Tag Archive: science does not have all the answers


“The real problem for empirical scientists & rational skepticism is we care more about truth than the religious do.”  Aron Ra, “Faith is not a Virtue”

Interesting thought.  Especially since Mr. Ra also believes that those who believe in God have no interest in the truth.  But is the truth rational skeptics, as Mr. Ra identifies himself as, care about the whole and complete truth, or is any partial truth ok?  Or is it that since, in Mr. Ra’s estimation, Christians have no real care for the truth that any care for the truth no matter how small or partial , would be more?  Somehow I get the impression that neither of these is what he meant.

Or, perhaps truth isn’t really all that important to some rational skeptics after all.

So if Mr. Ra is so committed to truth why does he have such an aversion to it?  While busily stating over & over , I suppose in the hope that repetition will make something true, that evolution has been proven, he steadfastly avoids calling evolution a law, the scientific proclamation of true, provable, and reproducible fact.  Fair enough, part of scientific law requires a theory to be reproducible, ie: standing on Earth, let go of an object and it will fall to the ground.
But here is where Mr. Ra’s statements start to break down.  At 10:01 of his recorded lecture at Eastern Illinois University “Because it’s called the theory of gravity”.   Yes that’s right the theory of gravity.  Do you find it interesting that it is now the theory of gravity.  Has gravity been “Plutocized” from a law to a theory?  My guess is that the hope is by reducing certain laws of science to theories it will help elevate the theory of evolution in the public eye.

Change what words mean and change the past.

Once again trying to change the meaning of words to alter the discussion, like an illusionist tying to draw your attention to one thing, while distracting you from noticing the elephant walking off stage.  The desire to alter what words means is a dishonest attempt to win the game by changing the rules.  Hopefully Mr. Ra will move to his stated desire, to be more concerned with the truth.

Although I doubt it
Advertisements
While I understand that many may believe that the God of the bible expects blind faith, I wonder where this comes from?  I can not seem to find this teaching, this command anywhere in the Bible.

I recently saw a video by Aron RaFaith is not a Virtue, and he will contend that to have faith is to disengage your mind, to turn off your cognitive ability.  Just some examples are:
  1. “Faith is a secure confidence not based on evidence”.  Can’t speak for anyone else but my faith can only be based upon past experience, and the fact is the same with much of science.  After all what much of what is called scientific “fact” is taking multiple results to an experiment and based on getting the same result multiple times, believing that the results will continue to be the same ad infinitum.
  2. “Faith is unsupported wishful thinking”.  Christianity isn’t about wishing things were all puppy dogs and rainbows, but rather an acceptance of what is, not about how we wish it was.  We accept what is and make the decision to live our lives based on that, working to achieve what we believe to be the best possible outcome, even if we do not have the certainty of success.
  3. “Religion is a belief system that means you are required to believe this, and forbidden to believe that” – guilty as charged, however science is in the exact same boat, for example, if you’re a mathematician aren’t you required to believe that 2+2=4, and not 6? Or how about an evolutionary biologist?  If you don’t believe the theories of this discipline can you still call yourself an evolutionary biologist?
  4. “The real problem for empirical scientists and rational skepticism is we care more about truth than the religious do” – really? As a follower of Christ the pursuit of truth is a requirement, not an option.  The problem with scientists and skeptics is the refusal to admit, at least in public, that those data points most often used as “proof” of evolution, the beginning of the universe, and the like are assumptions, an if this then that, line of thinking.  Where is the willingness to stop and say clearly that ” We believe that The universe began because of X, therefore Y, but if the beginning is actually Z then the answer would be completely different and the truth is we can not know if for no other reason then there are different ways to get to this point and there is no empirical evidence which can say with absolute certainty that X is really the starting place.”  Will you ever hear a Hawking, Dawkins or other scientists who believe in evolutionary origins say this?  Will they freely admit to doubt or other possibilities?  I doubt it but time will tell.
  5. “All sin can be forgiven if you believe in Jesus, and simply because you believe in Jesus” – Close but not quite, yes all sin can be forgiven, however as James says “Thou believe that there is one God; thou doesn’t well: the devils also believe, and tremble”.  So no just belief is not the key, it starts there, but it also requires, a declaration of Jesus as Lord, see Romans 10:9-10, and if you think this is just some sort of lip service to God think again.
  6. “He(God) lives by those rules even when circumstances demand exception” – really and what exception would that be?

Not having the answers doesn’t make you wrong

Oh don’t get me wrong there are far too many who call themselves Christians, and even claim to speak for God espousing some of the things mentioned above.  Even saying some incredibly ridicules things as if they were a prophet.  Maybe according to some I am a heretic for even questioning their beliefs.  I think however that those of us that dare to claim Jesus as Lord should be neither closed-minded to what science has to say, or to take it on blind faith.
Unlike Mr. Ra I can freely admit my prejudices but also accept that at this point there are some things that neither science or Christianity can answer.  Things like how exactly was the universe created, when the Bible speaks of a 6 day creation is it 6 literal days?  Or is it like Peter spoke of that a day is like a thousand years?(2Peter3:8). Only time will tell.

I’ll keep looking for answers,thank you very much.

For now I must be content with not knowing all the answers, but continue to search for them.  I don’t believe God gave us a brain only to turn it off when the questions get tough.  Although I am a little frustrated with others, especially non-Christians, trying to define Christianity, I will continue to do my best to point out the flaws, even glaring errors in their definitions.  Maybe it won’t matter to them, but it matters to me.
What about you, have you encountered people mis-representing what Christianity is?  Did you speak up?  What did you do about it?

Well at least it shouldn’t be.  Faith is about taking what is known or makes sense and applying it to that which can not be proved.

Are you supposed to leave your mind at the sanctuary door? Why does it seem so many people think that either believing in God requires turning off your brain, or if you’re not turning off your mind well then at least faith has no place in the outside world.  Religion is all well and good but there are far too many holes and too many leaps of faith to make it really of any value besides making you “feel” good.

Well that’s a bunch of baloney, a load of bull.  Stop and actually look at the current trends in scientific study such as cosmology, biology, and history and look at all of the leaps of faith being touted as fact and ask yourself, does this make sense? 

I still remember sitting in a third grade classroom in Lancaster and having a teacher tell us that the earth was heading into the next ice age.  Thirty years later, my own kids are being told that the planet is warming.  High school, the planets millions of years old, today its billions, and too bad those extra zeros couldn’t have found their way to my bank account instead.  Science would like for us to “Believe” it has all the answers, but it doesn’t.  Two of my brothers are men of science, one a doctor the other computers, and don’t get me wrong I want science to take us to the moon and beyond, thankful for its cure of polio, and hope for further amazement.  Hey I’m still waiting for the flying car and the transporter.  But what I really want is to hear science say “Well if this then that, but the truth is we really don’t know.  What we are telling you is what we think happened, but to truly believe it we have to take this amazing leap of faith that things played out in the past exactly how we think they did with absolutely no variance to the equation. 

So which is more an act of blind faith?  Believing in the latest idea about how the world began, no it’s NOT a theory go plug “scientific theory” into Wikipedia yourself, then ask does evolution meet that criteria? Or is a belief system that’s been around for 2,000 years seem more stable more permanent and less a blind leap than the latest trend?