Our Blog

By: Pastor Peter Schlicht

Psalm 19 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.” This is clear evidence for the believer: The intentional design of the universe is the undeniable mark of the God who designed it, right? However, bringing this point up in a discussion with someone who does not believe in God may be completely unconvincing. Why? Well, it has to do with Conflicting Premises.

Conflicting Premises is a fallacy in which all the premises (starting points) cannot be true at the same time because the truthfulness of one premise nullifies the truthfulness of another. For instance, if I told you, “My dog is a great swimmer but it has never been in water.” You know that both of those premises cannot be truly said of my dog. Either the dog is a great swimmer and it has, in fact, been in water. Or the dog is not a great swimmer because it has never been in water. Something similar happens when scientific research is done with the premise that no god exists.

Remember, science is not a collection of facts. Science is a way of knowing that requires some strong philosophical premises (whether understood or unconsciously assumed). Most people who understand some of the facts, principles, laws, and theories of science are not always aware of these premises.

One of the underlying premises of scientific epistemology (How scientists know what they know) is that only evidence within the physical world can be considered. Naturally, this also assumes that there is no supernatural influence on the physical world. But these are really conflicting premises. How could a supernatural god make itself known in the physical world if every action that it performs is regarded as an act of nature? These arguments must be rejected on the grounds of conflicting premises. You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being any more than you can prove its existence.

Science, which is done honestly, is a process of looking at evidence and seeking to understand what can be proven from what can be observed. Since we can’t know or assert something until we’ve observed it; without such data, the proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates’ motto “I know that I don’t know”. (Socrates was dubbed by the Oracle at Delphi as the smartest man in all of Greece because he alone was smart enough to realize that he knew nothing.)

In this way, if anyone who claims to “follow science”, proudly and self-assuredly declares themselves atheists, then they’re not only being intellectually dishonest, but they’re also going counter to the guiding principles of the process they supposedly promote: Science. What bothers me most is when atheists use the banner of science to somehow give legitimacy to their own, dogmatic, beliefs about the foolishness of faith.

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position for the non-believer should really be one of agnosticism—“I don’t know since I don’t have enough data one way or another.” (It is for this same reason that our faith must be just that: Faith—“assurance of what we hope for and confidence in what we cannot see.” (Hebrews 11:1) Incidentally, here’s another conflicting premise: “I have faith in God because of all the evidence I see.”)

Much of what people consider as fact today includes scientific theories and models, but these do not equate with fact. Science itself tells us this. To trust in a theory or a model one needs to have some faith. So to believe in a theory like evolution and to build your life on its consequences (i.e. there is no god, soul, morality, etc.) is more of an act of faith than pure reason. It would be a conflicting premise to say that you believe in evolution because of science. Because if you believe in something, you are trusting in what you cannot observe, which will always be the case with macroevolution.

The humility of genuine scientific inquiry is rare and wonderful. Oh, that more people would follow Socrates when studying God’s creation, “I know that I don’t know.” We would all do well to grow in our knowledge of how much we don’t know about God’s handiwork. Remind yourself, as often as you need to, that your belief in God does not conflict with honest scientific research that seeks to understand what can be proven from clear observation. Remember that there are many studies that try to position themselves as science, which are more opinion or persuasion than true scientific research. And remember that Jesus himself said, “Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.” Ultimately, only the Holy Spirit convinces us of the dearest truth of the Christian faith: Jesus Christ and him crucified.

[This article is Part 2 of 4. Part 1 focused on the false conflict between faith and science. Part 3 will focus on anchor points, referring to how Christians can become aware of secular influence and remain grounded on Scripture without feeling idiotic. Part 4 will focus on helping Christians reclaim their wonder of God’s creative work in the natural world.]