|
|
 شئ من الفلسفة : Believe it, or not
|
torontosun.canoe.ca
Marianne Meed WardSun, August 27, 2006
Believe it, or not
Religion Presenting evidence about a belief system seems to go against the nature of faith
By MARIANNE MEED WARD
I'm always a little skeptical when people try to present "evidence" for belief. Faith, by definition, exists precisely because there is no proof. So it was with some reserve that I read about a new book by renowned scientist Francis Collins titled The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief.
The world knows Collins as the former head of the National Human Genome Research Institute in the U.S., which decoded human DNA. It's arguably the most significant scientific exercise ever undertaken: The more clues we get about our DNA, the more diseases we can cure.
People in Toronto will remember Collins as one of the team of researchers that identified the gene for cystic fibrosis in 1989. That's the first step in finding a cure.
In matters of faith, Collins has had an interesting journey. Once an atheist, he says his scientific work -- and the faith of his terminally ill patients -- helped him to find God. Now Collins is one of the more famous members of the American Scientific Association, a group of about 3,000 scientists who believe both in God and in science. Their four-point statement of faith wonderfully captures the unique aspects of faith and science, and where they intersect.
The group believes the Bible is divinely inspired, trustworthy and authoritative in "matters of faith and conduct." The ASA doesn't make the mistake, as some Christians do, of turning the Bible into an authority on scientific matters.
On matters of science, the group believes that God created the universe and endowed it with "contingent order and intelligibility" which are the basis of scientific investigation. As stewards of what God has created, we are to use science "for the good of humanity." Collins has tried to do just that.
There's no question science can help or hinder humanity; but can it "prove" the existence of God?
Collins convincingly argues that science, at the very least, is compatible with belief in God. You don't need to choose one or the other. In fact, he calls the battle between science and faith one of the greatest "tragedies" of the last 100 years. People get hung up on the "creation versus evolution" debate, he says, and all the debate proves is that both sides fundamentally misunderstand the other.
On one side are scientists who basically adopt evolution as their faith, and think there's no need for God to explain life. On the other side are Christians who adopt a rigid, literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible and reject compelling scientific data about the age of the Earth. But Collins argues that Christians don't need to throw out science to believe in God, and scientists don't need to throw out God to believe in science.
I've always thought that, but it's nice to have a renowned scientist on my side.
Still, the initial question -- is there "evidence" for belief -- remains. Collins provides an interesting answer, though it won't satisfy everyone. The evidence hinges on what's called the "moral law:" The idea that humans know the difference between "right" and "wrong" (most of us anyway). That knowledge is the mother of altruism -- the urge to help others even at the expense of yourself. Altruism cannot have come from evolution, Collins argues -- evolution tells you to survive even at the expense of others. So it must have come from God.
Secondly, Collins argues the world is simply too complex to have Big Banged itself into existence. A God-creator must have got the ball rolling.
Ultimately, though, a leap of faith is still required. God cannot be proven. And that's as it should be, otherwise we'd call faith science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to [email protected]
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست