God’s Not Dead, Chapter 2 – God or Science (pt15)
GOD OR SCIENCE
Time magazine’s November 13, 2006, cover story was titled “God vs. Science.” The title alone suggested that one must choose between the two.
Why ever would a national magazine use a sensational headline? It’s not like they need to sell more and more copies to survive, is it? No, definitely not that. The article (click the picture above to go there) was a debate, of sorts, between Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins, it is a good read if and when you have the time to get into it.
The author doesn’t really weigh in on what he thinks of this debate but it’s clear that he thinks science and religion can coexist. As in most debates I am in the grey area here. I am convinced that someone can be a scientist and be religious (or more aptly spiritual), but I draw the line where someone claims to be a proponent of science and touts the historicity and factual nature of specific claims of specific religions. For example; Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, cryptid creatures mentioned in the Bible (unicorns) or the Quran (pegasus), and becoming a god in my own right.
Being spiritual and proclaiming the factual nature of astounding claims for which we have no evidence are two separate things. The author makes no point to identify this difference. A middle of the road “cafeteria” Christian is not the same as an ID (Intelligent Design) fundamentalist.
I will take the stance that an ID fundamentalist cannot coexist in the same science arena as Hawking, Dawkins, and Tyson. The “science” they tout as confirming their religion is little more than special pleading and/or confirmation bias. In addition to this I will say that the so-called “cafeteria” Christians have given their faith little thought and can hold on to it by dividing it from the reality of the world.
So, plainly, if I must say truly, I can not say that god and science can coexist. History has shown, through scientific advances, the areas that are attributed to god are becoming smaller and smaller. A great quote I remember and must share here, by Neil deGrasse Tyson:
God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.
Yet science has its own tenets of faith, and real faith is based on facts.
That’s it, that is how the author ends this subsection, with that statement. I was left wanting after reading it. I would like to know just one of these “tenets of faith” that science demands, yet the author provides none. “Real faith” is not based on fact, the author has many times so far in this very book defined faith in terms that say faith is “believing without seeing”. The very heart of “believing without seeing” is that there is no evidence for the stance you are taking, for the belief you have.