“It is more reasonable to believe only in what I can see. Therefore I only believe physical things exist, not souls, values, God, or anything else immaterial.” This is a third assumption undergirding the “Science or Faith” narrative that is so prevalent in our time. However, as was true for the first two assumptions, this third assumption has at least three fatal flaws, and therefore should be rejected. I have addressed each of these in detail previously, and so in this blog, I will only touch on the three responses and link to the fuller explanations.
A second assumption underlying the apparent conflict between science and faith is, “I should only believe what I can prove with certainty and therefore know to be true. This is only true of science. So I choose science over faith.” When we look more closely at this assumption, it turns out to be equally false.
We often hear that “science is at war with religion,” a story that has been around since the “Enlightenment.” However, it is the wrong story, because the story is based on at least three wrong assumptions. One wrong assumption is that “Science is about facts and Christianity is about faith, and facts win.” Last week I discussed one reason why this assumption is wrong. This week I offer two more reasons to reject this assumption.
It is not uncommon to hear that one must choose between science and faith. However, for those of us who love science and also love Christ, we wonder if there is not a third way. There is. Science and faith. Once we uncover the underlying assumptions of the “science or faith” narrative, it is easy to see why these assumptions are wrong. That’s my goal in this series.
Last week I noted the first wrong assumption behind this “conflict” narrative is the assumption that “Science is about facts and Christianity is about faith, and facts win.” This week I will discuss one of three reasons this assumption is wrong.
2017 ended with a bang—a barrage of sexual harassment charges against Harvey Weinstein and so many others. I call these men “Weinstein et al.” In my last post, I explained that their accusers (rightly) assume Weinstein et al. have violated an objective moral value, and therefore what they did was Wrong. This week I’ll explain why we must be consistent in our ethic, applying this same reasoning to similar moral issues. Otherwise our rebuke of Weinstein et al. is hollow, and our inconsistency is the "Achilles heel" of our quest for human flourishing and the common good.
2017 ended with a bang—a barrage of sexual harassment charges. Harvey Weinstein, Dustin Hoffman, Donald Trump, Kevin Spacey, James Toback, Ben Affleck, Cris Savino, Roy Price, Blake Farenthold, John Besh, Al Franken, Mark Halperin, Michael Oreskes, Lockhart Steele, Matt Lauer, Roy Moore, Russell Simmons (and this only scratches the surface). I’ll call this group “Weinstein et al.”
We continue to search for a reason for the Las Vegas shootings. So far, no “traditional” reason has emerged. Last week I suggested that the reason may be no reason. I outlined a philosophy that is becoming increasingly popular in our culture: nihilism. Is this ringing any bells as we learn more and more about Stephen Paddock? Might it be that he had obtained all which he thought could bring him meaning “under the sun,” and found it was meaningless after all? Might he be someone who so thoroughly embraced the Enlightenment that he lived the nihilistic worldview consistently? And if so, what should we learn from this?
My brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew and his friend were on their way to the Life is Beautiful concert in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 1, 2017 when Stephen Paddock began shooting. Had they not been delayed while on their way by just a few minutes, they would have been in the line of fire. Though I am thankful they were running late, I continue to grieve over the 58 who were not so fortunate. In my grief, I ask the same question everyone else is asking: Why? The answer may be right in front of us, but it is not one we want to acknowledge.
Are there any good reasons to think we are purely physical, and not a unity of soul and body? Last week I considered four reasons that fail. This week I’ll consider a fifth.
Some argue that we should have “blind” faith in science, believing that though now it cannot explain all we are physically, one day it will. I’ll share four reasons this is wrong thinking.
During the intellectual attacks we have been discussing there were a small group of Christians who didn’t Retreat from or Surrender to the contemporary ideas at odds with Scripture. Instead they Engaged the ideas. They were in the world but not “of” the world (John 17:16). Their strategy was to “out-think” the critics of Christianity with sound reasoning and winsome engagement.
I have discussed three attacks that sought to divide faith from reason. So how did believers respond? We responded in three different ways--two wrong ways and one right way...
Having shared in my last post the way believers loved God with their minds several hundred years ago… how did that all change? Christianity encountered another wave of intellectual attack, and for the first time in our history we did not respond in a healthy and helpful way...