Religion is Based on Authority, Science on Observation, Science Works!

[Uber Genius]

Stephen Hawking was arguably the brightest scientist. His claims appear to both be true, so why would we trust religious claims?

[BK1110]

John Lennox is probably the best thinker/speaker on these issues.

As he points out, the only reason early scientists like Newton and Kepler pursued science, is because of their belief in God. The expected law in nature because they believed it was created by an intelligent law-giver. If the universe is the product of blind chance and randomness, then there's no reason to expect it to be intelligible and ordered. Indeed if our own brains are the product of blind chance and randomness, we shouldn't trust them to even do science in the first place.

Not to mention that Hawking's quote is painting with a broad brush, lumping all religions into a group that he then labels as not being based on observation and reason, which the Bible in many places tells us to look to nature as observable and reasonable evidence of God's existence and work.

[johnthebaptist]

2 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Stephen Hawking was arguably the brightest scientist. His claims appear to both be true, so why would we trust religious claims?

Stephen Hawking was arguably the brightest scientitst? How did you arrive at that? I think both of his claims are in error. First of all, religion is based on love, not on authority. (The two great commandments are to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.) As for science working, they still can't find a mathematical equation that works for both quantum mechanics and the universe as a whole, yet somehow God managed to create them both, didn't he? Go figure. Or maybe you think all his just magically appeared, including you and me.

[LearningToLetGo]

4 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Stephen Hawking was arguably the brightest scientist. His claims appear to both be true, so why would we trust religious claims?

I've seen enough in the last twelve months to know that EVERYTHING is religion.

[Hopefully]

I think scientists have the same faith In science that we have in Jesus. They say science is based on observation but who’s observation? I have never traveled a light year to verify that it’s 6 trillion miles nor have I ever traveled or seen anything travel at the speed of light to verify it’s ~368k miles per second, and I have never traveled to any other planet to verify the elements are what we are told they are. All I have are books/pictures that say so. I’d just have to believe those things are true because a few people say so.  I’ll choose to have faith in Jesus and it’s man I need proof from. 

[Studytheword]

6 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Stephen Hawking was arguably the brightest scientist. His claims appear to both be true, so why would we trust religious claims?

 

I think that the secular understanding of religion is one and the same as science.

[Tristen]

Hi UG,

“Science will win” what? The quote falsely implies that religion and science are necessarily mutually exclusive – that is a False Dichotomy.

When was the Big Bang observed – or Cosmological Inflation, or evolution from a common ancestor? That is, how is he defining “science”? There is no logical conflict between Christianity and operational “science” (a.k.a. the Scientific Method). But historical modelling (a different method) relies more on faith assumptions, than actual observations of the claims/stories/models. Therefore, such a use of the term “science” is a blatant Equivocation.

An Unsupported Assertion mixed with Innuendo (fallacy combo  ) is used to insinuate that Christians (or the religious) do not utilise “reason”. To be fair, no context is given to assess whether or not he supported his claim.

Why does he assume observation itself can be trusted (how does he know we are not in the Matrix)? How can that be verified independently of faith? Why should we assume that the universe operates in a rationally-ordered manner; such that observations from repeated experimentation has rational meaning? Does he know that these faith assumptions (which are logically necessary for for the Scientific Method) originate historically in the Christian world view – whereby God created the natural universe to follow rules (a.k.a. natural laws).

Your allusion to Hawking being “the brightest scientist” is a soft Appeal to Authority

We do not “trust religious claims”. We trust God – with Whom we have experiential fellowship.

We also note that the facts/observations are eminently consistent with the Biblical model of reality. Therefore our faith is entirely rational.

In conclusion, the quote (in its current format and context) is saturated with logic fallacies, and contains nothing of rational substance to rebut or defend – and therefore fails to meet the fundamental standard of a rational argument.

 

[Riverwalker]

On 2/5/2021 at 12:58 PM, Uber Genius said:

Stephen Hawking was arguably the brightest scientist. His claims appear to both be true, so why would we trust religious claims?

 

And who has seen evolution "work" and who observed the big bang, and where is the proof that life erupted spontaneously from a fart in a puddle of primordial ooze.

Science that is not observed, tested and verified, is not science fact.  Its a wild guess.  putting together separate pieces of information and constructing your desired results

[Michael37]

On 2/6/2021 at 9:58 AM, Uber Genius said:

Stephen Hawking was arguably the brightest scientist.

It depends on whose word you follow, man's or God's . . .

Psa 14:1  The fool has said in his heart,"There is no God."

Heb 3:12  Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;

[JohnD]

Half full / half empty. Even science is subject to human bias.