History-centric blind beliefs
Christian scientists have a difficult problem. Christianity's history-centric beliefs and theological commitments to historical claims are what reasonable scientists would find objectionable. This is what draws heated debates from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and others.
John Lennox, a well known mathematician at Oxford, speaks passionately for miracles. When he argues for miracles, he is merely arguing that scientists cannot insist that miracles are necessarily impossible. As a rational scientist, John Lennox can only argue that his beliefs in miracles are not based on the impossible. So far, so good. However, there is a gap the size of Grand Canyon between impossible and reasonable. Lennox cannot take this argument any farther into the realm of reasonableness. Furthermore, Lennox does not clarify what he considers are reasonble miracles to believe in. It is a huge leap of faith to go from belief in possibility (anything that cannot be proven impossible is possible) of some miracles to the acceptance of any biblical miracles. Such are the privileges of beliefs, even when held by scientists.
Other times, Christian apologists argue from an abstract notion of God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. They never bridge their arguments to the specific biblical god Yahweh and his actions as described in the bible.
More importantly, they are totally silent on how they can accept historical evidence based on hearsay evidence that Jesus regained life after death, miracle if all miracles, and hence infer that that he must be son of biblical god. Such evidence does not stand a chance in a modern court of law, leave alone a scientists scrutiny. Is that enough to wage your existence on?
What can we conclude from all this? That scientists can have blind faith and beliefs just as well as any other human. This belief has no bearing on their science.
Yes, Hindus too are free to hold beliefs if they choose. They too do not feel compelled to reject their beliefs. However, their position is far better since they have no history-centric commitments that they have a burden to defend in the face of science.
Christian scientists have a difficult problem. Christianity's history-centric beliefs and theological commitments to historical claims are what reasonable scientists would find objectionable. This is what draws heated debates from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and others.
John Lennox, a well known mathematician at Oxford, speaks passionately for miracles. When he argues for miracles, he is merely arguing that scientists cannot insist that miracles are necessarily impossible. As a rational scientist, John Lennox can only argue that his beliefs in miracles are not based on the impossible. So far, so good. However, there is a gap the size of Grand Canyon between impossible and reasonable. Lennox cannot take this argument any farther into the realm of reasonableness. Furthermore, Lennox does not clarify what he considers are reasonble miracles to believe in. It is a huge leap of faith to go from belief in possibility (anything that cannot be proven impossible is possible) of some miracles to the acceptance of any biblical miracles. Such are the privileges of beliefs, even when held by scientists.
Other times, Christian apologists argue from an abstract notion of God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. They never bridge their arguments to the specific biblical god Yahweh and his actions as described in the bible.
More importantly, they are totally silent on how they can accept historical evidence based on hearsay evidence that Jesus regained life after death, miracle if all miracles, and hence infer that that he must be son of biblical god. Such evidence does not stand a chance in a modern court of law, leave alone a scientists scrutiny. Is that enough to wage your existence on?
What can we conclude from all this? That scientists can have blind faith and beliefs just as well as any other human. This belief has no bearing on their science.
Yes, Hindus too are free to hold beliefs if they choose. They too do not feel compelled to reject their beliefs. However, their position is far better since they have no history-centric commitments that they have a burden to defend in the face of science.
No comments:
Post a Comment