I will accept any help offered in framing this topic (and its title) better. I was up in arms hunting for a place to answer two comments I read about the Dawkins-Collins debate. Here they are:
From
Open Source Theology
Collins’ major blunder is to accept without demur Dawkins’ underlying premise. This is that there is a neutral position from which the truth claims, or more generally the reasonableness, of all forms of discourse can be assessed; and that this position is occupied by science. This implies that science with its talk of observation, hypothesis, confirmation and generalisation can adjudicate on the reasonableness of such human practices as football, chess, murder trials, shopping, jokes, poetry, art appreciation, psychotherapy, hypnotism, carpentry, war- and religion.
Grumble, grumble, grumble...bullarkey.
Collins does not accept this. It always irritates me when people say this.
The scientific method is not the only way to the truth. There are many other forms of evidence. Eye-witness testimony is pretty unreliable in distinguishing one stranger from another, and it is never 100% reliable. Nonetheless, testimony and experience runs the gamut of reliability from pretty much worthless to extremely reliable. For example, your spouse's testimony that it rained at your home while you were out of town is pretty much "proof" that it happened, yet it is not scientific evidence. Her testimony on other matters may not be that reliable, but the fact is that we all attach a standard of reliability to things we hear and experience. We can refine our judgment on those things as we learn, but in the end the reliability of experience and testimony and anecdote is not zero.
That said, all Collins has to prove is that science cannot exclude the possibility of God. Thus, on a completely scientific level, he can explore the possibility of God with Dawkins. Once he it is agreed that scientifically, God cannot be excluded, then Collins and other believers are entirely free to determine the possibility of God's existence on the basis of other things than science, such as experience, testimony, and even wild theorizing about things seen in science and nature.
Which brings me to the other quote, from
Evolution News & Views
First, I just can’t figure Collins out. Dawkins says the question of God is a scientific one for which there could be evidence. Collins, on the other hand, says the question of God’s existence is not scientific but “outside of science’s ability to really weigh in.” That said, Collins also claims he does not like Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of NOMA where science and religion do not overlap. But then Collins uses evidence for the fine-tuning of the laws of physics to argue for God’s existence. So apparently scientific evidence can weigh in on the question of God. I’m not sure what I am missing here.
Once it is established that science is not the means to determine God's existence, then looking at all the evidence we can find is. If some of that evidence, perhaps circumstantial, but nonetheless useful, comes from scientific facts or conclusions, then so be it. Just because science can't determine whether God exists does not mean that it cannot weigh in on God's existence, and it doesn't mean that those who are seeking experiential evidence of God cannot pull some ideas, thoughts, and influences from science.
Finding truth is not an easy thing. It is hard work. Science has weighed in on the existence of God. For example, Darwin himself weighed in, making it clear that the amazing power of an eye (and it really is amazing) is not proof of God. He was able to show from nature, that it can develop, well, naturally. The same with the lung (which developed from the swim bladder, which was awe-inspiring to a non-scientist like myself). Science explained all sorts of things that originally seemed to need a God.
Does that mean it will explain all of it? Science may well eventually find a theory of everything (the unifying theory), but that will establish only the orderliness of everything. Will they explain every religious experience? Some already write all such experiences off as the result of brain activity, but such a conclusion is not even remotely warranted at this point, despite the fact that it is certainly understandable that many postulate this.
We who believe in God will continue to point, not to gaps that science has not explained, but to the power of a relationship with God and to what man feels in his heart, which is what we've always pointed to at the base of it. Like Collins, I love exploring the universe. It is mandated by my belief in God and in the Scriptures, that say day to day utters speech and night to night give knowledge.
However, our belief in the existence of God is not based on science, and the scientific methor is not the only way to seek truth, or we would have disbanded courtrooms long ago.
This looks like "Faith & Belief" forum to me ("objective reality vs. subjective concept").
™ Version 4.2