New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
I have recently started reading “The Language of God” by Francis Collins. In case you haven’t heard of him, Collins was one of the top developers in the Human Genome Project. He is also a devout Christian (gasp! A hard-core scientist and a Christian? Say it isn’t so.) Collins tries to integrate the Christian worldview with science and demonstrate that they are not necessarily enemies. Before I even bought the book, I read an interesting critique from Sam Harris, one of the big time atheist writers in 2007. He discusses how Collins is completely off the mark of his assumptions of “finding God” in science. One area that Harris comments on is how Collins became a Christian in the first place. Collins states that after reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and observing a frozen waterfall, he came to believe in Jesus and become a follower of Christ. Harris scoffs at this and states this was a non-sequitar and that seeing a waterfall or reading a book does not have connections to the facts about Christianity. However, I wonder if it really was the waterfall itself or the arguments from Lewis that made Collins believe in Christianity. For each Christian, God uses certain events to speak (that still voice that we all talk about so much outside mediation and so forth). It could anything whether a song on the radio, a friend’s honest questions or even hearing a child laugh. It is not these particular situations that make God real. It is the indirect connection to the divine, that moment of clarity. (God almost saying “I am real and I am here with you.) Could certain books and such items influence our thinking? It’s possible but even if there is a connection in the brain between the two, I do not believe that they account for everything because there is often an extra pull towards God. An extra “oompah” if you will.
On a slightly different topic, I wonder then if any scientist has really proven/disproven God? As I have looked into the evidence, science could go either way. In fact, one of the smartest, most honest responses to most big time questions is probably “I am not really sure”. Now there are the typical attacks after each side (“Christians don’t want to believe in such and such because they want to cling to their precious God”. “Atheists want to cling to atheism because they really don’t want to give up on their heathen ways.” Blah blah blah.) and for some this may be true but for others the data for the opposing argument is just not convincing enough to change their beliefs. For example, many say that cell parts can develop by random chance. What does this prove? That cell parts can develop by random chance. To then jump to the conclusion “Therefore God is unnecessary thus God does not exist.” is a very big inference. How do we know that God does not move within natural processes? Just because something “looks random” does not mean that God is not in the process. To be honest, I don’t think that science alone can show a person that God does/doesn’t exist and to say that it suffices alone in determining such is putting philosophy where it does not belong. It’s more of how you see the data and then how you also integrate your philosophical views into your own worldview (i.e. naturalistic or supernatural) which determines whether or not you believe God exists. Also, no worldview has all the answers, not Christianity, Islam, atheist, agnostic etc. To pretend that they do is irresponsible. (And before people jump on Christians for stating that they have the Truth and everything, most Christians will admit that they themselves do not have all the answers to life’s questions. They have ideas about some of the answers but not all of the hard core answers.) And unlike what the opposite side may say, most people with either a supernatural or a naturalistic point of view are willing to accept that they do not have all the answers. So I guess we are kinda on the same boat so to speak, aren’t we?
Popularity: 4% [?]
Loading ...
I agree with a lot of this. If someone wanted to believe that cells attracted to each other because they were in love with each other, that’s what they would believe and nothing you could do would change that.
People believe what they believe. I see miracles everyday in my church that astound me. God heals and saves, and does things that take my breath away both in my own life and the lives around me.
People still don’t believe.
Two things:
1) “…many say that cell parts can develop by random chance…”
And those people would be wrong. Evolution is not about random chance, it’s about natural selection; there is a difference.
2) “Atheists want to cling to atheism because they really don’t want to give up on their heathen ways.”
I don’t know a single Atheist whose Atheism has anything to do with “heathen ways.” Their ‘ways’ are moral, civilized, and caring, they just don’t happen to include a belief in God.
I’m sure (and hope) that you personally do not think otherwise, and that you cited the above examples in your post merely to utilize them to make a point, but tossing them around so nonchalantly only perpetuates those misconceptions about Atheists and evolution for those who are not as open-minded as you. Just something to keep in mind.
Good post otherwise though. You’re right: as of now God can’t be proven or disproven. It is left to each of as individuals to reach our own conclusions given our own interpretations of the evidence before us. Provided those conclusions - whatever they may be - encourage us to be good people, we should all be friends.
P.S. “[Science works and] Therefore God is unnecessary thus God does not exist” is indeed a very big inference, but so is, “I can’t explain this phenomenon and it looks somewhat planned, therefore God must be necessary thus God does exist” is just as big an inference, and just because something “looks designed” doesn’t mean God is in the process. Argument works both ways. Indeed, we are in the same boat.
Cheers
I do not know of any atheist personally that chooses not to believe in God to keep up with their “heathen” ways. All I am saying is that these beliefs do come up in the argument.
also I did not mean to toss around these sterotypes around like you said. I only mean to bring them about to attention.
oh and good catch on the natural selection thing.
but that still doesn’t explain away God
respectfully, no; i can get with the idea that i’m in the same boat as deists and pantheists, as i consider them my opposites - i don’t believe in a god/s, they do, but either way, it’s basically an irrelevant concept (i.e. currently [if ever] unprovable in either direction). as soon as a person relates to a specific view of a god, they are making a truth claim, be it trinitarianism, samsara, whatever. christians/muslims/jews/hindus etc. are not just saying ‘i believe in a god/s’, they are defining such to specific criteria. i would be interested to know why christianity was where it came to for Collins, as most religions commonaly have their own holy book/s, miracle stories, means of interaction/gaining favour with their god/s, etc., and other than geographical location, surrounding culture and personal experience, i see no way of evaluating one religious belief against another (and as such, any claims to truth).
Science can address some such specific individual truth claims, but it’s usually a mistake to do so, as religious belief does not usually rely on the provable truth of any such claim, and if any findings are discovered to be in direct opposition to a belief, it is generally dismissed by the argument that any god/s exist outside of logic or natural laws. so here is my seperate boat - i require evidence (that follows the scientific method preferably - as opposed to mere argument and assertion) to make a leap to a definite belief in a god/s, and as yet i have seen absolutely nothing that would make me then make the even more gargantuan vault into a distinct religious strain.
p.s., kudos points for gargantuan? :d
I like to see this argument as one for “faith” as opposed to one for “religion” or even “Christianity”. Someone once said to me that religion and it’s associated rituals (prayer, dance, wine drinking, etc) were just ways to interpret the idea of the divine and the concept of the unknowable. Plus they draw people of similar views together.
Science was often the province of wealthy clergymen who had the education and time to explore the wonder of “God’s universe”. The choice of religion OR science is a recent invention. It surprises me that people seem unwilling to accept scientific theories and facts when they do not conform to the dogma of their religion. Why not adjust the religion to fit the facts rather than ignore the facts and cling to the religion? (That isn’t a rhetorical question btw)
The most honest kind of faith that I know of (IMHO) is that which says that the universe was created with physical laws to run by and God never interferes with them. To do so invalidates the laws and makes a mockery of creating them. Similarly there is no divine intervention. I can’t say that I agree with the idea of a creator or see a need for one but at least there is no harm in it.
I don’t know of anyone who says that. Natural selection is anything but random.
PZ Myers tried the ‘Francis Collins’ experiment.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/get_ready_to_become_a_christia.php
But I just listened to this ghastly fawning interview with Francis Collins, and he claimed about 11 minutes into it that he used to be an obnoxious atheist, and after reading three pages of Mere Christianity, his “arguments against faith lay in ruins.”
Whoa, I thought, this must be powerful stuff…
Bleh.
ok I get it. not random selection.
natural selection
still not disproving God.
Science isn’t about disproving God. Science is about understanding the natural laws that govern our universe. If God doesn’t fit into those laws then that’s his problem.
Why propose a God in the first place?
Can science disprove the Great Keno Machine (it creates independent space-time universes every 5 minutes in meta-time, randomly assigning values to fundamental constants)?
Ben, I understand why people “propose God”. The world is a complex place and oftentimes unfair. God provides a reason and framework for understanding the world. I’m not saying that this is right but that’s how many people are. In less scientifically advanced times demons inhabiting the body may have been the only answer as to why people fell ill. Modern medicine makes this seem ridiculous but modern medicine wasn’t around at the time. Similarly a drought must have been frightening without an understanding of weather patterns or the engineering skill to provide irrigation.
In addition a common religion makes people feel as if they belong and forms ties in a community. Of course, this can be abused and can lead to an “us and them” attitude. The fact is though that religion worked very well for as a system of community as long as you were part of the religion.
Again I’m not saying that this is right or wrong and I’m not going to hypothesise as to life without religion. It’d just be my opinion anyway.
This is not an inference but actually the application of Occam’s razor. Which states (from Wikipedia), “…that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory”.
If God and Natural Processes are indistinguishable then again see Occam’s razor.
This is very true, science can only make claims about the natural/material universe, if science can describe something then it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural, by definition.
I disagree on a couple key points, I personally think religions like Christianity DO make claims that they know everything. They know the answer to the ultimate question, What’s the meaning of life? To love and serve God and the only way to do that is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior (and go to hell if you don’t). As an atheist, I am not so arrogant as to have the answer to that question (for everyone).
Science is very explicit in saying that it does not know all the answers, what it has shown is that it is the only reliable WAY of describing the universe we live in (by all reasonable standards). Science further cannot answer questions like “What’s the meaning of life?” That is purely philosophical.
Where I disagree most with religionists is when they begin to make claims about the natural world that are clearly in conflict with what humanity has discovered using the scientific method. That includes, the origins of life, the universe, abortion and homosexuality. That is when religionists over step the boundary between religion and science. They make claims about the natural order of the universe by the application of their religion, which are clearly in conflict with well-established, scientifically-established phenomenon.
To put a finer point on it, science can never make claims about the supernatural (by definition). It can only rebut claims of supernatural causes to natural phenomenon.
If you want to disagree over philosophy/worldviews such as humanism vs. christianity go for it, but if you attempt to compare scientific observations and religious claims there really is no basis for comparison.
Occam’s Razor does assume a skeptical origin. Anyone with faith would disregard it as unnecessary and irrelevant to the question. It’s useful when skepticism is evident and someone isn’t looking for a God to fill in the gaps. The given is that there is one God and philosophy goes from there for the faithful.
Occam’s Razor is good for denying the existence of telephone leprechauns who whisper messages relayed by magic but it doesn’t stand up to faith. It should, but it doesn’t. You just end up with the “You assume that there is no God” argument. Then it’s all cosmic teapots and invisible, intangible, silent, odourless unicorns making the place untidy.
Yes, but that’s basically the point. Humans have always been ready to come up with answers to questions. In the absence of good methods for arriving at those answers, projecting ‘the actions of an intelligent agent’ was the method of choice. It sucks as a method and everyone who has every heard of Greek myths or Egyptian mythology knows it. How many times does the method have to fail before people give it up? Knowing the tiniest bit of history and science, there is nothing remotely resembling a good reason to propose the existence of a god or gods.
@Ben, I agree. I was just saying that this was probably how “God” was proposed as an explanation.
Not necessarily. Sure Christians claim to have a certain number of truths. But honest Christians when asked about certain elements of their worldview, they will admit they do not know.
@Ben and hoverfrog
this is the problem that I see. you have a bunch of naturalistic observations. Great, fine. What I then question is how that automatically extiquishes a need for God. Not random bits of mythology. But a greater force than yourself. this is why I have issues with the God of Gaps theory because of the presuppositions (sp?) of God becoming “unnecessary”. But more on this later.
kwrigh5
I don’t think that it does. Equally it doesn’t automatically give a need for God either. Like most atheists I say show me the evidence or a good reason for God and I’ll believe it. Until then I’ll reserve judgement and live as if there is no God.
@kwrigh
I don’t think I was clear, my bad. I’m not saying Christians, I’m saying Christianity (the religious philosophy/belief). To argue that any given Christian is representative of Christianity itself would be some kind of logical fallacy. After all there’s a reason for the expression, “Christianity would be a great religion if it weren’t for all the Christians”.
For every whacko Christian I could find an equally whacko atheist (well in the U.S., it’s more like for every 6 Christians but you get the point). Plus Christians by their very belief system have an out. “I’m not perfect, no one is. I just do what I can, sometimes I fail and I need forgiveness.” That’s fine. What my point was getting at was the problems with attempting to compare/equate religions like Christianity with a “Scientific” philosophy (which I don’t know what that means and that was the point I made above).
@hover
Do the magic telephone leprechauns have mullets? Do they work for the Department of Homeland Security? Are they the ones who leave their shoes wrapped around telephone wires? Are they union? Seriously, if you are going to propose something like this we will need more details.
oops I messed up the quotes, the first paragraph of my last response is actuall kwrigh’s response to the quoted text… if that made any sense.
Skep, mock the magic telephone leprechauns at your peril. How would you feel if you were stranded without telephone access and all the leprechauns were sniggering at you?
Ok I understand where you are coming from. I guess my concern comes in when a person takes in all the scientific data and then states “there is definately no God”. I don’t really mean religious skeptics, potentially non-theists or whatever.
“There is definitely no God” should really read “there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of God”. A person can say “2 + 2 definitely does not equal 99″ and be 100% correct. A person that says “there is definitely no God” is stating a certainty that they do not have the evidence to support.
How about a person saying “there is definitely no Captain Kirk” or “there is definitely no tooth fairy” ?