Many popular books say that religion is bad and science is good. After all, science does not require faith like religions, such as Christianity, since science has a method to prove things are true. But this is simply saying that there is great faith in this method. Some increase this faith in science into a religion called Scientism.
The followers of this religion are identified by: adoration of high priests, like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens ; a claim that theirs is the one true way; evangelistic outreaches like bus slogans of, “There’s probably no God;” and a vociferous denial that they are a religion.
They do not see that the statement, “Science does not need faith” is itself a faith statement—there is no scientific experiment to prove the statement is true. They turn their lack of evidence into supporting evidence, saying theirs is the default logical position. Strangely, they turn a critical eye on all religions but their own.
Science on the other hand has always been faith based. Max Planck said, “Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.” Any Ph.D . researcher uses this faith when doing original research because originality is not guaranteed. If faith is needed, is it any wonder that the early scientists were Christians? That many contemporary scientists are religious?
It may surprise some to learn that the Christian faith is steeped in evidence, dating all the way back to ‘Doubting Thomas’ who needed to touch open wounds. Nowadays the evidence given is often internal. But the Christian’s test for truth and relevance is the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, which is growing stronger. Philosophical and scientific evidence is also piling up. The Kalam Cosmological Argument remains evidence for the existence of God even after decades of intense scrutiny. Discover Magazine reported the fine-tuning of the Universe is explained by one, a designer God or two, an infinite number of parallel universes that are beyond detection. Which requires more faith?
Recently, the scientific method has determined the existence of entities by their effects. Dark matter explains the missing mass in the universe. Dark energy, a hypothesized repulsive force, explains why the Universe is expanding faster. No one has seen or touched either but they are declared to exist as a matter of scientific fact. The Christian similarly uses many conjoined and independent effects to postulate an unseen entity—God.
The acolytes of Scientism think this is blasphemy, a corruption of the pure method.
Perhaps, but rather than loud rhetoric, let the arguments for all positions be placed on the scales of logic to measure the weight of their content. Let the dialog begin.
Curtis Hrischuk , Ph.D ., is the director of Ratio Christi, a student club devoted to developing critical thinking skills by studying apologetics and engaging the ideas of the day.
