God’s Not Dead, Chapter 2 – Science and Faith (pt16)
SCIENCE AND FAITH
Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.
The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.
They believed the universe was crafted by a purposeful God who created humanity in His image, creatures who could (to borrow Johannes Kepler’s famous phrase) “think God’s thoughts after Him.”
Quotes attributed to C. S. Lewis, Albert Einstein, and the Broocks respectively. I doubt anyone would deny Lewis’ spirituality but I would Einstein’s, and as you can see Einstein may have as well:
How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology?
I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever.
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
I think it is pretty clear that Einstein did not believe “the universe was crafted by a purposeful God…”. I don’t know if the author gave Einstein a false position knowingly or not but you can search for yourself to find more and better quotes than the one the author chose to use and understand his position more clearly.
Continuing, the author brings up Galileo’s story of science vs. faith.
When atheists reference the church’s brutal treatment of Galileo as a result of his scientific discoveries, they are overstating the real story. It is not typical for faith to so oppose science.
Second, he challenged not only the religious views of his day but the scientific and philosophical ones as well.
Perhaps overstatements have been made but that doesn’t mean no reprehensible actions have been taken on behalf of the church. The scientific community wasn’t out for blood against him, Galileo was put on trial for facts that were backed by evidence by the Catholic Church. The scientific community may have had some hurt feelings but they would have observed that his thoughts and findings were the result of evidence that they themselves could reproduce. The church declared the heliocentric theory of the solar system to be heretical, and they were RIGHT. Heresy is defined as “Characterized by, revealing, or approaching departure from established beliefs or standards.” That is what science is about!
In all affairs it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
This was one of the quotes that really hit me hard when I was unsure of where I stood on the god question. Bertrand Russell is one of those guys you get to know when you go deeper into the rabbit hole that is atheism.
In the end Galileo’s observation that the earth was indeed rotating around the sun had no bearing on any tenet of faith but merely on an interpretation of Scripture that would eventually change.
A doctrine or teaching from the almighty should not be so easily misinterpreted. A universal truth should not be written in allegory or poetry. Universal constants don’t get reinterpreted throughout the ages. Religions have a hold on to ambiguity and special pleading to allow the teachings to be reinterpreted to mean whatever they want it to mean in any situation.
Some interpretations of scientific data seemed, at first, to contradict Scripture but later had to be adjusted and ended up confirming Scripture (such as the universe having a beginning), so the door swings both ways.
This is not a very good position to maintain, called the tu quoque fallacy. Like a thief saying ‘I may have stolen that car, but I know you’ve eaten a grape at the store.’ I don’t agree that science has ever changed its mind because of the position religion held on a point, especially on the beginning of the universe.
I urge you to do some research if you think science changed its mind from a static eternal universe to the big bang theory because religion says god created the universe. Please.