Why Should a Scientist
Believe in God?
Templeton/A.S.A. Lecture, Baylor University, March 26, 2004
Loren Haarsma
Physics & Astronomy Department, Calvin College
(Cartoon by Berkeley Breathed, Bloom County)
When someone asks, “Why should
I believe in God?” they could mean:
1. What evidence is there that God
exists?
2. What difference does it make if God
exists? What does religion add to
your life?
Scientific study of the natural world often
provokes a response of wonder and awe
but seldom provokes sustained religious belief.
Problems with even the most convincing
“scientific proofs for God’s existence ”
1. What is scientifically inexplicable now may not
be so in the future.
2. Even if something is scientifically inexplicable,
that does not prove it is supernatural.
3. God could put much more obvious and
ubiquitous “proofs” in nature, but has not.
4. Most scientists who do believe in God have
other reasons for belief which they consider far
more important.
5. Belief in God’s existence is not the gospel.
What sorts of evidence prompt
Christians to believe in God?
•
The size, majesty, intricacy of the world.
•
•
Historical evidence.
Narrative / philosophical coherence and
credibility.
The experience and testimony of fellow
believers --- especially family and friends.
•
•
Personal experience of a Personal God,
encountered through prayer, worship,
scripture, and living a life of faith.
• Hasn’t science disproved religion?
• Isn’t “God” an unnecessary hypothesis?
• Isn’t faith the opposite of reason?
Questions like these are sometimes raised
as arguments for why a person should not
believe in God; so they deserve a careful
answer.
How can a scientist and believe in
God? Isn’t science inherently atheistic?
• There are certain philosophical (metascientific) beliefs about the world which all
scientists share, which make it possible to do
science.
• These beliefs about nature are not restricted
to atheists; they are compatible with many
religious worldviews, including Christianity.
Some “worldview” assumptions are
NOT helpful for science
(Bill Waterson, Calvin and Hobbes)
Some worldview assumptions
necessary to do science:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Events in natural world typically have (immediate)
natural causes.
Linear (not circular) view of time
These natural causes and effects have regular,
repeatable, universal patterns.
We can, at least partly, understand these patterns
Logic and theory are not enough; experiments are
needed.
Science is worth doing.
Worldview assumptions
necessary for science
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Natural events have
natural causes.
Linear view of time
Causes and effects
have regular,
universal patterns.
We can understand
these patterns.
Experiments are
needed.
Science is worth
doing.
Christian
beliefs
1. Creation is not pantheistic.
2. Time is linear, not circular.
3. God is not capricious. God
can do miracles, but usually
governs in consistent ways.
4. We are made in God’s
image, suitable for this
world.
5. God’s creativity is free; we
are limited and fallen.
6. Nature is God’s creation; we
are called to study it.
Isn’t God an “unnecessary hypothesis?
• Every worldview must hypothesize a
fundamental basis for reality which simply,
necessarily (not contingently) exists.
• Atheists invest matter with certain “godlike”
properties: self-existence, eternal existence.
• Is the fundamental basis of reality personal or
impersonal? Which hypothesis better
explains the full range of facts? For example:
•The apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature.
• The existence of our religious sentiments.
• Many humans, throughout the ages, have
claimed to encounter a supernatural Person.
These do not prove theism, but they do seriously
blunt the Occam’s Razor argument.
Isn’t Faith the opposite of Reason?
• Many people use the word “faith” to mean
“believing in some idea despite lack of
evidence or despite contradictory evidence.
• This bears little resemblance to what
Christians mean by the word “Faith”
– Trust in God’s character and ability.
– Acting “in good faith” towards God and
others.
– Being faithful in difficult circumstances.
(Consider the example of Abraham….)
Isn’t Faith the opposite of Reason?
• The opposite of Reason is Irrationality.
• The opposite of Skepticism is Gullibility.
• The opposite of Doubt is Certainty.
• The opposite of Faith is Unbelief.
– Both are deliberate choices about how
to live your life.
– Both can be chosen because of a lot of
evidence, little evidence, or even
despite evidence.
Isn’t science the only way
to get reliable knowledge?
• Other commons sources of knowledge:
– Historical information
– Legal method (eye witness, etc.)
– Personal experience
– Social knowledge
• All those are relevant to religion, plus:
– Revealed knowledge
– Voice on conscience ; wisdom of others.
To answer a question, you need appropriate
evidence (which is not always scientific)
(Bill Waterson, Calvin and Hobbes)
Scientific knowledge does not
fulfill religious needs
(cartoon by Sidney Harris)
Isn’t science the only way
to get reliable knowledge?
• Every day we make decisions based
on other types of knowledge, which
we consider reliable.
• We even make life-long commitments
based on other types of knowledge.
Isn’t there as much reason to believe in
alien abductions as to believe in God?
• Both cite evidence of personal experience.
• Both admit alternative explanations.
• The persuasiveness of some evidence
(which might admit multiple
explanations) depends a great deal on
the credibility of the hypothesis.
(“Bungling abducting aliens” seems unlikely.)
• Does the “God hypothesis” seem
unlikely?
• Aren’t all religions essentially the same?
• How can any religion be true when there
are so many?
• Why isn’t God more obvious?
• Why is there so much evil if God exists?
Questions like these cause some people
(not just scientists) to decide that the “God
hypothesis” is unlikely.
At their core, aren’t all religions
essentially the same?
• The major religions do have a great deal
of agreement about moral issues.
• But each religion has a unique set of
answers to questions like:
– What is the fundamental nature of the divine?
– What is the ultimate fate of human beings?
– How can we live in harmony with the divine?
• Logically, at most one religion could be
correct in its answers to those questions.
How can any religion be true when
there are so many?
• When confronting a scientific puzzle, do
you give up and say, “How can one
scientific explanation be true when there
are so many hypotheses?”
If God exists, why isn’t it obvious?
If God exists, why isn’t it obvious?
• God’s primary goal is not mere belief in his
existence.
• Based on what we know about human
nature – and based on some examples we
see in the Bible – it seems reasonable that
God proving his existence may be
counter-productive towards higher goals.
Why doesn’t God
forcefully destroy evil?
• Christianity offers a unique answer to this
question, but it’s a shocking and
scandalous answer: the incarnation,
death, and resurrection of Jesus.
• God’s plan of action for defeating human
evil includes suffering as a victim and then
forgiving it – and inviting his followers to
do the same.
Does this sound like an
“unlikely hypothesis”?
How should someone investigate
the “God hypothesis”?
• Christians say that they primarily come to
know and believe in God through the
personal and social experience of God in
prayer, scripture, and worship.
To a scientist – or anyone else – I offer
this challenge:
if you want to test the “God hypothesis,”
you have to go where the evidence is.
What does religion add to your life?
• Each believer must
be ready to answer
this question from
his or her own life’s
experience.
• Context –– a bigger,
more beautiful, more
significant, eternal
context to absolutely
every part of my life
… including science.
…a bigger, more significant, beautiful,
eternal context to every part of life.
What does religion add to your life?
• Vertical component to life: everything I do
is part of my relationship with God.
• Enriched horizontal component to life:
every human I meet is a child of God,
someone who God wants me to love.
• God’s promises: who we are and what we
do in this life has eternal significance.
Can’t you be good without God?
Harvard Society of Fellows Declaration of Principles:
"You have been selected as a member of this society for your personal
prospect of serious achievement in your chosen field, and your promise
of notable contribution to knowledge and thought. That promise you
must redeem with your whole intellectual and moral force. You will
practice the virtues, and avoid the snares, of the scholar. You will be
courteous to your elders who have explored to the point from which
you may advance; and helpful to your juniors who will progress farther
by reason of your labors. Your aim will be knowledge and wisdom, not
the reflected glamour of fame. You will not accept credit that is due to
another, or harbor jealousy of an explorer who is more fortunate. You
will seek not a near but a distant objective, and you will not be satisfied
with what you may have done. All that you may achieve or discover
you will regard as a fragment of a larger pattern of the truth which from
the separate approaches every true scholar is striving to descry. To
these things, in joining the Society of Fellows, you dedicate yourself."