Learn more about God and how you can be have a personal relationship with Him.

Belief in God | Topic | LaOmek

Topic

How does science point to the existence of God? In any investigation, evidence is an irreplaceable necessity. When someone is murdered, the detective does not sit in his armchair and spin out as many possible murder scenarios in his head as he can imagine. Instead, he goes to the scene of the crime and looks for evidence. All of his possible scenarios, which he could have thought up without evidence, must be accepted or discounted based upon their alignment with the evidence he uncovers.

In physics, the process is similar. We don’t begin by theorizing random mathematical possibilities, devoid of observation, as if the answer to all motion is forty-two. Instead, we observe the motion of objects and particles, plot their coordinates on a graph, and then try to come up with a mathematical function that best fits the curve. This is second-nature to anyone who remembers their science classes: fit the model to the evidence, and not the evidence to the model.

Science provides tools which help us uncover the mysteries of the universe through tested regularity and confirmed inductive reasoning. Every time the scientific method succeeds in telling us more about the universe, it provides more evidence that must be accounted for in a model of reality.

Many observe the universe and conclude that God is the best model that fits the totality of the evidence. There may be other models and other solution curves, but they do not address data points over here, or do not fit with the data points over there. Oftentimes, non-theistic models are reductionistic, in that they apply a model that may work in one scenario to all scenarios, even when the model does not fit everywhere. The modern focus on biological evolution is but one example; while biological evolution may provide a model to explain some of the biological data points we can observe, it falls short in explaining the origin of the universe, the existence of abstract objects, the origin of moral laws, the laws of logic, or the very cosmological constants that enables the evolutionary model to work in the first place.

Richard Dawkins once wrote, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” However, Darwin’s revolution was in biology, which is but one branch of evidence among many that must be accounted for in a model for the universe without a god. Success in biology does not translate to success in logic or cosmology. Moreover, Dawkins mentioned being “intellectually fulfilled.” Unfortunately, Darwin’s theory cannot explain what intellect is, nor where it comes from, or why it works. Under Darwin’s evolutionary model, Dawkins cannot account for the subjective and not-very-scientific-sounding word “fulfilled,” unless one means a mere psychological or emotional state that has no importance beyond the individual. In light of these things, we should recognize that Dawkins’ statement is biting off more than it can chew.

There is a mind-boggling amount of evidence to explain in the universe, but even the most grandiose (and elusive) Theory of Everything would not actually account for everything. The physicists pursuing the “everything” have redefined the word to include only spatio-temporal physical reality; left outside of the scope of pursuit are many of the non-physical realities we previously mentioned. The existence of consciousness, intelligence, and free will are not accounted for. Do these immaterial realities not deserve a curve fitted to their existence? Surely the scientists pursuing a model for the universe are employing rationality to guide their endeavors—but can they even explain what rationality is or where it comes from?

Science points to the existence of God by providing a mechanism by which evidence may be uncovered, evidence which plots along the curve predicted by the God hypothesis. For example, the standard big bang model of cosmology posits a spatio-temporal origin of the universe, which aligns with the Creation Ex Nihilo (out of nothing) model advocated by the Bible (Genesis 1:1). A cosmos with “Laws of Nature” aligns with the existence of an orderly, rational Creator who imprinted his nature into physics. A subatomic world of quantum indeterminacy aligns with the existence of an infinite God who eludes our most intelligent models (Isaiah 55:8-9). The existence of language in DNA and RNA fits a universe created by the Word of God (Gen. 1:3; John 1:1-3). The scope of evidence that may be rationally accounted for by the existence of the biblical God is vast and intellectually satisfying.

What are we to do with those data points that appear to fall outside of the curve predicted by the God hypothesis? What are we to do, for example, with the existence of evil, or suffering in our own lives? We will discuss these things elsewhere on this site, as space limits us here. However, even these are not outside of the fitted curve. It is not as if the Bible and theistic philosophy do not have credible explanations for evil and suffering. In fact, the whole storyline of the Bible details how God chose to save us from evil and suffering through the actions of Jesus the Messiah. Thus, evil and suffering are not outliers to the biblical model of the universe; they are fully accounted for.

In our final analysis, science is an ally to those who believe in God, and not an enemy. Science only becomes an enemy when we force a model that explains part of reality onto all of reality, supposedly in the name of science. If properly considered, the evidence uncovered by science shows us how only one model accounts for it all, and his name is אֱלֹהִים—God.

How does science point to the existence of God? In any investigation, evidence is an irreplaceable necessity.

How Does Science Point to the Existence of God? | Blog | LaOmek

How Does Science Point to the Existence of God?

A famous fable tells of a group of blind men who encounter an elephant. One finds the tail and concludes that he found a whip. Another grasps a leg and says it’s a tree. Yet another feels the side and thinks it’s a wall. The blind men begin to argue over who is right. Finally, someone who can see the elephant explains that they all understood part of the elephant, but they needed to pool their insight to know what they were really experiencing.

This story is often told to illustrate relativism, which asserts that there is no absolute truth. According to this system of thought, whatever someone believes is correct, is correct for him/her, but not in a real, objective sense that is true for everyone. Relativism argues that the men in this story were all correct and there was no reason for them to argue. Many people are motivated to deny absolute truth because of their exposure to religions, cultures, and ideologies that appear to be different. Perhaps, if truth is relative, we can all agree to disagree and move on with our lives instead of fighting with each other. To be fair, the elephant fable does show us that truth is often complex and it is valuable to listen to the insights of others. Still, as an argument for relativism it falls short, because it depends on there being an objective observer, someone who in fact does see the whole elephant. The tale only works if objective truth (in this case, the presence of the elephant) is there waiting to be discovered.

The very statement “there is no absolute truth” is self-refuting. British philosopher Roger Scruton summarized the problem well when he said, “A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.” In other words, the statement is itself a truth claim. Furthermore, while it seems open-minded, it actually discounts everyone who does believe in the objective rightness of his or her position. A desire to respect people and cultures who hold contrasting views is a major reason why relativism has become so prominent. However, if absolute truth is denied, then we have no motivation to take opposing viewpoints seriously because the search for truth is ultimately futile.

In practice, we rely on absolute truth every day. Technology, which is central to modern life, depends on mathematical equations and the principles of classical physics. If statements such as 2+2=4 and “acceleration equals the change in velocity divided by the time elapsed” are mere opinions, then our cell phones shouldn’t work and we should certainly be afraid to fly. The scientific method itself presupposes the existence of absolute truth and our ability, with sufficient education and research, to discover it.

The study of history also constitutes a search for truth. Historical research assumes that people take real actions in time that can be established via evidence. When historical facts are misrepresented or rejected, there are real consequences. For instance, Holocaust denial is rooted in, and fosters, antisemitism. It is easily refuted with historical evidence such as eyewitness testimony and government documents. However, if relativism is taken to its logical conclusion, then there is no objective basis to disprove this falsehood. As British historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto warns, “Without confidence in the concept of truth, listeners are disarmed against lies.”

Relativism also has repercussions for morality. Many ethical questions are indeed difficult to navigate, but there must be some enduring, objective moral principles, such as the value of human life, to guide us and society. Nevertheless, according to a consistent relativism, no action can be condemned, not even a clear-cut crime like cold-blooded murder; each person should do what seems right to him/her. It is unlikely that relativism applied to larger societal groups would fare any better; if each society can determine what is right for its members, then we have lost any ability to condemn the Holocaust, since the genocide was conducted according to German law. In contrast, absolute truth affirms that certain deeds are inherently wrong and should be opposed, providing a solid basis to challenge injustice (Proverbs 31:8).

Seeking and knowing spiritual truth is essential to how we live our lives, just as knowing biological facts is essential to being a doctor. What we believe about God and eternity has immediate consequences for how we treat each other, what we value, and how we spend our time and money, so we should be concerned with whether our spiritual beliefs are objectively true or false.

The elephant story mentioned earlier is especially common among people who claim that all religious systems are true, and it is necessary to reconcile them to really know what God is like. However, different faiths often contradict each other. For instance, some people believe there is no God, some worship one, and others revere hundreds of gods. Some spiritual beliefs are correct, and many are wrong. The Bible makes truth claims, and the question is—are they correct? On this site, we examine these claims and how they affect our lives. We invite you to discover what the Bible has to say and consider whether it is true.

A famous fable tells of a group of blind men who encounter an elephant. One finds the tail and concludes that he found a whip. Another grasps a leg and says it’s a tree.

Topics

About

Topic

Belief in God

How Does Science Point to the Existence of God?

September 12, 2022

Is There Such a Thing as Absolute Truth?

September 6, 2022