Quite a few people have been convinced by the mass media that more science and education are the answer to everything, but is it really? Science is quite good at what it does, but it does have limitations and areas that its hands cannot reach.
Now as I have stated before, I am a scientist, or at least a graduate student of chemistry, whichever title you would like to apply. I have no delusions about the limitations of science and where it cannot possibly reach. There are those who will have their own definitions of science, and honestly it is rather overused in the United States at least. Science is a field where hypotheses can be repeatedly tested to be proven or disproven. There are plenty of fields where science cannot carry out this rigorous testing and retesting, so I would not classify these fields as sciences. Take history for example, unless we figure out how to go back in time and verify events for ourselves, we are left with only the accounts of what happened at a certain point in time. We can find corroborating stories to be sure, but we cannot recreate the entire event with every detail for us to test over and over, so I cannot say that history is a science. This is definitely not a derogatory statement, I love studying history because it is a source of knowledge, either from the pure information or the derivative applications of the so called “moral of the story” if you will. However, we have developed forensic science to provide some evidence to corroborate stories, but we still infer some agency or intelligence involved when it comes to human investigation, say investigating a crime scene. Science, as far as I’m aware, has difficulty assigning moral values and duties. We can use science and engineering to design weapons of war, a cure for disease, or something just as amazing. We cannot assign moral values through experiment alone, it takes philosophy and ethics to argue for and persuade our fellow man to agree to the value that we are trying to assign to something.
There are those of you who have probably plugged their ears as soon as I said that science was not the only fountain of knowledge in this universe. People like you would probably identify as a Naturalist or a Scientific Naturalist. A few critiques of naturalism are in order here. It is self-defeating, don’t believe me? Try to design an experiment to prove that naturalism is the only correct school of thought, or show that science is the only way to truth and knowledge. A scientific experiment does not provide data for or against such a worldview, or could even be reasonably designed, so naturalism/scientism does not even stand on its own principle.
The position of Scientism also has a few questions that cannot be answered. Look at the structure of the universe and how all of the fundamental forces had to come together in such a perfect harmony for anything to exist at all. There is such a mathematical intelligibility of the universe that cries out for a creator and naturalists have to say that the universe ‘just happened’. This shows a startling lack of scientific interest and curiosity. Naturalism is also dehumanizing in the generalizations that it makes. It can break down other people’s experiences and emotions into simple chemistry and biology, but these thoughts seem to elude them when the observer becomes the participant in the great game of life. In practice, no one can fully commit to being a naturalist.
As I have said earlier in this post and in earlier posts, science itself does not lean one way or another. There are scientists all over the spectra of belief and non-belief. No matter what your worldview, there is evidence that you can use to support your worldview and tear down others. This is a double-edged sword, however. Many atheistic arguments and theistic arguments derive themselves from the same scientific phenomena; it is all just a matter of perspective. When it comes down to choosing your worldview, you will have to sort through all of the information and decide for yourself what you want to believe. This decision will color every aspect of your life and define who you are and your interactions with others.
As a Christian, I get to experience the joy of knowing the creator of this universe as well as study His creation as a Scientist. Contrary to what people would have you believe, I have no issues with “checking my brain at the door” when I enter the doors of a church to listen to my pastor; nor do I check my faith at the door when I enter the laboratory to perform my research. I would implore you, reader, that if you are a Christian, to start getting serious about your faith because there is a war going on around you to draw you away from your walk with Christ from all directions. From the low hitting temptations of sex and drugs, to the intellectual battles that are raging in the university, Satan is trying to lead everyone astray so that they will one day join him in Hell. If you have not yet come to know Jesus as your Lord and Savior, I would hope that I have at least got you thinking about this whole God and Jesus thing that you hear about on TV or your neighbor talks about all day. God Bless and have a good evening.
Popular posts from this blog
What I want to do today is to write a brief summary of each of the arguments for the existence of God that I have come across in my studies; that seem to hold any water (I won’t be calling on the youtube video that argues for design just because a human hand can hold a banana). If I miss any that you believe to be a part of this review, please contact me and I will research the argument and update my post here. The Kalam Cosmological Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0 – This argument focuses on the prime mover, or the uncaused first cause. The argument goes as such: everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause. Dr. William Lane Craig is the biggest proponent of this argument, and further develops the characteristics of this prime mover and shows that the God of Christianity is the best fit for this uncaused first cause. The Contingency Argument https://w…
I saw a video during my Sunday service about the floods of people that are coming to church for Easter or Christmas, maybe they only come once a year, or are interested in what all the hubbub is about. For those interested, it follows that they might have questions. Now, I have written plenty about scholarly questions to Christian faith, but does this mean that everyone should have these answers? Not necessarily, because many times the questions are not scholarly, but emotional. We should be able to answer these as well. These types of questions will be case by case, so a systematic rulebook of answers cannot be written here. However, the Bible does give us some guidelines in how to talk to one another. We are called in Colossians to let our speech be seasoned with salt and grace (Colossians 4:6). In 1 Peter 3:15, we are commanded to deliver our answers with gentleness and respect. These are general sweeping statements on how we are to conduct our speech, so let’s apply them to our …