Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Why? - Part 2
Why do people say that God exists?
...can science prove it?
One of the 'Why' questions that came in last week related to what I have summarised in the title. And I think it is a really good question!
Please understand that I can not prove out my thoughts in such a short forum.
I just want to share some ideas to stimulate your thinking and conversation...
Here we go!
I have been in both camps.
Pro Science and Pro God.
For a large chunk of my life I didn't believe in God at all.
I would have said I perscribed to evolution theory as a way of trying to explain the world I lived in. And I was pretty anti anyone who thought differently, especially if they brought God up at all.
Then one day it all changed very suddenly!
On saturday all the way back in 1991 I decided I wanted to follow Jesus. Along with the extreme of that decision, I found my ideas on what was real and how things were, seemed to be shaken to the core.
When we talk about Science vs God and all the permutations, one of the reoccurring themes that comes up is faith.
When you believe in one or the other it takes lots of faith.
To believe that random chance created everything you see and experience takes faith.
To believe that God created everything you see and experience take faith.
Then people talk about evidence...
The problem I have with basing things on evidence is that evidence isn't always definitive.
Evidence these days is based on the balance of probabilities.
The more apparently probable, the stronger the evidence. And bias seems to sway us!
If I look at popular science it tells me that evolution is a key to understanding definitively how the universe came to be. But if we are honest, there are gaps in the theory. And for it to be definitive it can't have gaps...
I think if we are also honest, science can not definitively prove God exists or doesn't exist. And I will add that I don't think God really cares that much. He isn't worried about whether science proves he exists or not...
If you ask all scientists to answer this question you will get both answers. Both saying that science proves it either ways.
Then people move to opinion...
People love to quote others to help build their argument.
And if you can find a 'big name' then that means you have a bigger argument.
Of those that believe in science over God, most popular is at the moment is to quote Stephen Hawking.
I am the first to admit that he is a extremely gifted intellectual.
At the same time, some of the work Stephen has produced proving out some of his theories has been shown to be at best unprovable and at worst wrong. But that doesn't stop many accepting it and adopting it as fact. It goes along with their opinion so it has value to them.
And finally I go to relationship...which may seem strange when we are talking science etc.
But for me this is really important.
As I mentioned before, my thoughts on whether God existed changed when I accepted who Jesus was and what he achieved by his death and resurrection.
The relationship changed my resolve...
If you want to know whether someone is real it seems logical to go find out for yourself.
That is what I did and what I still do...I go looking for myself.
Something to think about...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Ok Locky I'm going to put my thoughts on the matter.
Firstly we need to set some parameters on the subject and define things.
Science, what is it? Science is a method to describe natural phenomenon that occur in the universe. It is evidence based.
Next what is a Scientific theory? This one is terribly misunderstood by the general public. A Scientific Theory is the best explanation to a collection of Scientific facts or evidence.
It is not a made up idea.
Even an hypothesis must have some basis in Scientific explanation. Gravity exists but it is still a theory. Theories change over time or evolve as new evidence is introduced, they aren't generally thrown out, can an idea/ hypothesis be wrong? absolutely, can a Theory? Very unlikely as the evidence as a body of knowledge points to that explanation. Think of it as being like a murder case, the Theory would be who committed the murder and scientific experimental evidence is the evidence pointing to the murderer, if the evidence is sound (repeatable, peer reviewed) then the murderer is easily pointed out.
There are weak theories and strong theories, examples of weak would be 'm-theory' (An attempt to explain what happened before the big bang), strong theories examples are 'Gravity and Evolution'.
As to the gaps of knowledge, yes there are gaps, but if the evidence is strong enough 'beyond all reasonable doubt' then the building still stands, we are just filling in the cracks. A good example is 'Evolution'. Darwin had very strong evidence for evolution and any reasonable person with an open mind when presented with the facts, it gave a compelling explanation. Today that theory has been validated millions of time as more evidence is discovered and previous experiments repeated. Evolution doesn't have an agenda, it is the best explanation of the facts presented.
If there are gaps, then the gaps should be filled with experimental fact/ evidence not supernatural explanation, which by its nature cannot be provable therefore cannot be evidence.
In regards to probability, Science can't guarantee 100% because it can't predict the future, It can only give a probability. Example: chances are that the sun will rise tomorrow, probability is extremely high, 100%? No, because we don't know what will happen.
God by its nature is supernatural, therefore unprovable, But is something that is unprovable able to exist? I'm not sure it can be. Because if God is a force and has an influence on the planet or its inhabitants then this influence should be able to be measured, therefore provable. So far, I have seen no evidence (credible, reputable) that points to this conclusion. If there is some I would love to see it.
If Religions postulate the existence of God then the burden of proof is with them, not with the non-believers to dis-prove. If I state that there is a green mushroom on one Jupiter's moons then I better well have some evidence for it.
If you look at the history of theology, there is a very strong theme running religious enterprises. They offer explanations for Natural phenomenon, sound familiar. From lightning and Zeus, Tidal waves and Poseidon. After close analysis it become painfully obvious that all religious texts are man-made constructs, some of the rules in the old testament are so ridiculous (Numbers) to a modern reader that they only be man-made of their times.
I don't want to be overly critical of religions and their followers, but I'll leave you with this: Why is it that people are quick to praise God for the good things in their lives, but not the bad things. If God is omnipotent, therefore he/she should be responsible for the misery as well. So the question needs to be asked if he/she does exist. It he/she incompetent or just doesn't care. Or as I postulate doesn't actually exist.
Post a Comment