Choosing Sides : God or Science?

Does science contradict faith? Does the believer need to disbelieve in science? There is a great divide today between secular atheism and monotheism. The idea of believing in a God is ridiculed and mocked by today's secular atheist and science is often heralded as proof of the non existence of God. Atheists insist science is on their side and disproves the existence of God, and many people feel they must choose between one side or the other, either science or faith. The reality is of course science in no way disproves the existence of God, and neither does the scientific mind or process. Many religions and religious leaders insist as well that we cannot accept science and still believe in God. They claim that to believe in a deity is a pure matter of faith, and the scientific process or mind set plays no role. This is likewise a fallacy as we will examine herein.

The Logic of Belief

For those afraid of an examination of science in contrast to their faith we invite you to read further. A belief in God is not an untenable position and not one that will crumble in the light of scientific examination. Consider this;

Science teaches us that the universe began 14.5 Billion years ago at the time of the event known as the "Big Bang" when the first sub atomic particle suddenly expanded and superheated creating all known matter in the universe including light, gravity and even time. Yet the obvious question remains glaring to anyone willing to ask it; "Where" did the sub atomic particle come from? What created it? And what created what created that? And what created what created that created that? And so on. And of course what force or energy moved on the particle causing it to expand and superheat? And what action, or reaction caused the energy or force that moved on the particle? And so on.

The atheist will at that point usually scrunch up their faces and declare "oh, don't give me that chicken before the egg nonsense", but the fact is that is the very question. But its even deeper than that and goes much further. Its not actually a question of which came first. Because once one examines the question one quickly sees that neither could come first. It is impossible by any known laws of reason, physics or science that either could come first. Neither should be there. Nothing should by scientific reason, exist. Again, the atheist will declare with all the bold authority of a fanatic preacher "statistically it had to happen", but again, the fact is statistics themselves should not exist. NOTHING should exist, anywhere. There is after all, no logical reason that anything, anywhere exists. There is no logical, scientific way in which anything could come about from "nothing". And further, "nothing" is a concept beyond the grasp of mortal understanding as well. After all, what's in a nothing? What constitutes a nothing? And that? The atheist claims it was always here? Really? Always? How long in an always? What was before that? And doesn't' that mean the universe itself then is supernatural by the laws of science, reason and physics? How big is it? Is there nothing at the edge of the universe? What's beyond that? And that?

When one starts to truly examine these questions that the human mind cannot even begin to fathom, nor can science begin to approach, we suddenly find ourselves staring into the void of the supernatural, that which exceeds all modern knowledge, reason, science and logic. We're left with that which by our understanding, constitutes the supernatural. Now that doesn't mean any particular sort or type of God as defined by religion exists, but it does provide for not only the possibility, but the plausibility thereof. After all, if we can exist, and the universe can exist, and to this day mankind hasn't even the slightest clue as to why it exists, or ultimately how (excluding milestones in the process) then its not much further fetched to factor in the notion of a deity.

In other words, if the atheist can believe that the universe can exist, and spring forth from "nothing" other than a sub atomic particle that expands and superheat by forces that have no origins and were not the result of an action or reaction, and that energy's could exist without cause or source and all of this turned into intelligent life, then how much further fetched is it to conclude that intelligence might be behind it? After all, the universe created us, and we are intelligence's, capable of comprehending the universe around us. If the universe created us then intelligence is a component of the universe, and concluding that we are the only form of intelligence is a very limited and narrow conclusion. If the universe creates intelligence, then intelligence may have created the universe.

Now this is not to confuse the reasoning behind existence with the modern day religious dogma known as "intelligent design", in which self professed preachers, pastors and priests declare science evil and the earth to be 6000 years old. This is far from such childish imaginings. But the notion of intelligence being behind our existence here, is a viable conclusion to make. One that many scientists have made themselves.

The real questions therefore lie in the origins of all things, not just this planet, solar system, galaxy or universe. Again the atheist will often then demand "what created God?", but remember we've already entered into the realm of the supernatural. Thus the concept that a God always existed in one form or another, an intelligence if you will becomes as easy to grasp as the notion that a tiny sub atomic particle always existed without a creator or creation process, and acted on itself somehow to create all known matter, space, time, light and gravity in the universe. Thus we see the atheist in fact merely "believes" in their own version of creation, albeit a less hopeful and less logical one than the individual of faith. Accepting the notion of a God or higher intelligence therefore is as logical a belief as anything put forward by secular man. And keep in mind that in all of recorded history man has not only not answered this question, but has no capacity for even guessing at an answer. There is no scientific theories or even hypothesis on the matter. We have no clue, no idea how all things could have come into existence prior to the big bang nor do we even have any good guesses, other than the notion of the divine.

This of course does not mean nor do we purport it "proves" any particular God or Gods created the universe. But it does at least lay the foundation for the concept, and in abscence of even the most vague guess on the part of science, or anyone for that matter, it presents a compelling argument in favor of the concept of a higher intelligence and something "divine" in the existence of all things.

Thus the individual of faith has a stronger leg to stand on from a position of logic than does the atheist. Until a human being can at least offer a "guess", no matter how vague or remote it may be as to how whatever the "first thing" was, could have come into existence then the notion of the supernatural or the "divine" is still trump. Perhaps the individual of faith is wrong, but at least they have an argument to make. The atheist, has nothing. No argument, no theories, no hypothesis or even a remote hunch. So next time an atheist ridicules you for your beliefs, just remember. They have no position to offer, no answers and not even a remote guess as to the orgins of all things. To date, mankind has been unable to address this question with even a remote hypothesis or random guess. Science can only go back so far in the equation, but it cannot even begin to touch on the actual origins of all things. Thus we are left with the only viable possible explanation and that is something beyond the natural was involved. And that opens the door, to faith.