Faith Well Grounded

I've been musing on my blog posts of late, and it's fairly obvious through interaction and comments (thanks to e-dogg for his interaction) that I've been on a tangent that misrepresents my original intent in many of my posts. My posts on scientific matters pretty much began here. It was a comparison of the faith inherent in both science and apologetics/Christianity. Those that followed were interested in pointing out the faith involved with science.

Perhaps it is better stated as the faith inherent in the scientists. It is a contrast of philosophies. The scientific process is a beautiful thing to me. I have personally seen God in and through it. But no one who applies the process is immune to their own worldview. No one can escape their own sensibilities. My original point spoke to science’s lack of ability to supply all of the answers, just as Christian apologetics fails to deliver all of the answers. It kind of expanded to cover the accusation that Christians "ignore evidence" in favor of their faith as seen in this flowchart of faith and science.

The above flowchart is rather too simplistic in its portrayal of either faith or science. It misrepresents both scientists and people of faith. It is a false comparison, as it unfairly contrasts a methodology (science) with people who supposedly apply another methodology (faith).

Please allow me the use of quotes to make my point that scientists are bound by their presuppositions. Actually, let me begin by allowing Robert Jastrow (founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute and chair of the Mt. Wilson observatory—an agnostic by faith) to make the point for me.

Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective mind—when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases. -- God and Astronomers - 16 (emphasis mine).

There is a better statement of my driving points in all of this, perhaps by one better equipped to do so. Scientists are people too, people who are applying a methodology. And it is nearly impossible for a person to set aside his presuppositions when interpreting evidence, even (especially) when weighty evidence such as the expanding Universe, General Relativity and the Big Bang define a need for a Cause that transcends us.

Science stands as a bastion for all of us. It is the methodology by which we observe reality and try to learn about it, ourselves, and our place in the scheme of things. But this methodology ends at a definite place. And each of us carries our ideals with us where science ends. For Stephen Hawking, he leaves empiricism where it dies, and he thus speaks of imaginary time. Other scientists speak of the logically impossible infinite regression of time, though all indications point away from this. Yet others misuse quantum physics to try and do away with the need for an uncaused cause, or make our reality that uncause cause.

The philosophy of empiricism has failed them manyfold. It has proved a transendent truth that it will never be able to observe, test or quantify. Science is succeeding, but the philosophy that has been attached to it has failed in its limitations and, in the process, pointed to that which is greater.

I'll stop here for now, but will post a second part very soon. In it I'll delve a bit deeper on how this all ties together.

Be blessed...

custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog