Having rehearsed it all, he asks:
3.) If we don’t find life in the places and under the conditions where we expect it, can that prove the existence of God? Certainly, there are people that will argue that it does. But to me, that’s a terrible way to place your faith. Consider this:
Do you want or need your belief in a divine or supernatural origin to the Universe to be based in something that could be scientifically disproven?
I am very open about not being a man of faith myself, but of having tremendous respect for those who are believers. The wonderful thing about science is that it is for everybody who’s willing to look to the Universe itself to find out more information about it. Why would your belief in God require that science give a specific answer to this question that we don’t yet know the answer to? Will your faith be shaken if we find that, hey, guess what, chemistry works to form life on other worlds the same way it worked in the past on this one? Will you feel like you’ve achieved some sort of spiritual victory if we scour the galaxy and find that human beings are the most intelligent species on all the worlds of the Milky Way? More.
Of course, the obvious fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life is not affected by any of these speculative casuistries. It is interesting that someone who is “very open about not being a man of faith” sounds so much like a theistic evolutionist in the sense of always looking for something to pick at that ignores the general pattern.
See also: Wayne Rossiter on the theistic evolution shell game
Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Follow UD News at Twitter!