Scientific Methodology[1]
and its Bearing on a Dismissive[2]
Attitude Against Christianity
A truly scientific
conclusion can never be proved. On the
one hand, strictly-mathematical formulas and calculations and also
logical deductions can each be proven for the reason that they are not science. But phenomenal[1]
things, which are the object of scientific study, cannot finally be
proven. This does not mean that
science cannot ever approach the truth.
But scientific truth is often reached only by hard-fought steps. Consider, for example, the search to achieve science’s
present understanding of DNA, to name just one single example among many.[2] So I repeat the point of my previous
paragraph, that instead of settling for rejecting the points of view of others,
scientists seek to reach a conclusion which makes the most sense of the known facts
known. This methodology is called abduction,
also known as the theory of multiple-competing hypotheses. This means that instead of seeking proof,
scientists independently frame the same knowable yet incomplete data in an
endeavor to provide a superior view which harmonizes the same, most comprehensibly,
similar to the group effort of putting a complex puzzle together. Again, the goal is to construct a coherent
picture that includes every puzzle piece.
Interestingly, Dr. Stephen Meyer[3]
argues that it was this very method that Charles Darwin employed in his
investigational work leading to his book, On the Origin of Species.[4] So, if you want to be on the side of science,
deeming atheism to be a default position is wrong-headed for the reason
that it commits, scientifically speaking, a categorical error. Furthermore, it contradicts the scientific spirit.
The bottom line is, every time
Christian claims are dismissed on the allegation that they conflict with
scientific knowledge, the critic has invariably established a standard which s/he
judges must be met in order for Christianity to qualify as truth. Further, the critics also imply that
Christians are obligated to provide reasons for their beliefs in the first
place. Yet the hard fact is that these
realities consequently also obligate the critic as well, in light of the
previous paragraph, to in turn account for their own belief system, which they
imply is superior to that of the Christian.
Russell’s decrial of the insufficiency of the evidence (above) is manifestly
unimpressive because of his neglect to account for either our existence or the
biblical claims about Jesus of Nazareth.
For example, his book, Why I am Not a Christian,[5]
is a com-plete disappointment due to its failure to address either the contemporaneous
cosmological discoveries (e.g. the Big Bang, which persuaded Einstein to
acknowledge a Creator of the universe[6])
as of the time of its first publication in 1967, or the historical evidence
concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.[7] To be continued...
[1] The term means an observable “fact, occurrence, or
circumstance.” Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.(Barnes &Noble,
1989).
[2] James Watson and Francis Crick received significant
criticism both by the scientific community as a whole, and by their scientific
competitors prior to arriving at their ultimate discovery. Bill Bryson. A
Short History of Nearly Everything. (Broadway, 2003), Ch. 26.
[3] S. Meyer. Signature in the Cell. (Harper One,
2009), p. 153. ** J. Ladyman. Understanding
Philosophy of Science. (Routledge, 2002), p. 209f.
[4] Harvard University Press, 2003, facsimile of his 1859
edition.
[5] academia.edu/11791682/Bertrand_Russell_Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian_and_Other_Essays_on_Religion_and_Related_Subjects
[6] Walter Isaacson. Einstein: His Life and Universe.
(Simon & Schuster, 2008), p. 355, 389.
** Antony Flew, Op.cit. (3).
[7] Gary Habermas and Antony Flew. Did Jesus Rise from
the Dead: The Great Debate. (Harper and Row, 1987). Much of this material was also knowable
during Russell’s time too. See Dr. Simon Greenleaf. The Testimony of the
Evangelists (1846). (Kregel Classics, 1995).
[1] The common term is scientific method. Yet I
prefer to add the suffix, ology, because every branch of thinking,
including theology, demands the same level of care even as each one both employs
its own unique data and requires its own specific tools.
[2] By my employment of the word “dismissive” I am not suggesting
every ism deserves an equal level of consideration, but instead that
the very objections posed against Christianity apply equally to the worldview
of the skeptic.
No comments:
Post a Comment