Re: [asa] Does science negate the need for God?

Heya Bernie. Some comments.

* Were it me, I would not place so much emphasis on our ignorance - rather,
I would point out that our continued discoveries in science and technology
have uncovered nothing but mechanisms and methods which any creator would be
capable of using towards a given end. Evolution and cosmology does not and
cannot show 'All these things can be explained without God' - at most they
show 'There are some of the natural tools God used in our history'.

* In his debate with John Lennox, Dawkins ceded (though I still wish I could
find a transcript of this) that a reasonable and respectable case could be
made for a deistic God. So the high priest of atheism does not think that
science rules out God. At most he argues science rules out the Christian God
- but that is based on purposeful misunderstandings (an apparent insistence
that a several thousand year old earth and a 6-day creation is the thought
on which christianity stands or falls), and a shell-game (The Christian God
is more than the deistic God, but there is nothing in the deistic God's
capabilities that the Christian God lacks, and many of the properties are
part of essential old arguments for God Himself. So any evidence for the
deistic God becomes limited evidence for the Christian God.)

* Personally, I'd word agnosticism differently. Rather I'd argue that
science is incapable of ruling one way or the other on the question of God -
no purely scientific needs God, no purely scientific theory excludes God,
because it's simply a question science is incapable of handling. Even if
there were an apparent miracle or sign, we would forever have to ask
ourselves whether what we saw was a misunderstanding, a self-delusion, or
delusion on the part of a powerful but lesser entity, or otherwise.

I rather like the direction you're going and the tacts you're taking in the
discussion. I personally am a big proponent of the intellectual
justification of deism as a way of getting people to open their minds about
the Christian God, though, so I'd probably handle this essay differently
from you. My compliments, however, for taking up the task of defense in this
case.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Here's the conclusion in my essay debate on a yahoo group- just FYI. Let
> me know if you have comments by which I could learn more.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
>
> Resolved: Given the success of science, including evolution, there is no
> need for a God as posited by Christians to explain the universe.
>
>
>
> Bernie's conclusion to the negative:
>
> I think it is very helpful, in any debate, to try to grasp the big
> picture. It always helps to put things in perspective. The question of
> this debate strikes at the heart of the issue of today's "state of the art"
> in science. Let me ask you a question: what percentage of knowledge do we
> have of everything in the universe? *My answer would be that we know less
> than 1%!* That's almost nothing.**
>
>
>
> Why would I rank it so low? Take for example the human genome. We have
> read it, but we still don't know the functions of most of the genes. We
> also don't know how genes control body growth and create complex organs
> (such as the brain, eye, heart, etc.). Take quantum physics- the Large
> Hadron Collider (LHC) was built specifically to try to understand how
> sub-atomic physics works.[1] How did "life" arise from "nonlife?" We are
> clueless (other than having a few hypotheses). We also know nothing about
> where the big bang came from, or what set it off (some scientists even
> propose a multiverse rather than big bang explanation for the universe).
>
>
>
> If I'm correct that our total knowledge of science is less than 1%, how
> foolish to say that the success of science has proved no need for God to
> explain how the universe got here.
>
>
>
> It is true that one doesn't have to have 100% knowledge to rule out certain
> hypotheses. For example, we know so very little about the human genome.
> However, what we do know does rule out the possibility that God created
> humans by fiat rather than evolution. There is overwhelming proof in the
> DNA that evolution of human from apelike animal actually happened (for just
> two examples, pseudogenes and human chromosome #2). We know so little about
> the human genome, but what we do know rules out the possibility of God's
> design by fiat.[2] However, there's nothing in the genome, or evolution, to
> discard the idea that evolution was the process that God used to create
> everything.
>
>
>
> To say that there is no need for God, simply because superstition has been
> rightly and routinely dismissed by science, is an unreasonable
> extrapolation. It is akin to "throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
> *The most one could be is agnostic on the issue*- not able to tell if God
> has His hand in the creation and sustaining of the universe. And here my
> opponent wants to go overboard and claim that we can know, because of the
> state of science, that God is not needed to explain the universe.
>
>
>
> In my mind it is an error to say either that science proves or disproves
> God's role in creating the universe. (I am not saying we are to assume that
> "God did it" when confronting any scientific mystery, as my opponent wrongly
> claimed.) There simply is not enough information to make the decision
> either way. Therefore, we are left to our own preconceptions- regarding if
> God exists or not. Since most scientists and doctors do believe in God, it
> is an indication that belief in God is *not* an unreasonable
> position.[3]
>
>
>
> Footnotes:
>
>
>
> [1] "What is the LHC?," National Science Foundation, <
> http://www.uslhc.us/What_is_the_LHC>
>
>
>
> Excerpt:
> Scientists predict that its very-high-energy proton collisions will yield
> extraordinary discoveries about the nature of the physical universe. Beyond
> revealing a new world of unknown particles, the LHC experiments could
> explain why those particles exist and behave as they do. The LHC experiments
> could reveal the origins of mass<http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000368>,
> shed light on dark matter<http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000451>,
> uncover hidden symmetries of the universe<http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000081>,
> and possibly find extra dimensions of space<http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000143>
> .
>
>
>
> [2] Dictionary.com <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiat>
>
>
>
> Excerpt:
> *Online Etymology Dictionary** *
>
> 1384, from fiat lux "let there be light" in the Book of Genesis, from L.
> fiat "let it be done" (also used in the opening of M.L. proclamations and
> commands), third pers. sing. pres. subjunctive of fieri, used as passive
> of facere "to make, do" (see factitious<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/factitious>
> ).
>
>
>
>
>
> [3] Robert Roy Britt, "Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by
> Discipline," *LiveScience*, 11 Aug. 2005, <
> http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 30 20:44:23 2008