In the previous Conversation, a point was brought up that religion and science is not an either/or but a both/and. While I find this kind of thinking optimistic. I can’t help but disagree. Religion asks us to believe in several things that don’t meld with the natural world and directly contradict what science has proven is possible. Seven day creation, spontaneous human/animal creation, whole world flood, parting sea, walking on water, just to name a few.
Religion, like philosophy, is a good way for people to explain certain things to themselves, why you feel bad, why you feel love, but science can ask these questions too. With science though we are able to test, replicate and delve deeper into reasons of why. To me as an atheist, this line of evidence is more convincing than “god did it.” Many Christians I find are firm believers in the non-overlapping magisteria, saying that science can’t say anything about religion and vice-versa. But when religion make claims on the physical world, like those of the bible, or that intercessory prayer works as a healer, science should be able to test that.
This isn’t my saying but one I’ve adopted, I try to believe as many true things and as little false things as possible. Science is the most reliable way to find truth, and believing false things can be dangerous. Like when parents refuse medical attention for their children, replacing it with prayer, or costing valuable time in stem-cell research. It’s like the discussion of love we had (see comments on The Conversation: In The Beginning). There may be more to love than science can explain, but there is no evidence of something more, and I’m not sure what the reasons are to need anything more.
-Jesse Oates
RESPONSE
I would like to address the initial comment that religion, (I will use faith) asks us to believe things that contradict what science has proven possible. To be clear, the claim is that faith asks us to believe things that science has proven as impossible. I would argue that this is not the case. Although many people feel many ways about the creation story in Genesis, or the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus, and miraculous healing found throughout the New Testament, none of these ask us to disregard what science has proven.
Science has been able to explain an extraordinary amount to us about the state of our species, world and universe. The premise of scientific research is an attempt to find a natural answers and explanations to various occurrences. I tend to argue for the sake of a supernatural explanation, and science does not accept, in most cases, the existence of the supernatural. While science has proven and provided insight into many natural cause/effect relationships, science has not disproved the existence of the supernatural. So to say that science has disproved seven day creation, spontaneous human/animal creation, whole world flood, parting sea, walking on water, is to assume the existence of only natural forces.
Science shows us what we can understand naturally. Faith shows us what we can understand about the supernatural, a Creator God, a spirit that reveals the power of divinity, etc. The life of Jesus was all about God becoming flesh and blood, walking around in our world, to reveal the nature of our Creator. Perhaps this is why so many miracles were recorded in the Gospels; because there was no natural explanation for what was going on with this guy named Jesus from Nazareth.
I love science, and I love what science can explain about our natural world. I also believe we must turn to the one who created the natural world in order to understand our existence.
-Sam
Alright Creating Culture friends, there you have it. Continue the conversation – we would love your thoughts.
1. The Conversation: In the Beginning
3. The Conversation: Worldviews