Tim, The Christian's Rebuttal: Is Science The Only Source Of Truth

Let me begin by saying I am surprised at all the things that we agree on:

1. Yes, you were correct as to my definition of truth, that is, "what is 'real'".  The question, therefore, which I posed can be restated as, "How do we determine what is real?".  The main point of my post, however, was simply that science is not the only way to determine what is real.  Science cannot deal with certain things.  You rejected the love claim. I am not sure that I agree with your analysis, but for the sake of the argument, another example of what science cannot speak to is ethics. It is always and has always been wrong to commit murder (note that I said murder, not kill).  That is an "absolute truth", that is, a truth at all times and in all places.  It is a truth, however, about which science has nothing to say.

Science relies entirely on empiricism.  According to science, the only things that are real are those that we are able to touch, feel, see, and smell.  Empiricism is a valid route to discover truth, at least most of the time (we can always think of times when our senses have failed us).  Empiricism is not foolproof,  however, and it is not all encompassing.  My only point is that it seems to me the atheism relies too heavily on empiricism and does not allow for truth being arrived by any other method.

Will you agree that the scientific method is not the only source of discovering truth?

2. I am thankful that you do not object to my argument that it is false to say that there is no God because He cannot be necessarily proven via the scientific method. I believe, however, that this is a common position among atheists.

3.  We also agree that religion does make claims that can be scientifically proven.  I do, however, reject your example about proving "energy being release upon dying because I have never seen or heard any such claim by Christianity.  Currently I cannot think of an example, but I do think that Christianity probably makes some claims that are provable via the scientific method.

4. You are correct that I am attempting to "have my cake and eat it too" (is that so bad?).  Science is an important tool to arrive at the truth, but it is not the only source.  I do not completely discount science, however, and I believe that science points toward a Designer.  Now, in some of the comments, people have taken issue with that, but I am confused as to why.  All I am saying is that based on the intricacy of the design in nature, it makes it more likely that there was a Designer.  I choose to believe that Designer is what you would call the Christian God, yet, I am not making that claim in this context. All I am saying is that it is more rational than not to believe that Someone or Something designed the world we live in. Neither you or any of the commentators have provided me with an argument that contradicts my argument that it is more rational to believe in a Designer of the world than to believe we came from a primordial soup.

I would close this first round by simply asking, "Can we agree that science is not the only source of truth?"

QUESTION ONE: What Is The Source(s) Of Truth? Or Is "Scientific Truth" The Only Source Of Truth

Andrew, my first question is what are the sources of truth?  Another way of asking that is, "Is science the only true source of truth?"

I think that atheists put a lot of stock into scientific truth and argue that because God cannot be proved scientifically, then He cannot be proven at all.  I think this is wrong for two reasons. First, science does not reach ultimate truth. Second, there are other sources of truth beyond science.  Also, science ultimately points toward a Creator.  So on one hand, I am arguing that science is not the end all of truth.  On the other hand, I also argue that if one wants to rely on science, ultimately it points to God.

Society tends to view science as the ultimate search for truth, and that "scientific laws" are absolutely true.  I am not so sure this is correct, however.  For example, we used to think that atoms are the smallest, most basic elements that make up everything. Now science is telling us that atoms are comprised of strings, and that the elements that make up everything are some sort of harmonic string theory.  The point is that there are few, if any, "laws" in science which will not be disposed of as science continues to investigate things.  Our society lauds scientific truth, yet that truth is rarely absolute.

Also, science cannot speak to certain things. For example, it is true that a mother loves a child, yet it could not be proved scientifically.  There may be evidence of love such as hugs and kisses, yet, science cannot measure the content of a person's heart.  Science, therefore, is not the only source of truth.  Recently, Stephen Hawking made headlines by essentially declaring that there was no heaven.  Yet, science has nothing to say about the existence of heaven.  There is no way to discover heaven through the scientific process. Thus, the atheist reliance on science to say that God does not exist is misplaced.

Finally, I would take issue with the one who says that we cannot prove God through the scientific method, therefore, He must not exist.  I am not saying we can prove God through the scientific method. I am arguing, however, that science points toward a Creator.  For example, I believe it is more rational to believe that God created the earth (perhaps through a Big Bang) than it is to believe that we came to exist through some primordial soup.

Are you willing to admit, then that science is not the only source of truth?  Are you willing to admit that science points to a design and that, therefore, there must be a Designer?

Welcome To The Debates

Welcome to our blog.  Andrew is the atheist, and Tim is the evangelical Christian.  We have never met in person, but have already had lively debates online concerning faith versus atheism.  This blog is simply an expansion of those debates.  We will argue back and forth, and hope that you will be willing to enter into the fray by posting comments.

Let the debates begin!