God's Not Dead: Evidence for God in an Age of Uncertainty by Rice Broocks Read Free Book Online Page B

glimpse of how difficult it is to have science be the ultimate judge of whether God exists, since God is the Creator and ground of all being.
    R EASON
    Reason is like the central processing unit in a computer hard drive. When you buy a computer like the one I’m working on, the creator of the computer has placed within it a processor that is able to run the programs and the software that are loaded on the hard drive. Similarly God has created us to be rational creatures. We can think abstractly, learn languages at an amazing speed, and know the difference between right and wrong. In contrast, natural selection would only have developed in us the basic abilities to survive: acquire food, avoid danger, and find a mate. Nature would not have generated the capacity for higher reason. “Thenotion that the only rational beliefs are those that can be confirmed by scientific observation, experiment and measurement is yet another self-refuting proposition, since it is a statement that itself cannot be confirmed by scientific observation, experiment and measurement.” 22
    God must necessarily exist in order for atheists not to believe in Him. There is no other explanation for the capacity to reason (even poorly). Atheism and naturalism can’t account for reason. To say that reason came into being for no reason is unreasonable. The logical processes of reason and deduction in the scientific method must be assumed in order for scientific inquiry to take place; therefore, science can’t verify itself in the strict sense.
    W HY?
    The biggest limitation of science is that it can’t tell us why we are here. Why was the universe made? Why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? Dawkins now bristles at the why question and calls it silly, possibly because he knows that science will never really answer it. “ ‘Why?’ is a silly . . . ‘Why?’ is a silly question. ‘Why?’ is a silly question. You can ask, ‘What are the factors that led to something coming into existence?’ That’s a sensible question. But ‘What is the purpose of the universe?’ is a silly question. It has no meaning.” 23
    Curiously, just a couple of years earlier in a debate with John Lennox in Birmingham, Alabama, Dawkins’s opening statement said that his motivation for getting into science was the why question. “My interest in Biology started with the fundamental questions of our existence. Why we are all here.” 24 The question of why we’re here is far from silly; it is fundamental to our existence, ground zero for our identity as humans, and part of our future.
    R ELIGION AND S CIENCE A RE A NSWERING D IFFERENT Q UESTIONS
    The late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard spoke about faith and science being “non-overlapping magisteria.” 25 This means they are two distinct, equally valid spheres of existence. While his work and contributions are celebrated by most skeptics, many skeptics are critical of Gould for not dismissing religion and faith as delusional and for conceding the contributions that people of faith have made to the world. “Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, [John] Polkinghorne argues. In fact, both are necessary to our understanding of the world. ‘Science asks how things happen. But there are questions of meaning and value and purpose which science does not address. Religion asks why. And it is my belief that we can and should ask both questions about the same event.’ ” 26
    Science basically tells us how things work. Religion and faith tell us why things are here and how we should live ethically and morally. Neither of these questions can be answered by science.
    “Science tells us that burning gas heats the water and makes the kettle boil,” [Polkinghorne] says. But science doesn’t explain the “why” question. “The kettle is boiling because I want to make a cup of tea; would you like some? I don’t have to choose between the answers to those questions,” declares Polkinghorne. “In