By Joel Hughes
For the Evangelical Debate Society
(Joel is a graduate of the Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa School of Ministry and is currently completing his B.A. Degree in Philosophy at California State Fullerton, Orange County California).
One of the funniest movies of late is Nacho Libre. However, I must immediately qualify that claim by saying it nowhere competes in the area of humor and intelligence as Napoleon Dynamite. I have never laughed harder and more often in any other movie than that one.[1] Yet Nacho Libre, directed by the same man, is a comfortable second in genius.
It is possible that I have just discredited anything further I am going to say with these opening comments, but I will stick by my convictions and be bold. Besides, I think it says somewhere that the righteous are as bold as a liger, and I want to be one of those. Anyhow, there is a scene in Nacho Libre where Jack Black, “Nacho,” meets the imbecilic hobo who later becomes his trusty sidekick. At one point after the two men fight in the dirt, Nacho says, “Don’t you believe in God?” The moronic man says, “I don’t believe in God. I believe in science.” It is very funny.
But this introduces an important topic that many people misunderstand, namely, the nature and limits of science. The quote above is indicative of a general outlook and attitude in many, if not possibly the majority, of those living in our Western culture. Science is viewed as the surest method to discover knowledge about reality. Everyone wants to use science and to be “scientific.” In many people’s eyes, believer and unbeliever alike, there is hardly anything worse than getting saddled with the label of “unscientific.” Thus both Christians and skeptics alike desperately seek to be “scientific.”
Can we prove the existence of God using science? Can science disprove the existence of God? I have seen a gospel tract that says, “Science Proves the Bible.” Is that true? In the recently televised debate on the existence of God, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (two solid Christian brothers) squared off against two pompous atheists. Ray and Kirk confidently promised before the debate that they would prove the existence of God based on scientific evidence, and without ever appealing to the Bible or faith. Is this possible? Can science do this?
The simple answer is, no, science cannot prove the existence of God. But then again, science cannot disprove the existence of God either. Many Christians will no doubt reject this thesis because they want their beliefs to rest solidly on a foundation of science. However, they are, like most of the rest of the culture, deceived into what “science” really is. They have put too much faith in this word, assuming it to be more powerful than it actually is. And Christians who try to prove the existence of God by using science are guilty of gross question begging, a logical fallacy. But let us work up to this conclusion.
Divine Connotations
The word “science” in our Western culture is probably one of the most overused, abused, and misunderstood words. Yet it is also one of the most powerful words. It carries the highest respect and authority in our modern societies. It has done so for quite some time now. If something has the word “scientific” in it, it immediately receives a gold stamp. I feed my Pit Bull pup, Science Diet dog food. Such a name makes you think that each bit of kibble has been genetically and organically engineered for peak performance by men in white coats in a lab.
Furthermore, whenever an authority is needed for the evening news or news reporting program, no matter what the topic is, the network will track down, not a pastor or theologian, but a “scientist.” During this last New Years Eve celebration, a popular talk radio station wanted to comment on how to go about making and keeping a new years resolution. Now you would think that a pastor or counselor would be ideal to interview as to how to live one’s life, but no, the radio station interviewed a pediatrician. That’s right, a kiddy doctor! She was offered as an authority on how to make and keep a new year’s resolution. I believe that the only reason is because her profession is tied, even if remotely, to the “scientific” community. Thus she was viewed as an authority on how to think and live life.
Science is viewed by the majority of our Western culture as the new form of special revelation that has replaced God’s special revelation in Scripture. The scientists are the new high priests of society who will discover the truth and lead us into a new age of enlightenment. Science is viewed as the opposite of mythology, and religion is usually lumped in with the latter. Millions of men and women trust their eternal souls to this word and what they think it represents in the same way that millions of Christians trust their eternal souls to Christ and what He means. The word science in our culture carries divine connotations. In his book, The Mythology of Science, the late Rouses Rushdoony says that science in our modern culture has taken on a status of magic. Science can do miraculous and seemingly magical things.
But the majority of Westerners have little if any idea of what real science is. For them it is merely a banner word. They put the word “science” on a banner and march forward with confidence, but for the greater part it is an empty slogan. The word science, like most other words, is like an empty can. The label reads science on the shell, but what is inside often varies radically from person to person, even academic professionals. Very few people are able to even give a beginning definition of the term. It is often the case that when an unbeliever is trying to argue with me as to why they do not believe in Christianity, they, like Nacho’s illiterate friend will say they believe in science, not religion.
They throw it out like a bomb hoping that it will shut me up. They use it as their trump card. My standard response is always to simply ask them what science is. This usually brings a look of worry on their faces and most of the time they try to change the subject. I do not let them. This is most interesting when I am street preaching and the arrogant heckler is put on the spot in front of a crowd.
In the Cameron/Comfort debate against the atheists, I found it very interesting that both sides claimed to be using science. Comfort’s main argument was that he could prove God’s existence using scientific arguments and evidence. The atheists’ main argument was that science disproves the existence of God Comfort argued for. So whose science is correct? But the problem is worse than this. Not only do Christians and atheists claim to use science to prove their point, Muslims do as well. I have a book in my library that allegedly gives all the scientific evidence of why Islam is true. On the late night radio program, Coast to Coast, I hear New Agers, witches, numerologists, remote viewers, ghost busters, and a host of other paranormal people who all claim to be entirely scientific. They all use “science” to support their beliefs.
A similar problem occurs in the debate over whether or not a Christian can lose his or her salvation. I have seen Christians debate this topic to the point of anger. But the whole time neither person has stopped to define what “salvation” is. If they did so they would usually find that they had quite different conceptions of what “salvation” is. They need to pause and define for themselves, what is salvation? Likewise, in the debate over theism and atheism, what is science? Thus before we can know whether or not science can prove or disprove the existence of God, it is necessary to have some idea of what this thing “science” actually is.
What is Science?
The word science comes from the Latin and means “to know.” Science then is about gaining knowledge, particularly knowledge previously unknown. It is about discovery. Scientific work is by definition (at least supposed) limited to perceivable reality. In a general sense, science is not as mysterious or complicated as most people think. Science simply refers to any systematic methodology that humans use to gain knowledge of the world. But this knowledge is of a particular sort. Science is the attempt to discover law like principles in the world in order to predict future events. The scientist looks for predictable patterns of causal relations in the physical universe. Scientific reasoning uses repeated experiences in the past and assumes that such patterns will reliably hold in the future. This is called inductive reasoning. Science cannot function apart from the principle of induction. “…Science must always provide a clear prediction of future phenomena (by definition).”[2] This point will be significant later. The inductive principle assumes that the future will remain reliably stable as it always has in the past. The “principles” that scientists discover are often called scientific “laws,” such as the law of gravity or the law of entropy. These “laws” are assumed for the most part to be stable and reliable, so that, for example we can shoot a shuttle to the moon (and not miss) or take a medication (and not die because the chemical elements behaved differently today than they did in past use).
Science has two basic roles: explanation and prediction. The scientist seeks to form hypotheses based on observations of the physical world. As the scientist studies a number of related hypotheses, he or she then seeks to form a more general theory. These theories act as useful models of reality. Theories are general frameworks that help us interpret reality and understand causal relations in order to improve life. Having a working theory helps the scientist to explain why or how X behaves as it does; they also help scientists to predict how X will operate in the future. It is in this sense that evolution is a theory. Evolution is a theoretical framework that many people use to explain the origins and development of life on earth. In the same way, creationism is a theory of reality. And people should know that there is not just one agreed upon theory of evolution, there are many (as there are “Big Bang” theories). Some scientists, like Stephen Jay Gould, taught the theory of punctuated equilibrium, while others like Richard Dawkins taught a view of gradualism. Nor is evolution a recent idea in the history of ideas. The idea has been held in one form another for thousands of years. The pre-Socratic philosopher, Anaximander, taught a strikingly similar view, as did many philosophers throughout history. The thing that made Charles Darwin so different is that he allegedly provided the mechanism that caused one species to change into another (i.e. natural selection). But this has proved to be more of a philosophy than science also. In the same way, there is no one theory of creation, there are many. Nevertheless, both theories are in consensus on more general ideas about reality and knowledge.
It is important to realize that a theory is not the same as a worldview. A theory is a more consciously held paradigm with particular details worked out. A worldview, however, is less consciously held; it is rather the underlying (often unconscious) assumptions about reality, knowledge, and conduct. Worldviews cannot in the nature of the case be tested by the methods of natural science and consequently all worldviews are ultimately held by faith. Theories flow out of and are controlled by worldviews. When modern science was born, the majority of scientists held to a theistic and often Christian worldview. In our day, the majority of scientists hold to a worldview of naturalism.
Naturalism is the philosophical presupposition that all phenomena can be explained by purely natural means. They begin with this assumption at the outset of all their thinking and any supernatural appeal is ruled out by definition. All reality is interpreted in light of this controlling assumption. Note carefully: this is not science, it is philosophy. Likewise, Christianity is a worldview; it is not science, it is a philosophy. The Christian rejects the notion of naturalism and because of his or her Christian commitment, maintains that many things cannot be explained by purely naturalistic causes (e.g. miracles, life, design, existence, answered prayer, conversion, resurrection, etc.).
Naturalism is not the same as natural science, though scientists like to make us think science is the same as naturalism. I would venture to say that most of those out in the world doing science probably are not aware of this crucial distinction. They have uncritically and unconsciously swallowed the lie that naturalism (the philosophy) is synonymous with science (an operational practice).
Both Christians and non-Christians can engage in doing natural science, i.e., studying the observational world for law-like principles to explain and predict phenomena. The question, however, is which philosophy or worldview can justify doing science? That is the issue. We will return to this issue later. The famous “scientific method” in its simplest form is how scientists are supposed to proceed. It has these four steps (at least):
1. It should be repeatable in a controlled environment
2. The scientist makes repeated observations
3. They then draw data (leading to various hypotheses)
4. and they empirically verify or falsify their hypotheses
Now it should be immediately noted that this “method” is by no means without dispute among scientists and philosophers of science. The scientific method is so disputed among various philosophies of science that a univocal definition does not exist. It is often very difficult to distinguish concretely the line of demarcation between science and non-science. Every one of these methodological steps has been challenged by various philosophies of science. In particular, critical rationalists, in opposition to methodological naturalism, challenge the idea of pure empirical objectivity and neutrality; they also say that the demarcation line between natural and supernatural explanations is arbitrary. Thus at the least, we can see that “science” is no monolithic enterprise where everyone is in agreement. There are radically different views of “science” even within the unbelieving community. This should give them humility, but, well…
It is also important to understand that science is not some impersonal mechanical force out in the world, nor is it akin to a divine oracle that a select group of elites can tap into in order to discover the secret truths of the universe; science is a human endeavor, which immediately throws us into interpretation. Science is practiced by all sorts of different humans who possess all sorts of different worldviews, beliefs, desires, prejudices, and motivations. While many people like to give or still believe that science is purely an objective and unbiased pursuit of truth, it is not so. There is a large subjective element in scientific research. There is a large amount of creativity, imagination, and often shear accident in scientific discovery. To be sure, greater objectivity and accuracy are impressive due to the creation of various measurement devices and techniques. But the idea that science is purely objective, neutral, and unbiased is an idea birthed out of the Enlightenment period but rarely held to by philosophers of science in our day (e.g. Thomas Kuhn). Yet old ideas die hard. And so both non-Christians and Christians alike still believe that science is the ultimate dispenser and arbitrator of knowledge.
Science is not static; it is always changing, discovering new information and discarding older theories with newer ones. This does not necessarily mean that science is progressing upward toward more accurate knowledge of the universe. Over the last few centuries, science has worn many masks. It always functions out of various worldviews. For example, the majority of scientists in our time adhere to the philosophy of naturalism and the theory of evolution. They approach the world with this assumption and interpret everything in light of it. Yet can many of their interpretations be considered true knowledge? The Christian says no. Modern science has produced many amazing breakthroughs that have led to life enhancing technology, but modern science has also at the same time promulgated a massive amount of false ideas. Thus while science as a discipline is never static, it is also not always progressing toward some utopia of knowledge as many people think. Such an idea or assumption is more philosophic than it is scientific, and again it is an idea common to the history of ideas from pre-Socratic philosophers up to Hegel and Marx. It assumes things about the nature of reality. It has been said that if you do not like what science says about something, just wait a year, it will change. Obviously much more could be said about the nature of science, but what I have said is sufficient to demonstrate my initial contention.
For many Christians, science is like the boogie man, it is an enemy to avoid. But once we really understand what science is in its basic sense—discovering reliable patterns in things to predict future applications—we can see that not only is there nothing to fear, but Christians of all people should endorse and employ scientific thinking in their lives.
While scientific discoveries can do many wonderful things, science also has many limitations. Science is about observation of the physical world, about what is the case. It therefore has no opinion of absolute morality, since it is fallacious to move from what is the case to what ought to be the case (the naturalistic fallacy). It has little if anything to say about politics (which is largely governed by moral considerations), government, and how families and societies ought to conduct themselves. People who say they live their lives solely by science usually know nothing of science. But what about religion and God? Can’t we use science to prove the existence of God? Let us now see why we cannot.
Science and God
The most popular approach in our day to prove the existence of God is the argument from design, technically called the teleological argument. It argues that the universe and many things in the universe display marvelous design, and wherever there is an intelligent design, there must of necessity be a designer behind it. That designer is said to be God. Now as Christians we know this is true because the Bible tells us so. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork. But those who use the argument from design, and other similar arguments like it, based on a natural theology, do not want the Bible to interfere with their thinking. In an attempt to be “scientific,” they falsely assume that they have to be (and actually can be) totally neutral, unbiased toward any position, and fully objective in their interpretation of the “facts.” The Bible would spoil all of that. So the Christian is proud that he is not bringing the Bible or God into his thinking. He makes sure the unbeliever with whom he is seeking to persuade sees that he is not relying on God’s revelation. He pretends to be self-sufficient in his independence, just like the unbeliever allegedly is.
In his opening presentation, Ray Comfort used this argument from design to prove “scientifically” that God exists. He held up a Coke can and said obviously it did not arise as it is by pure chance over time. The building they were in was used as another analogy. The building is scientific proof that a builder exists somewhere. Again, he used an analogy of a painting. The fact that a painting exists indicates that there surely must have been a painter who created it. He also gave analogies of the human body and of his car. But is this science? After we have seen what science is, are these scientific proofs? I would say not. They seem to be arguments of analogy and philosophy, but not science. If we used this type of reasoning then we would have to say that the existence of crop circles proves that aliens in space crafts exist. We would have to say that apparitions of Mary and Jesus in everything from a shadow on a wall to a burn in a pancake reveal that Mary and Jesus caused these designs. We would have to admit that faint sounds and voices in the static of white noise are proof that the souls of the departed are still roaming around somewhere.
The Christian cries out in response, “But we can offer alternate explanations for what caused these phenomena.” The atheist says the same thing to the Christian when he offers his argument from design. The atheist submits his theories to explain the existence of the universe and the appearance of design. These often prove unfruitful squabbles because both parties are chopping at the leaves rather than analyzing the roots that support them.
But what about Ray’s arguments? Don’t they prove that God the Creator exists? Well, aside from the fact that his arguments are not science so defined; at best they might prove that some sort of powerful entity exists, but this is a far cry from the Triune God revealed in the Bible. Here is part of the problem. These arguments can at best prove that a finite and limited God exists within our realm of reality. How so? This is because you cannot have in your conclusion new information that was not in your premises. The argument from design otherwise known as the teleological argument begins from the finite, visible, experiential, immanent, and temporal reality and tries to conclude with an infinite, invisible, incomprehensible, transcendent, and eternal personal God. This is a leap in logic called a lacuna.
Thus at best this argument can prove some form of finite being that exists within our experiential reality. From this line of reasoning then there is no reason Ray and Kirks “God” could not be powerful space aliens or even a demon. Is that an acceptable argument for Christianity? Is God pleased with that? Does this type of reasoning leave the unbeliever with an excuse (lit. an apologetic) for their unbelief, which the Bible says they have none (Rom. 1:19)? Obviously no. But none of this is surprising since these arguments are not new nor invented by Christians. They come out of ancient pagan Greek philosophy primarily from the works of Aristotle. They later were adopted by Medieval Muslim philosophers and then by the Roman Catholic philosopher, Thomas Aquinas. Protestants have unfortunately continued this ancient trend by using them today.
Furthermore, the atheists had a sufficient rebuttal of their own. We can go and find the designers, builders, and painters who created these products, but we can’t go and interview God, unless of course you say He speaks in His word. But this begs the question by presupposing the very thing you promised and boasted that you would leave aside. So the analogies themselves are not even accurate. Painter and painting are finite physical things in our temporal universe; God is infinite and non-physical (invisible), while creation is the opposite; God is eternal, while creation is temporal and dependent. The analogy does not fly.
Finally, the atheists mentioned all the flaws and problems in this world. Apart from the Bible we have no concept of an ethical fall in the beginning that has brought such problems into our world. If those who employ arguments based on natural theology were consistent, they would have to admit that this being they seek to prove, based solely on the observable evidence around us, has faults and flaws as well. Thus they might prove that Zeus exists, but would any Christian be content to leave unbelievers with that belief? Other critiques of these arguments could be offered, but such should suffice to show that we ought as Christians to set natural theology aside, and not the Bible.
But let us look at what I think is the most significant problem with trying to use science to prove God’s existence.
The Philosophic Prerequisites of Science
I believe that most scientists in the field and in the lab are largely unaware of the philosophic assumptions of science. Most scientists are uneducated in the philosophy of science that undergirds what they are doing. This was brought home to me in a most evident way after I had a discussion with one of my science teachers at college. This man had an impressive career as a geologist and earth scientist. Yet when I began asking him about the assumptions he makes when he carries out his studies, he had virtually no idea what I was talking about. While philosophy majors fill the classes on the philosophy of science, I imagine that not many science majors sign up for those courses. Yet science cannot be done in a vacuum; one must of necessity make many crucial assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics in order to practice and justify (even believe in) science.
Earlier I mentioned that both Christian and non-Christian can engage in the doing of natural science. That is, they can carry out laboratory experiments, observe patterns in the field, formulate mathematical models, and discover new things (like planets or cures). But that is the application of scientific principles. The crucial question, however, is which philosophy or worldview can account for and justify these exploits. The dominant philosophy in science today is naturalism. Does naturalism (and usually materialism, the view that all reality is matter/energy) provide the necessary conditions that science requires? The answer to that depends on what these necessary conditions are.
What is necessary for science to work and what is necessary, more importantly, for this working to be justified? The Hindu can practice scientific work, but that does not mean that the Hindu worldview (that all reality is illusion) can justify this practice. This is one reason why places dominated by Hinduism never produced any significant science or scientific enterprise. There is a reason why science as we know it had its birth and origins in the Western world. So what are the necessary pre-conditions for the justification of science? What conditions must exist (first) in reality itself for the intelligibility of science? Here are some of the significant ones.
The Inductive Principle
I pointed out earlier that science rests on the principle of induction, i.e. the assumption that the future will hold stable as it has in the past. This element allows for prediction. If this principle cannot be justified, we have no assurance to make any predictions. This is because the regularity of nature is the prerequisite or pre-condition to inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning is the prerequisite to scientific investigation and practice. This is a famous “problem” in the history of philosophy, one which secular style worldviews have yet to produce any satisfying solution.
But someone might respond that we know the future will be like the past because it has always been so. One of the best philosophers of the last century, Bertrand Russell, expounded this problem most clearly. He showed that such thinking is guilty of committing the fallacy of begging the question. To appeal to past regularity in order to justify future regularity begs the question by assuming the very principle in question. In order to justify one’s use of induction one must first presuppose the truth of induction (i.e. regularity of nature). So the non-Christian cannot prove or justify inductive reasoning without committing a fallacy. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. So much for all the “we’re so rational” talk that atheists love to puff out. This is not an insignificant or trivial point to ignore.
Logic and Mathematics
But this is not all that science requires for it to function, or better yet, to be possible. Science also heavily relies on the use of logic and mathematics. Can naturalism and materialism account for the laws of logic? What is logic? It is at least three things. First, the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction (that A is not non-A at the same time in the same sense), are universal in nature. They do not exist in America but not in Africa . Every mentally healthy person uses logic, for better or worse. Second, the laws of logic are absolute. Thus they are not relative; personal feelings or opinions are irrelevant to the conclusions of a sound and valid argument. Thus the laws of logic are not arbitrary or relative. They are absolute. Third, the laws of logic are abstract entities. They are not physical particles or chemicals. Thus the laws of logic are universal, absolute, and abstract entities. Can such a feature be a part of a worldview that says that all reality is composed of matter (or some form of energy) and matter alone? Can such a feature exist in a world that is said to be physical and relative? It seems not. Again, so much for all the “we’re so logical” boasting atheists are famous for spouting off. But there is more.
Freedom and Rationality
Science also requires human freedom and rationality. But can such features exist in the worldview of naturalism? Naturalism says that every event must have a natural explanation. It says that all things are determined and controlled by the laws of physics and genetics. The idea of a free self, a free mind that is more than the mere mixing and reacting of chemicals is not a part of the worldview of naturalism. If naturalism were correct, then we would have no reason to believe it were so. How is that? If all our thoughts are merely the reaction of chemicals controlled by the physics and genetics, then the idea of a self is an illusion; we are essentially no different than anything else, no different than a beetle or a plant, which also are mere matter-in-motion controlled by the same laws.
Thus you yourself did not step back and rationally analyze the world, weigh the evidence, think through various philosophies, and self-consciously and freely draw your own conclusions. It naturalism is true, you could not help but believe what you believe; you could do no otherwise because “you” do not really exist (as you think you do and as science requires). You are merely a slave to impersonal laws. If this is the case, you have no reason to believe what you believe because you could not do otherwise. Thus atheists and naturalists are quite inconsistent when they argue that their position is “true” while all others are “false.” If naturalism were true, the atheist has no reason to believe so; to believe so is inconsistent with their basic presuppositions; and inconsistency is a sign of irrationality. But there is more.
Moral Absolutes
Science also requires a strong commitment to ethics, namely honesty. The online Wikipedia article on “Science” says, “Scientists value relative truth and knowledge, and the actual progress of science requires cooperation between scientists, and is highly intolerant of dishonesty. Cooperation and honesty are thus values which are intrinsic to the actual social practice of the scientific method itself.” How ironic (and again inconsistent) that most scientists will advocate some form of moral relativism, but are “highly intolerant of dishonesty.”
Elsewhere I have argued at length that only the Christian worldview can account for and make sense of morality. Morality on a non-Christian view of the world is a category mistake; it is akin to asking what the color blue smells like. But if there is no moral absolutes and no accountability after death, why should scientists not lie, exaggerate, and deceive if it will personally benefit their career, reputation, and bank account? Even the idea of caring is an idea foreign to atheism and naturalism. This is why I so appreciated reading the atheists, Fredrich Nietzsche and Jean Paul Sartre in the history of philosophy. I appreciate them because of they at least try to be consistent and honest with their worldview. They bite the bullet and acknowledge that these moral motions and notions like honesty and caring are not a part of the inventory of their outlook. They freely attribute them to Christianity.
Other assumptions about existence must also be taken for granted in order to justify science, such as reliability of sense perception and that an objective reality actually exists. Non-Christian worldviews—especially materialistic naturalism—is fatally susceptible to the intellectual threat of skepticism, the view that no knowledge is possible. The unbeliever has no means or criteria to determine or tell them whether or not they are in the Matrix or merely a brain in the vat of a mad scientist. More could be said, but such is enough for our point here.
Now what about the Christian worldview? We maintain that it alone can account for and justify the belief in and practice of these principles. On the principle of induction, the Bible reveals that the sovereign God is in control of all things. On this view of reality, we can have full assurance that the future will be like the past because God promises so. When God made His covenant with Noah, He promised that “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease” (Gen. 8:22). Many other verses testify to this promise also. Apart from this promise, we could not “subdue” and take “dominion” over creation.
Further, the laws of logic find their ultimate justification in the Being and Mind of God, who alone is truth. We are made in the image of God and thus have a limited but nevertheless real capacity to think like God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Pr. 1:7) and in His light we see light (Ps. 36:9). Similarly, moral absolutes necessary to justify a “high intolerance” of dishonesty and an obligation to tell the truth, can only find meaning and possibility on a foundation of Christian theism. The same can easily be argued for the reliability of sense perception (cf. Rom. 1:19) and of an objective reality (Gen. 1:1; John 1:1-3). The way God set up, designed, and structured creation allows for real knowledge of the objective world of empirical inquiry.
Conclusion
Christian apologists who seek to prove the existence of God by attempting to use unbiased and neutral science must also face these same philosophic questions. We must ask them what universe they stand in when they offer their arguments and use science? I hope by now you can see the dilemma that they face. Here is where they are guilty of committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. These well intentioned apologists assume that science—and all the prerequisites that go along with it—can actually function apart from the Christian worldview, the very view they try so hard to set aside in their presentations. They assume that science as a discipline can be successful apart or independent of this worldview and they attempt to establish the truth of this view by using science. Yet we have seen that this is not possible. Science does not and cannot in the nature of the case prove God; God is the necessary prerequisite to make science intelligible. Christians ought therefore to stand firm in their faith, be honest with the issue, and begin their arguments with this God who alone is the precondition for anything to make sense.
Christians therefore should not argue from unbelieving soil in an attempt to appease the unbeliever’s autonomous rebellion. The Christian who starts his or her argument from unbelieving intellectual soil, to the degree that he is consistent, must necessarily end his argument in that soil. To start on turf that is entirely antithetical and hostile to Christian presuppositions but then switch and conclude with Christian assumptions is itself inconsistent and thus irrational.
Proving the existence of the true and living God of Scripture is simply beyond the bounds of natural science. To prove God’s existence we must resort rather to theological and philosophical arguments. God, at least the God of the Bible, is not an observable entity. Furthermore, the transcendent God of Scripture is not on the same level of being that we are or that we experience. God’s ontological being is not the same as our ontological or metaphysical being. The Creator and the creator do not share the same ontology, or being. All this to say, the God of Scripture, as opposed to all other finite deities (i.e. idols) is transcendent, that is, He is beyond or outside the experiential universe.
God is not only beyond time and space, His very essence is of a wholly different sort. Thus one cannot move from the visible, finite, and temporal to the invisible, infinite, and eternal without making a massive logical leap (i.e. a fatal fallacy). Finally, God is not a law-like principle that we can test repeatedly and expect mechanical regularity. God is the most and only free agent. He is above the “laws” of science. The so-called laws of science are nothing more than a sentence on a piece of paper attempting to describe how the sovereign God of all creation holds His universe together ( Col. 1:16-18; Heb. 1:3; John 1:1-3).
To not be able to prove God’s existence by using science is no great loss. It is only a loss if you assume that science is the sole source of knowledge and truth. It is only a loss if you assume that man is the source and origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. But if you assume these things, then you are a devout humanist and probably not a Christian.
It is possible that I have just discredited anything further I am going to say with these opening comments, but I will stick by my convictions and be bold. Besides, I think it says somewhere that the righteous are as bold as a liger, and I want to be one of those. Anyhow, there is a scene in Nacho Libre where Jack Black, “Nacho,” meets the imbecilic hobo who later becomes his trusty sidekick. At one point after the two men fight in the dirt, Nacho says, “Don’t you believe in God?” The moronic man says, “I don’t believe in God. I believe in science.” It is very funny.
But this introduces an important topic that many people misunderstand, namely, the nature and limits of science. The quote above is indicative of a general outlook and attitude in many, if not possibly the majority, of those living in our Western culture. Science is viewed as the surest method to discover knowledge about reality. Everyone wants to use science and to be “scientific.” In many people’s eyes, believer and unbeliever alike, there is hardly anything worse than getting saddled with the label of “unscientific.” Thus both Christians and skeptics alike desperately seek to be “scientific.”
Can we prove the existence of God using science? Can science disprove the existence of God? I have seen a gospel tract that says, “Science Proves the Bible.” Is that true? In the recently televised debate on the existence of God, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (two solid Christian brothers) squared off against two pompous atheists. Ray and Kirk confidently promised before the debate that they would prove the existence of God based on scientific evidence, and without ever appealing to the Bible or faith. Is this possible? Can science do this?
The simple answer is, no, science cannot prove the existence of God. But then again, science cannot disprove the existence of God either. Many Christians will no doubt reject this thesis because they want their beliefs to rest solidly on a foundation of science. However, they are, like most of the rest of the culture, deceived into what “science” really is. They have put too much faith in this word, assuming it to be more powerful than it actually is. And Christians who try to prove the existence of God by using science are guilty of gross question begging, a logical fallacy. But let us work up to this conclusion.
Divine Connotations
The word “science” in our Western culture is probably one of the most overused, abused, and misunderstood words. Yet it is also one of the most powerful words. It carries the highest respect and authority in our modern societies. It has done so for quite some time now. If something has the word “scientific” in it, it immediately receives a gold stamp. I feed my Pit Bull pup, Science Diet dog food. Such a name makes you think that each bit of kibble has been genetically and organically engineered for peak performance by men in white coats in a lab.
Furthermore, whenever an authority is needed for the evening news or news reporting program, no matter what the topic is, the network will track down, not a pastor or theologian, but a “scientist.” During this last New Years Eve celebration, a popular talk radio station wanted to comment on how to go about making and keeping a new years resolution. Now you would think that a pastor or counselor would be ideal to interview as to how to live one’s life, but no, the radio station interviewed a pediatrician. That’s right, a kiddy doctor! She was offered as an authority on how to make and keep a new year’s resolution. I believe that the only reason is because her profession is tied, even if remotely, to the “scientific” community. Thus she was viewed as an authority on how to think and live life.
Science is viewed by the majority of our Western culture as the new form of special revelation that has replaced God’s special revelation in Scripture. The scientists are the new high priests of society who will discover the truth and lead us into a new age of enlightenment. Science is viewed as the opposite of mythology, and religion is usually lumped in with the latter. Millions of men and women trust their eternal souls to this word and what they think it represents in the same way that millions of Christians trust their eternal souls to Christ and what He means. The word science in our culture carries divine connotations. In his book, The Mythology of Science, the late Rouses Rushdoony says that science in our modern culture has taken on a status of magic. Science can do miraculous and seemingly magical things.
But the majority of Westerners have little if any idea of what real science is. For them it is merely a banner word. They put the word “science” on a banner and march forward with confidence, but for the greater part it is an empty slogan. The word science, like most other words, is like an empty can. The label reads science on the shell, but what is inside often varies radically from person to person, even academic professionals. Very few people are able to even give a beginning definition of the term. It is often the case that when an unbeliever is trying to argue with me as to why they do not believe in Christianity, they, like Nacho’s illiterate friend will say they believe in science, not religion.
They throw it out like a bomb hoping that it will shut me up. They use it as their trump card. My standard response is always to simply ask them what science is. This usually brings a look of worry on their faces and most of the time they try to change the subject. I do not let them. This is most interesting when I am street preaching and the arrogant heckler is put on the spot in front of a crowd.
In the Cameron/Comfort debate against the atheists, I found it very interesting that both sides claimed to be using science. Comfort’s main argument was that he could prove God’s existence using scientific arguments and evidence. The atheists’ main argument was that science disproves the existence of God Comfort argued for. So whose science is correct? But the problem is worse than this. Not only do Christians and atheists claim to use science to prove their point, Muslims do as well. I have a book in my library that allegedly gives all the scientific evidence of why Islam is true. On the late night radio program, Coast to Coast, I hear New Agers, witches, numerologists, remote viewers, ghost busters, and a host of other paranormal people who all claim to be entirely scientific. They all use “science” to support their beliefs.
A similar problem occurs in the debate over whether or not a Christian can lose his or her salvation. I have seen Christians debate this topic to the point of anger. But the whole time neither person has stopped to define what “salvation” is. If they did so they would usually find that they had quite different conceptions of what “salvation” is. They need to pause and define for themselves, what is salvation? Likewise, in the debate over theism and atheism, what is science? Thus before we can know whether or not science can prove or disprove the existence of God, it is necessary to have some idea of what this thing “science” actually is.
What is Science?
The word science comes from the Latin and means “to know.” Science then is about gaining knowledge, particularly knowledge previously unknown. It is about discovery. Scientific work is by definition (at least supposed) limited to perceivable reality. In a general sense, science is not as mysterious or complicated as most people think. Science simply refers to any systematic methodology that humans use to gain knowledge of the world. But this knowledge is of a particular sort. Science is the attempt to discover law like principles in the world in order to predict future events. The scientist looks for predictable patterns of causal relations in the physical universe. Scientific reasoning uses repeated experiences in the past and assumes that such patterns will reliably hold in the future. This is called inductive reasoning. Science cannot function apart from the principle of induction. “…Science must always provide a clear prediction of future phenomena (by definition).”[2] This point will be significant later. The inductive principle assumes that the future will remain reliably stable as it always has in the past. The “principles” that scientists discover are often called scientific “laws,” such as the law of gravity or the law of entropy. These “laws” are assumed for the most part to be stable and reliable, so that, for example we can shoot a shuttle to the moon (and not miss) or take a medication (and not die because the chemical elements behaved differently today than they did in past use).
Science has two basic roles: explanation and prediction. The scientist seeks to form hypotheses based on observations of the physical world. As the scientist studies a number of related hypotheses, he or she then seeks to form a more general theory. These theories act as useful models of reality. Theories are general frameworks that help us interpret reality and understand causal relations in order to improve life. Having a working theory helps the scientist to explain why or how X behaves as it does; they also help scientists to predict how X will operate in the future. It is in this sense that evolution is a theory. Evolution is a theoretical framework that many people use to explain the origins and development of life on earth. In the same way, creationism is a theory of reality. And people should know that there is not just one agreed upon theory of evolution, there are many (as there are “Big Bang” theories). Some scientists, like Stephen Jay Gould, taught the theory of punctuated equilibrium, while others like Richard Dawkins taught a view of gradualism. Nor is evolution a recent idea in the history of ideas. The idea has been held in one form another for thousands of years. The pre-Socratic philosopher, Anaximander, taught a strikingly similar view, as did many philosophers throughout history. The thing that made Charles Darwin so different is that he allegedly provided the mechanism that caused one species to change into another (i.e. natural selection). But this has proved to be more of a philosophy than science also. In the same way, there is no one theory of creation, there are many. Nevertheless, both theories are in consensus on more general ideas about reality and knowledge.
It is important to realize that a theory is not the same as a worldview. A theory is a more consciously held paradigm with particular details worked out. A worldview, however, is less consciously held; it is rather the underlying (often unconscious) assumptions about reality, knowledge, and conduct. Worldviews cannot in the nature of the case be tested by the methods of natural science and consequently all worldviews are ultimately held by faith. Theories flow out of and are controlled by worldviews. When modern science was born, the majority of scientists held to a theistic and often Christian worldview. In our day, the majority of scientists hold to a worldview of naturalism.
Naturalism is the philosophical presupposition that all phenomena can be explained by purely natural means. They begin with this assumption at the outset of all their thinking and any supernatural appeal is ruled out by definition. All reality is interpreted in light of this controlling assumption. Note carefully: this is not science, it is philosophy. Likewise, Christianity is a worldview; it is not science, it is a philosophy. The Christian rejects the notion of naturalism and because of his or her Christian commitment, maintains that many things cannot be explained by purely naturalistic causes (e.g. miracles, life, design, existence, answered prayer, conversion, resurrection, etc.).
Naturalism is not the same as natural science, though scientists like to make us think science is the same as naturalism. I would venture to say that most of those out in the world doing science probably are not aware of this crucial distinction. They have uncritically and unconsciously swallowed the lie that naturalism (the philosophy) is synonymous with science (an operational practice).
Both Christians and non-Christians can engage in doing natural science, i.e., studying the observational world for law-like principles to explain and predict phenomena. The question, however, is which philosophy or worldview can justify doing science? That is the issue. We will return to this issue later. The famous “scientific method” in its simplest form is how scientists are supposed to proceed. It has these four steps (at least):
1. It should be repeatable in a controlled environment
2. The scientist makes repeated observations
3. They then draw data (leading to various hypotheses)
4. and they empirically verify or falsify their hypotheses
Now it should be immediately noted that this “method” is by no means without dispute among scientists and philosophers of science. The scientific method is so disputed among various philosophies of science that a univocal definition does not exist. It is often very difficult to distinguish concretely the line of demarcation between science and non-science. Every one of these methodological steps has been challenged by various philosophies of science. In particular, critical rationalists, in opposition to methodological naturalism, challenge the idea of pure empirical objectivity and neutrality; they also say that the demarcation line between natural and supernatural explanations is arbitrary. Thus at the least, we can see that “science” is no monolithic enterprise where everyone is in agreement. There are radically different views of “science” even within the unbelieving community. This should give them humility, but, well…
It is also important to understand that science is not some impersonal mechanical force out in the world, nor is it akin to a divine oracle that a select group of elites can tap into in order to discover the secret truths of the universe; science is a human endeavor, which immediately throws us into interpretation. Science is practiced by all sorts of different humans who possess all sorts of different worldviews, beliefs, desires, prejudices, and motivations. While many people like to give or still believe that science is purely an objective and unbiased pursuit of truth, it is not so. There is a large subjective element in scientific research. There is a large amount of creativity, imagination, and often shear accident in scientific discovery. To be sure, greater objectivity and accuracy are impressive due to the creation of various measurement devices and techniques. But the idea that science is purely objective, neutral, and unbiased is an idea birthed out of the Enlightenment period but rarely held to by philosophers of science in our day (e.g. Thomas Kuhn). Yet old ideas die hard. And so both non-Christians and Christians alike still believe that science is the ultimate dispenser and arbitrator of knowledge.
Science is not static; it is always changing, discovering new information and discarding older theories with newer ones. This does not necessarily mean that science is progressing upward toward more accurate knowledge of the universe. Over the last few centuries, science has worn many masks. It always functions out of various worldviews. For example, the majority of scientists in our time adhere to the philosophy of naturalism and the theory of evolution. They approach the world with this assumption and interpret everything in light of it. Yet can many of their interpretations be considered true knowledge? The Christian says no. Modern science has produced many amazing breakthroughs that have led to life enhancing technology, but modern science has also at the same time promulgated a massive amount of false ideas. Thus while science as a discipline is never static, it is also not always progressing toward some utopia of knowledge as many people think. Such an idea or assumption is more philosophic than it is scientific, and again it is an idea common to the history of ideas from pre-Socratic philosophers up to Hegel and Marx. It assumes things about the nature of reality. It has been said that if you do not like what science says about something, just wait a year, it will change. Obviously much more could be said about the nature of science, but what I have said is sufficient to demonstrate my initial contention.
For many Christians, science is like the boogie man, it is an enemy to avoid. But once we really understand what science is in its basic sense—discovering reliable patterns in things to predict future applications—we can see that not only is there nothing to fear, but Christians of all people should endorse and employ scientific thinking in their lives.
While scientific discoveries can do many wonderful things, science also has many limitations. Science is about observation of the physical world, about what is the case. It therefore has no opinion of absolute morality, since it is fallacious to move from what is the case to what ought to be the case (the naturalistic fallacy). It has little if anything to say about politics (which is largely governed by moral considerations), government, and how families and societies ought to conduct themselves. People who say they live their lives solely by science usually know nothing of science. But what about religion and God? Can’t we use science to prove the existence of God? Let us now see why we cannot.
Science and God
The most popular approach in our day to prove the existence of God is the argument from design, technically called the teleological argument. It argues that the universe and many things in the universe display marvelous design, and wherever there is an intelligent design, there must of necessity be a designer behind it. That designer is said to be God. Now as Christians we know this is true because the Bible tells us so. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork. But those who use the argument from design, and other similar arguments like it, based on a natural theology, do not want the Bible to interfere with their thinking. In an attempt to be “scientific,” they falsely assume that they have to be (and actually can be) totally neutral, unbiased toward any position, and fully objective in their interpretation of the “facts.” The Bible would spoil all of that. So the Christian is proud that he is not bringing the Bible or God into his thinking. He makes sure the unbeliever with whom he is seeking to persuade sees that he is not relying on God’s revelation. He pretends to be self-sufficient in his independence, just like the unbeliever allegedly is.
In his opening presentation, Ray Comfort used this argument from design to prove “scientifically” that God exists. He held up a Coke can and said obviously it did not arise as it is by pure chance over time. The building they were in was used as another analogy. The building is scientific proof that a builder exists somewhere. Again, he used an analogy of a painting. The fact that a painting exists indicates that there surely must have been a painter who created it. He also gave analogies of the human body and of his car. But is this science? After we have seen what science is, are these scientific proofs? I would say not. They seem to be arguments of analogy and philosophy, but not science. If we used this type of reasoning then we would have to say that the existence of crop circles proves that aliens in space crafts exist. We would have to say that apparitions of Mary and Jesus in everything from a shadow on a wall to a burn in a pancake reveal that Mary and Jesus caused these designs. We would have to admit that faint sounds and voices in the static of white noise are proof that the souls of the departed are still roaming around somewhere.
The Christian cries out in response, “But we can offer alternate explanations for what caused these phenomena.” The atheist says the same thing to the Christian when he offers his argument from design. The atheist submits his theories to explain the existence of the universe and the appearance of design. These often prove unfruitful squabbles because both parties are chopping at the leaves rather than analyzing the roots that support them.
But what about Ray’s arguments? Don’t they prove that God the Creator exists? Well, aside from the fact that his arguments are not science so defined; at best they might prove that some sort of powerful entity exists, but this is a far cry from the Triune God revealed in the Bible. Here is part of the problem. These arguments can at best prove that a finite and limited God exists within our realm of reality. How so? This is because you cannot have in your conclusion new information that was not in your premises. The argument from design otherwise known as the teleological argument begins from the finite, visible, experiential, immanent, and temporal reality and tries to conclude with an infinite, invisible, incomprehensible, transcendent, and eternal personal God. This is a leap in logic called a lacuna.
Thus at best this argument can prove some form of finite being that exists within our experiential reality. From this line of reasoning then there is no reason Ray and Kirks “God” could not be powerful space aliens or even a demon. Is that an acceptable argument for Christianity? Is God pleased with that? Does this type of reasoning leave the unbeliever with an excuse (lit. an apologetic) for their unbelief, which the Bible says they have none (Rom. 1:19)? Obviously no. But none of this is surprising since these arguments are not new nor invented by Christians. They come out of ancient pagan Greek philosophy primarily from the works of Aristotle. They later were adopted by Medieval Muslim philosophers and then by the Roman Catholic philosopher, Thomas Aquinas. Protestants have unfortunately continued this ancient trend by using them today.
Furthermore, the atheists had a sufficient rebuttal of their own. We can go and find the designers, builders, and painters who created these products, but we can’t go and interview God, unless of course you say He speaks in His word. But this begs the question by presupposing the very thing you promised and boasted that you would leave aside. So the analogies themselves are not even accurate. Painter and painting are finite physical things in our temporal universe; God is infinite and non-physical (invisible), while creation is the opposite; God is eternal, while creation is temporal and dependent. The analogy does not fly.
Finally, the atheists mentioned all the flaws and problems in this world. Apart from the Bible we have no concept of an ethical fall in the beginning that has brought such problems into our world. If those who employ arguments based on natural theology were consistent, they would have to admit that this being they seek to prove, based solely on the observable evidence around us, has faults and flaws as well. Thus they might prove that Zeus exists, but would any Christian be content to leave unbelievers with that belief? Other critiques of these arguments could be offered, but such should suffice to show that we ought as Christians to set natural theology aside, and not the Bible.
But let us look at what I think is the most significant problem with trying to use science to prove God’s existence.
The Philosophic Prerequisites of Science
I believe that most scientists in the field and in the lab are largely unaware of the philosophic assumptions of science. Most scientists are uneducated in the philosophy of science that undergirds what they are doing. This was brought home to me in a most evident way after I had a discussion with one of my science teachers at college. This man had an impressive career as a geologist and earth scientist. Yet when I began asking him about the assumptions he makes when he carries out his studies, he had virtually no idea what I was talking about. While philosophy majors fill the classes on the philosophy of science, I imagine that not many science majors sign up for those courses. Yet science cannot be done in a vacuum; one must of necessity make many crucial assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics in order to practice and justify (even believe in) science.
Earlier I mentioned that both Christian and non-Christian can engage in the doing of natural science. That is, they can carry out laboratory experiments, observe patterns in the field, formulate mathematical models, and discover new things (like planets or cures). But that is the application of scientific principles. The crucial question, however, is which philosophy or worldview can account for and justify these exploits. The dominant philosophy in science today is naturalism. Does naturalism (and usually materialism, the view that all reality is matter/energy) provide the necessary conditions that science requires? The answer to that depends on what these necessary conditions are.
What is necessary for science to work and what is necessary, more importantly, for this working to be justified? The Hindu can practice scientific work, but that does not mean that the Hindu worldview (that all reality is illusion) can justify this practice. This is one reason why places dominated by Hinduism never produced any significant science or scientific enterprise. There is a reason why science as we know it had its birth and origins in the Western world. So what are the necessary pre-conditions for the justification of science? What conditions must exist (first) in reality itself for the intelligibility of science? Here are some of the significant ones.
The Inductive Principle
I pointed out earlier that science rests on the principle of induction, i.e. the assumption that the future will hold stable as it has in the past. This element allows for prediction. If this principle cannot be justified, we have no assurance to make any predictions. This is because the regularity of nature is the prerequisite or pre-condition to inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning is the prerequisite to scientific investigation and practice. This is a famous “problem” in the history of philosophy, one which secular style worldviews have yet to produce any satisfying solution.
But someone might respond that we know the future will be like the past because it has always been so. One of the best philosophers of the last century, Bertrand Russell, expounded this problem most clearly. He showed that such thinking is guilty of committing the fallacy of begging the question. To appeal to past regularity in order to justify future regularity begs the question by assuming the very principle in question. In order to justify one’s use of induction one must first presuppose the truth of induction (i.e. regularity of nature). So the non-Christian cannot prove or justify inductive reasoning without committing a fallacy. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. So much for all the “we’re so rational” talk that atheists love to puff out. This is not an insignificant or trivial point to ignore.
Logic and Mathematics
But this is not all that science requires for it to function, or better yet, to be possible. Science also heavily relies on the use of logic and mathematics. Can naturalism and materialism account for the laws of logic? What is logic? It is at least three things. First, the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction (that A is not non-A at the same time in the same sense), are universal in nature. They do not exist in America but not in Africa . Every mentally healthy person uses logic, for better or worse. Second, the laws of logic are absolute. Thus they are not relative; personal feelings or opinions are irrelevant to the conclusions of a sound and valid argument. Thus the laws of logic are not arbitrary or relative. They are absolute. Third, the laws of logic are abstract entities. They are not physical particles or chemicals. Thus the laws of logic are universal, absolute, and abstract entities. Can such a feature be a part of a worldview that says that all reality is composed of matter (or some form of energy) and matter alone? Can such a feature exist in a world that is said to be physical and relative? It seems not. Again, so much for all the “we’re so logical” boasting atheists are famous for spouting off. But there is more.
Freedom and Rationality
Science also requires human freedom and rationality. But can such features exist in the worldview of naturalism? Naturalism says that every event must have a natural explanation. It says that all things are determined and controlled by the laws of physics and genetics. The idea of a free self, a free mind that is more than the mere mixing and reacting of chemicals is not a part of the worldview of naturalism. If naturalism were correct, then we would have no reason to believe it were so. How is that? If all our thoughts are merely the reaction of chemicals controlled by the physics and genetics, then the idea of a self is an illusion; we are essentially no different than anything else, no different than a beetle or a plant, which also are mere matter-in-motion controlled by the same laws.
Thus you yourself did not step back and rationally analyze the world, weigh the evidence, think through various philosophies, and self-consciously and freely draw your own conclusions. It naturalism is true, you could not help but believe what you believe; you could do no otherwise because “you” do not really exist (as you think you do and as science requires). You are merely a slave to impersonal laws. If this is the case, you have no reason to believe what you believe because you could not do otherwise. Thus atheists and naturalists are quite inconsistent when they argue that their position is “true” while all others are “false.” If naturalism were true, the atheist has no reason to believe so; to believe so is inconsistent with their basic presuppositions; and inconsistency is a sign of irrationality. But there is more.
Moral Absolutes
Science also requires a strong commitment to ethics, namely honesty. The online Wikipedia article on “Science” says, “Scientists value relative truth and knowledge, and the actual progress of science requires cooperation between scientists, and is highly intolerant of dishonesty. Cooperation and honesty are thus values which are intrinsic to the actual social practice of the scientific method itself.” How ironic (and again inconsistent) that most scientists will advocate some form of moral relativism, but are “highly intolerant of dishonesty.”
Elsewhere I have argued at length that only the Christian worldview can account for and make sense of morality. Morality on a non-Christian view of the world is a category mistake; it is akin to asking what the color blue smells like. But if there is no moral absolutes and no accountability after death, why should scientists not lie, exaggerate, and deceive if it will personally benefit their career, reputation, and bank account? Even the idea of caring is an idea foreign to atheism and naturalism. This is why I so appreciated reading the atheists, Fredrich Nietzsche and Jean Paul Sartre in the history of philosophy. I appreciate them because of they at least try to be consistent and honest with their worldview. They bite the bullet and acknowledge that these moral motions and notions like honesty and caring are not a part of the inventory of their outlook. They freely attribute them to Christianity.
Other assumptions about existence must also be taken for granted in order to justify science, such as reliability of sense perception and that an objective reality actually exists. Non-Christian worldviews—especially materialistic naturalism—is fatally susceptible to the intellectual threat of skepticism, the view that no knowledge is possible. The unbeliever has no means or criteria to determine or tell them whether or not they are in the Matrix or merely a brain in the vat of a mad scientist. More could be said, but such is enough for our point here.
Now what about the Christian worldview? We maintain that it alone can account for and justify the belief in and practice of these principles. On the principle of induction, the Bible reveals that the sovereign God is in control of all things. On this view of reality, we can have full assurance that the future will be like the past because God promises so. When God made His covenant with Noah, He promised that “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease” (Gen. 8:22). Many other verses testify to this promise also. Apart from this promise, we could not “subdue” and take “dominion” over creation.
Further, the laws of logic find their ultimate justification in the Being and Mind of God, who alone is truth. We are made in the image of God and thus have a limited but nevertheless real capacity to think like God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Pr. 1:7) and in His light we see light (Ps. 36:9). Similarly, moral absolutes necessary to justify a “high intolerance” of dishonesty and an obligation to tell the truth, can only find meaning and possibility on a foundation of Christian theism. The same can easily be argued for the reliability of sense perception (cf. Rom. 1:19) and of an objective reality (Gen. 1:1; John 1:1-3). The way God set up, designed, and structured creation allows for real knowledge of the objective world of empirical inquiry.
Conclusion
Christian apologists who seek to prove the existence of God by attempting to use unbiased and neutral science must also face these same philosophic questions. We must ask them what universe they stand in when they offer their arguments and use science? I hope by now you can see the dilemma that they face. Here is where they are guilty of committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. These well intentioned apologists assume that science—and all the prerequisites that go along with it—can actually function apart from the Christian worldview, the very view they try so hard to set aside in their presentations. They assume that science as a discipline can be successful apart or independent of this worldview and they attempt to establish the truth of this view by using science. Yet we have seen that this is not possible. Science does not and cannot in the nature of the case prove God; God is the necessary prerequisite to make science intelligible. Christians ought therefore to stand firm in their faith, be honest with the issue, and begin their arguments with this God who alone is the precondition for anything to make sense.
Christians therefore should not argue from unbelieving soil in an attempt to appease the unbeliever’s autonomous rebellion. The Christian who starts his or her argument from unbelieving intellectual soil, to the degree that he is consistent, must necessarily end his argument in that soil. To start on turf that is entirely antithetical and hostile to Christian presuppositions but then switch and conclude with Christian assumptions is itself inconsistent and thus irrational.
Proving the existence of the true and living God of Scripture is simply beyond the bounds of natural science. To prove God’s existence we must resort rather to theological and philosophical arguments. God, at least the God of the Bible, is not an observable entity. Furthermore, the transcendent God of Scripture is not on the same level of being that we are or that we experience. God’s ontological being is not the same as our ontological or metaphysical being. The Creator and the creator do not share the same ontology, or being. All this to say, the God of Scripture, as opposed to all other finite deities (i.e. idols) is transcendent, that is, He is beyond or outside the experiential universe.
God is not only beyond time and space, His very essence is of a wholly different sort. Thus one cannot move from the visible, finite, and temporal to the invisible, infinite, and eternal without making a massive logical leap (i.e. a fatal fallacy). Finally, God is not a law-like principle that we can test repeatedly and expect mechanical regularity. God is the most and only free agent. He is above the “laws” of science. The so-called laws of science are nothing more than a sentence on a piece of paper attempting to describe how the sovereign God of all creation holds His universe together ( Col. 1:16-18; Heb. 1:3; John 1:1-3).
To not be able to prove God’s existence by using science is no great loss. It is only a loss if you assume that science is the sole source of knowledge and truth. It is only a loss if you assume that man is the source and origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. But if you assume these things, then you are a devout humanist and probably not a Christian.
