SCIENCE - What can we really say?

First, please excuse the amount of time between posts. It’s been busy around here and I consider that extra cause for thanks.

Dave’s last post brings us very nicely into a most important point in our series. Some roads in our apologetic walk should not be trod upon. You will quickly find yourself in a mire. The same can be said for scientific claims. As J.P. Moreland points out in the Saddleback conference, about 95% of science has nothing to do with theology and 95% of theology has nothing to do with science. There is some overlap mind you, and we shall explore much of that overlap as we proceed. But it needs be known that just because someone is a scientist does not mean he or she can say they have disproved God. And there are many Christian believers (or Jewish or Muslim) who just as mistakenly say, ‘I can give you proof for God.’

This is most important. Write this down; it is childishly simple: There is no proof or disproof for God. There is no one who can come to you and say, “I can prove to you that God does not exist.” Nor is there is anyone who can say, “I can prove God exists.”

C.S. Lewis once (quite seriously) quipped, ‘the day that someone can offer proof for God it will likely be too late, for it will be the Last Day.’ We have other articles on faith here at Timor Dei, but the gist is that belief in God or disbelief in Him, must be just that: a belief. If the existence of God were so easily known, we would not have a choice in knowing of Him at all.

Now, it is not a matter of knowing of God with which Christianity concerns itself, but knowing Him, i.e personally, having an intimate relationship with Him. There is a difference. I can know of a beautiful woman, or I can know her. By merely knowing of a woman I may never actually speak to her. However, in knowing her personally, I can come to know her quite intimately and even become engaged and marry her. Then our knowledge of each other really begins to grow, but not without consequence on our lives mind you; I must make concession for her and she for me. That need not be the case for someone of whom I am merely aware exists. (In fact, quite happily for them, most beautiful women don’t know I exist!)

I digress. My point here is that if there were proof of God, then we must know of His incredible majesty and beauty as the Creator of all, including our consciences, our reason and emotions, all wonder, good and love (not evil, but that is a different argument - see WHAT GOOD IS EVIL?) so, just as a man may be overwhelmed by a beautiful woman, so would we be overwhelmed by God. He is our ultimate joy or our ultimate fear. And were He undeniably real, than so would His majesty be and our love for Him would, too, be entirely thorough, though it would not be ours, so to speak, for we would have no choice in the matter. In order for our love for Him to be real love, so great and real a God is He that He must stay hidden. Love must be a choice. That is a wondrous first clue to His love, that He honors you enough to give you a choice. You don’t have to believe. And for that, too, I love Him.

So, Christianity cannot say, “I can prove God.” Nor can science say it disproves God. Science as we will see cannot make statements about 'metaphysical' things. It can, at times, answer the how, but not the why; giving reason does not answer purpose.

But what we, as witnesses can say is, ‘I can give you some very convincing clues, both scientifically and theologically that I would like you think about.’ The evidence we do have, the universe and life as we do know it, as we experience it, I believe that the theological answer is the answer that best fits what we know reality to be. Ultimately, nothing we say can ever convince anyone of the truth of God anyway; that isn’t our job. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to do that and He is best at it. So let Him do His work and let us get busy doing ours.

How do we know? Part 1 - the Question

Why do all religions claim that they are the only way? How do we know which, if any, is right?

This is a very common question, one that is asked all the time. It’s also the one that gets a lot of Christians charged with bigotry and intolerance because we believe that Christ is the only way. But is it true that all religions claim to be the one true way? Not all, but certainly most. Why do they do it? I can’t speak for any other faith, but we Christians believe it because Christ said it. And why do we trust Christ? To borrow from Hollywood, “That, detective, is the right question.”*

But what is the answer? To answer this question, we must turn to history. You see, the Bible has stood the test of history, and it contains a huge number of verifiable (and verified, on many occasions) historical facts. The New Testament has never (to my knowledge) been proven wrong in any historical event it records. It is true that some of what it records has yet to be verified, but I believe it will, in time. Compare this to other holy books, like the Book of Mormon, that contain verified historical errors, and you find that what we have, in fact, are reliable primary source documents about, amongst other things, the life of Jesus. Four of them. They’re called by Christians “the Gospels”. Now, many tend to dismiss them or think of them as one document because they are bound together in one volume called the Bible, but that would be a mistake. Just because we collected the documents and published them together does nothing to undermine their historic reliability. Entire volumes have been written on whether what we have today is what was actually written, and a very strong case can be made in favour of their reliability, so I won’t attempt to do so here (the interested reader is referred The Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell, for a very thorough examination or here for a thumbnail sketch).

What it boils down to are a series of historical facts that are, according to Dr William Lane Craig, almost universally accepted by Biblical scholars, religious and secular alike. These are: Christ’s crucifixion, His honourable burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the empty tomb three days later, and the post-mortem appearances to His disciples. Now, it should be noted, that although most scholars agree on these facts, they differ in their interpretation. For example, with regards to the empty tomb, some say the disciples stole the body, or they went to the wrong tomb, etc. These four events will take some time to thoroughly discuss, so what I intend to do over the next week or so is post on each of these in turn. I’ll leave it a couple of days between each for comments and for me to prepare the next post. But, in case you can’t wait that long, let me fill you in on how it ends – the hypothesis that Jesus was who He claimed to be (the Son of God) emerges as the most probable explanation for these events. And if He was who He claimed to be, then we have good reason to believe him when He said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

P.S. For an extremely easy to read, cheap book on this topic ($6US), I recommend The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. I will be drawing heavinly on this book for the subsequent posts.

Part 2: The Crucifixion
Part 3: The Empty Tomb
Part 4: Appearances and Transformations

* I, Robot, (2004)