God in a scientific age

A popular belief is that modern science has done away with the need to believe in a Creator. With this in mind many people do not even bother to give Christianity a hearing. However, the perceived conflict between science and Christian faith is actually a great misconception.

The Bible tells us that the natural world around us displays something of the reality and glory of God (Psalm 19.1; Romans 1.20), and that therefore we should find a harmony between science and faith. While it is impossible to cover every aspect, the evidence seems to point rather to science both needing God and leading to God. Albert Einstein said: ‘Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame’.

A history of science

The scientific revolution historically grew out of a Christian background. Though previously the Greeks, the Chinese and some Muslim peoples had made a little headway, the turning point in the development of modern science came in Europe between 1500 and 1700 AD. Thus the rise of modern science went hand in hand with the rediscovery of biblical faith in the period of the Reformation. A couple of thoughts are relevant here.

* The Bible tells of one God over all creation. This God is not capricious, but a God of order, faithfulness and law. The Bible teaches that human beings are made in God’s image (Genesis 1.28), able, at least in part, to comprehend his ways. Such a set of beliefs implies an understandable universe and makes science a viable enterprise.

* Early experimentation was closely linked to manual trades. Greek philosophers saw manual work as beneath the intellectual. But, with the Reformation, the Bible’s teaching on the dignity of labour was rediscovered (Genesis 2.15; Mark 6.3) and this helped intellectuals to get involved in experiments and the experimental method which is the foundation of modern science.

It is not surprising, then, that many of the early scientists were either Protestants or supported by Protestant beneficiaries. The Lutheran Duke Albrecht of Prussia subsidised the publication of the work of Copernicus. The astronomers Tycho Brahe and Johann Kepler were devout Lutherans. Isaac Newton had a Christian faith. Seven of the ten scientists who founded the Royal Society of London, the 350th anniversary of which is celebrated this year, were Puritans.

Science misinterpreted

Many people, not least some scientists, confuse science itself with the philosophy of scientific naturalism. By scientific naturalism we mean the reductionist philosophy which says that only what is physical is real, and that everything can be completely explained in terms of physical science. It believes that the universe is self-explanatory. However, scientific naturalism is not a coherent system of thought. Though it is an inviting idea, it turns out not to hold together. Here are a few pointers as to its weaknesses.

* It undermines belief in our own thoughts. ‘If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true… and hence no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms’ (Prof. J.B.S. Haldane, 1892-1964).

* Scientific naturalism cannot give an explanation of ultimate origins, for, whatever its theories or equations, they must have an environment in which to operate, e.g. laws, energy, whatever, which are given. Inevitably we must ask, ‘Where did that come from?’ Science is a cause-effect system, and naturalism sees creation as an effect, but by definition cannot get behind a first cause.

* Scientific naturalism cannot provide a morality, and, therefore, on its own is ultimately unliveable as a philosophy. You cannot get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. Hence we find great minds complaining. ‘Science without conscience is nothing but the death of the spirit’ (Francois Rabelais). ‘There is something in man which your science cannot satisfy’ (Thomas Carlyle).

This last point was driven home to me some time ago when, at a meeting in London I found myself sitting alongside a Jewish professor from the London Business School. As we asked each other what we did, we got talking about faith. Although he was not a religious man, he explained that he could never see the world simply in material terms. With the holocaust in mind he explained that he knew evil to be real, but evil is not a possible materialistic category. Naturalism doesn’t make sense of life.

Scientific clues

Scientific advance in recent years has pointed to God’s existence. Two particular areas of science are at the forefront of the debate about the existence of God. These are cosmology and biology.

The Bible, of course, portrays ultimate origins as a miraculous act of God and therefore impenetrable to natural science. It is by faith we understand that the universe was formed by God’s command, Hebrews 11.3.

But, interestingly, even if you set that aside for a moment and embrace a purely ‘naturalistic’ explanation, it seems that you still end up with credible evidence pointing to a Creator of some kind.

Cosmology

Over the last 30 years, cosmologists have come to the conclusion that the universe had a definite beginning, with the so-called ‘Big Bang’.¹ The assumption made in investigating origins is that of uniformitarianism. That is, that we can look at the world and the scientific laws which pertain today and simply assume they have always been the same, and so extrapolate back as long as we like into the past. The Bible rejects this assumption. What God did in the first six days of creation (however we understand those days), we are told he ceased from doing on the seventh. Also, the apostle Paul implies a change in the running of the universe co-ordinate with the introduction of sin through Adam. Creation was ‘subjected to frustration’ by God (Romans 8.20). So, both the Sabbath and the Fall call uniformitarianism into doubt.

However, as we have said, setting this caveat aside for the moment and assuming uniformitarianism, it is fascinating to see where we are led.

* According to the theory, a huge number of universes could have resulted from the big bang. But the only universe we know to exist is possible only because the four major forces which hold it together (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are phenomenally balanced.

* In the earliest instant of time after the big bang, there had to be a very slight asymmetry of just the right size in what was going on, or else our universe could not have emerged. Professor Paul Davies says the accuracy of this necessary ‘blip’ is like aiming at a target one inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, 20,000 million light years away and hitting the mark.

Such facts have led many scientists to talk in terms of ‘The Anthropic Principle’ (from anthropos, meaning ‘man’), that somehow human beings and the universe were made for each other. If we take this idea of a purpose to the universe on board we are on our way to believing in God.²

Biology

It is no secret that Darwinism has been in trouble, as evidenced by the lack of real evidence for it in the fossil record and the ensuing great disagreements which raged between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould (before his death).

* The theory is that living organisms differ through differences in genetic information. The greater the amount of genetic information, the more complex the creature. The vital question for Darwinian evolution is whether or not random processes mutating DNA molecules can actually add extra information which will enable a creature to be better adjusted to its environment. At present the evidence is negative. Small-scale ‘evolution’ within a species occurs, but it involves either no new information or a loss of genetic information (e.g. the flightless cormorant).

* The basic building block of life is the self-replicating molecule DNA. This is a huge chain of precisely ordered chemical blocks and it is quite possible to calculate the probability of such a molecule coming together by pure chance. The probability turns out to be 1 in 10 to the power 40,000. It is a probability so infinitely small (especially if we realise that even the big bang theory tells us that the universe has only been in existence 10 to the power 15 seconds) that it can be dismissed by common sense (Hoyle & Wickramasinghe). Richard Dawkins’s attempt to argue around this enormous obstacle for the atheistic view of origins has been ably dealt with by John Lennox, a mathematician, in his excellent book God’s Undertaker (Lion / Hudson). He accuses Dawkins of seeking to finagle into the situation a kind of intelligent design by the back door.

Meant to be

Such considerations do not prove the existence of God (the God of the Bible is too foundational to be open to such things), but they do point to God. Despite the blustering of the media, especially during Darwin’s centenary year, the burden of proof has profoundly shifted. It is the atheistic outlook which seems by far the most unlikely when it comes to science.

‘I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate… This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here’ (Prof. Paul Davies, The Mind of God, p.232, Penguin Books,1993).

References

1. But even this theory is in flux at present with the idea of ‘dark matter’, necessary for the ‘Standard Model’, recently facing serious questions by physicists at Durham University. See The Daily Telegraph, June 15 2010.
2. These facts are well investigated in a new DVD, God: new evidence, from Focus, which interviews a number of leading scientists (http://www.focus.org.uk).

Why science and faith need one another