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?
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.