Well, the latest atheist attack on religion is truly proving to be a pyrrhic victory. An atheist teen in Cranston Rhode Island is cheesed-off about the presence of a prayer posted on the wall of the cafeteria. When she reads this pray, she feels ostracized and left out. So, some trouble makers at the ACLU take up the cause and represent her. Now, the banner with the pray was not something new, that the crazy Christians just decided to put on the wall to start forcing kids into Godliness against their will. It was a gift to the school almost fifty years ago, written by a seventh grader in 1963. And, what was the content of this document that made this poor atheist feel so left out? Only one of the most beautiful, innocent prayers, one that we would hope all our children might say, one that we would beam with pride if our child had written it. A petition, if granted, could only make for the best students, and the best school environment, even for the atheists. Here's the content:
Our Heavenly Father,
Grant us each day the desire to do our best, To grow mentally and morally as well as physically, To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers, To be honest with ourselves as well as with others, Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win, Teach us the value of true friendship, Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.
Amen
I just don't believe that any true atheist would object to this! So, you don't believe in God? Why not let the religious suckers believe this tripe! Would taking this prayer down make for a better environment in your school? Would you be more or less likely to be bullied if this prayer hangs in the cafeteria? If even only a few students take this message to heart, would it not improve the environment for you to learn, even if you are an atheist?
So, now the young lady who objected to this banner, and with the aid of the ACLU succeeded in having the banner covered up pending an appeal of the case, now, she who felt so ostracized by the mere presence of the banner, has to be escorted to school because of threats against her, and local florists refuse to deliver flowers to her, sent by equally misguided atheists looking to do battle against God. But, if God does not exist, what exactly are they so angry about? If you don't believe in God, why should it cheese you off if others seek the aid of something that does not exist, to be kind and helpful to their teachers and classmates?
If atheists were smart, they would quietly take advantage of religion, using it as the opiate of the masses, as Lenin called it. If they were smart, they would realize that their strength does not come in increasing their numbers, but by taking advantage of the foolish kindness of Christians. For, if there were more atheists, and fewer Christians, the world would be a darker, less comfortable place for everyone, especially those who do not believe in God.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Why Good Science is not Good Religion
Men of science these days appear to have as their objective disproving God, or, at least, finding inconsistencies between religious texts and physical realities in order to discredit religion. However, for most of the history of science, there was no such objective, and it is only a relatively recent change in the objective of scientific inquiry. The traditional objective of science was always to describe how God's creation worked, not to attempt to prove that it all could have happened without a creator. Yes, science can cast some doubt in this or that assertion from religious texts on how creation operates, or how things came to be, but the essential assertions of religion are beyond the reach of science. Religion attempts to explain the why of things, not the how. Explanations of the how in religion are only attempted in order to get at the why. Why is there evil? Why is there a universe? Why do things appear to happen in an ordered way, that, for the most part, can be modeled with mathematics? Religion points to a creator, a grand designer of all things, to explain the why. Scientific minds of today appear to be open to any possible answer to the why, other than a creator. I marvel when scientific rationalists assert that there is no evidence of a creator. My only answer is, "Look around!"
But, if we try to construct a religion based on science, we immediately find ourselves in difficulties. Science is based on drawing conclusions based on observations that rely on our senses, and our senses are easily fooled. While scientists may start with a hypothesis to prove or disprove through observation, and, in building models, may start with assumptions and use reason to prove or disprove the hypothesis, science itself does not start with assumptions to prove itself valid. If science were to have a creed, what would it be? If we were to attempt a creed for science, we might suggest two premises to start: 1) That all things are knowable, if they can be properly observed, and 2) that observations are reliable, that when things are actively observed, they occur the same way as when they are not observed.
If we could get scientists to agree to these two basic principles as a foundation for their religion based on science, they would also have to agree that if these principles were contradicted, it would disprove the basis of their religion. Based on these fairly simple principles, however, science has already disproven itself as a religion. Science has asserted, and proven through experiment, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which asserts that the more one knows about the position of an electron, the less one can know about its momentum. Therefore, if the knowing of one thing leads another thing to be unknowable, the first premise is disproved, since all things cannot be knowable with observation. And, to make matters worse for our religion of science, it is the observing of one thing that causes a change in the other. So, science has proven that things behave differently when observed, so how can observations be trusted to indicate how things operate when not observed?
Now, the discovery of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has caused some scientists distress. Albert Einstein has asserted that "God does not play dice with atoms!" But, to a person of religion, if God wants to play dice with atoms, that's God's business. God does not have to fit in Einstein's box. God's universe is not one where all things are knowable by man. The religious texts certainly back up that premise. And, it also appears to be a proven scientific fact. And, that's not a troubling revelation to religious people, but to scientific rationalists, it undermines the very premise and foundation of their work. Ironically, scientists may have an easier time disproving science than disproving God, for it is God who has set the limits on science, and He winks at us when we try to discover more than it is appointed for us to know.
And, the next questions may be more troubling for scientific rationalists. If there is no creator, why should certain things in the unfolding universe that occurred purely by chance be unknowable? And, if a human observer can change the physical behavior of subatomic particles just by looking at them, why is it so far-fetched that faith the size of a mustard seed might move a mountain?
Science in its proper place is a tool for discovering how God's universe operates. It is not equipped to prove nor disprove the existence of God. The discovery of uncertainty in the basic building blocks of matter, and that there are changes in the operation of the physical universe when observed, should lead us to a healthy skepticism of science that is not at all troubling to those who believe in the Creator of all things, but should trouble the deepest part of any soul that would promote science to the status of God.
But, if we try to construct a religion based on science, we immediately find ourselves in difficulties. Science is based on drawing conclusions based on observations that rely on our senses, and our senses are easily fooled. While scientists may start with a hypothesis to prove or disprove through observation, and, in building models, may start with assumptions and use reason to prove or disprove the hypothesis, science itself does not start with assumptions to prove itself valid. If science were to have a creed, what would it be? If we were to attempt a creed for science, we might suggest two premises to start: 1) That all things are knowable, if they can be properly observed, and 2) that observations are reliable, that when things are actively observed, they occur the same way as when they are not observed.
If we could get scientists to agree to these two basic principles as a foundation for their religion based on science, they would also have to agree that if these principles were contradicted, it would disprove the basis of their religion. Based on these fairly simple principles, however, science has already disproven itself as a religion. Science has asserted, and proven through experiment, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which asserts that the more one knows about the position of an electron, the less one can know about its momentum. Therefore, if the knowing of one thing leads another thing to be unknowable, the first premise is disproved, since all things cannot be knowable with observation. And, to make matters worse for our religion of science, it is the observing of one thing that causes a change in the other. So, science has proven that things behave differently when observed, so how can observations be trusted to indicate how things operate when not observed?
Now, the discovery of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has caused some scientists distress. Albert Einstein has asserted that "God does not play dice with atoms!" But, to a person of religion, if God wants to play dice with atoms, that's God's business. God does not have to fit in Einstein's box. God's universe is not one where all things are knowable by man. The religious texts certainly back up that premise. And, it also appears to be a proven scientific fact. And, that's not a troubling revelation to religious people, but to scientific rationalists, it undermines the very premise and foundation of their work. Ironically, scientists may have an easier time disproving science than disproving God, for it is God who has set the limits on science, and He winks at us when we try to discover more than it is appointed for us to know.
And, the next questions may be more troubling for scientific rationalists. If there is no creator, why should certain things in the unfolding universe that occurred purely by chance be unknowable? And, if a human observer can change the physical behavior of subatomic particles just by looking at them, why is it so far-fetched that faith the size of a mustard seed might move a mountain?
Science in its proper place is a tool for discovering how God's universe operates. It is not equipped to prove nor disprove the existence of God. The discovery of uncertainty in the basic building blocks of matter, and that there are changes in the operation of the physical universe when observed, should lead us to a healthy skepticism of science that is not at all troubling to those who believe in the Creator of all things, but should trouble the deepest part of any soul that would promote science to the status of God.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)