(To read the Article from the Northern Advocate, Tues. Oct 16,2007 Click on the Article)
An article entitled “An Apostle for Atheism” caught my eye in the local paper Tuesday Oct. 16. Interestingly, and might I say, even prophetically- the original meaning for the Greek word “apostle” means “to be sent” This begs the question- “ Who, Mr. Dawkins- sent you?”
If it is true that God does not exist then one could concede that child abuse is a reasonable term for those who teach the existence of God to their children, but this must also be admitted- that those who teach atheism - if God in fact does exist- are also abusing their children to the same and arguably to a greater degree. All of this rhetoric only serves one thing and that is the importance of at least asking the question and endeavouring to find the answer to the best of one’s ability- Does God exist?
It has been said that ones choice of who to go to for the answer to ones questions predetermines the answer likely to be received. This is very revealing as to ones presuppositions and prejudices. The question that people do not very often consider in respect of the existence of God is this- is a scientist e.g. Richard Dawkins for all his eloquence, and scientific knowledge, at all qualified to answer this question? Consider the parameters of science, and its presuppositions and empirical methodology. Does a person who pre-supposes materialism, the idea that all of reality (what ever exists) may be fully comprehended and explained by natural laws, observability and repeatability, which is the scientific method, does he or she necessarily afford the best possible bet to give the correct answer? In other words what on earth can the scientist teach us about a dimension outside of his realm of expertise when at the very outset the idea of a supernatural sphere is precluded by his model of reality?
As Peter Block writes in "The Answer to How is Yes"-
'If we believe something does not exist unless we measure it, then we put aside: love, feeling, intuition, art and philosophy.'It is impossible that empiricism could adequately answer all questions of reality. Take this thought expressed by Professor Haldane which is even more basic:
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."(see also: Compelling Reason)
Clearly the empirical (scientific) worldview has problems with the idea that all of reality is accounted for in it's system!
It’s like saying miracles do not exist, everything can be explained naturally, that is according to the laws of nature. Nature is all there is and a miracle by definition cannot be explained naturally, therefore they do not exist. Circular reasoning- plain and simple.
C.S. Lewis made the interesting point that although everything moves and behaves according to laws of nature (that is according to established patterns, for that is all they are) no law of nature ever moved anything. What then or rather Who set it all in motion? Or as others have said: Who lit the touchpaper?
Not many years ago people generally believed in an eternal universe, no beginning no end, and thus the idea of a necessary creator was neatly and easily dispensed with. Einstein came along and with his laws of relativity posited some interesting theories that would ultimately affect our understanding of the universe. Hubble appeared and added scientific weight to the theory with the observable bending of light in space. The Hubble telescope has continued to do so. The upshot of it all is the widely held view afforded by the laws of thermodynamics that the universe is expanding and through extrapolation and working backwards a beginning of the universe has been calculated aka “the big bang”.
My question is: how very different is this idea (that everything came into being at a particularity), than the idea of creation? If this represents the truth of the origin of the universe it is remarkably close to the creation account of Genesis (which, translated means “Beginnings”).
The essential difference is this: Scientists of the Dawkins ilk would have us believe that everything (and I mean everything) simply came out of nowhere. That is, that out of nothing came everything! Which view actually requires a greater “leap of faith”? (In actual fact even Dawkins found that he could not subscribe to this giant leap of faith and so had to make something out of nothing... uh if you see what I mean!) The view that nothing created everything or that out of a transcendent being (one that does not belong to our space/time continuum) came a creative Word from whom and through whom and for whom all was created?
The scientists have good evidence to support the “Big Bang” but it raises another question: What (or whom) caused that? Ex nihilo nihil fit: From nothing comes nothing. As C. S. Lewis pointed out in God in the Dock,
"An egg which came from no bird is no more natural than a bird which had existed from all eternity."Beyond the big bang is (to those who limit themselves to good science and refrain from philosophy) an impenetrable wall, since all matter began there, not only space but time also; these are the self-confessed limits to science. But good scientists will all admit that every contingent effect has a cause. (The Principle of Causality) It becomes clear then that the idea of the creation of the universe by a transcendent being outside of the time/space continuum is not only plausible but also a very reasonable explanation. Nevertheless it is not an explanation, which is devoid of an element of trust, of which risk is a necessary corollary. Equally fascinating is the realization that these conditions of faith and trust along with risk are precisely the stuff of all biblical narratives. As Ravi Zacharias has said,
“God has put enough into the world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing, and he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone.” (The Real Face of Atheism Page 113).This is precisely why science and reason will never make faith void. Neither is faith antithetical to good science. It is that way by design.
Robert Jastrow, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote this in 1978, well before the recent discoveries described previously. He wrote in "God and the Astronomers":
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Good science recognizes the importance of a correct starting point, if the standard by which you measure all of reality (in this case the empirical method) precludes the possibility of anything outside of those parameters then either you have to admit the inadequacy of your method or make a fool of yourself and try to make fools of others. Even Dawkins admits he is “almost certain” God does not exist. He is after all merely a man and he has many equally erudite peers who take the opposing view.
Many scientists with impeccable credentials would and do argue the opposite view- and Alister McGrath who wrote “The Dawkins Delusion” is one of them. At least he has viewed the question from both sides, having been an adult who was at one time a non-believer and now has found sufficient reason (not in spite of, but in part because of- his scientific, disciplined mind) to be a believer in the existence of God.
"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.(2 Thessalonians 2:10,11)
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"
This brings us back full circle I guess- Who Mr. Dawkins- sent you! Are you God's delusion sent for those who love not the truth?
No comments:
Post a Comment