"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works." -Stephen Hawking (in an interview with Diane Sawyer)
...
"Science will win because it works." As Stephen Hawking's computer put voice to his words he attempted a smile. This is a fascinating statement from one of the most brilliant men of our time.
...
I agree with Stephen's statement...except for the last sentence, "Science will win because it works." On this one point I must disagree. Please indulge me for a moment with some basic thoughts and simple questions....
...
1. Why is there a battle for truth between religion and science that is only resolved in a winner and a loser? Is this how others view it? A battle? A winner and loser?
...
2. Is Stephen admitting that the goal of science is to "win?"
...
3. Is the only test for victory "because it works?" Do the men of science really think this way? If so, that is sad indeed. I thought scientists were thinkers not pragmatists. "Because it works?" Really?
...
4. Is Stephen really trying to declare that "because it works" is the test for truth and reality for science? Obviously not. It's not the measure of truth. For him it's simply the way to discover who wins. At least that is his hope.
...
These are simple questions. There are more questions I would like to pursue, but these will get the discussion going. Here are some thoughts I would like to propose for this discussion:
...
God says the evidence for his existence and power is the cosmos itself. He declares that creation talks about him. In fact, God says he made all of this. If things "work" it's proof that he exists, not that science is right or that science has won.
...
Science is in a mad dash to "win" (whatever that means to them) in this battle between religion and science. I would counter that there is no battle. The "war" has already been won and been won not by religion, but by God himself. Science is simply now discovering what God had done, what God has made. It's God who has already declared himself the winner over all others. Here's his statement to the scientific world on their quest to win:
...
Psalm 2
1 Why are the nations so angry?
1 Why are the nations so angry?
Why do they waste their time with futile plans?
2 The kings of the earth prepare for battle;
the rulers plot together against the Lord
and against his anointed one. 3 “Let us break their chains,” they cry,
“and free ourselves from slavery to God.”
4 But the one who rules in heaven laughs.
4 But the one who rules in heaven laughs.
The Lord scoffs at them. 5 Then in anger he rebukes them,
terrifying them with his fierce fury.
6 For the Lord declares, “I have placed my chosen king on the throne
in Jerusalem, on my holy mountain.”
...
9 comments:
OK, I will bite for the sake of discussion. These are just my opinions, not meant to sound condeming.
Religion and science are not necessarily at odds with each other, it really depends on how much of a literalist you are when it comes to reading the Bible. If you hold a literal 6 days of creation model, or a literal interpretation of talking snakes, swalled by a whale, the sun standing still, etc...and you hang your hat on that having to be literally true, then yes science it at odds with that because it doesn’t make sense, it isn’t rational or logical and not provable in any scientific method.
Your into didn’t speak of these in this way though, you presented it in more of an intelligent design format, which isn’t at odds with science nearly like biblical literalism is. Intelligent design actually does make sense and the proof for Gods existence is discovered more everyday as we see the fine tuning of this Cosmos. Random chance doesn’t make sense for explaining the world, a creator does. That being said...
The Bible was written long long ago when science had not yet developed to the point it is today. The bible was written in a mythological time, when heaven was really up and hell was down. When Jesus ascended up into heaven in a cloud, where did he go? Into the stratosphere? There is no "up to heaven" more likely, today we would say a different dimension or something of the like. This is just an illustration of how humans think differently today than they did 2000-5000 years ago.
So my summary is that science is only at odds with religion when the old model of biblical literalism of mythological events is used as the foundation for that religion. Science is going to "win" as long as we religious people keep trying to hang on to an outdated model of interpretation that doesn’t really resonate with people anymore. I would guess that most Christians find the concept of god, Christ, sin, salvation, love, compassion and the like very resonating with their being. Now they probably won’t have that same resonance with literalizing of mythological events that their brain is telling them isn’t possible or reality as they know it.
We need to let go of biblical literalism and reinterpret our stories of faith in way that edifies us and continues or spiritual progress, not continue to be dragged back to a caveman like understanding of the world. Too many people are leaving the faith or not coming at all because we are hanging our hat on the wrong thing and telling seekers that these stories of old are literally true and you have to swallow that pill or not join or group.
Two authors to read on this subject, Jospeh Campbell and Rudolph Bultmann.
regards,
John P.
Hi Mike,
Do you have any response to my post? Curious what you think, agree or disagree with my comments and conclusions?
thanks,
John P.
John,
thanks for your post and your question. I've been thinking about your thoughts since I read them yesterday. May I dwell on them for a bit before I respond? And, if, in any area of the discussion we find that we disagree can we agree to work through those differences with kindness and grace? As you know, so many read emotion and passion into others beliefs and the dialogues do not go well. After the busy weekend ahead of me I will respond. Will that be ok?
No problem at all, take your time, it’s a deep issue with far ranging implications. I wasn’t trying to cause any trouble for you, respect of each other’s opinions is a given. Was honestly just curious of how you would respond to my viewpoint on this topic, its one I have mulled over for many years and have reached peace with personally.
I do think it’s a big issue for the church today though, the scientific vs. the mythological world view. Intelligent design is often used to rebuke pure atheism, rightly so in my opinion, but that doesn’t equate to biblical literalism which most people don’t really believe in anymore. The whole issue gets rather glossed over from there leaving poeple wondering.
Talk to you later
John P.
John,
Ok, here's my response, part 1, to your request for my thoughts. As you said, may I repeat the same words back to you?- these are my opinions, but also much more. These are my beliefs. On some points I will only respond generally. There simply isn't enough space here (or coffee to drink) to go into detail.
If you don't mind I'll post your comment and then respond. Now, you probably will not agree with all I say and that's ok. I can't imagine we would agree on everything no matter what the topic. Another point before we begin. I don't know where you are coming from in your faith, so I don't know your standing, nor, do I know who you are, so I will try to generally answer and address what you have written. Ready? Here we go-
You: Religion and science are not necessarily at odds with each other, it really depends on how much of a literalist you are when it comes to reading the Bible. If you hold a literal 6 days of creation model, or a literal interpretation of talking snakes, swalled by a whale, the sun standing still, etc...and you hang your hat on that having to be literally true, then yes science it at odds with that because it doesn’t make sense, it isn’t rational or logical and not provable in any scientific method.
Me: Science isn't at odds with the bible "because it doesn't make sense," science is at odds with the bible primarily because the bible claims that God is the creator and source of all. Science dismisses God completely from its considerations. That is where the rift comes- the dividing issue is God himself.
To the point that it isn't provable by scientific method I would respond that there is much we believe, apart from religion, that is not scientifically provable. Here are a list of a few things that the scientific method CANNOT prove- The big bang, evolution, history, the existence of God, the creation, to name just a few. Simply because science cannot prove or reprove something does not mean it is not true.
You: Your into didn’t speak of these in this way though, you presented it in more of an intelligent design format, which isn’t at odds with science nearly like biblical literalism is. Intelligent design actually does make sense and the proof for Gods existence is discovered more everyday as we see the fine tuning of this Cosmos. Random chance doesn’t make sense for explaining the world, a creator does. That being said...
Me: actually, on this point I would disagree- ID is at odds with science. ID says there is an intelligent designer who made all things. Science denies this and builds their who belief system on a cosmos without a god.
You: Random chance doesn’t make sense for explaining the world, a creator does.
Me: I agree with you completely here! Great point.
more in next post...
You: The Bible was written long long ago when science had not yet developed to the point it is today. The bible was written in a mythological time, when heaven was really up and hell was down. When Jesus ascended up into heaven in a cloud, where did he go? Into the stratosphere? There is no "up to heaven" more likely, today we would say a different dimension or something of the like. This is just an illustration of how humans think differently today than they did 2000-5000 years ago.
Me: Actually, when a document is written does not disprove it. There are many things in the bible that science and history are just now discovering. Science itself is a developing discipline and is still discovering new things daily. In fact, I can't think of any scientific facts that the bible gets wrong. Let me know if you are aware of any. Re. "written in mythological times" that may be true, but it is not mythology itself. It claims to be true. That demands we make a decision about it. Archeologists didn't believe that King David really lived because there was no evidence, but in the last 18 months that have found his name written in documents discovered in Israel.
I agree that we think differently, but I would not equate the bible text to mythology literature. I think that leads to assumptions that I would disagree with. We can pursue that more if you wish.
You: So my summary is that science is only at odds with religion when the old model of biblical literalism of mythological events is used as the foundation for that religion. Science is going to "win" as long as we religious people keep trying to hang on to an outdated model of interpretation that doesn’t really resonate with people anymore. I would guess that most Christians find the concept of god, Christ, sin, salvation, love, compassion and the like very resonating with their being. Now they probably won’t have that same resonance with literalizing of mythological events that their brain is telling them isn’t possible or reality as they know it.
Me: You have brought up a common point of discussion. Which stories do we believe are true and which are not? What is history and what is mythology? If there are portions of the bible that you would consider to be mythology then you do have to sort through all of that. The problem is how do you sort through it? Do WE decide what is true and what is myth based on our reasonable minds? I would suggest that this approach might cause some real problems because if we decide where do we stop? If we are the arbitrators of truth and myth and we do it based on reason and science, then what room have we left for a miracle working all powerful God? For anyone sorting through these issues this is a question you have to ask.
more in next post...
You: We need to let go of biblical literalism and reinterpret our stories of faith in way that edifies us and continues or spiritual progress, not continue to be dragged back to a caveman like understanding of the world. Too many people are leaving the faith or not coming at all because we are hanging our hat on the wrong thing and telling seekers that these stories of old are literally true and you have to swallow that pill or not join or group.
Me: Your picture in this paragraph is quite visual, isn't it? You are not unclear at all in your views, that's for sure. With words like "dragged back to a caveman like understanding of the world" you clearly put me in a spot to disagree, don't you? So, may I respond with an "ugh, ugh" and say that I do believe in a God who is all powerful, fully able to do anything...including miracles (which you might call mythology). I also believe that he is a truth teller. He has promised that he never lies and this book, the bible, is his book. Now, if that makes me a caveman to believe it I guess I am, but I would have no idea where to start if I were the one to decide what is true and what isn't. AND, if I have to decide, what if you disagree with what I come up with? I must tell you that I'm not comfortable with my ability to sort our truth and error. I am not falling into your definition of a "biblical literalism", but I am saying you create more problems with your thoughts on the mythology of the bible than a literalist would have to deal with.
Now, where does that leave us? Clearly, science is still in process. It cannot know or test everything we now know to be true. It cannot test most of what we believe, including history and the bible. There must be a step of faith for each one of us in some direction- faith in science or faith in God, whatever god we believe is the true one. The atheist is also a man of faith. He believe there is no god and puts his full faith in this belief. Faith is part of each life. It's not a competition to see who will win, but it's an individual life trusting in someone or something to give their live meaning and purpose.
You exercise faith, just as I do, and each of us must make decisions to do that. I would suggest that you might look at some of this in a slightly different way and give me a little room for the faith I hold. It isn't mythology, not ancient history, but it's truth that I have staked my eternity upon.
Ok, there's a few thoughts for our discussion. None of it meant to be comdemning, and I hope it wasn't taken so. Thanks for your thoughts and for the chance to respond.
Mike
Thanks for the posts. No worries, I don’t take any of your opinions personally, we can agree to disagree. Please don’t take mine personally either, they are for discussion only. May I make a couple comments before we conclude?
1. I agree, science at its core ignores God, incorrectly so in my opinion. I think we are on the same page on this point, whether it’s the bible or science, its pointing to a creator God. I disagree with sciences rejection of God if that’s in fact their conclusion.
2. I am not saying the bible isn’t true just because it was written in mythological times. Actually, a myth in its proper definition isn’t something that isn’t true like a fairy tale, rather its something that's TRUE ALL THE TIME. So those stories that seem impossible in the bible, the miracles, are only fairy tales when viewed as historical events. When viewed as stories, as myths with eternal truths in them for our benefit, they come alive again, which I think is their point.
The truth in the bible, in my opinion, doesn’t revolve around historical proof texting, it revolves around changing and transforming the reader, informing and forming him by the living word. So the truth is in the existential impact on the reader, because that’s where God is. God isn’t in your belief about stories, he is in the moment where those stories impact you. This doesn’t detract from God being the focus, it does the opposite, it makes him the only focus. Hanging your hat on the historicity of bible stories places the emphasis on you and your beliefs, as opposed to emphasizing God and his interaction with you in this moment.
IE: I have never met Jesus in the flesh; I wasn’t there at the resurrection, so I can’t truly know these things. I CAN however tell you very much about the living Christ within me and what it means to die and rise again with him because I have experienced him in this way in my life. I don’t know the Jesus of history, but I do know the Christ of faith in my inner being. Belief and faith are not the same thing. Faith is alive and living, a current reality.
3. You mention not knowing where to stop once you start taking things symbolically/mythologically. This is a common response that is based more on fear than anything else I think. Most literalists will say that once you start allegorizing you don’t know where to stop and that leaves too much room for guessing and then you don’t have anything to stand on and the whole thing comes unraveled. I think the fear of our minds not being told what to think drives this mentality. Maybe that’s Gods point, he wants you to let go and put yourself in a mystery, maybe that’s when HE really comes alive. He doesn’t want us to be little programmed robots being told what to do and what to think all the time.
4. The irony of this is that pastors and priests are always giving the application of bible stories, finding a way for their audience to connect with the story. "But what does this mean to me" always comes up at a bible study or sermon. We spend all our time trying to make these myths come alive for us, allegorizing them, but once we do, we turn around and reject the idea of them being allegories!
In summary, my main point would be that Christianity is emphasizing the wrong thing when it makes its stand on the historicity of biblical stories. The emphasis should be on the living God and his interaction with me in the present. The bible stories are secondary and only serve to get me into this relationship and add color to it.
Do you agree with any of that? Am I a Christian according to your definition?
Thanks, John P.
John,
Great thoughts. You and Karl Barth would have been great friends.
In my teaching and my own study I am always looking for "what do I do with this?" and "how do I apply this?" I think personal application is where the word does get traction in my life. Your thoughts on this are good, but I think you and I would both describe your views, in some ways, as Barthian. Now, mind you, that's not bad, it's a different way of looking at the word.
To your quesitons- Yes, I understand where you're coming from and if we could get some coffee and talk more personally I think we would find we are on the same page in many areas that are hard to describe in a forum like this.
To your last question- "Am I a Christian according to your definition?" John, my definition is not important. I would say we both need to go by the definition of being a Christian given in the word. Have you have believed in Christ as your savior? If you have, then the bible says you are a Christian. There are thousands of real Christians who have views different than mine. None of us will agree completely on everything. And, I am in no way the one who decides who is a Christian. That's a matter of faith between you and God. In many of your thoughts I think we could find some great common ground and places to agree. Good visit....thanks for your thoughts.
Post a Comment