One thing I think I’m going to try to be very cautious about is to NEVER say, “Science cannot explain this or that phenomenon.” I get uneasy when I hear another Christian say something like that, too (even the slightly less brazen “Science has not yet explained this or that phenomenon”). It always is to imply that the reason science hasn’t is because they can’t and they can’t because it’s supernatural and therfore GOD because you can’t measure God.
Well, that’s silly. And it’s that kind of attitude that I think has played a large role in drawing a line in the sand between “science” and “religion,” and that’s a line I’m tired of running into because it shouldn’t be there. When a believer tells a non-believer that science can’t explain something, the believer somehow thinks that the non-believer will hear that and then fall to their knees and worship Jesus (at best; at worst they expect them to feel stupid and ashamed–I know because I’ve naïvely expected both at different times). What the non-believer actually does is takes that assertation as a challenge. So the non-believer learns science and eventually EUREKA! they explain whatever could not be explained. So now the non-believer takes that back to the believer and demonstrates that what was unexplainable was explained with science, and since the believer said that you couldn’t explian it because it’s supernatural and therefore GOD, the non-believer says that they did explain it and therefore it is natural and therefore NO GOD. So the believer recomposes themselves and picks something else behind what science has just explained and say that science cannot explain that. Rinse, repeat. Like I said, it’s silly.
Why is the criteria for “God” or “no God” based on whether man can measure creation and understand creation better? And I mean that for both the Christian and the naturalist. To the Christian: I was under the impression that God actually wants us to learn about his creation. Now, I by no means think that everying “science” says is correct, but I need to resist the temptation to say that science is unreliable and should not be used or trusted at all. To the naturalist: I don’t get why one would think that the ability to, say, observe the chemical reactions in one’s brain during prayer, or have a determination of the particles present in the earliest seconds of the universe negates God.
I know that the arguments are much bigger than that on all sides, but it’s just something I thought about today. Probably because I’ve been spending way too much time at Yahoo! Answers again–but that’s because I’m up to something. Just you wait. . . .