Category: Apologetics

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Lately, we’ve been looking at the relationship between science and religion and how Christians should see it. Today, we’re going to be continuing that look by discussing the doctrine of the multiverse.

Now a lot of us out there are probably skeptical of the idea of a multiverse. As per usual here however, I would recommend that when debating someone, be more than ready to grant them the multiverse. Why should it be that such a belief would be seen as a threat to the existence of God? Does the existence of more than one universe make the source of those universes more unlikely?

Yesterday in church I gave an example to illustrate this. I pointed to a parking lot across the street from our church and said “Suppose you were told that there was a dead body in the parking lot across the street and saw that indeed there was.” Immediately, you will be wondering a number of questions and one of them will be “How did a dead body wind up there?”

Now suppose that there was a detective who came over and said “I saw some of you people come out and look across the street wondering what was going on. I want to assure you that you have nothing to wonder about. My officers inform me that there are five hundred more bodies behind this building. Therefore, there’s no need to wonder about this one.”

None of us would accept that. If we were wondering what the cause of one body was, we will be wondering even more what the cause of 500 bodies were. Thus, if we have one universe and we have a hard time explaining that one, it does not help to say “Well we can solve the explanation of this universe by saying there are X more universes.” That’s only increased the difficulty!

For each of these universes, we will have to ask what is the cause of that universe. If we have universes that are somehow producing other universes, it becomes more of a puzzle. What is it in a universe that gives it this power that it can in a way reproduce itself into another universe?

In fact, if these other universes were somehow able to be found and we could find out that they had life as well, that would not lessen our wonder. It would increase it. How could it be that there is a source of universes that not only produces universes but tends to produce life-sustaining universes? Why is it that the universes that are thriving supposedly are the ones where life is being sustained?

Of course, if modern ideas are correct, it could be we will never understand such questions. Many of us will live as if there is one universe, but let us not see the multiverse as a threat to theism. Instead, let’s push it back on to the non-theist and remember the reformulated argument given yesterday.

All things that have potential to change depend on something else for their existing.
The universe has potential to change.
The universe depends on something else for its existing.

That works not just with our universe, but any other universe.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Yesterday, I gave a look at the Kalam cosmological argument in the horizontal sense and I said that I think it works, but I want us to rethink our usage of it. I believe science can support theistic ideas, but they cannot prove theistic ideas, and thus I want an argument that is not married to science but is still functional.

Hence, I suggested rephrasing the Kalam to a form more fitting to the vertical argument and came up with the following:

All things that have the potential to change depend on something else for their existing.
The universe has the potential to change.
Therefore, the universe depends on something else for its existing.

Now notice I say existing instead of existence. All derived being depends on something else for its being. Derived being is derived for that which receives being has potential to change and is not existence itself. It rather moves from one mode of existence to another mode of existence. This is true not just of material objects, but of immaterial ones as well, such as angels.

Why make such an argument? We believe scientifically today that the universe had a beginning. However, we also know that science can change at any moment depending on new data so let’s suppose for the sake of argument that new data shows up indicating an eternal universe. If not that, we can suppose this hypothesis of the multiverse is true and there are many universes. Again, an atheist can point to such a chain of universes and say “No need of a creator.”

My argument is still safe for it solely depends on something else being in existence and it doesn’t care about how long it was in existence. To imagine the difference, consider your existence. You are here because of the union of the male and female sex cells. You parents had something to do with your existence, even if you don’t know them or live with different “parents.” (I use parentheses to distinguish from biological parents. Adoptive parents are wonderful)

The same is true for each of their existences. However, your grandparents did not have any direct involvement with your coming into existence. (At least, I certainly hope they didn’t!) Both sets of your grandparents could have been dead and you would still be able to come into existence.

However, now picture a stick moving an object, and then that stick being moved by a hand. The object requires the stick to move but at the same time, the stick requires the hand to move. If the hand goes away, the stick and the object cease to move. There is dependence all the way to the end of the chain.

This is the difference with this argument. It is no longer the question of just bringing about existence but rather sustaining existence. If God’s nature is his existence, then we do not ask the question of Him. He does not receive existence for existence does not receive existence nor does He move from one mode of existence to another, because what mode of existence is there beyond existence?

The argument brings us back to the question of existence that science cannot answer. Science deals with a type of existence, but it does not deal with existence itself.

Now once again, I think Kalam works, but I want us to move past the science vs. religion nonsense and into the real debate area. Science is not the final arbiter of if God exists and it’s time we stopped treating it as such.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, I’d like to take a look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument as we continue our look at science and Christianity together. I think some of what I have to say about this argument might be surprising.

The argument as it is traditionally understood goes like this:

All things that begin to exist have a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.

No one disputes the form of this syllogism. It is entirely valid. That does not mean that it is true, as a syllogism can be valid an still be false, but when we have disputes over Kalam, it is not because of the form. Therefore, one of the propositions must be seen as false in order to deny the conclusion.

Oddly, it’s usually the first one that’s seen as false. It is incredible that this has to be defended. What we have is empirical evidence that every event we have ever seen has had a cause and every time something comes into existence, there’s a cause. Yes. I know about particles coming out of a vacuum, but a vacuum is not nothing. I would also say we are just beginning research here and I am more prepared to say that we don’t know what’s going on entirely before suddenly throwing out a principle we apply in every other area of life.

Another rejoinder given is that some new atheists will say that the theist says that everything that exists has a cause, so who caused God? Those familiar with the cosmological argument already recognize the problem. Christians do not say that everything that exists has a cause. What they say is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Now I do believe modern science has established that the universe had a beginning. We can save a theory like the multiverse for another day. For now, I’d like to say that while I affirm Kalam as it stands, that does not mean I like it as it stands. There are some who object to an infinite regress and there is also the question of “If we found out that the universe didn’t have a beginning, would that makes the existence of God less likely?”

Therefore, while I am not against using the Kalam, I’d prefer to use the other version of it. Yes. There is another version of the Kalam argument. William Lane Craig uses the horizontal version. I prefer the vertical version. This is the version that gets at the question of existence itself.

My argument goes this way:

All things with potential to change depend on something else for their existing.
The universe has potential to change.
Therefore, the universe depends on something else for its existing.

Obviously, there will not be doubt that the universe changes in some way. The real premise to defend in this case will be the first one. That is an argument that I will be taking up in tomorrow’s blog to devote the whole of it to that topic.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the Ocean of Truth. Tonight, we’re going to continue our look at science and religion and I’d like to take a rather unique take on the creation-evolution debate.

First off, many of us are not proficient in the necessary sciences to come to a conclusion on evolutionary theory. I make no hesitations in saying that I am not skilled in that area. Does that mean we cannot have an opinion? No. We can certainly have opinions, but we must make them known cautiously. We cannot speak as authorities when we do not have the prerequisite study in the area.

Second, I am concerned over an attitude that comes along the lines of that if evolutionists win, then that means that naturalism becomes a more likely hypothesis, which is what someone on TheologyWeb asked me about. I have a hard time with that since I don’t view naturalism as a plausible alternative since they have a problem to begin with with the question of existence.

The situation then becomes that if we win this battle in science, then Christianity wins. If we lose this battle, then Christianity loses. I’d instead contend that science is meant to show us truths about the world that God created, but it is not to be dependent upon those truths. I think we could use science to support theistic belief, but at the same time, I want to raise the caution to us of marrying our theistic beliefs to the science of our time. As G.K. Chesterton said, he who marries the spirit of the age is destined to be a widow.

So let’s consider evolution. Does it follow that if somehow life came about through evolutionary means, that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Not at all. There is no contradiction affirming both of those. One would be a scientific truth and one would be a historical truth and the two don’t contradict necessarily.

Yet consider that in all of this, we are losing sight of other debates. We can debate moral outcomes of if evolution is applied on a grander scale and I think that would be more fruitful. One great mistake is to take one area of thought and apply it to areas where it does not apply. Evolution could be fine to bring about life, but it’s not a standard you want to use to determine moral truths.

We could also focus on other theistic arguments such as the moral argument, the existence/essence argument, or the argument from beauty. As well, we could start looking into biblical and historical studies to demonstrate that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead.

In all of this, Christianity does not need to back down. Consider this: If you are debating your opponent, how many hurdles do you want him to cross to get to the cross? Answer: As few as possible. It does not need to be “Believe in my view of origins and that Christ rose from the dead” but rather “Believe that Christ rose from the dead.”

Instead, you can go to the atheist and say “Sure. You can believe in that. I just want you to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.” Naturally, you can’t believe in evolution without God and be a Christian, but to be a Christian does not mean to abandon a view of origins, but to embrace a view of Christ.

That’s what we want people to get to. Let’s make sure that’s our focus.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We will return to our look at the relationship of science and religion, but I do have other matters to attend to and tonight, I’d like to look at a theme I see going on in debates. This is the idea that we do not spend time looking at the data. Instead, we look at everything but the data. For me, in a debate, I want the data. As Joe Friday would say “Just the facts!”

An example of this is a debate I am engaging in now on the topic of homosexual “marriage.” I am seeing the usual reply of being called a bigot. This in spite of the fact that I have no problem with homosexuals as people and I have had friends who are homosexuals and I am ardently against movements like that of Fred Phelps. I am a bigot because I am against homosexual marriage.

However, my wonder at that is that it is automatically assumed there are no good metaphysical reasons for my stance. Even supposing I have bad metaphysical reasons, I do have reasons other than “I hate homosexuals.” If I have some reason or reasons why I believe the traditional view should be upheld, then it does no good to say I am a bigot.

Furthermore, what does that do to people like David Benkof who runs the blog “Gays Defend Marriage.” Benkof is an open homosexual who believes marriage should be reserved for a man and for a woman and that the homosexual community should work on more important battles. Is he, an open homosexual, a bigot?

Our arguments could be exactly the same. When he gives them, the argument must be answered. When I give them, it can be dismissed because I’m a bigot.

In fact, let’s suppose that it was true that I was a bigot. Let’s suppose that I had a flaming hatred of homosexuals. What does that mean? Am I wrong? Are the arguments true if Benkof says them but false if I do? All it would prove is that I’m a jerk. It would not prove I am wrong.

For instance, consider an atheist like Christopher Hitchens who wrote “god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” This is a guy who it has been said could have his arguments summed up in this way; “There is no God and I hate Him.” I believe Hitchens and other new atheists despise religion. What am I to conclude? “These people hate religion, therefore God exists.”

That would be silly. I can look at their motives all I want, but in the end, I simply have to look at the data. What is the argument? What are its premises? What is its conclusion? What does it wish to prove? How strong are the reasons for believing in the argument?

Atheists can often make the mistake of discounting Christian apologists, philosophers, or NT scholars because they are Christians. It is an interesting technique to say “I’m going to only listen to evidence that comes from people that share the same viewpoint as I do.” It won’t be a shock if you don’t grow in your viewpoint then. Learning how your opponent thinks will help you with your own position and if your opponent is right, you are at least likely to find that out by honestly accessing his worldview.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t times that motive isn’t important. The problem is that we jump to motive first as if that’s a reason we don’t have to listen to the argument. It’s a whole lot easier to debate an attitude than it is to debate a position. If we’re going to see an argument stand or fall, it stands or falls on the data.

The Christian should remember to test everything and hold fast to that which is true. When you get in an argument, remember what is most important, the data.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve been looking at the relationship between science and religion lately. Tonight, I’d like us to start looking at the topic of evolution. I’m not going to be commenting from a scientific matter. I really don’t have the science to do that. Tonight, we just want to look and see if evolution and Christianity are compatible.

Now right off, we can easily say naturalistic evolution and Christianity are not compatible because naturalistic evolution is evolution with a foundation of naturalism where God does not exist. If there is no God, there can obviously be no Christianity. However, naturalism is also something that cannot be established by science. It is not incompatible with evolution, but evolution is not sufficient to prove naturalism.

An example of not understanding this would be Richard Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker.” I will say that this work of Dawkins is far better than what he wrote in “The God Delusion.” It should be seen as a wonder that the same person wrote both of those books. In “The Blind Watchmaker”, Dawkins is clear but not polemic. Of course, I disagree with his conclusion and several of his examples and many aspects of his reasoning, but he is speaking in a far more friendly manner instead of being on a rant.

Dawkins in that book however seeks to show that there is a basis for what is seemingly design in the universe and that that basis is evolution. Once we have proven evolution, there is no need for God. This is the same kind of “God-of-the-Gaps” mentality that Dawkins argues against however in saying that once this gap is filled in, then there is no place for God.

The Christian gospel however is not “Repent and believe the good news that God created man by divine fiat.” The Christian gospel is “Repent and believe on the risen Son of God.” If the case is that Jesus was risen from the dead, then there is definitely strong likelihood that Christianity is true. If it turns out that scientific ideas that we may not hold to are true, then we must come to accept that and possibly see if we erred in our interpretation of Scripture.

This is one reason I urge Christians that unless they have the proper study behind them in the field of science to not debate issues like evolution. When I debate someone on the basis of the origin of the universe, I come at it from a metaphysical perspective. I have no doubt the physicist understands the physics better than I do. My argument does not depend on the physics however.

Now supposed you were a trained physicist and you could use that to demonstrate that the universe did not create itself or come from nothing, or suppose you were a biologist and you could argue from a scientific perspective on problems you have with evolutionary theory and your purpose in this is to create an opening for the gospel with someone by disabling their naturalism. Very well. If not however, there’s no need to fight that battle as it is unnecessary.

For years now, the church has been divided on this debate and it is quite ridiculous for us to be. By all means, have an opinion on how old the Earth is and how it was that God brought about the existence of man. Don’t add that to the gospel and don’t look down on those with a different stance. I don’t wish to share mine as this blog is not about my view on secondary matters, but I have friends who I believe are devout Christians who are YEC, OEC, and TE.

Instead, let it be shown that Christ was risen from the dead. If that is the case, then you can rest assured no matter what comes your way (This is also the stance Dr. Gary Habermas took in saying that other issues like prophecy and the flood and such were interesting, but the resurrection was the foundation and so he based his career on proving that).

Now some might ask about questions such as death before the fall or animal pain or how to interpret Genesis 1. Those are good questions, but those are not the questions to bring to the skeptic. You’re not there to convince him of the resurrection and your view of the origin of man. You’re there to convince him of the resurrection.

In conclusion, I see no conflict between the idea of God using a process to create man and Jesus being risen from the dead. There are Christians on all sides of the debate on origin and the best thing we could do is listen to one another and realize our brotherhood and sisterhood in Christ rather than adding origins to the gospel. It’s never been part of the gospel and it never should be.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters, a blog where we dive into the ocean of truth! Tonight, we’re going to be looking further at our study of the relationship between science and religion. We’ll be talking about a case that always comes up when this issue is raised and that is the case of Galileo, which is supposed to show the great conflict between science and religion.

The idea is that Galileo came to the conclusion that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Catholic Church did not like the idea and wanted to silence Galileo since that disagreed supposedly with Scripture. Galileo would not be silenced however and so Galileo was severely punished by the Catholic Church as a result. (Various means of which are described)

Let’s get some reality in however.

Heliocentrism was already well-known. It had been talked about by Copernicus already. The main impetus for it however was not found so much in Scripture as it was in Aristotle, who through the work of Aquinas had become a major influence on the Catholic Church. To disagree with geocentrism was to call Aristotle into question.

Some of that had already been done by Galileo. When he spoke of the sunspots, which was a problem for Aristotle, the Jesuits did look through his telescope and saw that, yes, Galileo was right about sunspots. (This was a problem since the sun was to be seen as perfect in its nature) However, Galileo wanted more.

Galileo was also a trained scientist, but he was not a theologian. In that time, if you were not trained in an area, you did not speak with authority in that area. If only such was applied today where scientists think they can pontificate on philosophy and theology by virtue of being scientists. Granted however, I also think philosophers and theologians should not speak on scientific claims without being trained in the sciences.

Galileo was stepping outside his bounds as he wrote on the Bible and how his new view did not go against Scripture. The Church did not have a problem with the view, but they wanted it to be accepted as a theory until further data could come in. Galileo did not listen however and kept entering the area of theology.

Throughout this time, the Aristotlean scholars outside the church had been having a problem with Galileo. After they had numerous battles together, they finally let Galileo go to the church and make his case before them. The problem was that while today, we know Galileo was right, back then, there was not enough evidence to know such. We could easily say “Today, we know he was right and the Church should have seen that.” Hindsight is 20/20 however and we’ve learned much that Galileo did not know. Every science of the past must be judged not by modern science but by the science of the time.

Galileo’s best argument that he had however was not the best. Galileo pointed to the rising of the tides. There was already an explanation for this however and so Galileo’s was not needed.

Galileo however went further. He wrote a dialogue about a simpleton debating the new theory and unfortunately, he made the bad move of having the simpleton be awfully similar to the Pope. Naturally, the simpleton in the story could not rebut heliocentrism and thus was embarrassed in it.

The Pope wasn’t too happy with this.

This is where the heat was applied and frankly, as I look over the situation, it seems more likely that egos were getting in the way of facts. Both Galileo and the Pope had egos. Galileo wanted instant recognition and the Pope was seeking to advance his own popularity and taking care of someone like Galileo would do that.

Galileo did not suffer greatly however. He simply lived under house arrest of a sorts, but he was paid a pension by the Church till the day of his death and he was freely allowed to continue his observations.

Another point some might make in reference to this is that Geocentrism was a view that had man at the center of the universe and the Church did not want to lose that since God would put man there.

This really isn’t so however. If anything, being in the center was not a good thing. God would be seen as beyond the universe and so one would not want to be stuck in the center. They’d want to go where God was. The modern objection tries to view the Church through the modern lens rather than the lens of its own time.

As for passages that could be used to support Geocentrism, I recommend going to the web site of my friend J.P. Holding at www.tektonics.org.

I also recommend for reading “The Sleepwalkers” by Arthur Koestler, “The Twilight of Atheism” by Alister McGrath, “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” by John Lennox, and Dinesh D’Souza’s “What’s So Great About Christianity?”

We shall look at another topic tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Lately, we’ve been going through a methodical step by step look at the relationship between science and religion. Last night, I raised the question of why is it that science can change in its views but religion doesn’t seem to? Today, we will look at that question.

Now when a person is wrong about something, be it either a scientist or a religious person or some combination thereof as the two are not mutually exclusive, I think we should be proud of that. It takes humility to do such. However, it has often been said that science can admit its mistakes and can change with the time. Religion, which of course is Christianity, has not changed in 2,000 years.

In a sense, this is correct. We still hold to the same beliefs that have been held by all orthodox Christians for centuries. Surely if religion was something that was developing, we would see some sort of change in this. Why is it that Christianity is still stuck in the past?

A similar “problem” can be found in philosophy. We would grant that some new ideas have come about in philosophy, but in many ways, it is still Plato vs. Aristotle and it is taught by new people. The laws of logic have not changed in thousands of years. There are still people that believe in Platonic forms. We still cite these two names as authorities, and rightfully so.

Philosophy is the study of ideas and truth. These can exist independently of matter, much like in the case of mathematics. Theology is the study of the most noble of all ideas, God, and Christianity has for centuries held to his immutability. (I am aware there are some today that question this along with ideas such as God’s omniscience. I am defending the classical view however) He never changes.

Science, on the other hand, is the study of matter and matter is always changing. Whatever you are looking at is changing in some way. As I write this, my body is undergoing change and it will be different when I finished than from when I started. There are also hard questions about what is being studied. For instance, what is a cat? All cats look different, and yet somehow, we recognize a cat when we see one. What makes a cat a cat? There’s even a difficulty understanding what matter itself is.

Science also since it relies on the material world depends on the technology of the material world. It would be useless to ask Newton what the half-life of Uranium was. He’d have no idea. It would be ridiculous to ask Galen what he’d do about bacteria. He wouldn’t know what you were talking about. It’s not because these people were foolish. They were great geniuses in their time! It’s because the information to ask the question wasn’t there any more than it would make sense to ask Lincoln who would be president in 2012.

Since new discoveries are being made as we are seeing new things, we can expect there to be change. In theology on the other hand, you have build-up on the old. Everyone examines the old ideas the most. Many a scientist can understand Newton’s or Einstein’s ideas without having to read them. If you want to know medicine, there is no necessity to read Galen. If you want to know Christianity, it is quite helpful to read the Bible. If you want to know philosophy, it benefits you to read Plato and Aristotle. For science, it’s most beneficial to read the latest articles that are published in science journals.

None of this is to fault any field of learning. Theology is the best field we have for learning about God. Philosophy is the best field we have for learning about ideas. Science is the best field that we have for learning about the material world. The problem comes when we say that one should work by the same principles.

Thus, we should not expect much change in religion but simply refinement. Someone may come up with a new idea sometime, but seeing as we’ve studied the same unchanging subject for 2,000 years, it is highly unlikely that this will happen. We will refine our understanding instead of what has always been held, and that’s fine.

For science, we should expect new and improved since it deals with and depends on the material world entirely. If we have an error in our understanding in any field, we should admit it, but we should also admit there’s a reason science is changing constantly and religion is not.

But the two have often had crossroads in history haven’t they?

We can discuss that tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve lately been looking at the interplay between science and religion. We’ve found that science is not the only test for truth and that not all claims to truth are scientific claims. However, we are often told that science has led us into more truth than any other practice. Let us examine this.

To begin with, we shall start with discussing the nature of Phlogiston. What? That’s an unfamiliar term? Okay. How about we discuss the substance of the luminous aether in the universe? Wait. That’s also an unfamiliar topic. The reason I bring both of these up is that both of these were views that were held by science at a certain point in time.

The history of science is of one idea of science replacing another idea. Take Ptolemy’s system of the orbits of the planets. It worked great! People were able to make predictions on where the bodies would be and there wasn’t much of a problem. Copernicus, however, found a simpler way of measuring if the sun was placed at the center of the solar system. The outworking of this will be in another blog however when we get to supposed conflicts between science and religion.

In the time of each of these theories, they would have been crusaded by those who believed them and ample evidence would be given. Indeed today, presenters of opposing scientific theories will mount up evidence on their behalf on why we should believe their view of a certain phenomena.

Many of us today can think of different ways that science has changed. At one point in time, it is healthy to eat X and not eat Y. The next, it is healthy to eat Y and not eat X. There could be a time when it is not healthy to eat any of them or it is healthy to eat both.

The point is that every scientist can surely hold his theory and indeed we should for we go by the evidence we have, but he must also be aware that the science that he holds to so strongly today could be the science that is on the junk pile within a hundred years or so.

Of course, we can’t see one theory as more true than another if it has been rejected. However, we can say that science is giving us better means of finding the truth. This is also through the use of technology today, such as telescopes and computers and other tools.

We must be wary however of those who say that they are sticking to the science of the age as the ultimate truth. He who marries the spirit of the age is destined to be a widow. There is nothing wrong with believing it, but there would be something wrong if one were proverbially ready to lie down and die for that belief. We can hold to theories today, but also be prepared to accept that tomorrow, a new discovery could be made that will overturn our worldview.

But someone could say “At least science changes! Religion hasn’t!”

And we can discuss that tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters, where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’re looking at the relationship between science and religion and tonight, I’d like to look at the scientific method some. There are a number of people who think the scientific method is the best method we have of finding truth.

The main steps of the method are to make a hypothesis. Then, you do an experiment in order to test that hypothesis. Then, you analyze the results that came through that experiment and you come to a conclusion. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this method. It is a great method.

It is also the best way we have of finding scientific truth. It is not as good however in other fields. History, math, logic, morality, and beauty for instance. You do not answer truth claims in those areas by using the scientific method. If you want to know if your spouse loves you or if 64 squared is 4096 or if it’s wrong to take innocent life, you don’t do the scientific method. You go to other fields of study.

This then is the rub that we have. Too many people say that the scientific method is the best source for truth and then assume that it works in every area. In “The Unity of Philosophical Experiences” Etienne Gilson warned against such a practice. The danger in each area is to take the expertise of one area and pour that over into every other area. This is what has happened sadly today when scientists are seen as authorities on religion and philosophy without having the proper credentials simply because they are scientists.

The scientific method presupposes other facts about the world before it and these are facts that cannot be ascertained by the scientific method. For instance, consider the following:

The belief that the universe is rational and can be understood by our minds cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method.

The belief that the universe will always function the way that it has or that it did in the past and does so in every area we know of cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method.

The belief that scientists should report accurately data that is received through the scientific method cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method.

The big one is that the scientific method is reliable cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method.

Does this mean the scientific method is an enemy? Not at all. Every scientist in his field should use the scientific method. The danger is to take the scientific method and think that any truth claim must be ascertained by that. This is unfortunately communicated by atheists. Many beliefs are seen as unscientific. In fact, they are. That is because they are not claims of science. However, because they are not of the type that is testable by the method, then they are dismissed a priori. In reality, our most important beliefs that we have, such as beliefs about goodness, love, morality, truth, etc. are not scientific beliefs.

Christians should not be afraid of the scientific method or scientific truth. Skeptics however should realize the method is not an end-all and cannot establish itself. Like all other methods, use it where it is proper and not where it is improper.