All Comments for: God's Other Good Book | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > December

Christianity Today, December, 2008 |

God's Other Good Book

'God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it.'

Karl Giberson | posted 1/05/2009 08:59AM

The Faith of Scientists: In Their Own Words
By Nancy Frankenberry
Princeton University Press, August 2008
542 pp., $21.99

'God Never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 26 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Chuck Anziulewicz

Posted: January 13, 2009 11:08 AM

I would highly recommend "Death By Black Hole," a collection of essays by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. He has quite a bit to say about faith and science. In his essay "Holy Wars" he writes the following: "In a recent survey of religious beliefs among math and science professionals, 65 percent of the mathematicians (the highest rate) declared themselves to be religious, as did 22 percent of the physicists and astronomers (the lowest rate). The national average among all scientists was around 40 percent and has remained largely unchanged over the past century." Of course, Dr. Tyson also recognizes the fact that at least SOME scientists have found a niche readership: "Publishers have come to learn that there is a lot of money in God, especially when the author is a scientist and when the book title includes a direct juxtaposition of scientific and religious themes."

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: January 11, 2009 11:48 PM


It is clear that neither Francis Bacon nor Karl Giberson have "looked at him whom they pierced" (Zech. 12:10; John 19:37; Rev. 1:7) in HIS DIACRITICAL DEATH ON THE CROSS sufficiently armed with divine weapons to destroy strongholds, false arguments, and every proud obstacle that is raised against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10: 4-6).

Tesfatadelle

Posted: January 08, 2009 11:47 AM


"How would knowledge of our kinship with the rest of the animal world, especially our primate cousins, reshape our understanding of humanity and our role in Creation?" The answer is I have no primate cousins. An author who starts with such questions does not have a full understanding of the book of Genesis. So any following reasoning is delusional and have no Biblical basis.

SteveB

Posted: January 08, 2009 9:52 AM

Giberson’s musings about science and theology would be so much better if he understood either topic. While it is true that some scientists like to talk about the “likelihood of other life forms,” this is an article of faith, not science; there is no hard evidence whatsoever that such creatures exist. Thus, the only “blissful ignorance” involved would seem to rest in Giberson himself—not in his alleged extraterrestrials. But perhaps worse is his criticism of “the psalmist's assertion that the earth is fixed,” which he calls “striking.” It is indeed, but why stop there? Even more striking is the psalmist’s assertion that the earth will “bow down.” What are we to do with such statements? Giberson will no doubt read Psalm 64 and conclude that “the psalmist actually thinks that the earth can bend at the waist!” The rest of us can simply recognize that the Bible—and especially the psalms, which is POETRY—often employs figurative language in its description of the physical world.

Pauline

Posted: January 07, 2009 1:46 PM

Blaise Pascal was a scientist, but when God called him in a holy night, he discovered the greatness and love of the Creator. Science is insecurity , because it always changes. But true faith isn't. Pascal: 'God of Abraham,God of Isaac, God of Jacob, NOT OF PHILOSOPHERS AND SCHOLARS. Certainty, certainty,heartfelt,joy,peace. God of Jesus Christ (Penséees,913) Pascal wrote his experience down,and he sewed it into his coat, and wore it for the rest of his life, so that he would never forget this. It was the protective coat for his soul,in a cold atheistic world! [St.Paul wrote: I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ (Phip.3:7)

SteveB

Posted: January 07, 2009 10:42 AM

How are we to understand the post-modern free-floating rudderlessness of a person like Giberson? He talks about “provocative themes,” “religious experiences,” and “sacred depths of nature,” as if the invocation of flowery language excuses him from the necessity to articulate a coherent idea. Take his question, for example, “Can God be worshiped by those who celebrate the Creation without acknowledging the Creator?” The question implies that that its possible to answer with a yes. But how is it possible to fervently love and be devoted to someone whom the worshipper doesn’t even acknowledge? Can I be devoted to anything (wife, kids, job, country, God... fill in the blank with whatever you want)—can I love anything—if I’m not willing even to acknowledge it? It’s strangely ironic that Giberson can live happily with this level of cognitive dissonance and at the same time criticize the likes of Bacon, Pascal and Newton as “uncritical, [and] even naïve.”

Ty	Posted: January 06, 2009 11:04 PM

Interesting comment that the book was frustrating...I wonder why the reviewer said that? It would be good to know by what Mr. Gilberson was frustrated. His question, "Can God be worshiped by those who celebrate the Creation without acknowledging the Creator?" is also intriguing. I think the answer is ,"No." because to admire/celebrate/worship the creation is not the same as worshiping the Creator. He is personal, after all, and relates to us on that level. However, I can see how the comment by Lewis is pertinent to the same issue: an atheist awed by creation could well be on a path that will lead him to the Creator. Maybe the necessary faith will be found to be "available" to him or her in the end...that's what I pray.

Roger - Australia

Posted: January 06, 2009 7:23 PM

I wouldn't waste my time with a book like this. Atheists who are also scientists tend to use science to defend their refusal to believe in God. In reality these people tend to bring their atheistic presuppositions to their interpretation of science. Christianity has nothing to fear from science - all truth is God's truth. There is no conflict between faith and science. There is, however, a conflict between Christian theism and the aggressive atheistic intepretation of science of people like Richard Dawkins (who incidentally is as much a fundamentalist of his atheism as he accuses those who are Christians). I recommend any open minded person on either side of the faith divide to read the works of sensible Christian scientists like Prof John Lennox and Prof Alister McGrath of Oxford University regarding this subject, and also the works of philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and the late Ron Nash who give a good understanding of the relationship between faith and reason.

craigb

Posted: January 06, 2009 1:32 PM


this review rules. god made the beautifullest world ever and all science does is show how deep it goes.

Stephen Leonard

Posted: January 06, 2009 12:51 PM

Giberson's perspective that such as Galileo, Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, and Newton lived in a deeply religious century shows his ignorance of history. How often modern day pundits on subjects such as this presume that the centuries before our own modern era were far more religious than our own. Far from it, even though so many spiritual giants lived in the 17th century. These men, all deeply religious in the true sense, unlike ungodly "leaders" within the church then, as there are today, persecuted them for their beliefs, appropriate worship and devotion, and their scientific studies, and conclusions. Their faith had to endure ridicule as well as indifference in the same way a true believer in God's special and general revelation must do today. These men helped mold from their faith in God's accurate revelation the foundation and model for factual scientific investigation, without which science would not be worth a flip today. This was neither Darwin's method or his modern disciples'.

Rick	Posted: January 06, 2009 10:55 AM

Dear Rushmore, I'm not sure how you can hold these two ideas simultaneously: "belief in God" and "the impossibility of ANY understanding of God". To believe in God, don't you have to believe that God exists? And doesn't that require SOME understanding of God? It's frustrating is to hear this contradictory double talk from those who wish to dismiss the Christian's claim to knowledge when they themselves think they know so much about God as to know that he cannot be known! Where did you get such vast knowledge of the Almighty as to know that you can have NO understanding of him (and yet enough understanding to warrant belief in the existence of such an entity!) Clearly your God reveals himself in self disclosure. So enough castigating Christians for thinking that God has revealed himself. On this we agree. The substance of that self disclosure is the issue, not the supposed arrogance of claiming some knowledge. Of that we are equally guilty.

Neil Gussman

Posted: January 06, 2009 7:16 AM


I am glad to see Karl Giberson's writing in CT. He has covered a lot of ground very thoroughly in very few words.

ounbbl

Posted: January 05, 2009 10:43 PM


I wonder the rating is based on the book or the review itself. It seems much confused.

Gordon

Posted: January 05, 2009 9:26 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with Darwin's opinion of a doctrine which holds "that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brothers, and almost all my friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." From our perspective at the beginning of the 21st century, I would suggest that most of Christendom has had it wrong with this interpretation of the scripture, and mis-characterization of God. In fact, the Bible overwhelmingly suggests that the price for unbelief is "eternal death", "death of the soul", "ceasing to exist" or "annihilation after the last judgement", as held by a growing number of Christian Conditionalists. Nowhere does the Bible teach plainly that men have immortal souls, a Greek concept. Instead, it consistently teaches in many, many places that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom 6:23 It is hard to consider this doctrine unfair, not to speak of "damnable".

Ruth Bard

Posted: January 05, 2009 9:09 PM


This author's uncritical acceptance of the fallible pronouncements of atheistic "science" is mind-bogglingly naive. Scientists are forced to backpedal regularly; Scripture, never.

Vincent

Posted: January 05, 2009 7:18 PM

I wonder how it is possible to contribute an article (and a book review nonetheless!) to CHRISTIANITYToday when the opening paragraph is populated with sentences such as "likelihood of other life forms" and "creatures cavorting in blissful ignorance of Eden's shenanigans", seeing as these thoughts are strictly unrooted in Scripture? It is only when we ignore the revelation of God (without which, would make us, in our fallen state, virtually unaware of anything connected to God) when these "questions" arise. The author (and the editors) seem to overlook the fact that creation has groaned since the Fall, and that would hardly be described as "Good" (in the title). Or perhaps they don't even recognize that we are fallen! Hmm... which brings me back to my question of, what is this review doing in an evangelical magazine?

Rushmore (Registered User)

Posted: January 05, 2009 6:12 PM


I always cringe when God is described' with language proclaiming mankind is connected to God through HIS creation - thereby, God 'needs' to be worshipped in return. Though I believe in God, I also believe it is impossible to possess any understanding of God. And, I believe that 'worship' is a wild stretch of demeaning pretense of understanding.

G.M.Reynolds, MS,DDS

Posted: January 05, 2009 6:09 PM

I am a Christian, and I am a scientist. For me, Faith is based on evidence! I take the Sacred Scripture we choose to call the Bible, seriously, not entirely symbolic, not entirely literal. Its authors were human and thus not inerrant nor infallible. Still God used them to convey to fallen humanity a message of love, of His creativity, of the problems He faced in the conflict of all time brought on by an angel of exceptional intelligence and beauty. Nearly fifty years ago, I taught a class of teachrs a couse in the philosophy of biology, using an evolutionary centered text. In that textbook I found the authour refuting his own thesis of evolutionary development in describing protoplams and its makeup. Graduate courses in biochemistry showed me conclusively that only God could and did create, only God could maintian and sustain the live He shared with creatures of His love; and only selfishness could destroy the entire universe if left to its ultimate consequence.

Jan C

Posted: January 05, 2009 4:38 PM

It was good to see that someone else noticed the use of John Newton in this review when it should have been Isaac Newton. The review also included a quote by Rachel Carson with the year of birth as 1954. Assuming this is the same Rachel Carson who wrote The Silent Spring, that year of birth would place her at about eight years old when she wrote it. She was born in 1907 and died in 1964. Correct facts are essential to lend credibility to any review and to the magazine as well.

The G

Posted: January 05, 2009 4:10 PM


No. God cannot be worshipped unless He is acknowledged not only as the Creator, but the Ruler, and the Redeemer! That article was a confusing review.

James Wartian

Posted: January 05, 2009 3:59 PM

What a profoundly confusing review. I fully appreciate that the extremes of both sides completely miss each other in the so called science vs. the Bible debate. But what is the foundation for what we believe? The Bible reminds us that faith is based on what we cannot see. While I fully admit some interpretations of the Bible (such as the universe had to revolve around the earth) were wrong, I would rather start with an assumption that what the Bible says is true than with an assumption that scientists ideas should guide how I understand the Bible. Bottom line, I am left with little interest to read the book reviewed -- not because I disagree with the book, but because the review left me puzzled over what I would find if I did read the book.

Leigh Vickery

Posted: January 05, 2009 3:51 PM


Where is Francis Collins? How could he not be a part of this discussion? Readers interested in this topic must read his book, "The Language of God."

Craig S. Prest

Posted: January 05, 2009 3:49 PM

I'm personally grateful for any discussion and debate on the subject of Mr. Giberson's short article. I tend to agree with Thinking Engineer and I think that many scientists show a kind of almost irrational antagonism towards "Christian Faith" due to negative issues other than science itself experienced at some point during the course of their personal journey through life. To me, the debate in most aspects seems destined to "stalemate" in terms of "evidence" leaving the choice of what one decides to believe as the determining factor of where they stand on the issues of reality. Red Monkey's comments were relevant, but because of the briefness of this article maybe give Giberson a break?

Linda Leggett

Posted: January 05, 2009 3:35 PM


Am disappointed that you did not make the correction , i.e, not John Newton but Isaac Newton, which I mailed to you almost one month ago after it appeared incorrectly twice in this review in your monthly magazine.

Thinking_Engineer

Posted: January 05, 2009 1:02 PM

I've worked in a couple of large secular universities as a professor of electrical engineering. I think the article oversimplifies somewhat, in reality I think you have scientists/engineers with conventional Christian faith, scientists with uncoventional faith, those who don't care , and those who are in conscious and intentional opposition to God. I have been fortunate to have a few friends in this last category, who were brilliant technically but outspoken their antagonism towards God. In the cases I know of their unbelief was ultimately not because of intellectual issues, but because some Christian they knew, a parent, a girl-friend, or a Sunday school teacher, had treated them badly. Christians may have their own unloving behavior to blame more than any inherent philosophical contradiction between Christianity and science. I recommend "The Soul of Science" by Nancy Pearcey as a helpful historical review of the apparent conflict between science and faith.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment