We live in an amazing time where science and technology are expounding knowledge at an incredible rate. It’s truly amazing to see the discoveries that are being made every day. As a person of faith, I attribute these discoveries to God. Not everyone agrees with that notion of course and some advance the idea that in light of these discoveries it is unreasonable to believe in God.
I hear this from time to time from believers as well. When professing their faith some believers will state “I know it unreasonable but I have faith in Jesus Christ.” Is it really unreasonable to believe in God? Does Science really refute the existence of God? No. It is not unreasonable to believe in God. It does not defy logic.
One reason why it is not unreasonable to believe in God is the Anthropic principle.The anthropic principle or sometimes called the fine tuned earth theory(although the two are not completely synonymous) is the idea that the constants that govern the earth fall within a very small range that if altered by even a small amount would result in the earth being unsuitable for
life of any kind.
Stephen Hawking mentioned this in his book “a Brief History of Space and Time” when he said
If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form.
In other words, if the rate of expansion had been different there would be no universe and no life. The big bang expansion rate fell within the minuscule parameters that allowed for the creation of a universe This alone could be a coincidence. It’s within the realm of possibility that this just happened. However, in light of many other “coincidences”, this seems unlikely.
Further coincidences include:
- Earth’s Rotational speeds – if changed would affect temperature and wind velocities
- Gravitational interaction to the moon – if changed would affect tides and rotational periods drastically.
- Axial tilt – if changed would cause differences in temperature
- The thickness of crust – changes would cause oxygen problems and volcanic activity would be too great.
These are just SOME of the constants that if changed just to a small degree would render the earth uninhabitable for life. There are too many “coincidences” for this to be random events. Too many things had to line up for the Earth to be inhabitable and suitable for life. This suitability for life is not easily explained mathematically. The probability of this happening randomly is so small as to be virtually zero. How does science account for this? The short answer is they don’t.
Reality can be explained in two ways. Dinesh D’Souza in his book “What’s so great about Christianity” gave the following example
If you were to ask a scientist, “Why is that water boiling?” he or she would answer in terms of molecules and temperatures. But there is a second explanation: the water is boiling because I want to have a cup of tea. This second explanation is a perfectly valid description of reality, yet it is ignored or avoided by the scientific account. The reason for this, mathematician Roger Penrose writes, is that science is incapable of answering questions about the nature or purpose of reality. Science merely tries to answer the question, “How does it behave?” So science does not even claim to be a full description of reality, only of one aspect of reality.
In order to explain reality, we must consider all factors. We cannot simply answer the question of “how it behaves.” If we are to accurately describe the reality we must not limit ourselves to only naturalism and materialism. Scientific truth is not the whole truth. We should let science do its job and report how things behave. Religion can explain why things act the way they do.
It is reasonable to believe in God. Science shows a pattern of creation that mathematically is too random to be a coincidence. It shows a universe that appears to be fine tuned to our existence. If materialism is insufficient to explain reality, why is it be unreasonable to turn to religion? It is not.