Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Sir,-"It is impossible," writes Mr. P. + Campbell, "in my opinion, to determine a significant correlation between science and religion." What are his proofs? First, science is atheistic-‘"it knows nothing of God .. . does not bother about God; its triumphs are achieved by leaving God out of account." If this statement is to have any force as an argument it must be shown that science compels disbelief in God, that a scientist cannot believe in God. In fact, science does nothing. of the kind, but it leaves God out of account in its methods because it would be improper from science’s own principles to. do otherwise. Science deals only with sensible matter. Secondly, a certain number of scientists in a certain year did not believe in God. The survey proved that and nothing more. There is no evidence that science compelled disbelief, that the scientists who were atheists and agnostics had ever thought about the problem or considered the proofs for God’s existence. To prove that "it is impossible to determine a significant correlation between science and relegion," it is essential to show at least that the proofs and evidence for God’s existence are, if not fallacious, improbable. Dick Southon writes at length on reasons why "the religious outlook commits itself to belief without analysis. Clearly, religious faith is not accepted by a conscious process of reasoning." What does he mean by this? What does he mean by faith? If he means that religion depends wholly on faith and not reason, then he dismisses Augustine, Aquinas, Barth and Maritain. If he means portions of religious belief depend on faith, what are those portions? His suggestions for an exploration of subconscious forces as a basis for EastWest understanding are too lacking in substance to appeal to those most hardheaded rationalists, the Christian philosophers, The talks in the series Where Science and Faith Meet may be criticised, I think, on these grounds: This question has already been discussed at length and Christians no longer believe there is a conflict nor do many scientists; other more vital issues merit discussion (e:g., are there absolute values, morality and tolerance, Christian dogma in a democracy?); too many of the speakers rely on proving God’s existence by experience alone, which will not do for atheists and agnostics, rather than by reason plus experience. Only those ten years behind the times see a live controversy in this

issue.

M.F.

McL.

(Gisborne). _

Sir.-When scientists have discovered all the universe has to offer they will still have God to contend with. There is no conflict between science and religion, as scientists are only finding out what God already knows.

T.J.

P.

(Hawera)!

Sir-yYour correspondent P. Campbell quotes with evident approval Auguste Comte’s statement that science is "conducting God to its frontiers." A more realistic statement in our own intimidating- age might be that men, denying God, and using the weapons. which science has put at their disposal, are conducting themselves to the frontiers of existence, Until scientists can see the larger framework within which their real but limited values can be set, we are all in jeopardy. The scientific method, so successful in its own field, can no more discover this larger framework than a colorimeter can evaluate a sunset, or a nuclear weapon choose its own target.

Another faculty is needed before this larger framework, which can set life in its true setting, can be apprehended, the faculty of faith-not faith as an abstract quality, but faith as a human response to a God who reveals Himself in Jesus Christ, Faith is as appropriate to this all important task as the inductive method is to the more limited field of science. One marvels at the credulity of those who, finding that a key fits one lock, declare that it must fit all locks. One hardly knows whether to laugh or weep at the pathetic spectacle of little man supposedly conducting the God who made him to the frontiers of His own

world.

SELWYN

DAWSON

(Takapuna).

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.I whakaputaina aunoatia ēnei kuputuhi tuhinga, e kitea ai pea ētahi hapa i roto. Tirohia te whārangi katoa kia kitea te āhuatanga taketake o te tuhinga.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/NZLIST19540611.2.12.1

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Listener, Volume 30, Issue 777, 11 June 1954, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
668

SCIENCE AND RELIGION New Zealand Listener, Volume 30, Issue 777, 11 June 1954, Page 5

SCIENCE AND RELIGION New Zealand Listener, Volume 30, Issue 777, 11 June 1954, Page 5

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert