Stop me if you have heard this one: Scientific belief is based on evidence, belief in God is based on faith and faith is believing in something in spite of the evidence.
The belief that God and science are competing explanations is a common sentiment among atheists.
“Religion is outdated in the 21st century… [God] is irrelevant in science. The more we’ve learned about the natural world, the more we’ve learned that you don’t need God to explain anything.” – Lawrence Krauss
This attitude is becoming especially common on the popular level with more and more celebrities and TV shows portraying an adversarial relationship between God and Science.
“Stay away from the church. In the battle over science vs. religion, science offers credible evidence for all the serious claims it makes. The church says, ‘Oh, it’s right here in this book, see? The one written by people who thought the sun was magic?’” – Seth MacFarlane
So is there a conflict between faith and science? Considering the number of elite scientists who have said so, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is. This was the subject when Dr. Jim Tour took the stage at West U Baptist Church on Monday night.
In this blog entry I will briefly review Dr. Tour’s presentation and add a few of my thoughts on the “God vs Science” debate as well.
- But science says…
- Is there any scientific evidence for God?
- Atheism vs science?
But science says…
We are often told what “science says” about theism, atheism and the origin of life, etc. However, I believe that this personification of science is inappropriate. Science is a wonderful and effective tool for gathering data, but as Dr. Frank Turek is fond of pointing out, science does not say anything – scientists do! This seemed to be Dr. Tour’s primary contention when he took the stage on Monday for the August Apologetics conference.
From the moment Dr. Tour stepped up to the podium, he was electric. He spoke with an obvious passion for chemistry, a field in which he is a prominent figure. Mouths dropped as he described brilliant advancements in biochemistry as well as the beauty and sophistication of the “simple cell”. The technical aspect of the presentation left the audience in awe and, at least in my case, considerable confusion. However, there was no confusion about his point – The more we understand about the mechanisms of biology and chemistry, the less able we are to explain their origins. Scientists, according to Dr. Tour, who claim that science can explain origins (let alone disprove theism) have gone well beyond the evidence.
Dr. Tour’s criticism of “unjustified extrapolation” by scientists reminded me of a quote by the scientist and contrarian, David Berlinski:
“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 ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.” – David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion
It seems to me, therefore, that many in the sciences reject theism for ideological and philosophical reasons, not for scientific ones.
Is there any scientific evidence for God?
We have seen that the critics of theism have, in many cases, gone beyond the evidence in statements about the relationship between God and science, but has science given us any positive evidence FOR God’s existence? I believe emphatically that it has. Time and space to not permit me to develop these arguments to the extent that they deserve, but I will briefly cover two major ways in which scientific evidence supports theism.
Discoveries in cosmology: The best scientific evidence now supports the view that our universe had a beginning. The theological implications of this are inescapable. If the universe (being composed of time, space and matter) began to exist, then it follows that whatever caused the universe must be timeless, space-less and immaterial. These are the attributes of a theistic God. Here are a few scientific discoveries that support an absolute beginning to space-time:
- The “red-shift” of distant galaxies: Light, like sound, travels in waves. When an object is moving away from us, it appears red because the light waves are stretched out. Conversely, light moving towards us appears blue because the waves are compressed. The red shift observed in distant galaxies shows us that the universe is expanding and we can extrapolate from the whole of our observations that the universe was once condensed into a very small initial point.
- Cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB): Present everywhere in space, CMB is the residual heat of creation predicted by the big bang theory and discovered in 1964 by Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias. Read more about CMB and its implications here.
- The 2nd law of thermodynamics: Simply put, this law states that, as energy is transferred, more and more of it is wasted. What this means for our universe is that it is running out of usable energy and will eventually end in heat death. If the universe were eternal in the past, this “death” would have already occurred. If the amount of time in the past were infinite, we would have run out of energy by now according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Therefore, the universe is not eternal in the past, but had a beginning.
Cosmic fine-tuning: Science supports the teleological argument for God’s existence. That is, science provides evidence that our universe is inconceivably fine-tuned for our existence. We have identified a number of fundamental constants in our universe that, if slightly altered, would make life impossible. What is the explanation of these initial conditions? One formulation of the teleological argument suggests that there are really only three; chance, necessity or design. Again, space does not permit a full treatment of this argument, but here is a brief overview:
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance or design.
- It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
- There is nothing about the laws of nature that require the initial conditions to be what they are.
- The odds that the initial conditions of the universe occurred by chance alone are extremely low. Roger Penrose has estimated that the odds of the low entropy state of the universe occurring by chance are 1:10(10) (123). This number is so unimaginably great that chance alone is not a credible explanation for the initial conditions.
- Therefore, it is due to design.
Atheism vs science?
Science, as we have seen, is often used to discredit religious belief. However, it is rarely asked if Atheism is compatible with science. Though most of us uncritically accept that it is, it will by my goal in this section to challenge this presupposition. I believe Atheism has a number of logical consequences that are problematic for doing science. To explain, science rests on assumptions that only make sense if God exists! I will focus here on two examples of this – rationality and free will.
- Rationality: To do science, we must assume that our faculties of reason are reliable. However, if atheistic materialism is correct, then our minds are the result of mindless, unguided chemical processes fully governed by the laws of physics. All of our thoughts are the result of complex chemistry in our brains. How then can we justify believing anything our minds tell us – including that God does not exist? If there is no immaterial reality, it follows that our minds only give the appearance of reasoning. Chemicals themselves, do not reason, they simply obey the laws of physics. Therefore, atheistic materialism undermines the reliability of our cognitive faculties.
- Free will: Similarly, we must assume that our thoughts, actions and research are undertaken freely. But if atheistic materialism is true, we are fully material, and therefore, fully determined. “DNA just is and we dance to its music” says Richard Dawkins. If this is the case, then our beliefs are not the result of logical deduction from reason or evidence, they are the result of a deterministic process that rules out the ability to know anything objectively. Consequently, any materialist who makes a ‘truth claim’ contradicts himself. Thus, if atheism is true, there is no reason to believe it.
Or am I wrong? Let me know in the comments.
[Editorial Note] It is not my intention to conflate Atheism and atheistic materialism. I acknowledge that not all Atheists are also materialists. However, I think materialism is the inevitable outcome if Atheism is taken to its logical conclusion. This requires some explaining and will be addressed in a future blog entry. And, as ever, I use a capital “A” in Atheism to describe someone who has the positive belief that “no god exists”.
You can watch Dr. Tour’s presentation HERE.
NEILLology 
7 responses to “God vs Science, Dr. Jim Tour and more August Apologetics”
Dr Sean Carroll, in a debate against Dr William Lane Craig, explains at length why God is not a scientific theory, both under philosophies of science and empirically.
In the philosophy of science, a good model or theory is one that makes specific predictions. However, God can be used to make any prediction you want. “Explanations” like ‘God plan’ or specifically Abrahamic “explanations” like original sin, used in conjunction with ‘mysterious ways’ and ‘omnipotence’ can explain any observation — even hypothetical ones that you haven’t actually observed (and would actually be wrong). For example, me being in a car accident yesterday and me arriving home safely can both be ‘predicted’ by an omnipotent God with a mysterious plan. That violates scientific thinking.
But, if you want to get empirical, and tie God down to a specific prediction, you find that a number of the constants are unnecessary. Entropy in the early universe is one of Carroll’s go to: for human life, entropy is actually a lot higher in the early universe than was necessary, and this is wasteful. If you feel yourself ready to say that we don’t know God’s plan and therefore it might not be wasteful, read the previous paragraph again. Also, ponder this: if we don’t know God’s plan we don’t know we are the goals of that plan, and therefore we don’t know that the universe is tuned for us (or, in fact, that anything is designed to a purpose). On the flip side, if we do know humanity is God’s goal, reconsider the point about entropy.
The whole debate is an interesting listen and has more content than I am going to repeat here. So, here’s a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8
Enjoy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Allallt, thanks for sharing. Watched this debate a couple of years ago, actually.
I am not sure how your point about the philosophy of science is relevant to what I have argued above. I am not proposing God as a scientific theory here. I am saying, however, that certain discoveries in the sciences have had significant theological implications.
LikeLike
I appreciate that you think certain observations have theological implications. However, I think those ‘theological implications’ are that theologians have to get to bending both the observations and their theology — not that the observations imply any validity to theology.
And that is the reason the philosophical question is relevant. Can you think of a single observation in science (or any discipline) that makes you doubt God? Suffering? Evolution (both biological and cosmic)? Anything? Probably not, because the theology is flexible and — as Carrol says in the debate — “not well defined”.
In my initial comment I mentioned the appearance that entropy was too high in the early universe (an empirical observation against God). I also mentioned all the excuses you might offer, and redirected you to other parts of the comments for each. This time, let’s have a brief look at ‘Fine Tuning’. Here’s a quote from my blog, showing that the idea of “Fine Tuning” and “Fundamental constants” are very naive concepts:
“These might not be fundamental laws, and the fine tuning problem might go away with a better understanding. This has already happened once. The expansion rate of the universe used to be one of these ‘finely tuned’ parameters, with a probability against it being what it is of 1 in 1060. But, if you derive the expansion rate of the universe from General Relativity instead, it becomes a physical necessity (i.e. probability of 1 in 1).”
So, this “observation” that certain parameters are ‘finely tuned’ do not actually hold up to scrutiny.
LikeLike
Yikes… I think there are several problems with this objection. But first off, I didn’t see your reply back in December, so my apologies for the tardy response.
– You say “I think those ‘theological implications’ are that theologians have to get to bending both the observations and their theology — not that the observations imply any validity to theology.”.
(1) Even if this were true, why does this not commit the genetic fallacy? The origin of a belief is simply not relevant to the voracity of the arguments made in defense of that belief.
(2) What is your evidence that WLC, myself, or other Christian Apologists are twisting our observations or theology? The Jewish (and later Christian) understanding of God always cohered with the modern data given to us by fine-tuning. But even many who took a secular approach, like Aristotle, articulated the idea of a necessary “unmoved mover” who sans time and has the characteristics of a personal designer. These are not new concepts in religious thought… The Christian concept of God has NOT shifted in any significant way. Sure, some non-essential Christian beliefs have changed according to the evidence; scientific as well as textual. And it was usually a Christian who bore the evidence that a certain belief was incorrect. But isn’t this the exact virtue that atheists are always extolling scientists for!? Possessing beliefs that are not fixed, but that change according to the evidence? This is the opposite of “twisting” evidence.
– But maybe your point is that God is unfalsifiable since you go on to say “Can you think of a single observation in science (or any discipline) that makes you doubt God? Suffering? Evolution (both biological and cosmic)? Anything? Probably not, because the theology is flexible and — as Carrol says in the debate — “not well defined”.”.
(1) I have not positioned God as a scientific theory, so I think the objection misses the point. I have offered a syllogism whose premises are supported by science and philosophy and whose conclusion is that the universe is designed. Similarly, I have argued that there must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial and uncaused first cause a la the KCA. Again I have defended the premises of that argument with science, but the conclusion follows by order of logic. It’s not the case that I explain a natural occurrence by saying “God did it” as if he is a mechanism or scientific theory. BUT…
(2) Sure. In fact, I was once convinced that suffering, and then scientific observation, disproved God. Accordingly, I was not a believer during that time. But it was on closer study of that exact same evidence that I became utterly convinced that Atheism is impossible and, therefore, that God must exist. Is there anything that would convince me now – as always, I’m committed to following the evidence wherever it leads… But I think there is more than enough evidence already available to conclude that Atheism is false because it is a logical contradiction (see atheism vs science above). Something that is logically contradictory, by definition, cannot be true.
(2) What do you mean by “cosmic evolution”?
– You say “In my initial comment I mentioned the appearance that entropy was too high in the early universe (an empirical observation against God). I also mentioned all the excuses you might offer, and redirected you to other parts of the comments for each. This time, let’s have a brief look at ‘Fine Tuning’. Here’s a quote from my blog, showing that the idea of “Fine Tuning” and “Fundamental constants” are very naive concepts:
“These might not be fundamental laws, and the fine tuning problem might go away with a better understanding. This has already happened once. The expansion rate of the universe used to be one of these ‘finely tuned’ parameters, with a probability against it being what it is of 1 in 1060. But, if you derive the expansion rate of the universe from General Relativity instead, it becomes a physical necessity (i.e. probability of 1 in 1).”
So, this “observation” that certain parameters are ‘finely tuned’ do not actually hold up to scrutiny.”
(1) Thanks for offering some possible excuses (btw, some, by that I mean ‘I’, might call that a “straw man” argument, hahaha) but once again, you miss the point. I didn’t make any predictions because I didn’t offer God as a scientific theory (see above). In fact, I didn’t even broach the subject of Christian theism at all (which is what your previous comment was about)! I only offered an argument for theism in general and against atheism.
(2) What do you mean by “if you derive the expansion rate from general relativity”? General relativity is just a descriptor of reality – it’s not a thing from which you derive something else. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you’re saying that Fine-Tuning is due to physical necessity, I would want to know what your evidence is for that belief. But even if that were the case with the expansion rate… GR is another point of order in the universe that is very difficult to explain in an atheistic framework. I.e. why is there order instead of chaos? Why is the universe rationally intelligible?
(3) It actually isn’t clear to me what your specific objection is here. You seem to want to say that the universe is not fine-tuned at all. Is that your position?
(4) “the fine tuning problem might go away with a better understanding”. I admire your faith, but the issue here is not a lack of evidence. If the constants weren’t what they are, life (of any kind), stars, planets, and even chemistry would not exist… And there is no order of logical inference to support the idea that the constants are what they are by physical necessity.
LikeLike
Is there any scientific evidence for God?
I must be honest that I have never heard a scientist say there is evidence for the Christian god ( presuming this is the god you are referencing?)
However, I would be very interested to read what evidence you have. Please present it, and if you have links to scientific sites(data) support any claims you make I would love to read them also.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Arkenaten – What would you consider scientific evidence for God?
I use scientific data to support the premises in my arguments for God’s existence. That is the role of science in philosophy.
Each of the evidences below are referenced in this entry and I believe that each of them have theological implications taken with the cosmological and teleological arguments.
– The observable red-shift of distant galaxies
– The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB)
– The 2nd law of thermodynamics
– The fine tuning of the fundamental constants
LikeLike
Well, what is generally regarded as scientific evidence for anything?
Try this: Substitute another word for ”God” (table, chair, fossils, etc. That sort of thing) and proceed using the same criteria to demonstrate evidence for it.
This seems reasonable, don’t you?
I am not interested in ”arguments” for your god, but evidence.
None of the examples you have provided are evidence for a god – whatever the term god may mean – and certainly not the Christian god.
LikeLike