If you ever find yourself in a position like this, you have three choices: 1.) You can drop the matter and retreat with your tail between your legs 2.) You can start firing off theistic, scientific arguments related to creation or intelligent design or 3.) You can challenge the underlying assumptions using the truth of God's Word. (Yes, there are also several, less-civilized options you could employ involving punching and/or name-calling, but I'm assuming you care - at least a little bit - about preserving your Christian witness.)
So how do we "challenge assumptions"? In theory, it's simple: you ask questions. But there's an art to it. You want to ask good questions that get a person to think about things they normally take for granted. In this case, a question like, "What do you mean by 'science'?" would be a great place to start.
Many people do not realize that "science" has become a loaded term. It doesn't merely refer to the scientific method anymore - the process of making observations, stating a question/problem, forming a hypothesis, testing it through experiments, analyzing the data, and coming to a conclusion. Rather, today, the word "science" has morphed to include naturalism - the philosophical belief that everything arises from physical properties and causes while excluding and discounting any and all supernatural explanations. However, naturalism has nothing to do with science. In fact, it's quite unscientific in that it rules out a whole spectrum of possibilities before the process even begins. But since many (though not all) scientists come from a naturalistic mindset, their assumptions have been grafted into the discipline itself. Ironically, such scientists are displaying their own faith-commitments with these assumptions despite their condemnation of the "faith-based" nature of other "religions".
But even if we just stick to the scientific method itself without accusing anyone of imposing their own beliefs
on it, we find that the whole system itself relies on MANY assumptions which we can challenge by asking questions. Consider the following:
1.) Assumption: The very name, "science" comes from the Latin word for "knowledge" which assumes that truth exists and it is possible to know it.
Question: How do we know that truth exists in the first place?
2.) Assumption: Science is based entirely upon human observation which assumes truth can be known through our senses.
Question: Why do we assume that our senses are reliable?
3.) Assumption: When we use experiments to test a hypothesis, we assume that we can use the laws of logic to tell the difference between "true" and "false."
Question: How do we know we can trust these laws to give us truth?
4.) Assumption: When we make predictions about the future based on past experiments, we assume the laws of nature won't change and that future will be like the past (known as "uniformity of nature").
Question: How do we know the future will be like the past?
How can anyone answer these kinds of questions? If the person in our example wants to stick to the mantra, "Science!" they have a bit of a problem. The scientific method cannot account for the concepts of truth, knowledge, the laws of logic, or uniformity of nature because they are preexisting conditions, which means they must already be in place for it to work. To use science to explain where things like truth and knowledge come from would actually involve committing a logical fallacy called begging the question (a form of circular reasoning) which means to assume as true what you are trying to prove as true. It's like when you use a word in it's own definition. So if science can't answer this question for us, where do we turn?
Well, naturalism can't help us here because truth, knowledge, logic, etc. are abstract (nonphysical) concepts. How can we get the notion of truth from matter and energy? Can you measure logic in terms of mass or volume? Does knowledge give off light or heat? Of course not. Yet, the very same naturalist who says that everything has a physical cause will use these nonphysical principles in his scientific research even though he cannot adequately explain their existence.
With good questions, we can point out the inconsistencies that arise when we try to take God out of the picture. Then, if we get the opportunity, we can show how God's Word tells us where truth, knowledge and logic come from: “in [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Colossians 2:3) Any kind of knowledge or understanding we have about the world comes from God because He is the creator and source of all things visible and invisible (Colossians 1:16). God owns the universe and everything in it, including science and all of the laws upon which it rests (Psalm 24:1).
Does that mean only Christians are able to do science? Clearly not. Every day, unbelievers live in God's world and borrow from the laws He put in place all the while denying His existence. For a time, God graciously allows people to live in His world, study it, and unlock its mysteries even though they don't give Him any credit or praise for creating it in the first place. But that isn't to say He does not eventually take just action against them:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:18-21)
God has made Himself clearly known to us through what He has made (Psalm 19:1-2). The unbeliever's problem is not a lack of scientific evidence (there's plenty!), but it is the sinful rebellion against God that prevents him from acknowledging his Maker. Thus, the denial of God's existence is not based in intelligence or science, but in foolishness:
“The fool says in his heart, “There is no God."
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.” (Psalm 14:1)
“The fool says in his heart, “There is no God."
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.” (Psalm 14:1)
In conclusion, real science (i.e. the scientific method) does not disprove God, but it relies on nonphysical principles which can only be explained by God's existence. Science, in it's pure form, leads us to a deeper understanding of God through what He has made. We must not allow the faith-based assumptions of naturalists cloud the notion of what is "scientific" and what is not. They cannot account for truth, knowledge, and logic, but Christians can. Therefore, we must not avoid or shy away from science because of "anti-God" stigmas. Rather, we should use good questions to challenge faulty assumptions and reveal the foolishness of denying the God who has made Himself clearly known through His creation. Our ultimate goal is not to win arguments, but to gently and lovingly lead people to a knowledge of the truth in the hope that God will grant them repentance from their sin as well as faith in Jesus Christ for their salvation (2 Timothy 2:24-26).
*I recognize that many people take a much more sophisticated approach to arguing against the existence of God than the example given in this post, but since I have found it to be a common line of dialogue I thought it would serve as a good starting point.
*I recognize that many people take a much more sophisticated approach to arguing against the existence of God than the example given in this post, but since I have found it to be a common line of dialogue I thought it would serve as a good starting point.
No comments:
Post a Comment