Faith and Reason
“We are not living in the glorious dawn of science, but rather the gristly morning after. Where it has become quite apparent that science can give us only improved means, to achieve unimproved or rather deteriorated ends”
- Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means
I have no doubt that Huxley’s claims are a rather slanted approach towards science, in light of all that it has done for us. Indeed, science has given us a great many cures and has eased many of our lives, if not providing the ability to restore those lives outright. But in many cultures, ours included, science occupies a throne of the domination of thought, but does so in a rather backwards manner. And that which seems to disagree with science is rubbish.
That is why there seems to be a divide between faith in God and reason.
Let me illustrate the point with an article written by a rather angry Englishman, and the article is entitled “The Rage of Reason.” And the author is terribly upset that many of his countrymen still believe in god, particularly the Christian God. Thus he harkens back to Blake, who once wrote “Oh Milton, thou should be living at this hour. England has need of thee,” in a plea for a pure spirit to light what seemed to Blake England’s dark night of the soul. Similarly, this English writer cried out for Thomas Paine and David Hume in a similar fashion, “Oh David Hume, thou should be living at this hour, England has need of thee. We are irrational men, believing all kinds of irrational things.”
David Hume has been accredited with hammering in the final nails into Christianity’s coffin. He said this, and I paraphrase,” The Christian religion has always proven irrational to believe in because even in its founding days, was attested by miracles.” Fair enough, and even true insofar as miracles have always been a part of Christian belief.
But then he goes on to say this,” Take into your hand any book of philosophy or tome or religion and ask yourself this question. Does it contain any statements concerning mathematical formulations? No. Does it contain any statements concerning matters-of-fact or empirically verifiable data? No. Commence it then to the flames, for it can be nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
Basically, he says take any book (like the Bible) and ask yourself if it contains anything apart from what science would tell us is true, or mathematics, and if it doesn’t, burn it because it is nothing but nonsense.
And here’s the kicker: David Hume’s claim does not pass his own test.
His statement does not concern matters-of-fact, nor anything mathematically demonstrable or scientifically empirical – his statement is a philosophical statement. And according to Hume, his own words should be committed to the flames for they, too, are nothing but sophistry and illusion.
The world tells us many things. And our little corner of the world here tells us, very often, that those things which are neither mathematically or scientifically provable are worthless and meaningless and insignificant. But by the way, the Bible does contain empirically verifiable phenomenon: the prophetic scheme, the existence of various peoples in various parts of the world, the locations of cities, the birth of Christ, the life of Christ, the resurrection of Christ.
Indeed, science can attest that even the miracles happened: http://english.sdaglobal.org/evangelism/arch/redsea.htm
In the book “Does God Exist?” J.P. Moreland, a theist, and Kai Nielson, an atheist, debate the very question in the title. And J.P. Moreland begins in the opening statement by piling argument upon argument, data upon data, and many illustrations and formulations of arguments coming from and dealing with many different ideas: ontological teleological, moral, design, etc. Kai Nielson dismissed all of it and asked if J.P. Moreland could show him God like Kai Nielson could show his friend Louis to Moreland. And from that point on, the argument became vapid and rather ridiculous as Kai Nielson dismissed everything that Moreland had brought to the table.
In the Arkansas trial on evolution, one of the witnesses was a man named Chandra Wickramasinghe. Now Chandra is a Buddhist and therefore a non-theist, if not an atheist. And he said this concerning the likelihood of the random formation of a single enzyme necessary to create human beings: “The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of nothing but organic soup ( Evolution from Space).” Do we realize how large this number really is? The number of atoms in the known universe is only 10 to the 80th power; all of the atoms in all the known universe. In the Arkansas trial on evolution, he relayed this to the judge and was then asked if he was a non-theist, how did he himself account for our origins? He, and Francis Crick, both hold the view that aliens must have seeded our planet with spores, or genetic material, and that is how life originated. Who is having faith now?
To be fair, Crick and his colleague Wickramasinghe are both very well-to-do in their professions, indeed even leaders. But the problem with this idea of seeds being sown from space is that it does not answer the problem of the complexity and probability of origin: it seems that one must now account for the likelihood of how these other aliens came about, and how likely that would have been.
Bernard Shaw, noted cynic and atheist, even once said this concerning his own philosophical perspective, “I am an atheist who has lost his faith.”
Indeed, faith in God is not faith that is irrational. Rather, faithlessness in God is irrational. And by the way, the Hebrews did not even have a word for faith like the Greeks did, and we often think of (that is, of faith being blind and unreasoning), rather they used “faithfulness.” That is why we see in the book of Habakkuk that it is written, “The just shall live by His faithfulness.” What does that mean? It means that the just people will live by seeing God at work and justifying believing in him in light of all that he has already done for them, empirically and verifiably.
What is faith? Is it blind and unreasoning? No, it is trust. And trust ought only to be given when we have seen that it makes sense to give someone our trust.
- Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means
I have no doubt that Huxley’s claims are a rather slanted approach towards science, in light of all that it has done for us. Indeed, science has given us a great many cures and has eased many of our lives, if not providing the ability to restore those lives outright. But in many cultures, ours included, science occupies a throne of the domination of thought, but does so in a rather backwards manner. And that which seems to disagree with science is rubbish.
That is why there seems to be a divide between faith in God and reason.
Let me illustrate the point with an article written by a rather angry Englishman, and the article is entitled “The Rage of Reason.” And the author is terribly upset that many of his countrymen still believe in god, particularly the Christian God. Thus he harkens back to Blake, who once wrote “Oh Milton, thou should be living at this hour. England has need of thee,” in a plea for a pure spirit to light what seemed to Blake England’s dark night of the soul. Similarly, this English writer cried out for Thomas Paine and David Hume in a similar fashion, “Oh David Hume, thou should be living at this hour, England has need of thee. We are irrational men, believing all kinds of irrational things.”
David Hume has been accredited with hammering in the final nails into Christianity’s coffin. He said this, and I paraphrase,” The Christian religion has always proven irrational to believe in because even in its founding days, was attested by miracles.” Fair enough, and even true insofar as miracles have always been a part of Christian belief.
But then he goes on to say this,” Take into your hand any book of philosophy or tome or religion and ask yourself this question. Does it contain any statements concerning mathematical formulations? No. Does it contain any statements concerning matters-of-fact or empirically verifiable data? No. Commence it then to the flames, for it can be nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
Basically, he says take any book (like the Bible) and ask yourself if it contains anything apart from what science would tell us is true, or mathematics, and if it doesn’t, burn it because it is nothing but nonsense.
And here’s the kicker: David Hume’s claim does not pass his own test.
His statement does not concern matters-of-fact, nor anything mathematically demonstrable or scientifically empirical – his statement is a philosophical statement. And according to Hume, his own words should be committed to the flames for they, too, are nothing but sophistry and illusion.
The world tells us many things. And our little corner of the world here tells us, very often, that those things which are neither mathematically or scientifically provable are worthless and meaningless and insignificant. But by the way, the Bible does contain empirically verifiable phenomenon: the prophetic scheme, the existence of various peoples in various parts of the world, the locations of cities, the birth of Christ, the life of Christ, the resurrection of Christ.
Indeed, science can attest that even the miracles happened: http://english.sdaglobal.org/evangelism/arch/redsea.htm
In the book “Does God Exist?” J.P. Moreland, a theist, and Kai Nielson, an atheist, debate the very question in the title. And J.P. Moreland begins in the opening statement by piling argument upon argument, data upon data, and many illustrations and formulations of arguments coming from and dealing with many different ideas: ontological teleological, moral, design, etc. Kai Nielson dismissed all of it and asked if J.P. Moreland could show him God like Kai Nielson could show his friend Louis to Moreland. And from that point on, the argument became vapid and rather ridiculous as Kai Nielson dismissed everything that Moreland had brought to the table.
In the Arkansas trial on evolution, one of the witnesses was a man named Chandra Wickramasinghe. Now Chandra is a Buddhist and therefore a non-theist, if not an atheist. And he said this concerning the likelihood of the random formation of a single enzyme necessary to create human beings: “The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of nothing but organic soup ( Evolution from Space).” Do we realize how large this number really is? The number of atoms in the known universe is only 10 to the 80th power; all of the atoms in all the known universe. In the Arkansas trial on evolution, he relayed this to the judge and was then asked if he was a non-theist, how did he himself account for our origins? He, and Francis Crick, both hold the view that aliens must have seeded our planet with spores, or genetic material, and that is how life originated. Who is having faith now?
To be fair, Crick and his colleague Wickramasinghe are both very well-to-do in their professions, indeed even leaders. But the problem with this idea of seeds being sown from space is that it does not answer the problem of the complexity and probability of origin: it seems that one must now account for the likelihood of how these other aliens came about, and how likely that would have been.
Bernard Shaw, noted cynic and atheist, even once said this concerning his own philosophical perspective, “I am an atheist who has lost his faith.”
Indeed, faith in God is not faith that is irrational. Rather, faithlessness in God is irrational. And by the way, the Hebrews did not even have a word for faith like the Greeks did, and we often think of (that is, of faith being blind and unreasoning), rather they used “faithfulness.” That is why we see in the book of Habakkuk that it is written, “The just shall live by His faithfulness.” What does that mean? It means that the just people will live by seeing God at work and justifying believing in him in light of all that he has already done for them, empirically and verifiably.
What is faith? Is it blind and unreasoning? No, it is trust. And trust ought only to be given when we have seen that it makes sense to give someone our trust.
posted by Brian at 9:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home