The Historic Alliance of Christianity and Science | Reflections

Kenneth Samples has posted an essay he wrote about how science and Christianity are related to one another. He wrote:

Conflicts between scientific theories and the Christian faith have arisen through the centuries, to be sure. However, the level of conflict has often been exaggerated, and Christianity’s positive influence on scientific progress is seldom acknowledged.² I would like to turn the tables by arguing for Christianity’s compatibility with and furtherance of scientific endeavors and by arguing against the compatibility of naturalism and science.

Read his essay using the following the link.

The Historic Alliance of Christianity and Science | Reflections

Related articles

• Science, religion and respect for meaning (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• The Stupidest Statement of the Month (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• Science & Christianity: Are They Compatible? (str.typepad.com)

Has Science Made Belief In God Obsolete? - apologetics - blip.tv

Here is a great lecture from Dr. J.P. Moreland on science and believing in God!




Has Science Made Belief In God Obsolete? - apologetics - blip.tv

FacePalm of the Day #30 - Debunking Christianity: Science Saved My Soul

I for one agree science is wonderful and I love it. However I disagree with John Loftus about how science relates to Christianity. His post deserves a Facepalm because science, when it is not biased by naturalistic materialism,points to God - His presence, intelligence, and power. And finally how can science "save" a soul given that the majority of materialists deny the existence of the human soul.





Debunking Christianity: Science Saved My Soul

Common Sense Atheism » CPBD 045: Richard Carrier – Is Christianity Responsible for Science?

Here is an interview with Richard Carrier in which he tries to explain why Christians are wrong in saying that science needed Christianity. I agree with him but I think he's over-reaching.  I haven't heard Christian scientist ever try to suggest that no science was ever done without Christianity. I wouldn't ever try to argue that. It's amazing that some atheists are more than willing to argue that the ancients were knowledgeable about a great much of science and engineering, yet when it comes to believing that they the can correctly record historical events they are inept. Carrier makes good points that the ancients did see order in the universe and studied it. The interview is interesting but I can barely hear the interviewer but you can hear Carrier very well. I disagree with much of Carrier's conclusions but we need to be careful not to assume that God does not give nonbelievers enough grace to be moral or to learn about the Universe He created.

 ¹⁸The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.- Romans 1:18-20

Common Sense Atheism » CPBD 045: Richard Carrier – Is Christianity Responsible for Science?

Atheism and Science - Is There a Relation?, part 1 | True Freethinker

Mariano has written a great post discussing the relationship between Atheism and Science. They are not as close as people try to make them out to be.

Atheism and Science - Is There a Relation?, part 1 | True Freethinker

Related articles by Zemanta

• The rise and rise of atheism | Rachel Holkner (guardian.co.uk)
• Smart Men Cheat Less [Can't Argue With Results] (gawker.com)
• The Arrogance Of The New Atheism (oliverwillis.com)
• Embracing Evolution, But Not Dawkins (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

I read an article that seems to explain how non-creationists define evolution.  Never let it be said that I don't post ideas alternate to my own.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Atheist Liberals More Intelligent than Religious Conservatives, Say Scientists

A little while ago I came across an article hypothesizing that Atheists Liberals are more intelligent than religious conservatives using IQ Tests!

From the article: “Religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.”

I took three IQ Tests when I was 17-18 years old. My highest score was 114...100 was supposed to be average. IQ tests prove nothing but how close you can think like the person who made the test. I also think that the article makes no sense. The article is wrong. Half of the population is neither Atheistic nor Liberal. The thought that some people are unable to believe agrees with the Bible. It is also funny to see atheists trying to account for religion from the standpoint of evolution and then trying to argue that more people don't believe because we are evolving. Really pathetic. I have yet to see any understanding or evidence for a genetic mutation affecting how people's minds work.

Atheist Liberals More Intelligent than Religious Conservatives, Say Scientists

Related articles by Zemanta

• Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent? (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

Atheism is Dead: The Myth of Warfare Between “Science,” “Religion” and “Miracles”

Mariano did posted a great article containing an interview with John Lennox on the science and religion. I would think that anyone interested in relationship of science and religion should listen to this. His is the only debates I can find where Richard Dawkins debated a man of science who is also a Christian theist.

Atheism is Dead: The Myth of Warfare Between “Science,” “Religion” and “Miracles”

Showing the Belief in God is Reasonable

Update 08-11-09. I'd like to thank AdamJTP for discussing this post with me on Twitter. As per his points I decided to add a little more points of clarification. My additional comment s are in red.

It's funny to me how when people try to discredit the Bible on the grounds of what it says, history, or science, the conversation always devolves into "Oh yeah, prove there is a God!" and "Oh yeah, prove there is no God." It gets to that point because the Bible is unassailable. You can confirm much of what it says but can't refute anything it says. Therefore a common objection against proving that God does not exist says "You can't prove a negative." Of course this dodges the question. If you can't prove that God does not exist then why do you close your mind to the possibility? The next part of the challenge to the Christian Theist is to prove that God exists. Of course to the staunchest atheist it really is as the Bible says. It doesn't matter how much evidence you present they refuse to see God's truth.

I've recently been challenged to show that God exists in a logical proof of the kind used in mathematics. They want me to state my givens - state the axioms on which my argument rests. I admit that i wasn't clear in my twitter exchanges. The Bible itself states that we understand that God created everything because of our faith. This faith is not blind, nor is it defined the way the non-believing, secular world defines faith. No, when I use the word "faith" I mean it the way the Bible uses it, not colloquial America. Therefor, I ask if anyone comments on the post or have as problem with it that they remember that I am making the following axiom from Hebrews 11: 1-6

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

This is just one of the axioms, I'm suggesting. If you want argue that I can't use it, keep in mind that the validity of the Bible is another, separate issue - and out of scope in this discussion. In addition recall that in geometric proofs it is just assumed, and without proof, that two lines determine a point and three points determine a plane. If you want to argue that the above is not faith (pistas - in Kione Greek) then please also explain why we can define line and point without proving that there are "points".

As I stated earlier, I intend to list all of my assumptions and then show that the Bible ascribes all the attributes of the creator of the Universe, given what we know. Before I go farther, I want to remark that it has been said that this post is silly because no one has been able to successfully argue for the existence of God. Let me be clear: I am arguing that the preponderance of the evidence points to the God of the Bible and if you honestly consider the evidence and trace it out, you will have either decide to outright reject God consciously or fall to your knees and in worship and adoration. There is no middle ground. I'm not naive enough to think that this one post will have the desired effect, but what I am intending is to give anyone who reads this and "sitting on the fence" to have a starting point to make a decision.

Let's get started with my assumptions. If anyone wants to debate or argue any of these, I will take on such challenges later on. Just let me know.
1. The universe is not eternal.
2. At some point time and space came into existence.

AdamJTP had suggested that I don't need to state axiom 1 because it logically follows axiom 2. I placed it there because it's not an obvious point to some people.

3. Something that begins to exist must have a cause

AdamJTP challenge me that there is something that can happen without a cause. He cited radiactive devay as an example which according to the Copenhagen interpretation radioactive decay is causeless. I had to point out that not all physicists agree. You can check out the article I sent him here at Nuclear Decay Cause.

4. Something can only be brought into existence by something greater than itself.

AdamJTP offered the example of how a simple equation [The Julia set (z^2 + c)] can generate a complex graph. The thing is a mind came up up with the equation and that mind is more complex than the graph. We still have something being made by something not greater than itself.

5. The universe is so fine-tuned in such a way that only the reality that we observe is possible.
6. The Bible describes a personal, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and omniscient supreme being.
7. In order that something is designed, there must be a designer.
8. A designer must have person-hood, thought, purpose, and will.
9. There is no other known god, worshiped by human beings that fits the description of God in the Bible.
10. For every event, there are possible alternative outcomes.

Logic
If the universe is not eternal, then it had a beginning.
If the universe had a beginning then it had a cause
If the universe had a cause then the cause must be greater that itself.

If the constants and laws governing the universe is fine-tuned to result in the reality we can measure, observe, and predict, then it must be so because it was set up to be so.

If the universe is set up a certain way, then it was designed purposely.
If the universe is designed purposely then there was an intellect who know knows all things in the universe it designed.

If the universe is designed then the sum total of all its matter and energy must have been in control of its designer.

If the universe is designed and there are so many possible alternatives that could have become reality instead of the one we experience, then the designer would have had to be able to manipulate multiple events in diverse locales simultaneously.

If the universe is designed, then it must have a designer greater than itself.

If the designer is greater than the universe and everything in it, then by definition the designer is omnipotent.

If the designer is greater than the universe and everything in it, then the designer must know everything about it therefore the designer is omniscient.

If the designer is aware of and sees multiple locals of the universe simultaneously, then the designer is omnipresent.

If the designer is greater then the universe, then the designer is eternal - no beginning. No end.

If the designer fits all the characteristics I have outlined then HE must be the God of the Bible.

The God of the Bible exists.

QED

I'm sure there are many people who disagree with my assumptions and my proof based on those assumptions. If you disagree, explain why you disagree. If you think it's not worth your time, that is your rifght, but bear in mind that I'm correct, your soul hangs in the balance. Go search out the evidence and be really, really sure. There is nothing worse then to be cut off from God. Seek God while you can.

A lot of great men and women have done great work on looking at the evidence of God as a creator. Some of them I have covered in previous blog posts. Here is a list of some previous post I recommend reading, which will lead you to other resources.

Sunday Quote: Stephen Hawking on the Big Bang - Apologetics 315
Does Faith Make Sense In An Age of Science?
Richard Dawkins and John Lennox: Has Science Buried God? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315
Astrophysics Points to the God of the Bible MP3 Audio by Hugh Ross - Apologetics 315
Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator"
Jay Richards Vs Christopher Hitchens - Intelligent Design
“Fine Tuned Cosmos” by David Heddle (Faith and Science Part 2)

If I were to pick a single chapter out of the bible that I would say goes with this post, it would be Romans 1.

In case it was missed, I want to make sure that the point of God's eternality is something non-negotiable. It's taught throughout the entire Bible. The divine name literally means that God has no beginning or end. To ask "What caused God?" makes no sense because the God Iam declaring has no beginning. As a human being it's hard to imagine anything that has no beginning but that is how God describes Himself. If you want to argue that a god who has a begginiing and and is bound by time then I will agree with any atheist - that god does not exist. However that is not the God of the Bible.

Phillip Johnson Lectures

Brian, whose blog Apologetics 315 you really should check out if you haven't, has tweeted links to 2 very interesting lectures by Phillip Johnson

Darwinism: Science or Philosophy

I found the lecture pretty informative but not really amazing. No new Information but worth listening to. The man's expertise is in law, I thought that he was going to talk about how Dawinism has changed our society's views on ethics and morality.

Can Science Know the Mind of God? The Case Against Naturalism

I liked this lecture better because he really discusses the implications of Dawinism.

“Fine Tuned Cosmos” by David Heddle (Faith and Science Part 2)

Brian, from the Apologetics 315 blog, has tweeted a very interesting article from
Thinking Christian. It is the 2nd part to an lecture I posted about last week. You can download or listen to the lecture at Thinking Christian.


This an awesome lecture by a capable physicist, David Heddle, Ph.D. and has provided a powerpoint that goes with this lecture. It's really fun and he lays out the arguments well. He has a blog called He Lives.

I thought that he put together a great argument of how current cosmology and physics confirm the evidence for the existence of God. He points out that the more we learn about the universe, the more we see more about how amazingly God put together the universe.

Here is David Heddle's powerpoint

FineTunedCosmos

Uploaded on authorSTREAM by mmcelhaney | Upload your own presentation

Does Faith Make Sense In An Age of Science?

Brian, from the Apologetics 315 blog, has tweeted a very interesting article from
Thinking Christian. It is a lecture in which the question is asked: Does Faith Make Sense In An Age of Science? It is well demonstrated that it does make sense. And the interesting thing about the lecture is that a lot of myths surrounding the relationship between Christianity and science are debunked. Things that I thought that were true that aren't. For example there is no reference to European in Medieval times believing that the earth was flat until Washington Irving's work in the early 19th Century. Dates and documentation are expertly cited. The idea is also developed that Christianity is necessary for science as we know it today...not sufficient cause for science to develop but essential. You can download or listen to the lecture at Thinking Christian.