The Bible Is a Parable: A Middle Ground Between Science and Religion
Then Dawkins, seemingly heedless of what he has just conceded, reaches out for
support from an associate, as the author continues, -Dawkins…cites The Creation, a
book by Oxford Professor Peter Atkins that…claims =the original units of creation do not
demand anything as grand as a Creator.‘ |
But then, Jim Manzi, the author of the article counters with, -[But] Atkins has come
to have second thoughts. In a speech in Edinburg earlier this year, Atkins had this to say:
=I must admit that we simply do not know how the universe can come into being without
Now to my delightful enlightenment the author lays out his own understanding of
why this appears to be so.
-A scientific theory is a falsifiable rule that relates cause to effect. If you push
Dawkins and company far enough, you find yourself more or less where Aristotle was
more than 2,000 years ago in stating his view that any chain of cause-and-effect must
ultimately begin with an Uncaused Cause. No matter how far science advances, an
explanation of ultimate origins must always—by the very definition of the scientific
method—remain a non-scientific question. |
It sounds like the old conundrum -Which came first the chicken or the egg? | Without
the chicken the egg was never laid, but without the egg the chicken can never be, except
for First Things.
Aristotle‘s cause-and-effect will inevitably lead to another cause. And -cause | being
the first named in this duet must be considered to have been the first of the two entities.
So, what must have brought the first cause into being?
If not an -effect | then what else is there but an occurrence that seems to be
unprovoked by anything that we can testify to except through the agency of belief. A nd
we already know that the definition of belief is an assertion that lacks sufficient proof to
provide positive knowledge.
This sounds like the -axiom | of mathematics, -a proposition which is assumed
without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that flow from it. | An example
of this proposition that was offered to me at an early time in a geometry class, was -that
the Earth exists | and this before we had external space-based evidence of it. Before then,
it was an unprovable construct whose obvious reality was corroborated by all of our
Well what about this proposition? -That God exists. | What‘s the difference? For
objective proof of this, short of that final rendezvous, we would have to be able to stand
out beyond Creation.
And will we ever discover a platform which would provide that external proof? This,
needless to say, is not likely. Is not to worry! If God is your Axiom, then all else may be
proven through this one well-chosen assumption. All science is built upon the proposition
that there was -in the beginning | something before that first Cause.
But I digress—or do I?
Manzi continues, -Scientists appropriately proceed as if the goal of evolution were
incalculable, while from a philosophical perspective it remains calculable in princ iple,
using only the information embedded in the initial conditions. |
Science reaches ever more closely toward those initial conditions, while religion
witnesses to us through the institution of belief what our primary assumption must be.