I'm SO tired of hearibng this from the smug "science" people and stheists who attack "religion" as a mental aberration. Richard Dawkins carries on in this way and here's someone else, another scientist, doing the same thing. I don't know who he is and I don't care. I heard about half a minute of this video and had to write this post:
Steven Weinberg: All Time Best Arguments Against Religion #1 - YouTube
<br>'<br>
PuhLEEZE stop lumping Protestant Christianity with Islam for starters, there is NO similarity between the two "religions>" None. Zip, nada, none. RThere is also very little commonality between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Whther they are guilty of this charge orf not I'm not even going to speculate, I'm only concerned to correct the complete misrepresentation of Protestantism.
<br>
<br>
This guy says the main conflict between science and "religion" is tin the method of approach to trtuh. Supposely all "religion" decides questions of truth on the basis of authority, and science does not. Again I'm not going to consider to what extent this charge may or may not be true of Islam or Roman Catholicism, but it most certainly is false concerning Protestantism.
<br>
<br>
The word Dawkins likes is "faith" to stand for the most vilified method of "religion." Supposedly "religion" applies "faith" every question of every kind. Yikes. Again leave aside Islam and ROmanism. I doubt it's even true of those two false religions but it most certainly is not true of Protestant Christianity, which is TRUE Christianity. The biblical definition is "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseeen." THAT's how we use faith. Fiath is our necessary posture toward GOD and toward the things of God. We are exhorted over and over again in scripture to believe, believe in what scripture is telling is about GOD, not in anything else. Believe in Christ, beliecve He is the Messiah, believe in tghe miracles He performed, believe in the accounts of his life and in fact all the accounts of the Bible. WE ARE NOT ASKED TO APPLY FAITH TO ANY OTHER QUESYIONS. Certainly not to scientific questions. And it is so utterly ridiculous and annoying that the could think such a think I'm having trouble sstaying calm as I write this.
<br>
<br>
Faith is necessary with things of the spirit that we cannot observe. We must trust those who have witnessed them and lived them, that's the only way we can know about them. The miracles were cddone to authenticate the claims of Christ to be Christ. We weren't there, we have no choice but to believe or disbelieve what tthe writers of the Bible report about them to us. Jesus was willing to show thomas His wounds to prove to Him empirically that He did indeed die and rise again, but He also said "blessed are those who did not see and yet believewd." We are to truth trustworthy people. Thomsa had refused to believe what the other disiples had told Himj. He was blessed to get the direct proof, but the majority of believers don't get that kind of proof. We are relegated to treusting the witnesses, and there are scroes and scrores of switnesses who in my judgment are utterly trustworthy, from the writers of the Bible to the people they write about to people who have believede tghe Bible accounts from that time on.
<br>
<br>
WE DO NOT USE FAITH TO DETERMINE THE TRUTHS OF SCFIENCE. In fact it was biblical treuth that was the original impetus to empirical science and if it had not existed we woudl still be flouding ing around with the old weird "science" of the Early Greeks an Romans and Aristotle
It's no doubt all about the Creation-Evolution debate, which they think is about science but evolution is barely a science at all because being a historical science, about events in the past that can never be replicated or tested, it has to remain noothing but speculation. And since it contradicts the Bible we reject it both on the basis of our faith in the Bible and on the scientific reasoning creqationists have brought to bear on evolution's claims. Faith has nothing to do with true science, science that is based on observation, but evolution is not based on observation, it can't be, it's purely invention.
No comments:
Post a Comment