Positive Reasons for Faith Versus The God-of-the-Gaps
With the loss in Dover, PN over the teaching of Intelligent Design, a host of criticism toward Christianity has been unleashed. To summarize, people are saying that faith is nothing more than a mechanism that fills in the gaps of knowledge that we are otherwise lacking due to the inability to acquire it. In other words, because science cannot explain everything (yet), foolish people default to faith in order to have an explanation of certain phenomena.
This type of criticism, however, is unfounded. Christians do not believe in the existence of God, the truthfulness of Scripture, and the words of Christ in order to simply fill in the knowledge-holes left by modern science. Rather, Christianity is believed based upon positive and rational reasons that stand on their own right. As a worldview, biblical Christianity is filled with facts that match reality as we know it and that allow us to develop a number of convincing positive arguments demonstrating the consistency and truthfulness of the system as a whole.
For example, the moral argument for God’s existence gives us an explanation as to why people universally recognize the difference between right and wrong. A universal moral law, written on the hearts of people, presupposes a Lawgiver.
The teleological / design argument is the same. There are billions of positive evidences in nature that point clearly to a Designer.
Most important is the fact that Jesus Christ taught and believed that he himself was God and than he demonstrated this truth with miracles – the most important of which was his resurrection from the dead. The person of Jesus Christ and his teaching is the most remarkable positive argument of all. This means there are historical and prophetical reasons to believe the truthfulness of Christianity.
In other words, I have no need to fill in the gaps left by science. I am a Christian because Christianity makes rational sense of the world around me. It is a coherent and consistent worldview that explains every question I have with a real, albeit not exhaustive, answer.
I am no enemy of science as a discipline. In fact, the scientific method reminds me of the Proverbs, which speak so highly of wisdom. That is to say, we should seek knowledge and purse wisdom, and the scientific method (observing data, making hypothesis, testing the data, postulating theories, etc.) is one intelligent way of doing that.
But I am an enemy of the pseudo-science of the modern era. It’s attempt at maintaining methodological naturalism - going through the scientific process with the assumption that all that exists is natural and that nothing supernatural or supra-natural can exist - is absurd. It is akin to denying a black hole simply because it cannot be seen with the visible eye. We see the effects of a black hole and we see the effects of the divine Creator and Sustainer. Not filling in gaps, but exerting himself in clear and positive ways in our world.
This type of criticism, however, is unfounded. Christians do not believe in the existence of God, the truthfulness of Scripture, and the words of Christ in order to simply fill in the knowledge-holes left by modern science. Rather, Christianity is believed based upon positive and rational reasons that stand on their own right. As a worldview, biblical Christianity is filled with facts that match reality as we know it and that allow us to develop a number of convincing positive arguments demonstrating the consistency and truthfulness of the system as a whole.
For example, the moral argument for God’s existence gives us an explanation as to why people universally recognize the difference between right and wrong. A universal moral law, written on the hearts of people, presupposes a Lawgiver.
The teleological / design argument is the same. There are billions of positive evidences in nature that point clearly to a Designer.
Most important is the fact that Jesus Christ taught and believed that he himself was God and than he demonstrated this truth with miracles – the most important of which was his resurrection from the dead. The person of Jesus Christ and his teaching is the most remarkable positive argument of all. This means there are historical and prophetical reasons to believe the truthfulness of Christianity.
In other words, I have no need to fill in the gaps left by science. I am a Christian because Christianity makes rational sense of the world around me. It is a coherent and consistent worldview that explains every question I have with a real, albeit not exhaustive, answer.
I am no enemy of science as a discipline. In fact, the scientific method reminds me of the Proverbs, which speak so highly of wisdom. That is to say, we should seek knowledge and purse wisdom, and the scientific method (observing data, making hypothesis, testing the data, postulating theories, etc.) is one intelligent way of doing that.
But I am an enemy of the pseudo-science of the modern era. It’s attempt at maintaining methodological naturalism - going through the scientific process with the assumption that all that exists is natural and that nothing supernatural or supra-natural can exist - is absurd. It is akin to denying a black hole simply because it cannot be seen with the visible eye. We see the effects of a black hole and we see the effects of the divine Creator and Sustainer. Not filling in gaps, but exerting himself in clear and positive ways in our world.
6 Comments:
To all and any who read here...
For those of more open mind who may question some of the points of view on sites such as this, a link that may provide some sense of "enlightenment".
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/tactics.htm
DC
DC - True enlightenment is seeing the Lord Jesus Christ in the fullness of His glory. "The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world" - John 1:9. I know you don't believe this, but you are arguing into the face of your Creator.
Not to mention thousands of points of historical and scientific evidence.
Truly, if I held you beliefs - that is, humans are merely stardust - I would have already taken my own life. Why go on through the pain? There is no meaning ultimately (there is no ultimate) there is no accountability, no reason to do good or evil or call those two things by those names. Look, it would not be worth it. And it should not be worth it to you. If you truly feel purpose in living it is either because you are lying to yourself or because you know intrinsically that humans are more than mere stardust. I urge you to either reconsider your views or, if you truly believe that you are right (something that you can never do within your own system since evolution does not guarantee that your truth-seeking faculties evolved correctly, heck you could be lying to yourself as a survivial mechanism by your own system) commit suicide.
In many of your comments you point fingers at Dr. Cowan and I and declare that we are closed-minded. But, sir, do you not recognize that it is you who will not allow yourself to think beyond your own naturalistic presuppositions? Do you not see that you have closed off much of reality? It is not that we are not opened to the possibilities you are bringing up, we are...I am very interested in learning more about the formation and movement of elements.
But you refuse to even consider the possibility of a grand designer of all things. You dismiss the words of Jesus as fairy tale talk, but have you listened to what he says in an unbiased fashion?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst" - John 6:33-35.
His words are much more convincing than yours.
Thanks DC, I really liked the link.
Jason, your rambling is almost unbelievable. I think that if Jesus were here, he would give you a German suplex.
John -
Glad you liked the link, and thanks for the supportive comment. Posting here was getting lonely..!
Jason -
You repeatedly claim that you support science, and add that you're interested in learning more about the origins of life - but then reckon that if you accepted said science you'd take your own life. Perhaps this confusion casts light on why I maintain that proponents of ID are somewhat confused about science, and indeed, life.
You urge me to change my views or commit suicide. Now, there's a helpful and constructive comment if ever I've heard one. Well done. You're a true and compassionate human being, for sure.
Stellar nucleosynthesis isn't a belief - it's rock solid knowledge both proven and observable. In return, you quote the words of a fictional character in a fictional book, and reckon it's much more convincing than anything I've said.
You say that I refuse to entertain the idea of a grand designer. Nope, I don't. I've said otherwise repeatedly but, in line with Creationist tactics, you simply revert to a former argument when out of your depth. "There might be a God. ID won't find it because it's not science, and the bible's a false history, a fable". THAT'S where I'm coming from.
Your problem is that you're going round in circles whilst science and learning continue forwards. You're getting left further and further behind. Snap out of it!
DC
Woah woah woah players! What's with all the talk of suicide?! Jason AND Anonymous...come on buddies. What's with all this mud slinging and talk about suicide. Even it it's TRUE for either one of you, it's not a very good debate tactic. Neither side will respond well to an "it's my position or death" approach. Ravi Zacharias said something that would be applicable here:
"When you throw mud, you lose a lot of ground and your hands get dirty"
Now as for this whole creation/evolution debate, this is as silly as it is useless. I won't really shed any new light on the issue, but I do have SOMETHING to say:
In a nutshell, and as much as I understand things, the debate is NOT about evidence. It's NOT about "scientific evidence" versus "creationist evidence". The issue isn't even a 'scientific' issue. It's a philosophical one. It's not a point of 'our evidence' versus 'their evidence'. It's all about interpretation of data to turn 'data' INTO 'evidence'.
When either side looks at any 'fact of nature', they see it through a philosophical (and theological...though that term is not very tasty to some) lens that helps them to interpret it and fit it into their greater picture of reality.
When an atheistic evolutionist see a flower, he sees many things. He sees photosynthesis, cells, etc. The creationist sees the SAME data. The observations differ in their INTERPRETATION of that data.
The atheistic evolutionist, by fidelity to his naturalistic worldview, is committed to explaining said flower's existance in purely naturalistic terms. There's no space for any sort of divine miracle or supernatural process because such activity is presupposed to have not occured, as a philosophical starting point to his scientific enterprise. The evolutionist has his starting point that EFFECTS the data (like it or not there is no such thing as 'neutral observation'). IF, however infinitely remotely, that flower were placed there by God (or aliens, or whatever 'supernatural' method was involved), that evolutionist would have absolutely no way of ever arriving at that conclusion because they START with the assumption that the supernatural is impossible; only the natural is involved.
The creationist, on the other hand, has a different starting point. He starts with the authoritative self-revelation of God; ie. the Bible.
Regardless of where the creationist thinks the flower came from, he's bound by his other fidelity; fidelity to the Bible. If the Bible says that God created it 4000 years ago in 1 day, then that is a statement about the ultimate reality as it applies to that flower and it is one that he is fully rationally justified to believe (I'll illustrate this further on).
The evolutionist does not start at the same philosophical starting point as the creationist, so it's no surprise that the creationist and the evolutionist arrive at different interpretations of the data. One sees matter, energy, space and time. The other sees all of the above PLUS God orchestrating it all.
The REAL question is WHO has a more objective position from which to view the facts about the flower? Even more so, who has a more objective position from which to comment on the origins of the flower?
The evolutionist observes the flower in the present and then through logical extrapolation creates a likely scenerio of that flower's origin. The creationist, on the other hand, observes the flower in the present and then seeks an answer to the origins question in the only existent document that claims to be a historical eyewitness account of the ONLY observer of that event in time.
In all reality, both sound kinda silly. In the first place, the scientist is making an educated guess on something that he can have essentially absolutely no REAL data on. It's like hearing a noise in the bathroom and then speaking authoritatively on what's going on in there without ever looking into the bathroom to SEE what actually happened. Was that sound a mouse? A magazine falling off the rack? A pipe? An open window? Is there someone IN the bathroom? Two people? Seventeen people? The Detroit Redwings? Was the wall knocked down and the noise actually coming from outside? The evolutionist can listen closely, examine the door, perform logical extrapolations and take all the measurements in the world...but until he opens the door and looks into the bathroom himself, he'll never be doing anything more than simply guessing as to what happened...and there are a LOT of people doing a LOT of guess work.
Funny thing is, due to the nature of the debate, the evolutionist can NEVER EVER have a chance to 'peek inside the bathroom' to see what actually happened. There's a door seperating the evolutionist from the bathroom, and that door is 'time'. No way in, unless you have a time machine.
To keep using my stuid example, the creationist also has NO access to the bathroom. He cannot 'open the door' to see what happened. He can also listen closely, examine the door, perform logical extrapolations and take all the measurements in the world, but he's no better off than the evolutionist...except for one thing. The creationist is in touch with a person who claims to have been in the bathroom when said noise occured. The creationist didn't see him in the bathroom (for such is impossible), and he didn't see him open the door and come out. But, the eye-witness claims that he was there, saw what happened, and can even tell the creationist what happened.
NOW, who would one listen too?
The person who is guessing or the eye-witness? I mean, the witness is either lying, insane or actually telling the truth. So what do you listen to? The educated guess or the possible eye-witness account?
They BOTH take faith...but which faith is more firmly placed?
The answer seems pretty obvious to me. If the eye-witness is known as a truthful man, you would most likely listen to him. For the educated guesser to discredit the eye-witness, he'd have to produce some very strong data to discredit the eye-witness...like irrefutable and clear evidence to suggest that the eye-witness IS in fact lying (or a madman).
What would be the best irrefutable and clear evidence that the eye-witness was indeed lying (or a madman)? How about corroborating testimony of another eye-witness, or better yet multiple other eye-witnesses? Or a reputable expert on mental health who can comment on the mental state of the eye-witness.
Can the evolutionist produce multiple corroborating testimonies of OTHER eye-witnesses? Not that I'm aware of. How about 'divine mental health experts'? Same store; nada.
So, both DO seem to sound kinda silly. One guy is guessing and one guy claims to be an eye-witness. The thing is, if the educated guesser is right, it's SHEER chance. Even if he's right, it kinda sounds silly to me to take a ramble shot in the dark on finding truth. But if the eye-witness is telling the truth, it doesn't sound silly anymore. THEN, he's giving me the only eye-witness account of what happened and I would definitely be justified in believing him.
None the less, it still boils down to faith...who do you believe? The 'educated guesser' or the 'eternally waiting to be discredited' eye-witness?
Personally I think both sides are approaching the debate from a position of ignorance.
This is what is so frustrating about the debate about "science"; it seems both Christians and anti-christians are ignorant of the debates raging in the philosophy of science: realism vs. anti-realism, the problem of explanation, Feyerabend and Kuhn's critique of science (i.e., underdetermination, incommenserability, etc.).
I doubt there would be any scientist or philosopher of science who would claim that any theory is knowledge. The best I've come across is Bas C. van Fraassen who says that realists at least take scientitic theories as attempts at literally true explanations.
Post a Comment
<< Home