Sunday, November 2, 2008

Faith and Science

The author of Hebrews tells us that “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Heb11:1). Many “Enlightenment” philosophers attempted to achieve this certainty by giving ironclad “proofs” of the existence of God, comparable to the deductive proofs found in mathematics. The perceived failure of their arguments, together with Darwinism’s claim that the divine attributes people have always “seen” in nature is only an “appearance,” left religious believers with no rational basis for their faith. Many believers were not troubled by these developments, concluding that we don’t need evidence anyway. All we need is faith. After all, Paul tells us that “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Galileo’s saying that, “Science tells you how the heavens go, and the Bible tells you how to go to heaven,” gave a neat summary of the separation between science and faith. The late Stephen Jay Gould carried the disconnect further, saying that science and faith are two distinct domains of inquiry that should be kept separate. He called his philosophy NOMA, which means ”non-overlapping magisteria.” Science gives us facts, and religion gives us morality and values. However, Bible believers cannot maintain this separation of fact and value because our worldview intersects with the scientist’s worldview. The two perspectives cannot be kept separate because the Bible makes many factual claims about the same world as that studied by science – claims such as the fact that the universe had a beginning, that God created it, and that Jesus Christ was an actual historical person. Our faith hinges on the fact that Jesus was actually God clothed in human flesh, he was crucified dead and buried, and he arose bodily from the grave. The only way you can maintain a separation between science and Biblical faith is if you agree with certain mainline denominations that have given in to the NOMA philosophy of Gould and go along with the naturalistic bias of academia today – a bias that is depicted dramatically in the recent Ben Stein movie, “Expelled.” A far better alternative is to recognize the fact that the most recent developments in science point to God, giving compelling evidence (even if not mathematical proofs), for the Biblical worldview. It is true that faith is a gift of God, but God himself will enable the believer to whom he has given this gift to be free of the Satanic lies that hold the unbeliever in bondage to the philosophy of naturalism.

2 comments:

Tom Coughlin said...

Bill Maher was on Huckabee's show last night, along with Richard Dreyfuss. Both basically stated that anyone who claims to have faith in anything but science is insane. Science cannot accept a bodily resurrected Savior any more than it could accept the Star Wars "beam me up Scotty" type of science fiction. Until science can duplicate the resurrection it will never accept Judeo-Chrstian belifs. But I do agree with you. Science has been pointing to God, only to reject what they find.

Keep on plugging away.

May Leavenworth said...

Yes, there is a naturalistic bias among scientists today. It extends to those who are not scientists like Bill Maher who cannot defend their atheism themselves, but think that by claiming science is on their side that settles the matter. But calling your opponents names (insane), is no argument. It only shows their own ignorance. The fact is there are good scientists today, such as those in the intelligent design movement, who know that science points to something beyond nature. Though they may not take a public stand identifying that "something" as God (perhaps because of the bias documented so well by Ben Stein in the film "Expelled"), they are personally open to such a possibilty. Concerning the claim that "a bodily resurrected Savior" is no more acceptable to science than "beam me up Scotty" type science fiction, the fact is that there is plenty of well-documented evidence for the resurrection, while there is no evidence whatsoever for the "beam me up Scotty" science fiction. Besides, the resurrection doesn't have to be repeated. Once was enough!