If you don’t know everything that’s knowable, how can you say for sure there is no God?
The existence of a course whose primary purpose is to speak of the ethics of
science demonstrates the extent to which morality has entered into the
scientific realm. Because religion often includes a moral code for the conduct
of human affairs, it is not altogether unbelievable that the question of
religion's role in science comes to light now and again. One aspect of the
discussion of religion and science focuses on the concept of their co-existence:
Can one be a disciple of both theology and science without compromising one's
belief in the other? or, Is it entirely impossible for one to be devout
followers of both fields? It seems unlikely that one should have to choose
between the two subjects. I find little reason why one cannot have claims to
both science and theology. The Christian belief contains perspectives which may
come into friction with certain scientific principles. However, I believe that
it is possible for one to find a happy medium between the two fields and not
feel a sense of disloyalty to either. Although I have much to learn still of the
technicalities of science and the mysteries of Christianity, I believe I have
thus far been able to find my medium and still remain happy.
The arguments against Christianity, notably the existence of a God and
creationism, are manifold. A psychology doctoral candidate, explaining her view
to Professor C. W. Francis Everitt, argued the following:
[T]he human race has been around for 5 million years. It has tried many
religions. Christianity originated among a few fringe people in a minor Roman
province a mere 2,000 years ago. Isn't it really rather implausible that so
late, after so many wrong trials, suddenly Truth should appear?
Her question is an understandable one. Admittedly, it does appear quite
convenient that after a myriad of "wrong trials" a correct belief system, with
God at its forefront, should "suddenly" emerge. Moreover, scientists fail to see
any proof that a supernatural being even exists. Some, though not necessarily
scientists, contend that the belief in God functions not as a means of achieving
eternal life, but as a way of feeling good about one's self by following a code
of ethics. What occurs is a debasement of religion: it becomes more of a
psychological thing than a spiritual one. Because of the 'questionable' upstart
of Christianity and the debate over the existence of the supernatural, many in
the field of science find Christianity, and religion as a whole, to be an
unreliable foundation upon which to rest all other beliefs. Supernatural
explanations of scientific phenomena are considered superfluous.
Traditional faith in religion is seen as "an option only for those who are
willing to check their brains at the church-house door. A large majority in the
scientific realm hold these assumptions to be true. Followers of both
disciplines are caught between two conflicting worlds; to give full allegiance
to one pursuit would mean to compromise one's belief in the other, an impossible
option for those involved. Being a scientist and at the same time a true
believer in the workings of God is viewed as nothing more than intellectual
suicide. Additionally, there are those in the theological field who feel science
is as detrimental to religious faith as religion is to scientific theories. For
those that take the Bible literally, which is 35 percent of the American
population, creationism is the believed theory of the origin of life. According
to a strict literal interpretation, the world was created in six days, man on
the sixth day.
Therefore, most creationists believe that the earth is not
billions of years old, as science suggests, but mere thousands as inferred by
the Bible. To believe in the theory of evolution would mean denying that what
one reads in Genesis is absolute truth. It seems that the pious person must
leave his or her spirituality at the laboratory entrance. More than intellectual
suicide, the compromising of religious views would lead to eternal damnation.
All this would lead one to believe that Christian scientists and
science-believing clergymen are non-existent. Of course, this is not the case.
C. W. Francis Everitt, professor of physics at Stanford University, defines
himself as both a physicist and a Christian. He finds that it is possible for
the two to work hand in hand. Often, he asserts, science tells one how things
work while religion tells one why. Additionally, Everitt finds that both
theology and science have characteristics that are reflective of the other
discipline:
Judaeo-Christian belief has an intense rooting in reason, while science involves
acts of faith at various levels, and may, though this is more controversial,
bring to those who practise it, whether believers or not, experiences that are
inherently religious.
In his article, "Faith and Mystery in Science, Reason and Skepticism in
Religion," Everitt attempts to describe how remarkably similar the two
disciplines are. After considering the comment made by the psychology doctoral
student, Everitt realized the following:
In 5 million years humans have tried many ways of interpreting Nature. Modern
science originated among a few fringe people in war-torn Europe a mere 400
years. Isn't it really rather implausible, etc....? And in their earliest
beginnings both systems, science and Christianity, are equal in precariousness
and particularity.
Everitt argues that faith in religion is just as 'risky' as faith in the
authorities of science. If one condemns a scientist for his religious belief, he
should condemn him also for his sometimes blind-faith in science. As Everitt
puts it, scientists have what he calls "conformist faith." Scientists, he points
out, often accept "on authority a multitude of things [they] cannot test."
Furthermore, Professor Everitt follows what he calls a "rational inconsistency":
if one set of facts makes one believe one thing and another set of facts another
thing and the two do not coincide, it is not a reason to abandon both entities
altogether. Everitt finds that some scientists are "all too confident that they
have all the answers." He reassures that "it's not that science doesn't have any
answers" but that religion may be able to provide some answers that science
fails to give. Francis Collins, professor of internal medicine and human
genetics at the University of Michigan Medical School, follows in the footsteps
of his predecessors in defending the existence of God. Like St. Thomas Aquinas
and St. Augustine, Collins uses rational techniques in explaining how the
presence of a higher being is perfectly plausible.
Perhaps the most familiar everyday evidence... is our own innate sense of what's
right and wrong... Where did that come from?... [T]hat is the perfect sort of
evidence one would look for if there is a creator who is himself inherently good
and who wishes to have relationship with us.
Collins argues that since God is supernatural there can be no scientific proof
from the natural world supporting either stance. Therefore, he finds atheism to
be an entirely illogical position:
"Imagine that all the information about the universe that is knowable is in this
circle," Collins says, rising to draw on a chalkboard. "Where would the
knowledge of a given individual fit? Even the most sure-of-himself scientist
will say, I know that much," Collins says, adding an exceedingly small circle
inside the big circle. "Suppose the information that is necessary to appreciate
the existence of a creator is not in your little circle? The atheist takes the
stance that even though my sphere of information is small, it is sufficient to
exclude the presence of God. And that just doesn't seem to me a logical way to
interpret the situation."
Because we as humans do not know all there is to know, no one can say for sure
that there is no God. Collins is able to prove the plausibility of the
supernatural. However, the transition from plausibility to belief takes "a step
of faith. You cannot reason yourself all the way into faith; you can reason
yourself right up to the threshold, but then you've got to step across." Collins
speaks of a faith which some scientists find to be "intellectual suicide." But,
as Everitt points out, scientists often have to rely on faith in the things they
cannot see, touch, or explain. The two are similar in such ways that to shoot
down one would mean to shoot down the other as well. Perhaps God had it in his
ultimate plan to have "Truth" appear late after "so many wrong trials." Perhaps
God was behind the mechanisms of evolution. Or perhaps the creation story in
Genesis is literally true. Regardless, one can find contentment in the worlds of
both science and religion without compromise. No one has to choose one over the
other. I agree with Francis Collins' statement that "[i]f one comes to the
conclusion that [what he or she believes] is true, then to shy away from talking
about it is, perhaps, to commit intellectual suicide." I say spiritual suicide,
too.