Christianity vs science?

Listening to the outspoken atheists of our days is not a pleasant experience. Of course, as a Christian myself, hearing their misrepresentations and belittling of God, whom I know and love, is never going to be a jolly occasion. But that's ok, I have to accept that as part of life. What I want to talk about in this post is, however, a trend I noticed in their arguments against religion. The atheists seem to be creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. They force people to choose between science and a belief in God. To narrow my argument (because there are in fact many religions, and I am not going to defend any religion other than Christianity), they force their hearers to choose between science and Christianity. I think this pitting of science and Christianity against each other is not a very recent innovation, but must have been going on for some time, because people seem to assume it. The recent atheists are using that false presumption as their advantage and enforcing it further.

I think it would be helpful to remember that, as Christians, we are not against science. Science, as a method of exploring and the accumulated-but-nevertheless-transient knowledge about the natural world is just what it is, science. A Christian can do science, a hindu can do science, a muslim can do science, just as an atheist can do science. They just have to do science when they do science. When someone comes along and says to you that you can't believe in God and be a scientist at the same time, don't believe him. He's either trying to trick you, or he hasn't thought it through well enough.

It's important to remember what the real two opponents are. It's atheism (not science) and Christianity. It's the belief or a wilful commitment to the idea that there is no God vs. believing God as revealed in Jesus and trusting Him as we live out our lives.

Atheists often protest: well, you can't prove God exists, so why should I believe in God? When there's no proof for existence of something, it's only rational not to believe that it exists.

Well, I can't prove God exists, at least the way atheists want me to. Nor should you try to prove God exists in the way atheists want you to, because that's always bound to fail. The problem is, most (if not all) atheists I've come across would accept only the scientific proof. They will not accept God that cannot be seen through the telescope or microscope. They will not accept God that cannot be predicted  in some kind of a mathematical paragraph and proven through observations. In other words, they are requiring a naturalistic proof for something supernatural. Of course, having committed to the rejection of the supernatural, they're trying to find a God who is natural, not supernatural, and so, ironically, they are right in affirming there is no God (who is natural).

Again, it's helpful to remember (and remind your atheist friends) that the two opposing sides are not science vs. Christianity, but atheism vs. Christianity. It's a naturalistic worldview vs. supernatural worldview. And, if you think about it, you can have a supernatural worldview and work on something that requires you to focus only on the naturalistic phenomenon and causes, namely, science. So you can be a Christian and be quite good at science. Yet, if you have a naturalistic worldview, you cannot (or would not) have a legitimate method of thinking about and explaining the supernatural because, well, you've excluded it yourself. So for example, an atheist cannot be a theologian. You can be a scientist, but you have removed from yourself a right to comment on anything supernatural. The atheists still do make supernatural claims though by saying that there is no God.

Now, I cannot scientifically prove God's existence, but that does not mean that there is no evidence. God has left His mark both in creation, in history, and in human nature, so there are plenty of evidence for Him. In Psalm 19:1 it says: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaim his handiwork." (also see Psalm 50:6 and Rom 1:20) There have been and still are powerful arguments for God's existence on the basis of what we see in the world (eg. the cosmological arguments and teleological arguments). And you also mustn't ignore Jesus who came into our world (John 1:14), yes, the natural world, and lived, died, resurrected, and ascended (Try John or Mark if you haven't read the gospels before). You can investigate into history to find strong evidence for Jesus and the credibility and reasonableness of Christian faith. There are other arguments for God's existence as well, such as the moral arguments, which basically says, since we all believe in the reality of an objective morality, God must exist. There are multitudes of evidence, or clues, if you like, and many powerful arguments for God's existence, especially if you are seeking evidence for God of Christianity. Only, make sure you are not wholly committed to naturalistic worldview but more open. Atheists like saying science is more open than religion because when new evidence comes in, they are happy to review their current theory and make adjustments. But they are only talking about naturalistic or scientific evidence, and rightly so, since they are talking about science. You and I must be more open than that, however, when investigating the claims of Christianity. More open than atheists by being open to the possibility of something supernatural when you look around you and ponder on the implications of all sorts of evidence and theories of the world. When you do that, with God's grace, you will see how reasonable Christianity really is.

Responding to an atheist's provocation: I don't know how yet.

I saw a provocative slogan on the Richard Dawkins Foundation website.

I don't think a campaign with this slogan actually went live, but I'm not sure.

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

I didn't like it from the start. That other slogan, "There's probably no God, now stop worrying, and enjoy your life" was at least honest. This slogan plays on the common confusion among people about correlation and causality. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation and try to understand this cartoon.

Anyway, I thought about how I could best respond to this kind of slogan, and I am still thinking.
I thought of a couple of options so far:
1) Ignore it. Dismiss it. Avoid the confrontation.
This was my first reaction.
Obviously this is an intentionally written to be provocative. A friend from work told me it's a hyperbole. So how should I respond to a hyperbole? One option is ignoring it. They are attacking at their own time of choosing, with their own choice of words and medium. So? I could try to choose my own time, medium, words, whatever to present a case for Christianity against atheism or other world views.
This could be useful if I feel that I'm not ready to take on the particular provocation. I must learn to rest knowing that God's truth will remain even if I do not defend it. It is His truth that defends me on the last day, not the other way around, ultimately speaking.
2) But then, if I actually met someone who asked me about it personally, I'd probably ask him a few things and depending on that I might respond to him in a few different ways.
What would I ask?
One thing I would ask is this: What do you mean by religion? Define religion for me. Chances are, Christianity won't fit into your definition of religion. Or, your definition of religion will actually include the atheism, or it might even expose that you have a religion of your own called science. Ok, I'm not saying just because you trust science, you take science religiously. However, I know several people who do take their trust in science to the point where it can only described as a religion.

What other ways would you respond to it?

(Photo source: The Richard Dawkins Foundation)

Scoring own goals

Some of us heard about the advertisement campaign the atheists ran over in the UK recently. They say:
"THERE IS PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE."
Some Christians among us found it annoying, some found it silly. And some of us considered it as an opportunity.

Here's one critique about it that I found very insightful. It's slightly long, but do read the whole thing! I'm waiting for the part 2.

(HT: Gordon Cheng)

The Reason for God: Tim Keller's talk at Google

I can't say I've heard many apologetic talks before, but among those few talks and debates I've heard so far, this is the best.
This video is a little long, just over one hour, so get yourself a drink and get into the mood for intelligent, serious, yet fun (that is, not boring) mental engagement.
It's my pleasure to introduce Tim Keller, who is the pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church and the author of The Reason for God.
Watch his talk at Google.

You can get his book, the Reason for God at Koorong or Amazon.
(HT: The Resurgence)