Let’s land the plane on the whole discussion and turn to the question of whether science has shown that God doesn’t exist (or, more modestly, that it provides at least some good evidence that he doesn’t). It seems to me that we can say with a modicum of confidence that if science doesn’t get it right about the basic elements of nature – the constitution and behavior of matter, energy, and spacetime, for example – then there are good reasons to doubt what it says about such “unobservables” as God, angels, demons, the soul, and the afterlife. Even if none of these existed, science wouldn’t necessarily be the most reliable source of this gloomy news.But Stokes also warns about “religious physics-based metaphysics” too. This is interesting. Thinkers like William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross use scientific theories to provide evidence of God’s existence. They will use theories about dark matter and quantum mechanics to demonstrate that science and faith are aligned. The apologetic is: If you believe in science, you should believe in God. But as we have seen, scientific theories come and go. When they go, does evidence for God go with them? We need to be cautious in making these connections.
This type of evidence is often used in the intelligent design argument. As we study life around us, things look designed. Evidence from how humans build things spills over to how God builds things. We infer design from evidence. Stokes argues for caution even here. He thinks this notion of design comes not from inference, but from a God given instinct (Stokes does not cite this, but Romans 1:19 might help here) to form belief in God, what John Calvin calls sensus divinitatis. Interesting and something to think about. Either way, the point is we need to use caution when attaching God’s existence to temporal and often erroneous conclusions from scientific inference.
God give us science so we can learn about him and his world. Like many things in life, we do not see things perfectly. It’s the nature of a fallen world. But we are getting better at understanding his world through science. Why doesn’t God just show us the truth all at once instead of allowing us to fumble around and learn about his universe just a little at a time? I don’t know. As Stokes points out, it’s analogous to the problem of evil. We don’t fully know why God allows horrible atrocities to occur in this life. But we do know that all things – even evil things – work together for good. They are part of his plan.
The failures – and the triumphs – of science are also part of his plan. In the end of this age, perhaps then, it will all be perfectly clear.
The fact that something looks designed is evidence that it was designed. It may not be conclusive evidence, but evidence it still is.
ReplyDeleteIn "2001: A Space Odyssey," Arthur C. Clarke's novel about space travel and encountering extraterrestrial intelligence, scientists were all a-flutter because the obelisk, found on the moon, was considered evidence of an alien intelligence.
As was revealed in the sequel, "2010," the obelisk had formidable powers. But the a-fluttering scientists did not know that in "2001." The shape of the obelisk was all they needed to believe that it was created by an intelligence.
Nature just doesn't sculpture perfectly rectangular, obsidian-like objects of that size.
The scientists in "2001" didn't say, well, y'know, in the eons of our universe's existence, it could have formed naturally quite by unlikely accident. They didn't say, well, maybe the odds are astronomically against such a shape being formed by accident, but if we are free to posit the existence of multiverses, we might as well posit enough multiverses to make the accident seem likely.
No. They saw the shape and immediately decided there must have been an intelligence behind it.
If the folks listening intently to electromagnetic waves from outer space, find a radio-wave pattern that appears to be designed, you can be sure the excitement of the SETI crew that discovered it would not stop and say, well, the universe is vast and might actually be an accident. Not at all. They will assume it's a language until someone proves otherwise.
The insistence that we avert our eyes from seeing design in something only chimes in when the only possible designer could be God.
In polemics, this is known as tendentiousness.