I realize that it is not the point of the article, but apply the above to the current globull warming "debate."
That's a stretch. Faith requires evidence; it is a person's judgment about this evidence.
Faith also entails the response of the person to God... Belief that God exists is a basic judgment about the world; faith is what a person does if he/she believes this.
ping
Does God exist within the universe or the universe within God?
Is God subject to “Natural Law” or is Natural Law” just a manifestation of His nature?”
The Case For Miracles
Two of the great cornerstones of modern civilization are science and the Christian religion. The relationship between the two has often been rocky and recently they have engaged in virtual thermonuclear war over many disparate topics. One such incendiary subject is that of the miracle. From “ In the beginning God created” to Paul’s healing of the sick on the island of Melita, miracles are myriad in Scripture and fundamental to the Christian faith. If miracles cannot occur then there was no resurrection from the dead, no propitiation for our sin and no hope of reconciliation with God.
The Christian believes that miracles are not only possible but also necessary. The most fundamental tenant of Christianity is the miracle of the resurrection. Any declaration as to the impossibility of the occurrence of miracles and especially the resurrection is an ipso facto attack on the veracity of the faith itself. The secular-scientist believes that not only have there been no miracles but also that their occurrence would be impossible. Their existence would violate the principles, which govern the universe. Understanding how these two investigators can come to opposite conclusions lies not in the objective examination of the relevant facts but rather in the fundamental subjective evaluative processes with which each side begins.
The particular world-view to which an investigator subscribes will color the interpretation of any data accumulated. During the cold war, Radio Free Europe, Radio Moscow and Radio Beijing had available to them the same factual material, but due to their antecedent world-views the facts were interpreted differently by each. The Christian and secular-scientist do similarly have the same facts at hand but reach opposite conclusions. Why? Because although the Christian believes that science is a valid search for truth he also believes that all truth is from God and that all truth must ultimately integrate within the design and purpose of God. His world-view is theism. The secular-scientist, on the other hand, believes that the idea of god is mythological having no empirical basis. All truth stands by itself, apart from any god-concept and can only be discerned through scientific investigation. His world-view is naturalism.
The investigative methodology utilized by the investigator also influences the ultimate conclusion at which he arrives. The Christian is deductive, arguing from the general to the specific. He holds to an a priori belief in the supremacy of an Omnipotent-Creator-God to Whom the individual physical “laws of nature” are subject. The secular-scientist is inductive, arguing from the specific to the general. He holds to an a priori belief in the supremacy of the many “immutable” laws of nature to which all life and events are subject. In the one world-view, God is the guarantor of order within the universe, in the other, “natural law.” Although the secular-scientist would never admit it, each requires the identical starting point, faith.
Naturalism is rooted in empiricism, which postulates that all knowledge is based upon experience, that nothing can be known apart from experience. It denies the existence of the spiritual and de-emphasizes the metaphysical. The secular-scientist therefore subscribes to the argument against miracles articulated by the Scottish born empiricist David Hume, 1711-1776. Hume’s “proof” goes something like this:
1) There is immutable regularity in the time-space universe, which can be called natural law.
2) The historian must use historical evidence to judge the probability or possibility of any event including a purported miracle.
3) Miracles by definition fall outside the parameters of the regularity of the time-space universe and are therefore contrary to natural law in a way that historical evidence cannot mitigate.
The Christian challenges each proposition and denies the conclusion.
Full article at... http://ficotw.org/caseformiracles.html
This reminds me of something I’ve mentioned during discussions about atheism. I try not to take too much spiteful pleasure in pointing out the logical and intellectual flaws and contradictions of atheism but when it comes down to it, the atheist’s line of reasoning depends on faith—not logic or empiricism but faith—in his own conclusion that First Cause was either random or never took place.
Atheism is really its own contradiction.
CS Lewis wrote a great article on the Obstinacy of Faith. You know that your wife is faithful. Everyone in town tells you they saw her with another guy. In the teeth of that evidence, you trust her. And in the end, when it turns out they were mistaken, and she never cheated on you, you reply that you knew it all along. Such is our faith in God. Or at least that is one (imperfect) way of allegorizing it...
Simply put...consensus is not science.
The first statement is neither an assumption, nor is it held on faith. In logic the statement is equivalent to the axiom A=A. Science holds it as a propsition that's based in evidence. IOWs it's theory.
Faith is belief based on what one is told, or what one tells himself w/o evidence, knowledge, or understanding. Most take things on faith, that includes topics of science. In faith based systems, credentials of one form, or another take the place of evidence and rational inquiry.
I don't think it's accurate to say, as this author does, that having belief without evidence is considered a virtue in religion tout court.
Psalm 119, a discourse on God's law, has this to say:
33Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end.
34Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
This emphasis on "understanding" in order to achieve "wholeheartedness" is very much a part of devotion. In fact, as Isaac Newton saw it, it does honor to God to assume that all the laws of the Universe have a reasonable order and an intelligent purpose; to study them to gain understanding is the right and proper role for Man, since we were made in the image and likeness of God.
Here's a couple of Oh-Wow thoughts:
The human brain is the most complex object in the Universe, other than the Universe itself, taken as a whole.
As Gary Snyder wrote:
The Great Sky
holds billions of stars— and goes yet beyond that—
beyond all powers, and thoughts
and yet is within us—
Grandfather Space.
The Mind is his Wife.
Or as Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
But why should it be comprehensible? Why should our little brains, made of fat and blood, neural net wetware with a little frisson of electricity, be able to wrap themselves around the Universe, while a chimp's brain (and aren't the chimp genome and the human genome 96% the same?) ---cannot?
You know, the belief (yes, it is a belief) that the Universe is intelligible is not a universal belief. I remember discussing this with my older son when he was about 12 or so. There are at least 6 alternatives. Various people have believed that the Universe is
It takes a specific kind of theological or philosophical assumption to believe that the proper occupation of the human mind is to seek to understand the laws of the Universe. That there is indeed a correspondance between Mind and Matter. That it is Intelligible because it was created by an Intelligence.
Which leave me something big to smile about.
HE “blinded me with science”, the evidence of creation is everywhere. Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay W Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery
Excellent article.
We tend to take something like the laws of motion and the universal law of gravitation for granted. But why should the universe be governed by such elegant mathematical rules? They are themselves a fundamental form if Intelligent Design. Newton said it himself in the greatest scientific publication of all time:
“This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” —Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), The Principia
Modern, dogmatic naturalists who categorically reject ID are blind to reality.
In before the threadcrap
thanks, bfl
pflr
Davies it would seem is an honest man. Kudos to Paul. And good luck on finding his test. I’d love to hear his thoughts on that!
Science is fairly easy once you see that it predicates rather than predicts.