Explaining Revealed Truth to a scientifically-minded person

[Larry1700]

As you may have seen in some of my other posts, I’m trying to provide subtle, yet persuasive arguments to my agnostic or atheist or questioning-new-Christian-by-marriage son-in-law.

I always think analogies are helpful. In trying to explain about the limitations of science, I came up with a black-box example using math (he is a math teacher). The box has two (name removed by moderator)uts and one output. If you put the number 2 at each (name removed by moderator)ut and the box outputs the number 4, if you only knew the concepts of addition and subtraction, you would probably assume that the box adds the two numbers. But then you discover that, upon turning the box around (in order to do a subtracting operation), instead of getting “0”, you end up with a “1”. Since you only know addition/subtraction, you can easily explain the first operation, but not the second. It is only with the additional knowlege of multiplication/division that the box is easily explained.

Can anyone provide further examples/arguments to help him comprehend Revealed Truth, and its importance?

 

[4love2God]

Larry1700 talks about Revealed Truth.

First, what is your definition of Revealed Truth?
I have seen it used on the Forum as : God (or an agent of God) tells something to a person.
So, I am not sure that this is the definition you are using.

If this IS it … then, telling an Atheist that Revealed Truth exists is hopeless.
Since there is no God … there are no revelations from God.

This leads me to think that you have a different meaning . . . please give it.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The black box is a good example of why it is that theories in science are never known with certainty, so it may be a good thing to talk about if he is the sort of person who tries to base philosophy on science. It would be worth pointing out that after Newton did his big thing, it did leak over into philosophy and many people went around saying that the world was completely deterministic (and so began to deny free will etc) - but now quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is not completely deterministic. So certainty cannot be had from science.

But while the conclusions of science are not certain, the conclusions of math are - if you have these axioms, you get these theorems (proven statements). The key there is “if you have these axioms.” If you have different axioms, then different things could be true or false. Philosophy and theology are much more like math than the empirical sciences. If your axioms are true, and if your reasoning is sound, then your conclusions are true - period. In this way, divine revelation can be seen as God giving us something to work with, a set of axioms to help us with the important stuff. And this is an entirely reasonably thing to expect God to do, if He exists.

Of course, there’s that if there - “if He exists.” It would seem to me that that hurdle would have to be overcome first. I would think that three ways to do that would be to present arguments for God from other sources (see Aquinas), to explore the logical consequences of atheism (nihilism, basically nothing matters and everything is worthless simply because there is no worth for anything to have) and see if that coincides with what we know, and to see the best explanation for (some) purported revelations is that they actually are revelations.

I put those three ways in the order of what to me seems to be strongest to weakest. The first is essentially mathematical (World implies God. World. Therefore God.) and so after accepting the reasoning simply shows that He exists. The second is very powerful, except that many people actually do deny meaning and worth intellectually, if not completely by their actions. The third relies on “best explanation” and so falls prey to the “well you just haven’t found a better explanation yet” attack. That, of course, doesn’t disprove anything, but if someone hasn’t already arrived at the conclusion that God does exist and that He is likely to reveal Himself in these ways, etc, then that person may be unlikely to be convinced.

 

[tafan]

Larry1700 talks about Revealed Truth.

First, what is your definition of Revealed Truth?
I have seen it used on the Forum as : God (or an agent of God) tells something to a person.
So, I am not sure that this is the definition you are using.

If this IS it … then, telling an Atheist that Revealed Truth exists is hopeless.
Since there is no God … there are no revelations from God.

This leads me to think that you have a different meaning . . . please give it.

I disagree that it is hopeless. All things are possible with God. OP:dont stop trying, and more importantly: praying.

I am a scientifically minded person. And yes, in my younger days, although never having left the Faith totally, certainly found it questionable (or maybe unimportant is a better word).

I think the first think to do is to make them realize that there have been some great intellects who are faithful. Find one that they may relate to. Other things that they must realize is that the Church is also scientifically minded, the Church sees science as a way of better understanding God through his creation, and as a means of bettering society. The Church was the benefactor of the all of the early scientists.

In other words, first and foremost, they must see the faith as reasonable.

But pray, never stop praying.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’d start by encouraging an interest in studying wisdom as much as science. This person you are talking to may be a victim of scientism … the view that only science can bring us to a verifiable truth. This, of course, is not true.

Many scientists are lacking in wisdom, but very caught up in the pursuit of scientific knowledge so much that they get big heads about that.

For example, the men who had the genius to scientifically create the first nuclear weapons did not have the collective wisdom to see that down this path was a catastrophe of universal proportions waiting to occur. That is a truth that did not require scientific reasoning so much as love of fellow man. That kind of knowledge far exceeds scientific knowledge in the long run.

As someone else has already pointed out, another thing you may want to do is provide a list of great scientists and short quotes from them about God and/or religion. This you might do not to prove anything other than what it is most important to prove … that being a scientist does not require that you be an atheist. See below, for example.

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921

 

[Larry1700]

Larry1700 talks about Revealed Truth.

First, what is your definition of Revealed Truth?
I have seen it used on the Forum as : God (or an agent of God) tells something to a person.
So, I am not sure that this is the definition you are using.

If this IS it … then, telling an Atheist that Revealed Truth exists is hopeless.
Since there is no God … there are no revelations from God.

This leads me to think that you have a different meaning . . . please give it.

I used the phrase “revealed truth” in the way you described. Revealed truth is something that is not discoverable via human reasoning.

 

[Larry1700]

I used the phrase “revealed truth” in the way you described. Revealed truth is something that is not discoverable via human reasoning.

Or perhaps IronDonkey used the appropriate phrase–divine revelation.

(Yes, I quoted my own post. I was unable to edit it, so I quoted it and added the addendum.)

 

[Larry1700]

As someone else has already pointed out, another thing you may want to do is provide a list of great scientists and short quotes from them about God and/or religion. This you might do not to prove anything other than what it is most important to prove … that being a scientist does not require that you be an atheist. See below, for example.

Thanks for the list! Very interesting!