Is Science anti-God?
I have a Bachelor’s degree from Samford University in Biology. I understand hard topics. I “get” things that others might not get because I have been trained to think scientifically. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” “Science is based on the ability of a theory to be proved over and over again.” I understand these, and you probably do to. You might not know the difference between a Markovnikov reaction and a Grignard reaction, but you know more about science than you think you do.
So I want to address a topic that has come up a lot lately and will continue to be one of the prime arenas in the fight between believers and non-believers – science and God. I am reading a great book right now called The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller. Dr. Keller is the Senior Pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church (www.redeemer.com), a phenomenal church in the heart of Manhattan that was started in 1989 in order to reach out to young professionals in New York City who had deep concerns over spiritual things. Dr. Keller reviews seven very common questions that have come up over and over again during his pastorate, and answers them Biblically and graciously. I would highly recommend this book to you, whether you are in the position of seeker or in the position of being sought out to answer questions.
Chapter Six is all about the objection to God and Christianity that Science has disproved it all. In other words, there is too much scientific proof to be able to to believe the Bible by faith. The popular book by Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion is cited and says that only 7 percent of the population of the National Academy of the Sciences believe in a personal God. Keller says not so fast.
‘It is one thing,’ Keller says, ‘to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes and cannot speak to others. It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist.’
What he says is simply that science is designed to do one thing – explain the way something natural happens with natural resources. But what about the supernatural? In it’s very name and premise, the supernatural is literally “above” the natural. It cannot be explained naturally because it is supernatural. This isn’t circular reasoning. It is simply the only way to explain it.
Evolution as a theory to explain how animals adapt to their natural surroundings is acceptable to me. Evolution as the way to explain how humans got here is unacceptable to me. It is just as much a step of faith for me to believe that I share a common ancestor with a monkey as it is for me to believe that God made me. In fact, have you seen a monkey lately? Do you see any half monkeys – half humans? Have you even seen any 99% monkeys and 1% humans? Of course not.
Ultimately the battle for the hearts and souls of non-believers is not won in the space between two debate tables, although we as Christians need to vigorously defend the beliefs we hold. John Piper said, “We cannot commend what we don’t cherish.” We cannot act like it is unimportant. It is just not the most important thing. The battle for the hearts and souls of non-believers is won in the hearts and souls of non-believers. When we meet someone who is determined to win the argument between God and science, we need to remember that we are talking to a child of God. Ecclesiastes 3:11 says, “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.” Everyone we meet is either a brother or sister in Christ or a soul to be won.
And this is the last paragraph from Keller’s chapter on Science and God.
” The most instructive thing about this [Matthew 28] text is, however, what it says about the purpose of Biblical miracles. They lead not simply to cognitive belief, but to worship, to awe and wonder. Jesus’ miracles in particular were never magic tricks, designed only to impress and coerce. You never see him say something like, ‘See that tree over there? Watch me make it burst into flames.’ Instead, he used miraculous power to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and raise the dead. Why? We modern people think of miracles as the suspension of the natural order, but Jesus meant them to be the restoration of the natural order (my emphasis). The Bible tells us that God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger and death in it. Jesus has come to redeem where it is wrong and heal the world where it is broken. His miracles are not just proofs that he had the power but also wonderful foretastes of what he is going to do with that power. Jesus’ miracles are not just a challenge to our minds, but a promise to our hearts, that the world we all want is coming.”
“In it’s very name and premise, the supernatural is literally “above” the natural. IT cannot be explained naturally because it is supernatural. This isn’t circular reasoning. It is simply the only way to explain it.”
An argument could be made that yes, this is the only way to define the supernatural *and* it’s circular reasoning. Why can’t we come up with a definition of the supernatural that involves good logic? Because the supernatural is a fundamentally nonsense concept. Anything that exists is natural. It may not be explained by our *current understanding* of the natural, but a thing that is capable of interacting with us is doing so by means of one of the four fundamental forces of nature, which are natural. If it’s not something we can physically see, touch, taste, smell, or hear; if we can’t measure it in some way, then what’s the difference between it and something that just doesn’t exist? Therefore, the supernatural by definition *can’t* exist. If we were to discover a god, he would be natural.
I’m not going to argue that with you though because it’s not a big deal
“Do you see any half monkeys – half humans?”
I thought you said you understand science? This is the typical argument from someone who really doesn’t understand evolution at all. In fact, a half monkey – half human would be pretty amazing evidence *against* evolution.
“We modern people think of miracles as the suspension of the natural order, but Jesus meant them to be the restoration of the natural order (my emphasis). The Bible tells us that God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger and death in it. Jesus has come to redeem where it is wrong and heal the world where it is broken.”
Am I to believe that god is inept? Is he incapable of making a universe right the first time, he has to step in and make corrections?
I know the explanation is that we have free will, but my choices are the result of my experiences. God, being omniscient, knew from the beginning what I would choose if I was thrust into a certain set of circumstances and experiences. Yet he chose to make this universe with this set of circumstances, rather than a different one. My sins are as much his fault as mine, he has thrust me into circumstances that necessarily would push me into the choices I make. If I leave a dog locked in a room all day, it’s my fault if he poops in the floor, even if the dog has been trained to know better. Therefore, god chose to make this universe which he then has to come back and correct. Can’t he get it right the first time?
I find it impossible to take any god seriously who has to step in and fix things, or who answers prayers (what, I know what’s good better than god does so I ask him to change his plan?)
And this whole Jesus coming to redeem us thing. Who is he redeeming us to? God can just snap his fingers and wipe the slate clean right? He’s omnipotent. It just makes no sense that someone has to be sacrificed to him in order to give us salvation. Who is god trying to please with this sacrifice? There must be someone higher up than him because there’s no logical reason he should need to make a sacrifice to himself in order to convince himself to give us salvation.
It makes even less sense that he should sacrifice *himself* to himself to please himself…
Great question… maybe one of the hundred’s of great philosophers who have come before me could have come up with a definition of the supernatural that involves good logic. Since they didn’t, I suppose that the only way to explain the supernatural is the way that I have previously. It is a step of faith. Example… The thousands of people every year who are in car accidents of a horrendous nature. The best doctors in the world say that the patient may not live. Science/medicine says there is nothing more they can do. A day later their condition improves. Maybe people were praying for them or not, which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They continue to get better despite, all of medical science being against them.
Once again, plenty of things exist that cannot be measured or explained. Many things exist that cannot be replicated scientifically. Does that mean that they are not real? By no means! Simply that it cannot be explained scientifically. Prove to me that God doesn’t exist.
I understand enough about evolution to understand that, with my belief system, it doesn’t explain the origin of life. It cannot explain how I got here because at it’s core (the very beginning of life), things that were not living came together to produce a living thing, albeit a very simple, small organism. It simply can’t be done. In fact, explain that scientifically… explain why scientists have not been able to replicate the origin of life by bringing inorganic elements together to create life.