we look at the specific points we have observed in the ‘Content' part
Religious writers were ignorant.
The idea is that because they lived a long time ago they know so little
in comparison with today, and so much of what they said was therefore
fact that they lived a long time ago should not confuse us. I'm not
going to bother to argue the details, you can work through them yourself
if you are a Christian with knowledge. You may want to go to Appendix
2 - Church and History [CLICK
HERE]. The clue to the error here comes in the simple phrase,
“the founders of religion” which was used in respect of various writers
have commented various times already that I have no brief to answer
for other world religions. My brief extends only to Christianity and
because the comments in this chapter are mostly so general I take
them to have been made in respect of Christianity.
origins of Christianity go right back into the Old Testament, but
the primary reasons for the Christian Faith rely entirely upon the
advent of the historical person of Jesus Christ who, as many people
have found, does bear ‘scientific' scrutiny.
the various men were doing, who the author refers to, was trying to
make sense in a philosophical way of the records found in the New
Testament. These were not scientists and yes, as the author so rightly
points out, their knowledge in comparison to ours, was tiny, speculative
and often inaccurate as far as their understanding of the world was
concerned. Please see Appendix 2 – Church and History by CLICKING
struggling with the truth in no way invalidates it and the author
would do better to examine that (which I think he is probably going
to do later) rather than snap thin reeds that no one else leans upon!
Richard Dawkins did exactly the same thing in The God Delusion,
and that wasn't convincing either!
Religion and science are irreconcilable.
Yes, he says, some scientists have been religious but not of a very
real kind; they compromised for the sake of the day, but now we've
this is an example of someone living in an ivory tower shut away in
ignorant seclusion. If the author had read the welter of books coming
out in answer to The God Delusion published in the previous
year, or indeed would come to this site and read our appraisal of
that book, he would know that there are, in fact, very many scientists
who are genuine Christians, many of whom are very bright guys and
who would no doubt be highly offended to be dismissed in such a cavalier
way as seen in this chapter! Rather than repeat myself again and again,
may I request you go to that appraisal on this site to see the truth
of this. CLICK
French scientist Laplace denied his need of God.
In his discussion with Bonaparte when questioned about God in the
equation, he replied, “I have no need of this hypothesis.”
seem to fall for this same error, again and again, this appealing
to sceptics for their justification. The Laplace
story is a good story but it
proves nothing beyond the fact that God has made things so that we
can find out how they work – well some things. It's a bit like a small
boy playing with a train set and after having taken it apart saying,
“I really know how this works. Now I know that I don't need to believe
anyone made it.” Silly stuff!
Religion has lost its influence.
The reliance of religion, he says, has given way to reliance on science
and we now look back with embarrassment at past theologians and we
also go back to pre-Christ for scientific beliefs.
rather depends where you stand. I've already referred to the author's
ivory tower but from where I stand, in respect of the religion side:
I still see many very intelligent men and women who have no
problem believing in a mechanical universe made by an all powerful
and all-wise God, who still interacts with it as He wills,
still see many people turning from the emptiness of materialistic
atheism to a meaningful, intelligent relationship with Almighty
I still find a spiritual hunger that wants to operate outside
the big religious organisations and new churches are still growing.(Perhaps
God is putting aside these man-made institutions.)
I still encounter people who have been miraculously healed,
had their lives and circumstances wonderfully transformed!
respect of the science side:
- I still see scientists
with strong religious beliefs,
- I still see scientists questioning
atheistic and naturalistic standpoints,
- I still see scientists who
declare that science is raising more questions than it brings answers,
- I still see scientists who
are concerned about where unrestrained science is leading us morally.
William Ockham & Ockham's Razor.
Removing all that is unnecessary,
he says, means we come to a place where we find the world works without
world that works without God? The tricky bit about this is that science
is not so confident as it would like us to believe. If you will read
our appraisal of the aforementioned Dawkins book, [CLICK
HERE] or simply go to our Apologetics pages [CLICK
HERE], you will find that science is definitely not so
sure of itself as many atheistic scientists would like to make out.
In fact it is packed full of speculation and assertions that are not
founded on fact.
science moves more and more into the realm of philosophy and uncertainty.
Instead of becoming more and more certain it is becoming more and
more unsure, and even the big names bandied around by the author,
make highly speculative noises. [See Article on 'Science or Philosophy'
Of course the media and anyone with an agenda that wants it, assumes
that because they are ‘so great' their speculations must be the truth.
Unfortunately for them, history shows that often isn't how it works!
The inability to explain the First Cause.
We can't explain the Creator, who made Him, therefore we make constant
leaps of faith, with weak explanations.
we come to the first cause, scientists, philosophers and theologians
are all in the same boat of unknowing – and that really annoys those
who insist on knowing everything. It's funny the author speaks about
religious people making leaps of faith, because that is my main accusation
of people such as Richard Dawkins and the author, but you'll have
to go to the previous appraisal to see that. I'm not repeating myself
here. Evidences and proofs that are “feeble-minded inventions”?