Friday, September 9, 2011

God and Science

David Berlinski is one interesting dude. And I think I've found a book I want very much to read (Berlinski's The Devil's Delusion). This 11 minute video is, I'll promise you, the most interesting reflection on the interaction between science and faith that you will watch today. Watch the whole thing, as they say.


Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Roger Johnston gave me this book three years ago. Very good book, but there is one problematic place. When you get to p.37 you will see this:

"To the question what makes the laws of moral life true, there are three answers: God, logic, and nothing. Each is inadequate."

I'd be interested in your take on this and his reason why God is inadequate.

The Bullhorn said...

I've not read the book yet, though I have added it to my Amazon wish list. But nevertheless, I will take a stab at a (possibly uninformed) answer.

I think basically what Berlinski is arguing is that theists can't prove that what they are saying is true. At least, not completely. There is no final apologetic argument which will overwhelm all questions. Some things have to be taken on faith. But he is also saying something very important here, which is that theism is not unique in this regard. Philosophical naturalism, which is the real worldview of most scientists, can't prove its first principles either. So they should spare us the condescending pose that they possess all knowledge and their belief that they are rational and everybody else is illogically leaping in the dark. At least, that's how I understand him.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Well, the continuing paragraph actually makes this claim:
"If moral laws reflect the will of God, the He might presumably change his mind, and tomorrow issue a new set of commandments encouraging rape, plunder, murder, or the worship of false idols." He goes on to say that if God chooses right because it is right, then God is confined by the law.

The main thing that he DOESN'T say is the God does not change and that what is good is based on God and His character, which cannot change. He never says that, which is why this section bothered me.