Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Siding with Atheists

In reading about and listening to people who discuss (and debate) the relationship between science and religion, I fall pretty clearly on the side favoring the compatibility of religion with a scientific world view, and on the side of their being good reasons to believe in God. That said, I not infrequently find myself siding with the arguments of those who speak against God.

For example, I listened to some debates between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss. In these debates, Craig stated that the New Atheists typically argue against the 'God of the gaps', and that he argues against that God, too. He believes in a God that is throughout everything. Those words sound so close to what I believe. I believe we see evidence of God in science, not where science leaves off. But I think some of the arguments Craig gives as strong evidence for God are weak. As Krauss says, arguing for the Christian God based on historical scientists who believed in God, or even based on the fact that Christian scientists and a Christian culture were responsible for the development of modern science, is proof of nothing. They are facts consistent with multiple hypotheses. And again I side with Krauss when he says the arguments from purpose and design are meaningless. To say that there must be a reason for existence, and then follow a chain of logic through to what characteristics that meaning for existence must have and then say "that is God," is not sound argument. Why must there be reason for existence? And even if I admit there must be reason, why must it lead to belief in a transcendent God rather than a simple creator from which great complexity emerges? It doesn't have to. Why must purpose always have been? Why can't it, too, emerge with complexity? The arguments may be reason for belief (although they aren't reasons for mine), but they are far from logical proofs of anything.

But perhaps my biggest criticism of Craig's position is that he isn't arguing against a God of the gaps. He is arguing for the God of the great, eternal gap. He is arguing for the God that is the originator of science, and by definition forever out of the reach of science. He is arguing for the God that is the creator and encompasser of nature, so forever indistinguishable from His creation to the eyes of science. He is arguing for the Omni-God, and to my mind the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God is also omni-unknowable and omni-unreachable. So what if His condescension makes him a tiny bit accessible, it's not the God of Mormonism. It's not my God. If science allows a God that isn't by His very definition beyond science, it isn't the omni-God. It's a God made from the dust of the stars, a God we can become one with in the heavens, a God we can become.


  1. God created man in his image. Transhumanism is corrupting the image of God. If you look at the agenda of men like Hugo De Garis and Kevin Warvick, and view their quotes, you will see they wish to destroy human beings, replacing them with cyborgs. We are meant to die and be resurrected in Jesus Christ. That is eternal life. The promise of immortality from men looking to be Gods is a great deception. Many will fall prey to this deception because of the pressure to keep up with the Jones’. To deny transhumnism will be to deny the mark of the beast. Those who remain pure as human beings, will not have the strength and intellect of transhumans. But their bodies will be pure in their generations and the spirit of God can dwell therein. Enhanced humans will lead to transhumans, which will lead to post humans, which means the soul of man as a cyborg is lost to the mother board of Lucifer who will control the cyborgs and subservient artilects. The small part of what human soul is left inside the cyborg will wish to be free. It will be too late. As in Revelations, they will seek death and death shall flee from them. A Terminator like entity will be programmed to not allow for suicide. Immortal hell awaits. Both De Garis and Warvick are claiming to become Gods. This is a repeat to the Days of Noah. Men were worshiped as Gods before. Scientists and physicists are the Gods too many a deceived soul. Look no further than CERN and HAARP to find the Demigods of our modern day.

  2. There are certainly dangers inherent in modifying humanity. I look at the fact that it is happening, and more rapidly than ever before, and instead of despairing at the folly of humanity, I ask myself how we can use the changes to become more loving, more compassionate, more righteous. I feel that God and truth don't so much need defending as they need to be explored and understood. Since life eternal is to know God, I seek to do so through all the means He has given us, including reason and technology, as well as faith. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

  3. I find that while I sometimes agree with the intent and goal of other Christians who raise their voice in the public square, I tend to disagree with much of their reasoning. I think it is wise and good to carefully distinguish our support for an agenda from the arguments used to defend or sustain it.

    That being said, I have found on occasion that what has seemed to be a weak or incomplete argument, was actually deep and profound. For example, I always struggled with Alma's argument against the rhetoric of Korihor. Alma claims that "all things denote there is a God." I often scratched my head at that one. The world is full of objects and ideas that seem far displaced from any concept of their potentially divine creator.

    Over time, though, I have come to better understand Alma's broader spiritual perspective. Alma is convinced in the validity and power of the light of Christ. In his great sermon on faith, he unequivocally claims that this power is perceivable and discernable. I assume that what Alma means is that those with Spiritual understanding will receive a valid spiritual confirmation that all physical things are created and sustained by the power of God, and that this power resides in Jesus Christ. In other words, all things denote there is a God to those who yield to the influence of the Holy Ghost and cleave unto the Light of Christ. There is a light within us that is testifying of this truth, and we have to shut it out in order to deny it.

    When perceived through a secular or worldly lens, Alma's words are logically fallacious. When perceived by one who has shared in similar spiritual experiences, they are deeply profound.