Is belief in God anti-scientific?

Science cannot tell you what is a good song from a bad song, what is a good poem and what isn’t, the greatest painting or the worst… you get the picture. There are many realities that science cannot definitively explain, but I’ve yet to hear anyone tell a musician, poet or artist that belief in music, poetry and art is anti-scientific!

God's No 1 Undertaker Paul Sinclair

The statement that science deals with reality while theology only with theory is incorrect as far from being poles apart both the scientist and the theologian are one in their search for ultimate truth. Ultimate truth exists, it has to, where the universe and life on earth came from can only have one answer. Some atheist talking heads tell us science is limited to the parameters of physical and non-theistic study, but that limitation of science is in fact their choice. If you are secure your conviction there is an ultimate truth why would you need to set such enormous limitations on a field of study by excluding even the possibility of a theistic being?

God's No 2 Undertaker John Lennox

With the limitation of explanation set firmly in our minds the celebrity atheists tell us A equals B plus C therefore D happens, which therefore proves there is no God, but as John Lennox (God’s No 2 Undertaker) points out, “The existence of a mechanism is not of itself an argument against the existence of an agent who designed the mechanism,” so to limit the parameters of study to the mechanism itself is to limit the possibilities. The limitation of science approach is not shared by all scientists, nor ever has been. At no point in his conclusions did Newton even suggest there is no God, ‘because here are the mechanisms.’ “He did the exact opposite, he hoped that this evidence would persuade the thinking person to believe in God!” Effectively, “the sheer genius of this mechanism shows me how wonderful the agent who made it is.” Lennox again. Good Scottish name!

God's undertakers dig the big picture!

I have an old friend called Owen Brooks who for many years served as a toolmaker. Should someone pick up a tool Owen created and make the decision to only study the tool itself, what it can do and it’s components with no interest in Owen, that limitation is acceptable, but to rule out the possibility of a toolmaker existing before even picking it up is going too far. To most people that is basic common sense, yet those same people have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into accepting that while common sense applies to everything man has made, it does not apply to anything man hasn’t made. To this day Oxford has a professor of Science and Religion, because someone who is secure in God can enjoy the study of science and someone who is secure in their scientific integrity can involve the possibility of God, but self-limiting scientists who rule out the possibility of an agent of creation are no different from self-limiting preachers who choose to ignore good science.

God's Undertaker? There can be only one!

While some scientists rule out the possibility of a theistic being and resign themselves to theory theologians enjoy the reality of using scientifically enhanced oil in their cars, scientifically developed contact lenses and the latest scientifically tested cough sweetie when they have Man Flu. So remind me again, which one deals with reality and which one theory?


About Paul Sinclair

Paul Sinclair, often referred to as The Faster Pastor, has 30 years proven ministry as a pastor, speaker, published author and writer. His wife Marian is from Ghana and has been a minister in song for as many years. When Marian sings… expect an anointing!
This entry was posted in On the Gospel and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Is belief in God anti-scientific?

  1. I think science thinks it deals with reality, a reality it can box in with scientific research that it understands. It’s what it doesn’t understand or doesn’t have a theory for, that is the interesting bit.

  2. Steve Cairnes says:

    Is Theology the queen of all sciences? If so it must have been writen by a woman? Then that makes it unquestionable. A woman getting something wrong i think not.

  3. Andy Aitken says:

    For me, science is the pursuit of truth. If an experiment doesn’t go the way the scientist thought it would, he hasn’t failed, he’s learned something new which will send his pursuit in another direction.

    It seems to me that atheists, such as Dawkins and a-scientists (not sure if that’s a word) start with their truth and force their evidence to fit around it, ignoring any evidence that contradicts the truth they cling to, making their science flawed.

  4. Jim Colville says:

    God is the ultimate scientist, the trouble is that people wont read the makers handbook.

  5. Pingback: This Scumbag doesn’t believe in Burrito’s!! | Musings of The Holy Burrito

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s