CADRE Comments

A Rational Look at Christianity; Basing Reason in Truth

With attacks on Christianity and religion in general escalating over recent months, it was only a matter of time before Time Magazine entered the fray and did a cover story about the question of whether "religion [can] stand up to the progress of science". And so, in an article entitled "God v. Science" (available on the Internet for a limited time), examines this issue from through a discussion between the bombastic Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and Francis Collins, author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

I want to recommend the overview of the article by CADRE contributor The Dawn Treader who has taken the time to record some rather insightful observations about the article in two posts entitled Collins vs. Dawkins, Part I and Collins v. Dawkins, Conclusion. Consider this bit of analysis:

Dawkins claimed that the acceptance of the possibility of miracles destroys scientific investigation. This is a silly argument and fails the sniff test. The great scientific minds down through the ages have been possessed by those who have accepted the possibility of miracles ... and science flourished. There are many scientists today, in fact, who accept the possibility of miracles and aggressively investigate the natural world and make discoveries. Collins' significant accomplishments are an argument against this faux argument. Dawkins has offered up a softball with this argument ... we need to slam it out of the park.

The Dawn Treader is right, as usual. The greatest scientific discoveries prior to the 20th Century were virtually all by Christians who were investigating God's creation. Throughout history, Christians have studied the creation because they considered that part of the general revelation of God. It is an absolute fantasy that religious people have neither the inclination or motivation to seek natural causes for events. No Christian that I know (and none that I have ever read) argue that scientific investigation seeking natural causes of things is wrong. What is viewed as wrongful is allowing people with naturalistic philosophical worldviews like scientism or evolutionism to somehow be considered the only valid voices concerning the study of our universe.

Read the article then read The Dawn Treader's evaluation. I'm sure he'd welcome questions about his critique on his blog.

4 comments:

Beneath it all there's this underlying assumption that things can only be known by way of the scientific method.

I agree, absolutely. The assumption is that religious knowledge isn't true knowledge because you can't test it in the same way you can test a physical law. That is a barren notion of knowledge.

Agreed. It really frustrates me when people nowadays act like the only valid way to discover truth is through science (and way too many people have this attitude).

If thats true then there is a heck of a lot we can never know because science is limited to what we can observe and repeatedly measure.

I always thought the four ways to knowing truth were through:
1. Science
2. History
3. Logic
4. Personal Experience

All these have advantages over the other and they all interact very often. Did I miss anything?

Hello all,
RE:"What is viewed as wrongful is allowing people with naturalistic philosophical worldviews like scientism or evolutionism to somehow be considered the only valid voices concerning the study of our universe."

The reason so many people don't "trust" the assertions of religion is how regularly religious leaders and religious politicians are caught red-handed lying about religion and themselves. Hypocrisy does not inpsire trust nor serve as evidence of reliability. Also, the Bibie, Quran, and other texts contradict themselves on so may points that it is beyond obvious that religious leaders have lied about the source and meaning of their canons.

Who the hell do you think I am? What does "seven stars in my right hand" symbolize?

How is it possible that a European Messiah emerged from Judea AFTER Rome destroyed and ethnically cleansed the region of its dark-skinned inhabitants? Do you know what "know them by their fruits" actually means? Can you recognize evil and blatant deception?

Now, here's my two bits on this intractable debate. Hope you and others can appreciate my efforts to provide a key to a true solution for humanity's seemingly never-ending cycle of struggle and despair.

Analyzing the Creator Debate

Did you ever consider that atheism arose because certain people saw that religious characterizations about the nature of an omnipotent "God" were seriously flawed and then concluded that religion and the Creator were the same things? This is the exact same conclusion at the base of religious beliefs; namely that the Creator and religion are inseparable. Consequently, both atheists and religious followers are arguing over a flawed assumption without considering that other possibilities negate the common core conclusion of both groups. These arguments are actually over religion and whether it represents a reliable model of reality. The answer to this question is of course not. Religion is not only flawed, it is purposely deceptive! Though atheists are certainly sincere in their conclusions, the fact remains that they and religious followers are locked in a debate that cannot be won by either side because both base their positions upon whether the same flawed premise is the truth. In order for this debate to conclude with a truthful answer, a greater level of discernment is required.

One apt clarifying question is, if someone tells lies about you, does that negate you or make you a liar or a lie? Certainly, the image cast about you would be a false one, but that is their image, not the real you. Consequently, faulty religious assertions about the Creator of this universe do not negate the existence of a Creator. Considering the possibility that this universe is not by chance leaves the door open to how it arose, which leads us to seek what could have created and maintained it. Since neither religion nor science has yet adequately answered this question, it is safe to conclude that those who argue about the Creator based on either are most certainly wrong about one or more aspects. Therefore, another point of view and additional knowledge are required.

Read More...

Peace...

Use of Content

The contents of this blog may be reproduced or forwarded via e-mail without change and in its entirety for non-commercial purposes without prior permission from the Christian CADRE provided that the copyright information is included. We would appreciate notification of the use of our content. Please e-mail us at christiancadre@yahoo.com.