The Bloj

The Tower of Babel Part Two: Science Again!

Posted on August 25th, 2008 by Chris.
Categories: Chris, Philosophy.

I was previously discussing a rather simple but unconventional idea: If Christianity has flaws that atheists reject, why not redesign Christianity (or any other religion) to correct for those flaws?

The last time we discussed this, the subject was the problem of suffering on earth. This time, we will address the question of science and religion.

Science Again!
The modern worldview is largely shaped by the great scientific discoveries of amazing thinkers like Einstein and Darwin. People like these giants have revolutionized the very way we think about the world, and because of some of these discoveries, many people have been led to think that God is no longer relevant in that world.

Let’s figure out why. Why should it be true that if Darwin says that we evolved from fish, and Hubble et al. have determined that the world expanded from a single point, that there cannot be Christianity?

1. Christianity contains within it the idea of miracles; events that defy common explanation. People being consumed by fire, resurrections, that sort of thing.
2. Christianity also contains within it the idea of God as creator; it claims that all things came from God. Science has no evidence that demands that there be a God at all.
3. Finally, Christianity also has ideas about the nature of humanity (the world was created in 6 days, humans were created and not evolved) that appear to flatly contradict what science has determined.

We will begin first by addressing why all these objections are relevant, and then determine how to repair Christianity so it no longer has such difficulties.

Where these objections come from.

Science is mainly an obstacle to religion because insofar as it presents an alternative to religion. But this, in turn, is only an obstacle if a religion must be believable to scientifically minded beings.

That is to say: God may not even care if you or I acknowledge his existence. It only makes sense to study scientific objections if God was trying to make the argument for his existence to us. If God didn’t care if we believed in his existence, there would be no need for him to create a world

This line of thinking, while logical, exposes a major flaw in Christianity or any theistic religion; why should it be necessary for any being of divine power to have to convince us of their existence at all? This suggests two implications:

1. God has limited his power so that he cannot simply will us to think things.
2. God is, nonetheless, interested in convincing us of his existence.

If one buys the freedom argument, this is perhaps a reasonable hypothesis. However, our religion would choose to strike certain ideas of omnipotence, free will, and good:

1. Free will (unrestrained by God), is a higher good than enforced good. (option 1)
2. God can create a being whose will is unconstrained by God, or not enforce this restraint to make the being good (even though good is important to God) (option 2)

The other side of the argument.

The other half of this is the argument of an a-theist; science and rationality simply leave no room for a God to need to exist. It is simpler, argues the scientist, that the world is self-contained existence.

Under what circumstances would God create a world that allows us to ignore his existence?

[originally started January 20, 2006, 00:22]

0 comments.