Is Science a Belief System?--Professor Brian Cox

"We live on a world of wonders. A place of astonishing beauty and complexity. We have vast oceans and incredible weather. Giant mountains and breath-taking landscapes. If you think that this is all there is, that our planet exists in magnificent isolation, then you're wrong. We're part of a much wider ecosystem, that extends way beyond the top of our atmosphere.

As a physicist I'm fascinated by how the laws of nature that shaped all this, also shaped the worlds beyond our home planet. I think we're living through the greatest age of discovery our civilisation has known. We've voyaged to the farthest reaches of the Solar System. We've photographed strange new worlds, stood in unfamiliar landscapes, tasted alien air."--Professor Brian Cox.

These are the opening lines of the BBC award-winning documentary Wonders of the Solar System with Professor Brian Cox, physicist. It was aired last fall on Discovery Science Channel in five one-hour episodes and was recently re-aired on the same channel. That is how it wound up on my DVR.

I'm a sucker for shows like this because I have a grand curiosity and sense of wonder. I love this stuff. I could sit and watch it all day. Brian Cox comes across as a very likeable guy, someone with whom you could have great conversations in your living room after a polite dinner with the family. He's wonderful. He reminds me of Keanu Reeves--only with a high IQ and a British accent.

In the first episode he discusses the power and influence of the sun. In the opening segment he takes us to India to see a total eclipse of the same. The wonder he expresses in the scenes that follow as he explains what is about to happen and then witnesses it are echoed by the wonder that I feel whenever I have the opportunity to learn, understand, and experience the greatness and complexity of this creation in which we find ourselves. It is this sense of wonder that often lifts my heart and mind toward God in worshipful adoration.

Something Brian Cox says in the first episode, first segment, grabbed my attention. We are in the Indian city of Ayodhya, a city known to ancient Hindus as the Solar City. As Professor Cox introduces us to the locale and sets up the event that will follow he says this,

"Science is different to all the other systems of thought, the belief systems that have been practiced in this city for millennia, because you don't need faith in it. You can check that it works."

What he says affirms what I have thought for a long, long time. Many scientists view science as a "belief system." It is their religion, as it were. Science, to them, is more than just a method of inquiry by which truth is ascertained. Science is a belief system, one which replaces traditional religion and therefore cannot be compatible with it in any real sense.

But there is more than that in what he says. Not only does the statement reveal the inherent atheism in much modern scientific thinking (Cox is an atheist), it exposes a lack of understanding that Professor Cox shares with many Christians about the relationship between faith, science, and ultimate truth.

Science and theology are two perfectly compatible methods of inquiry into the truth about the nature of the universe around us. They are different methods, for sure, but (don't miss this) all truth is God's truth. Both science and theology operate on the bases of reason and logic. Both utilize faith. Both require thinking and education. There is poor science; there is junk science. There is poor theology; there is junk theology. The war between the two disciplines is unfortunate, unnecessary, and a detriment to knowledge and human advancement.

In spite of what Professor Cox asserts in the statement above, it is not exactly true that everything that science posits as truth is testable. There is an entire discipline of physics, for example, known as "theoretical physics." Theoretical physicists are some of my favorite people on Discovery Science. Their purpose, their passion even, is in thinking about and proposing new ideas to challenge old ones, new theories about the nature of our universe. Many, indeed most of these theories are untestable. There is some evidence for them, but as yet no proof. Some of these theories will be rejected immediately by most other physicists. Some will slowly gain acceptance. Some will eventually gain a wide enough acceptance to actually replace older theories, theories that have been proved false by newer facts and data. Belief in any of these theories requires faith.

So I am going to disagree with Professor Cox slightly and state that science is not a belief system, but rather a method of inquiry by which our beliefs may be tested. It is one of several methods of inquiry available to us and by which we may come ever-closer to ascertaining ultimate truth. The truths revealed by science are perfectly compatible with the truths gleaned through theology, philosophy, historical investigation, or any other discipline or method of investigation.

All truth claims, whether they be theological, philosophical, historical, or scientific can and should be tested by whatever means are at our disposal in order that we, as fallible beings, might come closer to knowing ultimate truth. I am convinced that there is nothing in our lives, indeed nothing in this universe more important than that. Certainly as Christians we believe this. It is Paul who said,

"test everything; hold fast what is good."

Jesus said,

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

So I have to further disagree with Professor Cox and say that Christianity is a belief system which can and should be tested also. Because faith is involved does not mean that logic and reason are thrown to the wind. Faith must be reasonable or it is not faith at all, but foolishness. Every truth that science uncovers is compatible with genuine faith. Oftentimes these truths add to our faith and increase our wonder and awe of God.

At one time scientific inquiry was bound by religious orthodoxy and dogma. Certain questions and lines of thinking were taboo. Our potential increase in knowledge was stymied by artificial fences placed by institutions that held power and feared losing control. Today the pendulum has swung the other direction. Now there is a scientific dogma that cannot be questioned, an artificial fence in place that stifles much genuine inquiry. That the dogma itself is not scientific at all, but rather philosophical never seems to occur to the dogmatists who set themselves up to be sure that this fence is maintained. This dogma states that science and religion are incompatible, that faith and reason cannot co-exist, that all genuine scientific inquiry must begin and proceed from an atheistic worldview. Looking at the data from a theistic worldview is simply not allowed. Those who disobey this dictum are ridiculed and marginalized in order to keep any dissent from this scientific orthodoxy minimal.

That is a shame and a crime against truth.

Christian Conversation With Unbelievers

I use the word "conversation" in the title of this post because it has a common usage in everyday language and a different usage in Scriptural context. In everyday language it means informal communication between people. In a Scriptural context it refers to our everyday comportment before others, i.e. how we live. I want to discuss it in both contexts.

I got to thinking about this because of an incident that took place on my facebook page. I was having an informal discussion with a friend of mine who is an unbeliever and we were discussing the definition of faith, its nature, and its relation to reason. We did this in the context of theoretical physics and the worldviews that underlie our thinking. We did not solve anything with our discussion, but I think progress was made in that each side probably increased in understanding of the other. Having said that, toward the end of the conversation another friend jumped in who is a believer and engaged my unbelieving friend in an entirely different mode and attitude. A third friend, who is also a believer, expressed embarassment at what the second friend was bringing to the conversation. The second friend was quite confrontational in style. A virtual food fight ensued and I have to admit that it was quite entertaining. But it was also . . . not good. I had initial reactions, but I held them in check wanting to think about it some more in order to be able to respond in the best way possible. Everyone involved is a friend and none of us is perfect, but in the final analysis I do not think it would be prudent for me not to say anything at all about what I saw as an entirely wrong way for any believer to approach an unbeliever with the truth of Christ. The Scripture has much to say about the subject and, as believers, the Scripture is our rule of faith and practice. So here goes.

I initially thought of about a half dozen Scriptures which admonish the believer to humility and grace in attitude when presenting the truth claims of the gospel to the world.

For example, in Ephesians 4 we are admonished to speak "the truth in love." In Colossians 4 we are told, "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person." In Philippians 2 we are told, "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves."

What should we think about this? Well, for starters, if our truth claims are correct then love compels us to share this truth with others in the hopes that they also will be brought to a knowledge of the truth. If ultimate joy, and the highest humanity, can only be brought about through submission to and reconciliation with God--and as Christians we believe this--then we are compelled by love to go out and lovingly proclaim the gospel to those who are not a part of our Christian community. But how we do this is as important as doing it. We must be careful in our conversation with those who are without that we do not soil the truth we proclaim by proclaiming the opposite message with our other conversation.

If we believe we are saved by grace, then grace must be more than just the message we proclaim, it must also describe our attitude while proclaiming it, and our life as we live it. It's ridiculous to think we can verbally smack people into faith in Christ. Our speech is to be always with grace, only seasoned with salt. We are to speak the truth in love. Everything we do is to be done in humility, not pride, not conceit.

What makes us to differ? As Christians, what do we believe makes us to differ from unbelievers? Are we better than they? The answer is "no." Smarter? No. Wiser? No. Then how do we differ? Someone might answer with "faith." But why is it we believe when others do not? Is it because we are morally or spiritually superior? Not in any way. The biblical answer is "grace."

That's it. Grace. Period.

Knowing this should humble us, not swell us up with pride. It should cause us to speak truth in love and pray for God to use his truth to change hearts and minds. It should not cause us to be haughty or arrogant.

In 1 Peter 3, Peter said it well:

Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. For

“Whoever desires to love life
and see good days,
let him keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from speaking deceit;
let him turn away from evil and do good;
let him seek peace and pursue it.

For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.

Being an imitator of Christ is an unreachable goal for a fallen human being, but it is the goal we are to strive for in all our conversation as Christians. Only by God's grace can it be achieved. Let us daily petition God for a better attitude and for Christian grace in all that we do.

Reason and Faith

"The truth is that having the right kind of faith is not an alternative to reason, but an essential element of reason."--Phillip E. Johnson, Against All Gods, p.35

I quote Prof. Johnson here not because he is an authority necessarily, but because he is a good example and also because he states this so succinctly. The dichotomy of faith and reason is a false one made too often by both ignorant people of faith and also by the enemies of faith or those who choose not to be a part of a faith movement at all. I use faith here in this context as an equivalent of religious belief, particularly Christian belief. It would be easy for me to call this a canard, but the word canard implies intent and I honestly believe that most people who make this false dichotomy do so sincerely out of ignorance.

In agreement with Prof. Johnson let me state unequivocally that faith and reason are inseparable. It is clear from Scripture that God expects for our faith to be a well-reasoned faith. God does not ask us to believe against reason or contrary to reason. Never. Quite the opposite God gives us good reason to believe. Let me give a few examples of what I am talking about.

In Isaiah 1 God invites his wayward people to reason with him. Observe:

Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
20 but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be eaten by the sword;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

Pretty clear, isn't it? Now try this. When Paul is taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Greek-speaking world, in Acts 18 we find him in Ephesus and Luke records this:

19 And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there, but he himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.

Later on, we read this about Paul's ministry when he returns to Ephesus some time later:

8 And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. 10 This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

The ones who "became stubborn and continued in unbelief" in verse 9 were Jews in the synagogue who simply refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah. When the rift became clear, Paul left the synagogue and took his teaching elsewhere. The message, however, is clear. Paul used reason wherever he went in his efforts to persuade men to have faith in Christ. The faith he wanted them to have was based on well-reasoned arguments. Elsewhere Paul writes to the church at Rome:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

The footnote found in the ESV concerning the above highlighted portion "which is your spiritual worship" informs us that an alternate rendering of this phrase would be "your rational service." That, together with the next portion I highlighted make it clear that the great Apostle to the Gentiles and God for whom he is speaking expect our faith to be well-informed, well-thought-out. We are to test and discern. In short we are to think and in doing so we will see that the spiritual worship God expects of us is a rational service.

I am reminded of when Martin Luther stood trial before the Council of Worms on charges of teaching heretical doctrines. What did he say? What was that famous quotation? Oh, yes.

"Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason -- I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other -- my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."--Martin Luther, at the Imperial Diet at Worms, 18 April 1521.

The contention was a theological one. Scripture was considered authoritative by both parties. The appeal is to reason in understanding what the Scriptures say.

In spite of the canard or misconception of many atheists, Christian theism is quite reasonable and appeals to come to that faith are based in reason. I have given just a basic demonstration in this post by quoting some Scripture (both New Testament and Old), giving an example from history, and quoting a contemporary Christian apologist. In my next post I will give an argument which is even more obvious but for some reason doesn't occur to us.

Ignorance Is No Excuse - Isaiah 1:2,3

Isaiah 1:

2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth;
for the LORD has spoken:
“Children have I reared and brought up,
but they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knows its owner,
and the donkey its master's crib,
but Israel does not know,
my people do not understand.”

Ignorance, for the Christian, is an indictment, not an excuse. It is no different for the unbeliever. This may seem harsh (as truth often is), but, the fact that God would reveal this to us, indeed confront us with it, is an act of grace on his part. Are we not better off hearing the truth, even when we do not like it, than not hearing anything at all? Or worse, being lied to? Here God speaks plainly. Even a stupid ox knows who its owner is. But Israel does not know.

They should. They have no excuse.

According to St. Paul, unbelievers in this world are without excuse as well. Here is what he says about it in the opening chapter of his epistle to the Romans:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 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.

A dumb ox knows its owner. A stupid donkey knows who it is who feeds it. But human beings claim ignorance of God. God, however, does not accept that excuse as a valid one. God holds us accountable. According to God, the world around us daily demonstrates God's wisdom and goodness, his "invisible attributes," his "eternal power and divine nature." Nature points to a God. Creation points to a Creator. The fact that man ignores this evidence is prima facie evidence of his rebellion. Man is bent against God, so man demands more.

And God has given more. Much more. According to John's gospel . . .

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life . . .
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Creation by itself, and our cognizance of it--yet rejection of the Creator--is enough to condemn us. But God in his grace did more than just reveal himself in creation. God also gave us special revelation in the person of his Son. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

John makes some very important assertions in this beginning to his gospel. Let's look at three.

First, John takes the Greek concept of the "Logos"(the Word)--the impersonal force which commands order in the universe--and associates this Logos with the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe.

Second, John points out that the Creator did an astounding thing, he condescended to become a part of the creation--to "dwell" among us. This is what Jesus, himself, claimed to be--God in the flesh. He was the Creator walking among his creation, revealing himself to us. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote:

1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

God spoke to us through the person of Jesus Christ, his Son. He showed us himself, revealed himself to us personally.

The third thing John reveals about Jesus in the opening of his gospel is this:

9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The coming of Jesus into the world was a light which "enlightens everyone." This is additional light, additional revelation to the light of creation. With this light comes a demand implicitly stated here--receive him. It is a condemnation that his own people did not receive him and it is a condemnation that men still reject him today.

God revealed himself in creation. Man rejects this light. God revealed himself in the person of his Son. Man rejects this light also. Is there help for man? Is there help for us? Only if we turn.

Some do receive. Some do believe. Who are they? Those who are born of God.

Where are you in this?

Science Does Not Have All the Answers

Toward the end of the eighteenth century a certain philosophy started coming into vogue known as materialism. Materialism is the belief that the only thing that exists is matter, and that all things can be explained (including life, and consciousness) by the material the universe is made of and its interactions. It is a product (or its popularity at least) of the Age of Reason--though I would argue that it is the product of poor reasoning. As a philosophy, it undergirds most modern scientific thinking and secularist thought. In short, it is the atheist viewpoint.

Let me be clear that I am speaking in general terms and trying to keep things simple for a blog post. The concepts brought up in the first paragraph of this post alone could keep the curious reader occupied for years. I do not wish to over-generalize, I am sure there are exceptions (involving cognitive dissonance, in my opinion), but understand that modern scientific thought is founded on materialism as a philosophy and that materialism at its heart is the rejection of a Christian viewpoint, even a theistic viewpoint.

No, I did not say that all scientists are atheists and, no, I did not say that science is opposed to Christianity or vice versa. What I have pointed out, however, is why there has been so much tension between the scientific and Christian communities for the last 150 years or so. The scientific community as a whole embraced materialism around 150 years ago and that philosophy has been at its base ever since.

Pointing that out, however, is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is to demonstrate that there are questions which science cannot answer, legitimate questions for which the scientific method is inadequate. These questions do not lend themselves to ordinary scientific means of testing and observation. They go beyond science in that sense. But, for all that, they are not illogical or unreasonable, in spite of what the atheist community would have us think.

In fact, it is the opposite. The idea that the only things that are real are things which can be tested and observed through the five senses is absurd on the face of it. It is wholly unreasonable to assert that no other dimension of reality exists beyond the observable simply because we have no means of observing it. In fact, it is arrogant.

Now, let me quote myself from a previous post:

We have a universe. That universe consists of matter and energy. It consists of space and it consists of time. It consists of life. What caused those?

Science cannot answer that, but that does not mean that there are not other means of coming to those answers. Nor should we dismiss any means of inquiry beyond the scientific as purely fanciful thinking . . . as many atheists do.

To me, this is what makes a guy like Richard Dawkins look the most ridiculous, for he is guilty of doing just that.

Who Made God? - The Cosmological Argument

Who Made God?

It is a question often asked by children but seldom asked by adults. It is a good question, nonetheless, for it presumes something which I would like to discuss in this post. What it presumes is known as causality or what you and I know intuitively as cause and effect.

How and why are questions we have been asking since we were old enough to speak. The very questions themselves demonstrate this intuitive knowledge of cause and effect within us. There is a reason for everything, and just as there is a reason for everything there is also a reason for everything to be.

We know this both intuitively and by our experience. Every effect must have a sufficient cause. Things do not happen for no reason. Effects do not spontaneously come into being. There is a cause. How did this milk get on the table? It was spilled when a glass was knocked over. How did the glass get knocked over? It was knocked over by Jimmy's elbow when he was reaching for the mashed potatoes. How did the milk get in the glass? It was poured there by mom. Where did she get it? She got it from the gallon jug which was in the refrigerator. How did the jug get into the refrigerator? Dad brought it home from the store and put it there . . . and so on ad infinitum.

How long could we play that game? How far back does our chain of cause and effect go? That is the question at hand and the answer to that question is a valid, effective, and reasonable argument for the existence of God.

For the universe to exist there must be a sufficient cause outside of that universe to account for its existence.

Either that or you must confess that there is an infinite chain of cause and effect, that we could play our little game for eternity and never come to a first cause. But would that be logical? Theists contend that it is not and here is why.

I pose the question to those who might contend that there is no first cause, that our chain of cause and effect goes infinitely into the past. What caused that chain of events? Something did. An infinite series with no beginning involves a contradiction. It goes against the assumption that allows for the existence of the chain in the first place, to wit for every effect there is a cause.

We have a universe. That universe consists of matter and energy. It consists of space and it consists of time. What caused those?

While science cannot answer that, philosophy says that something must have caused them or they could not be.

And that is where it stands. Either you believe that matter is eternal, that it has always been (for it cannot have spontaneously generated), or you believe that there is an extra-mundane cause that brought it into being. The same for energy, time, space, and life, for none of those things can be explained as having been spontaneously generated without a cause.

An infinite chain of cause and effect is a logical absurdity. If a chain of three or four events cannot exist without a sufficient cause then no chain of events can exist without a sufficient cause, even if it is a chain of a million or a billion or a trillion events. As Charles Hodge put it,

"Nothing multiplied by infinity is nothing still. If we do not find the cause of our existence in ourselves, nor our parents in themselves, nor their progenitors in themselves, going back ad infinitum is only adding nothing to nothing. What the mind demands is a sufficient cause, and no approach to it is made by going back indefinitely from one effect to another. We are forced, therefore, by the laws of our rational nature, to assume the existence of a self-sufficient cause, i.e., a Being endued with power adequate to produce this ever-changing phenomenal world. In all ages thinking men have been forced to this conclusion. . . . The theistical argument is, that if everything in the world be contingent, this eternal and necessary Being must be an extra-mundane First Cause."

Which brings us back to our original question. Who made God? And the answer to that question is that no one did, for he is the Uncaused First Cause. Without him nothing else in the universe makes sense. Without his existence, nothing else can exist. While everything in our universe is contingent, he is the Something standing outside that universe which is self-existent and contingent on nothing else.