Science is justified by belief in God

Science is a bad excuse for atheism.

In fact, science cannot be a servant to unbelief at all, since atheism cannot provide the philosophical underpinnings that make science a valid pursuit.

I mean, there are certain concepts that must be in place and operative from the get-go, before any use of the scientific method of investigation can even make sense. Atheism, as it happens, cannot account for any of those starting-point concepts.

(This is not to say that atheists can’t be great scientists. Obviously, they can, and I am thankful for this. It is to say that a consistent atheist cannot provide justification for why science should work in the first place.)

For the scientific method to be valid, these are some of the preconditions that have to exist: laws of logic, which govern rational thinking; the uniformity of nature; and, the ability of human observation to discern reality. Atheists assume these things are real, but their worldview can offer no reason for them.

First, for science to work, logic has to be a thing, as the kids say. Boil it down, and logic is a set of invisible, pre-existing rules that govern what sorts of thoughts may be considered rational or true. These truth-rules are not subject to experimentation and must be true everywhere or else they can’t be true at all.

(For example, if there is a place where the Law of Non-Contradiction may safely be contradicted, then it’s a not a law, but merely a preference.)

The atheist assumes logic exists and is real, but his atheism can offer no accounting of how it came to be. Whatever argument he might make in favor of logic must first assume logic and follow the rules. This is a logical fallacy all by itself, the assumption of what must be proven.

Secondly, science requires a basic uniformity of nature, and proceeds to do all its experimentation with the confidence that “tomorrow will be like today, only more so.” Atheism can supply no rational reason why this ought to be the case in a universe randomly made, without purpose. It is simply assumed, because it has seemed to work up till now.

However, there are scientific thinkers who are theorizing that the uniformity of nature, the predictability of the world around us, is actually an indication that what they perceive as “reality” is not really real at all.

(Check out “Are we living in a computer simulation?” in the Scientific American.)

In the third case, observational science proceeds on the assumption that humans can discern the world around us truly. Given evolution, however, all our senses must be able to do is keep us alive long enough to pass on our genetic material. Why would a brain that emerged from the muck for no reason necessarily be able to comprehend truth?

As C.S. Lewis pointed out, if our senses were not designed for telling us the truth, there’s no reason to believe that they would.

Contrary to all this, if God created the heavens and the earth, and humanity to flourish in them, then these three preconditions are warranted and rational. We can and should pursue science, precisely because we live in the world God made.

Gordan Runyan is the pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Tucumcari. Contact him at:

[email protected]