Science Vs. Religion

Today, I thought I'd just post the content of a few emails I exchanged with my cousin a few years ago.

David wrote to me:

Greetings Nathan,

So lately I have been thinking about the debate between science and religion. Why is it that an atheist uses science to argue the irrelevancy of God? And more importantly why in the world does it work so well?

First of all, what is science? So far I have determined that science can be defined as the study and explanation of the universe we live in. Basically it tries to understand a set of facts in the most reasonable way. Science uses a method known as the scientific method. Science asks questions and seeks to grow. Science can be wrong without getting upset; in fact it’s always trying to prove itself wrong. In the end Science is both the greatest and least likely threat to Christianity.

Since science is composed of facts, every scientific theory can be broken down to its underlying factual nature. Its fractals are factual! So the biggest example would be the theory of Evolution. Is the earth millions of years old and who cares? Personally I am convinced that the earth is millions of years old and I don’t care. However, I see so often that it matters a majority of Christians, and not only many Christians but many people who previously were Christians and presently are not because they were converted to “Science” the unreligious religion.

So I asked myself: Given a situation where X is true, what would the effect of X have on my relationship with God. [Where X is a specific debated scientific theory]. In this case I substitute Evolution for X and the answer I get is: No effect. Now I ask the same question of you. Given a situation where Evolution is true, what would the effect of Evolution have on your belief in God? Would it have an effect?

Evolution is just one theory. But let’s break it into facts: it is a fact that the rock that makes up our planet is old. It is a fact that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. It is a fact that the light from stars hitting our planet is millions of years old. It is a fact that our sun has used up 5 billion years worth of its fuel, it is a fact that species change over time, and it is a fact that at one point in earths past there was only slime in the oceans. Suddenly when a Christian says: “the earth has only been around for 6 thousand years” I begin to question said Christians education and seriously doubt their sanity.

So when I am in doubt I search the scriptures. What I found was this: In genesis God says “let the earth bring forth seed and green stuff” “let the waters bring forth water animals” “let the earth bring forth animals”. So far being a Christian does not contradict the facts. So far I can believe strongly in my God without doubt. Suddenly I realized something, the facts that make up our planet and even help make the theory of evolution ultimately point to the amazing complexity and intelligence of my God.

And so I have written this long letter to let you know that I value your input. Thanks for the feedback that I know you will fill my inbox with.

David

 
Then I (Nathan) wrote:

I believe that science, as you define it here, is not a threat to the "knowledge of God," truth is truth - simple.

"Christianity" however, will, by and large, be threatened by science, again, as you define it here so well, because science is as it does, it seeks the truth even if it means proving itself wrong. So much of Christianity, as it is today, is full of falsehoods, misconceptions, misinterpretations etc. So, science, in its essence, would destroy it, or rather the idea of it, to be technically correct, and remake it until the idea and ideals of Christianity are congruent with the knowledge of God; so far, they're not.

The reason, I believe, that when atheists use science to bruise the idea of Christianity and it works so unbelievably well is that while Christians may have reason to believe in God, they are all too often lacking in the KNOWLEDGE of God and so fall prey to those atheists who use what seems to be sense and reason but is only a semblance.

As for the theory of evolution, I personally believe that it's false. I DO believe that the Earth is very old and all that, but there hasn't yet been any evidences or proofs discovered that support the evolution theory that are concrete.

Of course, when I mention the theory of evolution, I specifically am referring to the theory that all life began with basic amino acids etc. that, by incredible happenstance, came together and started to change into complex and more complex organisms over a great deal of time and so on and so forth.

I don't really know EXACTLY how all life came to be, but I do know that it was not random or by chance. Jesus did it all, He had a plan, He created humans in the image of Himself and His Father and it was a miracle, miracle being defined as something happening that's either too unlikely or completely impossible so as not to be expected to happen, ever.

 And David finally wrote:

Fascinating. I totally agree with these words. The words incredible happenstance stick out to me here. To me and I can see for you as well, the methods do not matter. We know that God created the world, and to have faith in the face of overwhelming evidence is simple, for the methods that God used are not important, only the realization that God is the one who used the methods.

The first message you wrote was very well written. The fault lies with Christianity. Indeed, when I traveled on the train to Chicago I met many very right-wing Christians who were in general uneducated. Not only in just basic knowledge (My people perish for lack of knowledge), but in what the bible itself teaches. I find it astonishing the number of people who believe wholeheartedly in Lucifer and his army of fallen angels, and yet they are surprised when I point out to them that the work Lucifer was only used twice in the bible and in one place it was translated as "Day star" (2 Peter) and was referring to Jesus himself.

When I say this generally their eyes glaze over and they stop listening, so its not like my talking to them has done anything good. 

And that's it (typos and all). 

 

Please let me know what you think. God bless you until next time!

Nathan

The Comfort Zone - Notes on a Misnomer

A rather simple idea, I've had rattling around in my brain, is how this whole "comfort zone" thing works. First of all, it's not always comfortable; I know it's strange, but having been a big fan of my own comfort zone in the past, I know what I'm talking about. A person can get very comfortable with being uncomfortable, or even stressed, which really says a lot about how easily people (including me) can be rather paradoxically irrational. This is so strange because people love comfort, which is why I thought the "comfort zone" should have a different name. I think it should instead be called the "zone of familiarity" since people love what is familiar and well-known to them as much as, if not more than, comfort.

What keeps people from venturing outside the "comfort zone," or as I like to think of it, the "zone of familiarity," is fear: fear of the unknown. But the unknown really isn't something we should be afraid of, is it? I don't think so, and yet, every now and then, I still find myself falling into this fear trap. What am I afraid is going to happen? The end of the world? Death and dismemberment? Of course none of these things are going to happen and I know this and yet I'm still afraid of something. That something is the unknown, and I know that the unknown is uncomfortable for many people hence the name, "comfort zone." But I can recall, whenever I have a mind to, those times in my life when I have taken the initiative, and a little faith, to take a step outside the "zone" and found that many wonderful things lie beyond my borders.

So I guess what I'm trying to do here, for everyone including myself, is give an admonition: Don't fear the unknown, for what is of the unknown can easily and, without risk, be found out. Live boldly and adventurously! Your life will be the better for it.

As always I'd love to have some comments and/or questions. But until next time, God bless y'all!

Nathan Matthew Knerr

Why I Hate Arguing

Imagine two musicians, each one playing a different instrument, sitting across from each other in a room, and they both are playing exactly the same song, the same tune. If you know anything about the dynamics of sound then you should know that the sounds made of the same frequencies (notes), when played in time with each other, will reinforce the sound of the collective music. Regardless of the fact that there are DIFFERENT instruments playing the notes, and therefore creating different sound waveforms, the sound of the music itself becomes stronger and is more effectively distributed throughout.

The same holds true for arguing. All those involved are playing the same tune, singing the same song, the "I'm Right, You're Wrong" song, which only encourages everyone involved to keep playing it and maybe try it with more gusto. This, of course, accomplishes absolutely nothing in most cases. It doesn't matter whether it's a truly important issue, like the abortion debate, or not. I wonder at how people can think that more aggressively imposing their own beliefs and opinions on people, using whatever means (the newspaper, TV, Facebook, etc.), will motivate others to stop doing the same. After all, it is often said that imitation is the finest form of flattery. Why, in the world, would you want to flatter someone who's being a jerk? By acting like a jerk yourself, no less?

I would like to believe that people argue in the pursuit of truth rather than just to give themselves an ego boost. Alas, I know that this is not often so. Besides, even if it was so, arguing is hardly an effective tool for achieving such a goal. I love the truth, even if it means I get proven wrong myself at times, I won't ever give up this love, and I'll keep seeking it out until the end of my days.

This is my perspective on arguing (most arguing anyway). Please tell me what you think or ask me whatever questions you have. And until next time, God bless.

Nathan Matthew Knerr

A Basic Introduction to Me and My Blog

Greetings Visitor,

        I'll bet you're thinking, "what is THIS blog for?" It's very simple; all too often, my thoughts are never given a voice - or any kind of form for that matter. Now this may be because of my own passivity or the callousness of others or both. But I blame no one, of course, for everyone has their own life full of its own issues that need to be addressed - that, in fact, can only be addressed by them - and how they choose to do that is their business, not mine.

        The simple purpose of this blog is to give me an outlet with which I can share what's on my heart and mind. Here I may post pictures, quotes, ideas, Bible studies, poems, and maybe even complaints; I'll post whatever I feel like posting, and hopefully many of my friends and family will be able to view this blog and gain a better understanding of me, as well as any friends I may make over the internet after starting this blog.

        Something I've heard from all the people in my life over and over and, yes, over again is that I have a talent for writing, that I can communicate things with that skill that they've never learned from actually talking to me and that I should do more of it, possibly in blog form. That is the primary goal of this blog.

        Something else I hope to gain from this "experience" is a greater self-awareness and engagement with my own mind and with the minds of others that will prove to be edifying for all those involved.

        I already have other things on my mind, but they will have to wait for other posts. For now I'll just say, "God bless and 'till next time."

        Yours Truly,
        Nathan Knerr