God and Science Don't Mix?

In the June 26, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal, an editorial appeared entitled, "God and Science Don't Mix," authored by Lawrence J. Krauss, Director of Origins Initiative at Arizona State University (). Though I typically avoid "headline" issues in my initial conversations about God, the "science vs. God" perspective is one that is gaining ground (in Western society) and, undoubtedly, will confront anyone who takes the initiative to share his or her Christian faith. The following is a response I wrote to the aforementioned article. Though the form varies from the conversational nature of the Engage! blog, I trust that my response will be helpful as you formulate your thoughts on this very important matter.

Response to: "God and Science Don’t Mix"

The recent (June 26, 2009) article by Lawrence M. Krauss, God and Science Don’t Mix, was, once again, a reflection of Western society’s apparent enamorment with the idea that for one to think rationally, one cannot believe in a God. Of course, such is not a new development; ever since Kierkegaard there has been the movement to separate faith from the logical and rational. But it is the particular viewpoint evidenced by Krauss that, I confess (admittedly being “a believer”), I find a bit intriguing.

Why is it that, with seeming impunity, the philosophical argument against God can be advanced on the basis of science, yet with great disdain, the champions of the prior would discount the argument for God’s existence similarly based?

Given the fact that all major cultures throughout history (and even the majority of individuals within our own) have expressed a belief in a God or gods, would suggest this is a discussion worthy of attention. Frankly, either the historically-aberrant viewpoint expressed by Krauss represents the height of Western, twenty-first century scientific arrogance, or it is the end result of consummate scientific research and resolve laying the gauntlet down and ending all further discussion of such childishness. I will assume that those who join Krauss in advancing atheistic dogma do so with an attitude not encumbered by the “only-those-scientifically-trained-are-able-to-weigh-in-on-the-matter” mentality. Such elitism does little for the purposes of public discourse and may even be construed as hindering a substantive and fair-minded discussion.

So, in the interest of continuing the dialog, I have some questions.

First, why is it that God, if there is a God, must routinely “interfere” in the realm of scientific inquiry and discovery in order to validate His existence? Krauss’s citation of J.B.S. Haldane (“My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have ever achieved in my professional career.”) suggests this. In agreement with Haldane, Krauss affirms, “God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.” Yet, isn’t this a bit like suggesting that, because the engineer who designed my car has never occasionally visited me, he or she, therefore, is irrelevant to the running of my vehicle or, even, to the mechanic who maintains it?

Furthermore, is Krauss to have us assume that scientific inquest and discovery is more positively advanced apart from belief in a God? Surely the scientists of old (i.e.—Bacon, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler and, yes, even Newton) wouldn’t buy Krauss’s conclusion. In fact, it was because of their theistic worldview they considered the cosmos worthy of investigation. Indeed, it was belief in an absolute Deity—who had put into place an ordered system—that motivated the exploration of these early scientists even as my mechanic’s belief that a skilled engineer was responsible for designing my car motivates him to study my vehicle’s technical diagrams before attempting a repair. Why? Because where there is intelligence there is order and where there is order there is the ability to deduce particulars with consistency. If all is by chance, then there is really no guarantee that the scientific experiments one conducted in the lab today will render the same results tomorrow. Even science cannot produce an “ought from an is.”

Second, if God is “irrelevant in science,” presumably because He has never interfered in the course of scientific experimentation, then how is it that science, with relevance, addresses the existence of God? Science, at least Popperian science, requires the possibility of falsifiability in order for a theory to be validated. Given the fact that God cannot be tested by scientific means (for that matter, you and I, as individuals, are not scientifically testable either), neither can He be falsified…or verified. But perhaps Krauss has missed the point. There is not a believer (or even, “fundamentalist!”) I know who would suggest that God can be “proven” by science. Such would suggest that God is relegated to the physical realm, a position no orthodox Christian (or orthodox Jew or Muslim) would hold. God is transcendent. Yes, He is above even science.

Third, to say that God cannot be proven by science (i.e.—because he does not interfere in science and is, therefore, irrelevant in science), do I conclude, as well, that God cannot be detected through science? From the atheist’s perspective, all that is—time, space, matter and energy—has resulted from chance. The order we perceive—both in cosmology and biology—is there by chance. Intelligence is nowhere to be found. Thus, order has resulted from disorder (e.g.—Big Bang), complexity from simplicity, and intelligence from randomness. The very fact that scientific inquiry, since the mid-1800s, has demonstrated increasing complexity and order—in the face of a system that would suggest quite the opposite—has begged the question of God’s existence. Robert C. Koons (Philosophy, University of Texas) has even suggested that the “[scientific] knowledge we have acquired recently, including evidence of the Big Bang, anthropic coincidences, the fantastic complexity and functionality of biological systems, the deepening intractability of naturalistic explanations for the origin of life and consciousness, support theism. Indeed, the evidence for theism has never been so clear and strong as it is now” (The Rationality of Theism, Routledge, 2003).

No, perhaps the existence of God cannot be proven by science but it seems plausible that His existence may be detected through scientific discovery. Though Albert Einstein was not a religious man, his wonderment at the harmony of the cosmos gave rise to at least some form of belief in a divine being. After much speculation (following an evocative piece he wrote in 1930 entitled, “What I believe”), Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein telegraphed Einstein straightforwardly asking the scientist, “Do you believe in God?” Einstein responded: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." From this, one may conclude that Einstein was (at least at this point in his life) a deist. Later (1940), he would make his well-known statement: “…science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Interestingly, even Krauss leaves open the door to a deistic God when he says, “the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe in the first place [Could he really mean created time, space, matter and energy and the laws which form the basis of scientific study?] and let it proceed from there…” Although he sees this viewpoint (and correctly so) not in line with “the detailed tenants of most of the world’s organized religions,” I am not so sure he has not opened a Pandora’s box. If science can accommodate such a “relaxed deity,” then how, one might ask, can science limit an “activist deity”?

Fourth, I could not agree more with Krauss that “these issues are not purely academic.” He points to the current crisis in Iran which, he says, “has laid bare the striking inconsistency between a world built on reason and a world built on religious dogma.” Here I am not sure whether or not he is siding with the Ahmadinejad regime or the protestors, but I shall assume he is simply suggesting that where religious zeal reigns so does oppression of the masses. So, and here’s my question, what do we then do with Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, just to name a few? Has atheism prompted horrific acts? Of course. Has injustice been done in the name of religion? Absolutely. But, as with every philosophical and religious system, one must be cautioned not to judge a philosophy or religion by its abuse but by the truth statements and/or tenants posited therein.

Though Krauss concludes by stating that, “it is starkly clear that in human affairs—as well as in the rest of the physical world—reason is the better guide,” one must be cautioned. First, reason itself is non-scientifically verifiable (or falsifiable) which makes his conclusion at least irrelevant to all that has preceded it. Second, there is no “moral quotient” in reason. Many horrific acts have been committed because they seemed “reasonable” to the perpetrator. In the atheistic worldview, “reason” is governed in large part by a “survival of the fittest” and “survival of the species” mentality. There is little sense of intrinsic value for the individual. No ultimate basis for good and evil. No such thing as free will—all we do is simply encoded in our DNA as we “dance to its music” (Dawkins). Though the Western world is becoming increasingly intrigued by the atheistic worldview, few there are who are willing to live by its conclusions if those conclusions are played out to their logical end. And, as one considers the maladies of the world in which we live, it may be time to hope and pray that God “interferes” more visibly in the affairs of humankind even, perhaps, giving pause to the scientists who have closed the door on His existence.