This entry is a second response to the first part of the annonymous comment posted on the website.
I accept that the scientific method in the lab is fine. But, when you are speaking of God, the origin of the universe, or faith, don't you think that might be exceeding the limits of the scientific method?
What is the place of science in regards to God and origins? This is a great question. I believe that science is only applicable to the universe and all of the nature which it includes. Therefore, if a religion relates that God has interacted with nature in some way, the truth of these claims should stand up to reason. For example if God really interacts with nature via prayer from his followers then evidence should show that prayer does just this. I do believe that reason speaks to the truth of a religion about God but not to the truth of the sheer existence of God.
Science is a way of knowing and that method--when trying to understand nature--requires tools utilizing nature itself. Science would only be within the limits of studying the supernatural in two circumstances-neither of which I think is conceivable--: 1. The supernatural somehow becomes natural or literally interacts with nature in a natural way--this is a conundrum-- and 2. Scienctists have supernatural tools through which to observe the supernatural and that those tools are agreed upon as real by the scientific community as a whole. Number 2 is not a possibility I believe can logically exist or ever will.
I do not know that science has completely grasped as of yet the complete limits or boundaries of this universe's existence, but as of now I believe that the cause of the origin of the universe(s) and the existence of God (in the simplistic sense, not in the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic sense) are not testable by science. They are plenty of fun to think and postulate about but that is all it can be, as I see it.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Evidence-based Belief and Living - Part 5
This post is a comment I posted in response to a comment I received today.
"I accept that the scientific method in the lab is fine. But, when you are speaking of God, the origin of the universe, or faith, don't you think that might be exceeding the limits of the scientific method?
The presupposition of science is that we have the ability to judge the results of our experiments. Placing yourself in the position of Judge in these matters is to exalt the science above God.
This is folly."
I have described previously that I believe faith is not antithetical to scientific reasoning, but rather is the trusting of that reason, regardless of the mood--good or bad--that one finds himself in that moment.
From the point of view that God is the cause of this universe, it follows easily that God also would have caused the method of reasoning which we utilize so fully now. If this is the case, then God as he has manifested himself on Earth in the natural world should stand up to reason and the act of Judging (this is referred to in the anonymous writer's comment) would not exalt one to assuming the position or superpostion of God.
To follow the reasoning that somehow being a Judge of information is sinful (in that is requires one placing him/herself in a position of greater authority than God) would lead one to make no judgements in life. To add to this, what are the constraints that are being put on the word or idea of a "lab". The idea of lab being a room to which scientific reasoning can or should be contained is just too reductionistic. The world is the lab in which we make judgements all of the time. We may not see them that way because we don't take the time to be metacongitive about what goes into everyday decisions. Why would we?
At what point would one be the sinful judge or the judge that is exalting him/herself over God? Take for example the decision to buy toothpaste. A person is faced with two or more varieties of toothpaste from which to choose for a purchase. Let's say this person is armed with data showing which one fights plaque the best. This person then makes a judgement using scientific reasoning on which toothpaste to buy. This may sound like it is simplyfying or reducing the idea of being a Judge, but at what point does the Judging begin? Judging is the result of a way of thinking or knowing. Regardless of the content which is being judged the value of this way of knowing does not differ. So to condemn science in this way--saying that it is an act of judging which exalts itself above God--also condemns the very nature by which we carry on many activities in our lives. This means to reject Judgement would mean to reject God who created we who carry on these daily activities. I believe that the act of rejecting science is to exalt oneself above God and above the justification for why he created the world the way he did.
"I accept that the scientific method in the lab is fine. But, when you are speaking of God, the origin of the universe, or faith, don't you think that might be exceeding the limits of the scientific method?
The presupposition of science is that we have the ability to judge the results of our experiments. Placing yourself in the position of Judge in these matters is to exalt the science above God.
This is folly."
I have described previously that I believe faith is not antithetical to scientific reasoning, but rather is the trusting of that reason, regardless of the mood--good or bad--that one finds himself in that moment.
From the point of view that God is the cause of this universe, it follows easily that God also would have caused the method of reasoning which we utilize so fully now. If this is the case, then God as he has manifested himself on Earth in the natural world should stand up to reason and the act of Judging (this is referred to in the anonymous writer's comment) would not exalt one to assuming the position or superpostion of God.
To follow the reasoning that somehow being a Judge of information is sinful (in that is requires one placing him/herself in a position of greater authority than God) would lead one to make no judgements in life. To add to this, what are the constraints that are being put on the word or idea of a "lab". The idea of lab being a room to which scientific reasoning can or should be contained is just too reductionistic. The world is the lab in which we make judgements all of the time. We may not see them that way because we don't take the time to be metacongitive about what goes into everyday decisions. Why would we?
At what point would one be the sinful judge or the judge that is exalting him/herself over God? Take for example the decision to buy toothpaste. A person is faced with two or more varieties of toothpaste from which to choose for a purchase. Let's say this person is armed with data showing which one fights plaque the best. This person then makes a judgement using scientific reasoning on which toothpaste to buy. This may sound like it is simplyfying or reducing the idea of being a Judge, but at what point does the Judging begin? Judging is the result of a way of thinking or knowing. Regardless of the content which is being judged the value of this way of knowing does not differ. So to condemn science in this way--saying that it is an act of judging which exalts itself above God--also condemns the very nature by which we carry on many activities in our lives. This means to reject Judgement would mean to reject God who created we who carry on these daily activities. I believe that the act of rejecting science is to exalt oneself above God and above the justification for why he created the world the way he did.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Evidence-based Belief and Living - Part 4
C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity attacks the issue at the end of part 3 at some levels in his section on Faith. An interesting comment made by this author, "...I am not talking of moments at which any real new reason against Christianity turn up. Those have to be faced and that is a different matter. I am talkinig about moments wehre a mere mood rises up against it. Now, Faith in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your chaing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes." provokes a red flag for me in my modern day Chrisian experience. Although not the main point in this quote, Lewis is implying that faith is not an absolution from reason as I discover new evidence for or against my belief system. He is arguing that this new evidence must be sincerely addressed or considered regardless of my perception of its validity. He is basically claiming here and in the rest of the book that Christianity will stand up to the reason, but allows for the possibility that it may not. His message is not to invoke faith when reason fails to tell us what we want to here.
I am trying to say that I believe faith or the word faith at least has been perverted into something that allows me to push aside reason when things 'just don't make sense'. I believe that I hear these types of questions frequently. "How can this or that be if God is this or that?" is just one example. Instead of giving real answers or reasons to these questions I am often met with responses such as well I don't know, just have faith that God will work it all out". I believe that the literal interpretation of the Bible is often times the limiting factor in this crutch response. Another possibility is when I ponder on a question or concern until its initial impact feels less polemic as it dissipates over time and is forgotten about after never really being addressed.
I believe that I should accept and expect reasonable answers and that if I can't find the reasonable answer that can coexist with my belief in God then I shouldn't believe in God. Right now, I do believe in God and Christ. I believe--at some levels--I would be committing heresy if I ignored reason and pretended as if a question was not there anymore just so I could continue to believe in God. At that point I would be building my God and faith on an edifice of fickle sand that will wash away, especially when my mood is just not right. This is the faith of which Lewis speaks; faith is not letting mood (good or bad) ruin your reason. I see his writing as saying that we should have faith that our belief is reasonable and should not be swayed by moments of irrationality, inconvenience, or moodiness.
I am trying to say that I believe faith or the word faith at least has been perverted into something that allows me to push aside reason when things 'just don't make sense'. I believe that I hear these types of questions frequently. "How can this or that be if God is this or that?" is just one example. Instead of giving real answers or reasons to these questions I am often met with responses such as well I don't know, just have faith that God will work it all out". I believe that the literal interpretation of the Bible is often times the limiting factor in this crutch response. Another possibility is when I ponder on a question or concern until its initial impact feels less polemic as it dissipates over time and is forgotten about after never really being addressed.
I believe that I should accept and expect reasonable answers and that if I can't find the reasonable answer that can coexist with my belief in God then I shouldn't believe in God. Right now, I do believe in God and Christ. I believe--at some levels--I would be committing heresy if I ignored reason and pretended as if a question was not there anymore just so I could continue to believe in God. At that point I would be building my God and faith on an edifice of fickle sand that will wash away, especially when my mood is just not right. This is the faith of which Lewis speaks; faith is not letting mood (good or bad) ruin your reason. I see his writing as saying that we should have faith that our belief is reasonable and should not be swayed by moments of irrationality, inconvenience, or moodiness.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Evidence-based Belief and Living - Part 3
Thinking about religion, belief in God, more specifically Christianity, I find it very tiring to be either a Christian or an atheist. The empirical evidence may be there for both (although that would be hard to argue), but the evidence which we have at our hands is so towering that by the time you sift through it, you get to the other side only to say, "What was that detail way back on the other side? Does it contradict this bit of evidence that I am looking at here?" I mean really even if you do reach a conclusion, no one accepts a response from someone that says, "I am an atheist (or Christian for that matter), I can't quite remember all the details but I spent a lot of time working it out and I just know that the conclusion I came to led me to atheism (Christianity)."
Wouldn't that be great, what freedom. But...no, I want the details of your decision. How painful it is when someone asks me a question that I know I worked out logically long ago but now I have to go back and read a book to remember how it is I want to state my point correctly. This is paralyzing. Why do I feel compelled to do this? Is it for myself? Is it out of fear of how I will be perceived? Is it just so others are comfortable with me? Is the imbedded desire to proselytize? Of course in my experience, Christian believers--I do include myself in this group--or religious believers otherwise accept the aforementioned type of answer from ourselves all of the time. The expectation that everyone is knowledgeable enough to defend their belief in not only God but Christianity is ludicrous. It is an impossibility. How could a Christian mother of two who works 80 hours a week ever find or justify time to spend creating her empirical defense for why she believes in Jesus and God for that matter. So I believe we have a situation in the Christian faith where, because we are limited by all of the ad infinitum nuances of Christianity's message and how it has arrived to its present being, instead of using reason to justify our beliefs, we rely incorrectly on the the utilitarian word faith.
Wouldn't that be great, what freedom. But...no, I want the details of your decision. How painful it is when someone asks me a question that I know I worked out logically long ago but now I have to go back and read a book to remember how it is I want to state my point correctly. This is paralyzing. Why do I feel compelled to do this? Is it for myself? Is it out of fear of how I will be perceived? Is it just so others are comfortable with me? Is the imbedded desire to proselytize? Of course in my experience, Christian believers--I do include myself in this group--or religious believers otherwise accept the aforementioned type of answer from ourselves all of the time. The expectation that everyone is knowledgeable enough to defend their belief in not only God but Christianity is ludicrous. It is an impossibility. How could a Christian mother of two who works 80 hours a week ever find or justify time to spend creating her empirical defense for why she believes in Jesus and God for that matter. So I believe we have a situation in the Christian faith where, because we are limited by all of the ad infinitum nuances of Christianity's message and how it has arrived to its present being, instead of using reason to justify our beliefs, we rely incorrectly on the the utilitarian word faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
