One's basic premises guide any discussion regarding the reasonableness of believing in God.
The evidence can be read either way.
If you are sympathetic to belief in God, you will see the evidence pointing toward God.
If you are not sypathetic to belief in God, you will see the evidence in a very different way.
For instance:
If I place a chair in the middle of a room, I will look at it and say, "This is a chair." There would be little dispute amongst my friends and family members or nearly anyone I know that this is a chair.
However, if someone wanted to be a smart alec about it, someone who is well versed in particle physics, he or she could say, "That's not a chair. It's a bunch of atoms all vibrating at exactly the same frequency giving the appearance of a chair. It's really a bunch of energy floating around in a bunch of other energy. And your brain is sending energetic signals telling you there is a chair there, when in reality, there is only energy."
Well, technically, this person is correct. But there is still a darn chair in the room--even if it is made out of energy. One's perspective changes how one sees the chair, but it does not change the reality that there is a chair there.
Well, what if the circumstance is somewhat different? What if we are talking about the evidence for God?
As I stated yesterday, I do not believe the evidence is conclusive, but I think it leads a person to a reasonable belief there is a creator of the universe. Why?
1. The chances are astronomically small that the universe works the way it works. The odds are astronomically small that all the stuff lines up to have life as we know it as well. Mathematically, chalking it up to chance is a cop out.
2. The universe has a beginning which begs the question, what made it begin? Did it just happen? I personally don't think it just happened. I believe there is a cause.
3. If the universe is just a random occurance, is there any sort of purpose to it? One would hope so. And if there is a purpose to this universe, and to life at all, wouldn't we get clues as to what it is? I think so, because the uniqueness of the universe demands it.
4. Evolution doesn't look so random as it occurs. Something seems to be driving it. Most biologists acknowledge this. Most of the adaptations that occur should take much more time than they do. How do animals adapt and change so fast? There seems to be a purpose behind it. Again, not proof of God, but it makes it reasonable.
Most scientists who are open minded will tell you the evidence can point either way, and much of it depends upon your predisposition.
As Christians, I believe we are predisposed to belief in God. I believe His Holy Spirit moves to instill faith within us. For the past several hundred years, such faith was seen by science as irrational, hokey, magical, and inferior since it was not based in rational thought. There was a belief that science would lead us to a better world since science could measure and verify and remove the hokiness behind faith driven propositions.
Science failed in this endeavor. While it gave us tremendous technological skills and accomplishments, it did not manage to solve the greatest mysteries of our species: why are we here? What is our purpose? How do we get along with one another? How do we overcome our selfish natures and begin to care about folks who are not members of our "tribe"? How do we be good stewards of the earth?
Science has a hard time giving answers to these questions. In fact, some of the "answers" are pretty unreasonable. (Take evolution and survival of the fittest to its logical conclusion with the very ill, very old, mentally challenged, etc. See if you think such an approach to ethics is reasonable.)
When it comes to asking the big questions, faith certainly plays a huge role. Disputing such a thing, I believe is intellectually dishonest. Therefore, when seeking those kinds of answers, I believe faith is more than just faith. It's perfectly reasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment