Season 5 Podcast 41, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, Episode 34, “Science and Faith A ‘Law’.”

A New Voice of Freedom

Season 5 Podcast 41, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, Episode 34, “Science and Faith A ‘Law’.”

A scientist may be an atheist or a theist, but true science should be neither. Science deals with the how. Religion deals with the why. Both atheist and theist may make a great scientist. The reason is very simple. All things are governed by a complete set of laws, and laws are subject to the scientific method. Laws obey the principle of causality giving predictability. Predictability is the only true validation of science. Without predictability every theory is reduced to opinion.

The Holy Grail of Physics (meaning science) is to prove that all laws are connected. Connecting the four forces of nature—the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and the electromagnetic force—is the Holy Grail that scientists seek. It is a noble goal and is reachable.

The conflict between science and religion arises when scientists presume they alone can explain the why, and theists presume they alone can explain the how. Science always flounders when it enters into the realm of why. Religion always flounders when it denies the truths of scientific law. They both become idol worshipers. Religion invents a god who is arbitrary. Science invents gods who work miracles such as happy accidents, startling coincidence, improbable chance, or serendipity of circumstances. They worship false gods who are presented as meaningless substitutes to explain the unknown. They will claim almost anything to avoid admitting to cosmic ignorance. It is hubris in its true form. They even become convinced that their gods are true gods even though they explain nothing.

Science has created elastic gods that stretch into their theories. Let me illustrate this with an example that I have used before and will undoubtedly use again for it perfectly demonstrates the point. I make no secret that one of my favorite science writers is Stephen Hawking. A celebrated genius, he became the modern spokesman for science and atheism.

In the Grand Design, Mr. Hawking said,

Over the centuries many, including Aristotle, believed that the universe must have always existed in order to avoid the issue of how it was set up. Others believed the universe had a beginning, and used it as an argument for the existence of God. The realization that time behaves like space presents a new alternative. It removes the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning, but also means that the beginning of the universe was governed by the laws of science and doesn’t need to be set in motion by some god.

2 RON

The clever statement condemns itself. It begs the question, ‘Where do laws come from?’ First of all, Hawking must be right on one point or the universe makes no sense. The point he made is this: “The beginning of the universe was governed by the laws of science.” Everything created by God is governed by law, and higher laws govern lower laws in an unbroken chain.

However, I must take issue with the phrase “the laws of science.” Science has never created a law and never will. Law like truth can be discovered, but not created, certainly not by science. Strictly speaking they are not ‘laws of science.’ They are laws of God discovered by science. The paradox is this. Law came first. Creation second. For the discoveries of science, however, creation came first—that which can be observed—and law came second—that which can be inferred. Let me be bold in saying that the most advanced science hasn’t even begun to understand law, and it never will. It is beyond the scientific method. Part of scientific heresy is to think they can understand the origins of things.