Monday, March 23, 2009

Science, Faith, Or Both?




“I don’t believe anything unless it can be proven scientifically!”


Oh, how many times have I heard this or something similar while witnessing. Many people seem to give such high reverence to science as if it can answer all of life’s questions. They claim that if a statement cannot be proven in a laboratory by the methods of natural science, it is untrustworthy and cannot be reliable. In other words, science should be considered objective and therefore real. Many people claim that if it is a statement of faith, it cannot be trusted.

Next time you run across this potential smokescreen, clear the air by offering the following questions:


§ What about the process of falling in love? The last time you fell in love, did you test it in a laboratory to see if it was real? Did you tell your girlfriend that your love wasn’t real because you couldn’t test in a laboratory?


§ Is the existence of truth testable in a laboratory? Can you prove I just asked you a question?
§ Are the laws of logic testable in a laboratory?


§ What about the adequacy of language and numbers? Are they testable in a lab?

Remember, faith is not a drawback to understanding reality. Everyone in this world exercises faith. No one can live life without faith. In fact, science itself requires presuppositions that must be accepted by faith before research is possible.

Science takes by faith the following presuppositions:


1. The universe is orderly. It operates according to patterns, which can be observed, and its behavior predicted.


2. Objective truth exists and is knowable.


3. The reliability of the sense perceptions. One must believe our senses are trustworthy in examining the universe around us.


4. The repeatability of a laboratory experiment. The experiment must be repeatable by another scientist in order to verify the resultant conclusion. Obviously, there are many things in life, which are not repeatable in a laboratory; history is one of them.

Remember, the scientific method was actually invented by a Christian in the sixteenth century. Prior to this time, most people believed the Greek polytheistic concepts, which viewed the universe as erratic and irregular and therefore not capable of systematic study.

Science is great and we need science but we must understand its limitations. Many times it can tell us how something works but it cannot tell us why something works.

Stand strong in your faith. Science is really the Christian’s ally!

See you on the street.

5 comments:

captain howdy said...

"Stand strong in your faith. Science is really the Christian’s ally!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wonder. How old do you believe the earth is, Otter? Do you accept that the theory of evolution is valid? I find it strange that the same people that claim science supports their religion turn right around and insist the earth is only 6000 years old, and that evolution--the central theme of biology--is all a global satanic hoax.

What was the scientific evidence you used to conclude that the 1st woman came directly from a rib?

ExPatMatt said...

Hi,

So it would be fair to say that 'science is the Christian's ally' until scientific findings contradict the beliefs of Christians; then the science is clearly wrong and is based on faulty presuppositions?

It seems like this is what you are saying.

For the record; I agree that people who say that science has all the answers (and I've never come across such a person) are either wrong or have a very narrow scope of questions.

However, none of the 4 presuppositions you present in your post are actually held as such by scientists.

1. This is a conclusion based on observation

2. define 'objective truth' and show an example of where science holds that it necessarily exists

3. The basis of the scientific method is that the senses are not reliable!

4. This doesn't even make any sense. results of experiments are verified by being repeated by others; how is that a presupposition?

I'm not convinced by your argument.

Matt

ExPatMatt said...

You know, it's considered polite to actually respond to people's comments every once in a while!

Robert Tewart said...

Sorry Matt. As a general rule, I don't engage in endless exchanges with atheists that have displayed a stony heart to the things of God. I am quite sure that you have heard the Gospel by now and that you have much to consider. Now argument I could come up with would suffice in changing your heart. Only God can do that.

I will continue to post your comments for others to consider. You have kept it clean and I appreciate that. Sarcasm and some level of "bite" is just fine too.

Sorry I didn't respond sooner.

Anonymous said...

When we talk of the world being created in six days... we are talking about God's time. His time is infinite and we cannot hope to even be able to slightly grasp what HE means by "one day". Our existence here on Earth is but a speck of time in His eyes. Therefore, when science talks of Earth being billions of years old...It is very much possible that this is true. I believe that when we are talking about "6000" years, we are talking about the existence of the human race, not the existence of the world. Even the "Big Bang" theory could be very much conceivable as a means of creating our universe. However, I believe that there was an architect that possessed such great knowledge as to know how to utilize this material to create a perfect universe that would allow His children to be able to reside hear for a time and learn. BB