Does Progress Trump Faith?

On December 5, 2012, there was a symposium in New York City where the issue of God and science was debated… again.  The theme of this debate was whether or not progress trumps faith.  I find that ironic.  It seems like over and over again we see this same battle brewing between those who say there is NO god, and those who KNOW God.  Those who say there is NO god indicate that science has eliminated the need for religion altogether.  In this particular debate, it was stated that “we can do it without God.”  Despite the fact that this statement itself is both an admission to the existence of God and a declaration of independence from that God, the statement itself demonstrates just how feeble mankind is in his quest for being like God himself.  We don’t need you, God.  We can do it ourselves.   The statements sound more like a three year old talking to his mom than it does an educated, philosophically minded scientist.  “I’m a big boy now.”

One thing I did like about this particular debate was that it did seem to move beyond the errors that religion has made in the past about science and focused instead on the concept of religion and the existence of God.  I’m no scientist, but I am not completely uneducated in the sciences either.  As a believer in God, I am fully convinced that God and science are not incompatible.  As one of the participants in this debate pointed out, the questions that science is trying to answer are not the same as the questions that religion is trying to answer.  I would take that a step further and say that even when we know all there is to know in this lifetime, we still will never be able to bring these things together.  However, the fundamental message of Christianity and the true message presented in God’s Word are in no way incompatible with anything that science has discovered since the beginning of time.  It is when the church makes declarations about science that are not supported by scripture that we get in trouble.  That has been the problem throughout history.   Ultimately, science and the Bible will be proven compatible.  I believe that.  Call it faith.

Every time these debates come around, though, I am always astounded at the fact that the naysayers in the world just don’t get the hypocrisy of their position.  Consider this statement: “…I want to emphasize that 500 years of science have demonstrated that God, that vague notion, is not likely.”   Beyond the obvious arrogance of the statement is its inherent hypocrisy.   The scientist who made this statement has admitted that he cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.  Rather, his interpretation of the science indicates that it is not likely that God exists.  Ironically, another scientist can look at the same data and draw the exact opposite conclusion – and many of them do - “Three out of five scientists do not believe in God, but two out of five do.”  The whole point is that the very statement that God does not exist is itself a declaration of faith.  No one can emphatically say “There is no God” unless he is either (a) a fool or (b) holds all the knowledge in the universe (which, ironically would make him God).  Since we do not hold all the knowledge in the universe, that just leaves us as fools.  The more adamant the atheist, the greater the fool. These scientists say the empirical evidence does not prove the existence of God, but they fail to acknowledge the truth that it does not disprove him either.  Darwin’s theories may have caused some scientists to doubt the existence of God, but since then “science has made a whole bunch of discoveries, but they point in the opposite direction.”  In other words, the more science we discover, the more evidence we find for the existence of God. Therefore, the intellectually honest scientist can only say “Based on the evidence I have, I do not believe there is a God” – a statement of faith.

Worse than that, those who deny the existence of God simply don’t understand the very nature of our faith in God and its purpose.  According to Hebrews 11:1, faith is the “assurance” of things hoped for and the “conviction” of things not seen.   I hope in the salvation of Jesus Christ and the resurrection to eternal life.  I am so “assured” of this hope that I act on those assurances.  It changes my life.  I live this life based on my hope in the existence of the next life.  Can I prove it will happen? Well I can come up with all kinds of rational, philosophical arguments for it, but at the end of the day it is still “not seen” and so I must have “conviction” in my mind that even though it remains unseen, it is nevertheless true. Ultimately all faith requires us to believe in something that cannot be proved. There is no such thing as "blind faith."

Ironically, the anti-God contingent lives by faith as well, and they do not even realize it.  They have a hope also, but it is such a meaningless hope.  Their hope is that their interpretation and understanding of the empirical facts that they have observed is correct.  They have no hope for the future, just hope for this life.  They are living for this life alone and they are hoping that there will be no accountability for their actions in the afterlife, so they posit that no such afterlife exists.  As is our hope, their hope remains “not seen,” but yet they hold fast to their convictions.  So “assured” are they in their hope and so “convicted” are they in what they cannot see that they long to proselytize the rest of us to their way of thinking – to their faith.  As one of the scientists in this debate said when he pointed out that as a Christian, the opposition had already rejected all gods but one, “What I am asking you to do is go one god further with us.”  Join us. Believe as we believe.  Live as we live.  Become one of us. Sometimes atheists are better proselytizers than we are.  They may not want to admit it, but they live by faith, too.

Is this really progress?  Are we to replace one faith with another faith?  When nothing can be absolutely proven, then only faith remains.  That is the difference between science and religion.  The purpose of science is to set out to find and discover that which can be discovered.  The purpose of religion is to put meaning on those discoveries.  Even if the faith of some determine, like it was stated in the debate, that perhaps there is no purpose at all.  What a pitiful meaning their religion has given them!

We all choose our faiths for a reason.  Some choose their faith because it is the only thing they know.  Others choose their faith because they need to justify their life choices.  Still others choose their faith because they have come to the conclusion that their specific faith holds the key to the meaning of life.  Of all the religions in the world, including atheism, I only know of one religion in which God himself chose to come to earth as a man, suffered and died to pay the penalty of the wickedness that I have done in life, and rose from the grave to defeat death.  Science cannot grant eternal life, only study it (although admittedly they are trying in good religious fashion).  Of all other religions, Jesus is the only one to actually defeat death; and yes, there is enough evidence for me to choose to believe that is true. Jesus is the only one who claimed to be God and performed miraculous acts to prove his case.  Jesus said he was the ONLY way to have eternal life.  If he is telling the truth, then there is ONLY one way to God; only one true religion; only one means of salvation; and only one path to eternal life.  Exclusivity is not in vogue these days, but when someone makes these assertions, you must assume that they are either (a) a lunatic or (b) telling the truth.  Vogue or not, I believe he was telling the truth.  That is the whole point of faith.

Note: the information about the debate in New York City used in this blog was obtained from an article at http://www.livescience.com/25303-science-vs-god-debate.html.

Blog copyright (c) 2012 Joel J Dison