This is the mantra of many who do not believe. They feel that science is the authority even though no objective authority declared science to be the authority by which all things can be determined.
This type of thinking always demands scientific evidence even though any supernatural being could not be studied by science at any time. Science is the study of natural things not supernatural. This design eliminates and disqualifies any supposed scientific evidence contrary to the biblical record.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines empirical science as:
- Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.
- Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.
- Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
Yet, the person who created the following statement
To date, there is no actual, verifiable, Empirical evidence for the existence of the supernatural (source)
ignores the very physical evidence that can be seen through observation. The changed lives of countless millions of people are observable evidence. Miracles that doctors have witnessed are observable evidence.
We do not experiment with God and what experiment would secular science create that would be objective, honest, and without their sinful bias to study these phenomena? We do not need experiments because they are happening every day in front of people’s eyes.
Plus, scientists cannot replicate God’s power to perform miracles or redeem a human soul so what type of experiment would they use to declare if the miracles and changed lives fit the second part of em[pirical’s definition?
How about if we use evil as an example? Since evil exists, there has to be an objective moral standard that exists to tell us what evil is. If we do not have that objective standard, then nothing is evil.
For there to be an objective moral standard, then God must exist. The best defense or argument on this topic comes from Mr. Zacharias’ book Jesus Among Other Gods. You need to read from page 112 forward as it is a complex argument that cannot be fully quoted here. From page 112:
If evil exists, then one must assume that good exists to know the difference. If good exists then one must assume that a moral law exists by which to measure good and evil.But if amoral law exists, must not one posit an ultimate source for moral law, or at least an objective basis for a moral law?By an objective basis I mean something that is ytranscending true at all times., regardless of whether I believe it or not?
Then from page 113:
Not one proponentof evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal. amoral first cause through a nonmoral process has produced a moral basis for life.
Yet, there are some evolutionary supporters and scientists that claim that our human morality was derived from animals.
In The Bonobo and the Atheist, renowned primatologist Frans de Waal argues that moral behavior in humans is not predicated on religion. Drawing from extensive research on animals—primarily bonobos and chimpanzees, our nearest primate relatives—as well as research on fossil records of early hominids, he shows how evidence of moral sentiments, like empathy and altruism, predate the advent of religion by millennia and co-evolved in non-human primates as well as in humans.
De Waal makes his case for animal morality by citing scientific studies demonstrating animal benevolence. In one experiment, researchers show that a chimp, if given the choice, would rather share food rewards with another chimp than keep it all for himself—as long as he knows that the other chimp actually receives the reward.
In another experiment with rats, researchers find that if a rat is given the choice between two containers—one holding chocolate and one holding a trapped rat who appears to be suffering—the rat will try to help the suffering rat first before seeking the chocolate. Experiments like these show that animals make moral choices and that their behavior cannot be explained through natural selection alone. (source)
How do these studies and experiments show that morality predated human religion? The studies are done on animals long after human religion came into existence. The good doctor is not studying animal behavior before humans supposedly arrived on the scene so his experiments are very limited and do nothing to prove his theory.
Then, how would animals get moral behavior and where did it come from? They do not even understand what morals, morality, good and evil mean. Then, the good doctor is imposing his definition of morality on those animals.
He does not know what is in their brains or what they are thinking at that time. These evolutionary experiments are not empirical evidence as the observed behavior has definitions read into the actions of the animals.
Plus, the experiments do not focus on a large majority of animals. They focus on a minute number and a larger conclusion is drawn from it. What about all those animals that may choose the food over their trapped friend?
In addition, how is this behavior universal to all animals? How would they know how to act since it is not taught to them. The animals may merely be going on instinct, not some moral attitude they miraculously have been endowed with.
The experiments are moot because they are not conducted under honest controls or guidelines. Any conclusions are attributed backward to animals long dead which may never have exhibited these traits.
Then further down on page 113 of Mr. Zacharias’ book we read:
Objective moral values exist only if God exists.
We can see the validity of that statement by all the empirical evidence found in the changed lives of those who accepted Christ as their savior and all the miracles that God has performed through prayer and the gifts of the Spirit he gives his followers.
No other religious belief has these two most important pieces of empirical evidence. They do not even have the historical tradition that Christianity enjoys which has performed the same two items century after century.
There is empirical evidence to support the existence of God. it is up to the unbeliever to accept these items on faith and then accept Christ as their savior on faith. it is by faith one is saved not by empirical evidence.
The empirical evidence just helps point the way to the one true God and salvation.
theologyarchaeology 