God in the Details
Aussiegirl has a terrific piece about Faith and physics over at Ultima Thule.
Throughout history, numerous great men of science were also extraordinarily pious; Copernicus was quite probably a priest in his later life, Kepler was known as a pius believer, Newton actually wrote more on theology than physics, Einstein argued against Quantum Physics because of his belief in a rational God. Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, William Hershell, Humphrey Davey, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, etc. were all men of faith(or at least believed in God).
Galileo is the posterboy for atheism, and is put forward as a martyr to science at the hands of an oppressive Church. In reality, the martyrdom of Galileo is largely
myth, and Galileo himself was a religious man, although he didn`t get along with the Catholic Church.
Consider this from his ``Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina``:
I hope to show that I proceed with much greater piety than they do, when I argue not against condemning this book, but against condemning it in the way they suggest-that is, without under standing it, weighing it, or so much as reading it.
And if not, let my book be torn and burnt, as I neither intend nor pretend to gain from it any fruit that is not pious and Catholic.
With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.
Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation of souls - matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.
Even today (in the current anti-religious climate of the modern University and science establishment) there are a great many men of science who believe in God.
According to Livescience.com:
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
Even if you wish to use the more conservative numbers from the study done by Nature Magazine, you will find that, although only one third believe, only 5% more scientists disbelieve, and this number has not risen in over 80 years. For a good analysis of this, see this article.
When one considers the militancy of the atheists in the scientific establishment-particularly the biological sciences, it should be obvious that believers aren`t welcome. Who is going to study biology and be continuously insulted by the establishment for their beliefs? Who is willing to take the kind of abuse that a Michael Behe, say, has to take for going against the Orthodox, atheistic view?
Yet we still see many believers in all fields of science. Why? Because the Heavens declare the Glory of the most High! It`s very hard to see the overwhelming complexity of the Universe-both great and small-and not see a grand design, not see the hand of a Creator.
The great minds of history have understood that!
Throughout history, numerous great men of science were also extraordinarily pious; Copernicus was quite probably a priest in his later life, Kepler was known as a pius believer, Newton actually wrote more on theology than physics, Einstein argued against Quantum Physics because of his belief in a rational God. Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, William Hershell, Humphrey Davey, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, etc. were all men of faith(or at least believed in God).
Galileo is the posterboy for atheism, and is put forward as a martyr to science at the hands of an oppressive Church. In reality, the martyrdom of Galileo is largely
myth, and Galileo himself was a religious man, although he didn`t get along with the Catholic Church.
Consider this from his ``Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina``:
I hope to show that I proceed with much greater piety than they do, when I argue not against condemning this book, but against condemning it in the way they suggest-that is, without under standing it, weighing it, or so much as reading it.
And if not, let my book be torn and burnt, as I neither intend nor pretend to gain from it any fruit that is not pious and Catholic.
With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.
Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation of souls - matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.
Even today (in the current anti-religious climate of the modern University and science establishment) there are a great many men of science who believe in God.
According to Livescience.com:
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
Even if you wish to use the more conservative numbers from the study done by Nature Magazine, you will find that, although only one third believe, only 5% more scientists disbelieve, and this number has not risen in over 80 years. For a good analysis of this, see this article.
When one considers the militancy of the atheists in the scientific establishment-particularly the biological sciences, it should be obvious that believers aren`t welcome. Who is going to study biology and be continuously insulted by the establishment for their beliefs? Who is willing to take the kind of abuse that a Michael Behe, say, has to take for going against the Orthodox, atheistic view?
Yet we still see many believers in all fields of science. Why? Because the Heavens declare the Glory of the most High! It`s very hard to see the overwhelming complexity of the Universe-both great and small-and not see a grand design, not see the hand of a Creator.
The great minds of history have understood that!
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:45 AM
5 Comments:
I also found it interesting that Mary Schweitzer a science technician at North Carolina University made a startling find [68 million years after the T. rex’s death—she found flexible, soft tissue that looked like bone cells and blood vessels with red blood cells inside.] When it was revealed that she was a person of deep faith she became a lightning rod! The Creationists tried to use this discovery as evidence of the Young Earth theory and tried to recruit her while the athiests in the "scientific" community beat her down and tried to discredit the discovery altogether. What a terrible position she was put in.
When one considers the militancy of the atheists in the scientific establishment-particularly the biological sciences, it should be obvious that believers aren`t welcome. Who is going to study biology and be continuously insulted by the establishment for their beliefs? Who is willing to take the kind of abuse that a Michael Behe, say, has to take for going against the Orthodox, atheistic view?
I must admit, I'm somewhat confused. Michael Behe has repeatedly argued that his support of Intelligent Design is scientifically, rather than religiously motivated, so why do you make the claim that criticism of him is religiously motivated?
Behe is not absused for his religious views: he's abused for his unscientific and unfounded views on the nature of biology. It's entirely appropriate for biologists to view his claims with skepticism.
I rest my case; Mark Vandewettering.
Anything which opposes your materialist view must be unscientific, and must be destroyed.
Science and true Christians have always gotten along because they both weigh the evidence objectively. My biology teacher in high school believed in God and pointed out why as we explored the fantastic designs of life. Atheists are much too simple minded.
All this blabbering about the "militancy of the atheists in science" fails to point out that science is a rational evidence-based exercise. It isn't a conspiracy when one side has tons of evidence and the other side has no evidence. If Mary Schweitzer has dinosaur blood then what independent tests have confirmed that this is anything more than a hoax? If Michael Behe has such a good theory then why did he crumble completely in Dover?
Post a Comment
<< Home