Believing Science, Believing Theology
Have you ever wondered why humans view the world, the way they do? If you have noticed, they have quite a diverse opinion on just about everything. In many cases even the thing they agree on, if you were to ask them to think a little deeper, they will begin to disagree. It seems that thinking in itself does not bring about a unity of opinion.
If we honestly trained our minds to separate a fact from our opinion, which is our interpretation of the facts, we could at least agree on the facts. You could say that facts are like stones that are lying on the ground. They have no inherent means other than they are stones lying on the ground. Similarly, the ground that they are lying on also is a fact. However, when a human comes along and picks up the stones and begins to ask himself questions about them, such as how, when and why, i.e. to give an explanation of the facts, we then have moved away from the facts and have moved into an interpretation of the facts. The problem with many people is that they cannot discern the difference between what is their opinion or their interpretation of the facts, and what the facts themselves truly are.
The discipline of science is an effort to determine what interpretation of the facts best represents the facts. Of course, this is conditional on the scientific community agreeing on what the facts are, but sometimes theoretical science cannot accomplish this merely because the facts are unobservable. Sometimes scientists must first create an instrument to prove the existence of the facts and then they must have a system to guard their interpretation of the facts. The process that they use to do this is called the scientific method
The same principle applies to theology. Theology is or should be about the business of sorting out what interpretation of God best reflects the facts. Like science, this is contingent on the community recognizing certain facts and having the tools to find and interpret those facts. In the case of Christian theology, the fact would have to be the words of the Apostle and what could be inferred about God from nature and person of Jesus Christ. One problem we have with theology is that things inferred are not necessarily facts, but more resemble an interpretation of the facts. However, this problem is often found in science as well.
The biggest difference between science and theology is the community explanation of what are the facts. In science, the fact should be physical and be observable. However, this is not true in many of the so-called sciences. For example, in much of evolution science or in psychiatry the scientific method is not possible, which in some people’s minds raises the question of whether or not these disciplines are truly a science? I would say in the most rigid way of thinking that they are not. Some, to note the differences between the sciences, use the term soft and hard. Hard sciences are those sciences that have physical facts to observe like physics or biology. The soft sciences are like psychology and sociology.
In Christian theology, the facts are also physical. Christians believe that at one time God revealed himself in Christ. That Christ was physically present and worked miracles to prove his identity. Like science, there was also a community of men that witnessed His existence and his miracles. They claimed that they saw, heard and handled this fact from God (1 John 1:1-4). Now if these witnessed and experienced events were going to be falsified, they would have by the very nature of the evidence, had to have been falsified in the current time frame of their happening. They were not falsified, although there were attempts to do so.
In science as in religion, the facts are often one step, or many steps removed from the facts and cannot or have not been observed or experienced by most men. In the community of faith, members believe that some men have observed the facts and therefore have a better knowledge of the facts than others. This is not only true in the faith community but also in the scientific community. Members of the scientific community, like the faith community, believe and accept by faith what the scientific community says about the facts, even though they have not seen the facts personally. Not only do they accept the existence of unobserved facts, but they also accept the scientific community interpretation of these unobserved facts, for they have neither the facts nor the expertise to question them.
However, this process of acquiring knowledge for the faith community is not as different from the scientific community as some scientists would have us to believe. The other day I was listening to an audiobook about Einstein’s theory of relativity and in the opening statement the authority, who is a Physicist, said that he believes that there were only a few men in the world that truly understood what Einstein was saying. I have read similar admissions by other men in other disciplines. I remember one, which pointed out that there were very few men that headed up any discipline that actually looked at the facts. The rest of the members of the discipline gained their knowledge through the community, texts, and schools. The majority of men believed not because of the evidence, but because they believed what the community taught them. In the majority of these cases, the evidence is never checked by the students of the discipline. In those circumstances, the majority of people’s beliefs are very much like those of religion, i.e. dogma. When you look at it this way, there are very few men in any discipline that really handle the facts and observed them firsthand. In essence, you could say that there are very few men that actually do science and the same thing holds true of those that do theology. In Christian theology, we could say only the Apostles of Jesus actually did theology.
In science, as in theology, there are certain assumptions that must be made to carry out science. Scientists must believe in the uniformity of nature and the law of cause and effect, otherwise, they could not do science. They must believe in a pattern that can be found in nature, which can be analyzed and measured. As Einstein said, “God does not play dice with the universe”. Of course, it must be noted that some younger scientists believe He does. Though that view is not the one that is accepted or used by the scientific community. Mainly because it would destroy the community.
In Christian theology, the assumptions are that there is a God and that God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. These assumptions are accepted as facts by the Christian community. If you do not accept them, you cannot logically do Christian theology. Of course, you could write about Christian theology as I write about science and I am not a scientist. This may or may not be a disadvantage. It is often hard for a fish in a bowl to see itself as others do. Sometimes being in a discipline is very much like being like a fish in a bowl. Those outside the bowl may have a clearer view of the fish and the bowl, than the fish that is inside the bowl.
I think this will help to understand why we often think, the way we think. Our thinking seems to be largely dependent on our habits of thought; and our habits of thought depend to on a large degree, on the community that we belong to, or lack of one. Now by the community, I mean formal and informal. Formal communities are groups like a family, religious organizations, professional groups or political parties. The informal communities are your friends, the books you read, and the places or the field that you work in. In the broader sense the formal community will often influence the informal ones reading habits and other social habits of the individual. In most cases, the community does a large amount of thinking for the individual, which is a hard pill to swallow for those that like to think of themselves as free thinkers. The greatest amount of our freedom of thought comes from our freedom to choose a community that will greatly influence our thinking.
The implications of this are many. One of the obvious ones is that it is the community that does the educating of the individual that comes into it. The community imparts its view of the world, which all in the group will believe is the correct view. Another obvious thing is that the community not only inputs its knowledge into the individual, but it also inputs its biases and its attitude, i.e. its spirit. It is also obvious that it is very hard to change or correct a belief in a community. It often takes the death of an entire generation, which allows a free flow of ideas. So, what we gather from this the community can enlighten, and can also blind the individual. This is true of the scientific community or a community of faith, as noted in Thomas Kuhn’s book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.
The Christian faith, unlike any other faith, is much like science because it is based on a physical happening. That is the coming of the Logos (Christ) into flesh, his life, death, and his resurrection. All of these things were observed by men. These men, in turn, wrote down their experience and observation of the Logos in the book we call the New Testament. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:1-3).
Note in this scripture that the apostles’ beliefs were grounded in facts. They claimed to hear, touch and see the man that they preached about. Their beliefs were not based on second-hand information learned from a book, but rather they were based on first-hand experiences. All of the Apostles of Jesus, but one, were killed for their faith and yet not one of them recanted their belief in Jesus. This seems to be better evidence than most scientific theories come up with and I have not heard of too many scientists dying for their theories. Yet today you have people that believe that the Christian community has no right to preach the message of Christ because they did not witness it. However, if that is the case how does a high school science teacher have a right to teach science which he has not personally observed? What right would anyone have to teach that humans came from a common ancestor or that a lizard evolved into a bird? Has anyone ever observed it actually happening? No, they have not, and they will never observe these things.
The Apostles of Jesus observed Jesus and the miracle of his resurrection. They also created a community of men that they left their knowledge with. This community was then told by them to take that knowledge to the world. Some have tried to explain this away by saying that Jesus never lived. However, if that is the case how can you explain the existence of a community of thousands built around his death and resurrection, shortly after his death?
Some may respond by saying that religion believes in miracles and science believes in facts. Before we take a close look at this statement, let us define our terms. A fact is something that e exists in itself. It stands by itself and needs no explanation or interpretation. Let us use our original example of the stones, or rocks on the ground. Let’s say that I was walking alone and saw some rocks laying on the ground. The rocks on the ground are a fact and in that statement, the ground would also be a fact. If you asked me how the rocks got there and I said I saw a truck dump them there, the placement of the rocks would be a fact for me, but not for you. You see a fact must be a thing that is able to be observed. Therefore, the placing of the rocks would be a fact for me because I personally witnessed it. The placing of the rocks would be a theory for you based on my testimony. Now the strength of the theory would depend on the credibility of the witness. Now, a theory can never become a fact to you unless you had a time machine to go back in time to the point where the rocks were dumped on the ground. The best you could do is try to find more witnesses that might confirm the witness’s testimony. The more witnesses the greater the probability that the witness is telling the truth and that the thing really happened or existed. You may increase the probability of how the rocks got on the ground, but you can never make a theory, a fact. Even if you were to take a truck and dump thousands of rocks upon the ground, all you could do is increase the probability of your theory. So, when you hear someone say that the theory of evolution has become a fact, you know that you are talking to someone that has some fuzzy thinking going on in their head. You might ask them if they were there when it happened.
I think now we may be ready to talk about science, religion, and miracles. We all know that religion believes in miracles, but do the facts bear out that science does not believe in them? Before going there we need to ask, what is a miracle? To me, a miracle is something that is super-natural i.e. beyond a natural explanation. If this is true, science should not hold to anything that cannot be explained by natural causes, within the framework of uniformity of nature. Yet, when we open a freshman science book, we are immediately confronted with the big bang theory of how the universe, time, space and matter, came out of nothing. We are even told when it happened, some 17 billion years ago. So, here we have a scientific theory that sounds very much like the first verse of the book of Genesis, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth”. Now, here’s the kicker, science says their theory is science and Genesis is religion. One view is scientific and the other is a belief in a miracle. The miracle of ex nihilo-the creation of something out of nothing. But how can one viewpoint be a miracle and the same viewpoint science? Someone might argue that it has been observed that the universe is expanding, which proves the big bang theory and that the universe had a beginning. But this would raise the question, “If the universe, space and time are expanding what did they initially expand out from if neither space and time existed? Does the evidence for the big bang prove the miracle of creation? Does it prove the existence of God? I do not believe so. However, it does leave the door open for something to exist outside of time and space, and that something could be God. It would also leave the door open for that God to come into space and time, and even to alter it. Otherwise, you have to believe that something came from nothing.
Is not something coming from nothing a miracle? I would say it is one of the greatest miracles ever recorded. If you can believe in something coming from nothing, then believing in the miracle of Jesus turning water into wine is nothing, for we see nature turning water into wine every day, Jesus just sped up the process. However, something out of nothing? That’s a big one.
 Some may say that Theology has no facts. But they have the facts of existence and consciousness.
 To some degree all of our assumptions are based on the primal assumption that we exist. Both the scientist and the theologian assume that they exist and begin with that as a fact.
God is Self-Evident
People that I have talked to or those that have read my blog, know that I believe that faith in the existence of supreme intelligence or consciousness is a self-evident truth. A self-evident truth is a truth that a majority of men recognize through natural instincts. That is, by men who have not had their reasoning corrupted by false beliefs and ideologies.
Some might raise the objection, ‘if the existence of God is self-evident, why are there so many that do not see it?’ Jesus said, “some people have eyes but do not see”. Sometimes overexposure deadens our sensitivity to a thing. We are often actually insensitive to our senses until they are impaired in some way. We seldom think about seeing out of our eyes until something threatens our sight. When we look out a window, we will not often see the glass unless we focus on it. The reason being, we have given our full attention to the things we are watching outside the window. However, if the window is dirty or has a crack in it, we see it immediately. The problem with modern man is that he is too focused on things to see God. This lack of sight is encouraged by our capitalistic and materialist culture that focuses people more on the physical than the existential and metaphysical realities.
The source of much unbelief could be contributed to the culture and environment that one grows up in. Some men grow up in families and cultures that are anti-metaphysical and are dominated by the materialistic mindset. If one grows up in such a culture, they absorbed a state of rebellion against God as normal or they are simply indifferent towards spirituality, without even knowing or understanding why they do not believe in God. They literally have had their minds washed of the idea of God; literally, they have been brainwashed and immersed in doubt to the point that it seems normal for them.
They are ignorant of God because they have neglected the knowledge of God, (secular culture) and have failed to follow the natural revelation of God in nature that leads people to faith in God. They trust in and exalt reason about what is reasonable. Reason is a wonderful thing, but it has its limits and it has the propensity to become the handmaid of our passions and our will and for some men, reason has become a sick lady infected with finiteness and sin which has led to total madness.
It was for this reason that the scientific method was created to help keep science honest. However, we are beginning to see that the problem is too hard to deal with through laws and methods because mankind uses reason to get around the law. Mankind needs grace to deal with sin and to keep reason honest.
When I give a reason for something, I must subsequently give a reason for the reason and then a reason for that reason. This regression would be infinite until I came to the end of reason itself. We have one or two choices; to follow the regression of reason to the end of reason or follow it to a first cause. If you are an atheist and deny that the first cause is ‘Intelligent’, your problem becomes insurmountable. You will inevitably end up denying reason or make it the first cause and in that, you have made reason god and might I add, a very small god. Moreover, reason will find its end when it comes up against itself, for how can reason explain itself without arguing in circles or chasing its own tail. “I believe in reason because that is what reason says to believe.” or “I believe in reason because my philosophy professor said I should believe in it and he learned it from Plato, who learned it from reason”.
Am I saying that I do not believe in reason? No, I am simply saying that reason has its limits and be careful not to ask too much of her. She is not infallible and without a proper foundation to reason from, she is like a man trying to ride a wild horse, she can kill you. Reason is a gift from God and was given as a tool to help us find our way on our journey. If we corrupt her, we do so at our own peril. If we make her into God, we bring the wrath of God upon ourselves. “You shall not have any other gods before you.” We make reason into god when we turn reason into rationalism. The difference between reason and rationalism is that reason knows her limits, rationalism does not and in this, rationalism is unreasonable and even stupid.
Two Kinds of Truth
There are two kinds of truth: a truth that is developed by reason[i] and self-evident truth. If we allow the latter to be pulled into the former, the latter and former are both lost. The very idea of knowing anything to any degree of certainty would be lost.
If a man denies that there is a cosmic order, i.e., a God, which I believe to be a self-evident truth,[ii] what grounds does he have to believe that his reasoning can be trusted? If his reasoning is nothing more than a bundle of atoms interacting with each other in his brain, how can he trust it? Can he use reason to prove reason without first assuming that his reason can be trusted? He may say that reasoning can be trusted because it was perfected by natural selection, but that is to say that a mindless force we called nature created reasoning and then perfected it by another mindless force, natural selection. The atheist must trust or have faith in a blind force in order to trust his reasoning. If he believes in reasoning, he must believe in it through a leap of faith in a blind force, which in my thinking begins to look a lot like a God hypothesis called by the name, reason.
To really be consistent with his atheism, he must maintain that everything (including his reasoning) is a mere illusion of his biological illusion maker that is in his brain. Then in order to function in the world, he must split the world into what is real and what is an illusion, and he must choose to live in and out of his illusions for it is impossible to live in the world he thinks is reality. On top of this and at the same time, he must cling to the belief or the illusion that he and his beliefs are reasonable and everyone else’s (believers) are unreasonable.
He is like an actor on stage pretending to live out an imaginary story but believing at the same time that backstage is reality, which is meaningless and chaotic. Of course, if he pretends long enough, he may begin to believe that the play is real, or if he gets really caught up in the story, he may even forget that it is all just make-believe. The paradox is that often while playing out the story, he holds his audience in contempt for not knowing that the story he is performing in, is not real, or for not knowing what’s going on behind the curtain.
I have found that few atheists have the courage to take their beliefs to their logical conclusion for fear of the life it would produce. So, they proclaim one set of beliefs while living by another. They claim to find meaning in a universe, which they say has no meaning, and they claim to have a purpose in a cosmos that they claim has no purpose. They claim to be rational, in fact, the most rational of humans; however, does not rationality demand a willingness to take your own thinking to its logical conclusions and in turn, live out those conclusions? Yet, I have never met an atheist who has consistently lived out his own thinking. Now, this is not to say they do not exist, but rather I have never met any.
Without a cosmic order, does not reason take you to the point of questioning reason itself? Does not pure skepticism demand that you become skeptical about your own skepticism? Should not a true doubter, doubt his own doubts? Without self-evident truth, reasoning will, in the end, chase its own tail. You must have something to reason from; you cannot reason from doubt. As William James said, “You must have a will to believe something.” Reason must start with something and cannot start with nothing. Even the atheist must start with something: “I believe there is no God.” Here he starts with assuming that his reason is sound. Then he moves to himself “I” and his belief there is no God. However, he cuts off the limb he is sitting on when he says, “no God.” Can a finite “I” make such a statement without being the very thing that he denies exists, i.e., God? [iii] Moreover, can he make such a statement without having blind faith in reason?
[i] These are truths that are formed by deduction and inductive reasoning. However, these truths are not the facts in themselves but are ideas that are inferred from the facts. Believers believe they can trust reason because it is the reflection of a reasonable God in whom image, we are created.
[ii] Some might raise the objection, If the existence of God is self-evident, why are there so many who do not see it? Jesus said, “Some people have eyes but do not see.” Sometimes overexposure deadens our sensitivity to a thing. We are often actually insensitive to our senses until they are impaired in some way. We seldom think about seeing or our eyes until something threatens our sight. When looking out a window, we will not often see the glass unless we focus on it. The reason for this is that we have given our full attention to the things that we are watching outside the window. However, if the window is dirty or has a crack in it, we see it immediately. The problem with modern man is that he is too focused on things to see God. However, his lack of focus does not mean that God does not exist.
[iii] To make an absolute statement that there is no God, a person would have to know everything in this vast universe and be everywhere at the same time. For if he did not know everything, the thing he might not know is that there is a God, and if he was not everywhere at the same time, the place he was not at might be the very place God exists.
The Assumptions of the Atheist Faith
The atheistic faith is based on three assumptions that are either false or unprovable. And yes, it is a faith because it is an ideal that exists in the human mind and is supported by other human beliefs. The idea that it is a non-belief is nothing but atheistic sophistry. Call it a nonbelief is like calling it a non-idea. Just some more nonsense.
Let’s look at their assumptions. The first is that there is no God. No one can prove that there is no God for in order to do so they would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time and also outside of the universe at the same time for the very place that they were not, might be the very place that the Uncreated one is present. They would also have to know everything in the universe; for if there was one thing that they didn’t know, it might be that there’s a God. In essence, they would have to be God in order to say with certitude that there’s not a God. The atheist always has to leave a small possibility that there might be a God, which the possibility in itself negates the very idea of atheism. However, out of fear of the camel getting his nose into the tent many pretend to deny the possibility altogether.
The second assumption that I have found in most atheists is the belief that they are smarter than those that believe in God. I have found this trait even in those who seem to be friendly towards religion. Of course, this is an assumption that has no scientific basis. In fact, recent polling of scientists indicates that the split is about 50-50 as to whether or not they believe in some kind of higher power.
When it comes to IQ some believe that The American philosopher, psychologist and psychiatrist William James was the most intelligent man in recent times and of course he was a believer. I have read estimates that his IQ was twice that of Einstein’s. The most intelligent living person is Christopher Langan. He is considered by many to be the world’s smartest living person with an IQ of over 200 and he is a believer.
Of course, this doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of a God, but it does prove that the atheists’ second assumption, that they are smarter than believers, is not a scientific view and seems to be wrong.
The third assumption is that science has proven that there is no God. This assumption is one of the most common ones among atheists and borders on ridiculous. The following quotations speak directly to this assumption.
“Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science.” Science Dept — University of California at Berkeley
“Explanations employing nonmaterialistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science …. all of science, is necessarily silent on religion and neither refutes nor supports the existence of a deity or deities.” National Association of Biology Teachers
“no aspect of science can address supernatural questions …. supernatural entities by definition operate outside of natural laws and so [truly] cannot be investigated using methods of experimentation” — American Association for the Advancement of Science”
Some atheists, to justify their unbelief, will say that there are no scientific proofs for God, which may be true, but it raises the question as to why some of the same people believe in aliens and a universe that has a multitude of dimensions. Where is the scientific evidence and proof of the existence of these things? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence that the only proofs have to come from science?
 “Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.” David Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion”
 According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted in May and June 2009
More Nonsense of The New Atheists
I hope the reader will bear with me as I share with you some nonsense about something that I’ve inherited from the new atheist. It is nonsense, which means that my response is also probably nonsense as well. At least what I have to say will give you something to think about, but I’m not completely certain because it is a non-belief and I’m unsure as to whether you can actually think about it.
The new atheist claims that they have no burden of proof because atheism is not a belief but rather a non-belief[i]. Right. Atheists, along with everyone else, can or cannot prove or disprove a non-belief. Nor can they argue for, or against, a non-belief. In fact, you could argue that you cannot even speak from a non-belief other than simply to say, “I do not believe it,” i.e. I’ve never made an argument for or against the existence of a spaghetti monster. If you’re talking about spaghetti monsters, the first thing you must do is define it, which no one has ever done for me, so I would have to say that when it comes to spaghetti monsters, I’m agnostic. However, I know of only a handful of atheists who refuse to speak about the subject of God and offer arguments against his existence. They must believe something about the God they are arguing against. Of course, the truth is they build a straw man God in their imaginations and then argue against it.
If you are arguing for or against something, you are not arguing from a non-belief because that is impossible. Moreover, when arguing against something, the argument “I don’t believe” is insufficient because that is an opinion, not an argument. If you argue, you must argue from some other position or ideology not a non-belief. You cannot as atheists do, argue against God and then claim atheism as a non-belief that you have no burden of proof to justify. Atheists must argue against God from either materialism or naturalist ideology, which are beliefs. In other words, the minute they open their mouths the burden of proof lies on the one trying to prove their unbelief by means of other beliefs. In essence, they have to borrow a belief structure from other ideologies in order to speak against a belief in God. If they don’t want any burden of proof, they should simply not speak and quit arguing from materialism, scientism and naturalism. Once they argue from these other “isms” or ideologies, they then have the burden of proof to demonstrate its truthfulness. 
[i] what is a non-belief? If I hold a belief in my mind that is not true is that a non-belief or is it a false belief? Actually, the only non-belief that a human being can entertain is that God is nothingness. Nothingness is the only non-belief that a human can entertain.