After several invitations, my brother Eric decided that he would discuss our differing worldviews (Christianity and atheism). This engendered some lengthy back and forth dialogs which can be found on this blog under various headings and theses. Unfortunately, he has ceased responding to these public threads. While he later reinitiated a separate debate with me on other issues, he has demanded that I keep those discussions in a private context, and I have honored that request. I hope that he will return to the unanswered objections I have offered on my public blog, but that remains up to him.
Because of the topical nature and my desire to allow others to take side discussions as they like, I felt that the relationship between science and Christianity merited its own space. So, the discussion on the present post was birthed from the following (public) blog entry and comments from December 2008: (http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/12/discussion-with-atheist-friend.html#comments)
To summarize that thread, like most atheists, Eric believes that Christianity has some inherent weakness because of its reliance on a degree of faith. I responded that “all belief systems, philosophies and religions incorporate some faith (even if they think that they do not). For example, science itself requires faith that observers’ senses are reliable. This is taken for granted, but it IS faith.”
As part of the present discussion, I would like to offer a further assessment on the relationship between science and Christianity, and it hinges on the question of whether or not the two enterprises are at odds with one another. It seems many atheists and Christians alike would answer this in the affirmative, but I disagree with such an assessment. Both science and Christianity are built on faith, unprovable and unfalsifiable beliefs, but they also make use of the same human perceptive faculties. Science, like the very first Christian witnesses, depends on sensory input or the accurate perception of phenomena in order to operate. The difference of course is that science attempts to formulate rules and laws that, at least in theory, are repeatable and have an explanatory and predictive qualities whereas events contingent upon God’s actions may be explanatory, but are not repeatable or even observable unless he chooses to make them so. So if science only works with the testable, repeatable, predictable and observable, and God does not fall neatly into these categories, then it would seem that, officially, science has nothing to say about God.
But I am dissatisfied with that idea as well, for it sounds as if the two spheres could never overlap, and this is not the case. To be more specific, Christians believe that God created the physical universe and hence all the scientific laws that humans have been able to discern, study and test. It makes no sense, therefore, to suggest that God’s creation could be used to prove that God doesn’t exist. Put another way, it would be like suggesting that we could use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method doesn’t work.
When we consider the poorly understood early moments of our universe and the equally darkened understanding of where life first came from, we can see: A) how humble we should be in proposing theories of creation, and B) that far too much speculation and various faith commitments are mistaken for (or purported as) unassailable fact. Either way, the bottom line is that Christianity is not against science and science does not lead to atheism on its own. It’s only when certain philosophical faith commitments are snuck in the door and projected onto science that it is dressed up to support atheism. We might say the same about religious believers who force the Bible to advocate for their own myopic understanding of Genesis’ early chapters and thus paint legitimate scientific discoveries as an evil ruse.
Back to my original thought, I believe it is more helpful to suggest that God has provided two revelations that we can study, test and explore: the biblical text and the text of creation. I also suggest that when they are followed with an open mind they will lead their students to the same God/ Creator. Profoundly spiritual people are asking the same types of questions as our most brilliant and reflective philosophers and scientists: Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here and where might we go? Of course I suggest that Jesus Christ is the one who can best help us navigate these questions. That too is a faith commitment, and it is one that I do not shy away from.
Read on.
-C. Lambeth
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What I have tried to do below is to summarize what I believe to be your [CL's] main arguments [for Christianity] as succinctly as I can, and then to respond to each. I have tried very hard not to interleave related comments as separate resonsesto the many permutations of what I think are sub-arguments and re-statements of the same central point. I have also bitten my tounge and intentionally not commented on matters that I think are peripheral and not germane to the debate over whether god exists, such as whether the people on talk.origins were nasty to you or whether my lowercase spelling of the word "god" is sufficiently respectful of your beliefs. I hope you will respect my position that while I may have marginally enough time and energy to respond to the central argument, I really do NOT have any interest in delving into side issues over punctuation and so forth. If I have missed any of your key theses in the below, please state them for me as directly as you can, and I will comment on them as well. As far as your other comments... "EL" is fine, and I am happy with the previous [faith discussion/ commentary] post.
ReplyDelete3. There are elements of science, and particularly of the earliest reaches of biology and astrophysics, especially the Big Bang and the first step from non-life to unicellular life, which are at best poorly understood by a small number of very advanced researchers, and are at worst complete gaps in our understanding. Therefore, belief in science, and more broadly, belief that only the natural world exists and supernatural forces do not occur, is in itself a baseless belief on faith. Therefore, scientific faith is no better or different than religious faith.
Corbin, this really is the most appalling rationalization of your pre-existing conclusion. Think about what you’re saying. We were less scientifically advanced 100 years ago than we are now. So does that mean that 100 years ago, god was more likely to exist and faith was more justified? Let me put this as simply as I can: Yes, there are things that we do not yet understand fully. (Although, as Carl Sagan has observed, “the more and more we learn about the way the universe actually works, the less and less it seems there’s anything for a god to actually do.”) However, there are numerous evidences all around you that while science might occasionally meander in the wrong direction and have to get knocked back on course, its teachings and theories and predictions generally conform to and are confirmed by the physical properties of the universe. Microwave ovens, space flight, polyester… the list goes on and on. Each of these advances, large and small, can be regarded as another notch on the belt of science, that its theories work and that we correctly understand the physical universe as it is. From the first caveman who fashioned a slingshot with a rudimentary understanding of velocity, gravity, momentum, etc, all the way up the most advanced research laboratory today, mankind has been making pretty darn good progress based on understanding and using the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the universe.
ReplyDeleteFor you to assert that it’s improbable that the theories of physics as they apply to the Big Bang and so forth are true, then you are either also asserting that all these advances that work on the laws of physics and science are also untrue, or else that while you accept the well-known and oft demonstrated scientific advances such as microwaves, that research into early cosmology and biology is a completely misguided departure and offshoot from the rest of science. Is that really where you want to go? Do you think microwave ovens run not on the power of microwaves, but that they are secretly tapping into a firey evil hell force from another dimension… or that the scientists who developed the microwave one day went on a big acid trip and made up the Big Bang for kicks without having any good scientific leads? This is where we get into the whole Level 3-Level 4 thing. I think that microwaves run in basically the way they are alleged and observed to have run, and based on the success of Sagan, Einstein, Hawking, and others in predicting and inventing things such as microwaves, atomic bombs, and what-have-you, I think it’s reasonable to say, hey, they probably have a pretty good lead on other physical properties of the universe as well. Where, I ask you, are the equivalent advances and evidences to support your faith-based understanding of the universe? What Yahweh-based inventions run and contribute to human progress by tapping into theistic energy? Has there ever been a single one? No, of course not. Your conception that god created the universe and is the driving power behind all this is totally external to the observable reality of the universe, so it requires you to step into that mystical level-4 thinking and add an unnecessary dimension. “Einstein did not invent atomic science; god inspired him to invent it.” Well, where does that end? I could just as easily say “God-1 did not inspire Einstein to invent! God-2 inspired God-1 to inspire Einstein!” and so on. Here’s something to twist your mind around: Let’s assume that much of what you believe about Yahweh and Jesus and the Holy Spirit is true, that he/they did create the heavens and the Earth and so forth. Obviously, he/they are vastly more intelligent and powerful than we are, in this case. So, what makes you so certain you can know and understand their minds and they’re shooting straight with you? Perhaps they are at odds with another god in another universe with a different set of rules, who they neglected to mention because they don’t want you worshipping him out of jealousy (and thus all those commandments about worshipping other gods.) Or perhaps they are indeed the evil force who is misleading mankind into misery, and it was actually that poor (and really quite nice) Satan fellow who has our true interest at heart… but evil is, for the time being, winning out, and portraying him totally inaccurately? Once you go down the rabbit hole of mystical/superstitious/Level 4 thinking, there’s really no end to it.
So, in other words, Hawking, Sagan, Einstein, et al have an awesome track record so far, therefore I think that their research and theories on other matters of physics are the smart way to bet. I have seen no such track record for your or any other alleged deity, so I don’t find your case near as convincing. Is it theoretically possible that all the esteemed scientists named above, among many others, are on the wrong track and have completely misunderstood the universe (probably due to some infernal plotting and planting of false evidence by the devil?) Sure. Anything’s possible, I suppose; once again, you can’t prove a negative. But based on everything I have seen and learned in my life, I am going to bet that reality is basically as I have observed it and that the microwave runs on physics and not on mystical forces. (I hope you are at least conscious of how evasive and intellectually dishonest it is to reply to the question of where a god came from with this “my god is timeless and all powerful therefore your question is inapplicable” non-answer?)
To put it in the simplest possible terms: I’m holding a royal flush. You’re holding a couple of random hearts and clubs, and the 2 of diamonds. Both of our life savings is at stake. Both of us have to make calculated bets which could be wrong. Yes, both are indeed bets. But you’re saying that my bet is of equivalent odds to yours, and it’s not.
EL, There is a lot of typing here. Let's slow it down a bit. Why don't you pick one topic or question from above and we'll discuss that first? I hope that is acceptable.
ReplyDelete-CL
I've narrowed it down to three topics (plus some introductory remarks) from the vast 30+ page document we started with; I think we can keep three issues on track. I'm really not comfortable paring it down anymore. Feel free to separate the intro and 3 themes into four separate blogs if you prefer and we'll follow each thread separately.
ReplyDeleteEditorial note: Splitting into 3 entries is exactly what has been done. This one is "#3"
ReplyDelete-CL
One other comment... (how I *do* wish I could go back and edit my previous responses!) In reference to my first point in my second post, concerning your assertion that "Protestant Christianity is more likely to be the correct religion than Bhuddism, Hinduism, et al., because it has a superior written historical tradition and a more compelling narrative of personal sacrifice of its savior." (my paraphasing of your words,) I'd like you to think about something. Every religion has some reason why it's better than all the others. Your Jesus is more compelling than Bhudda? Well, a Bhuddist might reply, Bhuddism is much older and therefore must be correct; how can a religion that has never been heard from before spring into existence thousands of years along (not to mention plagiarizing many of its core tenents from the completely separate religion of Judaism,) and possibly claim to compare to the eternal and unchanging and timeless lore of Bhuddism? Do you REALLY think that you yourself and the other millions of Christians in Western Europe and the United States who make up a majority of the population in those countries have objectively evaluated the merits of Christianity vs. Bhuddism vs. other religions? Or do you think, perhaps, that maybe it simply has to do with the fact that people tend to accept the doctrine they're taught at birth, and that's why Hindus are mostly in India, Bhuddists mostly in asia, and Christians mostly in the west? You're a protestant Christian theologian because you were born in a particular place in time and chose to accept the myths you were raised with. I'm fairly confident that had you been born elsewhere, you'd now be an Islamic, or Jewish, or Bhuddist theologian, arguing just as passionately for the beauty and innate truth and superiority of your beliefs.
ReplyDeleteEL, You don't have to necessarily pick the topic or re-post to pare it down any more if you don't want to, but there is too much here at the moment for me to offer a comprehensive reply that you would be comfortable with. What I mean is, if I dealt with all of your questions at once, I think you would be frustrated by not being able to reply to some of my points in kind without resorting to lengthy quotations and once again making the whole process rather beleaguered. I'd really like to avoid that, and I think you'd (ultimately) probably prefer that as well. So you pick the tune, and I’ll hum the harmonic dissonance until we change songs.
ReplyDelete-CL
EL,
ReplyDeleteRegarding your last post (2 above), I think you have seriously miscalculated why I have picked Xianity over the alternatives. I think we should type about this more, but you've raised a variation of this argument in one of our other forums here on the blog, so I think we should try and keep them together.
http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/01/challenging-xianity-thesis-2.html
That being said, I will respond to your notion that faith is merely a function of where a person is born. I can see how one might come to this conclusion, but it is faulty for three reasons:
1) It suggests that truth is merely a feature of geographical proximity. If that is what you mean, then I am having a hard time following you.
2) It presumes that faith is present at birth, which could indeed be indicative of the fact that humans were created in God’s image, but I do not think this is what you mean, so again I am having a hard time tracking with you.
3) It assumes that people are incapable of thinking for themselves and that they would never dare to critically evaluate what they were “indoctrinated with at a young age,” much less actually convert to another faith system or philosophy. Given the similarities between our mutual upbringing, I don’t think you intend to make this third assumption either. And if you did and insisted that you were born with and indoctrinated with atheism at an early age, I have to ask how this makes your particular system any more true or legitimate than mine?
-CL
Regarding science:
ReplyDelete1) You’ve only got it partly right, I have no problem placing a degree of faith in the scientific method. I have said that over and over again, but let me try to make the point a little bit differently here. Science is awesome when it works for good, and I am SO thankful for it. I wouldn’t be alive if it weren’t for science; so hooray for its many blessings! I freely acknowledge that there is a significant basis for faith in science, so you’ve gotten my position on that part totally wrong. As such, this renders most of the rest of your address to me on that issue as somewhat irrelevant, although I am glad to hear you acknowledge that science can indeed get things terribly wrong from time to time.
Can you admit that you have faith in science too?
2) But here is the part that you’ve gotten totally right (if you believe in “right,” that is): You’ve characterized my position as, “belief that only the natural world exists and supernatural forces to not [exist], is in itself a baseless [appeal to] faith.”
I maintain this position and would ask that you revisit my earlier response to your incorrect notions about what you call Christianity’s “Level 4” faith commitments. It appears that you may not have read that section very well (or at least have not responded to the issues raised there), so I invite you to re-visit it when you get a chance. I think it will add something significant to our conversation. The core issue is that you seem to allow information yielded by human sensory perception only when it supports your preconceived faith of how the universe operates, but as soon as those SAME sensory faculties perceive data that calls your faith into question, you instantly dismiss it, deny it or ignore it. Such moves belie serious intellectual dishonesty, and I think you need to address this.
As for the Einstein quote, you put words in my mouth. I don’t recall saying or typing what you quoted to me. And your caricature of “Yahweh-based inventions,” is hard to take seriously, for you ruled out what might constitute an idea being connected to God before you ever finished typing the sentence. This is faith on your part, unless you intend to prove a negative.
Can you admit that you have such faith?
Next, you asked me: ”What makes you so certain you can know and understand [God’s] mind and that [he] is shooting straight with you?”
A fair question to be sure. But here’s my answer: I am certain that I do NOT know and understand God completely. I only know a small fraction, but that is based on my experience in the world and that of others and on what God has made known to us (revelation). I imagine that it is this last (revelation) feature that you intend to question, so I’ll mostly respond to that.
I’ve addressed parts of this in our Morality discussion posted elsewhere, but essentially it comes down to trust, but this is trust BECAUSE of the evidence, not in spite of it. My experiences of good and evil are validated by what I find in the Bible and in the community of Christian believers. Atheism (as you have represented your particular denomination) requires me to deny or explain away my experience of good and evil. Alternatively, Christianity explains it further, and not the least of which is the CAUSE of good and evil. God has proven to be trustworthy where it counts, and this completely independent of a (false) "prosperity gospel" through which people might judge God according to how he makes them rich, healthy and happy, all while smiting their enemies. That is the kind of faith we might expect from an immature Christian and/or one who is not familiar with the whole biblical text.
Regarding the non-contingent reality of God’s existence, you tried to critique my answer by forcing it back into a paradigm that is (at its very core) completely inapplicable and inappropriate for yielding ANY information about God in the first place (unless God chooses to subject himself to it). What you are doing is akin to screaming at the God you deny to “JUMP!”
Do you really expect him to ask in response, “How high, Sir?” I would counter that it is “evasive and intellectually dishonest” for you to continue ignoring the plain and obvious truth that science has nothing to say for OR against the existence of God per se. Science can be awesome, but it simply does not lead to atheism; faith does.
If I might offer a poker example of my own, you seem to be holding a royal flush and crowing about it, but you’ve stacked the deck and invented your own rules, the chips you use are meaningless and you’ve told God that he can’t come to the table. Of course you’re going to “win” that hand, but it’s a hollow victory.
Unlike magic potatoes orbiting the moon, there are several independent accounts of some odd events that occurring in 1st century Palestine. I can’t rule them out just because I personally have never witnessed similar events. I've never seen or heard George Washington either. But if these people actually saw and heard what the documents say they did, I have to at least consider how they might have gone about relating it to the world. They didn’t have video cameras or audio-recording equipment. They had their 5 senses (the same senses that scientists use in their labs, I might add) and they had language. Unlike later so-called “gnostic” texts like the “Gospel of Thomas,” the NT narratives read like eye-witness accounts and secondary sources of those accounts. I have to ask myself, could these men and women have actually seen and heard the events that we read about in the NT? Without a pre-existing faith commitment to a closed universe, I have to answer, “Yes, these stories might actually be true.” Do I know that they are true in the same way that I know I’m typing on a web-site right now? No, of course not, but I believe both positions nonetheless and have good reasons for doing so.
Are you able to consider that your prior-faith commitments about what IS and what is NOT possible may be wrong? I freely admit that I could be wrong, but only if you come to terms with this question can our dialogue proceed in any meaningful way. I hope that you can and that it will, but this remains up to you.
with love and affection,
-Corbin Lambeth