Even if evolution were true

[Siddhartha]

When I speak to groups of evangelicals, I am sometimes asked if I can think of any potential finding of science that would cause me to lose faith. I enjoy reflecting on that question. Consider, for example:

     1. Even if it turns out that our sense of right and wrong emerges through natural selection and other natural processes that can be explained through science--and I personally suspect this will be the case -- it does not in any way imply the absence of a personal God. The Creator, after all, may well function through natural selection in some manner that the scientific process is not equipped to detect.

     2. Even if it turns out that the human mind emerges from molecules interacting in a manner that can all be explained through the physical properties of matter -- which I also suspect is the case -- this in no way implies the absence of a God whose existence is necessary for that mind to come into being. It also has nothing to say about whether there is a God who interacts mind-to-mind with those persons who seek that interaction. Even if the cell and the information it contains is explicable through natural processes, this does not in any way imply the absence of God's Spirit "hovering" (Genesis 1:2) and thereby influence the outcome in some manner beyond exploration by scientific tools.

     3. Even the most contentious issues don't undermine core tenets of evangelicalism. Many brilliant persons have reached the conclusion that there is good reason to believe in a God who works in creation, a God whose action is beyond the realm of scientific testability.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The problem that people fail to understand about science is that even if it were true that the mind and body were separate orders of reality (which i believe to a certain extent), science, as an empirical method, cannot detect it, because science by order of its method cannot detect mind; that which is subjective experience. Science can only detect that which is objective; the empirical method can only detect physical reality. People, religious or otherwise, have always understood that we are physical beings, but there are obviously certain aspects of our experiences as people that appear to be qualitatively and quantitatively different in regards to the inert the interaction of atoms. We are more then the sum of physical interactions; we are more then the sum of our parts.The fact that these realities exist in conjunction with physical reality is irrelevant, and does not explain away the very real difference between a mere brain and a mind. Such things can never be described with physics, because science practices methodological naturalism, and by definition it cannot detect anything but physical interactions. The question of why the quality that is thinking, mind, ideas, and emotions, arises from the interaction of atoms is a philosophical question, not a scientific Question. Nobody has ever opened up a brain and found an idea. You cannot show by clock work processes why people have freewill or why they are conscious of self. Science can only describe and measure the processes which are involved in the working brain. A lot of people fail to realize the very real limits that renders science an imperfect method for understanding issues that concern “people” rather then “objects”.

Its important that we expose the myths of science, since they are both damaging to real science and people, because they make people think that there is a conflict when there really is not.

 

[liquidpele]

What do you mean “if” ??

 

[j1akey]

Siddhartha:

When I speak to groups of evangelicals, I am sometimes asked if I can think of any potential finding of science that would cause me to lose faith. I enjoy reflecting on that question. Consider, for example:

1. Even if it turns out that our sense of right and wrong emerges through natural selection and other natural processes that can be explained through science–and I personally suspect this will be the case – it does not in any way imply the absence of a personal God. The Creator, after all, may well function through natural selection in some manner that the scientific process is not equipped to detect.
2. Even if it turns out that the human mind emerges from molecules interacting in a manner that can all be explained through the physical properties of matter – which I also suspect is the case – this in no way implies the absence of a God whose existence is necessary for that mind to come into being. It also has nothing to say about whether there is a God who interacts mind-to-mind with those persons who seek that interaction. Even if the cell and the information it contains is explicable through natural processes, this does not in any way imply the absence of God’s Spirit “hovering” (Genesis 1:2) and thereby influence the outcome in some manner beyond exploration by scientific tools.
3. Even the most contentious issues don’t undermine core tenets of evangelicalism. Many brilliant persons have reached the conclusion that there is good reason to believe in a God who works in creation, a God whose action is beyond the realm of scientific testability.

Correct, none of the things mention here implies the absence of a god. However, it equally doesn’t imply the existence of a god either.

Regardless of what you’re referring to you can never ever ever prove something doesn’t exist, no matter what it is. I could never prove that a flying pink fire breathing elephant doesn’t exist. We all “know” it doesn’t but I couldn’t prove it just in the same way no one can prove God doesn’t exist.

 

[Matthias123]

Regardless of what you’re referring to you can never ever ever prove something doesn’t exist, no matter what it is. I could never prove that a flying pink fire breathing elephant doesn’t exist. We all “know” it doesn’t but I couldn’t prove it just in the same way no one can prove God doesn’t exist.

True. You know that a flying pink fire breathing elephant doesn’t exist through belief. You do not believe it because the idea of a flying fire breathing elephant existing seems absurd to your intellect. Therefore through faith in your belief, you know that it is not true.

However we claim that it is possible to come to knowledge of the existence of God for certain via the natural world. A perfect example of this would be Aristotle – a lesser example might also include Anthony Flew, who was persuaded through modern versions of the teleological argument (Although I know he is now a Deist.)

However I personally hold a modified version of the Augustinistic position. Augustine said that you cannot come to knowledge of God except through Divine Grace. I hold it is not likely that a man will come to acknowledge the existence of the one true Triune God, unless he is influenced by Divine Grace. Although man can find the truth of the existence of God, he must be willing to except it, and no amount of argument will persuade an unwilling man… The selfish man would rather then accepting his Master, make God in his own image, by turning himself into God, or turning something else into an idol. He also may attempt to rationalize his beliefs with erroneous philosophies and opinions.

Due to the vast amount of knowledge, some true, some completely erroneous, and some partly true and partly erroneous, this rationalization because rather easy. It is very easy to construct an illusion of erroneous opinions and false philosophies around a kernel of truth, and have it convincing psychologically.

In all honesty the secular philosophies today are so ingeniously twisted, and perverted, that it is temping to attribute it to some sort of diabolical providence. Either way, they are just physiologically comforting, and really have very little, if any truth in them.

 

[StrawberryJam]

“In all honesty the secular philosophies today are so ingeniously twisted, and perverted, that it is temping to attribute it to some sort of diabolical providence. Either way, they are just physiologically comforting, and really have very little, if any truth in them.”

Isn’t the idea of living forever with God physiologically comforting?

 

[Matthias123]

“In all honesty the secular philosophies today are so ingeniously twisted, and perverted, that it is temping to attribute it to some sort of diabolical providence. Either way, they are just physiologically comforting, and really have very little, if any truth in them.”

Isn’t the idea of living forever with God physiologically comforting?

Only if you actually like God. Furthermore, this has fullness of truth. Not just a kernel of truth surrounded by error.