God and Science: Oil and Water?

May 28, 2007 at 2:29 pm 13 comments

Christian Commentary

In a few replies on this website (for which I am a theist contributor), I find myself telling participants that we must use the scientific method correctly. In other words, the scientific method is a great tool to understanding the world around us, but it is horrible in regards to learning about God. Unfortunately, we live in a society where perception has an uncharacteristic “trump card” over philosophy and proclamation of religious faith. Many believe that the only way to perceive the world around them is with the five senses. Yet, I tell you that no one has ever seen a thought. No one has ever seen a feeling and we still believe them to exist (no, seeing neuron activity doesn’t count). Scientific method can’t explain existential meanings. Individuals try to use scientific method to learn more about faith and God. I will tell you right now that if you are waiting to physically see, touch, smell, taste, or hear God, He will never be revealed to you.

scientific processThe skeptic will say, “Why not use the scientific method? The scientific method teaches us about everything we know. It is the ultimate tool for knowledge.” Well, there are a variety of reasons. Consider that God exists outside of the physical world that we know; He is outside of time. This is a hard concept to grasp for many, but you actually deal with this concept all the time. For instance, you can physically take three apples away from a pile of five. However, it is not possible or comprehensible for one to take five apples away from a pile of three.

How do we solve this dilemma? We make the problem part of the answer [3-5, 2-4, 1-3, 0-2], and therefore our answer becomes negative two (-2). Negative numbers don’t exist, they are imaginary – but they help people such as engineers solve very real problems every single day. This analogy explains the reason why God was never created (I really hate when people ask this cliché question). First, this statement assumes that God was created. However, if we perceive of God as outside of the three-dimensional world that we know, then such a question cannot apply. If God is a being that is unlimited and infinite in time (outside time), and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question. The question is like asking someone to draw a four-sided triangle – the terminology is self-contradictory. God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created.

“Infinite” Can be a difficult concept for people to understand. Consider what world renowned religious scholar Huston Smith has to say on the subject:

“Think of infinite not just in space, but in worth. When we think about infinite now, it has been pretty much co-opted by science. We think about infinite space or infinite numbers. Well, those are scientific terms. But what about infinite value? Frankly, I believe that reality holds as much in the way of worth beyond what we are able to see with our ordinary experience, as it holds in quantity and size beyond what our naked senses can fathom.”

That being said, back to my analysis of the scientific method.

What the scientific method can do is give immense support for God. If you are familiar at all with astronomical constants, you will see that the slightest change in any of the very delicate variables would mean life as we know it would not exist. These constants exist all over the universe. For instance, if the tilt of the earth were just a few degrees one way or the other, climates would be too extreme. If Jupiter were further from the Earth, and not as big, then it wouldn’t suck in the great number of asteroids and comets that would otherwise crash into the Earth. If the ratio of protons to electrons formation was less, electromagnetism would dominate gravity which would prevent galaxy, star, and planet formation.

If you want to use some of the tenets from the scientific method in regards to God and religion, you sort of can. One driving force behind the scientific method is multiple tests of a particular phenomenon. Scientists will test over and over in order to develop explanations. This facet of the method can be applied to God (religion). Since the beginning of time, man has always had the notion that there is something greater than himself. If one looks at the prominence of religion and how it has re-occurred time and time again, the most intelligent of individuals familiar with the scientific method will admit that it is very possible we are on to something. Similar and re-occurring results increase likelihood and probability. Again, before anyone begins to waste countless minutes in trying to rebuttal this correlation of religion to the scientific method, know that this is a loose utilization. I should also note that this very concept is explained in great detail (and more effectively) by Huston Smith.

In the end, we need to stop trying to apply God to our limited view of how the creation operates – doing so is really a dis-service to both religion and science.

- Justin
http://politicsandreligion.wordpress.com

Entry filed under: Justin. Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Harmonization by Omission Religion: Natural Phenomenon?

13 Comments Add your own

  • 1. HeIsSailing  |  May 29, 2007 at 12:00 am

    How do I write a reply to this and keep it under 5000 words? I’ll do my best to keep this short.

    Justin sez:
    “Individuals try to use scientific method to learn more about faith and God.”

    Let me clear this up right up front. When you speak of ‘God’, are you referring to the Christian God of the Bible, or god in some generic creative sense? I suspect the former. I’m not criticizing that, just trying to clarify – because each requires a different line of reasoning when speaking of a creator.

    The reason this is important is because of the assumptions that are made later in your article. For instance:

    “Consider that God exists outside of the physical world that we know; He is outside of time.”

    Where do you get this assumption from? Don’t misunderstand me, I am not arguing your logic, I am just trying to determine where you get your logic from. Are you making this assumption based on God perhaps being the initiator of the Big Bang model of cosmology, thus placing God outside of his creation? Or are you basing this on some portion of scripture? I am just trying to see where you stand on this. By the way, you do realize that this only works if you are in the monotheistic tradition of Islam, Judaism or Christianity. So I’ll also make the assumption that you are speaking specifically of the Christian God.

    For the record, if the Christian God does exist, I would expect him to be transcendent of our spatial and temporal dimensionality. It does make sense to me, at least in the creative sense, that God as creator would stand outside of his creation, thus outside of space-time.

    Justin continues:
    “If God is a being that is unlimited and infinite in time (outside time), and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question.”

    On this I do not agree. Anything outside of space-time is not held by our laws of physics, and is therefore unknowable. Yes, I understand what Scripture says, but I am laying that aside for this reply to your article, and just speaking of what science would say of a Creator if such a being in fact existed. Just because our Creator, if it exists, is a transcendent being, it does not necessarily follow that that Creator did or did not have a creator. It is unknowable. And for that reason, I do agree with you when you say you hate hearing it blurted out in debate. It bugs me too. It is a cliché that has a dead-end for an answer.

    Justin continues:
    “What the scientific method can do is give immense support for God. If you are familiar at all with astronomical constants, you will see that the slightest change in any of the very delicate variables would mean life as we know it would not exist.”

    On this I must agree and disagree. Sort of. Let me explain: There is nothing in science, and I mean nothing, that speaks of God in the sense that I assume you are making, that is the Christian God of the Bible. You can look at the wonders of the universe and conclude from the vastness of it all that it must be created by God – and the vast majority of humanity comes to this conclusion so I won’t disparage that. But you simply cannot conclude from observing the universe that the Creator became a man to die for the sins of fallen humanity, that he rose again on the third day and ascended to Heaven. So what sort of God does the scientific method give ‘immense support’ for? I submit that if evidence does in fact exist for a creator of some kind, it is of the most generic, and impersonable variety.

    You cite as your evidence of God the delicate balance of physical constants that govern the mechanics of our universe at the most fundamental level. And I agree, that it is indeed amazing. I have to be careful here. I don’t believe in figuring a scientific problem as so troublesome that we must give up and assign it to the providence of God. Are there problems with the Theory of Evolution? You bet there are problems with our current understanding of it, along with the many triumphs. Do we look at the problems, give up and say Evolution must not be so, therefore God did it? No way. That is just lazy, intellectual dishonesty. If we still thought that way, we would still be blaming Zeus for hurling lightning bolts to the ground.

    On the other hand, there is a challenge presented when considering the balance of the Fundamental Constants. I have heard some atheists argue that if the constants were different, there may be life, just not life like we know it. While that may be true of different chemistries, I think that misses the point. Consider this: If the expansion rate of the universe were a little lower than it is, the universe would have collapsed in on itself soon after formation. No universe = no life. The number of spatial dimensions (at least stable ones that are not curled at a quantum level) is stuck at 3. For reasons I won’t get into, gravity, electromagnetism, and other forces would be unstable if that number were any different. If the strong nuclear force were any different than what it is, the universe would either contain too few or too many light elements (H and He) and no interesting chemistry would have occurred to form anything substantial, much less life. And those kinds of arguments go on and on and on.

    I do find that amazing. Does mean God did it?

    Now, some hardcore atheists will argue this away by positing a hypothetical ‘Multiverse’, or a collection of universes each with its own unique collection of Fundamental Constants. Daniel Dennett, in his book, ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ introduces a fascinating philosophical construct which he calls ‘The Library of Babel’; an immense library of 500 page books, that is so big it contains every possible permutation of characters and spaces that is possible to be contained in 500 pages. There is a mathematical expression of characterizing this – and he likens this to the number of universes out there, and one of them, just one happens to be the one suitable for life – the one we live in. With all due respect to Prof Dennett, I remain unconvinced. As I said earlier in this reply, anything – and I mean ANYTHING outside the space-time that we inhabit is unknowable. That includes any conceptions of God, and that includes hypothetical ‘Multiverses’, white holes, the creation of a universe from quantum foam, or anything else that can never be observed outside of our physical parameters.

    That is why, although I am in no way a Christian, I can never call myself an atheist in the strictest sense. Atheists pride themselves on their skeptical nature, and rightly so. But skepticism runs both ways, and we must remember that. I think a valid idea, right along there with Multiverses, white holes and all the rest, is creation by some outside intelligent agent. Hey, why not? But even if this universe was created by some outside intelligence, that is information that I have absolutely no idea what to do with. Since that intelligence is unknowable, presumably from outside space-time, I have no idea how to react. So even though I admit that the possibility exists, I am an atheist by virtue of how I treat this possibility.

    IF that intelligence does exist, I live as if it does not exist, because searching for such an unknowable being is, to cite Ecclesiastes, “vanity, vanity, a grasping for the wind.”

  • 2. HeIsSailing  |  May 29, 2007 at 12:07 am

    Justin sez:
    “Negative numbers don’t exist, they are imaginary ”

    I don’t want to sidetrack from your ariticle, but I need to correct you here. Negative numbers are in every way, just as real as positive numbers. In the strictest sense, all numbers, whether positive or negative, are abstract constructs, and none is more imaginary than the other.

    I could go on about what imaginary numbers really are, then maybe cite Euler’s proof of the existance of God by using negative 1, but I won’t.

    math geek mode is now off.

  • 3. PressPosts / User / cgursoy / Submitted  |  May 29, 2007 at 5:30 am

    http://pressposts.com/Religion/God-Science-Oil-Water/

    Submited post on PressPosts.com – “God and Science: Oil and Water?”

  • 4. Simen  |  May 29, 2007 at 5:34 am

    Oh, where to start? This post is ripe with misunderstandings and false foundations. Justin says:

    Many believe that the only way to perceive the world around them is with the five senses. Yet, I tell you that no one has ever seen a thought. No one has ever seen a feeling and we still believe them to exist (no, seeing neuron activity doesn’t count)

    I’m sorry, that’s like saying “No one has seen an eye (no, seeing cells doesn’t count)”. It presupposes that thoughts are something else than neaurons. This assumption is unfounded. It is wrong.

    Scientific method can’t explain existential meanings. Individuals try to use scientific method to learn more about faith and God. I will tell you right now that if you are waiting to physically see, touch, smell, taste, or hear God, He will never be revealed to you.

    I’m sorry, but those are the senses nature God has given me, so those are the senses I use. If God cannot be discovered by the senses, then God is but an illusion of your mind.

    The skeptic will say, “Why not use the scientific method? The scientific method teaches us about everything we know. It is the ultimate tool for knowledge.” Well, there are a variety of reasons. Consider that God exists outside of the physical world that we know; He is outside of time.

    Next time you talk to God outside of space and time, be sure to give my greetings to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who’s outside of time and space as well. You see, outside of time and space doesn’t make sense. If there is such a place, then it is fundamentally outside of our understanding, and we cannot say a damn thing about what’s there. We’re confined to spacetime, and whatever is outside if such a concept is even coherent is unknowable.

    This is a hard concept to grasp for many, but you actually deal with this concept all the time. For instance, you can physically take three apples away from a pile of five. However, it is not possible or comprehendible for one to take five apples away from a pile of three.

    So?

    How do we solve this dilemma? We make the problem part of the answer [3-5, 2-4, 1-3, 0-2], and therefore our answer becomes negative two (-2). Negative numbers don’t exist, they are imaginary – but they help people such as engineers solve very real problems every single day.

    This is so wrong. Totally, fundamentally. Both the analogy and the text. Negative numbers are abstract objects, just as positive numbers, and so in a sense all numbers are imaginary, in the same way as the abstract concept “car” is imaginary. But negative numbers are no more or less fiction than positive numbers. Imaginary numbers, on the other hand, are numbers of the form x + y*i, where i is the square root of -1.

    This analogy explains the reason why God was never created (I really hate when people ask this cliché question).

    No, it doesn’t. The question is valid. It’s just as much cliché to say God exists. I guess you won’t discard that cliché.

    However, if we perceive of God as outside of the three-dimensional world that we know, then such a question cannot apply. If God is a being that is unlimited and infinite in time (outside time), and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question.

    Bullshit. It does not follow at all.

    The question is like asking someone to draw a four-sided triangle – the terminology is self-contradictory. God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created.

    Does not follow. You haven’t derived a contradiction, you’ve asserted that there is one and left it at that.

    What the scientific method can do is give immense support for God. If you are familiar at all with astronomical constants, you will see that the slightest change in any of the very delicate variables would mean life as we know it would not exist. These constants exist all over the universe. For instance, if the tilt of the earth were just a few degrees one way or the other, climates would be too extreme. If Jupiter were further from the Earth, and not as big, then it wouldn’t suck in the great number of asteroids and comets that would otherwise crash into the Earth. If the ratio of protons to electrons formation was less, electromagnetism would dominate gravity which would prevent galaxy, star, and planet formation.

    You’re working from false premises. It is impossible to estimate the likelihood of the constants being as they are, because we do not know whether they could ahve been different. For all we know, the probability of these constants was 1. We don’t know.

    If you want to use some of the tenets from the scientific method in regards to God and religion, you sort of can. One driving force behind the scientific method is multiple tests of a particular phenomenon. Scientists will test over and over in order to develop explanations. This facet of the method can be applied to God (religion). Since the beginning of time, man has always had the notion that there is something greater than himself. If one looks at the prominence of religion and how it has re-occurred time and time again, the most intelligent of individuals familiar with the scientific method will admit that it is very possible we are on to something.

    Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, and hence not valid in either logic or science.

    Similar and re-occurring results increase likelihood and probability. Again, before anyone begins to waste countless minutes in trying to rebuttal this correlation of religion to the scientific method, know that this is a loose utilization. I should also note that this very concept is explained in great detail (and more effectively) by Huston Smith.

    There are no similar and re-occurring results! Be honest here. For the likelihood of religion to be correct to increase, the predictions of religion must re-occur again and again. They don’t. Religion dares not subject itself to science by making falsifiable predictions. As I said, a re-occurrence of belief is not evidence. It’s not science. It’s illogic, unscientific, and stupid to believe that a widely held belief is any more likely to be true than one that is not.

  • 5. Justin  |  May 29, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    Wow, probably some of the largest replies to a post I’ve ever seen! But I wouldn’t expect anything less from a theist contributor on an atheist website (haha)! :-)

    HIS –
    your reply has a very healthy perspective, I appreciate your honesty you have with yourself in your assessments. To answer your question, I guess you could say I am talking about the God in a Christian sense [as that is my beleifs], although not the tenets of Christianity – I would say my approach is more of a “theist” approach than a Christian one.

    Hi Simen,

    I may be totally off on my assessment of this, but I get a sense frusteration and anger from your replies. There is no need to be defensive as I am not trying to convert you, and the words I use carry no offensive agenda. If I am indeed correct, know that there is no need to get overly worked up. Have you ever heard of Stephen Covey’s “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”? It’s a great book/training course. I would recommend it to anyone.

    just a thought. Although it may be unknowable what it is like outside space and time, it doesn’t make philosophical considerations and thoughts/theories about it irrelevant – unless of course we are approaching it from a scientific mindset (which I presume is where you’re coming from). If that’s the case, then I can see why you would have trouble with accepting human cognition about topics not subject to the scientific method.

    “Negative numbers are abstract objects, just as positive numbers, and so in a sense all numbers are imaginary, in the same way as the abstract concept “car” is imaginary. ”

    Interesting take, but I don’t see any relevance. On a side note, according to definition, abstract numbers are “numbers used without application to things, as 6, 8, 10; but when applied to any thing, as 6 feet, 10 men [or oranges as I eluded to above], they become concrete.” I suppose then that the human ability to comprehend the ‘abstract-ness’ of numbers denounces any claim that God and/or religion is too “abstract” to understand or know.

    In reply to: “Bullshit. It does not follow at all.”….

    Cowpoop. It does.

    In reference to the scientific method applied to religion, I again point to Huston Smith. He explains it with more eloquance than I, and he also readily admits it to be a loose correlation. I strongly encourage anyone to read “Why Religion Matters” (by Huston Smith). I put a link to the book at the bottom of this post.

    Anyway, have a great Tuesday everyone!

  • 6. Simen  |  May 29, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    I may be totally off on my assessment of this, but I get a sense frusteration and anger from your replies. There is no need to be defensive as I am not trying to convert you, and the words I use carry no offensive agenda. If I am indeed correct, know that there is no need to get overly worked up. Have you ever heard of Stephen Covey’s “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”? It’s a great book/training course. I would recommend it to anyone.

    I have no interest in self-help books. Do you always assume anger when people will disagree with you without wrapping it up in a nice package? I’m sorry, I simply disagree, and I see no reason to state it any other way than as plainly as possible.

    just a thought. Although it may be unknowable what it is like outside space and time, it doesn’t make philosophical considerations and thoughts/theories about it irrelevant – unless of course we are approaching it from a scientific mindset (which I presume is where you’re coming from). If that’s the case, then I can see why you would have trouble with accepting human cognition about topics not subject to the scientific method.

    Listen. We are by definition trapped in spacetime. That means there is no way for us to contact hypotethical things outside of it, using the scientific method or any other method. Any speculation will forever be speculation, and no speculation about “outside spacetime” is any more valid than any other.

    Interesting take, but I don’t see any relevance. On a side note, according to definition, abstract numbers are “numbers used without application to things, as 6, 8, 10; but when applied to any thing, as 6 feet, 10 men [or oranges as I eluded to above], they become concrete.” I suppose then that the human ability to comprehend the ‘abstract-ness’ of numbers denounces any claim that God and/or religion is too “abstract” to understand or know.

    It was in response to your “negative numbers are imaginary” attitude. Negative numbers are no more imaginary than positive numbers, and imaginary numbers are a whole different beast.

    In reply to: “Bullshit. It does not follow at all.”….

    Cowpoop. It does.

    Oh no.

    However, if we perceive of God as outside of the three-dimensional world that we know, then such a question cannot apply. If God is a being that is unlimited and infinite in time (outside time), and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question.

    You have yet to establish the connection between an infinite being and non-causation. Also, if you somehow to connect the two, you have just made a creator redundant, since the universe is infinite.

    In reference to the scientific method applied to religion, I again point to Huston Smith. He explains it with more eloquance than I, and he also readily admits it to be a loose correlation. I strongly encourage anyone to read “Why Religion Matters” (by Huston Smith). I put a link to the book at the bottom of this post.

    Perhaps. I have a feeling I wouldn’t agree, but I don’t have access to the book, so I’ll leave it there.

  • 7. HeIsSailing  |  May 29, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    Justin sez:
    “Although it may be unknowable what it is like outside space and time, it doesn’t make philosophical considerations and thoughts/theories about it irrelevant – unless of course we are approaching it from a scientific mindset (which I presume is where you’re coming from).”

    No I think they are irrelevant. Any thoughts or philosophical considerations into that realm which Is unknowable is no better than making stuff up, and making speculations with guesswork. The nature of a creator standing outside of spacetime falls into that category, as does any notion or bubble universes or multiverses. And most work best in science fiction novels.

    What makes the nature of a creator (god) that stands outside of our physical standards in any way knowable? If your only answer is that he has revealed himself to us via The Bible, then we are in lots of trouble.

  • 8. Justin  |  May 29, 2007 at 5:16 pm

    Hi HIS and Simen,

    It is quite obvious that our differences arrise at the different perspectives from which we are coming. I believe that questions about the existence of God wouldn’t be so polarizing if we weren’t obsessed with certainty and objectivity.

    Ancient civilizations had to be satisfied with guesswork to figure out how the universe functioned – anything that didn’t make sense could be attributed to supernatural powers. Today we have more tools for finding real answers to questions about nature, but the spirit world eludes our finest-tuned instruments. Probably no telescope will ever reveal the face of God in a nebula or supernova. Outside of our own hearts, we search in vain.

    So then the question becomes: how can modern science lead us closer to God? It probably can’t [see my post], if we’re seeking concrete spiritual facts to support certain doctrines or cosmology. We will find answers, but the best lesson we can hope to learn from gazing at the skies or using the scientific method is one of humility and wonder.

    For deeper spiritual meaning, and for resolving moral and social problems, science is not the answer. No, instead we must understand that the nature of God is non-empirical, and therefore the proper domain of theology. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value.

    I will end our back-and-forth by providing a link that you may find of interest (it has to do with explaining the nature of God outside spacetime.)

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.php#n01

    God Bless.

  • 9. HeIsSailing  |  May 29, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    Justin sez:
    “I believe that questions about the existence of God wouldn’t be so polarizing if we weren’t obsessed with certainty and objectivity. ”

    I try my best not to make this so. I am willing to accept a god on faith. I don’t need proof. I really don’t. I do not believe in the Christian God because of the evidence contrary to what I would expect of an authoritative message from him, namely The Bible.

    Justin, it is not merely a difference of opinion. What you are doing, by claiming that nature and intuition gives evidence of a transcendent Christian God, is giving attributes to a creator, that you admit must be unknowable, via intuition. That is nothing more than making stuff up.

    I checked out the article on your link to godandscience.org, and I gotta tell you it was not very well done. A few faulty scientific bullets, a theistic rehash of Abbot’s Flatland, and an invitation to accept Christ to avoid the threat of eternal damnation is not very informative.

    Justin, the article you cite makes two huge mistakes. The first is that it really twists Scripture into ways it was never intended. For instance, 2Peter 3:8 does not imply that God stands outside of our spacetime domain with the ability to stretch and pull time like a piece of taffy. Christians must always re-interpret scripture to meet their needs as science and culture changes around them.

    Second is the misunderstanding of the extra spatial dimensions proposed by String theory (not quantum or general relativity as the article claims).

    When string theory was first proposed and made popular in the 70s, the idea of extra dimensions was quickly seized upon by Christian apologists, who, in my opinion, had little idea what was meant by the idea. They claim that these extra dimensions are the realm of the supernatural, and that they cannot be perceived by us in our 3 dimensional world. Much like Mr and Mrs Flat, who can only see Mr Cube as a square projected onto their flat plan, we can only perceive God as a simple projection of his true mega-dimensional self onto our 3 dimensional plane. From this higher realm, God can poke and prod our world as if we were fish in a bowl.

    First, these extra dimensions are a result of the mathematics involved if string theory is used as a model for unifying the fundamental forces. *If* they exist, the extra spatial dimensions (either 10 or 11 total, depending on the math you use) are curled at the quantum level, and do not exist in our macro-level, just like any of the quantum rules of physics. According to recent experiments which used a torsion balance to test inverse square laws (which can only apply in a universe of 3 spatial dimensions), it has been confirmed that the extra spatial dimensions must be smaller than 44 micrometers.

    D. J. Kapner et al., “Tests of the Gravitational Inverse-Square Law below the Dark-Energy Length Scale,” Physical Review Letters 98 (2007): 021101.

    So what Christians are doing when they invoke the extra dimensional argument, is saying that God and the entire supernatural realm is confined to the quantum level. Talk about a misunderstanding! Is this how God interacts with us? On the subatomic level? I thought he stood *outside* of spacetime altogether? No, I just don’t see how those proposed extra spatial dimensions work as linking the supernatural realm with something scientific.

    So the GodandScience article that you showed me gets these concepts really confused. I hope the Huston Smith book is a little more informed than this.

  • 10. Justin  |  May 29, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    Hi HIS,
    the Huston Smith book is a gem, google him to learn more about him and his work – he really is an extraordinary man. The website I ran across one day and just thought it was an interesting bit. Just out of curiousity, you seem well versed in physics, is that your background?

  • 11. bpabbott  |  May 29, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    Justin, the post you posted is full of misconceptions and misrepresentations.

    Regarding the first, religion is founded on faith. Faith is a belief in the absence of proof, and preferably in the absence of the possibility of proof.

    If science can enlighten us with regards to a phenomena then that phenomena does not respect an article of faith.

    Does God exist? … it depends upon *your* faith. No one can know, they must believe. The choice is yours.

    Did evolution occur? Absolutely. The evidence that life evolved is astounding.

    Believing in something that is in contradiction with the empirical evidence isn’t faith, its blind faith :-(

  • 12. Simen  |  May 30, 2007 at 2:16 am

    String theory has been a huge disappointment, frankly, because as of yet it doesn’t seem to yield any results that can be confirmed by experiment. Relying on it to explain God is no better than relying on the Bible to be true to prove God until string theory has some actual experimental support. Talk about creating castles in the air.

  • 13. HeIsSailing  |  May 30, 2007 at 6:55 am

    Justin asks:
    “Just out of curiousity, you seem well versed in physics, is that your background?”

    Yes Justin, I am a physicist, although mathematics is my first real love. So any article on science, and especially science and religion, gets my particular interest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 2,032,741 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers