A mantra today is “follow the science.” This is used specifically to persuade people to believe the government’s response to and guidance for the COVID-19 pandemic. Because science is respected and commonly viewed as credible, the strategy has been, to some extent, efficacious. Given this success, should one follow the science to address other conundrums? For example, could science answer the question of the existence of God?
As a starting point, consider the four basic laws of physics: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force,1 and the weak force.2 For the past one hundred years, physicists have sought to understand how these basic building blocks of the universe work and why they exist. Much was discovered about how these forces work, but scientific knowledge is still incomplete. For example, the strong force is, perhaps, the most mysterious of the four. But the why question continues to be an enigma.
Why do these forces exist? Scientists have limited ability to explain why reality is the way it is and how it came into existence. Part of this limitation is self-imposed. There is an a priori assumption, an axiom. An axiom cannot be proven; it is assumed to be true based on faith. Most scientists assume that all physical phenomena must have an explanation based on physical laws. This excludes any explanations that transcend physical reality.
Notwithstanding the widely acceptable assumption as an axiom, the redoubtable Stephen Hawking offered the following comment concerning the attempt to develop a unified theory to explain the four basic forces. Part of his comment included a musing about the why question:
The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him? 3
Though Hawking introduced the idea of a Creator, he did so condescendingly because, like most of his colleagues, he was an atheist who, a priori, excluded the possibility of a Creator. So, one must be clear that Hawking was not seeking to discover a Creator. Hawking hypothetically presumed that, if God existed, he must be subject to the physical law of cause and effect. Consequently, his question regarding who created the Creator was disingenuous. Nevertheless, Hawking’s presumption that God must be subject to the physical law of cause and effect denies the possibility of a transcendent spiritual Creator who is not bound by the laws of physical reality. Hawking’s argument is logically flawed.
Like Hawking, most scientists claim to be atheists who, a priori, deny the existence of a Creator and, consequently, do not consider the possibility of a Creator. Such scientists have no answer as to why an orderly universe exists.
But there are some scientists who have an answer to the why question. They, a priori, allow for the possibility of a Creator. Furthermore, they assume the Creator could be a transcendent spirit being who is not bound by physical law. Such theistic scientists may even accept the revelation of Scripture that states:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1 CSB)
They also may consider the possibility of God as self-existent as recorded in Scripture.
God replied to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you." (Exodus 3:14 CSB)
The above texts intimate that God is the self-existent transcendent Creator. He is the uncaused cause of the universe. He is the necessary being who is the source of all contingent beings. (All humans are contingent beings.) This truth can only be known by revelation from the Creator. Scientists who, a priori, excluded the possibility of revelation from the Creator, have sabotaged themselves. They have excluded the truth that is essential to understanding why the universe exists.
Everyone makes assumptions about the existence and nature of God. Those assumptions define one’s thinking. Wrong assumptions lead to deranged thinking and right assumptions lead to sound thinking. And like everyone, scientists are people of faith.
Scientists who allow for the possibility a scriptural explanation of the existence and nature of the Creator have a plausible answer to the why question. For those willing to consider it, the revelation will point them to the reality of a Creator.
In the book of Acts, there are two examples where the apostle Paul used the assumption of the created order to point people to the Creator. One example occurred in Lystra in Acts 14 and the second example took place in Athens in Acts 17.
In Acts 14, the apostle Paul explained that the healing of a crippled man was due to the supernatural work of the Creator. The miraculous work of healing defied natural explanation. Paul explained that there is a Creator who made the heaven, earth, and everything in them (Acts 14:15). The Creator was the originator of all reality, including the miraculous healing of a crippled man in Lystra (Acts 14:8–10)). Furthermore, all events serve the Creator's purpose to reveal his existence to the people so that they would repent of their idolatry (Acts 14:15).
This story illustrates the importance of one’s assumptions. One must begin with the assumption that a transcendent Creator exists. Denying this assumption a priori, as scientists tend to do today, leads to wrong conclusions. To assume this is deranged thinking rejecting a prior the most plausible explanation.
To think correctly, one must make the right assumptions. So, if one is going to follow the science, one must follow scientists who do not self-sabotage their thinking by excluding the possibility of a Creator.
Creation reveals an orderly universe. Atheism, the popular worldview of most scientists, is based on disorder and chaos. How can impersonal forces explain an orderly universe? How could nothing produce everything? How can chaos produce timeless universal principles (TUP) that govern the universe? Atheism cannot explain the reality of the orderly universe. The existence of TUP implies the existence of an intelligent Creator.
Therefore, the most logical explanation for the why question is creation. God created an orderly universe governed by TUP. This includes the basic forces of physics. To presume that God did not create the universe leads to no answers as to why the universe exists.
If one follows the science of atheists, there will be no answers to the why question. Only by following the science of Christianity, will one recognize that the universe is the product of the sovereign work of an intentional, intelligent Creator. And the truth about this Creator is most cogently revealed in Scripture. There is no other logical conclusion; an orderly universe reflects intentionality and purpose; this is the mark of an orderly Creator.
Therefore, for those who wish to objectively follow the science, do not a priori exclude the existence of a supernatural Creator. Instead, be open to all possible explanations for why the universe exists. Perhaps, the only credible conclusion is that an orderly universe must be the work of an orderly Creator.
If you agree, what a wonderful way to begin the New Year by repenting and thinking correctly about God. Then may you have the grace to live based on this truth.
Happy New Year!
