I’ve been reading many books on evidence for God in physics and biology, and some others. While I think physics lends well to a theistic belief, biology is less clear, to say the least. I am curious if anyone feels that there are other fields that show a God more clearly?
Put simply, I’m looking for reading and research recommendations for topics which might be a bit clearer on the God question.
Which areas of science do you most see evidence of God?
None. Science only exists because the laws of nature are the basis for the existence of all things in the universe. It means there are measurable space-time relationships between all the things which are a part of it which science can use and discover the mathematical equations governing their behavior. God is not a part of the universe but the creator of the universe, therefore it is not reasonable to expect that anything of the universe can provide evidence (particularly of the objective or scientific sort) for God.
At most you can only find subjective evidence. Such provides no reasonable basis for an expectation that others will agree with you. But as the basis of all knowledge, personal experience is the most convincing evidence there is for your own personal conclusions.
So the principle problem with your question was the word “evidence” in the same sentence with the word “science” which sort of implies scientific evidence… However if we ask specifically where I see the most subjective evidence in the findings of science… I would say for me it is quantum physics and evolution. In the case of quantum physics I will link the reasons I believe. As for the latter, I have often said I can only believe in Christianity because of evolution. Rather than being at odds with the Bible, it seems to me that the harshness of evolution is an excellent match for the harshness of the Bible. Wishful thinking is a poor reason for ignoring the harsh realities of what life requires. Otherwise it is nothing but a dream world and the inconsistent demands of a child.
I recently heard a simple and thought provoking argument for theism
That the world is saturated with beauty. I see it in the earliest fossils found on Earth and in our best images of the cosmic web.
That there is such beauty tips the scales in favor of theism I believe.
I think that where you see God will depend on your view or understanding of God. It seems that some equate God’s hand as dictating ot controlling, so that if God is there He is somehow diminished in terms of allowing freedom.
I see God in the balances and “perfection” of the way things are and work. It could be said that balance is the logical conclusion and necessary for continuance but I have always found it difficult to see how chaos could ever be reconciled into balance.
Some people see death and suffering as a reason not to believe in God, yet I would suggest that you cannot remove such things without impinging on freedom or even the balance of life itself. There is a sort of idealistic view that life could somehow avoid discomfort or suffering and that God could have made it so, but that seems to misunderstand the values of suffering and pain in terms of healing or protection. if we are not aware of a problem or danger we cannot allow for it and could easily make it worse. Pain is a way of deterring actions that are damaging or detramental. Without death we cannot eat, or gain nourishment. Whether it is plant or animal, most if not all of our food comes from life and death of that life.
Science is only us trying to understand what is. It does not dictate or control, and it is not always as consistent as we might like. There are often excetions to the rules we have identified.
On a more specific view, I find the existence of water to be the most telling of creations and one that defies all other elements and therefore “special” (of God)
Richard
If we know God from His self-revelation in Scripture and from the work of the Spirit, we can perceive Him behind all the wonder, wisdom, beauty, etc. that we see in science, or elsewhere, while trusting that He knows what He’s doing when things don’t make sense to us.
A common error is to make science the top authority. Whether it’s people trying to promote the Bible by claiming it teaches science or people trying to attack the Bible by claiming it makes scientific errors, they are reducing the Bible to mere science rather than taking it seriously on its own terms. Likewise, chasing after supposed exceptions to science in the physical working of creation neglects the fact that God is at work in all that happens, not just in miracles.
But this is circular. You can only believe God revealed Himself if you believe God exists. Otherwise all you really have is hearsay. Somebody said or somebody wrote there is a God who said…
just saying… how this sounds to a lot of people in world… It’s the old “because the Bible tells me so” answer which is pretty lame for those looking into the question to make up their own mind.
That’s a valuable point.
How does one avoid such circuity?
Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth’s superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —
“His self-revelation” could be circular as a proof of God’s existence (though one might argue about whether certain conceivable ways of self-revelation would be less arbitrary).
What I was intending, however, was to put the self-revelation as the basis for seeing God in science, which is not circular. Of course, the question of how one correctly identifies such self-revelation is important. But seeing God in science is a product of seeing God, not of science. Science tells us that space is big. Do we see that as an example of God’s wisdom, power, and creativity, or evidence that we are mere specks in a vast universe, or that the universe is menacing, rarely suited for our existence, or something else? All science tells us are the mere physical facts; how we see them comes form elsewhere.
An interesting question to explore, and to me it relates to Romans 1:20
" For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
So, it seems Paul felt that naturalistic observations “clearly” show God’s power and nature to those who are not Jewish believers. His world did not have naturalistic explanations for many things we now under stand a bit better, but puts his statement in danger of being a “God of the gaps” type argument. Perhaps the knowledge that the more we learn, the more we find we do not know means the gaps only become larger and more numerous, perhaps reaching the infinite if we follow that line of thought. And perhaps we can see God in that as well.
@paleomalacologist answered well.
I can add that we can shift the focus of self-revelation to the origin of the question. Why in the world would be even be asking about the existence of an invisible entity like this except that He prompted it by introducing Himself?
Don’t mistake me. This is nothing like objective evidence because the atheist can easily come up with other answers to this. The typical one is that this is a primitive version of science. We want causes we can understand and even control to some degree so we invent invisible entities we can pray and make offerings to in order to influence them. It is hardly strange for science to propose things we can’t see as the cause for things we can see.
But it would be my suggestion that it is the other way around. That science suggests invisible causes for things we can see because we already have this way of thinking from religion. And thus it can be argued the idea this ultimately comes from such an invisible entity introducing Himself is actually valid. The way I said it in my reasons for belief: that I would see a need to invent God just to give our capacity for abstraction more substance is also ultimately the other way around… God communicating with us brought the human mind to life.
I do think there is common ground between atheists and Christians on this topic, and I see that in some of Einstein’s writing.
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”
–Albert Einstein
I don’t agree with all of Einstein’s views on religion, and I’m sure most Christians also disagree on some points. But I do think he hits at the heart of the human experience that is shared between believers and non-believers, the experience of emotion and awe we feel when facing the mysteries in nature. For these reasons and others, I have never scoffed when I hear Christians describing how they see God in nature because I think we do share many of the same experiences.
I agree @michellmckain. The problem with “looking for evidence for God” in scientific phenomena always boils down to a “God in the Gaps” type of “proof.” Having said this, I have a book coming out next month called “Beyond the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Modern Cosmology” in which I take a deep dive into how certain quantum phenomena align with the creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:4a). The book makes explicit that God cannot be found in or using science. However, using cosmology, anthropism, and quantum physics, the events in biblical creation can be shown to align eerily with the events of creation.
Ultimately, the transcendence of God makes it impossible to “find” Him using empirical science. At the end of the day, God inhabits the metaphysical, theological realm.
Cheers,
Why?
I’m glad you included the part I bolded. There is such a culture of “All or None” in so many congregations right now that there is no conceptual room for doubt, uncertainty or subectivity. This culture pressures believers to confuse the subjective as “proof” and hold it as objective. And argue as if the subjective is objective in the “name of love” (seeing this as fulfilling the command to proclaim the Gospel). The non-believer often sees through this, though. The believers in such church cultures must maintain the switch to protect their own faith as well as. Because faith is seen as requiring a"solid objective basis for proof".
Object permanence is something we begin to learn as infants, however. That the parent who hides behind their hands is still there.
It’s not many steps for the toddler to grasp that the sock moves like a mouth, because “an invisible hand” inside is causing it to do so. (Do you remember seeing a puppet show as a very small child?)
We expect causes for observable phenomena, because we learn even before we can speak, that there are causes, even if we don’t know what they are.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
