RUNNING AWAY FROM SCIENCE
The astonishing advances in science has opened up vistas to the human spirit and have induced a feeling of self confidence in many like sir Richard Gregory such that they consider the God hypothesis dated and unreal. The man on the street things scientific humanism has killed religion. The free thinkers at the congress of liege in 1865 concluded that science does not deny God but that she makes Him unnecessary. Martin Heidegger says God’s absence is not even noticed. They claim that Christians are running away from science to persist in their beliefs.
The scientific pioneers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were Christian men. All these discoveries took place in Christian era. Men like Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo and Copernicus who glorified God despite the obscurantism of the Catholic church of the day; were devout Christians. Newton, Robert Boyle with Ward, Wallis, Wilkins and Barrow all of the royal society were all sincere Christians.
In science we have both Christians and atheists just as in other fields. So it wasn’t new to have the Russian authorities decree that the last relics of religious faith be wiped. But we find scientists these days who have written extensively both in science and Christianity. Men like Prof. Coulson, Prof. MacKay and Prof. Boyd are examples. The misunderstanding is the way the Christian church has adopted a dogmatic attitude when it concerns science while forgetting that God of grace is the God of nature who made man and gave him dominion over his universe. The Bible is not a science book, it speaks of total relationship of man to man, to the universe and to God. When it speaks of science it does so in ordinary everyday language and so its interpretation of science cannot be imposed to a scientist. There shouldn’t be discrepancies in the teaching of scriptures but if it does, one has to re-examine the implications as well as his own interpretation of scripture. Bertrand Russell judges Christianity with science and prescribe that those teachings that cannot be scientifically assessed should be discarded. With technology men have tamed the physical world, but haven’t begun to tame human nature.
The relation of science to religion and God’s claim only in areas where knowledge had not yet reached; is misleading and blasphemous because God is not there just to close the gap in our knowledge but He is immanent in every part of His universe. Prof. CA Coulson writes that a God of the gaps has been disastrous in history; noting that Newton is guilty of this view. Either God is there in the whole Universe or He is not there at all. Prof. Mackay notes in his book that God holds the whole universe in being by His own power (Heb.1:3). Acts 17:25,28,29; Col. 1:16,17 tell us much about God.
Prof. Boyd wrote in “Can God be known?” that there are three senses of knowledge. Mathematical knowledge which requires the assumption of axioms and of meaningfulness, scientific knowledge which assumes the existence of an external world and the uniformity of nature, and the personal knowledge which requires the assumption of other minds and personalities like our own. Science is concerned with description and material aspect of things while religion is concerned with encounter and belongs to the aspect of mind. Christianity belongs to personal knowledge. So the argument of science and human potentiality is that between those who see man as the product of a personal creator, and those who see him as the product of an entirely random collocation of atoms, a giant fluke.
On the side of human values scientific humanists are extremely enthusiastic about man hence keen on social and educational reforms, relief of need and the support of the aged, the hungry, the underprivileged and those suffering from war and discrimination. The church has been sometimes on the side of the status quo due to the lead of men in power who profess Christian states but not personally committed to the program and the standards of Christ. But this is not a generality as some Christians have the other side of the story such as the emancipation of women and slaves, the pioneer work in education and medicine, foundation of the trade unions, worldwide concern for underprivileged people and underdeveloped countries and the preaching of the gospel of peace, integration and forgiveness. If not of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it would not have driven men like Wilberforce and Newton to battle against slavery in Europe. Christianity has always been against totalitarianism because of the conviction that the state is accountable to God, and that men matter because they are made in the image of God. Being made in the image of God human values are derived from God who made them and so Christian values because they matter to God. Atheistic humanism is illogical and absurd as they profess such deep regard for the random products of a universe where chance is king; no surprise why they are ruthless in torturing and eliminating unwanted people such as in Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China or communist Russia. Atheist like Dr. Isaacs and Democritius look at the universe and even man as a composition of ultimate particles which develop in complexity by a process that is self sustaining with no intervention hence no place for God. This is absurd because they’ve not explained the existence of the ultimate particles. What gives them the remarkable possibilities? Science has no answer for such materialism. This advocates for a mind behind the universe. This view of Russell and Isaacs is not satisfactory to explain how you get ethics out of an unfeeling concourse of atoms, how you get personal being from impersonal and how you get freedom or an illusion of freedom from a determinist world. If the theory of scientific humanist were true it would be no more than the product of wandering atoms, as meaningless as everything else in a world devoid of meaning and purpose. Who would believe such a theory to be true? The value of human beings depends upon being made in God’s image and this is what gives man dignity and worth.
On human behaviour, love is a common concern for both Christians and scientific humanists. With some humanists and some Christians who are unashamedly selfish others have shown considerable love. There’s an escape from truth, from social concern, and from freedom in different areas. This is not a characteristic Christian attitude, and it was not the attitude of Jesus. Jesus came to bring abundant life in contrast to John the Baptist he has no austere (Luke 7:33). Jesus graced a marriage and even supplied fresh wine (John 2:1-11) as Paul notes that opposition to marriage is devil-inspired doctrine (1Timothy 4:3-5). Why bother about love if there is no God and no future life? Many who hold the view of humanists are good and generous men as their loving actions speak louder than their rationalistic words because man is made in the image of God. When men turn their back on God’s revelation in scripture he still sets the truth of it in their hearts. Christians know that lasting love to your neighbour is grounded in the recognition of God’s love for you. “We love, because he first loved us.” For the humanist’s view morality is relative, there’s no absolute since it’s in an impersonal and mechanistic world. The society is manipulated in the way the majority thinks fits and the individual ceases to matter. On Christian view it’s the individual who matters to God, and society is improved by changed individuals who have been reconciled to God. On the humanists view, how is morality to be achieved? Education and effort will not make any man better. We see that the last two world wars took place between the most highly educated countries in the world. Education can’t erase the tendency to evil in human nature neither would effort do. What is needed is not good advice but practical assistance. Paul said ‘I do not do good I want but the evil I do not want is what I do.” This is due to the human nature, the original sin. Jesus taught the highest standards and kept them. The God of love expects love from us and came in the person of Jesus Christ to show how love works out in a human life.
In looking at human destiny, scientific humanists think science is the key to making men good. But Martin Buber exclaimed in disillusionment at the end of his life that, “who can change the intractable thing, human nature? There is tragedy at the heart of things.” Colin Wilson wrote in “The Outsider” of how science has changed with the possibility of human technical progress but concerns about the danger, the boredom, the sheer hell of the evolving human situation. Existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and others without doubt have taken to this attitude. It is due to the enormous power for destruction that is placed into human hands by scientific discovery. Only a religious mind can find an alternative and a hope by relying on God who is above history.
Jesus shared the optimism of the hopeful humanists but taught extensively about the “Kingdom of God”. He said an unaided man can not produce this utopia as evil is external and extrinsic; and that what defiles a man is what comes out of him (Mark 7:20ff). Jesus was also pessimistic as he spoke about the awful reality of hell than anyone else in the whole Bible. Jesus did not misplaced faith in human nature as we see in John 2:24f. Jesus also showed that human nature can be changed in his matchless life right to the cross and his resurrection. His resurrection guarantees that Christianity is not escapism; we see the destiny of redeemed mankind.
The astonishing advances in science has opened up vistas to the human spirit and have induced a feeling of self confidence in many like sir Richard Gregory such that they consider the God hypothesis dated and unreal. The man on the street things scientific humanism has killed religion. The free thinkers at the congress of liege in 1865 concluded that science does not deny God but that she makes Him unnecessary. Martin Heidegger says God’s absence is not even noticed. They claim that Christians are running away from science to persist in their beliefs.
The scientific pioneers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were Christian men. All these discoveries took place in Christian era. Men like Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo and Copernicus who glorified God despite the obscurantism of the Catholic church of the day; were devout Christians. Newton, Robert Boyle with Ward, Wallis, Wilkins and Barrow all of the royal society were all sincere Christians.
In science we have both Christians and atheists just as in other fields. So it wasn’t new to have the Russian authorities decree that the last relics of religious faith be wiped. But we find scientists these days who have written extensively both in science and Christianity. Men like Prof. Coulson, Prof. MacKay and Prof. Boyd are examples. The misunderstanding is the way the Christian church has adopted a dogmatic attitude when it concerns science while forgetting that God of grace is the God of nature who made man and gave him dominion over his universe. The Bible is not a science book, it speaks of total relationship of man to man, to the universe and to God. When it speaks of science it does so in ordinary everyday language and so its interpretation of science cannot be imposed to a scientist. There shouldn’t be discrepancies in the teaching of scriptures but if it does, one has to re-examine the implications as well as his own interpretation of scripture. Bertrand Russell judges Christianity with science and prescribe that those teachings that cannot be scientifically assessed should be discarded. With technology men have tamed the physical world, but haven’t begun to tame human nature.
The relation of science to religion and God’s claim only in areas where knowledge had not yet reached; is misleading and blasphemous because God is not there just to close the gap in our knowledge but He is immanent in every part of His universe. Prof. CA Coulson writes that a God of the gaps has been disastrous in history; noting that Newton is guilty of this view. Either God is there in the whole Universe or He is not there at all. Prof. Mackay notes in his book that God holds the whole universe in being by His own power (Heb.1:3). Acts 17:25,28,29; Col. 1:16,17 tell us much about God.
Prof. Boyd wrote in “Can God be known?” that there are three senses of knowledge. Mathematical knowledge which requires the assumption of axioms and of meaningfulness, scientific knowledge which assumes the existence of an external world and the uniformity of nature, and the personal knowledge which requires the assumption of other minds and personalities like our own. Science is concerned with description and material aspect of things while religion is concerned with encounter and belongs to the aspect of mind. Christianity belongs to personal knowledge. So the argument of science and human potentiality is that between those who see man as the product of a personal creator, and those who see him as the product of an entirely random collocation of atoms, a giant fluke.
On the side of human values scientific humanists are extremely enthusiastic about man hence keen on social and educational reforms, relief of need and the support of the aged, the hungry, the underprivileged and those suffering from war and discrimination. The church has been sometimes on the side of the status quo due to the lead of men in power who profess Christian states but not personally committed to the program and the standards of Christ. But this is not a generality as some Christians have the other side of the story such as the emancipation of women and slaves, the pioneer work in education and medicine, foundation of the trade unions, worldwide concern for underprivileged people and underdeveloped countries and the preaching of the gospel of peace, integration and forgiveness. If not of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it would not have driven men like Wilberforce and Newton to battle against slavery in Europe. Christianity has always been against totalitarianism because of the conviction that the state is accountable to God, and that men matter because they are made in the image of God. Being made in the image of God human values are derived from God who made them and so Christian values because they matter to God. Atheistic humanism is illogical and absurd as they profess such deep regard for the random products of a universe where chance is king; no surprise why they are ruthless in torturing and eliminating unwanted people such as in Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China or communist Russia. Atheist like Dr. Isaacs and Democritius look at the universe and even man as a composition of ultimate particles which develop in complexity by a process that is self sustaining with no intervention hence no place for God. This is absurd because they’ve not explained the existence of the ultimate particles. What gives them the remarkable possibilities? Science has no answer for such materialism. This advocates for a mind behind the universe. This view of Russell and Isaacs is not satisfactory to explain how you get ethics out of an unfeeling concourse of atoms, how you get personal being from impersonal and how you get freedom or an illusion of freedom from a determinist world. If the theory of scientific humanist were true it would be no more than the product of wandering atoms, as meaningless as everything else in a world devoid of meaning and purpose. Who would believe such a theory to be true? The value of human beings depends upon being made in God’s image and this is what gives man dignity and worth.
On human behaviour, love is a common concern for both Christians and scientific humanists. With some humanists and some Christians who are unashamedly selfish others have shown considerable love. There’s an escape from truth, from social concern, and from freedom in different areas. This is not a characteristic Christian attitude, and it was not the attitude of Jesus. Jesus came to bring abundant life in contrast to John the Baptist he has no austere (Luke 7:33). Jesus graced a marriage and even supplied fresh wine (John 2:1-11) as Paul notes that opposition to marriage is devil-inspired doctrine (1Timothy 4:3-5). Why bother about love if there is no God and no future life? Many who hold the view of humanists are good and generous men as their loving actions speak louder than their rationalistic words because man is made in the image of God. When men turn their back on God’s revelation in scripture he still sets the truth of it in their hearts. Christians know that lasting love to your neighbour is grounded in the recognition of God’s love for you. “We love, because he first loved us.” For the humanist’s view morality is relative, there’s no absolute since it’s in an impersonal and mechanistic world. The society is manipulated in the way the majority thinks fits and the individual ceases to matter. On Christian view it’s the individual who matters to God, and society is improved by changed individuals who have been reconciled to God. On the humanists view, how is morality to be achieved? Education and effort will not make any man better. We see that the last two world wars took place between the most highly educated countries in the world. Education can’t erase the tendency to evil in human nature neither would effort do. What is needed is not good advice but practical assistance. Paul said ‘I do not do good I want but the evil I do not want is what I do.” This is due to the human nature, the original sin. Jesus taught the highest standards and kept them. The God of love expects love from us and came in the person of Jesus Christ to show how love works out in a human life.
In looking at human destiny, scientific humanists think science is the key to making men good. But Martin Buber exclaimed in disillusionment at the end of his life that, “who can change the intractable thing, human nature? There is tragedy at the heart of things.” Colin Wilson wrote in “The Outsider” of how science has changed with the possibility of human technical progress but concerns about the danger, the boredom, the sheer hell of the evolving human situation. Existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and others without doubt have taken to this attitude. It is due to the enormous power for destruction that is placed into human hands by scientific discovery. Only a religious mind can find an alternative and a hope by relying on God who is above history.
Jesus shared the optimism of the hopeful humanists but taught extensively about the “Kingdom of God”. He said an unaided man can not produce this utopia as evil is external and extrinsic; and that what defiles a man is what comes out of him (Mark 7:20ff). Jesus was also pessimistic as he spoke about the awful reality of hell than anyone else in the whole Bible. Jesus did not misplaced faith in human nature as we see in John 2:24f. Jesus also showed that human nature can be changed in his matchless life right to the cross and his resurrection. His resurrection guarantees that Christianity is not escapism; we see the destiny of redeemed mankind.
No comments:
Post a Comment