This is a reply I posted to Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) blog site. He had a recent post entitled "Building blocks of the Universe," and I felt like replying so this is what I wrote. The original of Adams' post can be read at
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2008/04/building-blocks.html
RE:
All True science is God's science!
While I thoroughly enjoy your blog (most of the time) and am a die hard Dilbert fan, I tend to disagree with you every once in a while (though that's common to all human interaction I believe). Anyways, on to my point: what I gathered from this post is that maybe there is one final component that makes up everything on a microscopic level, and the finding of that would give credence to rules of physics guiding everything, which you stated meant that "that such rules of physics would qualify as God." Now here is where I digress. I agree with your sentiment that there probably is some base particle that composes all things and I would agree that all true science follow laws of science. But one blaring fallacy in the "God v. Science" argument is that the argument exists at all. Why should it be one or the other? God, for me, is a perfect being who is ordered and logical, who follows laws perfectly and is our creator. Not our creator alone, but the creator of all things. So in creating all things, of course God is going to follow a logical order of operations. Of course God is going to follow the very laws that govern His creations. The proof of a particle that makes up all things, the proof that there are such exact and perfect laws to explain all things (though we may not yet comprehend all those laws), the proof that there is order in everything in the multiverse, for me, gives credence to a Creator-type being. Which is the foundation for my first line: All true science is indeed God's science.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
well said ...
this is why i can't read his blog anymore tho ... if it were just the silly random posts, but he likes to throw posts like this in to get his readers all stirred up! so much that 208 people have commented. sheesh.
Good point and good argument. Let me ask you a question though from your argument.
You stated: "Of course God is going to follow the very laws that govern His creations."
(So you are aware I am about to make inflammatory statements that are not meant to be directed specifically at you).
Just as atheistic scientists mock religionists for a belief in God-based science, why then do so many religionists mock scientists for gathering evidence that God leaves behind? Why do Christians ignore the evidence and hold to their dogma as if it is doctrine?
My real question that I want you to answer to yourself (and not to me...unless you feel like having a hearty, healthy debate...because I will argue either side until I'm out of breath) is this: Are you willing to examine the evidence and contemplate the possibility that the dogma that we have so long believed to be doctrine could possibly be false?
And before you think I have up and apostatized, when we talk I can explain my theory of why's and how's, but let me be brief and just say this: The eternal principles of the gospel never change and I do not question them but the administrative parts of the unfolding of the gospel (the science - the how's), I do believe there have been opinions declared which have become accepted as revealed doctrine. Let's talk!
all i want to say right now is:
when chris comes, and you and he and T are all in the same room, and about to jump into the science/religion topic of friendly debate...let me know. i want to watch...and listen...and think...and learn...and possibly laugh...
love ya
Post a Comment