Does our title shock you, dear reader? Perhaps your mind will be changed by a column appearing today in the Washington Times, titled Science’s godless problem. It was written by Cheryl Chumley, that newspaper’s online opinion editor. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Cosmologist Stephen Hawking made headlines from beyond the grave this October when, seven months after his death, his presumed last book was published bearing these words: “There is no God.” And with that, the already wide gap separating science and religion, physical from spiritual, got a bit wider. What a shame. What a missed opportunity to learn and grow.
Yeah, Hawking blew it. Then she says:
But it doesn’t have to be that way. As Jay Richards, author of [Who cares?] suggested: What’s missing from much of today’s modern science is the God factor. “We need to have this argument with people,” he said in an interview. “We’re free beings made in the image of God.”
Your Curmudgeon wants to orient you properly, so you should know that Jay W. Richards is a Discoveroid senior fellow who, along with Guillermo Gonzalez (or “Gonzo” as we call him) co-authored the classic creationist book, The Privileged Planet, a “fine tuning” argument applied to Earth. Richards was a former faculty member at Biola University, a bible college, where he taught apologetics.
Okay, back to Cheryl’s column. She tells us:
Far too often, though, scientific inquiry and spirituality are being treated as mutually exclusive, as if never the two shall meet. That’s not simply an anecdotal observance. [Skipping statistics on the beliefs of scientists vs. the beliefs of the general public.] Call it a great divide. But what results is a widespread pressure in the scientific world to approach inquiry from an assumption of atheism — as well as a growing sense within the God-fearing world to regard the scientific community with rank suspicion. And once again: What a shame.
*Curmudgeon hangs his head in shame* Cheryl continues:
In Hawking’s view, atheism may be the “simplest explanation” to life’s mysteries. But is it really the most scientifically sound? [Brilliant question!] Is it even, truly, the “simplest” to support with fact and common sense? There’s a whole community of faithfuls out there who say no.
Ooooooooooooh! The faithful say “No.” Let’s read on:
A science world with a default premise of No God is a disservice, in the end, to true scientific inquiry.
Are you following this, dear reader? Scientists are doing a disservice to true scientific inquiry. And now we come to the end:
At the very least, as Richards pointed out, having the argument keeps up the search for truths. And that’s just got to be good for all sides concerned.
Perhaps, dear reader, Cheryl’s column will cause you to re-think the error of your ways. It’s not just science that’s at stake; there’s also the possibility of spending eternity in the Lake of Fire.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.