- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,856
- Reaction score
- 8,334
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
On Christmas Day, the Wall Street Journal posted a piece written by Eric Metaxas, "author, speaker and TV host" in which he argues that science is coming closer and closer to "proving" the existence of a Creator.
One man who disagrees, does so from the religious side of the question: Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman
another who disagrees, this time from the science side, is Lawrence Krauss, Physics professor at Arizona State University
This has caused a bit of a kerfuffle on the internets, to say the least.Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it?
One man who disagrees, does so from the religious side of the question: Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman
A fine-tuned universe is a compelling argument for God. It's also deeply problematic.
Why? Two reasons.
1. Science is always changing.
Science is in constant flux. New discoveries are made. New insights arise. New paradigms overturn previous ways of thinking. So if we base our religious outlook on scientific findings, what will happen to our theology when the science changes?
Think about what happened to religion when the Copernican revolution occurred, or when Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published. They upset the apple cart, and forced religion to change. Most people either denied these findings and held onto their deeply-held beliefs, or used these findings to reject religion entirely.
<snip>
2. Science and religion are two different ways of thinking. Don't conflate them.
Using science to prove God's existence confuses two very different ways of thinking. Science progresses as new hypotheses get tested, questioned, refuted, expanded upon, discarded, and revised.
Religion, on the other hand, is a way to make sense of the world. It is an appreciation of awe and mystery, justice and compassion.
In other words, science is a search for truth, while religion is a search for meaning.
another who disagrees, this time from the science side, is Lawrence Krauss, Physics professor at Arizona State University
my emphasisTo the editor:
I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example:
We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.
<snip>
Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers.