Technology, Science and Faith

[Juan María Laó Ramos]

Hi every one, these are my first words and maybe this have been discussed before. But what do yo answer when someone ask you: "How could you believe in something that you can see been a scientific?"

I said scientific because our world is a science one.
My answer is: "I can't tell you with words what God is for me. Is "just" a lifestyle. Movement demonstrate moving, so if you see how I live my life, what decissions I made and why, you can see God, because I see it in every move I made."

What do you think?

[Johan Cyprich]

We can't prove that God exists. Personal experience won't convince other people that He is real. We can show evidence of God through living the Christian life. This contradicts the way a natural man lives and would cause them to question why someone would be Christian, which can lead to their conversion.

An interesting verse on faith is Hebrews 11:1, "faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen". People asked Jesus to perform miracles to prove who He was, and He always rejected their requests.

True science is the rules that God created to govern the physical universe. The problem here is that we don't know the rules, but have theories how they work. Putting faith in this doesn't make sense because our knowledge is constantly evolving here and still very limited.

[Jonathan Aquino]

Hi Juan - Welcome!

Just to clarify, is your friend's question: "How could you believe in something that you cannot observe scientifically?"

[Juan María Laó Ramos]

Hi Johan and Jonathan.

Sorry about my English (I'm from Spain), I'll try to rewrite the question:
"You are a science man, so how could you believe in God?"
I just would liketo open the "closed" discussion about science vs faith, and know what do you think.
My blog title, if you translate to English, is: computer scientist and Christian.
This is the first time I find an association like this and I just want to participate.

[Allen Choong]

Now I understand the question. I don't have any special opinion, but I would like to quote something.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 159:
Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

Science cannot prove or refute the existence of God or any other supernatural entity. [From HowStuffWorks]

[Jonathan Aquino]

Hi Juan - Thanks for the clarification.

Allen's quote from the Catechism is a good one. There should be no conflict between science and faith, since both are aspects of reality. I'm glad that this was mentioned in the Catechism.

[Bill McDonald]

I like the catechism quote too. I love that they have this stuff online.

I would recommend reading some other materials on the subject too. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God (Paperback)
by Lee Strobel

I can't remember, but I think I read his Case for Faith book a few years ago. Its very interesting to go through these works. On the subject of Evolution for example, one of the interesting points was that according to scientific theory, if you take into consideration the time they say it would take (optimistically) for life to have evolved to the state it is today, and compare it to the scientific theory of the 'age' of the universe, you find that there hasn't been enough time for evolution to have gotten as far as it has. Things like this abound, but you won't find them in the media. Personally, I don't know enough about either aspect of science to comment, but those who are the experts have gone on record.

Another thing I heard about (sorry, I can't remember the reference) was that if you took all the prophesies from the old testament about Jesus (there were a few hundred I think), and mapped out statistically what it would take to fulfill just 5 or so of these, you'd find that the statistical probability concludes Jesus HAS to be the Son of God. The commentator talked about someone who did this, and even had his statistics checked by a world renown institute, and got a number so big, that in order to communicate the odds against Jesus not fulfilling the few he selected, he had to use an illustration. He said that you would need to fill the entire state of Texas with dollar coins a foot high. Color 1 coin Black and hide it in somewhere in the coins. Blindfold a man and have him walk around from city to city, etc. and ask him to find it. The odds are so great that in order to win, he'd have to be walking somewhere in Texas, suddenly stop, reach down, and pick up one coin. That coin would have to be the one you hid. Remember that's just a handful of the prophesies that were fulfilled.

What you'll find is that the evidence for God and Jesus is overwhelming. You will not find absolute conclusive evidence like all the stars lining up saying, "Hey, Its me God. Just thought I'd prove I exist." We do not encounter Him like this. The way we 'know' he exists is in our encounter with Him. This is why when you ask people who believe in God because they have come through some experience that changed their lives and beliefs, they simply cannot put it into words. They often say, "I can't explain it, but I believe. I had an experience that I can't prove or understand, but my spirit won't let me deny it. It was more real than reality. I just 'know'". I can't go into all the other objections that might come to mind reading some of these ideas, but they are addressed very well in Strobel's book. Its not His ideas, but those experts who he interviews.

Remember CS Lewis boiled belief in Jesus down to a single logical question in (Mere Christianity): Anyone who honestly and sincerely believes and professes to be the Son of God, is either crazy (and we should not revere him as a prophet or great teacher), OR (the only logical alternative) He is who He says he is.

Right now I'm reading CS Lewis The Pilgrims Regress. He was a convert to Christianity. He's quoted as saying that he came into Christianity kicking and screaming - the most reluctant convert in England. When he 'got there', he discovered that he was not being brought to a place, but to a person.

[Bill McDonald]

Check out what leading physicists are saying: Search for books by John C. Polkinghorne.

Why not tell them to listen to the scientists who should know more about science than they do?