Category Archives: Science

The Problem With Postmodern Skepticism

By Clark Goble | January 11, 2011

In a recent article I wrote about the shift in worldview that I have witnessed in my lifetime. As a child, nearly everyone I knew views the world through a Christian lens. Even those who didn’t attend church or consider themselves Christians recognized that faith in Christ was a valuable attribute to possess. “Men of God” were to be respected and revered. This isn’t necessarily true now. Our culture has experienced a dramatic shift in worldview. Faith, especially Christianity is often openly mocked. Anyone who claims to have found absolute truth in the form of the Bible is open to criticism and ridicule as our culture shift from viewing the world through a Christian lens and now views it through the lens of a skeptic. In this day and age we value skepticism and tolerance to the point that there is no room for absolute truths outside of the realm of science. Scientific advances, so it seems, has proven that if something can’t be observed, it isn’t real.

Scholars call this new worldview Postmodernism. It is a worldview that has relegated Christianity to the past. Faith in Christ has become a relic of a past age when mankind had yet evolved to the point of recognizing that all spiritual paths are valid. The only spirituality that is valued by the skeptic is that of the “spiritual seeker.” The man or woman who is open to a generic spirituality, believes that all roads are equally valid, and values tolerance over truth fits in well within postmodernism. Why?  Perhaps it is because this generic faith is one that refuses to identify anything as absolute. A man or woman who is astute enough to know there must be a god out there somewhere chooses this kind of seeker mentality over the claims of the Christian because it is just generic and vague enough to escape the challenges of the skeptic who respond to all claims of the fantastic with “that’s nice, prove it” (www.skeptic.com).

However, there is a problem with this skeptical worldview – it is a lie. Skepticism works well in the scientific community because it drives our scientists to perform better and to get results; however, it fails miserably when extended to the realm of the humanities; art, literature, love, and yes … even theology. These pursuits are just as valid as any scientific field yet they are more difficult to define and observe. Who would suggest that love doesn’t exist simply because it is hard to observe empirically. It reminds of a quote from the Dead Poet Society:

“We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.”

While it may be hard to illustrate what love looks like, we know it exists because we can recognize the how it affects the world around us. Science would say the same about an invisible force as gravity. It can’t be seen, but we recognize it as truth because of its affects on the world around us.

The same can be said of God.

You haven’t seen Him. But you can certainly recognize how He affects the world around us. You know He is real because you have bought into generic spirituality in an attempt to define Him in a way that isn’t objectionable. The problem is that if He is real, He isn’t generic. He is a specific being that exists in a specific way. It is up to you to learn about Him … on His terms … not on the terms of the skeptic. You see, the skeptic challenges God to prove He is real. The Bible teaches that He already has in the person of Jesus Christ … it is up to you to embrace Him.

Skepticism says the Bible isn’t true … yet it describes, defines, and reveals communications from God that fit into the world we observe around us better than any other “generic” faith. Christianity takes the “generic” god that you know is out there somewhere and makes Him a very specific God who reveals absolute truth to the people He created.

Praise the God of absolute truths!

----> Clark Goble is a disciple of Christ, a husband, father, student, and writer. He welcomes your comments and encourages you to leave one here or email him at cdgobleATgmail.com. You can follow his twitter updates at http://twitter.com/#!/CDGoble
TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare

The Seven Days of Creation – Part 1 – Introduction

By Clark Goble | November 25, 2009

Adam

Since Darwin’s Origin of the Species was published in 1859, the Biblical account of creation has been under fire. To be fair, the fire hasn’t just come from science; liberal theologians have waffled under pressure and tripped over each other to make excuses for Scripture. As a result, science and liberal theologians immediately dismiss any Biblical account that includes the supernatural (miracles). As Walter Bradley points out in his contribution to Why I Am a Christian, this hasn’t necessarily driven people away from God … many scientists admit that God remains a possibility; however, the God of the Bible has often been called into question. While science immediately dismisses statements about the existence of God as philosophy rather than science, many proponents of evolution have no problem making the equally philosophical statement that God does not exist. While this year marks the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his book, the controversy surrounding this debate shows no signs of abating.

In the midst of all this hoopla, I thought it would be refreshing to start a series of posts that actually studied the Biblical account of creation. Because of the raging debate surrounding creation, the opening versus of Genesis has become the most controversial in all of Scripture (with the possible exception of the accounts of Christ’s resurrection). We’re going to go through Genesis 1:1-2:3 verse by verse and see what the Bible actually says. Hopefully, along the way we’ll be able to dismiss some of the controversy and educate ourselves at the same time.

Before we begin though, I thought it would be profitable to take a look at the three lenses view creation as taken from Walter Bradley’s article Why I Believe the Bible is Scientifically Reliable:

  1. Young Earth Creationists: Young earth creationists believe that God completed His creation in six, literal solar days. Occasionally, proponents of this view believe there is a long gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that accounts for an older age of the earth. Most feel there is reason to believe that while the earth appears old to science it is actually only around 6,000 years old.  Young earth creationists believe that God worked through nothing but miracles to complete His creation. This view makes young earth creationism the hardest to mesh with science which rejects anything other than natural processes.
  2. Progressive Creationism: Progressive creationists believe that God used a combination of miracles and natural processes to complete His creation. There are a couple of different ways progressive creationists view the 6 days of creation but what is important for this summary is that they do not view them as literal solar days. Much like young earth creationists, progressive creationists believe that major plants, animal life and human beings are special creations of God. Because of its acceptance of natural processes in creation, progressive creationism is easier to harmonize with science than young earth creation.
  3. Theistic Evolutionism: Proponents of this view believe that God things into motion and ten stepped back and allowed natural processes do all the work. Natural processes are to be thanked for all life. While this viewpoint attributes creation to God, it sees the entire Genesis account of creation as a sort of non-literal parable. Because it attributes the development of life to nothing but natural processes, this view point is very easy to harmonize with science.

Unlike Bradley, I will not divulge which of the three camps I belong to as we study the Genesis account of creation, however, I will encourage the reader to ask himself which camp he leans towards. Do you believe God used nothing but miracles to create life? Do believe it was a combination of miracle and natural process? Is life as we know the result of nothing but natural processes? Are the seven days of creation in the Book of Genesis literal or just a parable? Ask yourselves these questions as we go through our study.

The next entry in this series will take a look at the opening verse of Scripture: Genesis 1:1 – In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth.

TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare

I’ll Take One Science & Religion Cocktail … Shaken, not Stirred

By Clark Goble | October 12, 2009

While watching this debate between pundit Bill O’Reilly and atheist Richard Dawkins, something within me snapped. I suddenly grew very tired of the entire religion versus science debate. Rarely is anything ever accomplished when these two side clash; both have dug in their heels and are unwilling to budge. At this point, the entire dialogue has been reduced into a bunch of blustering sound bytes.

Perhaps my perspective is a little skewed. I’m in favor of both Christ and science. Obviously, I am a Christian. I believe that the Bible is inspired and fully confess a belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I am also a fan of science. Perhaps due to all the episodes of Star Trek I’ve watched in my life I am a huge proponent of space travel. I can get lost for hours looking at the images of space that NASA provides on their website. Also, I lost a mother to cancer and have a child with type one diabetes and a step son with epilepsy, so I get a little jazzed up anytime the news reports that scientists are one step closer to curing these and other diseases. Simply put, science is cool.

I do not believe; however, that science and faith-based religions are at odds.

I think atheists are out of line when they suggest that faith should play no part in science; rather, I feel that faith should be the driving force behind science. Let me explain. To be human is to be curious. The human race is born with an innate desire to explore and learn. We are programmed to ask really big questions. This programming, much like our innate moral code, comes from somewhere beyond ourselves; I would suggest the possibility that it comes from God. Dawkins and his kind suggest we should stop short of asking the really big questions. It is okay to ask how the human machine works or how it came to be what it is, but the second we ask “who” put the machine in motion, atheists slam on the brakes and tell us we’ve gone too far. I’m sorry, but if science is unwilling to even entertain the big questions, I want new scientists.

For example, when I look at look at a great piece of art, I can study its lines, shape, and composition for awhile, but eventually I’m going to want to know who painted it. To become truly intimate with a piece of music, you must eventually come to know the composer. Who was she? What type of mood was she in when she wrote it? Of what culture did she belong? Without asking these questions, we might as well examine art with our eyes half shut.

In all honesty, I don’t expect science to answer all of the big questions. Along with our innate curiosity, we are also born with a certain uncertainty about life after death and God. Christ has eased many of these fears for me, but I would be lying if I told you all my questions have been answered. It might be a little idealistic to believe that science can answer all of these questions; however, it is inspiring to know that every time there is a scientific breakthrough, we are one step closer to understanding our creator. I believe science has a high purpose that is encouraged by God. Scientific proof may not be required to believe in God, but if God is real, He can teach us and speak to us in a variety of ways including the Bible, His creation, and science.

It might surprise you to know that students in the United States currently rank 29th amongst other developed countries in science education. Atheists tell us we shouldn’t allow the big questions that concern creation in the classroom. Perhaps if we were able to ask those big questions and hint at the possibility of a God, our children would be inspired to accomplish more.


TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare

Book Review: There Is A God by Antony Flew

By Clark Goble | November 28, 2008

Book Review: There is a God by Antony Flew
Publisher:
Harper Collins, 2008
Rating: 8 out of 10

The subtitle of this book bills author Antony Flew as the “World’s Most Notorious Atheist.” I wondered as I stumbled upon this title at my local library if this was an overstatement designed to sell books or if Mr. Flew was indeed well known amongst atheists. I will admit that I had never heard of him prior to this reading. A quick google search managed to convince me that the author was, in fact, well known.

Flew certainly has good academic credentials. He has taught Philosophy at several universities throughout England, Canada, and the US for decades. I was most impressed that Flew actually attended C.S. Lewis’ Socrates Club and debated (as an atheist) with Lewis’ students. In fact, it is the Socratic dictum that one should, “follow the argument wherever it should lead” that led Flew to his current belief in deism.

Apparently, although it was lost on me, Flew was criticized harshly in the blog-world when he renounced his atheistic views. Well-known atheists such as Richard Dawkins pronounced that Flew’s change of opinion was a “death-bed” conversion. The eighty year-old Flew refutes that suggestion emphatically and relates that he has never felt the presence of God, witnessed a miracle, or felt the need to have a personal relationship with a God. Flew insists that that his conversion was one of reason. Flew’s suggestion that his decision was based on his mind rather than his heart really appeals to me. It is hard to explain to a non-believer matters of the heart … so Flew’s assertion that he can explain to them matters of his mind could quite possible sway non-believers in a way other arguments couldn’t.

Flew’s position is that modern science points to the existence of God. He cites the following reasons; nature obeys laws, that life is intelligently organized and purpose-driven (and arose from matter), and the very existence of the universe (nature). Flew continues to expound upon his arguments and explains that his opinions are derived from both science and philosophy.

The question that floated around in my mind as I read Flew’s book was, “What God does he believe in?” My first thought was that it did him no good to believe in God if he believed in the wrong one! Flew explains that the God he believes in is the God of Aristotle. One that possesses the following attributes; “immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness or indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence.” While not quite a Christian, Flew does explain that in his opinion the God who best fits this description of “Aristotle’s God” is the Judeo-Christian God.

I have softened my first thoughts (that is did him no good to believe in the wrong God) concerning Flew. Perhaps some people need to believe in stages. In retrospect, I think that’s how I did it. First, I decided there was a God. Later on I came to realize the God I believed in was the Judeo-Christian one and more specifically that I believed in Christ. Flew is taking his steps much in the same way as I did.

This book includes an impressive appendix written by Bishop N.T. Wright
in response to two questions asked by Flew. Wright defends the historical evidence for Jesus and defends the accuracy of the resurrection. I really enjoyed Wright’s comments.

I would highly recommend this book for all atheists or agnostics. I think they would respect Flew’s opinion and the fact that his arguments are based in reason not faith. At no point during this book will the reader have Scripture thrown at them. Flew’s arguments are all based in logic and science. I would also recommend this book for a Christian who is wanting to strengthen is faith intellectually.

Clark

TwitterWordPressFacebookMySpaceStumbleUponEmailGoogle GmailShare