Atheists' Objections to Evidence for God's Existence, Part 5

Can the scientific method be useful in measuring the effects of God on the world? If a miraculous healing is claimed, can science be useful in verifying the healing? Can scientific inquiry verify that the universe had a beginning, or the cosmological constants that so often mystify adherents of the anthropic principle? Of course! But, this is far from the notion of science proving or disproving the existence of God Himself, or of finding proof of God by way of the scientific method. Eric Metaxas, Evangelical author, in a Christmas 2014 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Science increasingly makes the case for God,” argues that the odds for the emergence of life in the universe, as suggested by current scientific knowledge, are so small that the existence of life cannot otherwise be explained except to conclude for the existence of God. Francis Beckwith, professor of philosophy and church-state studies at Baylor University, writing for The Catholic Thing website, insists that Metaxas has it all wrong. “God is not a scientific hypothesis,” Beckwith claims. The evidence from science that seemingly points to God today may tomorrow be overcome by further scientific research that explains the rise of life in a purely naturalistic way. What then? Does God suddenly not exist because science has filled the God of this gap? Nonsense! The late professor of physics and astronomy, Victor Stenger, made exactly the same mistake Metaxas makes, only from the opposite direction. Because Stenger could find no measurable evidence for God’s existence, he concluded God did not exist. Stenger was a materialist who expected that everything that exists could be shown to exist by measurable testing. Apparently, even the “immaterial soul” was subject to such measurement (God, the Failed Hypothesis, p. 84). Simply put, we won’t find God with the scientific method because God isn’t a being, just one reality among many. Rather, God is Being. God is Existence. What’s more, God exists outside the created order. How could it be possible to measure a Being Whose existence is outside Creation? Beckwith is correct in saying that philosophy is the place to start all inquiry into natural theology.

At the same time, this doesn’t entirely preclude the evidence from observation, which comes closest to Metaxas’ thesis. Beckwith himself acknowledges that the contingency of the universe is a strong argument for God’s existence. Yet, we understand the universe to be contingent at least partly by virtue of our observation of it. The so-called “fine-tuning” argument (that life in the universe is possible only because certain universal fundamental physical constants fall within a narrow range and the most infinitesimal change in any one constant would make life impossible) is not proof for the existence of God. Nevertheless, it’s evidence that the emergence of life in the universe is so remarkable that one may legitimately wonder at the likelihood of a Creator. There is a difference between evidence and proof. Evidence doesn’t always rise to the level of proof, but that hardly discredits it. Such evidence may still provide substantial support for concluding in favor of God’s existence.

In considering whether or not it’s possible to prove the existence of God, Peter Kreeft, Boston College professor of philosophy, offers some guidelines. First, there’s the question of whether a thing exists or not, and the fact that something can exist without our knowing it. Second, there’s the question of whether or not we know that something exists, and the fact that, in order for us to have knowledge of its existence, it must truly exist. Third, there’s the question of whether or not we have a reason or reasons for our knowledge of the existence of something, and the fact that our reason or reasons won’t necessarily convince others of our knowledge. Fourth, there’s the question of whether our reason or reasons for our knowledge rise to the level of proof. Kreeft claims that most reasons don’t rise to the level of proof. Most reasons, he says, amount more to probabilities. While they may provide substantial support for our knowledge, they don’t rise to the level of proof. For example, we know that the plane in which we travel may land at its intended destination, but may also crash. The experience of the pilot and the statistical evidence pointing to the overall safety of air travel, however, recommend to us that the likelihood of crashing is very remote. As a result, we get on the plane. The experience of the pilot and the statistics on airplane crashes are not reasons that prove our plane arrive safely, but they provide substantial confidence so that we’re willing to get on.

Fifth, if our reason or reasons rise to the level of proof, there’s the question of whether it’s a scientific proof. Can it be demonstrated by the scientific method of testing and measurement? Kreeft holds that philosophical proofs can rise to the level of proofs, but they aren’t scientific proofs, and they need not be. There are other proofs besides scientific proofs, just as there’s other evidence besides scientific, or physical evidence. I would add that evidence that rises only to the level of probability may nevertheless provide sufficient support to hold a particular position, and may offer a reasonable basis for our actions in the real world. The example of getting on the plane is only one. Most of the evidence presented in these articles will rise only to the level of probability. Yet, such evidence can still provide significant support for our conclusion for the existence of God, and justification for our acting in this world in a way that wouldn’t make sense if God doesn’t exist.

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.