Science Frustrates Atheism – Not God
We, as British Israel believing Christians, have countless biblical passages to refer to that prove to us that the Bible is true.
We believe that the Anglo-Celtic-Saxon people and Britain, the Commonwealth and the United States in particular, are the literal descendants of God’s Servant Nation Israel. We base this belief on the word of Almighty God given to us in the Bible. We believe that, under divine guidance our forefathers migrated – over a long period from the Bible area of the Middle East to a place appointed to them by God in fulfillment of His Covenant with David: (II Samuel 7:10) i.e. the British Isles and later the Commonwealth countries and the U.S. We also believe that God has kept his solemn promise that David’s throne (which is the Throne of the Lord) and His royal line should ‘endure forever’ and would have a descendant of David’s line reigning on that Throne from generation to generation – holding that very Throne in trust until He comes whose right it is – our Lord Jesus Christ, to take it for Himself and rule in glory as promised in Luke I v 32. Once we have realized this wonderful and miraculous fact, we know for sure that every word in the Bible is faithful and true. We are truly blessed in this knowledge.
Even so, it is interesting to keep searching for further evidence of God, even outside of the BI realm and there are in fact many brilliant Biblical scholars who offer more insights into the truth in the Bible. For example, I recently listened to Professor John Lennox on the topic of atheism and God. He notes that atheists believe that God and science compete with each other so that we have to choose between the two models of creation. But Lennox asks, “why do we need to offer people a choice?” They tell us that you either believe in God or science but not both! Lennox explains that there are two profound mistakes being made here.
The first mistake is that they’ve got the wrong concept of God. In the past century, when we spoke of God, it was understood that we were referring to the creator God of the Bible who sustains the universe, but not nowadays. Now, when people like Stephen Hawking think of God, they imagine something like a Greek deity or Zeus for example. They automatically assume we’re talking about the ‘God of the gaps’ e.g., I can’t explain lightning, so I invent a God. So then when you do some atmospheric physics to explain it, then God disappears.
“God of the gaps” is a theological concept that started in the 19th century with the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God. When science falls short of explaining natural phenomena there is opportunity to insert the presence of a divine creator.
Regarding this, Lennox quotes from the Bible saying, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. He says that this means He created everything i.e., the bits we do understand and the bits we don’t understand! He goes on to say that the ‘Principia Mathmatica’, written by Isaac Newton, was the most important book in the history of science and the more Newton understood how science worked, the more he admired the genius of the God that did it that way. Furthermore, an engineer can understand the turbofan jet engine better than the layperson and, if you’re a student of art, you can follow the details of a Rembrandt better than the average person. Thus, the more you understand, the more you admire the genius and the more your faith in God increases. The heavens are increasingly declaring his glory.
This is the scientific way of understanding how things work. But then there’s the other side. Consider this example which is the God explanation. The two sides can be illustrated as follows:
Why is the water boiling? It’s boiling because heat energy from the gas burner is being conducted through the base of the kettle and agitating the molecules making the water boil. The other side says it’s actually boiling because I’m desperate for a cup of tea!
The point is that both explanations are correct and equally valid! Lennox says that this is a concept that children can understand but many professors cannot. The scientific explanation is telling you how it works but I have also given a personal explanation in terms of human will. I want a cup of tea! If we think about it, which is the most important of the two? Well, people have been enjoying tea for thousands of years before they knew about equations for heat.
Thus, we see that those two explanations do not conflict. They don’t compete. They complement each other and in fact, you need both. God no more competes with real science as an explanation of the universe than Henry Ford competes with the laws of internal combustion engines that power cars. You need both – and it is such a simple idea. Thus, whether you’re a scientist or not, you can point out that explanation comes at different levels.
The second mistake the atheist makes is putting faith in the brain – a product of evolution – and assuming it works logically. But should they trust it? Lennox asked a group of scientists to be honest and asked the question that, if they knew that the computer they were using every day in their lab was the end product of a mindless unguided process, would you trust it? All of them said no!
This shows that we have been brainwashed by atheists who say there is science over here and faith over there. This gives the impression that science doesn’t involve faith and Christianity does. However, this is very wrong because science involves faith. Simply, you don’t do science unless you think it can be done. In other words, you don’t do science unless you believe that the universe is rational and intelligible. But then the important question is, “why do you believe that as an atheist if the thing you’re doing science with (your computer and your brain) is something you wouldn’t trust?
So, Lennox’s point here is that atheism, followed to its logical conclusion, destroys rationality. He noted that Charles Darwin wrote a letter once where he said that he’s troubled by the awful thought that the mind which he believed to be the brain, has come together by natural processes defying logic. Similarly, C.S. Lewis years ago in his book on miracles, said that no argument can be valid that undermines rationality and if we believe that rationality is simply the end product of mindless unguided natural processes, then that is the end not only of science but of all meaning.
