Science and Faith (#2-2)

Let’s examine the ironies in three of the most common rationale used by those-who-don’t-know-God:

• Science and strong rationalism;
  
• what I call “The Elephant Analogy Error,”
  
• And lastly Social Darwinism.
  I organize these perceptions under two headlines: ü “You can’t prove it.”
  ü And “You cannot know.”
  The “you can’t prove it” argument is based on a misunderstanding of science and its limits. Many who reject the idea of God do so not because they have proof that there is no creator, but because, they argue, it cannot be proven that God exists. A counterpoint is to reflect back the argument and ask “If proof is the criteria, can you apply it to your own fundamental assumptions?”
  The scientist must assume there is a natural cause because natural causes are the only type its methodology can address. However, science has not proven there can’t be any other type of cause.
  There is no scientific means for testing the statement, ”No supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible.” Consequently, the assertion that there cannot be supernatural causes is a philosophical presupposition and not a scientific finding. To claim science proves supernatural causes can’t exist when science, by its nature, is incapable of discerning or testing for supernatural causes; is a self-refuting argument. It is like a drunk insisting on looking for his lost keys only under the streetlight because the light is better there. In fact, it goes the drunk one better: it insists that because the keys can’t be found in the dark, they have to be under the light.