A friend shared this link on Facebook today. It's a debate between an atheist and a Christian pastor, moderated by a journalist for Newsweek.
I'm not particularly a fan of debates like these. It is like Alma and Korihor - he said, he said. Nothing the one says is going to convince the other on the points that they differ on.
Mr. Harris is quite poisonous IMO. He insists that morality and altruism can be achieved without faith. Mr. Warren attributes that need that most people have for doing good to be from God. Mr. Harris cannot deny that people feel that need for purpose, because to do so would alienate his audience. But he can get them to deny the existence of God. And that's really all the Adversary needs to get his foot in the door. He doesn't need to dismantle people in one blow, he can do it a little at a time.
I just think it is funny that atheists deny the existence of God for scientific reasons, i.e. there is no proof that he exists. Einstein could not countenance the possibility of particles smaller than the atom, and yet when technology advanced, there is no denying that there are in fact protons, electrons, and neutrons. And a few years later, they discovered that there are parts smaller still, quarks and muons and such. Einstein's theories have been left behind because they cannot account for quantum mechanics. But to tell him all that we now know and say, take my word for it, he'd never believe, or at least have a hard time believing it. But you would know that you were right. Science has a way of cannibalizing itself as new discoveries are made, out with the old, in with the new. Just because we cannot see atoms and electrons and muons, does not mean they are not there. Just because we choose not to see evidence in God, does not mean he is not there. What the scientific community knows, or thinks it knows, today will not be what it knows in a year, let alone a decade or a century.
I also think it is silly for people of religion to dismiss science. Just because Hawkings' A Brief History of Time was not written by Moses or Paul and included in the Bible does not make it a lie. To say that God took 65 million years or longer to create the earth instead of snapping his fingers or wiggling his nose like a pop culture wizard, does not take away any of the awe and wonder we should have in the Creation.
And I was wondering what I was going to be grateful for today! I am grateful for my faith. I am grateful that it is not exclusionary. I am glad that rationality has a place in my belief system. But also that all the competing theories and breakthroughs and changes in scientific understanding will not whip me about like a boat on a stormy sea. All the theories and mysteries of the universe are secondary. They are fun to think about, but are not necessary for me to comprehend even a fraction, as long as I have faith in God and the Atonement of His Son.
10 comments:
Ok, first I have to throw in my nerdy two cents - Einstein actually did know about electrons etc. because he was rubbing shoulders with people like Niels Bohr and was around for things like the Manhattan project. But yes, quarks, leptons, muons, those were unknown. Einstein himself acknowledged that his theories were imperfect which I think correlates well with what you said - even he acknowledged that it was better then before, but not quite there.
I agree - in the lab right as I came in a paper was published on a theory and shortly thereafter we got some new data so a new paper was published revising said theory significantly. Science is a beautiful way of understanding how God works. But the more I learn about it, about how much we really don't know, and about how amazingly detailed, coordinated, and intricate everything is, the more in awe I am of what He has created. And I know we're only scratching the surface. I think the problem comes when people try to rationalize their faith - and put science first, faith second. I think you put it well. It's the other way around. Scientific principles are wonderful to ponder and study, but they change. Theories change. Our understanding changes. But God. God never changes. I loved your analogy - that amidst this change we can be firmly anchored and enjoy the science, but not be shaken by it because of faith in our unchangeable Creator. Thank you for your post.
I think both our personal understanding of faith as well as our understanding of science can change. I think they should change. Our knowledge and our faith need to grow, and growth requires change.
Scientists like Harris give other scientists a bad name. They also alienate religious people from good science. The scientists that claim science proves God doesn't exist are just as blind as the religious people who claim a scientific basis for a 6000 year old earth. Science can't prove God doesn't exist, and it can't prove he does exist. That's a job for faith and the spirit.
I have met moral atheists. Unfortunately, the atheists that get attention are the loud obnoxious ones.
I think Einstein was open-minded, but like all good scientists, I think he was also a bit of a skeptic; he didn't just accept things people told him. I think he'd accept what we know now if he had the chance to take a good look at it, to study it.
The great thing about science is that it continually improves. We get new theories, we learn more about how things work, we understand the world better. The things we can discover are endless. And the things we already know can be quite powerful.
Another comment: I also find much of Warren's arguments to be underwhelming. If the Bible were the only source of truth for me, I doubt I would be much of a believer.
A friend of mine at church said that if he wasn't LDS, he'd probably be atheist. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I don't think I'd be mainstream Christian.
So as far as being thankful goes, I'm thankful for the spirit.
But... but morality and altruism *can* be achieved without faith.
Warren: "If death is the end, shoot, I'm not going to waste another minute being altruistic." Wow. Says something about a person. He needs his faith in order to be a good person? Sad.
Note: Sam Harris is not a scientist. He's an author and a philosopher.
The idea that no god means "life doesn't matter" is patently false, and spoken only by someone who's never lacked religion or faith.
The idea that it's "intelligent design" vs. "random chance" is also a complete falsity, and shows Warren's complete lack of understanding about this thing he keeps referring to as "science."
For rationality and belief to go actually together in practice, and not just in name only, it requires a rational study of your belief. How can one be rational if they haven't studied varying viewpoints? And I'd be willing to bet you've never made that sort of study of your own church's history. This is not your fault. You don't have all the facts at your disposal, and you're taught not to seek them out. There is nothing rational about faith in god. If you can accept that, that's fine, but don't try to pretend like they go together somehow.
But, again, the idea that the "need that most people have for doing good [is] from God" is naive, incorrect, and more than a little insulting.
Believe what you will, I don't consider them mutually exclusive.
Averted - before you are too harsh on faith, I would recommend you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis - I think it puts rationality, faith, and God together very poignantly. I would also recommend a careful reading of the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon. I have yet to read a book more faith filled, clear and more rational. I have often found that those who recommend studying "varying viewpoints" have made few serious inquiries into true Christianity.
I have read all three, the Book of Mormon and Bible many, many times, and many other works of C.S. Lewis.
Listen, I'm sorry I got into the faith/reason thing. Bill already said it right, that's not going to go anywhere.
I'm just really tired of the negativity towards atheists and atheism. This idea of the necessity for religion or God to be "good." Science vs. religion. All of that. A guy like Harris isn't my favorite author of the atheist bunch, but he's well-spoken, makes good points, and has important things to say in that interview. But he's dismissed outright, nothing he says matters because he's "atheist." He doesn't have "the Gospel" in his life. People seem to be able to respect everyone else's religions okay, but first thing someone decides that God is not for them, they're evil. They can't be a good person. They can't be as happy as you are. It's nonsense. If you want to practice your religion, fine. But let me not practice yours or any others without being demonized for it. And just because some of us want to talk about our non-belief and bring up completely valid points about the "necessity" of religion, that doesn't make anyone outspoken or mean or hate-filled or angry or anything else. It's one of the few topics that's still taboo in this society, in many ways, but it's important, and if people are that scared about discussing religion or the lack of it with some degree of intelligence and dignity, then that says something about their faith.
In my post, I did something that I caught a friend doing on one of his posts, and that is misrepresent a viewpoint I disagree with. It was not intentional, but a mistake nonetheless. But I do not feel the need apologize for disagreeing with atheism, just as I am sure Averted feels no need to apologize for disagreeing LDS beliefs, or religions in general.
I think Harris was arguing that altruism need not be based in faith in God, not that there is no basis in faith. But I do believe that it takes faith in something. There are many people that claim a religion, or claim to be religious that are not good people. They don't do good, they are not helping their fellow man. And many people that do good are not judeo-christian, or religious at all in the way that people think. To me, it takes a faith in something better. Many think that something is God, others Nirvana, etc. But it takes faith in something. Maybe that something is the nobility of mankind. Or the rule of law, or the social contract. Or perhaps it's just faith in one's self that they are more than just an animal.
All I can say, as I have said in the past, is that I can only account for my personal experience. And my experience is that God exists, not that I can prove that to anyone else. My experience is that I am happy following my belief. My experience is that science and faith are not mutually exclusive, and that is what I mean when I say I can be rational and have faith in the same moment, whether anyone else believes I am being rational or not. Why anyone else's experiences lead them to believe differently than me, that I cannot account for. My experience is not your experience.
Post a Comment