Science Vs. Religion? Not always

[A Gunslinger]

We need more folks like this to come to the fore and raise the bar of the discourse. I'd love to see the zealots on the far right and the equally loony far left tear THIS guy up. I don't mind reasoned aethism or any belief structure so long as the individual espousing it doesn't take it too far... but read this:

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God
POSTED: 4:23 p.m. EDT, April 4, 2007
More on CNN TV: Questions of science, sex, salvation. What is a Christian? A two-part special on "Anderson Cooper 360°," Wednesday, Thursday, 10 p.m. ET.
By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNN

Adjust font size:
Editor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" (Watch Francis Collins discuss how he came to believe in God )

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.

[Zarathustra]

Very interesting article. I, too, appreciate an intelligent discussion on these issues. Collins certainly isn't incapable of using reason, nor is he ignorant of the scholarly history of this debate. I'm impressd with his willingness to interpret the Bible in terms of scientific fact, rather than the other way around. Specifically, his figurative interpretation of Genesis and the creation myth. And I agree with his critique of atheism as "the most daring of all dogmas."

However, the crucial points of transition between his conversion from atheism to Christianity are lacking. Agnosticism is never eliminated; the leap of faith carries him beyond that intermediary stage without even questioning its validity as a possible alternative. Thus, his leap (like Kierkegaard's) seems to be unconvincing and inauthentic--a decision that isn't rigorously examined.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"

Just because science can't (yet?) answer these questions is no reason to assume that a miracle is required to answer them. Just because science can't tell me the meaning of life doesn't mean I'm going to let a book of mythology tell me. This is a lazy approach to these questions--to assume both a) they can never be answered with reason, and b) that this implies the answer must lie within the irrational. He's asking the wrong question, starting at the wrong point. When he asked himself the best way to discover the meaning of life--either through science or religion--he hadn't yet established whether or not life had a meaning to discover. Maybe there is no meaning to life.

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

Faith is "reason plus revelation"? That's convenient. Revelation. I'd like to get me one of those. Never had one. If God is serious about me getting to heaven before I die, what's he waiting for? I'm ready for my supernatural communication with the Supreme Being, now. Any time will do. Just part the limits of the natural world, set up whatever strange human-brain-to-God's-mind psychic link you do, and send me my revelation!!

Darn. I guess I'll have to wait a bit longer.

Jokes aside, his formula definition of faith is circular. He says faith is revelation + reason, but you must have faith to have a revelation. This is just jibberish, presented as a reasoned argument. But all the while, he is saying that reason isn't enough. So, I have to accept his argument on faith, too? Not just god's existence, but also his argument for God's existence? This is a really bad argument on several different levels.

I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

Hmmm . . . this revelation stuff is sounding more like interpretation. No need for supernatural communication with a Supreme Being to do that! It doesn't even take something as difficult as reason. All you have to do is give up looking for an explanation, and then substitute a creation myth.

. . . Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

That's quite an astounding addmission from a man of such intellect. The prospect of uncertainty was so disturbing, that he "found it impossible to go on living in such a state." I have always believed this is why people revert to mythology and religion: a coping mechanism adopted to face those deepest aspects of their being which they cannot explain. Uncertainty, the Void, meaninglessness, absurdity of existence . . . these are hard truths to face. But, in my opinion, it is inauthentic to seek an otherworldly explanation for features of this world you cannot accept. This is not a decision made rationally, but emotionally. He's guilt of exactly what he assumed from the beginning: "I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments . . . "

Exactly. But then he goes on to convert based on purely emotional and irrational arguments. It's sad when such intelligent minds become so confused.

[Kinslaughterer]

hhmmmm....Science & Religion? I agree that they don't have to be enemies although neither do dogs and cats. Fundamentally, however they are polar opposites of philosophy. While science answers our questions about the world through rational deduction and empircally testable reproducability, religion at its root was designed to give an answer to question that were unanswerable at the time. Obviously, our questions may vary but their position in reality becomes subjective.

I found this paragraph the most interesting:

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" (Watch Francis Collins discuss how he came to believe in God )

I would ask, what makes us (homo sapien sapiens) so damn special? We have the capacity to ask why so that means there is a god? Our rational and logical minds are firmly rooted in our biology and evolution. We unlike nearly all other species have developed an excellent sense of both ourselves and the abstract. Now one could make the argument, as the doc essentially is, that evolution as a process is so intricate it had to be created. Does it? In our case using intellect more than instinct or perhaps rejecting instinct possibly out of desperation the use and selection of essentially smarter people began.

Intelligence and the ability to form abstact ideas and concepts is key to the discussion. It may be as simple as the evolutionary add-on of a larger brain in an erect biped. The brain functions very much like a radiator for the body and the larger the brain the easier for very active people in a equatorial climate to sustain said activity likely one that promoted survival. It is therefore very likely that our intelligence was a lucky seventh round draft pick of evolution. (It was a primordial Marques Colston)

Having and using a larger brain would develop complexity and the ever increasing ability to deal with abstract ideas would allow the human line to actually plot, plan, and control. Unlike the rest of the animal kingdom who has only a limited ability to control behavior we can do as we damn well please and adapt our action rather than having to adapt our genetics. These abilities naturally create a world of order, control, and logic. Our minds evolved to ask questions and create answers to those questions. So we ask "what is the meaning of life?" I know the answer. The meaning of our life is to continue our species. What's the meaning of all life? It doesn't have to have one.

That's the crux here. Our minds, evolving over time were selected to solve problems and more than any other keep us alive as individuals. We solved them and then made more problems. Our minds automatically assume that everything has a larger meaning. That will happen when you recognize yourself as an individual rather than part of the whole. The idea, that as an individual, you are not important contradicts the behaviors that allowed humanity to take over.

Our ancestors chose an even higher level of self preservation and were ah...rewarded with a brain that has really an over strong sense of self. Correction, we have a large brain and small remainder of our ancestral instinct that makes us desire certain biological necessities. We deduced that we liked certain things so we needed more. What's better than a bucket of fried chicken? Two buckets of fried chicken. I can plot to take my neighbors bucket of chicken, score!

Therefore using that rational mind...I am important. I exist because something, also important like me, wanted me to be here. That complexity exists in the universe that is important (to me), must mean it is important to someone else who created it. We make things. Our things have meaning. All things have meaning. All meaning must be derived from an even bigger, greater being. Let's call it god. Preferably one that rewards me for my support. I can pretty much take care of myself while I'm alive though I may need help from time to time. But my god(s) got to give me a hand once I'm dead.

Is that a truly rational thought process? I suppose so. Is it an honest look at the world that is not primarily egocentric. It really goes back to our brain and its perception of the world. Our world revolves around us. That's why we commit suicide so frequently. We choose to end our world and ultimately that is the case when one chooses biological death over survival.

Exactly. But then he goes on to convert based on purely emotional and irrational arguments. It's sad when such intelligent minds become so confused.

Ultimately, what emotional and spiritual issues made it impossible for him to go on living? Again, since we see meaning and importance in everything, the doc here felt that his life would become meaningless without Jesus. That's really a shame, not that he likes Jesus but that he couldn't accept life without an intense logical meaning. I for one have this long standing observation that I frequently notice the clock at 7:14 am or pm. That is also my birthday. I, irrationally, have ascribed meaning to this. Seems pretty stupid.

[kevinswatch]

I don't see any problem with scientists having a belief in something.

There are plenty of things that science can't explain, and everyone needs to figure out what they think about those things themselves. Everyone needs to find the way they want to rationalize it or cope with it or whatever. If they use religion for that, then fine.

I mean, to me, my world view and spiritiality is a personal thing. It's something that, like everyone, I have to deal with myself.

The only problem that I see is when people try to mix belief or religion into the scientific method (aka intelligent design). It just doesn't belong in the scientific process.-jay

[Cail]

The only problem that I see is when people try to mix belief or religion into the scientific method (aka intelligent design). It just doesn't belong in the scientific process.-jay

Bingo.

[Plissken]

Random Thoughts:

I have said before that I lack the wiring required for Faith.

I have said before that I am jealous of those that possess it.

That said, I also believe that science and faith are not mutually exclusive - for eons, the only division between Science and Religion was that the former was interested in the "How"s of Creation, and the latter was concerned with the "Why"s.

Malik is right in that this essay is unsatisfying in it's description of the Leap of Faith required for the author's transition - but no author I've ever read can adequately describe or explain that particular leap: As near as I can tell, it is the very nature of Faith to defy description or explanation.

The perceived conflict is not, as near as I can tell, actually between Faith or Religion and Science but between Dogma and Fundamentalism and Science.

[Avatar]

I'm a fan of uncertainty myself. Being certain closes off too many possibilities. It does't leave room for improvement.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

I have emailed Xar several times as I read Genetics for Dummies, trying to understand DNA and genetics better, so I can read The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, and judge Collins' "evidence" for myself. Because this:

I have said before that I lack the wiring required for Faith.

I have said before that I am jealous of those that possess it.

describes me perfectly. And I'll add that I've always considered the possibility of some sort of God to be fascinating, and, if there truly is one, I want to know about it. Since I can't feel one, I'm willing to put at least a little effort into seeing if I can be intellectually convinced of one. And who better to ask than the head of the Human Genome Project?

Although I don't yet have close to the necessary understanding of the topic to finish the book, I've mentioned it a few times, always in a positive light. What I have read has all been logical, very much to my liking.

A word is in order here about an objection often raised by some critics to any possibility of the spontaneous origin of life on Earth, based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law states that in a closed system, where neither energy nor matter can enter or leave, the amount of disorder (more formally knows as "entropy") will tend to increase over time. Since life forms are highly ordered, some have argued that it would therefore be impossible for life to have come into being without a supernatural creator. But this betrays a misunderstanding of the full meaning of the Second Law: order can certainly increase in some part of the system (as happens every day when you make the bed or put away the dishes), but that will require an input of energy, and the total amount of disorder in the entire system cannot decrease. In the case of the origin of life, the closed system is essentially the whole universe, energy is avbailable from the sun, and so the local increase in order that would be represented by the first random assembly of macro-molecules would in no way violate this law.

Given the inability of science thus far to explain the profound question of life's origins, some theists have identified the appearance of RNA and DNA as a possible opportunity for divine creative action. If God's intention in creating the universe was to lead to creatures with whom He might have fellowship, namely human beings, and if the complexity required to start the process of life was beyond the ability of the universe's chemicals to self-assemble, couldn't God have stepped in to initiate the process? (I started this thread - kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=299216#299216 - the year before Collins' book came out, btw. Heh)

This could be an appealing hypotheses, given that no serious scientist would currently claim that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is at hand. But that is true today, and it may not be true tomorrow. A word of caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking. From solar eclipses in olden times to the movement of the planets in the Middle Ages, to the origins of life today, this "God of the gaps" approach has all too often done a disservice to religion (and by implication, to God, if that's possible). Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps. Faced with incomplete understanding of the natural world, believers should be cautious about invoking the divine in areas of current mystery, lest they build an unnecessary theological argument that is doomed to later destruction. There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on (a temporary) lack of knowledge.

In summary, while the question of the origin of life is a fascinating one, and the inability of modern science to develop a statistically probable mechanism is intruiguing, this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith.

A few months later I spoke to a national gathering of Christian physicians, explaining how I had found great joy in being both a scientist studying the genome and a follower of Christ. Warm smiles abounded; there was even an occasional "Amen." But then I mentioned how overwhelming the scientific evidence for evolution is, and suggested that in my view evolution might have been God's elegant plan for creating humankind. The warmth left the room. So did some of the attendees, literally walking out, shaking their heads in dismay.

What's going on here? From a biologist's perspective, the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling. Darwin's theory of natural selection provides a fundamental framework for understanding the relationships of all living things. The predictions of evolution have been borne out in more ways than Darwin could have possibly imagined when he proposed his theory 150 years ago, especially in the field of genetics.

God as the Great Deveiver?

Assisted by Henry Morris and colleagues, Young Earth Creationism has in the last half century attempted to provide alternative explanations for the wealth of observations about the natural world that seem to contradict the YEC position. But the fundamentals of so-called scientific Creationism are hopelessly flawed. Recognizing the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, some YEC advocates have more recently taken the tack of arguing that all of this evidence has been designed by God to mislead us, and therefore to test our faith. According to this argument, all of the radioactive decay clocks, all the fossils, and all of the genome sequences have been intentionally designed so it would look as if the universe was old, even though it was really created less than ten thousand years ago.

As Kenneth Miller points out in his excellent book, Finding Darwin's God, for these claims to be true, God would have had to engage in massive subterfuge. For instance, since many of the observable stars and galaxies in the universe are more than ten thousand light-years away, a YEC perspective would demand that our ability to observe them could come about only if God had fashioned all of those photons to arrive here in a "just so" fashion, even though they represent wholly fictitious objects.

This image of God as a cosmic trickster seems to be the ultimate admission of defeat for the Creationist perspective. Would God as the great deceiver be an entity one would want to worship? Is this consistent with everything else else know about God from the Bible, from the Moral Law, and from every other source - namely, the He is loving, logical, and consistent?

Thus, by any reasonable standard, Young Earth Creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in its theology. Its persistence is thus one of the great puzzles and great tragedies of our time. By attacking the fundamentals of virtually every branch of science, it widens the chasm between the scientific and spiritual worldviews, just at a time where a pathway toward harmony is desperately needed. By sending a message to young people that science is dangerous, and that pursuing science may well mean rejecting religious faith, Young Earth Creationism may be depriving science of some of its most promising future talents.

But it is not science that suffers most here. Young Earth Creationism does even more damage to faith, by demanding that belief in God requires assent to fundamentally flawed claims about the natural world. Young people brought up in homes and churches that insist on Creationism sooner or later encounter the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of an ancient universe and the relatedness of all living things through the process of evolution and natural selection. What a terrible and unnecessary choice they then face! To adhere to a faith of their childhood, they are required to reject a broad and rigorous body of scientific data, effectively committing intellectual suicide. Presented with no other alternative than Creationism, is it any wonder that many of these young people turn away from faith, concluding that they simply cannot believe in a God who would ask them to reject what science has so compellingly taught us about the natural world?


A Plea for Reason

Let me conclude this brief chapter, therefore, with a loving entreaty to the evangelical Christian church, a body that I consider myself a part of, and that has done so much good in so many other ways to spread the good news of God's love and grace. As believers, you are right to hold fast to the concept of God as Creator; you are right to hold fast to the truths of the Bible; you are right to hold fast to the conclusion that science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence; and you are right to hold fast to the certainty that the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted. But those battles cannot be won by attaching your position to a flawed foundation. To continue to do so offers the opportunity for the opponents of faith (and ther are many) to win a long series of easy victories.

If this is Collins' attitude, and if he does not consider these things to be evidence of a creator, then I am very interested to hear what he does consider evidence.

[Cybrweez]

I don't believe a Christian can believe in evolution. Jesus said "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". Not to mention I'd like to know how he reconciles the Bible teaching that Adam brought death into the world through sin, and Jesus brought life through His sacrifice. Death would've been around billions of years b4 Adam if evolution were true. Does it mean spiritual death? Then when did our spirit first arrive on the scene? The Bible ignores that part? No, it doesn't make sense.

Later, Collins writes “Some biblical literalists insist that the wives of Cain and Seth must have been their own sisters, but that is both in serious conflict with subsequent prohibitions against incest, and incompatible with a straightforward reading of the text.” Nonsense, b/c incest was instituted during Moses' time, well after Cain and Seth. I don't know how a guy who seems so intelligent can so badly miss the boat.

I believe faith is believing despite the circumstances, not believing despite the evidence.

And I too think science and religion are opposites, at least today's science and the majority of scientists, b/c today science is defined as natural explanation, therefore you must rule out God, you must bring the presupposition that there is no God, how can we answer these questions (the scientists of previous centuries believed in God, it made sense to them that this universe was just finely tuned and in perfect order b/c of a Creator). And, in terms of evolution, this presupposition is applied, not the scientific method. Evolutionists, and creationists, look at the fossil record, DNA, and various other evidences, and use their presupposition (how did this happen w/o a God, how did God do this) to arrive at an answer.

For example, we have found no transitional fossils. Creationists look at that evidence and say, of course not, there's no such thing. Evolutionists look at that evidence and say, we haven't found them yet. Neither applies the scientific method (or observational science), but they do apply their presuppositions.

EDIT:

some YEC advocates have more recently taken the tack of arguing that all of this evidence has been designed by God to mislead us

Who? And where? Does this guy pick out some random people in order to make all creationists look foolish? Good tactic I guess, it seems to have worked here.

I did find this interesting tho:

given that no serious scientist would currently claim that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is at hand.

[kevinswatch]

And I too think science and religion are opposites, at least today's science and the majority of scientists, b/c today science is defined as natural explanation, therefore you must rule out God, you must bring the presupposition that there is no God, how can we answer these questions (the scientists of previous centuries believed in God, it made sense to them that this universe was just finely tuned and in perfect order b/c of a Creator).

I think you're wrong about this. As I said before, science does not need to start with the assumption that there is no God. It just doesn't assume that there *is* a God. Small difference.

In most scientific research, the question of God isn't even a remote concern. Say for example, I donno, environmental science in explaining how pollution is transported into groundwater.

Like you said, science is about man learning ways to explain things naturally. Just because Newton came up with an equation to explain how gravity works, doesn't mean God fits into the equation at all.

As I was saying before, scientists are just like everyone else, and have to come up with an explaination on their own for what they personally believe to be the answers to the "Big" questions (Why was the universe made, why are we here.) Because science isn't designed to answer these questions. Science is just trying to figure out how these things happened.

And, in terms of evolution, this presupposition is applied, not the scientific method. Evolutionists, and creationists, look at the fossil record, DNA, and various other evidences, and use their presupposition (how did this happen w/o a God, how did God do this) to arrive at an answer.

For example, we have found no transitional fossils. Creationists look at that evidence and say, of course not, there's no such thing. Evolutionists look at that evidence and say, we haven't found them yet. Neither applies the scientific method (or observational science), but they do apply their presuppositions.

I think you are wrong about this too. Genetic and evolutionary scientists do not start with the question, "How did this happen without God?", they start with the question, "How did this happen?"

Also, I'm not sure about this, but I thought some transitional fossils had been found.

And there is plenty of strong, scientific evidence of evolution at the smaller scale. Genetics has shown this. It's a fact that you can physically see small microorganisms mutate and evolve all of the time.

-jay

[Mistress Cathy]

Let us not forget also that scientists are human and are therefore, fallible. This means that in many cases scientists have a predetermined idea of what they want to find and thus look for evidence that supports that particular idea and ignore the rest that do not support that idea.

Therefore, they are operating on 'faith' about their findings and do not bother with the rest.

[Cail]

I agree Jay. I don't see any conflict whatsoever in my belief in both God and science.

Of course, I'm a Catholic, so I'm not considered a "real" Christian.

[kevinswatch]

Let us not forget also that scientists are human and are therefore, fallible. This means that in many cases scientists have a predetermined idea of what they want to find and thus look for evidence that supports that particular idea and ignore the rest that do not support that idea.

While this is definitely true (in some cases, not all cases), you can't say this without also pointing out that the scientific process is very peer-reviewed. You can not publish any research in science without it being reviewed and criticized by hundreds of other scientists. And not all of them have the same predetermined assumtions that the authors had. If someone has a question about the way you do something, or if something doesn't make sense (like ignoring evidence), it will get pointed out by someone else.

-jay

[Zarathustra]

God as the Great Deveiver?

Recognizing the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, some YEC advocates have more recently taken the tack of arguing that all of this evidence has been designed by God to mislead us, and therefore to test our faith. . .
As Kenneth Miller points out in his excellent book, Finding Darwin's God, for these claims to be true, God would have had to engage in massive subterfuge. . .
This image of God as a cosmic trickster seems to be the ultimate admission of defeat for the Creationist perspective. Would God as the great deceiver be an entity one would want to worship? Is this consistent with everything else else know about God from the Bible, from the Moral Law, and from every other source - namely, the He is loving, logical, and consistent?

He's got to be kidding. This is the same God that tested Abraham by telling him to kill his own son, right? The same God that put the downfall of Mankind right there in the Garden, taunting A&E with damning not only themselves, but all of their decendants? The same God that drowns every lifeform on earth except a pair of each species? And if the Flood didn't cull enough of the humanity herd, there's always eternal torment in a Lake of Fire. Not to mention all the atrocities we must suffer on the way up to the Apocolypse.

Seems to me that faking radioactive decay and creating starshine to have arrived immediately on Day 1 of Creation Week would be some of the most benign "tricks" God has ever played upon us. I can't believe Collins has a problem with those relatively harmless tricks, but the life and death ones escape his analysis.

Collins' criteria for rejecting a trickster God in science should be also applied to a trickster God in our lives and history. Just how much of the Bible does he think is metaphorical? Does he think Hell is real? Does he think you must be Baptised? What molecular properties of water allow it to convey the Holy Spirit?

I really don't see how he reconciles Christianity with science. God, maybe. But why Christianity, specifically? What is it about the "Faith = reason + revelation" formula which eliminates all the other Faiths? They have their own reasons, and their own revelations.

This is entirely unsatisfactory.

[Mistress Cathy]

While this is definitely true (in some cases, not all cases), you can't say this without also pointing out that the scientific process is very peer-reviewed. You can not publish any research in science without it being reviewed and criticized by hundreds of other scientists. And not all of them have the same predetermined assumtions that the authors had. If someone has a question about the way you do something, or if something doesn't make sense (like ignoring evidence), it will get pointed out by someone else.

Yes, I absolutely agree. It is the same with History. There will always be someone who argues a different viewpoint. Which means that much of what we know is subjective.

I really don't see how he reconciles Christianity with science. God, maybe. But why Christianity, specifically? What is it about the "Faith = reason + revelation" formula which eliminates all the other Faiths? They have their own reasons, and their own revelations.

Excellent point, Malik. Christianity does seem to be the focus of the science vs. religion debate. Islam and Judaism worship the same God as Christianity. I think that a lot of this may have to do with the perception of Eastern mysticism and religion. Somehow, society has given Eastern religions more credence than Christianity as if they are more natural or believeable whereas Christianity appears to be the bastard child of religions. You can see this anytime you turn on the television.

At least that is the impression that I get.

[Cybrweez]

jay, I agree science does not have to assume there is no God, but today's definition of science does. Although I should specify that is so in "historical" science, not observational. So, for a theory on gravity, you can test/observe any ideas. For evolution and the creation of this universe, you can't. So when dealing w/science along the historical lines, where there is no observation, presuppositions determine how we read the evidence.

As I was saying before, scientists are just like everyone else, and have to come up with an explaination on their own for what they personally believe to be the answers to the "Big" questions (Why was the universe made, why are we here.) Because science isn't designed to answer these questions. Science is just trying to figure out how these things happened.

But through observational science, you cannot determine "how" this universe came to be. You can only look at evidence and come up with answers.

There are no transitional fossils found (well, to be exact, there are a handful that are disputed amongst evolutionists themselves, a handful when evolution would expect many), and creationists don't deny evolution on a small scale, mutation and adaptation w/in kinds. We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, rather than just confer an advantage (and hence, evolving the species).

[Kinslaughterer]

I have said before that I lack the wiring required for Faith.

Faith is a behavior drawn from our reason seeking mind as I described in my post above. Its not wired but selected in a bizarre modern contradiction. For instance, Cyberweez, a young-earth creationist, doesn't accept evolution because of both faith and reason. However his reason suggests that no transitional fossils exist. This is false. Literally thousands of such fossils exist for nearly every species (For instance several species of dinosaurs became birds www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm). He along with his fellow believers have choosen to essentially lie to themselves because they'd rather have the faith.

Let us not forget also that scientists are human and are therefore, fallible. This means that in many cases scientists have a predetermined idea of what they want to find and thus look for evidence that supports that particular idea and ignore the rest that do not support that idea

.

This is true to an extent but not to the extent of fundamentalist Christians who reject all things not consistent with their faith. Any published scientific research is rigorously reviewed and nothing is getting past this process.

They haven't purely rejected science just the science they don't agree with. They obviously have rejected all modern dating techniques because literally all of them prove the earth is far older.

There is also the clear schism between the fundamentalist belief of creationists and the metaphorical creation/origins espoused by the modern Catholic church (Although you may believe in a divine creation, you still except evolution and an old earth.)

Clearly, modern religion has changed as, to some degree, many believers are able to logically reconcile certain notions with modern science. Modern believers have selected the ideas they wish to believe and rejected the others as metaphor and so on. This method seems to allow certain groups to accept the religion without worry of the atroicities and contradictions that Malik mentions.

One of my good friends is a physical anthropologist who is a Christian. She believes. Why? She wants to. She'd rather have that comforting control. The same as this scientist initially mentioned.

[Kinslaughterer]

There are no transitional fossils found (well, to be exact, there are a handful that are disputed amongst evolutionists themselves, a handful when evolution would expect many), and creationists don't deny evolution on a small scale, mutation and adaptation w/in kinds. We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, rather than just confer an advantage (and hence, evolving the species).

Where are you getting this information from? Someone is being intellectually dishonest. There are thousands of transitional fossils including large quantities of specific members of the human line. I'm not sure what is being disputed among evolutionists other than a splitting hair dispute like the "hobbit" homo florensis. Increases genetic information? Try the dinosaur-bird transition. They learned how to fly. I say this earnestly, please verify information outside of the young earth movement. They aren't scientists and they have an agenda they want you to believe. I have no vested interest in you accepting evolution or not.
How can two Eagles fans be so far apart? We can still toss batteries at the Cowboys.

[Cybrweez]

www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter8.asp

This hardly qualifies for a fossil ‘intermediate in form’; it is more like a mosaic or chimera like the platypus. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, says:

Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.

As I said, a handful that are disputed even amongst evolutionists. However, this does not stop some evolutionists from lying to themselves b/c they need to believe in evolution.

EDIT: Kins, 2 years of fantasy football, and I didn't know you were an Eagles fan. I've given up on them tho for letting Dante go (well, until the season starts anyway )

[Mistress Cathy]

Kins wrote:

This is true to an extent but not to the extent of fundamentalist Christians who reject all things not consistent with their faith. Any published scientific research is rigorously reviewed and nothing is getting past this process.

What do you think theologians and biblical scholars do? They rigorously debate, research, and investigate biblical claims to uncover the truth. I almost changed my degree from History to Religious Studies because the topic was so interesting.

I do agree, however, that there are fundamentalist Christians who, no matter what evidence you present, will reject it entirely. This group is not the norm and there are many Christians, myself included, who embrace science not as a venue to disprove God but as a tool to explain the natural world. But, I think that there are fundamentalists on both sides of the coin here and no matter how rigorous the reviews might be, science still sometimes falls short of the truth. It is the human element that causes the fallibility in science and in religion.

I, for one, would love for archeologists to actually find evidence that Jesus existed. The historian AND the Christian in me would
in me would be fascinated with that kind of discovery.