Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science



On May 19, 2005, at 8:37 PM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:
Relying on evidence is precisely the opposite of
relying on faith.


John,

While I agree with much of what you said, I do not agree with the
statement above. You are describing what I call "blind faith" and
this indeed relies on no evidence. On the other hand, I know people
of faith, including scientists, that are confident that there is a
basis (evidence) for their faith.

For example, Christian faith is founded on the virgin birth, death,
and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously, a virgin birth and
resurrection from the dead are supernatural events that cannot be
explained scientifically. That's why belief in these things require
"faith" and is not classified as science.

However, Christian faith is based on eye witness testimony, of which
our earliest manuscripts are very near to the events recorded.
Christians must examine the evidence of whether that eye witness
testimony is credible. In other words, are the events described more
likely to be explained by a supernatural explanation (divine birth
and resurrection) or natural explanation (eye witness testimony was
accurate, though witnesses were faked out, or testimony was purposely
falsified, i.e. a conspiracy)?

In summary, Christians must have faith that a supernatural
explanation is the best explanation for the events recorded in the
Gospels. But that faith is based on evidence of eye witness
testimony. On one hand, their faith is not "blind faith" but is based
on evidence. On the other hand, a supernatural explanation is
obviously not a scientific explanation.

So, can scientists ever accept a supernatural explanation?

For a scientist who is a Christian, there are many events surrounding
the life of Christ that must be explained supernaturally. Also, that
scientist would probably believe in prayer and that God answers
prayer today, supernaturally. On the other hand, that scientist would
not use supernatural explanations every day in the lab or to provide
scientific hypotheses regarding observations in the physical world.

Is this acceptable?

Aaron
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l