God Is Here to Stay

Science, Evolution, and Belief in God

McFaul, Brunsting

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781630871802
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

God Is Here to Stay offers new insights into one of humankind's most profound questions: Does God exist? During the past ten years, theists and new atheists have argued to prove or disprove God's existence. Examining the pros and cons of each side leads to one overarching conclusion: The existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven with complete certainty, even though both sides draw on modern science to support their views.Drs. Thomas R. McFaul and Al Brunsting approach the question of God's existence from an entirely fresh perspective. They examine scientific knowledge in several areas ranging across the physical sciences and human experience to explain how the universe operates within very narrow and highly structured boundaries. Most importantly, they create an innovative L-M Confidence Scale to establish confidence levels, not proofs, on how scientific discoveries impact belief in God.McFaul and Brunsting describe the three stages of scientific evolution. In stage 1, the world's religions developed divergent pre-scientific views. Modern science started with stage 2, during which atheists predicted that science would eventually eradicate religion. In stage 3, the authors show how science, evolution, and belief in God have become increasingly integrated and mutually supportive.

1

Introduction

Knowledge, Science, and Belief in God

As stated in the Preface, the primary purpose of this book is to explore the connection between knowledge, science, and belief in God. In order to examine the interaction effects that these three areas have on each other with as much clarity and depth as possible, we start by defining the major concepts and overall orientation that we will follow throughout the remaining chapters. Our central concern focuses on the question of whether or not the current state of knowledge based on scientific evidence points in the direction of believing or not believing in a purposeful God who created the universe. We begin our investigation by examining the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.

Induction versus Deduction

Our methodology is based on the rational-empirical means of inquiry that emerged in conjunction with the rise of modern science during the past several centuries. At the height of the European Medieval Era during the thirteenth century CE, it was Roger Bacon (1214—1294) who first suggested that scientific certainty should be based on experimentation and the direct observation of nature rather than by appealing to sacred texts, ancient thinkers, or outside authorities.1 Bacon advocated the now widely accepted view that the search for scientific truth should proceed inductively from the “bottom up” starting with empirical investigation and not deductively from the “top down” based on longstanding religious or philosophical premises about the origin and operations of the natural order.

Although the vast majority of current scientists have adopted Bacon’s approach, a word of caution is in order. We must be careful not to conclude that the inductive procedures of modern scientists exclude all forms of deductive reasoning. Induction and deduction are not mutually exclusive ways of thinking. Each includes aspects of the other. For example, except for pure mathematical logic, such as 2 x 2 = 4, deductive judgments often incorporate references to nature, such as the eastern religious belief that the souls of deceased persons reincarnate into new physical bodies.

Likewise, conclusions based on inductive investigations include assumptions about the operations of nature. There are many who presume the course of the cosmos is controlled exclusively by the laws of cause and effect or by randomness and not by a divine intelligence or intervention of any kind. Our approach assumes that the connection between deductive and inductive approaches to discovering the truth is subtle and complex.

Assumptions often guide perceptions, which can easily lead to circular reasoning. For example, believing that God exists predisposes one to “interpret” the “facts” to support this assumption. However, assuming the opposite leads one to interpret them differently and conclude that God does not exist. We are keenly aware of this tendency of the human mind to engage in circular reasoning. At the same time, our approach minimizes this risk even though it does not eliminate it entirely.

Evidence versus Proof

Our next step is to distinguish between evidence and proof. Evidence, as we understand this concept, is not identical to proof. Proof refers to certainty beyond doubt. Evidence refers to a recurring pattern of relationships that point in the direction of proof but that may fall short of certainty. Evidence includes signs, indications, and information that a given conclusion is valid or true although it might not be. The following example demonstrates this distinction.

In the novel, To Kill a Mockingbird,2Atticus Finch is a court appointed attorney for Tom Robinson, an African American man. The evidence that Finch presents in court indicates that Robinson is innocent of the accusation that he raped a young white woman. The racially biased jury ignores the evidence and convicts Tom Robinson. In this example, evidence implies four elements: 1) information is presented that is applicable to the subject (testimony), 2) a person or group of people (in this case the jury) interpret the information, 3) conclusions of that interpretation are formed by that person or group (the verdict), and 4) those conclusions are communicated to others (for example, the criminal justice system).

As is clear in this example, evidence is not identical to proof. However, using Euclidean Geometry, we can prove that the sum of three angles within any plane triangle is 180 degrees. In this case, proof uses a small set of starting points called postulates, assumed to be indisputable, and proceeds with logical and accepted steps to a conclusion. The conclusion—or proof—is independent of the reader. If one accepts the starting points and follows the accepted rules step by step, one must arrive at a conclusion or proof. There are no other alternatives, even considering the biases of the reader.

There are also other views of proof that are less restrictive than those that apply to mathematics and logic. They are based on rational-empirical evidence that is derived from scientific observations that scholars make in different fields of inquiry ranging from the physical and human sciences to the humanities. Conclusions based on empirical evidence are subject to biases, as in the case of Tom Robinson’s conviction. As new evidence emerges, beliefs that were once thought to have been proven become subject to change unlike those of mathematics and logic.

We recognize that interpreting information (step two above) involves prioritizing in terms of importance. In To Kill a Mockingbird, the jury gave much more weight to the victim’s testimony and little or no weight to Tom Robinson’s. This is easily recognized as a selective bias or as it is often called “cherry picking” the evidence. The distribution of weight, or credibility, is clearly based on the jury’s racial prejudices.

When we examine the knowledge that is related to the topics that we include in the remaining chapters of this book, we are mindful that our own selective biases could influence our choice of scientific evidence. At the same time, we are deeply committed to being as objective as possible. Our goal is to examine all the relevant and verifiable information and interpret it (step three above) as free from bias as possible.

By following this method, we believe that our weighing of evidence will be an accurate reflection of the real world, which we assume exists independently of our perception of it. Furthermore we assume that the real world contains elements that are knowable and verifiable by others as well as ourselves. To the extent that this is humanly possible, we are committed to scientific objectivity. If the jurors in To Kill a Mockingbird had recognized their biases, their verdict would certainly have been different and the outcome less tragic.

Before we conclude this section on the relationship between evidence and proof, we need to address one final point that applies to the process by which knowledge changes. As we will show in the remaining chapters, because of modern science our understanding of how the world works has undergone a dramatic transformation in the past 300 years. For example, as a result of the accumulation of scientific evidence, we believe that the Earth is not flat. While this cannot be proven beyond the shadow of doubt, the evidence that it is round is so overwhelming that it is not unreasonable to interpret the evidence as proof or as near as possible to proof. In addition, if a mathematical equation can be applied to a recurring phenomenon of nature, such as Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation,3 then it is accurate to interpret this relationship as proven or as close as possible to being proven.

Evidence and Confidence

One of the best ways to envision the relationship between evidence and proof is to think of a continuum with disproof at the one end and proof at the other. See Figure 1.

Figure 1. The Evidence-Confidence scale and two extremes.

Evidence can range along this continuum between these two extremes. The relative strength of evidence is directly related to the movement of the needle along the Confidence scale: the stronger the evidence, the greater the confidence.

The essential factor for determining any given confidence level is the reliability of evidence that is related to a specific scientific hypothesis that involves a predictable relationship between two or more elements. For example, if independent scientists observe a repeatable pattern of relationships that persists over time, then the evidence that they accumulate moves the needle toward the proof end of the continuum. As a result, the confidence level increases. However, if the accumulated evidence is inconsistent or not repeatable or contradictory, such as the causes of personality variations, the needle goes in the opposite direction toward hypothetical speculation or disproof. In turn, this leads to a decrease in confidence.

Scientific Method

Next, our understanding of evidence cuts across a broad range of areas that include science, knowledge, justice, and morality—all of which we describe in this book. We begin our discussion by focusing on the methods that scientists use to derive knowledge, which in turn affects our level of confidence. Our approach is eclectic.4 That is to say, we accept that scientists use a range of methods that are appropriate to their separate fields of study. No single method applies to all areas. For example, the double-blind experimental laboratory methods that medical science uses to develop new pharmaceutical products differs from those that anthropologists employ when they do comparative field studies of diverse cultures. The sampling methodologies that sociologists utilize to determine political views within a large population differ from the modeling techniques that meteorologists apply to detect changing weather patterns. We also realize the limitations of the number and types of scientific cases we can present. We suggest that other cases can be treated in a similar manner to the ones we use here.

Regardless of their chosen method of investigation in the form of experimentation, comparison, observation, description, and/or modeling, all scientists follow the same systematic procedure. This involves several steps starting with the development of theories and hypotheses about empirical and measurable relationships within a given field of inquiry. This is followed by collecting and analyzing empirical data; interpreting results; sharing outcomes with colleagues through journals, conferences, and other forms of communication; and improving the techniques of investigation or experimentation when outcomes call for further exploration. In cases where disagreements exist—and they often do—research continues and hypotheses are updated with the goal of eventually building a scientific consensus based on the most convincing empirical evidence and predictability.

While this brief description might sound oversimplified, we believe that it correctly captures the modern scientific approach to the discovery and development of new and accurate knowledge in numerous fields of inquiry. In the following chapters, we build on this foundation and incorporate it into our discussion of the diverse topics that we cover.

Structuring or Tuning

In addition, the notion of structuring or tuning plays a central role in our understanding of evidence and the conclusions we draw from it. By structuring or tuning we mean that an animal, person, or object has an inherent characteristic that defines its essence. For example, an acorn is structure...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1: Introduction: Knowledge, Science, and Belief in God
• Chapter 2: Humanity Is Structured for Knowledge
• Chapter 3: The Universe Is Structured for Conscious, Self-Aware Life
• Chapter 4: From Non-Life to Life
• Chapter 5: The Brain Is Structured for Spiritual Experiences
• Chapter 6: Humanity Is Structured for Justice
• Chapter 7: Humanity Is Structured for a Universal Morality
• Chapter 8: God Is Here to Stay
• Epilogue
• Bibliography