There is an outstanding discussion of Francis S. Collins’ The Language of God and its theological ramifications at Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog. Check it out here!
Filed under Uncategorized
Wow, what a great discussion. I loved the book, especially his scientific arguments on DNA — it’s really impossible to argue with the presentation of genetic evidence for evolution.
McKnight asks, “Should we let science influence how we interpret the Bible,” to which I would answer, “How can we not?” Science is but a description based upon observation; we form these all the time. Therefore when I read the Bible and see it talk about trees, marriage, and grapes, I relate to those things based upon my understanding of those events, either by my own personal observation or (preferably) my observations on how the original audience viewed those things. “Science” is not in nature different from the kind of analysis humans make every day about every subject.
Mike Beidler wrote (2) Recognizing that science and religion answer two entirely different questions. For example, science can (attempt to) answer questions regarding the evolution of the cosmos, but it cannot answer the question regarding the origin of the cosmos. Likewise, science can (attempt to) answer questions regarding the laws of nature, but it cannont answer the question regarding what/who established those laws and who/what sustains them.
(For sake of argument let’s accept your comments on the limits of science.)
The questions that science does not address are addressed by philosophy, and philosophy has pulverized the arguments for the existence of God.
Can you provide me with some philosophical arguments against the existence of God?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.