Suppose someone says to you, "My scientific training makes it difficult if not impossible to accept the teachings of Christianity. As a believer in evolution, I can't accept the Bibl's pre-scientific accounts of the origin of life." How would you respond?
You may not recognize the names Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, or Sam Harris, a popular atheist who frequently debates Christians—but it is certain that the rising generation will hear their arguments either in the world of academia or in the world of the Internet. These spokesmen, along with over fifty Internet websites devoted to talking Christians out of their faith, are making the argument that science in general, and evolutionary science in particular, has made belief in God unnecessary and obsolete. In The God Delusion, Dawkins goes much further. He argues that you cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold religious beliefs. He argues that the more intelligent, rational, and scientifically minded you are, the less you will be able to believe in God.
Why Is This Worldview So Enticing?
If we would be like Jesus, when we speak the truth, we are to accompany it with compassionate love. To get at why this argument is growing in popularity, I want to ask you a question. Have you ever been told you are stupid? I have, and I’m not sure anything ever said to me hurt inside as much. No one wants to be called, “dumb” or “naïve.” Everyone treats those who actually believe old wives’ tales with scorn. Educated people ridicule the superstitious. Modern people disdain the beliefs of ancient mythology—that lightning was a weapon of Zeus, wind was caused by Njord (the Norse wind god), rain happened at the whim of the Navajo rain God, Tonenili. No one wants to be laughed at and belittled as comparable to those who believed the earth was flat. Only morons ignore science. Being valued and respected is at the core of being human. In view of this component of human nature, let’s observe statements made by Richard Dawkins:
- “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane”
- "Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun."
- "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
The rising generation hears an open and shut case—no one with any brains actually believes in Christianity and the Bible; it is an irrational leap of blind faith. But is that true? Let’s think more carefully.
Dawkins Misunderstands the Terms Science, Faith, and Logic
1. He ignores the definition of the word “science.” The Oxford dictionary says, “Science is knowledge about the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world.” It is universally recognized that the laws of science are based on repeatable experiments or observations in the physical world that describe or predict natural phenomena. At sea level water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit every single time. Science, by definition, deals only with empirical evidence from the physical world. It is, therefore, NOT equipped to evaluate the existence or nonexistence of a being outside this physical world. Science—the study of the natural world—is confined to the empirical study of the NATURAL world--not the SUPERNATURAL world. Dawkins and other advocates of naturalism can’t prove that there is no spiritual world; they just ASSUME that there can’t be a supernatural world. But let’s think about their logic. If I assume there can’t be a land called, England, but confine my search for England to American soil, I will conclude, scientifically that there is no England. I might even say, “Scientific research has proven that belief in England is a myth.” That is the same fallacious reasoning of naturalism’s adherents. They search for God only in the physical world (America) when he exists in the spiritual world (Europe). Then, they declare He doesn't exist.
2. Dawkins incorrectly defines the word “faith.” Since scientific phenomena are, by definition, confined to the physical world and cannot prove either the existence of God or the non-existence of God, some Christians mistakenly think Christianity is not therefore, logically plausible. They, along with Richard Dawkins, confuse scientific proof with logical plausibility. Dawkins’ statement, “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence" is utter nonsense. The Christian church doesn’t believe what it does IN SPITE OF reason, but BECAUSE OF reason. Peter commands Christians, always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you (1 Pet 3:15). Both the Greek word for defense (APO-LOGIA, from which we get the word apologetics) and the word used here for reason (LOGOS) contain the Greek term LOGOS from which we get the term logic. Christians do not crucify their brains to become Christ-followers. Christians must freely admit that no one can prove the existence of God scientifically. But scientific proof and logical plausibility are not interchangeable concepts. As we will see throughout this series, it is far more logical to believe in God, the resurrection, and the infallibility of the Bible than not to.
3. Dawkins ignores what science DOES reveal to us. The order of the natural world tells us there must be an orderer. Here is an experiment to conduct with your child, grandchild, or other member of the rising generation. While sitting in the living room, point to any object in the room and ask him, “Do you think this was MADE by someone or RANDOMLY CAME INTO EXISTENCE BY CHANCE?” In my living room, it would be, “Do you think this piano just happened because it evolved on its own or that someone designed and built it?” “Do you think this lamp just accidentally came together because a lightbulb and brass pole just happened to get blown together in a junk yard with some electrical wire, or that someone designed and created this lamp?”
Men, you know where I am going with this, but the kids don’t. We need to help them see that EVERYTHING ABOUT HUMAN EXPERIENCE tells us that IF WE SEE ORDER anywhere in the world around us, THERE WAS AN ORDERER. If they are walking in the woods and see a treehouse, they know that someone built it. If they pick up your cell phone, they know they are looking at something that was intelligently designed. If they walk into the classroom at school and the warm-up activity for that class is written on the board, they know someone wrote those words on the board. The most logical scientific truth of all is that if we see order in this physical world, it is because there is an orderer. Paul tells us that this divine, logical understanding—that when you see anything ordered in this world you know it has to have been created—is written on the hearts of all human beings: What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made (Rom 1:19-20). Science, which leads us to see the order in the universe by postulating scientific laws, not only does NOT disprove the existence of God, it proves that, logically, there has to be a being outside of the physical world who designed it. In fact, the Bible says that this principle of logic is so clear that every human being knows there is a creator. We are going to see throughout this series that there is an irrefutable, logical case for believing in God, Christianity, and the infallibility of the Bible. So, our loved ones are bound to ask—“If the case is so compelling, why doesn’t everyone believe?” The question, like all of the questions of the rising generation, deserves an answer!
Helping Our Loved Ones Understand the Origin of Unbelief
Let’s return to Paul’s case that the order of nature proves there is a creator. Only an extremely powerful force could lead intelligent humans to deny the reality that every example of order in this world teaches: order can ONLY come from an orderer. What force could possibly be so potent? Sinful human nature. All humans are born with a sinful nature that suppresses the truth about God. Paul writes,
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, WHO BY THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS SUPPRESS THE TRUTH. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. FOR ALTHOUGH THEY KNEW GOD, THEY DID NOT HONOR HIM AS GOD OR GIVE THANKS TO HIM, BUT THEY BECAME FUTILE IN THEIR THINKING, AND THEIR FOOLISH HEARTS WERE DARKENED (Rom 1:18-22).
Paul teaches that man’s sinful nature causes him to suppress the truth about God’s existence as our creator lest we recognize our accountability to Him. The picture behind the word, suppress is that of holding down a spring. Nature unremittingly leaps out to all humans with arrows pointing to its creator, one who is eternal, i.e. outside the created order, and one who is divine, i.e. one who is God. All are given this knowledge of God. But because our autonomous sinful nature refuses to honor God by surrendering to him as the one to whom we owe obedience, and because we refuse to give thanks to God as the one on whom we depend to sustain life every second—our foolish hearts suppress the truth that he is our creator. In my view we absolutely must help the rising generation grasp this explanation for why so many smart people resist the overpowering logic that supports belief in God, Christianity, and the infallibility of the Bible. BUT, we must do it carefully and with great humility! Perhaps a more important question than why non-believers reject belief in God and the Bible, is asking, “Why do I no longer suppress the knowledge of God as my sinful nature once compelled me to do?” Just like my unbelieving friend I too was infected with the deadly, blinding, fatal disease of sin. If I see biblical truth now it is ONLY because of God’s grace to ME.
Paul is abundantly clear about this reality in Ephesians 2:1-5).
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the sinful nature and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved.
We must instill into the hearts of our believing loved ones a spirit of brokenness and humility, and grief over the way sin blinds those around us to the life that is in Christ and to the astonishing love of God. Christians, young and old alike, seek to sow seeds of doubt into the false arguments held by the precious unbelievers around us—but we do it not in a spirit of or condemnation—YOU DON’T BELIEVE BECAUSE OF YOUR SIN—but in a spirit of brokenness, “Lord, in your grace, please help my friend see the truth that I can see only because you have made me spiritually alive.”
The Logical Plausibility of Faith in God
As I mentioned earlier, I believe it is wise to admit that there are no proofs for God that will convince all rational persons. But here are a few logical arguments for Biblical views the accumulated weight of which is significant!
1. Naturalism is not logically tenable. The wonderful rise of science over the past centuries has enriched humankind immeasurably. Mankind has been fulfilling the task assigned to it by God—discovering and reaching the potential God built into his creation to enrich human life. Science is wonderful—and Christian scientists like Faraday, Kepler, and Newton have led the way in discovering the order of the universe as revealed by scientific laws. But valuing the scientific discovery of the natural world is very different from embracing naturalism. The ism at the end of the word makes this a worldview that believes that natural causes are sufficient to explain everything in our world. The obvious flaw of naturalism is its inability to answer the question, “Where did this natural world come from?” There are only two logical answers. Either 1) matter is eternal—it has always existed, or 2) an intelligent being outside the universe created it. Science, especially the laws of thermodynamics, overwhelmingly refutes the argument that matter is eternal. The only viable explanation is that the natural world had a creator. So, you will often hear advocates of naturalism say they believe in self-creation—the universe created itself. But this is a logical impossibility. In order to create, you have to exist. Therefor creation would have to exist before it existed—a complete nonsense statement. The only logical explanation for the origin of the universe is that a being outside the natural order created it.
2. The Big Band theory. There is much scientific evidence that the universe is expanding outwardly from a single point. Stephen Hawking, writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang” (The Nature of Time and Space). Something had to make the big bang happen. Atheist Sam Harris writes, “Even if we accepted that our universe simply had to be created by an intelligent being, this would not suggest that this being is the God of the Bible.” Harris is right, but if we are looking for a clue in science that there is something outside the natural order, the Big Bang theory is very weighty.
3. The Cosmic Welcome Mat. This scientific evidence for creation is stated well by scientist, Francis Collins in his book, The Language of God.
When you look from the perspective of a scientist at the universe, it looks as if it knew we were coming. There are 15 constants—the gravitational constant, various constants about the strong and weak nuclear force, etc.—that have precise values. If any one of these constants was off by even one part in a million, or in some cases by one part in a million million, the universe could not have come to the point where we see it. Matter would not have been able to coalesce, there would have been no galaxy, stars, planets, or people.
This has been called the “Fine-Tuning Argument.” It must be powerful based on those who have tried to refute it. For example, Dawkins argues, in The God Delusion that given the enormous number of universes existing over enormous amounts of time and space, it is inevitable that some of them are fine-tuned to sustain our kind of life. But Alvin Plantinga responds to Dawkins’ argument with an illustration of a man dealing himself twenty straight hands of four aces in a poker game. As his companions reach for their six-shooters the poker player says, “I know it looks suspicious! But what if there is an infinite succession of universes, so that for any possible distribution of cards for poker hands, there is one universe where this possibility happens. We just happen to find ourselves in a universe where I always deal myself four aces without cheating.” This argument would have no effect on the other poker players. It is technically possible via the laws of probability that he was not cheating—but unreasonable to conclude that he hadn’t. It is far more plausible to conclude that the perfect fine-tuning of the universe for human life reveals that it was created for us.
4. The Concept of Moral Obligation. It is common today to hear people say, “No one should impose their moral views on another, because everyone has the right to find truth inside him or herself.” A great way to plant seeds of doubt in our friend’s mind about the veracity of this bold assertion is the ask, “Are there any people in the world who are doing things you believe are wrong—things that they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their moral behavior?” Most people will answer, “Of course—genocide, rape, murder, racial injustice.” At that point, we can respond, “Doesn’t that mean you DO believe that there is some sort of moral standard that people should abide by regardless of their personal convictions.”
One of the strongest arguments against naturalism—that this physical world is all that exists—is the undeniable, spiritual component of life—the importance of love, our admiration of valor, the desire for meaning, the inherent sense that some things are right and others wrong. Modern evolutionary psychology seeks to define these spiritual qualities as mere chemical reactions; be we know that love for instance is more than that. Advocates of naturalism argue that altruistic people, those who act unselfishly and cooperatively survived in greater numbers than those who were selfish and cruel. Therefore, altruistic genes were passed down to us and now the majority of us feel that unselfish behavior is “right.” Tim Keller responds to this flawed argument:
Today, we believe that sacrificing time, money, emotion, and even life—especially for someone “not of our kind” or tribe—is right. If we see a total stranger fall in the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if the person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection? Such people would have been less likely to survive and pass on their genes. On the basis of strict evolutionary naturalism, that kind of altruism should have died out of the human race a long time ago (The Reason for God).
Evolutionists’ efforts to show the reproductive benefits of altruism (e.g. getting better mates) fail to account for our motivation to practice altruistic acts when no one knows about them. Evolution, therefore, cannot account for the origin of our moral feelings, let alone the fact that we all believe there are external standards by which moral feelings are to be evaluated.
So, what do you say to someone what says, “My scientific training makes it difficult if not impossible to accept the teachings of Christianity. As a believer in evolution, I can’t accept the Bible’s prescientific accounts of the origin of life.” Based on what we’ve just observed, here is an idea. You might answer by saying, “That’s interesting. May I ask a question? How would you define the word science?”…. "So you would say that science is the empirical study of the laws that apply to the physical world?”.... “Do you think that most religions teach that God is a physical or supernatural being?” (They answer supernatural) …. “So, if God is a supernatural being, how can science, the study of the physical world, disprove anything about a being who exists in the supernatural realm?”
For Further Prayerful Thought:
- Why would you say the view that science has made belief in God unnecessary and obsolete is so attractive to the rising generation?
- How is Richard Dawkins’ argument based upon a flawed understanding of science, faith, and logic?
- What evidence do you think is the most powerful to persuade others that faith in God is plausible?
- If someone said to you, “My scientific training makes it difficult if not impossible to accept the teachings of Christianity. As a believer in evolution, I can’t accept the Bible’s prescientific accounts of the origin of life,” what would be your strategy to ask them questions that might lead them to doubt that science undermines what the Bible teaches?
