In the forum of American public discussion there is no shortage of diplomats seeking to reconcile, or at least bridge the gap between, disparate views. Their aim is to tone down what is often a heated and nasty national dialogue on a particular matter and bring it to a more civil level of discussion. Often this involves claiming that in regards to issue “x,” opinions “y” and “z,” though seemingly contrary, are on some level compatible or complementary. The recent flap over Darwinian evolution and the proposed teaching of “intelligent design” in some public schools provides us with a good example. Debate has been fierce, and so inevitably there has come forth a slew of would-be mediators who have taken this issue and expanded its context. Not content with merely trying to reconcile evolution with intelligent design, these self-appointed arbitrators have sought to show that Christianity and science are actually “compatible.” Pardon me while I allow myself a sardonic chuckle.
As I understand it, most Christian sects base themselves entirely on how they interpret the Bible. The Bible, as anyone knows, is a tome of received “truths” which is, at bottom, a collection of incredible claims and unspeakable brutalities. Despite Christianity’s alleged compatibility with science, in the Bible you will not find any formulae, any repeatable experiments per the scientific method, not one algorithm, and no dialogue which could remotely be said to contain a chain of reasoning about the natural world which amounts to a testable hypothesis. Yahweh’s existence is merely taken for granted from the outset in Genesis; it is not explained how He came to be or on what basis we ought to believe He exists other than that we are simply to take the book’s word for it. Jesus Christ, the Holy Savior, is to be understood as the religion’s Messiah, that “He died for our sins,” whatever that could possibly mean. The New Testament is full of the wonders performed by this “Son of God,” seemingly in defiance of natural laws. Turning water into wine. Healing a beggar’s blindness. Raising Lazarus from the dead. How are we expected to believe that Jesus actually did these things? Blind faith. Simply, because the Bible says so.
Belief in God and Christ as Savior are two very necessary prerequisites for entry into the club of Christianity. Yet there is no scientific basis for believing of either of these as they are described by the Bible. Christian theologians of yore—most notably Aquinas, Anselm and later Paley—attempted to prove the existence of God through purely philosophical means. Though these men certainly believed in the validity of their arguments, I doubt they would grant that God could be proved scientifically along the lines of the scientific method.
Recall that the scientific method has four main steps: 1) Observation of a phenomenon; 2) Formulation of a hypothesis about that phenomenon, i.e., a causal or mathematical relation; 3) Use of the hypothesis to make a prediction; 4) Testing of the hypothesis by appropriate experimentation. It should also be added that steps 3 and 4 ought to be repeated until there exist no discrepancies between hypothesis and conclusions derived from experimentation. In addition, all experiment-related details should be recorded so that the work may be replicated.
Now when it comes to the matters of the Bible, the good book has taken the liberty in many cases to complete steps 1 and 2 for the reader. The phenomenon? The creation of the universe as described by the Bible's omniscient narrator. The hypothesis? Yahweh created it. We will skip 3 since it doesn't clearly have an application here. Step 4? How would one even propose to go about this? The existence of the God of the Christian Bible cannot be verified scientifically. And when a scientific explanation for God Himself cannot even be got, how are the claims that He created the universe, that He sent Jesus Christ to Earth, that He is all-powerful, etc., to be verified? The task is impossible because of the sheer fantastic nature of these claims.
On occasion, a dimwitted Christian who has been told that it is impossible to prove the existence of God will retort, “Well, you can't disprove His existence either,” as a big smile grows across his face after having played his pathetic and end-all “gotcha” card. Yes, it is true. I, nor anybody else could disprove the existence of what the Christian generally means by “God.” Nor could anybody disprove that there exists—over in the next galaxy—a small asteroid shaped exactly like the Taj Mahal. The truth is, I don't know if there is such an asteroid over in the next galaxy; but if I were in fact to claim this is the case, then the burden of proof surely and squarely rests on my shoulders to prove it, and it is not up to you to disprove it. Generally speaking, when an allegation is made—the verification of which is not readily apparent—it is the responsibility of the alleger to prove his claim correct, or at the very least, plausible.
Given the nature of both Christianity and of scientific inquiry, it is clear that the alleged compatibility of the two is something which remains to be seen. However, this is one burden proof that won’t be met any time soon.
-Max
No comments:
Post a Comment