What a great answer to this typical objection for the existence of any god, and specifically God. I hadn't thought of creation's declaration as being science before, or of the inclusion of that passage as being a prediction... that's brilliant.
Hear, hear. Unfortunately, films such as Expelled and most of the ID community, in fact, make science the enemy of faith. Thanks for putting it so clearly.
Very interesting point, but I guess it partly depends on what you mean by 'science'. I don't see this as a prediction at all, as the bible's authors already knew that the world was comprehensible; the development of agriculture and animal husbandry for instance are arguably crude sciences, and predate the bible by thousands of years.
Do you happen to have the verse concerning 'study of creation leaves men without excuse'? I only ask, because I thought, probably mistakenly, that that reference was to 'creation' only, not the 'study of', which are entirely separate things as far as your argument. If it only says 'creation', that could just as easily refer to the aesthetic appeal of the world, whether there was 'science' or not.
Dave L,
It is the same verse, Rom 1:20. I am inferring that if God's qualities attributes are in creation, then studying creation (science) is the way we see and appreciate them. At least it's worked for me.
David, keep the good exposition and explanation coming. Comprehensibility and cohesiveness certainly point to a plan. Blessings!
1Timothy 6:20
(KJV+) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called;
Absolutely, David - good stuff. Which was why so much of modern science flowered in the Reformation, when they had the epistemological framework to believe that it would work.
Elbogz,
That's especially significant given the times. A form of scientific method was developed in the Hellenistic age which shows that the exploration of creation was more than casual observation...and who knows what else may be found from other civilizations over time that point to "science" being methodical to some degree, even if crude compared to today's methods.
Yes, science supports the Bible and god, especially when it disproves the Bible, like in Genesis 1. This is all post-hoc justification, however. Some book says something that you can interpret after the fact as supporting your position, because really the Bible can support any position, and you claim that it somehow constitutes evidence for your position?
"The success of science, my friends, is prima facie physical evidence that God exists, because the only other explanation is luck."
What's not to like about "luck"? A billion galaxies, a billion stars in each one, who knows how many billion planets (250+ discovered so far), and I happen to live on this one at this time? And in the USA? And in Austin, Texas? (Oops - oh well) What are the odds? Not to mention that a particular sperm met a particular egg, etc. And eleventy thousand traffic deaths every year? What bad luck!
You sound that dolt Gonzalez in The Privileged Planet. He should have been doing science - then maybe he would have had a prayer of getting tenure. Read how The Privileged Planet could be falsifiable in the last chapter - all we have to do is discover non-carbon-based lifeforms in a Jupiter-like atmosphere and that would be "proof". Riiiight.
onein6billion: In actual fact, you don't need to discover any such thing. Just to come up with a hypothetical refutation of the link between observability and habitability would do damage to the PP hypothesis. For example, suggest any alternative to complex, intelligent life as it is on this planet. But AFAIK, nobody has done that yet.
Is this argument for real? You have said, in a nutshell: The bible says science works. Science works. Therefore God exists.
You've got to come up with something better than this.
Or the old straw man: 'When a scientist tells you that science requires no faith or presupposition' - you then go on to say that they must at least presuppose the chances of success of their science. Of course they do, but that is nothing to do with faith or to do with the sort of presupposition your 'scientist' is talking about.
Why can't believers just admit that their faith is based on a 'blind' leap of faith which, if you like, is no more or less of a leap than atheists make, since they have no evidence for the non-existence of God?
Rob
Rob Salem,
You have said, in a nutshell: The bible says science works. Science works. Therefore God exists.
No, I didn't I said prima facie evidence, not proof. That is, the bible makes a prediction that science will be doable. So the scientist-theist can find comfort that science is comprehensible, and the mathematics tractable--while the atheist scientist has no explanation for such things. Indeed, many atheist scientists have expressed amazement that we can do science at all.
Why can't believers just admit that their faith is based on a 'blind' leap of faith which, if you like, is no more or less of a leap than atheists make, since they have no evidence for the non-existence of God?
Because it isn't. I have never believed in blind faith, and I don't think blind faith is a Christian virtue, and I don't think the bible teaches us (now) to accept anything on blind faith.
That the operations of nature are constant and predictable truly is a curious thing, and I fail to see how it isn't supportive of the theistic worldview.
Because it's begging the question and god of the gaps illogical thinking.
"That the operations of nature are constant and predictable truly is a curious thing,"
How did you determine that it's 'curious'? On what basis were you expecting something different?
It's supportive of the atheistic viewpoint also; if it's truly constant then it doesn't seem that there are any dieties performing miracles.
Dave L,
How did you determine that it's 'curious'? On what basis were you expecting something different?
Well, on what basis should I expect anything to be the same? Accounts of causal relations are merely descriptions of past events; they can’t prescribe what we ought to believe about future ones. So why should I believe that gravity will be the same tomorrow, and I won’t go flying off into space or squashed into a pancake? Because God is in control of nature and makes it constant and predictable.
It's supportive of the atheistic viewpoint also; if it's truly constant then it doesn't seem that there are any dieties performing miracles.
Unless every event is a miracle, and what we call ‘laws’ are merely divinely caused regularities. This is called occasionalism.
"Because God is in control of nature and makes it constant and predictable."
Once again, it's god of the gaps and begging the question.
Proof or prima facie evidence: it does not matter. Your argument offers neither. The conclusion is a non sequitur.
As for blind faith, you have no more evidence (that would stand up to any serious logical analysis) for God's existence than I have for God's non-existence.
As for atheist scientists having no explanation for science's comprehensibility, straw man again. Atheist scientists can have explanations. Try this: how could a universe exist with no laws of science?
Rob Salem,
Try this: how could a universe exist with no laws of science?
That is simply not germane to anything I wrote. I didn't say that regularity or the mere existence of physical laws was prima facie evidence for the biblical view, I said (paraphrasing) the fact that science was easier than we have any reason to expect was the evidence.
"So why should I believe that gravity will be the same tomorrow, and I won’t go flying off into space or squashed into a pancake? Because God is in control of nature and makes it constant and predictable"
Well, that is definitely one explanation. "Gravity's never been different before", also works pretty well for most people. If one day you determined that God is not in control of nature then you would actually fear that one day gravity may be fatally different?
"the fact that science was easier than we have any reason to expect was the evidence."
It's an interesting point to ponder admittedly, but that statement is awfully ambiguous and open-ended. You could make that statement if science had only advanced to the understanding of levers and pulleys and it would be equally valid, for we don't know how much we don't know. Is there some 'reason to expect' that science in your opinion should be difficult?
I'm surprised to see a physicist saying that science is easy. Some of it yes, but I find, and I think this goes for a great proportion of the population, that things like relativity and quantum mechanics are very difficult to understand and even conceptualize without serious study; just the fact that time is relative, for instance, is very counter-intuitive and not easily grasped or visualized at all.
GCT,
Is it even possible for there to be a gap for which God is a legitimate explanation?
Dave L,
If one day you determined that God is not in control of nature then you would actually fear that one day gravity may be fatally different?
Hmmm....That's an interesting question. I'm not sure that if God exists, that he could not be in control of nature. But if that is possible, given that God does exist and that, for some reason, he is not in control of nature and I somehow come to be aware of it, I suppose I would have sufficient reason to be fearful, given that in such a situation I can't think of any sufficient reason to expect that nature will be consistent.
My non-germane comment was in response to your, as paraphrased: 'science was easier than we have any reason to expect'. (i.e. there's no logical reason to expect that science won't 'work').
On a tangential note, I wonder whether the experiments that are soon to begin at CERN will provide further proof of the workability of science or whether we'll all end up as anti-matter in a different space-time continuum.
Rob Salem,
Heh--I assume you are referring to the possibility that the LHC will create a black hole. I am jealous that I cannot tell me friends that my experiment might destroy the solar system. That would be great a cocktail party topic.
I love the Internet, where anonymity allows you to call an accomplished astronomer a "dolt."
Anyway, it is fascinating that mathematics works. What began with Greeks studying circles and lines has proven to be quite useful in studying all kinds of physical phenomena. Furthermore, it suggests the design of man--there's no reason to expect an animal to evolve the ability to construct simple abstract concepts that allow for comprehension, description, and prediction of some of the deepest and most elusive physical phenomena. But if man were created in the image of God, then one would expect that man would be able to understand a great deal of creation, and not just levers and pulleys.
Crandaddy,
"Is it even possible for there to be a gap for which God is a legitimate explanation?"
I know of no instance where god of the gaps in not fallacious. If you wish to insert your god into gaps, you need to have some evidence and reason for doing so.
"But if man were created in the image of God, then one would expect that man would be able to understand a great deal of creation, and not just levers and pulleys."
Well, between the very ambiguous bookends of 'man created in the image of God' and the also frequent, 'but man isn't God', theists pretty much have 'an answer' to every conceivable statement about mankind. We're able to understand a great deal of creation because we're in the image of God, but the apparent (to us) atrocity of God sending people to Hell to eternally suffer is only abhorrent to us because we don't understand God's perfect idea of justice.
If I accept the 'image of God' idea, to borrow a well-used phrase, I have 'no reason to expect' that, not just that my idea of mercy and justice is incomplete and unclear in some complicated scenarios, but that God's idea of mercy and justice with regard to the existence of Hell is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone understands these ideas to mean. There is no possible crime that justly deserves eternal punishment, and there is no conception of mercy that is consistent with hell; what good God would allow such a crime to even be possible? To turn to God's 'wrath' and 'jealousy' as an explanation doesn't exactly improve God's attributes any either. 'Damnation in the name of love' doesn't seem to be a terribly coherent idea, but maybe I've misrepresented the situation.
(I know I've been reading this blog too much when I can start arguing against myself; could this have something to do with the Fall? My position is that our moral understanding should be more in 'the image of god', and not as distorted as I argue it is if hell is to jive at all with our conception of justice and mercy. Does the bible say anything about listening to your conscience? That we all have no excuse for we all deep down understand right and wrong?)
Josh S,
'...there's no reason to expect an animal to evolve the ability to construct simple abstract concepts that allow for comprehension, description, and prediction of some of the deepest and most elusive physical phenomena...'
Why not?
Dave L,
Yes, the Bible does have something to say about listening to your conscience. Romans is a good NT place for that idea, but it really starts in Genesis when the first man and woman fail to do so, and then when God specifically tells Cain to conquer the sin that is "crouching" at the door. What door? The door to his mind and heart.
One of the problems with conscience is that it is mostly developed by the time a person is 10 years old, so if a person has not had good moral examples and training, their conscience may be so weak that they will hardly be aware of it.
The Law was only a tutor to awaken the conscience and I think if you look carefully at the outcome of the morality of the Jews, as a whole, you will find that the Mosaic Law really is very different from how the rest of civilization operated. Maybe you already have and have come to a different conclusion, but that's what I find and even Hitler said that conscience is a Jewish invention.
Ooops, in case that last part of my comment sounds like I am giving homage to Hitler...I meant that even an evil person such as he recognized that the Jews have stirred the conscience of man in every civilization they inhabited.
Jennifer:
My poorly explained reference to conscience was just to point out that I think (hope) everyone's conscience tells them that eternal punishment is just in *no* imaginable situation. If the Bible says to listen to your conscience, than what does one do when one's conscience conflicts with other scripture? If Christianity said instead that non-believers went to hell for some period of time and then truly die, and someone came along and argued that no, eternal punishment is really what is called for, that person would be rightly considered to be unmerciful and barbaric. Asserting that 'God has his reasons' that mortals can't comprehend, takes me right back to the 'image of God' point, that I wouldn't expect my conscience to tell me the polar opposite of what is good, just and merciful.
I don't know enough unfortunately about the development of 'conscience' in various cultures, but I'm pretty skeptical of the special credit you give the Jews. They seem just as barbaric as everyone else from that time. Eastern civilizations seemed to have developed just fine without much Jewish influence, and Confucius for example was no slouch.
It's interesting you mention Confucius. I just wrote a paper on the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882; one of the arguments a Congressman laid *against* the Act was that Confucianism was similar to Christianity so it would be unfair to keep Chinese Confucians from immigrating to America. He even went so far as to hypothesize that Jesus' birth had been prophesized by Confucius and that the 3 Wise Men were from China! Interesting stuff.
Yes, it is interesting stuff!!
The characters used in Chinese writing are also interesting as so many of them have stories to tell. Here is a short article, but a book was written The Discovery of Genesis... that goes more in depth. The book was recommended to me by a woman in her 70's who was still sneaking literature into China and knew the authors personally, if I remember right. There are some very good, fair comments on Amazon.
Dave L,
I'm actually a Christian who is not so sure about what "hell" literally is. There are a wide range of views, but I think all Christians, maybe, agree that the most important thing about our faith is that it centers on the teaching of Jesus as through His death and resurrection we can rest in God's grace. I do understand your dilemma.
If you are interested there is an excellent book written by Allan Levine who is Jewish and went in search of his diaspora heritage. The book is titled, Scattered Among the Peoples: The Jewish Diaspora in Twelve Portraits. What I liked about this book, as laborious as it was to read!, was his detailed description of the political, economical and social impact of the the Jews in 12 different geographical locations.
I think what we see in Judaism and then Christianity is the continuation of redemption...first of people and then the creation. There is a sort of evolution of belief or of faith that occurs in history, like that of Abraham. He ended up in a different place, speaking of faith, from where he began in Ur under Assyrian law and polytheism. Not that who we have faith in changes, but that our own understanding can change as we learn more and see the trail of history behind us. I agree they we just as barbaric at times, but I could go on and on about that so I'd better not get into it! 
Now I'm getting preachy...just trying to clarify.
"Now I'm getting preachy...just trying to clarify."
Not preachy at all, Jennifer. Thanks for the links, I will check them out.
Commenting by HaloScan
