Progress in this area came only as telescopes got larger and technology improved. As part of this process, it was discovered that the Universe is expanding, and that some galaxies are retreating from the earth at speeds exceeding 100 million miles an hour. What allowed Scientists to measure this, is the phenomenon commonly referred to as the red shift. This is similar to the doppler effect which most of us have observed when the noise of an oncoming vehicle changes pitch as it passes us in the street. This change in pitch has to do with the shift in the received wave length of sound as the source moves away from us. Red shift has to do with the change in wavelength of a moving source of light as it moves away. The faster the retreat, the greater the red shift (the redder the light in the spectrum of light being received). Part of what makes this discovery so compelling is the fact that it was predicted from one of the solutions to Einsteins' equations (discovered by another). Initially highly skeptical, Einstein was finally persuaded that the universe is indeed expanding by photographic evidence of the red shift, provided by Edwin Hubble and his compatriot.
So once we knew that the universe is expanding, the next thing to do was to trace it all back in space and time. It was in tracing it all back to a single miniscule point of origin that lead to the (now more fully developed) theories of the big bang. What was (and is) interesting to Bible believers is that Science was finally coming up not only with the fact of a beginning, but one that bears an uncanny resemblance to the Genesis description of the whole thing coming into being in a flash of light and energy. Robert Jastrow in an older, but still very informative book (God and the astronomers), rather amusingly describes all this as the Scientist, having scaled the mountain of ignorance, is about to conquer the highest peak but then, when he pulls himself over the highest rock, is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
So were atheist convinced? Perhaps a more pertinent question is “Can Science disprove atheism?” The fact of the matter is that some were, some are, and no doubt some will be. On the other hand the same thing can be said about theists! How to explain this? It is my observation that very few seem to be persuaded one way or the other by logic alone. One of the so called new (militant) atheists Richard Dawkins tells of being traumatized by 9/11 in the States. His conclusion is that religion was to blame. Who can argue the fact that there have been many atrocities committed in the name of God? But think on this, the last century saw more (much more) atrocities committed in the name of atheism than in religion. Dawkins would argue that it was not atheism in and of itself that was the cause of the atrocities. Maybe, maybe not, but you can't have it both ways. You can't use this argument to absolve atheism but refuse to allow the same argument to absolve religion. Surely Christ has the right answer when He tells us that the problem begins in the heart of man (or woman, I would not want to offend the ladies by excluding them :-) Matthew 15:18,19).
So what has this to do with the question at hand? What I am saying is that we seem to make up our minds for one reason or another, but not primarily based on logic. We may have been offended by those who use God to justify this or that. Or we may see all religious people as hypocrites, or we may have had very positive experiences from some who name the name of Christ. What happens then is that our World view informs our logic. I asked a friend what it would take for him to believe. He told me, and I then asked him if that happened would he really believe. He thought a bit then told me “No, I would find some other reason to explain it.” But let's be honest, this attitude is found on both sides of the theist- atheist divide! Please don't confuse me with the facts, I know what I believe!
So, can we never expect to persuade others from either side, is it all hopeless? My answer is no, but it is not likely to happen by Science/logic/reason alone. Since the essence of Christianity is to know God (as opposed to knowing about Him - see John 17:3), and since knowing a person has a strong component of experience, we will not become Christians without it. What was powerful to me was seeing my experience of Him described in the Scriptures, and also of having the Scriptures help me experience Him more. This is as I say a powerful combination.
But what about Science and logic, does it not have a role to play, can Science persuade someone that God exists? In my view Christianity (for that is what I profess) gives the best explanation of reality. It best explains that there was a beginning and a whole host of other things. It best explains why the Universe “”appears” to be designed, it best explains the phenomenon of a multitude of finely tuned physical constants, constants which, if changed even slightly, would no only exclude the possibility of life period, but even of the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. It best explains what Francis Schaeffer called the mannishness of man, our personality, our search for meaning, our morality. It best explains why beauty and culture and love and hope and peace and joy and the like are infinitely better than squalor and poverty and hate and war and bitterness and lying and deceit. I am told that Science with all its capabilities cannot distinguish between hate and love, anger and euphoria, between joy and fear. Perhaps, just perhaps we are more than Darwinian primates. Perhaps, just perhaps we are made in the image of the Judeo Christian God. Perhaps, just perhaps, Science without faith is blind!
No comments:
Post a Comment