A Rational, Scientific God?

Hardly.

There has been a wave of  books lately intent on neutralizing the “Dawkins effect”. They are invariably books with titles like “There Is Not a God” or “God: the Proof“. At times they are written by men (why only men?) who present themselves as lifetime atheists–militant is the preferred modifier–men who suddenly stumbled upon the error of their ways and embraced, well…Jesus. Their genius is that their atheistic error is a logical error, which they put invariably in philosophical terms. It is not an error of faith, which few people would take seriously as an attempt to overturn an arch-rationalist like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. Because the debate over God needs to present itself in ultra-modern garb in order to separate itself from “fundamentalism”–or unequivocal, unvarnished (and untested) faith.

So these new men of faith put their faith up against the modern arsenal of logical debate. Could Jesus have been born of a virgin? Could he have risen from the dead? Could he return, even after a disappearance of such length? They put these age-old theological questions to the scientific test. Frank Tipler, a physicist, even wrote a book called The Physics of Christianity which asks these very same questions (and concludes that, according to the universal laws of physics, the answer is a resounding yes). Conclusion? Even Richard Dawkins should conclude that–from a rational, scientific approach to the question–God not only exists, but Jesus is God and Christianity is truth.

So with this in mind, I want to bookmark two new books that I will probably never get around to reading. But you should.

p.s…In an attempt to be fair-minded, some readers have misconstrued my position as being favorable to the Tiplers and contrary to the Dawkinses. Let be me clear:  this is not the case!

About these ads

3 thoughts on “A Rational, Scientific God?

  1. Not to sound pretentious, but have you read ‘The God Delusion’ yourself? The questions about the existence of God are much deeper than the few you have mentioned, and I don’t think they fully represent atheism or agnosticism. It sounds like you have created a straw man of atheism and agnosticism and knocked it over without ever dealing with bigger issues than the virginity of Mary.

    Secondly, ‘The Physics of Christianity’? Didn’t Christianity rise in popularity due in large part to miracles, or the physically anomalies that were attributed to the supernatural? How could you use physics to prove a religion that operated in the gaps of physics itself?

    Thanks for your time!

    1. Oh, God! In making an effort to be fair-minded, I perhaps gave the impression I was on the side of the religious and against the arch-rationalists. I can see where my position would appear ambiguous, especially if one doesn’t bother to read my other posts on the subject.

      Let it be known: I think guys like Frank Tipler are bending science to comply with their religious beliefs. Bah, humbug.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s