...is nothing but a trivial evasive slogan
The above title (enclosed in quotes)
has become such an efficient conversation-stopper whenever the question of God’s
existence is brought up that serious debate on this matter rarely even begins! Clearly, the reigning assumption in
contemporary academia (behind which our culture naively follows) is that the role
of so-called “God-language” is limited to matters of morality and subjective
experiences. What results from that
assumption is that biblical faith cannot, even in principle, gain
traction to ground its legitimacy on a factual basis. The late paleontologist Dr. Stephen Jay Gould
for example claimed he was doing religion a favor by arguing that science and
religion are equally deserving of respect, only to then proceed to strip
religion of all factual authority.
He clarified his thesis by defining “NOMA” as follows:
“NOMA is a simple, humane, rational, and altogether
conventional argument for mutual respect, based on non-overlapping subject
matter, between two components of wisdom in a full human life: our drive to
understand the factual character of nature (the magisterium of science),
and [on the other hand] our need to define meaning in our lives
and a moral basis for our actions (the magisterium of religion).[1]
Is it any wonder
then that the statement, “You can’t prove the existence of God,” is so
commonly employed for the purpose of discouraging conversations that seek to
give an evidential case for the reality of God as the creator of the heavens
and the earth? The apparent goal of
those who employ that slogan is to both denigrate the “God hypothesis” by
categorizing it as fantasy, and then isolate it from the certitude which,
they say, comes “only” through scientific investigation. This ploy is grounded on the naïve assumption
that scientific discourse alone belongs in the category of provable
fact.
For the sake of
full disclosure, even as a Christian I do not challenge Gould’s resolve to shield
science from the jaws of biblical dogma for the reason that the Bible, too, effectively[2]
elevates science as a valid means to understand nature on its own terms.[3]
Yet at the same time, I do challenge Gould’s
absolute confidence that one can attain factual certainty by “doing”
science. Former atheist, the late Antony
Flew, after having repudiated atheism, stated in the account of his conversion that
scientists are indeed disinclined to acknowledge the philosophical limitations of
their own fields in regard to attaining truth.[4] For example, the cause of the material universe
can’t possibly be accounted for in scientific terms for the
reason that, prior to its beginning, there was neither matter nor energy nor
space nor time by which scientific processes could bring it about; not even
conceptually. In addition, every
multi-cellular living form is a functional teleological system; a collage of
interconnecting complexities constructed according to specifications from the syntactical
code that is contained in DNA. According
to Flew, both of these realities led him to abandon his atheism altogether.[5] So although science aids in our understanding
of many areas, it cannot begin to explain the profound wonder of both the
existence of the cosmos as a whole and the functional, exquisitely-complex
living systems that inhabit so much of our world. To be continued...
[1] (Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the
Fullness of Life. Bantam Books, Random House, 1999), p. 175. Boldface mine.
[2] The term “science” was coined by William Whewell well
after Bible times in 1833.
[3] See my essay, “Romans 1:18-20,” together with all my
papers, at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com
[4] Quoting Einstein, he stated, “The man of science is
a poor philosopher.” Antony Flew w. R. Varghese. There is a God.
(Harper One, 2007), p. 91.
[5] Flew, Ibid, pp. 135-6.
