Evidence-based Belief and Living - Part 7

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.