Has science rendered religion obsolete?
Q. When a detective investigates a crime, what possibilities should he be open to considering? A. All possibilities that are logically viable in light of the full breadth of evidence.
Q. When a person investigates the origin/ultimate nature of our world, what possibilities should he be open to considering? A. All possibilities that are logically viable in light of the full breadth of evidence.
Q. What evidence should a detective evaluate in a crime scene?
A. Any evidence that may shed light on the events surrounding the crime.
Q. What evidence should a person evaluate in order to inform his worldview? A. Any evidence that may shed light on the world’s origin/ultimate nature (i.e. literally every facet of our universe—the full scope of human experience and all visible elements of the cosmos).
Q. Is forensic evidence the only evidence that potentially sheds light on the events surrounding a crime? A. No, eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence (that must be evaluated for accuracy/authenticity) are also admissible as evidence in a court of law.
Q. Is physical evidence the only evidence that potentially sheds light on the origin/ultimate nature of our world?
A. No, claims of divine revelation/supernatural events (that must be evaluated for accuracy/authenticity) should, logically, also be evaluated as evidence when developing/evaluating worldviews. (Scientific findings do not negate the possibility of a supernatural dimension/supernatural causes.)
Q. Why is the process of evaluating claims of divine revelation/supernatural events frequently abandoned in worldview development/evaluation? A. Because secular scientists, the “gods” of our day, refuse to acknowledge the inherent limitations of science. They insist upon naturalistic causes, even while lacking the capacity to rule out supernatural ones.
Q. How do mainstream scientists sell this fallacy to the public? A. By convincing the public that blind religiosity/ “God of the gaps”style reasoning is the only alternative.
Q. Is blind faith/ “God of the gaps” style reasoning the only alternative to accepting the claims of mainstream scientists? A. No. Claims of divine revelation/supernatural events can and should be evaluated in the same way that investigators assess the accuracy of eyewitness statements in a criminal investigation. Authentic revelation from a transcendent being—similar to accurate eyewitness testimony in a criminal investigation—will exhibit internal consistency, coherency, alignment with the facts, explanatory power, and a transcendent perspective.