Is Religion The Enemy? 2

04 Jul

We continue to look at bits of information found in A. McGrath’s book, Why God Won’t Go Away (McGrath, A. (2011). Why God Won’t Go Away: Engaging with the New Atheism . London: SPCK.)

#1. Science seeks only to describe the forms and processes of the world; it declines to make observations on issues of meaning and value. And it’s right to do so, for the cultural and intellectual authority of science depends critically upon its absolute neutrality in ethical, political and religious debates. This point was made long ago when Darwin’s great supporter Thomas H. Huxley (1825–95) famously declared that science ‘commits suicide when it adopts a creed’.1 Huxley was right. If science is hijacked by fundamentalists, whether religious or anti-religious, its intellectual integrity is subverted and its cultural authority compromised. (p. 72).

There are at least two main points to be derived from the quote above. First, it is true that science declines to make statements about meaning and value. Second, neutrality is impossible and this is where we depart from Dr. McGrath’s point of view. Science really has no inherent authority but is a mere tool in the hands of those who wield science to their will.

We also know that science has failed to remain neutral in many political, ethical and religious issues as its adherents use that field to support one side of the argument or another.

We also disagree with Dr. McGrath on the last sentence. Science is no more hijacked by fundamentalists than it is by atheists of any stripe.  Science, in the right hands, is easy to manipulate and twist to fit one’s point of view.

There is no real intellectual integrity in science apart from what is brought to that field by those who practice it. Then science has no real ‘cultural authority’ either but what is placed upon it by misguided souls who look for anything to fill the void left by their rejection of the truth and rejection of God.

If science has any authority, it is fake for people, like the people of Israel who demanded a king over a prophet, have gone to science over their rejection of God.



#2. But while science may use rational methods of investigation, most notably the careful accumulation of evidence through observation and experiment, it does from time to time witness developments that are deeply counterintuitive and seem completely irrational (quantum theory providing many choice examples) (pp. 72–73).

The problem with this idea, and Dr. McGrath talks about it later, is that too many people think that only science has rational thought.  That type of thinking is one of the fatal flaws of the unbeliever’s position.

When you limit different kinds of results to only those that fall under the category of rational then you will be surprised and astounded for you did not expect the world to produce irrational answers.

The world and the universe does not conform nor operate under the rules that the secular scientist have set. They operate according to the rules that God has set and we need to be prepared to accept those rules when we discover them instead of trying to put a round peg in a square hole.



#3. Furthermore science is a never-ending quest for the best understanding of things. The way things seem today will not be the way they’re seen a century from now. (A hundred years ago scientists thought that the universe had existed for ever; that belief has now been replaced with the radically different notion that the universe came into being in a primordial fireball known as the Big Bang.7) The philosopher of science Michael Polanyi once shrewdly observed that scientists believed many things to be true but knew that some of those would eventually be shown to be wrong. The problem was that they didn’t know which (pp. 73–74).

This is a very big problem with science for this directive is telling everyone that science does not care about anyone. Science is very selfish and only thinks of itself and how it should operate instead of using the tool and taking care of people.

How many people have died believing a ‘truth’ only to have that ‘truth’ over-turned decades later? Sometimes not even decades and how many resources have been wasted while the secularist pursues theories that do not exist and never took place? They also waste money being redundant as they pursue the ‘mystery of our origins’ when it is no mystery at all. We have been told exactly where we have come from

The secular scientist has left far too many people in destitute conditions because all he can think of is doing science and forgets that people matter. As you can read, another fatal mistake by secular scientists is that they do not have a clue as to what is the right answer, providing evidence for the Bible when it talks about how lost, blind and deceived unbelievers truly are.

Science is not an authority for it does not consider people at all. Just doing science is all that matters to them.



#4. Today most scientists believe that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is the best explanation of what we see in the world around us. But as Richard Dawkins rightly points out, Darwinism may eventually turn out to be wrong: ‘we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition’.8 We need to be clear that a sensible recognition of the provisionality of scientific theories is not the same as resigning ourselves to a kind of relativism, each generation arbitrarily choosing what it wants to believe. Theoretical judgements are driven by evidence, and evidence accumulates over time, gradually leading to what the historian Thomas Kuhn called ‘paradigm shifts’—radical changes in the way we see things. (p. 74).

Yes they do think that but how can a sinful man’s ideas trump those of a sinless God? Especially when the man was not even close to coming into existence while the God always existed and knew what he did in the beginning.

Darwin’s theory is not the best explanation because it is not the truth nor is it even close to being correct. Then why waste time promoting a theory that ‘may turn out to be wrong’? (Even though believers already know that it is wrong.

Facts have already come to us that tell us that Darwin’s theory is in error and the come from the Bible. We do not need science to tell us what is right or wrong for we already have that information given to us by God.

Gathering evidence may take time but faith takes just seconds and God asks us to use the latter before it is too late. He does so because he knows that what the secular world produces and promotes as evidence is not really evidence but sneaky little tricks designed to fool both unbelievers and vulnerable believers.


#5. I have many distinguished scientific colleagues who support the former approach, and equally distinguished scientific colleagues who support the latter. Both are real options for thinking and informed scientists, who make their decisions on the basis of their judgements of how best to interpret the evidence and who believe—but cannot prove—that their interpretation is correct. (p. 75).

This is a problem. Interpretation does not lead to the truth willingly. That method of looking at the evidence is far too subjective and leads to arguments and division not the truth and unity.



#6. A classic example of this can be found in Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), now widely seen as a landmark in scientific history. New Atheist websites often assert that Darwin proved his theories, contrasting this unfavourably with the ‘blind faith’ of religion. Darwin himself knew otherwise. He believed that his theory of ‘natural selection’ provided the most elegant and persuasive explanation of biological life forms—but he knew he couldn’t prove it.14 The problems were obvious.

To begin with, there was no ‘smoking gun’—no knock-down, unambiguous evidence that would conclusively and incontrovertibly compel people to accept his theory. Everything that was known about the natural world could be accommodated by rival theories, such as transformism.15 Furthermore there were serious scientific objections and difficulties to his theory that made it unacceptable to many scientists of his day.16 The most significant of these was probably the problem of genetic dilution.17 Darwin lacked a viable theory of genetics to explain how inherited characteristics were transmitted to subsequent generations. (p. 76).

Dr. McGrath points out one of the keys to understanding evolution. That theory does not produce definitive and exclusive results. Even with the aid of genetical research, the theory of evolution still cannot reduce the sources of the results to just itself.

Far too many alternative sources exist that can produce the same results that evolutionist claim the process of evolution makes.

The question is, why do so many men and women waste so much time and money on a theory that does not work nor can be demonstrated to work from the beginning to the end? Another question is, why are so many men and women wasting their energy and resources promoting a theory that cannot answer the basic questions nor point to a single source for any basic element of life? For example, death, where did it come from and why does it exist? Evolution cannot provide one simple answer to that question nor pinpoint its entrance into life while the Bible does.



#7. Yet despite some formidable difficulties, Darwin believed that his theory was right and would one day be shown to be so. How, he asked, could a theory be wrong when it made so much sense of what he observed? Yes, there were loose ends everywhere and a large number of problems. But his core idea seemed to him to be correct—even though it couldn’t be proved.

… a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.18 (p. 76).

This quote provides one with the flaw of observation. That methodology is not infallible and should not be seen as the ultimate answer to any scientific question. Observation is as weak as anything else in this life and scientists, as recorded by Dr. del Ratzsch in his book Battle of Beginnings, see things that are not there.

Observation is flawed. Darwin may have ‘observed things but he did not observe the evolutionary process in actually action. He read that part into what he observed making his observations moot.

This is one of the problems that come with observation. There is a danger, not only to see things that are not there, but to read into what is observed a process that does not exist or a pet theory which is not even close to what is observed.

Different kinds of finches do not speak of an evolutionary process but of different eating habits, different environments, different situations but not a linear development of life. Assumption is not fact and Darwin assumed and then went with the assumption instead of seeking the truth and adopting that.

Comments Off on Is Religion The Enemy? 2

Posted by on July 4, 2016 in academics, Bible, church, comparative religions, controversial issues, faith, leadership, theology


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: