The Fool wrote:
Now, we have what I believe is the devil trying to cause a winter storm
over New England to prevent the success of Aslan and the Narnia film.
It is instructive to note exactly what our mentor Ken is doing here and
with his many, many other references to Satan's and God's involvement
with storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural phenomena. Because
it's what a lot of the anti-science crowd (whatever they happen to call
themselves, that's what they are) does.
(1) He assumes he knows what God wants and Satan wants.
(2) He assigns natural phenomena (such as storms and tsunamis) to
either God or Satan, based on these assumptions.
(3) He then (this is the really good part) points to those natural
phenomena a PROOF that his assumptions are true!
What he doesn't realize -what I suspect he can't LET himself realize -
is that someone with exactly opposite assumptions could look at the
same natural phenomena and see the same support for their beliefs. For
example, if someone thought God didn't want the world to see the Narnia
movie (because it has magic and centaurs in it; some Christians have
complained over the years that the book was too "pagan"), they would
simply say that God sent the storm. Or if someone thought that Satan
was behind homophobia (seems likely to me), they could just say that
Satan sent the storm to prevent people from seeing Brokeback Mountain,
which is opening the same weekend.
This is why God (and Satan below him, of course) cannot be used as an
explanation in science. God is too big for the role. God can do
anything; he can make it look like anything; and we can never be sure
we understand his motives for doing anything he does. Therefore God can
be used to explain ANY observation - "God did it, for his own reasons."
God, as a scientific explanation, supports ANY hypothesis whatsoever -
and its opposite. Whatever you want to prove, you can invoke God's
infinite power to prove it. Which makes this style of proof worthless.
This does not, of course, mean God does not exist, or that scientists
can't or don't believe in God. Just that God can't be used as a
scientific explanation. He won't take sides on hypotheses; he has left
the work of discerning natural laws to us. (For which I thank him,
because it's fascinating and wonderful work.)
I wasn't kidding when I called Ken, The Fool, our mentor. He has
demonstrated this truth quite well, even though he doesn't believe it
himself.
Isaac Newton was a devout (some would say fanatical) Christian. He
believed in God completely and utterly. But when asked what shape the
orbit of a planet made around the sun, he did NOT say "whatever shape
God wants it to make today." He did not say "a circle, of course,
because circles are perfect and God makes perfection." (Some religious
folks did cling to that idea for a while.)
He said, "actually, I've made the observations, and I've already done
the math. It turns out to be an ellipse. Here, let me show you the
calculations."
Sir Isaac believed in God, but he knew better than to use God as a
scientific explanation. If he had done that, he never would have
discovered that planets orbit in an ellipse, or all the other wonderful
things he discovered.
I wonder what he would think of his fellow Christians (The Fool
included) who, when asked why a storm was approaching, answered "Satan
is sending it to stop people from going to the movies." Rather than
"let's make some observations and do the math, and maybe we'll get
better at figuring this stuff out."
Personally, I think he would have laughed his head off.
.
|
