Science proves God to exist…who cares.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between Science and the Supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism … for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”–Richard Lewontin, Geneticist

Why are we asking scientists to acknowledge some paltry  claim that, even if admitted, shouldn’t change the process of Science? For a scientist, any indication of divine intervention wouldn’t alter their intent of investigation.  An honest scientist, upon the development of new evidence, will alter his or her process as is necessary. I couldn’t care less whether a scientist acknowledge, or be open to the possibility of, some form of divinity while searching for the answers to larger questions regarding our existence.

In relation to Christianity, which is made unique due to the personal relationship with Jesus one nurtures through the holy spirit, science is inconsequent. Even if a scientist did “expose” God, that God would most likely take the form of a universal God which would be assigned to all of existence in a way that requires nothing…that God would still, as divinity is now, take the form of whomever decided to believe or follow this new deity.  The two major religions of the world, Christianity and Islam, want nothing to do with a universal deity. Jesus Christ and Mohammed exist in opposition to the world and their morality is not characterized by a universal, or easily understood, ethic.

A universal God will bear no consequence if such a force were proven to exist, or, I would think that it would yield rather unfavorable results. The same thing goes with Christianity– A benevolent result can only be attained through a non-coerced personal approach which becomes evident in the behavior of that singular person.

The marriage of science and religion would work wonders for the politician, it would work wonders for manipulation (hell, the vacuum of Christ already does), but remain meaningless for one who is truly devoted to God through faith.

  1. Scott said:

    Could it be said that science and math seek out the mind of God? While religion and philosophy seek out the heart?

    In direct response to your posting faith is a step towards belief due to a personal calling that is not based on scientific inquiry. However, the article in question doesn’t seem to want to change faith. It seems to point to a deity as the creator of life…single celled, pre-evolutionary life. Then left to itself to become. This isn’t trying to couple metaphysics with hard science. This deity has not been shown to be anything more than a creator. But if we were to step back and define “God” then would this deity fit that definition? Is this creator deity all knowing? Is this creator deity all present? Or all powerful? This article doesn’t point to that. So it might be fair to say that this article is mistitled. Because if we can agree on a definition of God being all powerful, all knowing and ever present then the author is going to have to work a lot harder to prove the existence of that being. Right now all we have is a creator.

    • I’m not sure I follow your response. Faith is not merely a step towards belief, faith is the cornerstone of belief. One cannot believe with out faith. The dialectic between science and religion, I believe, won’t result in any new enlightenment in relation the essentials of this between man and God. Now, if we are to stop at the idea of a general deity or creator, and go no further, then I think that we might see slight adjustments in how the scientific community approaches these questions. But, speaking in relation to Christianity, an acknowledgement of a “creator” by the general public could very well serve to undermine the devotional relationship a well meaning Christian has with Christ by opening the door to a universalism which lessens the difficulty of Christianity. Why does Christianity have to be difficult? Well, devotion is never easy. The merging of faith in science, or, the appeal to scientist to “broaden” their approach bears no relation to the Christian. The existence and meaning of Christ in one’s life will never be revealed by something as objective of “proof.”

  2. Scott said:

    In relation to Christianity and faith what you say is true. However, my initial statement doesn’t involve faith so much as it does our understanding of how God operates. If we accept that God is the creator and if we wish to understand how God thinks then we can look at how the creation works as a possible picture into this mind. This may give us knowledge but, you are right, it wouldn’t necessarily affect faith.

    Involving ourselves in a “devotion” develops faith. I, like you am separating the two. I was just pointing out a way that science can give us some spiritual insight. But again…this does not have to directly impact faith.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: