The real failed hypothesis

Posted on February 19, 2007 by me

The other day I was wandering around my local Borders store, and ran across a book on the New Releases table entitled, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger, a man who seems to have taken on a crusade against the notion that science is proving (or has proved) the existence of God, particularly the Christian version of God.

Now, straight off I need to say that I haven’t had a chance to read this book, even though I am going to comment on its concept taken from its own promotional blurbs, which I presume to be accurate. (I should also state that instead of this book, I chose Bruce Feiler’s “Where God Was Born.”) I’d actually like to read this book, but I don’t have the time or money to invest in it right now. However, if someone feels inclined to buy it for me, I promise I’ll read it the first chance I get. (The same goes for Dawkins The God Delusion or even Sam Harris’ stuff.)

The publisher’s blurb for the book states:

Physicist Victor J. Stenger contends that, if God exists, some evidence for this existence should be detectable by scientific means, especially considering the central role that God is alleged to play in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. … After evaluating all the scientific evidence, Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God.

Assuming, as I said, that this is an accurate representation of Stenger’s hypothesis, then one really doesn’t have to read the book to discover its primary error; it would seem, rather than disproving the hypothesis that science can offer proof of God’s existence, he has only proved that his own hypothesis, that science can prove the opposite, has failed. It would seem that in taking on such a task, Stenger has come to a Gödellian impasse. One of Stenger’s problems can be seen at the outset: what if his hypothesis that evidence for God can be detectable by scientific means is either not true, or is unprovable? His conclusion, then, can only be trusted if you accept the same set of presuppositions as Stenger bases his argument on; in which case you have no proof of anything at all.

It remains to be seen whether Stenger’s argument is consistent (I would actually have to read the book to comment on this). Even so, it only proves a consistent system, not that it accurately represents truth. Again, if the presuppositions are incorrect, all you have is a consistent work of fiction.

Stenger is seems to be taking on a de facto exercise in fallacious reasoning when he is attempting to address the truth of one system (that is, theology) from within his own system. Brian Bosse, in his discussion on The Nature of Argumentation (Part 3), states:

I can’t stress enough the importance of arguing independently of your system for your system. Most arguments between systems are not made independently of the system. That is, most arguments assume their system upfront, and commit this most basic fallacy.

Now, Stenger may have some points to make with regard to others who attempt to disprove science from within a theological framework, or who put forth inconsistent arguments for the existence of God; I have just as much of a problem with bad Christian logic as I do with bad scientific logic.

However, there is one other consideration: What if everything we see as science – even (gasp!) evolution – is the work of God? Assuming that God is outside of the system He created, He would not be subject to the cause and effect nature of creation, and so therefore not provable from within the system. However, this could provide the basis for all those others – such as Francis S. Collins, who wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief – who look at the same facts, but see God displayed there.

Faith, anyone?

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews | 5 Comments

The cultist at your door…

Posted on February 15, 2007 by me

We’ve probably all experienced door-to-door evangelism, from one side of the door or the other. I’ve been on both sides, though most of the time on the inside. There was a time when I looked forward to these random encounters as great evangelistic opportunities. I’ve had many theological discussions with members of various religious cults, mostly JWs and Mormons.

I actually went through a number of Mormon missionaries over a period of months as I continued to invite them back. I’d eventually present them with a question they couldn’t spout off a rehearsed answer to, and they’d promise to go talk to their superiors and come back. Unfortunately, they never did; instead the church would send new, more experienced evangelists, who would go through the same cycle. Eventually I realized as that with many things, in cult evangelism there is a law of diminishing returns. I learned a lot in the process, however.

It’s been years since I invited any of them in. (I should mention that I don’t let vacuum or insurance salesmen in either. ) Occasionally I’ll let them know they are in error at the door, give them a smile and send them off. Having a family makes ad hoc living room evangelism kind of difficult. Plus, I just don’t have the energy, and I have other excuses, too.

Today I read an absolutely hilarious post (which, by the way, inspired this one of mine) by Paul Vieira, “telling religious people to go away.” This is a must read, for all of us who don’t want to be evangelized, as well for those who still have some inkling to go out banging on strange doors. Enjoy.

Posted in Random Thoughts | 3 Comments

The religion of politics

Posted on February 14, 2007 by me

Republican politics, since the rise of the “Moral Majority” about three decades ago, has become increasingly religion-aware. I can’t use the word religious and certainly can’t say spiritual, but religion-aware seems to sum it up nicely. I was just reading a bit on MSNBC by Howard Fineman (The Preacher Primary) talking about the political interest in the National Religious Broadcasters convention – it seems that four of the announced candidates are attending, including Mitt Romney. It is certainly an interesting phenomenon, and it seems that the religious broadcasters – at least the power brokers, Falwell, Robertson and Dobson – have just as much interest in getting control of the candidates. Giuliani, by the way, will not be there – it seems he doesn’t need them as much as the others do. (That may be reason enough to vote for him…)

This coming election brings a new twist to the tangled web that is politics: Newly announced candidate Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, ex-social liberal and recently converted pro-lifer, is a “devout” Mormon, and former bishop of the Mormon Church. Even more interesting is that it appears that this may be good enough for Pat Robertson, who has apparently already slated Romney to speak at Robertson’s Regent College commencement.

Romney is working hard to build an acceptance, or at least a comfort level, with conservative Christians. He knows that he has little chance without them. In another MSNBC article, Romney is quoted as saying,

“I believe in God. I believe that all the men and women in this country are children of God — the men and women of the entire world, our brothers and sisters,” he added. “The kind of values which I have in my heart are the kinds of values which America needs.”

This is a different issue than when John Kennedy had to overcome his Catholic allegiance, and I think even different than someone who may be Jewish. Make no mistake, when a Mormon says that he believes in “God” he is not meaning the God of the Jews, Christians, and even Muslims, and to say that “all … are children of God” is to say something else entirely.

For some, the issues may be more important than faith. From a political, earthly point of view, this indeed makes sense. However, from a “spiritual” point of view, I don’t think it does. In fact, looking only at moral issues is really not that different than Pharisee-ism or (gasp) humanism; it is looking at “flesh and blood” (to quote Paul in Ephesians) rather than the spiritual realities.

I’ve thought for a long time that many of the “Christian” conservative political evangelists have been trying to build the Kingdom of God by fighting wars against flesh and blood – again, one of the errors of the Pharisees (and other 1st Century Jewish sects). Manipulating earthly powers and principalities only goes so far. This is not to say that God can’t use anybody – God has used many pagan rulers for His purposes. However, given the option (which, unlike many countries, we do) I’d rather that when my president prays, I’d like him to pray to someone who can answer back.

Posted in Politics/Current Events | Leave a comment

Recognizing The Church That Is

Posted on February 10, 2007 by me

A couple of posts ago I wrote about the tendency to confuse the church organization, which often needs constant cheerleading to keep it going, with The Church That Is, that just is. In some respects, we’ve all been trained this way, although perhaps not as much as in times past.

I grew up in a small town with several churches. We had many of the standards: Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, Evangelical Covenant, and occasionally one or 2 more. On Tuesdays, we’d all take an hour off from public school to go to our respective churches for religious instruction. Not much was ever discussed between us about our respective churches, and it was just understood that our church affiliation made us different from the other kids. There were a couple who didn’t go anywhere, and we all felt somewhat sorry for them – but no one ever considered asking them to come along. It was actually unthinkable to invite someone to change churches – you just were who you were.

Things are obviously much different now, although some of the more traditional churches try to keep their flocks from straying out of their pens. It’s not unusual for people to change churches, often spending a couple of years at one place, then moving to another. However, even with this more tenuous connection to a congregation or denomination, there still tends to be an identity that develops based on where you attend at the moment. You’re friends with this group of people, then move on to another group, often abandoning old relationships (we consider it “drifting apart” rather than abandonment) in favor of the new. It’s a lot like serial monogamy.

We often wouldn’t consider attending a home group or Bible study that isn’t associated with our current church, even though that group may be (or have been) our close friends. There are those of us who do, and we are looked at with suspicion by pastors and leaders (and the more “committed” members of the church) who can’t understand why we won’t abandon our connections outside of the church.

Commitment still means 100% to the organization in many places. It doesn’t matter that we may be involved in tremendous para-church (I hate that term) organizations and doing the work of the Kingdom; if it’s not a part of the “program” it doesn’t spell commitment.

There’s something wrong. With these attitudes, we become blind to The Church That Is. We meet other people who are Christians, and don’t develop Kingdom relationships with them, because we fail to recognize the Kingdom.

“Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” said Jesus. I suspect that we often miss out on the presence of Jesus in our daily lives, because we have been blinded to the reality of the Kingdom. What does it mean to “gather in my name?” I wonder if it is as simple as recognizing each other as fellow disciples, by failing to see the Kingdom in each other, and failing to recognize that The Church That Is exists wherever we are.

Why can’t the Church exist where two Christians at work meet at break to just see how each other is doing? Why can’t the Church exist at the gym during a game of racquetball? If we acknowledge the we are all the temple of the Holy Spirit and the reality of the Church exists in the connection of these Earthly temples, then the real presence of Jesus and the real presence of The Church That Is exists at that moment, at that place. There’s no need for singing or liturgy or a sermon… all that is needed is our presence.

The organizations, the buildings, and all of that is not necessarily wrong (it obviously depends on the organization…); the reality is that these are para-church organizations, set up merely to facilitate meetings and programs. Some are good, some are not so good – but, they are only tools of the real Church. We can’t confuse them with The Church itself.

The Church That Is, is. It’s as simple as that.

Posted in Church, My Own Personal Religion | 2 Comments