J. Warner Wallace is interviewed by Impact 360 and describes the limits of science in explaining the universe in which we live. Can physics and chemistry explain everything we see in the universe? If it can’t, are we reasonable in looking to God as an explanation?
-----Viking theist: Can physics and chemistry explain thunder?
Viking atheist: No. A purely naturalistic explanation for thunder has not been found yet.
-----Viking theist: If it can’t, are we reasonable in looking to Thor as an explanation?
Viking atheist: Yes. As soon as you mention something science hasn't yet found a purely naturalistic explanation for, you should automatically conclude that no purely naturalistic explanation is even possible. I'm now a disciple of Thor. Thor's ways sure are mysterious!
The problem is whether or not Wallace believes God is knowable or not. If Wallace believes God is ineffable/incomprehensible, then he is unknowable, meaning that not only is he unknown, he can never be known. Thus, if Wallace believes this, he cannot use God as an explanation. If God is knowable, he can be known, even if there are certain things currently unknown about him. If God is knowable, then he can be described, and in doing so, he is subject to natural explanations. Yet, if God is supernatural, then nothing can be known about him. This just renders God useless as an explanation.
ReplyDeleteTwo problems: First, the Christian admission that god-talk is necessarily imperfect might justify dismissing it entirely, as there are no controls in place to inspire confidence that ANYTHING we "know" about god is actually true. There is no settled example of a very important "truth" or "danger" whose presence can only be detected by the use of admittedly imperfect language. Hence I insist that the Christian first establish a reasonable basis for saying it is "dangerous" to deny God, before I will waste my time toying with their word-games.
DeleteSecond, like anything else that is not detectable except by inference, it is only responsible academically to deprioritize "god" whenever one chooses. It's not like the person who dismisses god is on the order of the idiot who denies the existence of trees. But when a fundamentalist wants to convince himself that Romans 1:20 is the answer to everything, there's just no stopping him.
I'm starting to feel like Richard Carrier and other scholars do...fundamentalist Christian scholarship need only be addressed if one chooses to do so as a hobby, it isn't like they have anything actually serious to say..especially with their inability to show that rejecting the gospel is in any wise "dangerous".