Tuesday, 9 August 2016

Does Science Argue for or against God?

Here is an interesting and challenging bit by Eric Metaxas. Many people hold out the fine tuning of the universe as a proof of God's existence. I don't. It all could be just an incredibly unlikely coincidence. There's no proof that it isn't. But in my own opinion, the existence of God certainly seems to be the simpler of the two explanations. It certainly is an indication that a belief in God is not unreasonable, simple or na├»ve. And that double negative (not unreasonable), after all, is the very idea reflected in the title of this blog.

The only reservation I have with Mr Metaxas' presentation is in the blurb below - that chances are less than zero. It is hyperbole, of course, a figure of speech, because odds or chances, no matter how infinitesimally small, cannot be less than zero, (can they?) That just gives the other side one more piece of ammunition, however small, to attack the argument.
"Why are we here? Literally. The latest science says we shouldn't be. It says that the chance life exists at all is less than zero. So, is science the greatest threat to the idea of Intelligent Design or is science its greatest advocate? Best-selling author and lecturer, Eric Metaxas, poses this intriguing question and comes up with a very unexpected and challenging answer."

Take Care


Warren said...

Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, you might find Pete Enns' critique of the article interesting. I will admit that, ever since Metaxas jumped on the Donald Trump bandwagon, I've lost interest in him.

John K said...

Thanks Warren,
I checked out Enns' critique. I won't comment on it other than to say it seems rather deep in parts and certainly gives some food for thought. However, I did enjoy his latest post about why young people leave the church. I am mostly in agreement with it and may actually post on it myself.