A Scientist reflects on Religious Belief

[Jeremy E Walker]

I disagree with this. The antecedents of those remarkable accomplishments can be traced back to philosophy. Though there are some areas of philosophy that clearly warrant your criticism, it would be unwise to taint all of philosophy in this way IMO.

Well said!

 

[FireDragon76]

Philosophers sit around and giggle that they've found some word-games which "refute" things. Scientists eradicate diseases and put robots on Mars. ....

Putting robots on Mars won't help us really deal with the real problems with being human. It's just a conjuring trick in the grand scheme of things. Whereas philosophy tries to look at reality and examine the human situation and find answers to questions about how we should live and what is absolutely true. Science cannot answer that.

And I beg to differ... science has found cures for some diseases. Let's not overstate the case.

 

[Paradoxum]

Tell me, what are some of the things you believe in and hold to be true that you cannot prove?

I don't know. What do you think I might believe in but cannot prove?

I wouldn't claim to know anything beyond doubt.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I don't know. What do you think I might believe in but cannot prove?

Since you are a humanist, you believe humans are entitled to being treated with respect and dignity, right?

 

[Paradoxum]

Since you are a humanist, you believe humans are entitled to being treated with respect and dignity, right?

I think respect is morally required ... I'm not sure if the word 'dignity' has much use though. I have reasons for having the ethics I do.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I think respect is morally required ... I'm not sure if the word 'dignity' has much use though. I have reasons for having the ethics I do.

Prove it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Arguments are used as evidences or clues pointing to God. Some people are unwilling to believe something unless there is evidence for that something. I and Alister McGrath, C.S. Lewis, Allen Sandage, John Polkinghorne, Malcolm Muggeridge, come to mind.

And I agree with your last statement.

But those clues have led believers to the God of their particular religion anyway, the very same God that they have faith in. This is why I think Sandage made the unintended point that the arguments are contrived. With or without them you would still believe by faith.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

But those clues have led believers to the God of their particular religion anyway, the very same God that they have faith in. This is why I think Sandage made the unintended point that the arguments are contrived. With or without them you would still believe by faith.

Some of the clues lead to a broad theism. Here I am thinking about the clues or evidences that led Antony Flew to abandon the atheism that he had zealously defended in exchange for a broad theism. I do not believe that he ever became a Christian, but it is clear from his later works, that he was no longer an atheist.

Flew has changed his mind, and has let it be known that he is now a theist (at least in the broad sense of the term) because: ‘the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.’[7]

Flew says that he simply: ‘had to go where the evidence leads.’[8] His atheism truly was provisional and ‘subject to correction by further evidence and further argument. . .’[9] ‘It speaks very well of Professor Flew’s honesty,’ observes America’s pre-eminent philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga: ‘After all these years of opposing the idea of a Creator, he reverses his position on the basis of the evidence.’[10]

[7]Antony Flew, ‘My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew’ , op cit.

[8] ibid.

[9] Antony Flew, God and Philosophy, second edition, (Hutchinson of London, 1966), p. 194.

[10] Alvin Plantinga, ‘World’s Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God,
Cites Modern Science!’ @ thewonderoftheworld.com

So we see that some of the clues and evidences are not religion specific.

____________________________________________

Some of the clues and evidences lead to a broad monotheism. Arguments like the Kalam Cosmological argument can be used by Jew, Muslim, or Christian and are not Christianity specific.

____________________________________________

Some of the clues and evidences lead to Christianity specifically. Here I am thinking of the argument for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth or the evidences that the Bible is Inspired by God.

____________________________________________

So yes, some of the clues are not religion specific. They all however, can lead one from atheism to theism.

Being clues and evidences, they must be interpreted and accepted. No argument, no evidence is going to coerce or compel someone to adopt their conclusions.

This is right in line with what we would expect to see if a God did indeed exist who respects our freedom.

I have said often that God has put enough into the world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing. But He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone. - Ravi Zacharias

I would add to this by saying that God has left enough out to make it impossible for anyone to be coerced or forced into believing in Him.

Sandage never said the arguments were contrived at all. He said that to the modern mind they seem contrived.

And why? Well you and others who think like you are of the persuasion that apologists make use of the arguments for no other reason than to support what it is they already believe by faith.

But this is patently false. Apologists do not present arguments for God to themselves or for themselves to be convinced or persuaded about anything!

They present the arguments to skeptics, to unbelievers, in an attempt to demonstrate the intellectual capaciousness of a theistic paradigm, specifically, the Christian one.

You may retort: "Well, when they give lectures and talks at Churches and to Christian audiences, they are talking to people who already believe as it were, by faith. So why would they talk about the arguments at all?"

Several reasons:

1. Apologists are usually the ones who teach others how to do apologetics.

2. Just because people are sitting in a church pew does not mean they are Christians. There have been numerous accounts of unbelievers and skeptics giving their lives to Christ after sitting through one of Dr. Craigs talks at a Church, or Dr. Lennox's lectures at a predominately Christian gathering for example.

3. Christians are encouraged by the apostle Peter, the apostle Paul, and yea Jesus Himself, to use not only their heart in ministering to others, but their minds as well. The whole notion of Christians having a blind faith is simply based on a strawman of Christianity and of saving faith.

4. To claim that the arguments are contrived is to misunderstand what the arguments are intended for. They are not intended to be some type of substitute for faith, but rather, are to be used as a grounding, or a foundation on which faith rests.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Some of the clues lead to a broad theism. Here I am thinking about the clues or evidences that led Antony Flew to abandon the atheism that he had zealously defended in exchange for a broad theism. I do not believe that he ever became a Christian, but it is clear from his later works, that he was no longer an atheist.

But "broad theism" is not what most apologists ascribe to, nor is it their starting position.

Sandage never said the arguments were contrived at all. He said that to the modern mind they seem contrived.

And why? Well you and others who think like you are of the persuasion that apologists make use of the arguments for no other reason than to support what it is they already believe by faith.

That seems to be the case, yes.

But this is patently false. Apologists do not present arguments for God to themselves or for themselves to be convinced or persuaded about anything!

They present the arguments to skeptics, to unbelievers, in an attempt to demonstrate the intellectual capaciousness of a theistic paradigm, specifically, the Christian one.

Yet they fail to do so, because the arguments they present lead only to "broad theism," by your own admission. There are still many steps to take between broad theism and Christianity.

You may retort: "Well, when they give lectures and talks at Churches and to Christian audiences, they are talking to people who already believe as it were, by faith. So why would they talk about the arguments at all?"

No, my retort is simply that arguments are unnecessary and superfluous to someone who is going to believe by faith anyway. They are contrived in that sense.

4. To claim that the arguments are contrived is to misunderstand what the arguments are intended for. They are not intended to be some type of substitute for faith, but rather, are to be used as a grounding, or a foundation on which faith rests.

They seem to be a crutch, more than anything, for those whose faith is weak.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

But "broad theism" is not what most apologists ascribe to, nor is it their starting position.

It all depends on the apologist and on his or her audience. Apologetics by nature is fluid and not static. It can take many forms. I could be sitting by a water fountain in a park chit-chatting with a young woman who has brought her two kids there to throw pennies in the water. After talking with her and discovering she believes in God but is not so sure about which religion is true if any, I would not present her with the Leibnizian Cosmological argument! I would talk to her about the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I would talk to her about the immediate, and undeniable change in my own life that Christ has wrought.

If while at work, I met a fellow who was wearing a "There is no God" shirt and began chatting with him, I would not break off with the same evidence I presented to the woman at the water fountain. I would probably begin with something like the Kalam.

So in some instances, one must first demonstrate the viability of a broad theistic paradigm and then gradually work from there. In some instances, I can go straight to the evidence for the resurrection. It all depends.

Yet they fail to do so, because the arguments they present lead only to "broad theism," by your own admission. There are still many steps to take between broad theism and Christianity.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

No, my retort is simply that arguments are unnecessary and superfluous to someone who is going to believe by faith anyway. They are contrived in that sense.

I agree.

They seem to be a crutch, more than anything, for those whose faith is weak.

Interesting indeed. On one hand you would argue against anyone who holds beliefs not grounded by good evidence and argumentation, and then on the other when people do ground their beliefs on evidence and argumentation, you label them as weak in faith?

It seems to me that your notion of faith is that of a blind leap in the dark. That faith cannot be grounded in fact, but must be completely unaided and blind.

There are things we all consider ourselves as rational in accepting that we have good reasons to accept even though they cannot be proven. But none of us would call this having "blind faith". Our belief in the reality of the external world is not something we just blindly believe in! We believe in it because we have good reasons to do so.

People can and sometimes do have blind faith in things. But one does not have to blindly believe in the central tenets of Christianity in order to be a Christian. In fact, just the opposite is the case. God invites us to come and reason with Him, not to check our reason at the door!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Interesting indeed. On one hand you would argue against anyone who holds beliefs not grounded by good evidence and argumentation, and then on the other when people do ground their beliefs on evidence and argumentation, you label them as weak in faith?

It seems to me that your notion of faith is that of a blind leap in the dark. That faith cannot be grounded in fact, but must be completely unaided and blind.

Strong faith requires no aid, so yes. Belief by faith requires no evidence and is maintained even when the evidence is contrary. Arguments seem to serve a crutch in moments when faith is weakened by the probing of reason. I label them as weak in faith because, from my perspective, someone whose faith is strong feels no need to justify their beliefs to anyone. They are content to believe by faith alone, no matter what the relevant evidence brings to bear.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Strong faith requires no aid, so yes. Belief by faith requires no evidence and is maintained even when the evidence is contrary. Arguments seem to serve a crutch in moments when faith is weakened by the probing of reason. I label them as weak in faith because, from my perspective, someone whose faith is strong feels no need to justify their beliefs to anyone. They are content to believe by faith alone, no matter what the relevant evidence brings to bear.

The faith you speak of is not the faith that is mentioned in the New Testament however.

So I can agree with you that when you use the word faith to mean believing in something that is not corroborated by reasoned argument or factual evidence or the deliverances of reason that such a faith is indeed blind.

 

[lesliedellow]

What circular reasoning?

Everything has a natural explanation. Therefore God doesn't exist.

God doesn't exist. Therefore everything has a natural explanation.

With a few intervening statements to disguise the circularity.

 

[bhsmte]

Strong faith requires no aid, so yes. Belief by faith requires no evidence and is maintained even when the evidence is contrary. Arguments seem to serve a crutch in moments when faith is weakened by the probing of reason. I label them as weak in faith because, from my perspective, someone whose faith is strong feels no need to justify their beliefs to anyone. They are content to believe by faith alone, no matter what the relevant evidence brings to bear.

From a psychological perspective, I agree completely.

Those that are scrambling to show they have a rational well thought out reason to believe, are going through that process for themselves, so they feel more secure in their belief.

Truly confident people don't tout their confidence, because they have no motivation to, because the confidence, gives them internal peace of mind and no need to attempt to convince others.

 

[FireDragon76]

Truly confident people don't tout their confidence, because they have no motivation to, because the confidence, gives them internal peace of mind and no need to attempt to convince others.

You misunderstand the motivation for apologetics: it is not necessarily to convince oneself. It's to give reasons for our belief, which is commanded in Scripture so that we can fulfill the commission given by Christ, to teach the Gospel to every creature and to make disciples of all nations.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You misunderstand the motivation for apologetics: it is not necessarily to convince oneself. It's to give reasons for our belief, which is commanded in Scripture so that we can fulfill the commission given by Christ, to teach the Gospel to every creature and to make disciples of all nations.

 

[bhsmte]

You misunderstand the motivation for apologetics: it is not necessarily to convince oneself. It's to give reasons for our belief, which is commanded in Scripture so that we can fulfill the commission given by Christ, to teach the Gospel to every creature and to make disciples of all nations.

That is one way to explain it, but there certainly could be those who have other motivations, could there not, or is that impossible?

You give the typical biblical response, which is nice, but IMO, it does not apply to all.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

That is one way to explain it,

but there certainly could be those who have other motivations, could there not, or is that impossible?

You are absolutely right. There certainly could be those who have other motivations.

You give the typical biblical response, which is nice, but IMO, it does not apply to all.

Of course it does not apply. You do not believe that there is a God who commissions us to engage in apologetics!

 

[bhsmte]

You are absolutely right. There certainly could be those who have other motivations.



Of course it does not apply. You do not believe that there is a God who commissions us to engage in apologetics!

I would assume anyone engaging in Christian apologetics believes there is a God, so it would certainly apply to the person performing the apologetics. My personal view on a God, would be meaningless to what motivates them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You misunderstand the motivation for apologetics: it is not necessarily to convince oneself. It's to give reasons for our belief, which is commanded in Scripture so that we can fulfill the commission given by Christ, to teach the Gospel to every creature and to make disciples of all nations.

Which means you acknowledge that faith is not enough and that you should have reasons to believe.