The Science Delusion

‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins, was an attempt to ‘bury’ the ‘God Hypothesis’, as he puts it. Though I am nowhere near Dawkins’ scholarly level; I am an intelligent, clear thinking, and well-read critic (no comment from my wife). I know of scientists, renowned for their scientific minds and research, which find the idea of God quite acceptable. One example is John Lennox. Lennox has multiple peer reviewed research papers and is considered an expert in mathematical exercises. The following Wikipedia snippet is indicative of his career, “He has published over 70 peer-reviewed articles on mathematics and co-authored two Oxford Mathematical Monographs and has worked as a translator of Russian mathematics,” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox). Lennox is not a light weight in the scientific field. No, as a side note, he and Dawkins have even debated, based on the book, mentioned above, too. Lennox and Dawkins are also colleagues at Oxford University.

“John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is also an Associate Fellow of the Said Business School, Oxford University, and teaches for the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme. In addition, he is an Adjunct Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University, and at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics, as well as being a Senior Fellow of the Trinity Forum. He studied at the Royal School Armagh, Northern Ireland and was Exhibitioner and Senior Scholar at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University from which he took his MA, MMath and PhD. He worked for many years in the Mathematics Institute at the University of Wales in Cardiff which awarded him a DSc for his research. He also holds an MA and DPhil from Oxford University and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. He was a Senior Alexander Von Humboldt Fellow at the Universities of Würzburg and Freiburg in Germany,” (http://www.johnlennox.org/about/).

Lennox is an example of a scientist, undeterred I might say, who clearly sees God in the details, as I and many others do, as well. So, to play on Dawkins’ title, this article is entitled ‘The Science Delusion’. I am not attempting to destroy or discredit science, but to take on the many problems that science can’t offer solutions to; the big and little questions. Science can answer many of the little ‘why’ questions, such as; why does it thunder, why does light separate in a prism, and why does my cat shoot out sparks when I rub him in the dark. These are questions that once baffled us, but we now know the answers, thanks to science. The big ‘WHY’ is not as clear, for example; why is there something rather than nothing, what is the meaning of life, and why (why ‘anything’)? These need metaphysical, philosophical, and theological answers. Science cannot and will not answer these questions. Let’s tackle some.

ETHICS/MORALS/VALUES

Ethics, morals, and values are the first place to start. Many evolutionist claim that evolution (Darwinian/or Macro) can answer this question. This seems ludicrous to me. Evolution as a process, is supposed to be ‘survival of the fittest’. Random chance and pure luck are at play, in an evolutionary model, and this seems unable to account for morals/ethics/values. If this is the basis of life, then every charitable endeavor to help the disabled, elderly, and weak (by whatever measurement you like) are unexplainable. It would seem in our ‘best’ interest to rid our species of the lesser versions of us. Yet, as humans, we highly value sympathy, kindness, and charity as attributes that separate us as humans, from the lower animals. Where do these values/morals come from? Science has no answer, or at least one that is logical. Values, morals, and ethics, the ‘what we should or shouldn’t do’, are based in some higher ethical/moral standard that seems to transcend man’s collective knowledge. There is an appeal to a right and wrong that evolution, or science for that matter, can’t answer. You cannot appeal to man’s collective conscience (and many naturalist/atheist reject conciseness) as a good explanation of morals, especially universal morals that seem to cross all cultures- i.e. murder is wrong, raping babies is wrong, and other such notions. These morals are not possibly a product of chance, random fluctuations, or luck. These are very easily discovered truths that permeate Man’s moral barometer.

Consciousness/Mind

The next area that Science has very few answers to is consciousness and the idea of minds. Science can measure brains but not minds. Let me define the term mind (hopefully you know what a brain is). A mind is defined as, “(1) The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination. (2) The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior,” (The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary-Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company). J. Warner Wallace lays out a good case (he is a cold-case detective) for the difference between mind and brain. “The brain is not the mind, and any ultimate explanation for the universe must account for this non-material, non-spatial reality. Atheism simply cannot adequately explain our experience of mind. If, however, there is an all-powerful mind who created the universe and conscious creatures in His image, consciousness is not only reasonable but inevitable,” (http://www.christianity.com/blogs/j-warner-wallace/are-atheists-correct-when-they-claim-mental-states-are-merely-brain-states.html). He lays out a great argument for the difference between brains and minds, including; there seems to be differences between brains and minds, physical activity in the brain can’t be generalized-Wallace explains, “If certain types of physical brain activities are identical with particular kinds of mental states, we ought to be able to match the two neatly, even in a variety of individuals and settings. But this isn’t possible,” then there is the idea that logical connection outside of physical causes, and finally, we can postulate a mind regardless of a brain to cause its functioning.

Miracles

Finally, the area that science has the hardest time with is miracles. Miracles, by definition, are something that doesn’t happen normally or on a regular basis. Miracles are outside nature, or supernatural, as some state. David Hume, in the 19th Century stated, “…(T)here is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men of such unquestioned good sense, education, and learning as to serve us against all delusion in themselves; of such undaunted integrity as to place themselves beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood, and at the same time attesting facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world as to render the detection unavoidable…” (From David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, L. A. Selby Bigge, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), pp. 114-16.). Craig Rusbult, who has a PhD in Curriculum & Instruction, at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, states that Science and miracles can co-exist:

“There are two rational ways to view historical science and miracles. Among scientists and philosophers who are Christians, some support one approach and some think the other is better.

In one approach, a scientific explanation cannot propose any miraculous-appearing supernatural action in the current operation of nature or in the formative history of nature. This methodological naturalism (MN) is the usual "working assumption" in science. Because scientists who adopt MN are eliminating one possibility, logic requires that they should also adopt MN-Humility by recognizing that a non-naturalistic theory might be correct, so with MN they are making if-then claims: when they accept a naturalistic theory, they are claiming that if a feature (an object, organism, system, event,...) was produced by natural process, then this is how it occurred. But the "if" is an assumption, adopted while doing science, so there is a possibility of miracles even though MN-science isn't considering and evaluating this possibility. Christians can view MN-Science as one aspect of an open search that considers all possibilities without imposing restrictions on theorizing.

In another approach, proponents of open science claim that — based on a scientific evaluation of evidence, using the logical methods of historical science — scientists can recognize the occurrence of design. Scientists could conclude that undirected natural process was not sufficient to produce a particular observed feature, that instead design-action was used to convert a design-idea into the reality of a designed feature. Since design-action can be either natural (as in making a bird nest or the faces on Mount Rushmore) or supernatural (as in Biblical miracles), a theory of design does not propose that a miracle has occurred, but does acknowledge this as a possibility. In open science, a scientist begins with an MN-assumption, but does not insist on ending with an MN-conclusion unless this is justified by the evidence. An open-thinking scientist replaces rigid-MN (which requires a naturalistic conclusion) with testable-MN by treating MN as a theory that can be tested, not a conclusion that must be accepted.

With either approach, Christians can view science as a valuable resource that should be respected as an "expert witness" in our search for truth, but should not be the "judge and jury" when we're defining the way the world is, what is and isn't real, what can and cannot happen.” (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/science/faith-science.htm)

Of Course science has answers, but not all. There are many things science is clueless about, for example-HOW the universe came from-nothing. Even in everyday things like plants, scientist are not as educated as we are lead to believe. “What's left to be discovered? Many people have the idea that scientists have discovered just about everything when it comes to everyday subjects,” in http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/how-much-does-science-know, we are informed of this interesting discovery,“ sure, scientists are searching for cures for many diseases and making discoveries of new atomic particles. But when it comes to common things, say botany, even many scientists think everything has been discovered...A member of the lily family that was first described in 1972 grew only 10 miles from downtown San Francisco. What is now known as Morefield's leather flower was discovered in 1982 on a vacant lot in suburban Huntsville, Alabama. Botanists working in this field estimate that 5 percent of North American plants still remain either undescribed or undiscovered.” This is just Botany, and only here on Earth...this is telling and fascinating. Science is useful, necessary, and even helpful (!) for great discoveries and advances that help and teach us about the world (Universe) around us. Science has its limitations, none-the-less, which we’ve enumerated many items here. I think God speaks thru various means, creation is one, and the Bible is another. Creation tells us, (Romans 1:19-20-ESV) “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” But, God’s Word reveals to us the message of God, which nature, creation, or science could not explain to us, (1 Timothy 3:16-KJV) “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

#science #faith #evolution #RichardDawkins #JohnLennox