This week’s Time magazine cover story: God vs. science.

The subtitle is: [i:7e5c2a7e97]A spirited debate between atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and Christian geneticist Francis Collins.[/i:7e5c2a7e97]

God vs. science

This week’s Time magazine cover story: God vs. science.

The subtitle is: A spirited debate between atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and Christian geneticist Francis Collins.

Unfortunately it looks like you have to be a subscriber to actually read the story ...

What about the Big bang, why god? Given that time is infinite, a random event occurring, even with odds of 10 to the power of 119,000, is not astonishing. How do someone formulate an equation without knowing all of the variables in the equation? This must be Christian math, numbers by faith. What relation does the size of the area of space viewable by humans have with the odds of a random event taking place in infinite space? How did they calculate the odds of an explosion in a printing press resulting in a full set of leather bound Encyclopaedia Britannica?What do mathematicians say that the chances are of an omnipotent god coming into being? Apparently Christians didn’t think about it quite enough.

[quote author=“WITHTEETH”]What about the Big bang, why god?

If Haggard is a closet bisexual, then “Dr.” (:x) Collins must be a closet sci-fi writer. (Sorry, Mr. Asimov.)

[quote author=“George Benedik”]What nonsense! God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God’s existence is outside of science’s ability to really weigh in? What is this supposed to mean? And From my perspective? What kind of argument is this?

*Sigh* ... it’s an argument “from faith” as they say ... i.e. throw out your reason and your experiments and just believe.

Hope to be able to read the article eventually ...

Doug,

I had to buy the magazine to read the story. In my opinion it’s not worth the $5.70 (CDN) I paid for it; you’ve probably read similar nonsense elsewhere. What might be ‘interesting’ (rather upsetting) about this article is to hear this kind of BS from a ‘scientist’.

[quote author=“George Benedik”]I had to buy the magazine to read the story. In my opinion it’s not worth the $5.70 (CDN) I paid for it; you’ve probably read similar nonsense elsewhere. What might be ‘interesting’ (rather upsetting) about this article is to hear this kind of BS from a ‘scientist’.

Well for one thing, I have no intention of buying the magazine. If I miss it, I miss it, although these do tend to show up in libraries, doctors’ offices, etc., so I imagine I’ll get round to seeing it sooner or later.

Re. the ‘scientist’ stuff ... although they are significantly less susceptible than the general public, that still leaves a significant percentage of scientists who are religious (Was it 20% of the US Academy of Sciences who were religious? Something like that).

The problem with the argument is that it is ‘from faith’: there is no positive evidence for god’s existence, and the existence of evil is evidence against god’s existence. So you have to overcome all that to say things like “God can’t be completely contained within nature.”

But if you’re allowed beliefs without evidence on religious issues, why not be consistent and allow them on scientific issues as well? Just say that evolution is false because a little birdie told you so ...

Next time I’ll play chess I’ll pull out a little kangaroo piece from my pocket and start jumping with it like a crazy madman all over the chessboard with a final: Check Mate! When my opponent asks what in the hell I think I am doing, I’ll tell him that ‘from my perspective’ this is totally acceptable move. And if he tells me that ‘kangaroo move’ is not recognized in the rules of chess, I’ll reply that it is simply outside of his ability to recognize it.  8)

... tell him your kangaroo can’t be completely contained within the rules of chess.

 

I thought it was very well done article (for a change), fairly giving both sides of the question a good airing.  However, since it was only six pages long, probably not worth buying the whole magazine for (I read it in the public library).

My only quibble is the photograph they used to introduce the debate.  Dr. Collins is in the foreground, looking straight at the reader with a thoughtful expression on his face, but Prof. Dawkins is way, way in the background, staring out the window as if he could barely stand to be in the same room with him.  This impression was belied by the cordial manner in which they talked to one another (“Do you mind if I call you Francis?”—“Oh, please do, Richard.”)

Quote:
Time: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.

Collins: Yes. God’s existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God’s existence is outside of science’s ability to really weigh in.
===
I don’t see any problem at all with Collins’ reply.  It’s quite logical.
1. Nature contains all reality.
2.  God is outside nature.
3.  God isn’t real.

And
1.  Science doesn’t deal with fantasy
2.  [from above] God isn’t real, that is, is a fantasy.
3.  The fantasy of God is outside the scope of science.

It just depends on how carefully one reads Collins’ statement. 

Occam

I like your reasoning, but have a hunch that Dr. Collins would object.

:wink:

Did you see the part where Dr. Collins invoked Occam’s Razor?  Dawkins was explaining how it’s possible that universes breed from one another, thus all the physical constants are subject to selection, too (the Multiverse Theory), and Collins objected that the existance of God was a lot simpler than any such theory.  Obviously ignoring the fact that the idea of an all-powerful, infinite being is FAR from “simple”!

Also there’s the small fact that the multiverse theory is little more than speculation.

If it were true, it would follow from principles inherent in quantum mechanics or the like. Those principles are quite simple.