Why science just doesn’t work if you are an atheist
There is a reason the scientific revolution took place within the context of Christian culture. There is a reason a whooping 86% of Nobel Prize winners between 1901 and 2000 have been either Christians or Jews. This is because, as we will see shortly, science makes no sense outside the bounds of religion. Why in the world do atheists then claim to be the champions of science and reason? Consider this;
Before we can even begin to talk about science, let us take a look at a number of preconditions necessary.
First, there has to be something rather than nothing. A finely tuned universe, perhaps one with laws to study. Life, with its intricacies and complexities, human beings with the requisite capacity to process and study the things around them. The atheist would have us believe that something comes from nothing and life comes from non-life, order results from chaos and all these things happen(ed) at random. Religion grounds all of reality, including the universe in the existence of a creator. A rational creator who is orderly and not random. Speaking of random-
Secondly, the laws of the universe follow a rational order not a random one. In fact there are scientific constants (as a result of the fine-tuned universe) just taken for granted, numbers that just happen to work. The religious pioneers of science believed that since the universe comes from a rational mind, order is to be expected in the laws of the universe. This was the presupposition that led to the explosion of science. If there is no rhyme or rhythm to life, why would the laws of the universe not reflect that absence of rhyme or rhythm and if the laws were in fact without rhyme or rhythm, we cannot even begin to talk about science.
Third, human consciousness is required to do science. The most intelligent scientists have no clue what consciousness is, they can neither understand nor fathom it. How does atheism explain this? With evangelical faith that in future, we will definitely know more about this!
Ironically, the times we live in today conclusively prove the fact there must be a creator behind human consciousness. “How so?” I hear you ask, picture this:
Artificial Intelligence is massively advanced today. We have Chat GPT, Open AI and all that good stuff. Do you know how much money, resources and brain power goes into creating this weird thing that mimics human consciousness? The finest minds spend hours researching, programming, tweaking and fine-tuning these programs and software with massive financial funding behind it. One major concern over AI is how much energy it takes to run it and there are potential sustainability questions around this both now and in future.
Arguing from lesser to greater (To steal a traditional concept from our Jewish friends), if what is supposed to mimic human consciousness takes so much time, resources, intelligence and energy, our atheist friends would have us believe that the original human consciousness happened by pure blind luck? With no minds at all? Yeah right!
Fourth, science presupposes that human beings are just the kind of species that are capable of understanding and studying the world around them. On what basis would the atheist think we are the kind of species to accurately understand these things? Why would an “evolutionary brain” built for survival (mating and finding food) be trusted to lead us to the truth about science? Even Dawkins, the god of the atheists acknowledged this problem in one of his Piers Morgan interviews and served us some sweet nothings with a smidgen of that “British Waffle”. Surprise surprise, atheism has no explanatory power for something.
The Judeo-Christian answer would be that because God made human beings in His image and likeness, there is something about the mind of the creator reflected in human beings as a species. This is why we can trust our brains and faculties to lead us to scientific truths. Our brains were not designed just for picking up mates and finding food, it was made for something far beyond that and as much as atheists even try to do science, they acknowledge this fact.
Fifth, why would science be worth pursuing at all? The New Atheists promised us a rational scientific utopia if we got rid of those stupid religious nutters but unfortunately even the great lord Dawkins has gotten into trouble for declaring a scientific fact that gender is binary!
I digress…
Point is, the new atheists took it as indisputably axiomatic that the pursuit of science and progress is a noble once. Question though, why? What is the scientific evidence that pursuit of science is a noble goal? What is the point of scientific pursuit in an atheistic framework? “So that humanity could be better!” but to what end? Why does it matter that humanity gets better? The average believer who takes Islam seriously thinks that we should all go back to 7th century Arabia and act like Muhammad, why is the atheist’s belief in progress any better? Why is it more noble than the Islamic mindset?
From a Judeo-Christian point of view, man (after being created in the image of God) is given the mission to be fruitful, multiply, dominate and subdue the earth. Hence the scientific pioneers saw science as an art of worship, little wonder the first Cavendish building in 1800s had the inscription,
“The works of the Lord are great, Studied by all who have pleasure in them.”
(Psalm 111:2)
The pioneers used religious language to describe their motivations for doing science, seeing it as part of “being fruitful, multiplying and dominating the earth” or “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”. It is the fact that mankind was designed to study these things by God that makes it a noble pursuit, it is the fact that mankind is using the creative faculties given to him by his creator that objectively makes science worth pursuing. All of this feeds into the main purpose man was created, to bring glory to God His creator!
Take God out of science, you create the need for another “What is a woman?” documentary by Matt Walsh! You create a world where a world renowned biologist is absolutely blasted to no end for saying something as controversial as “there are two genders”.
This is the conclusion of the matter; There is way too much the atheist asks us to grant before they even start talking about science and since they are going to whine and nag and give the most uncharitable (and most times untenably convoluted) interpretation of Christian scripture — looking at your “Jephthah” article, Mr Tanner the humanist — I am not going to do the atheist the charity of taking his presuppositions at face value. The atheist has to explain (to an extraordinary standard of evidence I deem appropriate, you see atheists, I too can do the Matt “I’m not convinced” Dilahunty dance!) the existence of matter from nothing, life from non-life, the universe, human beings, human consciousness without an originating mind and the rationale for the nobility of scientific pursuit.
Until then, until when atheists actually have an answer that explains something, maybe they should shut up, get in their booster seats and let us Christians and Jews, the people of knowledge who gave them the scientific revolution, the ones who hold record numbers of Nobel Prizes, teach them science!
Eat your hearts out Dawkins and Deconstructing Christianity!
