March 7, 2016
Seeing God in Science, a free TC eBook, helps us reconsider the notion of a conflict between science and faith.
The last article had some good advice, but most were atrocious. The first one said we "have to" rely on authorities, in religion or science. No, we don't. Science is driven by the evidence. We rely on experts to helps us interpret it, but those experts expect others to check their work, they ask to be questioned. They applaud others when they are shown to be wrong. If they don't, they are doing science wrong. They do this to build a consensus for our best estimation of the truth. They never claim to hold the ultimate truth and don't care what everyone else thinks when a recent finding contradicts everything that came before.
Religion divides when it has disagreement. It creates a new isolated community that preaches about how the others are wrong. It carefully selects bits of data to make it's case and ignores anything that threatens it. It makes lists of beliefs and sticks with them regardless of new knowledge. If they don't, people will stop attending, stop donating. They stick to the old ways to maintain their old community. They claim to hold the truth, because people ask them to make that claim. There are a few exceptions, but they are rare. I'm speaking of religion in general.
In Reply to John North (comment #27997)
Thanks for taking the time to read the eBook, John. I'm sorry this has been your experience of religion. Here's hoping you encounter more of the "exceptions."
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion. I didn't expect my facts to be dismissed so easily. I'm not sure where to go from here, since the original point I brought up is that the article says that we have to rely on authorities. Now it seems you are saying this is an experience unique to me. I agree with the article, in religion, "we have to believe what the experts tell us". If you start having a discussion about whether or not the exodus happened or if Jesus rose bodily to heaven, it's not really theology anymore. Now you need evidence, probabilities and an understanding of how the universe functions.
So science and religion are very different. I think you can see god in science, but not the way Branson Parler is seeing it.
To balance my negativity above, I really liked the last article by Phil Reinders. One of his bullet points was "encourage curiosity". It is refreshing to see this, the exact opposite of what St. Augustine said about curiosity, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. -- Saint Augustine."
Reinders gets the feeling of science being scary, but finds a way to engage with that.
"Admittedly, science can be intimidating; for many,
scientific knowledge can seem overly complex and out
of reach. Yet scientists are not that scary – likely they
would love the chance to tell you about their work.
Ask where they see God in their research or how their
work encourages or hinders their spiritual formation."
Neither nature nor science can reveal anything.
It is a serious error to call the results of inductive conclusions, which are always fallacious, as revelations.
When we use the word "revelation" to describe both the inerrant scriptures and the speculations of men, which we now call "science", we do a great disservice to the cause of Christ.
Unless the church establishes itself on correct biblical epistemology, it will continue to lose influence upon the minds of men.
The question that began this discussion is based upon an invalid epistemology.
Add your comment to join the discussion!