, to the idea of pictures on the screen would give him the heebee-jeebees.
With a technology so far in advance he could only imagine it as a gift from an advanced race or possibly a god. Taking it apart to find its origins however would have been beyond his capability, and I am sure he would consider the notion that this is proof of god, as an item of “irriducable complexity”. Surely we can agree that even if he didnt imply the words himself, other people of the time would claim it. Once again its something humans have a habit of doing. Im thinking of eclipses, changing seasons, lightning, droughts, tsunamis, all of which have been declaired devine in the past.
I concede that if he were alive today he would have been brought up in a very different way, and possibly would have spent his time doing something “cooler” than either science or religion.
To be honest, I was just trying to get a cheap laugh out of Galileo.
I know you mentioned Paley’s argument here. Who designed the watch. I hate that argument. I find it as caustic as ‘I think therefore I am’.
The counter argument is just as trite. Who or what designed the designer.
Its unfortunate that this argument is often quoted by creationists as it really is quite pointless. It may be unbeatable (except by the crazy frenchman again), but it also leaves no explanation. Whatever conclusion you come to, I can say “Yeah, but who created that!”, and your theory gets blown out of the water. It doesnt prove a single scientific theory, and it doesnt answer any theological questions either. If anything, it stands as yet another signpost declaring “you don’t know much at all do you!”
The truth is we don’t know much, and we have plenty to learn. And the only way we can seriously discuss and develop and advance our understanding of the world around us is by a common language.
Science has a common language. It speaks of verifyable fact. Repeatable fact. It has no place for unarguable concepts, unprovable miracles and implausible stories.
If we start considering religion as a scientific posibility, if we start to probe faith under the microscope of science, we end up asking ourselves which religion do we follow. There are so many, none of which are scientifically provable, none of which have explanations which help our understanding.
It doesn’t help us find a non-spiritual way to cure cancer. By all means pray if you believe, but please let us spend time doing the research to find a repeatable cure.
I know you yourself have never once declared we shouldnt research science, but the fact is that much too much time and money has been spent on this issue. You and I can argue til the cows come home, and I cant deny I enjoy it, but when people campaign outside scientific establishments, when scientists spend their time deflecting the attention of creationists, when courts have to sit through legal argument to have evolutionist theory presented alongside christianity in classes I get annoyed.
Schools have religious education classes to discuss these concepts. A place to study theology, its background, its influence on todays world.
If your argument was that we should spend more time teaching religion in schools, then I could agree with you. I feel religion in all its guises is very important for us. To understand our place in this world, to see how things are effected around us and to see how historically we have such a varied and colourful spiritual past is very important for our understanding of ethnicity, of respect and of culture.
Your argument is not that however, your argument is Why cant atheists see that denying the possibility of God closes doors, to science, to understanding, to everything.
The truth is that all atheists know they are closing doors. Atheism, however, isnt a religion. Atheists are prone to change their minds. Atheists accept they could be wrong.
We have hundreds of religions in this world, claiming a thousand different things. How many do you think will accept they could be wrong?
By: Peter on October 26, 2009
at 4:34 pm
Here is my issue with Paley. I completely agree that it is a simplistic illustration–however, it raises the issue of complexity that cannot simply be laughed off because “I don’t like the argument.” In the same vein Dean Kenyon rejected his own theory that living organisms evolved from non-living chemicals through natural chemical processes when he saw that the evidence did not support it. This is why, I believe, that (as I have mentioned before) so many evolutionary naturalists have to continually remind themselves (and everybody else) that even though everything looks designed it isn’t. You seem like a reasonably intelligent individual–I can’t imagine you could, with a straight face, tell me that the conclusion to decide against what is plainly obvious is a “scientific” conclusion–it is a philosophical conclusion.
You mentioned that science has “a common language”–that was verifiable and repeatable fact–even it we leave out all of the “proofs” of evolution that have been shown to be overstated, fallacious or downright fraudulent, much that is touted as the evidence of evolution (going back 3.5 million years) would hardly fall into the category of verifiable and repeatable. What we have is fossils, molecular and astronomical realities, etc. that we try to develop serious understandings of how these things came to be. What I do see is a very large number within the scientific community that find a system that bases itself on completely unguided processes to be highly unsatisfactory.
What I am hearing from you is a very common misunderstanding. I believe that I take science and the scientific method very seriously. I also am a serious student of the Bible and would definitely fall into the conservative, evangelical camp of Christianity. I would never suggest that science and religion fall into the same category–that somehow religion legitimizes science or the other way around. Even as a seminary graduate I would never suggest that we turn Biology class in Theology 101. But that argument is nothing but a “straw man” because nobody that I personally know would campaign for that either.
You made the following comment–”It doesn’t help us find a non-spiritual way to cure cancer. By all means pray if you believe, but please let us spend time doing the research to find a repeatable cure.” I agree–pray and research like crazy–but could I ask you to consider something–which mindset motivates a researcher more–a “survival of the fittest” mindset, or a “we are all created in the image of God” mindset?
Finally, I am quite curious how a belief system that purports to make truth claims about God, the afterlife, free will, human nature, etc. (as atheism does) is not a religion. That is simply a convenient cop out. Some of the most dogmatic, inflexible comments I have heard come from the mouths of atheists. Here is the dirty little secret–atheism is no more scientific than Christianity is–they are both worldviews through which the evidence is seen and interpreted. So why should atheism be taught in the classroom?
By: pastorjeffcma on October 26, 2009
at 8:10 pm
I dont like laughing off an argument either, but Paleys argument says there must be something other… something before. If there is something before, then by definition there must be something before that and something before that, ad infinitum.
Whilst, as I say, it can win a debate simply by wearing people down, it doesnt advance our thinking at all. It unfortunately doesnt prove God, and certainly doesnt prove a christian God. All it does is get in the way. Thats why I dont like it as an argument. I hope you understand I am not laughing it off, I just consider it pointless.
I see around me a very complex world, but I see a world that occurs naturally (as, in harmony with its surroundings). It doesnt appear to have a purpose, but just like the extremely complex flight patterns of a group of flocking birds being chased by a hawk, there could well be a simple set of rules that form it.
I dont however look at those flight patterns and demand that its too complicated to be worked out, that we will never work it out, and something so complex can only have come from God. That to me is definitely not obvious. I wish I did, but I have way too many questions before I can jump to that conclusion.
You mention that scientists see something and say… “theres a design there! Its too hard for us to work it out, but it looks like design and smells like design, but it cant be God because God doesnt exist….” I can see why you would think that stupid. It is.
It should be…. “theres a design there! Its too hard for us to work it out, but it looks like design and smells like design, lets be honest we havent got a clue what it is, we’ve gotten too many of these wrong in the past, lets leave it for the next guy.”… But when they do that, you find Jerry Falwell anounces he was right all along and that we should all act like slaves and soldiers and stop asking questions.
Scientific proofs have, I cannot deny, been stated as true and then with further research found to be false. That is by definition what science is all about though. It is why it is so dramatically different to theology. It is a constant search for the truth, and it often goes down the wrong paths. I dont know how my TV works, but I know that it took a very large amount of experiments to get it to work, from electricity to light refraction to cathode ray tubes etc etc.
The history of science has been littered with people claiming things that turned out to be rubbish, and so we always look at each piece of evidence scrupulously, and always question our findings. And inevitably always find thing to be wrong, but there are also constants, that help our undersanding. Newtons theories help us launch rockets into space. Is Newton right, we think so, but we dont know for a fact, because Gravity doesnt appear to exist inside cells. We know that Newton was part right though, and so we can work out how much fuel we need.
As you pointed out, there are many scientists who are uncomfortable with the way we study evolution, but all they can do is research based on the technology they have. There are very few scientists that develop independent theories, most disprove them, and there is much to argue with Darwin, but generally speaking they do agree that he was onto something and so his work is worthy of scrutiny.
Therein lies the reason why scientists rarely try to scrutinise God. Because God isn’t a scientific concept.
As for the survival of the fittest as compared to the image of God. Well I cant imagine how you could possibly start research on cancer say, using the image of God. Survival of the fittest may give us rise to testing cancer cells in different environments to see how they react perhaps.
This is precisely what I mean when I say God has no place in science. Darwins evolutionary theories are drawn upon all the time directly. I just dont know how you could bring God into the lab.
I know you had meant your question to be a spiritual one. If you take two scientists, and one believes in an afterlife and salvation, while the other believes that when he dies there is nothing. Even that could be argued both ways however.
The religious one may feel there is no need to study science. We see some religious sects refusing medicine because they believe God will either save them or not. It is Gods will they say.
The atheist may be so desperate for his dying wife or child that he would push all boundaries to find a cure. I think both “mindsets” have their merit in certain circumstances, and we simply cannot say how a society would manage.
Atheism as a religion. Well, this is a daft argument for both of us. It doesnt really matter what atheism is after all. The free dictionary (the first one I clicked on) says…
re·li·gion (r-ljn) n.
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Its clearly not definitions 1,2 or 3, but I guess according to definition number 4 it could be considered a religion, but only in the same way that money, sports or tv is. I dont think that is quite the description either of us had in mind.
I am not aware that atheism is taught in classrooms, but perhaps it has its place in a theological debate. If it does, then it should only be as a side note. I guess atheism is to religion what cynicism is to science. The question in the back of your mind in the quest for a truth. The reminder that anyone could be wrong. In my experience atheism is more vehemently and passionately argued against than anything else in theology.
It begs the question of Why does religion hate atheism so much?
After all, if you believe, then what difference does it make to you that someone else doesnt. Most atheists will just think you’re daft for spending your time and money on it. The world is run by religious leaders from Iran to the USA, its the atheists who have something to fear, not the religious majority.
By: Peter on October 27, 2009
at 12:39 pm
First, I have really enjoyed our interchanges–I hope mine have challenged your thinking just a little bit, as yours have mine.
Secondly, I sense that our responses have kind of come full circle in that we both are starting to restate our same arguments.
Maybe we will meet in cyberspace once again, but for now I am going to sign off on this discussion. Once again–thanks for all the interaction.
By: pastorjeffcma on October 27, 2009
at 5:29 pm
I’ve enjoyed them too.
It strengthens our arguments to try them out a few times run them around the block so to speak.
The truth is, I think there are many arguments for a spiritual God. I still struggle with the bible, but if we say there is a god, then the bible would be the first port of call, well it does to me, but then I’m a westerner, lol.
It also has made me see that there is a gulf between our thinking. A gap much deeper than Dawkins. I simply cant imagine a world that is only explained through a belief in God, and I suspect you cant imagine the contrary.
We will end up differing on the definition of proof, evidence, science and understanding. As if we are talking different languages, which I guess in a way we are.
As far as you can see, our begining is the genesis of everything, without a theory (belief) of this, the rest becomes pointless. You believe the only reasonable explanation of it comes in the Bible. When people announce scientific theories, you have no reasonable choice but to look at it from your starting point.
That to me is decartes all over again. Its saying to me, if you dont know where creation comes from then why could it not come from the version in the bible, and if the bible is right, then the world cant be older than 6000 years old, which means God puts science on the planet to test our faith etc etc.
I look the other way. I have to imagine a world without God. It is the only way I can follow sciences evidence without prejudice, evidence of which I believe are true. I am the guy literally saying “Hey wait a minute, lets just look at this thing again”
I have to build theory upon theory til I get something that makes sense to me. This is, unfortunately, what people within faith say is totally the wrong thing to do. I just cant be that guy.
At the same time, I cant disprove God, nor would I want to. I would love to be wrong, I really would. An afterlife is a comforting thought, well provided God likes me.
I dont waste my time on the loss though. I dont feel it at all. I dont feel there is something missing, I am happy. I wish I had more support, and I know that churches do a tremendous job at giving people support, but then I could probably do more to support my greater family too. Maybe I will. Maybe thats a positive from this, that I try a little harder at seeing them.
I have always believed we have vey strong arguments for both causes. I have never seen them as being mutually exclusive though. I cannot argue against a God, nor do I want to. I could argue against some religious zealots, but this isnt the place.
It clear to me that you dont want to argue against science either. I suspect we could all give a gentle nod towards the spiritual. No more cosmic constants, when we really want to say… “something other”
Both sides could take a step back and appreciate that we arent actually fighting each other. We all want the same, we are all just having a very hard time defining the words we use. We are having a hard time communicating our ideas.
And we are having an exceptionally hard time listening and respecting each other, and in that regard we can all do much better. Something I hope you, I and Jesus could all agree on.
By: Peter on October 28, 2009
at 10:55 am