Re: Whose Burden of Proof?

Steve wrote:

>
>
>The issue that I run across in my travels is that there are individuals who
>want a well reasoned faith but are confronted with rhetoric from the
>supposedly scientifically grounded Dawkins and Dennetts of the world? In our
>pluralistic society it is not enough just to invoke scripture. They wonder
>if there are competing religious schemes to the materialist viewpoint where
>things like piety and prayer mean more than some psychological mechanism.
>What are theologians to say to those folks?
>

The other side of this issue is that the Dawkins and Dennetts of the
world are religious and not scientific (therefore, your word
"supposedly"). The scientism of Dawkins and Dennett is a competing
religion with Christianity. I believe that our energies should go
into pointing this out rather than trying to come up with some kind
of "scientific proof of God" or "making room for God". This where I
can agree in large measure with Phil Johnson. But the rubber hits the
road when Phil Johnson (and the IDers in general) argue about science
(mostly negatively, i.e. evolution can't explain such and such)--as
if the science is what decides the issue! Then Phil and I disagree
sometimes profoundly.

If a "religious" science comes up with the same science that
"secular" science comes up with, then the issue must not be a
scientific question. Dawkins, Dennett, AND Phil Johnson conclude that
if that is the case that religion is superfluous. This is the
conclusion that must be contested.

TG

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801