Whether or not you believe in the “Big Bang”, it is worth noting that it requires belief in an initial “singularity” of zero volume with infinite density and infinite energy. The dictates of the Big Bang theory, therefore, mandate faith in nothing which nonetheless contained everything.
Why is belief in something so impossible under current scientific laws acceptable, but belief in a God who is eternal and transcendent not acceptable to the neo-atheists – many of whom seemingly accept the Big Bang uncritically?
Such neo-atheists must rely on faith, having chosen to believe that:
No one plus nothing times blind chance = everything.
That requires more faith, it seems to me, than belief in an eternal God who created the universe.
Given the leap of faith required to accept the Big Bang theory, there is raging debate in the scientific world on whether our universe instead is simply the newest incarnation (or possibly an extension) of an eternal “multi-verse”. Some neo-atheists are now jumping on that bandwagon, as though it allows them to avoid the need for faith.
But those who believe that our universe emerged from a multi-verse still must rely on faith. They must believe in some version of an eternal material reality (although of continually changing form) – even at the probabilistic quantum level.
It seems to me that there is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the thesis of an eternal material reality. Either “being” – personality and consciousness – emerged from an ever changing but eternal material reality, our material reality emerged from eternal being, or both have always existed. Each of those competing belief systems necessarily are rooted in different but fundamental faith assumptions.
So for the neo-atheists among us, why is your belief in an eternal material reality (which is unprovable) giving rise to being less of a leap of faith than the Christian belief in eternal being giving rise to a material reality? It’s not a question of whether faith is required. Rather, it is a question of where you place your faith.
I stand in awe at what science is telling us about the material world. I feel humbled as our understanding is continually being pushed into new frontiers. I only ask that those who use science to falsely deny faith adopt the humility of admitting that they, too, must stand on faith – although of a different nature. You believe, and accept on faith, that being arose from an eternal material reality. I believe, and accept on faith, that eternal being preceded and gave rise to the universe.
I also believe that my faith is more rational, but that’s another topic for another debate.
I don’t presume to know how God created the universe. Maybe it was through a Big Bang. Maybe it was through the collision of two multi-verse membranes. Maybe it was by some other means that we haven’t even contemplated.
I think those questions are fascinating, and worthy of study. But I don’t naively accept, as our neo-atheists would have us believe, that such theories eliminate the necessity of belief itself – and thus faith.
~ Jim Wright
For a related blog, check out Richard Dawkins Ditty.
The initial singularity example is great.
Because when you aren’t claiming absolute knowledge, it’s not faith. The religious make that claim. Scientists do not.
All knowledge systems must stand on certain unproven presuppositions — even if only on the circular belief and thus faith in reason and knowledge. You can’t define away “faith” by saying it only involves claims of absolute knowledge. Scientists must, of necessity, make absolute claims. Hobbs pretty much destroyed any assertion to the contrary.