"Christianity - Is it Opposed to Science?" Part III

Part Three

Christianity Opposes Science

In Part One it was pointed out that the notion of the Church opposing science was not a legitimate assumption.  Further it was seen that a survey of the greatest scientists and scientific discoveries would support the notion that it was the Reformation not the Renaissance that saw the great uptick in scientific discoveries.

Part Two answered some of the specific inaccuracies that Christianity supposedly cites against Science.  Again many of the arguments tendered by Christianity’s opponents are less that valid.  Not the least of which is the false notion that conservation Bible believing Christians oppose the legitimate sciences. 

In the course of those discussions there still remained several matters to discuss.  Among them are the following.

Scientific Theory

It would then appear that in order to seek to gain some credibility, the closed system science people have redefined scientific theory from something to be theorized and therefore studied to a more fact based definition as in the following.

Referring to science and theory, the notion is that when the two terms are used together, the suggestion is that theory “refers to a well-developed, logically consistent explanation of a phenomenon, and an explanation that is consistent with observed facts.”

However for the evolutionist the problem of reproducible validation still remains.  For example one cannot reproduce evolution, thus it is a theory and shall remain so until there are reproducible results which confirm the notion and thus move it from theory to fact.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."  Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

(Full article available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)

Inconsistent and Unfair Accusations

On the one side is atheistic science claiming that they can without legitimate scientific data make claims for valid scientific theory all the while pointing an accusing finger at the creationist with the unfounded claim that creationism is without scientific foundation.  They postulate such to be so by claiming that creationism is a wild guess and claiming that religious myth is unsupported by science.

Yet they themselves cannot explain some of the issues discussed in the previous post (Part II) and conveniently posit the notion that science will one day be able to explain these things.  Frankly it becomes of question of where one chooses to place trust. 

Libeling the Opponent

To discredit the other side of an argument by libeling or name calling is well beneath fair and respectful debate.  Such is the behavior of the one whose arguments lack substance and foundation.  To label the Children of Israel (Jews) as “slave holding goat herders” is inaccurate, libelous, and unfair.  Such is spoken out of derision not of the careful and sound study of non-biblical archeology.

Would it not be more profitable to engage in the highest tradition of argument and debate in order to attempt to prove one’s point?  Such seems lost to those who posit their own positional superiority and thus discount the realities of genuine truth.

Incomplete Quotes

For example the citing Martin Luther’s comment in Table Talk which supposedly says, “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.” is ripped right out of context and unfairly represents the position of the Reformer.

The context is a discussion as to whether children should be baptized.  The full quote is as follows.

“The anabaptists (sic) pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they receive also faith.  (Table Talk CCCLIII)

Said another way, Luther is dealing with children and is not making a general statement that would be inconsistent with other sections of that same collection of his thoughts.

At no point does Luther disparage learning (cf. Table Talk DCCCV). As a matter of fact, numbers of times Table Talk contains references to the learned, medicine, astronomy, understanding, science, and people such as Aristotle.  The point is that Luther makes is that by what is later titled Rationalism and reason one cannot know of Spiritual matters. 

Either—Or

The whole argument by those who oppose Christianity is an “either-or” discussion of Christianity and Science.  The fact is that the Bible does provide a foundation for the study of all knowledge.  The problems come when one seeks to do those same studies based upon a closed system secular model. 

When one accepts an open system Divine model, to be sure all will not be discovered for the miracle of creation is that it reflects the character of the Creator.  Just as God is eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and so on, so too all that the science that is to be discovered and studied will reflect those things. 

Even secular science indirectly and without meaning to acknowledge such to be so as they observe that no matter the advances man makes it is but a small understanding of the whole of reality. 

The Ultimate Problem

There is not one example that secular science can provide of randomness leading to order. It is always, always, always away from order. It is moving toward chaos and eventually entropy.

Degrading Systems, Entropy Ahead

Genuine reality to include nature is now much different than it was at the big bang. Therefore, push it out into time far enough there will come a time that its randomness will degrade exponentially.  At such a point, man’s theorizing now stressed, will not be able to theorize enough to keep ahead of the chaos.

The Theoretical as Gospel

Besides, the Theoretical Physics and Theoretical Mathematics and all the other theoretical postulations that can be put on the table are based upon theory and theory relies heavily upon presuppositions or assumptions which are to be proven.  Now as one can read in the previous section on scientific theory such postulations are more and more being accepted as genuine reality.  So the creationist presupposes a benevolent God and the secular scientist presupposes that which is necessary for his secular science.

Degrading or Dependable

The problem is that man’s theories when they leave out the Divine suffers under the decline toward entropy.   The creationist and his science suffers under no such decline but only the privilege of a deeper look into reality, the reality of the one who said that He is the same yesterday today and forever.

Why should the rational thinking person make the choice for the random over the stable? Makes no sense.  It is as if one is standing on the edge of a cliff, and has to choose between standing on Theoretical Jell-o or a unmovable boulder—a boulder that has existed at least ten times as long as the theoretical.

Summation

Anyone can argue a point through distortion, misrepresentation, and falsehood.  The key to any honest debate is to present and defend a position based on logical argument.  To argue against a distorted position is to argue against a position that does not exist.  Doing to simply means that one argues against that which does not exist.

One can always win the argument when there is not one in the opposing chair.  That in effect is what the writer of 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity does.  That is not to say that at points he does not make legitimate criticism, however at most points he fails in his characterizations of the Christian faith.

Go ahead and argue against Christianity and the Church but do not do it by arguing against the reality not one's perceptions clouded by bias and attitude.  The reality is that the Christian Faith (Orthodox, Protestant, Roman Catholic) with all of its human weakness has done more to improve conditions of mankind in this life than any other movement, faith, or belief system.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear?).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

"Christianity - Is it Opposed to Science" Part II

Part Two

Christianity Opposes Science

In Part One it was pointed out that the notion of the Church opposing science was not a legitimate assumption.  Further it was seen that a survey of the greatest scientists and scientific discoveries would support the notion that it was not the Renaissance but the Reformation that saw the uptick in scientific discoveries.

In the course of those discussions there still remained several matters to discuss.  Among them are the following.

Answering the Specific Inaccuracies

All Knowledge in Scripture 

No knowing person says that all knowledge resides in the Scriptures.  That is in fact a misrepresentation of the truth that the foundation of all knowledge resides in the Scriptures. That is to say that Scripture does not exhaust all science but merely provides the foundation or the basis of science and knowledge.

Certainly as limiting as is that statement, still there are those of secular mindset who would disagree.  However, the point to consider is that the Scriptures reveal the Divine and the Divine is the basis of all reality, therefore the Divine is the basis of all true science.

Galileo’s Treatment by Pope Urban VII

The argument goes something like, because Galileo embraced the Copernican theory and therefore he fell into disfavor and was banned from teaching.  The facts are quite different.

Pope Urban VII initially supported Galileo but because of political difficulties and court intrigue and threats against his reign as pope, plus a misstep by Galileo in assigning the Popes words to a scientist known as Simplico (often wrong and inaccurate in his science) he fell out of favor and thus was placed under house arrest.

Miraculous Events 

As the result of the Age of Enlightenment, Modernism became popular among scientists and others who pursue knowledge.  Thus there is a belief in truth but that truth  is contained in a closed system.  Therefore, miracles cannot exist for there is nothing outside the closed system. 

Others, generally people of faith believe that the system is not closed but open and that the Divine can interrupt the natural forces and causes of life at any time of His choosing.  This is the Judeo-Christian truth paradigm. 

Conservative Christians Opposes Science

Those how hold to this idea again paint Christianity with a broad brush.  Take for example the question of creation or evolution.  The fact is that Conservative Christianity is far more accepting of variations in belief.  From the Divine start of everything to those who believe God started the processes and then took His hands off, Christianity has a big tent.  Much bigger than that of the secular evolutionist.

Evolution or Intelligent Design

Interesting how militant the evolutionist has become when genuine questions are asked as to the veracity and proof for his theory.  Even while casting doubt upon the evidence for creationism, such people conveniently look past the problem that they cannot answer.  For example,

Decline:  Left on its own every system decays toward chaos and yet the evolutionist postulates that it is exempted from this descent.

Intermediary Fossils:  Of the over 50,000 plus fossils, the evolutionist cannot produce one intermediary fossil.  There is no part monkey, part man. 

Faulty Assumptions:  The evolutionist discounts honest science when it produces data that does not suit the evolutionist's presuppositions and yet is willing to accept the mythical theory of evolution in the place of honest scientific work.

First Causes

Among the various issues that the Modernist scientist with their closed system theory cannot explain is that of first causes.  Assuming for a moment that the “Big Bang Theory” is true, what caused the Big Bang and from where does matter, time, and energy originate. 

While the Big Bang does explain that there was a beginning, closed system science is at a loss as to how or why it happened.  Oh, certainly there are those who place their faith in theoretical mathematics, theoretical physics and the like.  Problem is even if they unravel the Big Bang to some new theory as frequently is the case, they still cannot explain the origin of the universe.

Publically Funded Education

The creationist and intelligent design camp is asking for equal time with the evolutionist.  When ever Creationism is brought up, the evolutionist decries it as indoctrinating kids with a wild myth.  Yet, if anyone remotely suggests that public education refrain from teaching evolution they immediately fall into disfavor.  Teaching both seems to be only fair since it is not just the evolutionist that pays to fund public education.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear?).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

"Truth--Assumption, Presuppostion, and Frame of Reference"

Puzzle Instructions.  Without making an "X" in the following diagram, draw two perfectly strait lines, two dots per line which at some point intersect.  Can you do it?   Here is the diagram.

 

FRAME OF REFERENCE 

 

Though from the world of physics, frame of reference has become employed in other application not the least of which is in the study of truth (alethology). It most often has to do with what one presupposes or one one's assumptions.  That is to say that what one assumes to be true has great power in the life of the individual for such is necessary for in order for one to arrive at some conclusion or another.

When in a disagreement, be it major or minor, most often the difference is in the divergent assumptions.  Therefore, one might safely conclude,

"It's all in the presuppositions!"

Since such is so, it is incumbent upon each of us to make a thorough examination of one's frame of reference.  Such is necessary for one to ascertain the genuineness or we might say the legitimacy of one's reality (truth).  A failure to do so will leave one afloat in the world of theoretical speculation.

So then we might conclude that it is all in the assumptions that one takes to be true.  It is presupposed assumptions that provide the capstone that holds one's truth paradigm together and consistent within itself.  If the capstone fails or is proven faulty then like an arch with a failed capstone, the truth structure then falls apart.

There is nothing more unfortunate than one who holds a faulty truth paradigm because they are unwilling to have their assumptions tested.  An example is found in the likes of the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins who were and are unwilling to debate the issue of evolutionary theory with other scientists some of whom are not even creationists but see form and order in nature.

Open or Closed System

For almost all of recorded history there has been an assumption of an open system in which God or gods had a part in one's truth paradigm.  Such a paradigm allows for the intervention of God or gods.  In Western thought it was most often Judeo-Christian while in other places it might be a pantheon of gods, some other notion of a deity, or even ancestor worship.

Even such practices as magic (not to be confused with slight of hand magic), shamanism, etc. were only possible because the practitioners and followers accepted open system theory.  However, man was to "progress" beyond open system, after all such gave room for there to be the divine and the divine sometimes is just inconvenient!

Then with the Enlightenment came rationalism and such discounted outside influence.  Left with a closed system then those who assumed this position sought to explain all of life's processes in a cause-effect modality.  This falls within the context of Western Modernism.  Those who still embraced some form of Deity took the position then that God created and left (Deism).

The difference in the two systems (there are others) was in the assumptions about outside influences.  On the one side were the open system assumptions and on the other the closed system assumptions.  Of course when pushed out to their logical ends the outcomes were truth systems that were ever diverging.

Then to the mix add the assumptions of the Post-modernist who rejects all assumptions that lead to a notion of a consistent truth paradigm.  While the Judeo-Christian position and the Modernist position at least hold that there is truth of some sort, the Post-modernist mantra goes something like, "Who says so and what do they know?"

 

Contributions to Assumptions 

 

As surely as one makes a contribution to a savings account, there are less material goods that contribute to one's assumptions.  What might contribute to such a system of assumptions?  One has noted that contained within one's assumed frame of reference are "...a structure of concepts, values, customs, views, etc...."*  Of course there is a healthy dose of life's experience, upbringing, formal education, informal education, etc. that contribute to one's frame of reference.  

As well one cannot over estimate the power of what the word pondering.  Found in the writings of Moses and others it is a Hebrew word which contains the idea of mentally comparing and contrasting ideas and notions. 

The point of all of this is that in order for us to come to know the truth, that is genuine reality one must enlarge his frame of reference.  Certainly there are limits to such but overall most people struggle with weak or faulty truth paradigms because they are not willing to enlarge their frame of reference.  

Want to have a look at the puzzle again?  When you saw the first rendition of the puzzle what did you assume?  Did it have anything to do with the box around the dots?  If you are like most people you made the assumption that the lines had to stay within the box which was never in the instructions.  So then what effect did adding a larger box have on your view of the puzzle?

Assumption's Contribution

 

Think then about the contribution which comes of one's assumptions.  Perhaps the greatest contribution is that of leading and guiding one to genuine reality (truth).  Truth, genuine truth is durable and so any testing thereof, inquiry into, challenge, dissecting, etc.of the genuine will leave it unscathed and perfectly intact.

As well valid assumptions provide safety.  It is as one's life experience undergoes scrutiny, that those things then contribute to one's assumptions which then provide a frame of reference for the identification and avoidance of danger.  Such is not always in a physical sense.

Continuing, it is the assumed frame of reference that allow "...an individual or group perceives or evaluates data, communicates ideas, and regulates behavior."**  So it is as Judeo-Christian Scripture teaches, that which is inside is connected to that which is outside.  So if the inside is filled with faulty assumption that which ends up on the outside (words, attitudes, and actions) will be faulty.

 

Enlarge Your Frame of Reference

 

 The point of all of this is quite simple.  We do well to examine quite carefully what we believe, compare it to other things we know, seek to enlarge our frame of reference, and keep the process going.  Remember this, "Genuine truth is durable and eternal.  It will stand any and all tests." 

However, keep in mind that man in his design and construction was never, ever intended to superintend such processes alone and without regard for the Divine.
____________________
*quoted in part from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frame+of+reference
**Ibid.

"What Does Man's Sense of Right Mean?"

Think about it.

In every person of any age at all, there is a notion of right.  That is to say that whether the person is a narcissist, a sociopath, an eccentric, a humanitarian, a humanist, a creationist, or an atheist there is within that person a sense of something that tells that person that this is the way you should behave.

That is not to say that such is the same for the humanitarian's sense of right and that of a sociopath will be radically different.  Still in all, there is that instinctive sense of right and wrong, a standard of some sort.

Why?  Why is it that there is within each of us some sense of standard by which to measure right or wrong behavior?  Some would argue it is a product of material naturalism.  Others would argue that it is a product of divine creationism.  How would you answer the question?

There is however another attendant question.  It goes like this.  Why is there such a common threat which runs through the various cultures of mankind?  For example, there is a sense in most people of behaving for the greater good.

There is a universal though unwritten sense within people of the need to care for infants.  Only the hard hearted among mankind do not respond to the pitiful cry of an infant.  Yet, there were those Canaanites and others who sacrificed infants by placing them in the red hot hands of an idol made in the likeness of their god Moloch. 

Why would people do such a thing?  The simple answer was that they thought that by doing so their god would be appeased and thus any anger that might interfere with their having a fruitful harvest would be appeased.

There are other universal standard which are found in the preponderance of mankind.  Other examples would include but not be limited to the following.

Property – the unit of ownership, that is to say the unit that owns property may be the individual, the family, or even the village but there is some sense of owner/non owner.

Murder - how murder is defined may differ but murder is seen as being wrong

Justice – though standards may be different there is a sense of justice

Family – though the family structure may differ (polygamy) the structure of the family is present.

Love – not the self centered love that demands fulfillment but the giving of one’s best to another.

Ancestors - how it is expressed may differ but there is respect for one’s fore-bearers is present.

Children – Again how it is lived out may differ but the care for children is prevalent in culture after culture.

Self-sacrifice – the example would be the sacrifices of a parent for a child.

To be sure there are others.

Now comes the question.  How did these and other universal standards come about?  And for the material naturalist who embraces the premise of “survival of the fittest” maybe you could answer the question as to how such could be more than a questionable theory (as opposed to a law)?

 The question deserves an answer when you consider that some of the items listed above property ownership, justice, family, etc. would seem to militate against such being true.  If this notion is not true, then how many other of man’s good ideas are not to be trusted?

The writer of the Proverbs, King Solomon of Israel observed this two times in his writings.

"There is a way which seems right to a man, but its ends is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25, NASU)

Continuing the question that deserves an answer then is this.  When you push the answer out to its logical conclusion, just where do you find yourself?