Why don’t the most intelligent minds believe in God?

Faith & Science Conversation
, , ,
161

But I don’t think I’ve ever stated this? Certainly I can’t agree with someone who denies the resurrection, nor I can view it as disputable, but I do think that there are seeds of truth in other traditions as well.

Ad Gentes 11

“ Thus other men, observing their good works, can glorify the Father (cf. Matt. ES:16) and can perceive more fully the real meaning of human life and the universal bond of the community of mankind. In order that they may be able to bear more fruitful witness to Christ, let them be joined to those men by esteem and love; let them acknowledge themselves to be members of the group of men among whom they live; let them share in cultural and social life by the various. undertakings and enterprises of human living; let them be familiar with their national and religious traditions; let them gladly and reverently lay bare the seeds of the Word which lie hidden among their fellows. “

Lumen Gentium 17: “ Through her work, whatever good is in the minds and hearts of men, whatever good lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up and perfected unto the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of man. “

Nostra Aetate 2: “Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.”

I believe that this is as inclusivist at it gets. But do you think Christians could ever concede that they do not truly know whether God revealed Himself in Christ, or whether Christ was in fact raised from the dead?

Where do you draw the line between building bridges and accommodating error, or even denying that you have received the truth in the first place?

It depends on what you mean with “exclusivist”, though. But Jesus Himself said: “ Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. “ -Matthew 10:34

He also said: “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.” - Luke 16:26

A Christianity that renounces its claims, even the most “exclusivist” ones, a Christianity that gets along with the world instead of correcting it, would even be Christianity at all? Or would it be something else? Are Christians supposed to be the salt of the earth? Or the Alka-Seltzer?

1 Like
162

I’m pretty sure he didn’t expect his followers would be that sword. But I don’t believe your church embodies his teaching any way.

163

No but He meant that He would have been divisive. Because Truth divides. Certainly if you say “I don’t know the Truth” there is no more division, but then what would be left of Christianity?

164

Only toward those causing the trouble and especially those who do so in his name.

But I don’t think you’re any more worried about Jesus than I am.

165

Certainly there have been people who have used His name for nefarious things, no doubt. But the world has also rejected Christ and persecuted His followers. It still happens, in this very moment, as I’m writing, in many countries.

Thank you for your judgement (you basically called me an hypocrite). I cannot say anything in return because unlike you I don’t presume that I can read people’s hearts via the Internet. So I’ll just take it and move on. God bless you ;)))

1 Cor 4,12-13: “When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted,we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly.”

166

Dumb ideas aren’t the only ones to do damage. Discriminatory and anti-social ideas can be more damaging.

3 Likes
167

Certainly. I was just trying to express that my own faith is challenged more by “I can’t believe I’m on the same team as these deplorables” than “I can’t believe I’m not on the same team as these brilliant people.” I’m sure it all hits differently for different people.

4 Likes
168

Likewise.

I’m usually disappointed when anyone posts e.g. ‘the Bible says pi is 3’[1] or ‘the disciples didn’t have Jewish names’, because these are really bad arguments that can be demolished easily. I tend to be hard on atheists using ridiculous ‘arguments’ because they are unnecessarily counterproductive.

What often surprises me is that Christians call out other Christians for using ridiculous and clearly false arguments (such as fake ‘quotes’ or vehicle cladistics or ‘Darwin recanted’) much more rarely.

  1. Except when it’s a Tennessee lawmaker ↩︎

1 Like
169

Arguing with the ridiculousness (from any direction) usually proves to be unnecessarily counterproductive as well. If people actually want to learn, they find a way.

1 Like
170

True - but if no-one is pointing out the ridiculousness it gives the impression that it’s not considered ridiculous.

Cf. Proverbs 26:4-5

1 Like
171

Some of these people are/were very important scientists; Einstein was arguably the greatest scientist of the last century. Others are famous more for being “public intellectuals,” people who used science to influence public opinion. Einstein and Hawking filled both roles, but Dawkins, Tyson, and Nye are famous only for the latter role. Yes, Dawkins published plenty of scientific papers, but that’s not what he has done for much of his career. And, he wasn’t considered a top scientist when he made the change. Tyson is trained as a scientist, but known only as a highly effective science popularizer. Nye isn’t a scientist at all, but an engineer who became a science educator.

7 Likes
172

Many scientists today write books for laypeople. Some of them focus partly or largely on their views about religion, especially Christianity. Many of those people are either agnostics or atheists.

Physicist Karl Giberson and the late philosopher Mariano Artigas wrote a very thoughtful critique of six famous scientists who write/wrote about religion. I recommend this to anyone looking for some serious commentary on this type of literature: Oracles of Science — Karl Giberson, Phd.

2 Likes
173

Maybe. More and more with the rise of Christian Nationalism I wonder if some of the prominence of the very worst people is because of all the oxygen they got on Twitter and elsewhere from the people platforming them because they were enraged by their ridiculousness. It just made them more popular with the people who were listening to them.

5 Likes
174

First of all, and thankfully so, it isn’t a universal postulate that all scientists are not believers.

I’m a Believer since I was a baby, and I worked for almost 40 years in Public Health Microbiology at the state level. And as a Protestant Congregational Deacon for 6 years.

Now, I will say that there is a perceptible lean among scientists to not believe in God. Scientists and workers in science work with empiricism, the attempt to collect palpable evidence to endorse a theory. That, by nature, makes theology and science not play well with each other in the same “sandbox.”

Fortunately, they don’t have to, and frankly, shouldn’t try to. When you start looking at the Bible through a scientific lens, you inevitably ask questions that the Bible doesn’t have answers to. My favorite question is: “Were Adam and Eve, and Jesus diploid, and if so, how?”

3 Likes
175

Let me suggest some alternative voices–Christian scientists who’ve taken up the challenge to write books bringing their faith into the public conversation about science and religion. This list could be expanded dozens of times. I’ll keep it fairly short, and offer it only as a way of encouraging BuffaloMax17 and others to dig into some of these books as provocative alternatives to New Atheist literature about science and religion.

I’ll start with a very approachable book by Tom McLeish, a leading British scientist who died all too young: Faith and Wisdom in Science by Tom McLeish, review – rich and discursive | Science | The Guardian

Owen Gingerich, who also died recently, was an astronomer turned historian at Harvard. He became a major historian of astronomy, known especially for his work on Copernicus, Tycho, and Kepler, but also an authority on the whole history of astronomy since the Babylonians. His two late-career books on Christianity and science are masterpieces of subtlety and originality. I reviewed one of them here: All Things Bright and Beautiful - First Things

The other one, a sequel, is reviewed here: A review of God’s Planet, by Owen Gingerich | The Christian Century

Chemist Ben McFarland, who teaches at a Christian college, wrote this very readable popularization of science: A World from Dust (2016) – Ben McFarland

Ian Hutchinson, who directed the plasma physics project at MIT, has written two excellent books that many here would benefit from reading: https://www.ivpress.com/can-a-scientist-believe-in-miracles and Monopolizing Knowledge

NIH biologist Sy Garte’s autobiography is a nice response to Dawkins-type atheism. It narrates his conversion to Christianity from atheism: Books – Sy Garte . Sy writes regularly at Substack: Blog – Sy Garte

6 Likes
176

Several years ago, BL published a series of columns about New Atheists and science, mainly written by historian Stephen Snobelen, an expert on Isaac Newton. I wrote some of it and served as editor of the whole series.

https://biologos.org/articles/new-atheists-and-the-conflict-between-science-and-religion

This might be a good place to talk about that material.

3 Likes
177

I can chip in some names of notable scientists who embraced faith as well, which I learned about from reading Iain McGilchrist’s The Matter With Things:

  • Alfred North Whitehead: A major influence on McGilchrist’s “process” view of reality, which bridges science and a panentheistic understanding of God.
  • Michael Polanyi: Highlighted for his view that scientific discovery is not just observation, but requires commitment and belief.
  • John Eccles: A neurophysiologist who believed that the self and consciousness are spiritual gifts beyond matter.
  • Gregor Mendel: Identified as a scientist whose groundbreaking work in genetics was done as an Augustinian monk.
  • Arthur Eddington: A physicist who, along with others like Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, is often aligned with a more holistic, less mechanistic view of physics that is open to spirituality.
  • Albert Einstein: Cited for his view of a cosmic religion or a sense of awe/divine in nature.

(From a Google search with AI assist no doubt.)

2 Likes
178

The people you mention are all bright scientists to be sure. But what about this list?: Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Newton, Leibniz, Descartes, Lavoisier, Volta, Michelson, Faraday, Planck, & Godel? Belief in God s not an IQ competition. The guys you mentioned are all materialists who bring that belief to doing science. The list I gave you are all theists who bring that belief to their doing science. Science doesn’t justify either the divinity of matter or of God. You’re seeing the relation of a divinity belief to the science that assumes it in reverse.

Roy

2 Likes
179

Thank you for all the resources!

180

Btw, I think that the most direct answer to this topic can be found in the Bible itself.

1 Cor 1,18-21: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.”

1 Cor 1,26-31: “Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holinessand redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

Psalm 14:1: “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.’ “

And the fact that there are actually so many scientists who believe in God despite living in a world and in an era that is so profoundly against Him in every possible way, shape and form, is nothing short of a miracle!

1 Like