The UK: A Secular Country?
The following is a recent comment received on this blog. I wanted to highlight and interact with the thoughts brought up here. I appreciate “anonymous” for taking the time to raise his / her opinions.
"As a resident in the United Kingdom who happened to stumble upon your web-site, I thought you might be interested in the point of view of someone from a dominantly secular country, which watches the growing evangelism in the US with a mixture of amusement and consternation."
From my perspective, it has been deeply saddening to watch biblical Christianity dying in the UK. This is the land of Spurgeon and many great Christian leaders of the past and now it is admittedly a "dominantly secular country."
"There are constant and complex debates around the world over concepts such as God and Creation and such like, but most of it is entirely unnecessary. This is not because the existence of a God is proven or unproven (neither is true). It's just that ordinary science discovered DECADES ago how all life in the universe formed - from the evolution of super-giant stars. This is where the heavy elements such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and iron that make up planets, oceans and people are made and distributed throughout galaxies after supernova explosions scatter them in giant gas clouds. Gravity causes these clouds to condense naturally, and new stars are formed, surrounded by planets rich with the elements of life."
There are many powerful arguments for the existence of God, but I am convinced that people will rebel against the clear truth until and unless the Holy Spirit opens their eyes to see the obvious. If anyone out there wants free information packets (sorry, US only) describing some of these arguments, just order them here.
"This process has been PROVEN via observations and measurements from Supernova SN1987A, and images from the Hubble Space Telescope of proto-planetary disc formation in the Orion Nebula. Spectroscopy has identified the elements of life in both these observed phenomena."
Now I certainly, as would most sane people who live in the real world, take issue with the use of the word "PROVEN" here. How can you possibly prove something as complex as the origin of life from a star that is billions of miles away? You’d think our commenter thought he, or perhaps the scientists he has such faith in, was divine. If I am choosing religions, I think I’ll pick one a bit more rational.
"Although I, and almost everyone I know, have no problem with religion in general, we do find it bizarre that in the 21st Century, so much of the population of one of our greatest civilisations, the United States, are still living in a fantasy of immortal Gods and supposed miracle men. The supposed Messiah 'Jesus Christ' has been shown beyond all reasonabl (sic) doubt to be unknown to history, in the same way that Perseus of Hercules is unknown to history - found only in legends and fables."
I am glad you do not have a problem with religion, since your faith in human science is rightly called a religion. I doubt you agree with that statement, however. Speaking of science and history, Jesus Christ has not been shown to be unknown, and certainly not beyond all reasonable doubt. Only the most liberal, fringe scholars would say something like this. The vast majority of conservative and moderate scholars believe that we can know many things about the actual existence of Jesus Christ: including His existence and His death. For those, like myself, who are persuaded of the truthfulness of the Bible, Jesus Himself is the One who convinces of His life and power and authority. Hercules is obviously a fable of the Wizard of Oz variety. But to deny the existence or knowability of Christ is more akin to denying the existence or knowability of Plato or George Washington or Henry VIII. Any fair historian will back up this point. I do not expect my commenting friend to believe this, but I do hope that other readers of this blog recognize a fringe, radical, and unrealistic statement when they see one.
"We here in the UK have learned one thing very well - we have no religion, and never needed one. Life is much more rewarding, and indeed interesting, when it is viewed with a desire to FIND THE TRUTH, rather than have 'faith' in fables and then try to 'prove' them correct. Science proves itself correct over time, time and time again. Religion just keeps struggling to hold on...."
This is not entirely true: there are many religions in the UK. There is cerainly no unified view. And, thanks be to the Lord, there are many conservative Christians there still. Take for example Alister Mcgrath, a preeminent scholar and former principle of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. As to whether religion is needed – I agree. Outward religious exercise has far too often gotten in the way of Jesus Christ. Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except by Me.” I realize that I cannot figure out life by looking at a Billion-mile-away supernova, therefore, I turn to one who claimed to be God and who substantiated that claim via miracles, not the least of which was His own resurrection. He seems to know more than me. My faith is rationally placed in this superior being, not in a fable. As to your thoughts that religion just keeps struggling to hold on, I would remind you that truth is not always popular. I encourage you to read the Gospel of John and give Jesus a fair hearing.
"As a resident in the United Kingdom who happened to stumble upon your web-site, I thought you might be interested in the point of view of someone from a dominantly secular country, which watches the growing evangelism in the US with a mixture of amusement and consternation."
From my perspective, it has been deeply saddening to watch biblical Christianity dying in the UK. This is the land of Spurgeon and many great Christian leaders of the past and now it is admittedly a "dominantly secular country."
"There are constant and complex debates around the world over concepts such as God and Creation and such like, but most of it is entirely unnecessary. This is not because the existence of a God is proven or unproven (neither is true). It's just that ordinary science discovered DECADES ago how all life in the universe formed - from the evolution of super-giant stars. This is where the heavy elements such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and iron that make up planets, oceans and people are made and distributed throughout galaxies after supernova explosions scatter them in giant gas clouds. Gravity causes these clouds to condense naturally, and new stars are formed, surrounded by planets rich with the elements of life."
There are many powerful arguments for the existence of God, but I am convinced that people will rebel against the clear truth until and unless the Holy Spirit opens their eyes to see the obvious. If anyone out there wants free information packets (sorry, US only) describing some of these arguments, just order them here.
"This process has been PROVEN via observations and measurements from Supernova SN1987A, and images from the Hubble Space Telescope of proto-planetary disc formation in the Orion Nebula. Spectroscopy has identified the elements of life in both these observed phenomena."
Now I certainly, as would most sane people who live in the real world, take issue with the use of the word "PROVEN" here. How can you possibly prove something as complex as the origin of life from a star that is billions of miles away? You’d think our commenter thought he, or perhaps the scientists he has such faith in, was divine. If I am choosing religions, I think I’ll pick one a bit more rational.
"Although I, and almost everyone I know, have no problem with religion in general, we do find it bizarre that in the 21st Century, so much of the population of one of our greatest civilisations, the United States, are still living in a fantasy of immortal Gods and supposed miracle men. The supposed Messiah 'Jesus Christ' has been shown beyond all reasonabl (sic) doubt to be unknown to history, in the same way that Perseus of Hercules is unknown to history - found only in legends and fables."
I am glad you do not have a problem with religion, since your faith in human science is rightly called a religion. I doubt you agree with that statement, however. Speaking of science and history, Jesus Christ has not been shown to be unknown, and certainly not beyond all reasonable doubt. Only the most liberal, fringe scholars would say something like this. The vast majority of conservative and moderate scholars believe that we can know many things about the actual existence of Jesus Christ: including His existence and His death. For those, like myself, who are persuaded of the truthfulness of the Bible, Jesus Himself is the One who convinces of His life and power and authority. Hercules is obviously a fable of the Wizard of Oz variety. But to deny the existence or knowability of Christ is more akin to denying the existence or knowability of Plato or George Washington or Henry VIII. Any fair historian will back up this point. I do not expect my commenting friend to believe this, but I do hope that other readers of this blog recognize a fringe, radical, and unrealistic statement when they see one.
"We here in the UK have learned one thing very well - we have no religion, and never needed one. Life is much more rewarding, and indeed interesting, when it is viewed with a desire to FIND THE TRUTH, rather than have 'faith' in fables and then try to 'prove' them correct. Science proves itself correct over time, time and time again. Religion just keeps struggling to hold on...."
This is not entirely true: there are many religions in the UK. There is cerainly no unified view. And, thanks be to the Lord, there are many conservative Christians there still. Take for example Alister Mcgrath, a preeminent scholar and former principle of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. As to whether religion is needed – I agree. Outward religious exercise has far too often gotten in the way of Jesus Christ. Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except by Me.” I realize that I cannot figure out life by looking at a Billion-mile-away supernova, therefore, I turn to one who claimed to be God and who substantiated that claim via miracles, not the least of which was His own resurrection. He seems to know more than me. My faith is rationally placed in this superior being, not in a fable. As to your thoughts that religion just keeps struggling to hold on, I would remind you that truth is not always popular. I encourage you to read the Gospel of John and give Jesus a fair hearing.
3 Comments:
The anonymous post-er from the U.K. does not realize how "unscientific" modern strict empirical "science" is, nor does he seem to realise that it (methodological naturalism) is epistemologically bankrupt.
He/she does not even seem fully grasp the magnitude of his "faith" over reason.
Full knowledge comprises both rational and empirical knowledge and thus is not complete without both of its parts. While we can conclude that reason is the stronger/foundational source for knowledge, it must be stated that complete knowledge must come from both sources because they are inextricably linked in the acquisition, storing, manipulation, and use of additional knowledge. Therefore, by applying rational and logical methods to experience we can accelerate the acquisition of empirical knowledge.
This is the approach taken in science. The scientific method involves making a logical prediction based upon previous observations. We do not know that it is true, but we can test this hypothesis with further experience. In order to record and communicate this experience logical systems or mathematical models are used to describe the experience, for example by applying a mathematical formula to match the results of an experiment.
Intelligent design involves making a logical prediction for an intelligent designer of biological organisms based upon previous observations of manifestations of irreducible complexity and specified Shannon information (concept in information theory). The prediction that an intelligent designer is uniquely responsible for certain types of order found in complex systems can be and has been proven countless times with items all around us. Enough proofs that anyone should be able to legitimately call the hypothesis a "theory." Nonetheless, even a hypothesis is certainly a valid scientific concept that should be taught and scientifically considered. Clearly, the intelligent design approach is undeniably "science."
The honest scientist cannot dismiss ID by ridicule or the logical fallacy of authority. He must deal with the problem both rationally and empirically.
First, the methodological naturalist must deal with logical inconsistency of his own beliefs. He subscribes to a deterministic world-view in which the universe is nothing but a chain of meaningless events following one after another according to the law of cause and effect. This world-view gives rise to the logical inconsistency of the inability to posit a first cause. Furthermore, he rejects any form of metaphysical volition which undermines the ability to think or do anything other than that which physical and chemical processes determined he would think or do. This logical inconsistency undermines rationality itself.
Second, Methodological naturalism lacks empirical foundations for an evolutionary progress emerging from undirected random events. Nowhere in nature can it be proven that specified and irreducible complexity has come about by anything other than direct influence by intelligence. In fact, the opposite is universally found. Without the influence of intelligent interaction, order naturally proceeds to disorder and a lower energy state. (I actually had a Ph.D. physicist say to me, the evolutionary process is directed by undirected random events.)
Third, the modern form of strictly empirical scientific investigation into nature is plagued by an inevitable confusion over a central philosophical issue, that of knowledge. By rejecting absolute truths derived from a priori rational knowledge, they necessarily reject the very foundations of the scientific method.
For a more complete review, please see my own blog at http://deathrowbodine.blogspot.com
Hello, I'm the anonymous blogger who wrote a short piece on your web-site. I've popped back, and seen that my comments have received some respones! I'm glad that these responses are not the rambling, offensive replies that I've seen on other sites relating to religion - honest and open debate is much healthier. People will believe what they will and that's fine. But I did want to clarify a couple of points made by the two responses I've seen so far...
Firstly, if 'science' is a religion, then 'bald' is a hair colour. Religion is FAITH, a belief system which either refuses to accept or ignores opposing measurements of its validity. By its very nature it requires its adherents to attempt, however helplessly, to support its claims and refute all and ANY evidence that challenges those claims. For those who still challenge this, look to history itself - man has worshipped many hundreds of Gods, with the same fervour and confidence of the Christian today - Zeus, Mithras, Thor and Osiris to name but a few. They're all gone now, because the civilisations that followed them have fallen. Were those Gods real or immortal? No. Biblical Gods are the same - they exist only because people who believe in them exist. If the Hebrews had written a book about a Spotted Luminous Dodo God, that's what evangelicals would be following today ( a humourous way of putting it I know, but we're talking fables here).
When I spoke about science having prved the orgins of life, I was somewhat mocked as a radical in the response. This is unfair and untrue. When scientists (Fred Hoyle and George Gamow) described the origins of life from stellar evolution in the 1960's, it remaind a hypothesis. It couldn't be proved until obervations were mad - even though the equations hun together. Final confirmation only came together in 1987, when a supernova went off that could be measured. The reply to my blog (in general) said that it these measurements would require divine knowledge and were irrational. Untrue. The people who made them weren't trying to deny religion - they were simply doing their job. Spectroscopy can tell us what objects billions of light years away (never mind miles) are made of. If it didn't work, then all of science would be wrong, and thus virtually every technological machine and implement of our modern world would not work. The silicon chip in the computer your reading this from relies upon such stalwart foundations of science, right back to Einstein's work and that of people who preceded him.
Jesus Christ is utterly unknown to history. That doesn't mean he didn't live. What it does mean is that his existence is utterly unrecorded by history - every supposed recording has been shown to be either false or an outright forgery. Again, for those who doubt this, consider the wealth of evidence for Julius Ceasar, George Washington et all. Jesus is supposed to be one of the most influential and powerful men in history, yet nobody wrote about him outside of the Bible, itself a historically innacurate document (Kings Solomon and David, Moses, Abraham et all are equally unknown to history).Those who are known to history within the Bible (Pontius Pilate, Herod etc) have had their histories twitd to fit the Biblical message (Pilate never executd a Jesus Christ, Herod never burned any babies).
In the UK there are indeed religions, but the actually number of religious people here is approximately 3 million (5% of the population). The Anglican Church claims 70% of us are Christian, and are regualrly laughed off the face of the country for saying so. Less than 1 million attend church, nd this number is collapsing rapidly.
Finally, despite what appears to be a well-versed defence of Intelligent Design, ID is creationism - nothing more. Dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon and masquerading as a science, it has been competely annihalated here in the UK as false, and indeed insulting to decent people who devote their lives to the finding out of facts. Irreducable complexity, one of ID's tenets, was proven not just false but in denial of evolution years ago. Everything evolves; it is nature and nothing more. ID's prominence in US political activism would be laughable were it not so serious in its misleading of the 'faithful'.
We, in this cosmos, may be here because of the actions of a supreme being - nobody knows for sure yet. But the God of the Bible and of every other holy book on earth is not that supreme being, and all those who deny this are simply making mankind wait longer for the truth. Science can find it. Religion can't, and there's 10,000 years of religion failing to prove it.
DC
I still find it offensive that people worship a 2000 year old carpenter in some sort of pagan holy trinty.
Why do christians claim to be monothestic when in fact they have a pantheon of saints,gods and demons.
Infact they worship craven images of golden crosses and practice there faith at alters, not pagan you say? lol
Chrsitianty must examine its own historic and factual origins and stop taking itself seriously.
Creation myths and spirutuality are their to help us understand the duality in humans, not to b taken as historic fact.
The bible is not the word of god, but the word of man.
And any man who says they truly know gods will, should b locked up.
It amazes me how any man can claim, he knows the will of god.Such people should be treated as the idiots they are.
Post a Comment
<< Home