Reason versus faith. Can an intelligent person believe in God today or has science replaced God? Is it possible to be a person of both reason and faith?
Atheism is on the rise. One of the reasons is due to the ongoing battle (or at least perceived battle) between faith and reason. Many people believe that science has replaced God and that faith must always retreat with the advance of reason and knowledge.
Here are two myths that form the basis of this rise of atheism and agnosticism. If a person can get past these myths, he or she will quickly appreciate that the appeal of atheism is superficial and that there remain solid reasons to embrace the existence of God and the supernatural.
Myth #1: Religion is only based on superstitions and legends
There is a theme underlying the agnostic-progressive ideology advanced by authors such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. The theme goes something like this: As humankind evolved, they began to experiment with and embrace various superstitions and legends, which over time, evolved into our modern religions.
The most dangerous lie is the one that contains a portion of truth. This myth is a perfect example. Yes, there was rampant superstition in the ancient world. And, yes, many of the legends and fables were informed by that superstition. And, yes, religion - broadly speaking - has no doubt been fueled by superstition, myth, and legend. All that is true - as far as it goes.
However, to say that all people die of cancer, because many people die of cancer is obviously an illogical argument - and flatly incorrect. Likewise, it is fallacious to argue that all the claims made by those associated with religion are bogus, because religion has been influenced by humanity's age-old relationship with legend and superstition. Religious truth claims deserve to be assessed on their own merit, as with any other truth claim.
What's more, just because many of the incredible ancient stories are legendary accounts based on exaggerated oral tradition and/or superstition doesn't mean that they all are. Some of those incredible stories deserve a closer look. Some of them just might be true.
Myth #2: Atheism is based on reason and science
Once the atheists and agnostics make the argument that religion is based on and/or hopelessly entangled with fables and superstition, they advance the notion that atheism is based on sound reason and scientific evidence.
The truth is that atheism is based on naturalism, which is a philosophical presupposition. As Phillip Johnson, a leading critic of evolution, puts it: "Scientists start by assuming that naturalism is true, and they try to give purely natural explanations for everything, including our existence."
Clearly, if the scientific community approaches the universe with a naturalistic mindset, the members of said community will arrive at naturalistic conclusions. What you put into the calculator, you will get out of the calculator. It's simple. But everyone observing this process should understand that the modern scientific community has stacked the deck against monotheism from the outset, thus skewing the results in favor of atheism.
The bottom line is that atheism and agnosticism are not the products of reason and science. Rather, they are the logical outcomes of a naturalistic mindset, which is every bit as philosophical (some might even say "religious") as monotheism.
The copyright of the article Faith and Reason in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Faith and Reason must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Dec 31, 2007 6:01 AM
Pink
:
. You wrote, <i>"Atheism is on the rise. One of the reasons is due to the ongoing battle (or at least perceived battle) between faith and reason."</i> . Another and, maybe, more significant reason is related to the extremism developed by Fundamentalism. It started in Christianity and has spread to Judaism and Islam as well. Eventually, it puts the focus on a purism that seeks to get every believer doing the goose step no matter what religious belief system is involved. . That amounts to shooting yourself in the foot when it~~finally~~surfaces in the public view. When observers eventually see the truth behind Fundamentalism, they "know" what they are looking at is bogus. . It seems like believers would be well advised to give up on Fundamentalism and its attempts to get everyone doing the goose step as they march onward to Zion. Demands that all believers "kiss the book" are outrageous. . Just admitting would be a good starter. .
Dec 31, 2007 9:39 AM
Migisi
:
. Good points, Pink. Religious extremism and obsessive preoccupation with religion is a total turn off to reasonable people. 'Religious fundamentalism' has a negative connotation these days because of the fanatics associated with it. . From the article: <i>"...just because many of the incredible ancient stories are legendary accounts based on exaggerated oral tradition and/or superstition doesn't mean that they all are. Some of those incredible stories deserve a closer look. Some of them just might be true."</i> . Admission that religious myths exist. Who decides which stories are exaggerated superstitious legends to be discounted, and which of the 'incredible' (definition: so implausible as to elicit disbelief) stories are true? Focusing on the Bible - if it's considered the 'Word of God' - as Fundamentalists claim - aren't adherents required to believe it's all true? . From the article: <i>"Once the atheists and agnostics make the argument that religion is based on and/or hopelessly entangled with fables and superstition, they advance the notion that atheism is based on sound reason and scientific evidence."</i> . One doesn't have to be an atheist to conclude that "religion is based on and/or hopelessly entangled with fables and superstition". A Christian believer might conclude this about all nonChristian religions. A Jew might conclude it about all religions except Judaism. And so on. . Are theists allowed to believe in sound reason and scientific evidence too, or is this reserved for atheists only? Atheism is quite simply "not believing in any gods." Nonbelief in a god doesn't automatically mean a person agrees with everything every scientist proposes ('evidence' concerning what, Brian doesn't specify). Scientists frequently dispute other scientists' findings. . <i>What you put into the calculator, you will get out of the calculator. It's simple.</i> . Yes, a simple math story problem -- no need for a calculator -- use the fingers on one hand ..... 1 person + 1 person + 1 person = 3 people. Not 1 god. . <i>But everyone observing this process should understand that the modern scientific community has stacked the deck against monotheism from the outset, thus skewing the results in favor of atheism.</i> . Boiled down: Science = atheism?
Dec 31, 2007 5:23 PM
Pink
:
. I'm 76 and half way to 77. . I've been involved~~intimately~~with Christian Fundamentalism for about 72 years or so. . The point here is that I understand the relationships it builds up amongst its <i>adherents</i>. (That was a good word or you to use, Migisi.) . They constantly seek out a more pure way of understanding God through their scrupulous study of God through His Word--the Bible. They consistently think of the Bible as it is God speaking to them. Bring up a subject they haven't considered and they'll tell you that they will have to see what God has to say about that. Which means, they'll do a Bible search to get their answer. . Not only do they search the Bible as the foundation of their faith; but, they go over and over it to continuously refine their beliefs to be more and more closely related to where God expects of them to be in their walk. You have to know them on an intimate basis to truly understand their ways. It's not what they say; but, it is how they live their life. . It is the way Fundamentalism works. And, I'm sure it's the same way with Judaism and Islam. .
Jan 1, 2008 12:23 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
Clarifications...
I acknowledged there are religious myths and superstitions. I did NOT say the Bible contained myths and superstitions. For the record, I do not believe that it does.
My overall point in the article is that atheists tend to claim that their belief system (atheism) is based on reason and science, and that this is a faulty argument (on their part). There seems to be some confusion in what you inferred from my article.
Once again, you take a shot at the Trinitarian doctrine. I understand that some people are not comfortable with the Trinity. Let's debate that in the Trinity thread.
I acknowledge that there are Christians who take the doctrine of biblical authority or inerrancy to an extreme. However, let's agree that the doctrine of biblical authority was clearly taught by the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy.
<i>All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness</i> - 2 Timothy 3:16
Paul was directly referring to the Jewish Scriptures (i.e, the Old Testament) but was also including any additional written revelations from God that might be identified as "Scripture."
(It's like the Founding Fathers writing that the "Constitution" was the "Supreme Law of the Land." They only saw the initial Articles and, later, the next 12 amendments. But they had in mind the possibility that further amendments would be added).
I don't want to get side-tracked into a discussion on the canon, though. We can do that in a different thread. For now, I simply want to show that Paul's statement affirms the DOCTRINE of scriptural authority. It is NOT a recent, "fundamentalist" corruption - as you (Pink) seem to imply.
Jan 3, 2008 4:27 PM
Pink
:
. <i>"...let's agree that the doctrine of biblical authority was clearly taught by the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy."</i> . What the apostle Paul meant by the word, Scripture, is not what you mean by the word. .
Jan 4, 2008 7:41 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Paul most certainly understood "Scripture" to mean revelation from God preserved in writing. I don't think any scholar or student of the ancient literature would dispute that.
So, our difference comes down to the canon - what books rightfully make up the "Bible."
Jan 4, 2008 8:07 AM
Pink
:
. What Paul meant by his use of the word, Scripture, had to do with the written word that was read in Synagogue and not what he or the other followers of Jesus were writing. Otherwise, he would have claimed his letters were Scripture. He actually set his words aside as HIS personal opinion. And, you know that is true. No sense in trying to change it. .
Jan 4, 2008 12:30 PM
Migisi
:
. <i>What Paul meant by his use of the word, Scripture, had to do with the written word that was read in Synagogue and not what he or the other followers of Jesus were writing.</i> . Right. As I understand it, 'scripture' to Paul would've been the Oral Torah (Talmud), the Written Torah (Tanakh), and the Midrashim (explanations of stories and rabbinical interpretations of Torah). The epistles would be more like a Christian Midrashim.
