Science does not lead to Atheism. Many of the greatest scientists have been men of faith. Hear their stories in Real Science. Real Faith. Visit meaningfulscience.com or email wes@meaningfulscience.com for more info.
Duration : 0:9:1
Aloha is Forever
The phone rang. It was our son's boss calling from Hawaii. John had gone on a hike over the 4 day Thanksgiving break and hadn't returned for work on Monday. Our nature loving son had gone alone into the Kohala on the northern tip of the Big Island. Get your copy of Aloha is Forever.
-
Meta
#1 I disagree that …
#1 I disagree that a scientist can be a theist. A deist, yes.
#2 I don’t care if some people were Christians when they had no option or didn’t know better.
#3 I don’t care if any famous or known person was a Christian. There is no persuasion in this.
#4 The Golden Age established science. Plenty of material there.
#5 What are creationists trying to do?
#6 What are creationist institutes propagating?
#7 Why are most theists fighting sciences such as evolution?
#8 I agree with necessary/sufficient
This video says, a …
This video says, a real scientist can have real faith in the God of the Bible. I have given evidence that Galileo was a real Christian. If you don’t like him as an example, what of all the other great scientists I mentioned? And what do you base the Arab/Indian founding of modern science on? You got backup for that? If you’re talking about numbers, that is no where near enough to have modern science. Necessary is not the same as sufficient.
Does this video say …
Does this video say: if some famous people believed something we all need to, as it’s true?
Appeal to authority!
Saying that Galileo was a Christian is like saying a man with a gun against his head will say only what he thinks.
Modern day science was founded by Arab Muslims and Indian Hindus, if anyone.
The bottom line is …
The bottom line is that science is only meant to be descriptive of reality. If reality include the act of Creation as well as the formation of life, then science cannot exclude God by definition.
We know that these are true due both to science as well as the empircally confirmed resurrection of Christ which had many witnesses in many contexts. All five senses were used by John to confirm that Jesus had rose from the dead.
The evidence for Christianity is overwhelming.
i really would like …
i really would like to read these comments but there just to dang long…sry…haha.
Out of all these …
Out of all these Scientists, Newton is the most notable. Newton is the most influential figure in Science, he influenced Maxwell’s equations which started the industrial revolution, and Einstein’s general relativity with his book ‘the mathematical principals of natural philosophy”. This book is considered the most influential book in Science of all time, ironically the main reason for the book was for the belief in a creator or Deity, he said so himself.Modern Science is based off beleif in God.
I sense this is …
I sense this is leading into the philosophy of mind, so for my part I will return the favour and suggest a book I found enlightening: Donald Davidson: ‘Actions, Reasons and Causes’. Other authors I would endorse: Imre Lakatos on the philosophy of science. Daniel Dennett, on free will and consciousness. And Hilary Putnam’s article: “Pragmatic Realism”, (in spite of able criticisms from Ernest Sosa).
Since you return …
Since you return above to talk about ‘the events of your sensations and thoughts’, I thought I would come back to a sentence here I meant to comment on. You say: “Minds/free will… rise above nature to affect it”. This reveals a presumption that minds are not part of nature. Isn’t this a rather narrow view of ‘nature’, if it excludes minds? It’s as if minds were a kind of ‘thing’ (albeit not material, like a table or chair). I think, to borrow Ryle’s phrase, that this is a ‘category mistake’.
Q3: Again, it …
Q3: Again, it depends on your definition of miracle. What is the evidence claimed precisely to support? The witnessing of a strange event? Or a supernatural cause for such?
Q4: Yes, but how would you tell the difference between materially caused ones and those with immaterial causes, if laws were consistent? I can accept miracles in the sense of Rev Arthur Peacocke’s phrase: “events where God is seen to be especially present”, or R F Holland’s definition, for example.
OK: ‘Helpful’ = “of …
OK: ‘Helpful’ = “of service or value to human individuals or communities”.
You have asked a lot of other questions here. Your first question (Q1) is absurd- (of course not!). However, you need here to define ‘miracle’ or describe what I might see.
Q2: I wouldn’t like to say ‘always’, but realistically, (depending on what scenario you are proposing), I expect I would have an array of more probable explanations (not just hallucination) to choose from other than ‘invisible agency’.
Thanks: I’ve got it …
Thanks: I’ve got it in my library at work. Managed to find a few minutes to go over the chapter. I can now understand what you intended to imply by the sentences that preceded the reference to CS Lewis. I suspect you are working with a different definition of ‘free will’ to mine. As for CS Lewis, I understand his world view, but it all seems rather a simple fantasy to me. His argument is sound in defeating ‘naive’ (i.e. reductionistic) naturalism. However, atheistic science need not be such.
I think that you …
I think that you need to define helpful. Does that mean if a miracle occurred right in front of you, that you would never admit it? Would you always explain it away as your senses playing tricks on you, hallucination? Or can you admit that a miracle occurred and that the evidence supports it? Can’t it be that natural laws are consistent within our universe, but that not all the causes of all events that occur in nature are material? This goes even for the events of your sensations and thoughts!
Did you read Ch.3, …
Did you read Ch.3, The Cardinal Difficulty in Naturalism? It’s all about the fact that Atheistic science is self-defeating b/c it destroys the very foundation of reason. For example, “It offers…a full account of our mental behaviour; but this account, on inspection, leaves no room for the acts of knowing or insight on which the whole value of our thinking, as a means to truth, depends.”(p.28 in my edition) I recommend reading it again. He’s much more eloquent/able than myself on this point
Having read C S …
Having read C S Lewis on miracles, I am interested as to which bit you mean, as I don’t see how a reference to it follows from the previous sentences (perhaps my memory fails me!) Personally I don’t think supernatural explanations play a part in helpful science, but that is not to say that belief in the supernatural is IRRATIONAL or can be ruled out. It is just unhelpful.
Both. Currently …
Both. Currently popular thinking is that the more you study science, the more likely you are to be atheist. I believe many of the greatest scientists disagree. I think we should be carefully materialistic, but humble enough to admit the weakness of our ability to observe and describe what happens in nature. Minds/free will (both God’s and ours) rise above nature to affect it. Science is impossible without the ability to FREELY CHOOSE what to observe and conclude. See C.S.Lewis’ book, Miracles.
Dear …
Dear meaningfulscience,
Is the point of this video merely to counter atheism or actually to change science?
Do you also wish to imply that good science should not be materialistic? In your opinion, should scientists use supernatural explanations as part of their reasoning?
Yours,
Charlie
he’s my science …
he’s my science teacher and cooler than you man
I think a better …
I think a better question is why you would think Atheism could criticize or justify any of the above at all? Slavery, oppression, murder are all consistent with a reality made up of no more than nature red in tooth and claw. Inbuilt morality? The Law written on your heart has a Supernatural Foundation and says there are things that might not have survival value, but which make survival valuable. God made YOU and knows what it takes for you to live well. The Bible shows the Way.
I don’t believe the …
I don’t believe the Bible condones slavery, oppression of women, or stoning people to death for breaking the Sabbath. The Bible is made up of the Old and New Testaments. We are living after Christ came to suffer for our violations of the Law. We are to live as Christ lived with faith, hope, love, and the other fruits of the Spirit. Christian ministers used the Bible to abolish slavery in England and America in the 18th and 19th centuries and to lead the Civil Rights movements of the 20th.
Dude I don’t think …
Dude I don’t think you really get your morality from the Bible do you? Do you believe that women should submit to men? That slavery is ok? That people who work on a Sunday should be stoned to death?! I would hope that you are enlightened enough to realise that the Bible contains some pretty dodgy teachings, as well as the good ones. You most probably pick out the bits of the Bible that agree with your inbuilt morality, and ignore the racist, violent, sexist bits. I hope..
i actually said “by …
i actually said “by the motion of atoms.” you said, “from… physics, chemistry & biology, there is no reason to assume that atoms would form themselves into [a brain].” yes there is. evolution explains how a brain would evolve PERFECTLY. what doesnt make sense is to say “ok, heres a brain. it isnt obvious as to how it works, so some all-powerful god must have made it
and it works by …
and it works by magic.” that explains nothing. where are you even getting this info from. can i get a source for the quote I just gave? i have NEVER heard that assertion before, & ive been studying sciences for a long time & at good schools. the correct approach is not to claim you know how the brain works in entirety, but to accept that it works in a complex manner & to try to explain it using chem, bio, and physics.
It’s not that …
It’s not that brains contain atoms, but that “it is WHOLLY by the motions of atoms in my brain.” From what we know about the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, there is no reason to assume that atoms would form themselves into such an amazingly complex, willful, thinking machine. Determinism is the only logical option for the Atheist. Free will and the ability to supersede and manipulate the atoms of our brains is necessary for science and is provided for in Christianity.
true, it is …
true, it is evidence for what you are saying, but a quote is very weak compared to evidence that draws on logic. especially considering that it is a quote that i believe most scientists would disagree with. read my recent comment below, it explains why haldane is not correct. you see, my arguments appeals to why a brain is capable of thinking correctly. your argument is that a respected guy once said that it isn’t. you offer no evidence for why a brain can’t think other than that haldane said it
The quote is …
The quote is evidence in support of the argument I have been trying to convince you of all along. Here is a widely recognized and respected scientist (geneticist), someone who knows what science is and requires, and yet is an Atheist like you. If he can see the point I am making about questioning your ability to reason, then why can’t you? I think you are refusing to consider the scary possibility that Atheism is self-refuting. Arguing for Naturalism is to saw off the branch your sitting on.
Add A Comment