Science is divine if nature is God's creation

OK, that's a big "if" in this blog post title. But let's assume for a non-churchless moment that God is real, and God created the physical universe.

So here we are, in God's marvelous creation. Living, breathing, pondering what existence is all about.

Part of that pondering is something called science.

It studies the natural world -- including the portion we call "humanity." Science is the best means known to man (and woman) for sorting out what's true about the universe, and what isn't.

Why, then, are so many believers in a personal God who created the universe so mistrustful of a discipline, science, whose aim is to reveal the nature of nature, God's creation?

I don't get it. Neither did Isaac Newton and many other scientists whose devout religious beliefs spurred them to study what some Christians have called God's second book, nature.

The second of God’s two revelations is the book of nature, termed “general revelation.” This is the implied record about our Creator that is discovered in the natural world around us. It is considered general in that it is a disclosure of reality that has been generally available to all people throughout the ages.

Now, I certainly don't agree that God's actions are reflected in the book of nature. However I have no problem with someone watching a beautiful sunset, or the full moon rise, and spontaneously uttering "Oh, my God!"

After all, if this is God's creation, then whatever makes us more aware and knowledgeable of what exists within existence must be revered as revealing divinity.

And that "whatever" happens to be science.

To better understand why this is so, have a listen to an interesting discussion between American atheist biologist (and avid blogger) PZ Myers and British theist evolutionist Denis Alexander. (Here's the mp3 link.)

What struck me about this interview, which was on a Christian radio station in Britain, was how refreshingly different Alexander was from the fundamentalist sorts of Christians who dominate the air waves in the United States.

I mean, a theist evolutionist -- that's terrific.

Alexander correctly saw no conflict between his religious beliefs and science. Neither did Myers, though as an atheist he also correctly kept emphasizing that religion can have zero, repeat zero, influence on scientific research.

Where I most agreed with Myers, and thought that Alexander was off the mark, was in the part of the discussion concerning the limits of science.

Scientists don't claim that art, music, morality, ethics, emotions, politics, culture, and such can be reduced to quantitative explanations. In these areas religion can play a role in human affairs (although I wish it wouldn't).

But Alexander kept trying to portray this as a weakness of science, whereas that is false. Myers kept bringing the discussion back to what the scientific method sets out to do: produce valid, reproducible, objective knowledge about the material universe.

To a religious believer in a personal creator God, this is one half of "God's book" (the other half being whatever holy text he or she believes in). Here science is unarguably King over religion, as Myers kept arguing -- and Alexander seemed to agree.

Even when I was a true believer, I was a devoted reader of science books and magazines. I didn't see any conflict between my metaphysical beliefs and what science knows about the material world.

Big bang. Evolution. DNA. Particle physics. Quantum mechanics. Relativity theory.

It shouldn't matter whether someone considers these phenomena and laws of nature to have come from God, or purely natural processes.

They're real, to the best of human knowledge. That's what counts. And reality is divine, whether you take this word in a secular or religious sense.

Comments

[Rain]

I don't know how anyone can argue with what you are saying. When religion denies what is reality, like sun and planets do not revolve around the earth, it is religion that should adjust. They should be compatible and there is no reason they cannot. Where there is a will though man will find a way :)

[Brian Admirier]

Incredible argument
Brian, I so admire your clear logic and original argument - to me, you are GOD

[Brian]

Wow! We're so much in agreement! Of course, there could be a touch of irony in your praise. But I prefer to take you literally. Yes, I am God. Now, if only my wife and dog would recognize my divinity...

[Brian Admirer]

Dear Brian
I have been reading your blog for some time, keeping quiet behind my computer - but - you bring a fresh view to life which is inspiring and, what shall I say, just plain sense.
I used to follow the path of Sant Mat, but, your answers drawn from a variety os verifiable sources, not only make so much sense, but allow room for the simple "I dont know" response. Can someone about to drop a handful of marbles be any less knowledgeable because he does not know where they will end up? Is God only God if he knows everything? Guru Brian, I am proud to be your disciple !!

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear Brian,

Your dog and wife already recognize your divinity. But do not ask them please.

In fact, the nature is God's creation and you are a part of it. Further, you are undoubtedly a scientist.

Your admirer is not wrong and you can register a similar gesture from myside as well.

[Brian Admirer]

Unfortunately, blogs do not facilitate rounds of applause or standing ovations - perhaps we can all send Brian a few lines of gratitude? A show of support of his supremely balanced intellect and our continued desire to follow his example (as Brians disciples) can surely do no harm

[Brian]

Ooh, don't use the term "disciples" around here. No disciples allowed. I'm all about spiritual independence. (However, "fawning admirers," particularly if they're beautiful and female, are certainly welcomed.)

[Brian Admirier]

Oh, please forgive me, Brian, I was unaware that some words upset you or went against the rules of your blog.
Your wishes are our command.

[Brian]

Thank you for your prompt obedience. I intuit that you are not a beautiful female fawning admirer, but your devotion to Me is much appreciated nonetheless.

Fortunately, there are few commandments on this blog that may be transgressed. Not thinking for yourself is one of them, which is why my God-self reacted to the word "disciple."

[+Ao]

To Brian Admirer:

I do NOT support your goofy "disciple" BS. In fact, its somewhat disgusting and annoying.

This site is not about fawning over Brian. There are other much more meaningful ways to show your respect and your support of Brian, besides all this stinking "admirer" and "disciple" garbage. We are (mostly) all independent thinkers here, so that kind of kiss-ass rhetoric is frowed upon and not welcome in my opinion. You are only showing what a dim-witted loser you are. And I don't care even if your foolishness is meant only in jest (which I rather doubt). It still gives other less informed readers a wrong impression. This blog is all about "spiritual independence"... and we are not just a bunch of stupid groveling "disciples", like your sorry ass.

Bottom-line: If you want to ADMIRE Brian, thats fine... but keep it confined to yourself alone. Don't be including the rest of us in your kiss-ass comments.

[Brian Admirer]

Dear Brian and +Ao
disciple like behavior is not accepted, I will take great care to avoid this word, I can already see the anger it has provoked in +Ao. Admiration must not be expressed, but inwardly digested, thankyou +Ao for your well meant advise, you really have a way with words that gets the message across in clear and direct manner. Its a little confusing to a me as a new commenter to this blog, if my independent thinking should include admiration and respect for Brian, I cannot express it directly, but must find more meaningful ways. What is more meaningful than direct expression?