Science and Logic and Faith - WT Study July 11, 2004

by jgnat 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jgnat

  ?Creation Declares the Glory of God!? WT June 1, 2004 (WT quotes in red.)

  This article quotes a few scientists; agnostic and Christian, then Paul, to argue that creation speaks of God?s existence. Personally, I do sense the presence of God when I gaze in to the night sky. But for me, this is not a logical conclusion, but an emotive experience. My relationship with God is based on faith, not on empirical evidence. I will try and wade through the logic in this article, and I invite you to look for holes.

  a. ...the vast majority of mankind are not <moved to give God glory>.

  b. Some even deny that God exists. They quote portions from George Greenstein, full text below.

  c. Scientific research is limited - restricted to what humans can actually observe and study.

  d. Since ?God is a Spirit? he ....cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny.

  e. It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.

  f. They quote portions from Vincent Wigglesworth, who considers scientific method to be a religious approach. Full text below.

  g. So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another?

  h. Belief in God is not blind faith, however, for there is overwhelming evidence of God?s existence (Hebrews 11:1).

  i. They quote portions of Allan Sandage, astronomer.

  j. They quote the apostle Paul (Romans 1:20)...<disbelievers> are inexcusable.

  In summary, science cannot prove or disprove God. But let?s use scientific ?evidence? to ?prove? that not believing in Him is inexcusable. Make up your mind, Watchtower. Is believing in God a matter of faith or not?

  "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? Do we not see in its harmony, a harmony so perfectly fitted to our needs, evidence of what one religious writer has called "a preserving, a continuing, an intending mind, a Wisdom, Power and Goodness far exceeding the limits of our thoughts?" A heady prospect. Unfortunately I believe it to be illusory. As I claim mankind is not the center of the universe, as I claim anthropism to be different from anthropocentrism, so too I believe that the discoveries of science are not capable of proving God's existence-not now, not ever. And more than that: I also believe that reference to God will never suffice to explain a single one of these discoveries. God is not an explanation."

  Greenstein, George. "The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos," William Morrow & Co: New York NY, 1988, pp.27-28.
  

  New DISCOVERIES in SCIENCE are NOT made by plunges into the UNKNOWN. They are made on the MISTY FRINGES of the 'UNKNOWN' by OBSERVERS whose eyes can PIERCE the FOG MORE DEEPLY than OTHERS. I therefore make no apology for devoting much of this essay to what is known. But what is 'KNOWN' in Science? The philosophical answer is: 'NOTHING'. What a scientist means when he says that something is known, is merely that he has recognized certain consistencies in the sequence of events which lend PLAUSIBILITY to the idea that certain causes are at work, and the observed consistencies suggest that the phenomena follow certain laws. This is well recognized as a RELIGIOUS APPROACH; it rests upon an unquestioning faith that NATURAL PHENOMENA CONFORM to 'LAWS of NATURE' whose origins are pressed back into the INNERMOST RECESSES of our CONSCIOUSNESS

  . Wigglesworth, Sir Vincent Brian *1899
  REF: "The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance", edited by Roland Duncan and Miranda Weaston-Smith, PERGAMON, 1977, p. 252 'The control of Form in the living body'

  http://mpec.sc.mahidol.ac.th/preedeeporn/CquotW.htm

  "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)

  Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
• 

  Tashawaa

  b. Some even deny that God exists.

  Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." ( 6 )

  1. Willford, J.N.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  I accept that it is arrogant to dismiss God - but that is a blade that cuts both ways - it is also arrogant to dismiss science even if it disproves some of our most cherished beliefs - muslims and the Koran find it particularly painful in places
• 

  hillary_step

  Jgnat,

  Interesting commentary, thank you. I think that it would be much easier to respect religious viewpoints and religious people if they were honest enough to acknowledge that science and para-science are two disciplines that make mismatched companions. If like yourself, a persons inuitative emotional inclination leads them to a belief in God, what person can object to this? It is when groups like the WTS begin to claim a scientific basis for that belief that they come face to face with true science.

  The WTS, like its YEC relatives scour the Creationsit websites looking for para-scientific quotes that they then fob off on the uniformed as 'science'. For example, this website http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html contains the quotes from that Watchtower that you analyse above. They are throughly dishonest in their approach to this issue, but then why should we be surprised, they have a clear agenda and are prepared to bend anything into shape to suit it.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  Gopher

  It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.

  How can "faith" be scientific? How can it be studied, or measured?

  If a person chooses to have that faith in a Creator, fine with me. But let's not call it scientific.

  It is arrogant of the WT Society to proclaim that people don't measure up to their standards of belief or faith, with quotes like:

  The vast majority of mankind are not moved to give God glory.

  What are they, mind readers? Surveys show that most people do believe in God in some way. But for most it is a personal, private matter. They don't feel the need to "give God glory" by trying to persuade others to believe the "truth" that they believe.

  Many who are evangelical Christians will point to favorable interventions in their lives (or the lives of someone they know or are close to) as PROOF that God exists. However, why then does that same God who gives small favors (to people who don't really need it) allow untold suffering and abuse to occur to so many unfortunate people in the world? God either plays favorites or is disinterested in this world's suffering, IMHO.
• 

  Elsewhere

  d. Since ?God is a Spirit? he ....cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny.

  e. It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.

  Sorry buddy... can't have it both ways.
• 

  czarofmischief

  sheesh, I could write better appeals. God is an emotional experience. Science and Nature handle all the physical stuff, but God feeds our spirit, creates life, inspires creativity...

  CZAR
• 

  AlanF

  The quotes you provided, jgnat, indicate that the Watchtower Society is still up to its old tricks of borrowing material from the creationists of that old whore, Babylon the Great.

  The ideas expressed in The Watchtower are exactly the same as those put forth by today's so-called Intelligent Design creationists. The following points are major themes in these folks' writings:

  e. It is arrogant to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.

  f. They quote portions from Vincent Wigglesworth, who considers scientific method to be a religious approach.

  g. When someone rejects belief in God, he is simply exchanging one type of faith for another.

  h. Belief in God is not blind faith, for there is overwhelming evidence of God?s existence.

  The Society is just following the ID folks in wanting to have it both ways -- belief in God is a matter of faith, but also scientific. Far from getting "spiritual food in due season" from God, they're wearing out the tits of that poor old Whore.

  AlanF
• 

  heathen

  They used to like to use scriptures that are scientific to explain that God exists . In Job where it says the earth is round and is hung on nothing . Now how could someone know this back then ? If you read some of ecclesiastes it clearly talks about evaporation of water and how nature replenishes the supply . There is no way people could have known that back then . The bible is scientifically correct on things as proven by the WTBTS . There doesn't seem to be myth or superstition involved in these observations .

  I agree that belief in an all powerful being is based on faith but can science ignore the evidence I just presented ?
• 

  AlanF

  heathen said:

  : In Job where it says the earth is round

  Job says nothing of the kind. Isaiah 40:22 says that God walks about on the dome of the sky above the circle of the earth. The picture invoked is like that in Daniel's account of Nebuchadnezzar's dream tree: a great tree standing in the center of a circular earth, with its top touching the sky dome. So people who invoke Isaiah to claim that Bible writers knew the earth was round are ignoring facts.

  : and is hung on nothing .

  Other ancients said that the circular earth stood on something else, like the back of a great tortoise. For the Jews, their God sustained everything, so the earth was held up by God's invisible power. The language 'hangs upon nothing' shows that the Jews still thought of the earth as hanging in some sense, but hanging suspended by God's power rather than by something material.

  : Now how could someone know this back then ?

  They didn't. It was a religious myth.

  : If you read some of ecclesiastes it clearly talks about evaporation of water and how nature replenishes the supply .

  You're not remembering your scriptures properly. It's Isaiah 55:10 you're talking about. In context, this says (NIV):

  8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

  This says nothing about evaporation. It simply says that rain and snow come down from heaven (a simple observation) and in some unspecified way goes back to it. Perhaps the writer of Isaiah knew something about evaporation, but that's no big deal, because anyone who watches a puddle or pours water out onto a surface can watch it disappear. Obviously it went somewhere, and it's a simple conclusion that it disappears back to heaven.

  : There is no way people could have known that back then .

  Of course not. They couldn't observe water disappear from containers or puddles. They couldn't decide that their God was so powerful he could effortlessly hold up the earth. They couldn't stand on a flat plain and observe that the land (earth) formed a circle around them (the horizon).

  : The bible is scientifically correct on things as proven by the WTBTS .

  Not really. It's either right in a trivial way, or it's flat out wrong (like saying that the earth is a circle).

  : I agree that belief in an all powerful being is based on faith but can science ignore the evidence I just presented ?

  What evidence? You've only shown that the Bible says trivially true things, or wrong things about science.

  AlanF