I believe that science is a process for knowing. In a nutshell, this process involves the stating of hypotheses on the operations of nature followed by the analysis of data observable in nature, or empirical data. These hypotheses continue to stand until data show that the hypothesis is false. This process for knowing or truth seeking is a process that is constantly churning over time and must be open to rejecting previous hypotheses when new data arise that challenge the current hypotheses. So having said this, I believe that God cannot be proved by science. I hold that this perspective does not take a position on the existence of a god.
I believe this simply means that to believe in God requires something outside of reason. No person can actually prove that their God is the correct or true God. They can believe it and they can say it is inspired by something intangible, such as the Holy Spirt, but they cannot prove it to anyone with absolute certainty. If this were the case the religions of this world would not be diverse. They can only believe it based on something outside of reason. This is summed up perfectly by Jesus's statement in John 20:29, Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." Here even Jesus himself says there will be people who have to believe without seeing.
I believe that theology may be considered by some as a science in a loose sense, but it is not science in how it achieves its truths. Within its own structure (i.e. the Bible or Quran), theology may appear to be science-like in nature and even highly reasoned and rational as it does ask questions and does look for evidence for its beliefs or in its writings, but the systematics for unveiling truth are not consistent and much of it is still underlined by the premice of believing without seeing. The reason found within theology also fails frequently outside of itself as conflicts arise between truths found in nature and truths found, for example, in the Bible.
So, I accept that to believe in God, I must have a moment of irrationality in my life where I accept the unacceptable. As I stand right now I am part of this crowd. I also believe, however, that where one believes God to interact with the natural world those experiences should line up with reason and our existential experiences. So if Christianity for example claims that Jesus rose from the dead or was resurrected, there should be evidence that this occurred. The empty tomb, the interactions people have had with him after his crucifixion, and the ascension are all evidence that the resurrection may have actually occurred. This is not an unreasonable thing to believe based on the Bible. If these evidences were not present, I would have no reason to believe in Jesus as a Messiah, as many messiahs were walking the streets in the days of Jesus. I also believe that when a creation story does not line up with what we now know about nature today I should not throw out nature, but I should should look at the creation story differently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I guess you wouldn't call it scientific evidence but I think the subjective evidence in people's lives does give evidence of God and what He can be in your life through Jesus Christ.
What is the purpose of life scietifically? To be evolved and conquer, maybe even conquering death?
Also, you can't prove that we are spiritual beings unless you use subjective evidence. You can't measure the feeling in your gut or the emotions in your brain. Or explain why you have tears in your eyes. Can you measure your love for your child? It is a fact but is only proved in experience.
I think the Bible has the proof of witnesses and the letters and gospels as a factual witness to Christ. Of course, if you believe that the Bible is a fairy tale or made up by people, then that is another subject.
Sue,
My question is this: What if a day arrives and those things can be described scientifically? What happens to your God then? I argue that if we create a God to describe what is unknown and currently inexplicable to us our God becomes less and less real as we become more knowledgeable.
This is what has happened to the church historically over time and why people fight so rigidly against the age of the earth and other similar matters. They fight against evolution not because it isn't plausible or possible but because their God has been built on these unknowns and to have them become knowable is to have their God diminished.
No, not my meaning. The foundation of my faith was not trying to explain the unexplainable but to have purpose in life and grow as a person.
God should stand up to the test of science. I believe He does. But I also know that many things that have been "proved" scientifically become disproved.
I believe in God and found Him through the Christ who entered into this natural world to show us who God is.
He is not the God of tradition, or the rules or laws of the established church, but the God of the Universe. Any law in that Universe should only point to Him and we should not be afraid of discoveries that may change some of our conceptions. Our God is very little and weak if He does not stand up to science.
Good point. Even if those things can be precisely measured, controlled, and even seen in some way, that still does not shake my belief in God as the Master Planner. When I consider what my mind cannot conceive, such as regeneration of sick bodies, an exact understandable definition of infinity, the amazing engineering of how all of the human body functions, it gives me an awe that anyone could do those things. it is not why I believe in God through His Son Jesus Christ, but inspires in me an awe of Him.
It is the height of arrogance to presume that the infinite God can be held to account by a finite puny worm like we humans. The problem with this is that we think we are smarter then we actually are! Can you presume to know the mind of God? Do you know the depths of the riches of His glory? Your questioning the church polity and teaching is not bad, but to call into question the authirity of scripture as it pertains to "modern science" is dreadfuly of the mark! Maybe you should put more time into studying the hebrew langusge and see that the Hebrew word Yom is actually translated correctly into the English for Day!
Thank you for your continued input, it is highly welcome.
This won't address everything you stated in your comment but it is a start. I will try to get to the rest in a new blog or future comments.
Isn't the creation of the Bible by humans and then ordaining it as if from God without any errors doing the very thing you speak of when you say "It is the height of arrogance to presume that the infinite God can be held to account by a finite puny worm like we humans".
I did not claim that the hebrew translation to English from the creation story is not "day". What I argue is that this disagrees with what we see in nature. My concern is that even with what we know about nature people still cannot see this story as a simplistic story used by a community or nation to celebrate and describe the simple fact that God is the cause of this place.
Making sense of scripture in light of our knowledge found in nature--also revelation from God--is not mere hubris. In light of what we know about the age of the earth, this story must be seen in its true light which is not a scientific account of the mechanisms and timeframe by which God created the Earth and the universe.
I believe that this perspective does not call into question the authority of God but the authority of the lens which some men have created for reading scripture. I believe that I am not calling into question the message or implicit truth; rather, I am trying to read it for it true quality.
A quick addition.
I do not believe that one must know Hebrew to find understanding in the Bible. If so, then much of what is described about the good news being a message for all nations is severely undercut.
Have you ever considered that your hypothesis may be faulty to begin with? Your presuppositions concernong the Biblical account of the created order are tainted by the overt usage of modern science?
The fact remains; God states in scripture that He has revealed Himself "IN NATURE":
"The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1)
"Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory" (Isaiah 6:3)!
"All creation speaks of God to those who are willing to listen. When creation is heard correctly, it results in a life of worship to God":
* When creation is a window to God, then it inspires praise.
* When creation is a gift from God, then it inspires gratitude.
* When creation is the stage upon which grace is received, then it inspires love. (© Richard J. Vincent, 2004)
Pure, objective science should realize the importance of this statement. It should also realize the limits of it's hypothesis' when trying to determine the meaning of craetion narative!
No flat earth theory here, just want you to consider the framework of your education. Is it at all possible that in your zeal to know and prove what you believe, you might have been misled? After all, science, at least the science of cosmology is strictly a science of observation. Cosmologically speaking, many have attempted to isolate the beginnings of; well ...I would like to say the created order, but in this case. the evolutionary process of non-pre-existant material that came into existance via time plus chance; which also did not exist before nothing; ex nehilo.
I take it that you are the authority on whether or not the biblical narrative on creation lines up with nature as we understand it today? What say you about tomorrow?
It seems to me that your views, or understanding of nature should be brought to the scripture, and should allow it to determine whether or not it stands up to its objective scrutiny!
Also Hebrew as well as other languages of antiquity are the basis of all modern, biblical translations and paraphrases. Tectual critics have spent years upon years torturously scrutinizing the scripture. Dynamic literal and every other equivelent bible is here becouse: ...no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit @ peter 2:21-22. The Idea is that they were driven or blown along like that of a strong wind in a torrential storm in the sails of a rutteless ship.
Langusge, matters! Terms, matter! I don't think you would take this approach in your particular profession?
Also, you seem to think that you have an objective view of scripture, when in reality; know is objective, we are all subjective and given our fallen finite nature, Bias!
When you say we know, I assume you are refering to those in the community of hypothetics? Rather haughty, wouldn't you say? Especially since we (you and I) are dealing with the same facts; only different interpretations of thase facts.
It doesn't take a scientist to see that radical cosmology i.e., creative process is that of Intellegent design. I find it ironic that those proponents of evolution are the very ones who use the term, created. Why?
Could I suggst you read Kant's; Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Critique of Pure Reason)? And Decartes, Meditations. It might help to bring (a priori and a posteriori) clarity in your search for a pure epistomology.
i'm just entering this conversation, but i'm a little concerned about the tone of the anonymous poster or poster(s). i feel judgment in every post that i've read. how are we supposed to honestly explore our beliefs when someone says that our thoughts are the "height of arrogance". these posts are going against what i believe the creator of this blog wanted. consequently, i am not going to respond to this anonymous person or persons until the tone changes to reflect the spirit of this blog.
Chicagobro,
You are correct about the tone being in opposition to my goals for this blog, but I have permitted, perhaps incorrectly, each of these Anonymous comments before they were posted. My goal was to add to the diversity of beliefs represented on the blog.
Having said that and listening to your comment and comments outside this blog, I will be returing to the original mission of the blog; and only "honest explorations" will be allowed as entries in the future.
Post a Comment