Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

A Shotgun Wedding

The Conflict between Science and Religion ResolvedBy PhiliP S. Radcliffe

iUniverse, Inc.

Copyright © 2012 Philip S. Radcliffe
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4759-5409-8

Contents

Introduction...........................................................viiBook 1 A Primer on Reformed Christianity...............................1Book 2 A Scientific Baseline...........................................7Book 3 The Dialectic Nature of Our Existence...........................17Book 4 The Randomness of Our Existence.................................29Book 5 Illustrations of Free Will in Our Existence.....................35Book 6 God's Creation..................................................43Book 7 Who Is My God?..................................................50Book 8 God Is the Answer...............................................57Book 9 Faith of Our Fathers............................................63Book 10 Agnosticism and Atheism........................................68Book 11 A Layman's View................................................76Book 12 A New View of the Evidence.....................................80Book 13 Epilogue: There Is a God.......................................83Bibliography...........................................................89

Chapter One

Book 1

A Primer on Reformed Christianity

I support the school that considers the Bible to be a living text, one that was inspired by God and written, miraculously, by men of limited sophistication, scientific learning, or historical perspective. Nevertheless, they captured divine truth in the scriptures that was relevant not only to their time and culture but also to all times and cultures, including ours today.

The tradition of apostolic succession, which is part of Roman Catholic and Anglican doctrine, limits interpretation of biblical text to those who have been trained and certified as priests. As head of these respective churches, the pope or archbishop speaks with ultimate theological authority regarding the interpretation of the scriptures. Over the millennia, papal authority has significantly affected our definition of the scriptures with consequences for both Protestants and Catholics. For example, under the authority of the pope, Saint Jerome determined which books would be included within the Bible and which books would be regarded as heretical. The translation of the Holy Library known as the Bible has changed from time to time and within different religious denominations. Saint Jerome set the standard for considering content that has become the generally accepted or traditional composition of the Bible and its division into the Old Testament, New Testament, and Inter-Testament books. The Catholic tradition provides the priesthood with a job description that includes interpreting the scriptures to and for the faithful. This distinction is a root cause for differences today in ritual and practice between Protestants and Catholics, including those related to celibacy, birth control, and confession.

In the sixteenth century, while trying to institute reforms in the Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther initiated or at least focused on a totally new tradition of scriptural interpretation that ultimately led to a doctrine identified as the priesthood of man. Under this new doctrine, we are each able to generate our own interpretation of the scripture; God speaks to us individually, without the intercession of someone else. Of course, even denominations pursuing the reformed tradition have modified this doctrine to one of corporate interpretation under the guidance of clergy or a synod or general assembly.

These differences in doctrine, ritual, and observation often diminish the credibility of believers, particularly when viewed from outside and have strengthened the position of critics of religion, who attack its relevancy in today's more sophisticated, materialistic, and technologically advanced society. Often the attack arises from the scientific community. In some cases the attack stems from the different systems the scientific and philosophical communities employ when trying to discern truth. Some of the challenges to the credibility of religious belief seem to arise from the supposed advantage science methodology has in distinguishing between proven or repeatable fact and a theory or hypothesis. When scientists discover new phenomena, which in turn may lead to the development of a new or revolutionary hypothesis, they scrupulously avoid making claims about ultimate truth until the phenomena can be repeated within observable laboratory conditions. Thus a current debate in the scientific community about infinitely simultaneous dimensionality under quantum mechanics, while exposing differences among schools of physicists, does not negate the validity of quantum mechanics as a tool in the development of solid-state electronics. It seems that in science we are able to deal with things that we can prove and also deal with and even apply that which we can only hypothesize, without rejecting different hypothesis or different conclusions from similar hypothesis. From a historical perspective, we have to recognize that "scientific truth" in the early twenty-first century has a very different definition than it did in the late twentieth century. That marks a scant fifty-year time span on a planet that is some 4.7 billion years old. At times, it seems humanity expects "spiritual truth" to be timeless as well, even as our knowledge about the environment is continuously changing. In The Case for God, Karen Armstrong does an admirable job of pointing out how we adapt what we accept to be spiritual truth while humanity's knowledge and sophistication increases with the expansion of written communication. Her observations move from the beginning of recorded history through the growth of monotheism to Christianity.

Perhaps this difference in expectation arises from a single source: the Creator has known us and our environment from the beginning of time. We, however, learn about and come to appreciate Him only over a period of time. Even so, the existence of the God of Abraham is ultimately a binary condition: either there is a single Creator or there is not. If there is one, then quite possibly we can fully appreciate His characteristics and plan only over time as our knowledge of His creation grows. If there is not a single Creator, then our purposeless existence becomes a series of exercises to justify whatever it is we collectively do.

I believe science is a vehicle that demonstrates that our existence was planned and has a purpose, which is the case for any other intelligent life forms within the universe. The primary purpose of science is to help us discover God's purpose for humanity as a whole as well as His purpose for each of us individually. Thus, ironically, if my thesis is correct, the purpose of biologist Richard Dawkins is to lead humanity to a better understanding of our Creator.

In my thesis, I am addressing my fellow Christians who sit in church with me on Sunday morning and make their way in the current world of expanding scientific knowledge. Their daily lives may be affected directly or indirectly by some of this new technology. Most of us only come to appreciate the collective impact of scientific change over time. I want my fellow Christians to appreciate the view that greater knowledge of our physical universe enhances our faith in our Creator. However, new worldviews can require new interpretation of ancient texts, thus expanding our appreciation of the presence of God in our lives.

...