Skip to content

Reason for the Hope Within 13: Religion and Science


“. . . contrary to God-of-the-gaps thinking, the existence of God is not best regarded as a large scale hypothesis postulated to explain anything, let alone those things science cannot explain. We arrive at our knowledge of God by way of revelation, both “generally” (through creation) and “specially” (in Jesus Christ, as well as through the Scriptures and the church)” (322)

This appears to be in opposition to the design argument, and many forms of the cosmological, moral, and consciousness arguments. Also, what is general revelation, if not an argument that God best explains certain natural phenomenon? Lastly, it seems strange that Stewart regards his view as correct, when traditionally, many thinkers have thought otherwise, and attempted to use God as an explanation for scientific gaps. It appears that God has retreated so many times that his only safe area is now totally outside of any natural events. Far retreat.

“To a theist, reality is ultimately personal, whereas to the atheist it is ultimately impersonal” (323).

I like that summary. I think using it may make atheism more easily argued. Seriously, look at how impersonal the universe is. It only gets personal when humans are entered in, and we anthropomorphize a lot of things. Understandable that we would do so to reality itself.

Stewart is arguing that theism (especially Christianity) is responsible for providing the underpinnings of modern science. Ancient Greece, anyone? Carrier’s chapter on this is the best response.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: