Problems with the Unbeliever's Faith in Science

Over the past year, I have encountered a number of atheists.  Whether in conversation, or in their publications, the atheistic message seems to be that science has disproven religion.  The evidence, they say, proves the Bible untrue.  Or, I have been given no [scientific] proof of God, therefore, I cannot be expected to believe.  A few of these guys, I have a genuine love for.  And I must confess, in our conversations, they have shown more love and respect for me than I have for them.

In this post, it is my goal to point out some of the fundamental problems with what is commonly called, naturalistic atheism (or, materialism).  For the atheist, nature is all there is, and [scientific] evidence is the key to understanding the nature of reality.  To state the worldview negatively (which is the most common way it is promulgated): nature is best defined by what it is not, namely, a universe beholden to a personal Creator God who sustains it and 'interferes' with 'the laws of nature' in answering prayers and performing miracles.

Due to time constraints, this post will deal only with the naturalistic atheist's appeal to evidence for the basis of knowledge.  Some of my points are but a regurgitation of apologetical responses that I have read and adopted, while others are my personal responses to propositions that I have encountered.  So, here we go.

First, I think it is important that the Christian resist the temptation to concede the atheist's naturalistic worldview from the start.  We tend to do this without knowing it by immediately coming up with a list of evidences for proving the existence of God.  Not only is this philosophically flawed, in that it is logically impossible to reach supernatural conclusions from naturalistic premises; but it is also biblically forbidden (1 Peter 3:15; Proverbs 26:4).  We must honor Christ both in our conclusions and our methodology for reaching our conclusions.

Second,  we must show the atheist that his most fundamental commitments are not to evidence at all.  In doing this we must look past his conclusions to the premises that support them.  The logic goes something like this:  If God is real, there would be evidence for his existence.  There is no evidence for his existence.  Therefore, God is not real.  We must point out that his premises have broken his own scientific rules.

Appealing to evidence as the fundamental proof for the existence of God, is itself, a supernatural claim. It is impossible, due to the limits of human experience and knowledge, to prove the negative claim that supernatural reality (viz., God) does not exist.  In short, a person cannot say that evidence for God does not exist unless they themselves affirm that they have surveyed all of reality - unless, they themselves have supernatural knowledge!

I believe a quote from Van Til sums this up nicely: "In seeking to know anything, the unbeliever must seek to know everything."  This makes knowledge, based solely on evidence, impossible.  This proves the point, that in saying there is no evidence for God, the atheist must embrace this claim by faith, not evidence.

Third, we have to show how empiricism (that we gain knowledge only through sense experience) fails its own test.  Simply put, the claim that "Only that is true which can be verified by science, or empiricism," cannot itself be verified empirically.  We have no evidence that proves that only evidence provides any truth.

Fourth, we must identify the double standard.  I find that many atheists, who claim that scientific evidence provides the basis for their belief, do not hold to evidence at all, but to the testimony of scientists.  In my conversations I have heard things like, "The evidence tells us this or that." or "Science has proven this to be true."  But when I press them on the issue, I have yet to encounter a single person who has actually gone to the science lab or field to see the actual evidence themselves.

Their belief, therefore, is based on the written testimony of scientists or philosophers (who themselves quote the testimonies of scientists!).  In short, they condemn Christians for basing their belief in the written Scriptures, while they base their belief in the written works of others.

The last point provides the basis for my final point (more to come later!).  The worldview that is based solely on evidence is not only ridden with philosophical flaws (as shown above); but it ignores many other things; that our senses often deceive us, that science involves a great deal of untestable theory and theory-laden instrumentation in its application, that science includes interpretation, evaluation, and other fallible human input (even downright lying in some [documented] cases), that human experience is affected and limited by cultural, personal, temporal, and societal expectations and other factors, and that therefore scientists often miss facts that contradict their theories (See McDurmon's book called Biblical Logic - which I highly recommend).

In short, to base one's belief solely on the written findings of science, is highly suspect and fallible.  It is not solid ground.

Finally, we must never forget that a man needs more than evidence to believe.  He needs more than some sign.  And as shown above, we can see that this is indeed true.  In his unbelief, man's deepest commitments are not to evidence at all, but to a deeper commitment; namely, that man is autonomous.  In short, by saying that evidence will convince him, he is not being rational at all, but rebellious (John 3; Luke 16:29-31).  We all need more than science.  We need a Savior.