In the realm of Christian Apologetics one of the areas that I find myself most drawn to is the relationship between religion and science, or faith and reason. One of the first things to recognize is that this so-called mutual enmity between these fields is, well- it's just that- so called. In reality there is no incompatibility between the fields of science and Christianity, there is no divide or disjunction. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. The apparent divide is merely a ploy to play upon the weaknesses of both sides. Many people on both sides of the secular/religious divide are neither well informed about science or religion, and therefore it becomes advantageous to play upon this misunderstanding to push the advantage for the scientific world view, or rather- as I should really say- this is a ploy to push a non-existent divide between science and religion. The real contest is actually between two worldviews, Christianity and scientism*, or to give it its proper handle, it is between Christianity and philosophical naturalism.
As any student of the history of science, or the philosophy of science will know it was, in the West, an established reality that many of the early scientists were theists, and it was their understanding of the steadfast order, uniformity and reliability of the Creator and His created order that inspired their scientific endeavours . And the reality today is that in the top echelons of science, theists are still well represented.
Recently, at the inaugural meeting of our apologetics group- as an exercise in critical thinking- I arranged a series of propositions that demonstrate self-defeating statements, and participants were asked to explore how and why they devoured themselves. It is always a concern that what is taught is not just theory but has practial applications. What excites me about apologetics is that this stuff is just so nuts and bolts practical Christianity. The propositions that I put before participants are erroneous ways of thinking that happen all the time in our dialogue with those of other worldviews and this was cogently demonstrated by recent events.
Fortunately other people have taken up the cause and the critique by WLC has been mirrored in other places, by other sites and the word is still getting out.
In his analysis of the Dawkins/Krauss movie at about 4mins:50secs into the soundtrack WLC says:
This is so remarkably close to what we had been discussing the other night that I could not refrain from posting the following picture of those statements we had been looking at. Among them was a statement circled in the image below.
"Only what can be scientifically proved is true." This "mantra" is probably so ensconced into populist thinking that it is an assumption hardly ever questioned anymore. While it may not be verbalized in so many words, it is more an unspoken understanding and Dr William Lane Craig was absolutely right to point out that this is central to the whole purpose of the movie. The problem is, like the one in our study, the view that: "You should only believe that which is scientifically plausible" is at best only an opinion, at worst you could say there is in itself nothing scientific about it. This statement itself is not able to be proven scientifically- it is in fact a philosophical statement along much the same lines as the question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
The following video clip contains a series of segments by different apologists dealing with this question.
When asked: "What do you think is the central argument of the film?", Craig went on to say:
The other problem Craig points out is that scientists are notoriously ill-equipped to even answer the question of God's existence. The question itself is metaphysical* by nature and therefore one that is more properly answered, (if indeed it even can be outside of God's special revelation) by philosophers not scientists. The basis of science as it is most commonly practiced is methodological naturalism, which assumes that the Cosmos is all there is, and it's a closed system, it is pre-supposed that nothing exists beyond nature, so this presupposition excludes the very idea of God from the outset! How then can a scientist who not only practises methodological naturalism but assumes it as his or her fundamental philosophical commitment (philosophical naturalism) even attempt to answer this question from any sense of neutrality or open mind? It cannot be done without a willingness to relinquish this commitment.
"Science has disproved God, religion has passed its use-by date"
"Religion Is Responsible For Much Of The Evil We See In The World"
How often have we heard that, or words like it? In a recent book by the eminent Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga squarely faces that challenge, particularly as it relates to Christian Theism. In fact, according to Plantinga the whole debate is somewhat misconstrued as the title of his book suggests: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
In his preface he claims:
*Scientism: "That the physical sciences are the only genuine sources of knowledge, and that there are not sources of knowledge outside of the sciences. And I think that this is a fundamentally incorrect view, indeed a self-refuting view, since scientism is not itself something that is established by the natural sciences, that is a philosophical point of view that needs to be questioned" William Lane Craig
*Metaphysical: Philosophy .a. concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
b. concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.
As any student of the history of science, or the philosophy of science will know it was, in the West, an established reality that many of the early scientists were theists, and it was their understanding of the steadfast order, uniformity and reliability of the Creator and His created order that inspired their scientific endeavours . And the reality today is that in the top echelons of science, theists are still well represented.
Recently, at the inaugural meeting of our apologetics group- as an exercise in critical thinking- I arranged a series of propositions that demonstrate self-defeating statements, and participants were asked to explore how and why they devoured themselves. It is always a concern that what is taught is not just theory but has practial applications. What excites me about apologetics is that this stuff is just so nuts and bolts practical Christianity. The propositions that I put before participants are erroneous ways of thinking that happen all the time in our dialogue with those of other worldviews and this was cogently demonstrated by recent events.
I subscribe to a YouTube channel that regularly uploads debates between some outspoken atheists who happen to be scientists and Christians who are either scientists themselves or highly qualified in other areas, such as philosophy. Just this morning I was informed of a movie that featured the militant atheist Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss called "The Unbelievers- What are you willing to believe?" The video that this channel author had uploaded to YouTube was a critique of that movie by the well-known Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig. To the dismay of the channels author the critique was flagged as "Inappropriate" or in some way deemed to be in violation of YouTube policy and for whatever reason, not only was the video, which is actually just a soundtrack, not only was it removed, the author had his whole channel shut down. Apparently this was by no means confined to the one channel or one author, but had happened to others airing this critique. (As an update to this comment I had- on this post- the same video that had been false flagged by youtube hosted by vimeo instead, and it too has been removed!)
Is this the way "free-thinkers" operate? Is that how atheists conduct their campaigns? (If you can't refute them, have their channels shut down!)
Fortunately other people have taken up the cause and the critique by WLC has been mirrored in other places, by other sites and the word is still getting out.
In his analysis of the Dawkins/Krauss movie at about 4mins:50secs into the soundtrack WLC says:
"So, as I look at the film- it seems to me that the answer to the question: 'What are you willing to believe?' from their point of view would be 'You should only believe that which is scientifically plausible'"
This is so remarkably close to what we had been discussing the other night that I could not refrain from posting the following picture of those statements we had been looking at. Among them was a statement circled in the image below.
"Only what can be scientifically proved is true." This "mantra" is probably so ensconced into populist thinking that it is an assumption hardly ever questioned anymore. While it may not be verbalized in so many words, it is more an unspoken understanding and Dr William Lane Craig was absolutely right to point out that this is central to the whole purpose of the movie. The problem is, like the one in our study, the view that: "You should only believe that which is scientifically plausible" is at best only an opinion, at worst you could say there is in itself nothing scientific about it. This statement itself is not able to be proven scientifically- it is in fact a philosophical statement along much the same lines as the question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
The following video clip contains a series of segments by different apologists dealing with this question.
When asked: "What do you think is the central argument of the film?", Craig went on to say:
"Well it seems to me, that the central argument, when I stand back and try to find an argument in this film is this: The most brilliant scientists today, by a wide majority do not believe in God, and therefore belief in God is unreasonable. Just look at the top scientists in the world, they're unbelievers- and therefore we should be unbelievers too."Craig points out some problems with that idea: That as a particular scientific study conducted in a number of research centered Universities shows; scientists are not atheists as a result of their work in the discipline of science, but rather- they enter this field with a prior commitment to atheism. Rice University sociologist Dr. Elaine Ecklund conducted this research from 2005-2008. So to attribute their atheism to science is perceptibly an unscientific evaluation!
The other problem Craig points out is that scientists are notoriously ill-equipped to even answer the question of God's existence. The question itself is metaphysical* by nature and therefore one that is more properly answered, (if indeed it even can be outside of God's special revelation) by philosophers not scientists. The basis of science as it is most commonly practiced is methodological naturalism, which assumes that the Cosmos is all there is, and it's a closed system, it is pre-supposed that nothing exists beyond nature, so this presupposition excludes the very idea of God from the outset! How then can a scientist who not only practises methodological naturalism but assumes it as his or her fundamental philosophical commitment (philosophical naturalism) even attempt to answer this question from any sense of neutrality or open mind? It cannot be done without a willingness to relinquish this commitment.
If Charles Darwin was Richard Dawkins biology mentor, then we would have to point to the skeptic philosopher David Hume as Dawkins' philosophy mentor because he too made the same mistake. Take the following quote from Hume and compare:
"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." David Hume. (This quote was also in our study notes for the evening)This grand sounding wisdom suffers the same fate as those others in our bullet lists, ie, it is a self defeating statement, in that this statement itself does not answer its own criteria for truth, it is not the result of empirical evidence by experiment or abstract reasoning, and therefore self-destructs.
In an article found at Christianity Today: Books and Culture, Karl W. Giberson nails the chief proponents leading the cultural mileiu in which religion is characterized consistently as antithetic to science-
'Stephen Hawking is a major public intellectual, a leading scientist with a flair for popular exposition and a platform from which to explain science to an educated populace. He and his scientific allies—Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, Peter Atkins, the late Stephen Jay Gould, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Pinker and so on—shape public perceptions of science through their popular presentations, in books, articles, and public appearances. Their collective message—drilled home in many different ways—is that science is hostile to religion, scientists don't believe in God, and science competes with religion to explain natural phenomena.
None of these statements is true.' (emphasis mine)
"Science has disproved God, religion has passed its use-by date"
"Religion Is Responsible For Much Of The Evil We See In The World"
How often have we heard that, or words like it? In a recent book by the eminent Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga squarely faces that challenge, particularly as it relates to Christian Theism. In fact, according to Plantinga the whole debate is somewhat misconstrued as the title of his book suggests: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
In his preface he claims:
"there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism" he continues
"if there is deep concord between science and Christian or theistic belief, but deep conflict between science and naturalism—then there is a science/religion (or science/ quasi-religion) conflict, all right, but it isn't between science and theistic religion: it’s between science and naturalism."
"Many would dispute my claim that there is no serious conflict between religion and science—indeed, many seem to think naturalism or atheism is part of the “scientific worldview.”Among them are the “new atheists”: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. These are the Four Horsemen—not of the Apocalypse, nor of Notre Dame, but of atheism; and their aim is to run roughshod over religion. Their objections and complaints are manifold. First, they attribute most of the ills of the world to religion: they point to the Crusades, to witch hunts, to religious wars, to intolerance, to current terrorism, and much else besides. Of course the world’s religions do indeed have much to repent; still (as has often been pointed out) the suffering, death, and havoc attributable to religious belief and practice pales into utter insignificance beside that due to the atheistic and secular ideologies of the twentieth century alone." Alvin Plantinga from the book: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and NaturalismAccording to Plantinga "naturalism" functions as a quasi-religion since its practitioners claim that it ticks all the same boxes as any religion seeks to answer:
"Naturalism is what we could call a worldview, a sort of total way of looking at ourselves and our world. It isn't clearly a religion: the term “religion” is vague, and naturalism falls into the vague area of its application. Still, naturalism plays many of the same roles as a religion. In particular, it gives answers to the great human questions: Is there such a person as God? How should we live? Can we look forward to life after death? What is our place in the universe? How are we related to other creatures? Naturalism gives answers here: there is no God, and it makes no sense to hope for life after death. As to our place in the grand scheme of things,we human beings are just another animal with a peculiar way of making a living.Naturalism isn't clearly a religion; but since it plays some of the same roles as a religion, we could properly call it a quasi-religion.
*Scientism: "That the physical sciences are the only genuine sources of knowledge, and that there are not sources of knowledge outside of the sciences. And I think that this is a fundamentally incorrect view, indeed a self-refuting view, since scientism is not itself something that is established by the natural sciences, that is a philosophical point of view that needs to be questioned" William Lane Craig
*Metaphysical: Philosophy .a. concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
b. concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.
