Science, theology and the new atheism

Creationists are often told by atheists and 'liberal' christians that they must let 'science' inform and correct their theology. (This advice is even handed out by people who call themselves 'evangelical' theologians; e.g. J.P. Moreland and even 'conservatives' like Vern Poythress.) I've heard this song so often I've become tired of it, and have decided to turn it around. I'd like to ask in this post how often it is that atheists let science correct their theology. (Or a-theology as the case may be.) To do this we'll take a look at earthquakes.

Quotes and comments;

A. '...this is therefore the best of all possible world.' [1.]

I'm not quoting Leibnitz here, or from Voltaire's Candide, but the Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til. While Van Til might possibly have been referring to the creation before the Fall, I think he was referring to the post-Fall world, and our world today.

It was this idea (theodicy) of Leibnitz that Voltaire mocked after the Lisbon earthquake. He thought it obvious that a world with devastating earthquakes quite obviously could not be the best possible world. He thought it child's play to imagine a better one. (It's a moot question how he, or anyone, can know what a 'best' possible world would be. I don't see how anyone can, but that's another question.)

He imagined the world would be a better place without earthquakes. On the face of it this seems obvious - but how do we know? How do we know they're not necessary or unavoidable? The bigger question concerns defining what is meant by better. (e.g. better for whom? better in terms of what ultimate purpose?)

If we look strictly at the people of Lisbon who saw their city fall, and the people they knew die, we get one answer. (i.e. a 'humanist' one) If we look at things from God's point of view we get another answer. The key to history in the latter case is not the welfare of people living at that time and place, but the overarching redemptive plan of God for all mankind, and even for the universe as a whole. The answer then concern God's glory, not man's mortal welfare. (I'm not going to pretend I know why the earthquake happened.)

We can see in retrospect that man has always had the ability to protect himself from earthquakes - but has squandered his intelligence and resources on stupid and evil pasttimes, rather than applying himself to a rigorous study of science and engineering. Ancient man was at least as smart as modern man, but frequently made little effective use of his intelligence, preferring warfare or other insane or useless pursuits to a serious study of the world he lived in. The blame for the suffering in so called 'acts of god' remains with mankind, as he was capable of much better. [2.]

Summary;
All this brings us back to the new atheists. I see them still using examples like earthquakes (Tsunamis) as disproof of God and evidence that God is either limited or evil - despite the fact scientists are telling us that they're necessary events and processes. Maybe it's time they took their own advice and corrected their theology of god in this particular case. (i.e. stopped using the earthquake argument as a disproof of God.) There are many more examples I could give. [3.]

I don't see much hope of this, as not even our Christian apologists ever call on atheists to use science to correct materialist thinking. Why this should be the case, you tell me.

- Michael Johnson

Notes;
1. Introduction to systematic theology - Cornelius Van Til/p.237
- If I read Van Til correctly, this is the best of all possible worlds because it's the one God wants, the one that in included in his Providential plan for mankind, and the one that best brings glory to God. In other words, mankind is not the focus, but God is the focus. This world may not be the best possible world for man (especially man as rebel against God), but it's the best possible world when seen in terms of God.
2. Some ancient stone structures appear to have been designed to be earthquake proof. (I'm referring to structures built with interlocking stone slabs of various sizes and shapes.)
3. The failure of OOL experiments to provide any basis for believing living organisms can 'emerge' from inert matter should cause atheists to correct their theology, but it doesn't. The failure to come up with an explanation for the creation of new (specified, complex) information should cause atheists to correct their theology, but it doesn't. The failure to explain the intellectual and spiritual chasm between mankind and the animal kingdom should cause atheists to correct their theology, but it doesn't. (There are many more examples.)