Philosophical Assumptions in Science

Nicholas Everitt said, “The findings of modern science significantly reduce the probability that theism is true because the universe is turning out to be very unlike the sort of universe which we would have expected had theism been true.” What he meant by that, in general, is clear. He, and other thinkers like him, start with the presupposition that we should be able to accurately imagine (or know) what the universe should be like if theism is true. That is to say, if “A” then “B” necessarily. If there is a divine being that is both all-powerful AND all-good, the universe should be thus and such, and should not be so and so. The conclusion of this reasoning, based on assumptions in science; is that the universe should be different than it is, not as it is. I disagree heartily for reasons that I will now try to make clear.

First, there is a rather pretentious belief inherent in this argument that admittedly finite being as we are (though still impressively intelligent) could know or comprehend what kind of universe an infinite being would or should create; as though what a man – even the most artistic, brilliant, and benevolent one – would do with the universe could be projected onto God. This is unreasonable. Not that we have NO human capacity to comprehend these things, which is why we can actually argue the exact opposite; only that our comprehension is finite and inadequate!

Second, this argument is closely related to that of theodicy, or the problem of evil, which rests upon the very same presupposition; that we as humans could know how the world should be, and there shouldn’t be anything less than perfectly good, if God is perfect and good. Now, in defense of this presupposition, there is an inherent reasonableness to it, but it is limited by human finitude. Still, it resonates within each person because (or if) God were to be all-powerful and all-good (God should be both of these) the world/universe should be a substantially better place than it is. We all believe this, and desire it, and some of us try to make it so. Why? We sense that the world is broken, that it’s not fair but that it should be; and there’s far too much evil and suffering and chaos in the world/universe, and that is not how it SHOULD be if theism is true. And it is right to feel this way.

Third, both arguments have failed to account for the distinctly Judeo-Christian understanding of the universe/world that is put forth in the Bible. Islam also contains a similar Quranic narrative but an entirely different interpretation of created reality, so we cannot include it in this point. The biblical worldview teaches that,

1. The Creator IS all-powerful and all-good.

2. The original creation was perfectly good. Indeed, the creation narrative of the Bible records that God, in the process of creating the world and all life, declared it “good” five times (Genesis 1).

3. Something went wrong; something corrupted the created order, and infected it.

4. And that is still the condition of it today.

But it was not designed that way. It only became that way because of one initial event which in turn triggered an ongoing series of similar events (and much worse), and caused a “chain reaction” of corruptive events up to the present. God could have prevented all this but in His long-range and infinite goodness and wisdom chose to allow it for the ultimate good of creation and humanity.

Fourth, in his argument from science, there is still philosophical/theological interpretation involved based on non-scientific presuppositions (even when the scientific findings are objective and reliable.) So the conclusions that people come to will always be based on those presuppositions that create their interpretive grid or framework. In one video we saw, for example, Mr. Freeman Dyson argued that no good God would create a universal with only one habitable planet in it, where every other place in it is completely toxic to humans. Really? Why not? Couldn’t this be used to make the exact opposite argument? Yes, I would use it to argue that that is how special the earth is, and the created order of it and humanity itself; because I have a different interpretive grid. Not just a theistic one, but a biblical one.

Fifth, Everitt’s argument from science fails to acknowledge the nature of science itself, and of the powers of reason that we use to do science and interpret its findings. First, why does science work, why is it useful as long as sound principles and methods are practiced? It works because nature is observable, discoverable, and predictable. There is order in the universe and in the world. Lots of order! All is not chaos and arbitrary movements of random matter with unknowable properties (or unstable ones). No! There is such an incredible degree of order in fact, that science CAN be relied on to discover it and organize the information that comes out of the process. And once information is possessed, it can always be possessed, and built upon. Once laws of nature are known, they can be known and predicted. These are things we would expect from an all-good and all-powerful God. What would existence be like without the kind of order that we have? It would be impossible! And toxic or not, there is every bit as much order in every other part of the universe that we have studied. We can study them because we possess the knowledge that we use to examine and discover new knowledge.

The very same points I am making apply equally and complementarily to the laws of logic that we enjoy. We can use science because we can use logic, for science rests on logic. Again, these are not things that come from nothing, or from a “big bang,” or from macro evolution. Order only comes from order. And humanity can be very glad for it, unless one prefers non-existence.