Science Presupposes God
Atheism depends on Christianity in order to attack it. The uniformity of nature is that principle which says that the future will look like the past. For example, the gravitational constant of the universe, the speed of light, the mass of an electron, and indeed all of the laws of nature are held to be constant, that is not changing over time. This is the very foundation of science itself. The uniformity of nature is absolutely essential, otherwise results obtained today could be repeated tomorrow with a different set of results and the accumulation of knowledge would be impossible. Sounds like a simple enough concept, but when put in the context of opposing worldviews such as Christianity and Atheism, the differences could not be any starker.
For the Christian, knowledge of the uniformity of nature is guaranteed. The guarantee comes to us in the written word of God, for God does not lie. It is important to understand that, according to the Christian worldview, it could have been otherwise. What I mean by that is that the uniformity of nature is upheld by an action of God, one that is not logically necessary with the being of God but rather is a free act of God. The uniformity of nature does not follow from the divine attributes of God. So, the assumption of the Christian worldview makes the knowledge of the uniformity of nature assured and thus provides science as a source of knowledge.
The atheist on the other hand has a problem with this principle. Atheists attempt to use induction to get to the uniformity of nature. According to Paul Moser's book: "The Theory of Knowledge", induction is described as: "Non-deductive, probabilistic inference; in an inductively valid form of inference, if the relevant premises are true, then the conclusion is at least more likely to be true than false. Induction thus allows true premises and a false conclusion in an inference but disallows true premises and a conclusion likely to be false". The assertion is made that uniformity has always been the case. But there is a problem with this assertion for the atheistic worldview. How does he know this to be the case without assuming the uniformity nature? The atheist could point to all of the scientific data gathered over the last couple hundred of years or so. But do we really have scientific data measuring the speed of light continuously over the last two hundred years? Even assuming the universe is only 6000 years old yields a lot of time where the uniformity of nature is neither confirmed nor denied let alone a universe that is on the order of 15 billion years old. How about the mass of an electron; are all electrons the same? Has anyone measured the mass of every electron, or a majority of all the electrons in the universe? Simply put, atheists have to assume the uniformity of nature to even get induction started. This is a problem that is even acknowledged by renowned atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell:
"In ontology, I start by accepting the truth of physics ... Philosophers may say: What justification have you for accepting the truth of physics? I reply: merely a common-sense basis ... I believe (though without good grounds) in the world of physics as well as in the world of psychology ... If we are to hold that we know anything of the external world, we must accept the canons of scientific knowledge. Whether ... an individual decides to accept or reject these canons, is a purely personal affair, not susceptible to argument."
According to Russell, the uniformity of nature is not susceptible to argument but is a purely personal affair. But since the uniformity of nature is assumed and is the foundation of science, this leaves atheists without justification for science, that is, science is not a source of knowledge. The uniformity of nature is not something that logically follows from the atheist worldview if true, but rather it is assumed outright in the beginning. Christianity on the other hand, if true, leads to knowledge of uniformity. More than this, atheists (majority at least) believe in a chance universe which is incompatible with uniformity. Even if one were to assume an infinite number of universes, which there is no evidence for, the atheist is still left with the same problem. Between any two seconds, there are an infinite number of real numbers that can be mapped to time in between those two seconds. Now taking all succession of seconds to be say N, we have an N times infinity problem. So, in computing the probability, the denominator goes to infinity much faster than the numerator. The probability in this case becomes 1/N where N is large. (See L'Hopital's Rule for computing limits involving infinity in the numerator and denominator) It can be further shown that this number is so small that it passes as a mathematically impossible event.
Atheists operate under this principle every day and even use science to attack Christianity using tools such as evolution. Atheists such as Richard Dawkins claim to "know" that evolution is true. But as we have seen, they do not "know" anything in science to be true. What does this mean for the atheist to claim knowledge in science as use it for justification for their lack of belief in God? Simply put, atheists are inconsistent. And if they are inconsistent on this point then what are they consistent with? Christianity, for only Christianity provides a rational basis and justification for science. The greatest evidence for Christianity is due to the impossibility of the contrary.
Why is the atheist unable to escape this problem? Because we live in the world created by God and we are made in God's image. The atheist suppresses the truth in unrighteousness but is unable to completely suppress it because he is created in the image of God also. The atheist in operating as if the uniformity of nature is true is living consistent with Christianity, not atheism and thus is operating with two conflicting worldviews.
Objections Objections, such as miracles contradict uniformity, will be addressed in a future posting.
References 1) Paul Moser, The Theory of Knowledge, pg. 190
2) Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits, xv-xvi as quoted in "Pushing the Antithesis" by Greg Bahnsen, pg 190-191
For the Christian, knowledge of the uniformity of nature is guaranteed. The guarantee comes to us in the written word of God, for God does not lie. It is important to understand that, according to the Christian worldview, it could have been otherwise. What I mean by that is that the uniformity of nature is upheld by an action of God, one that is not logically necessary with the being of God but rather is a free act of God. The uniformity of nature does not follow from the divine attributes of God. So, the assumption of the Christian worldview makes the knowledge of the uniformity of nature assured and thus provides science as a source of knowledge.
The atheist on the other hand has a problem with this principle. Atheists attempt to use induction to get to the uniformity of nature. According to Paul Moser's book: "The Theory of Knowledge", induction is described as: "Non-deductive, probabilistic inference; in an inductively valid form of inference, if the relevant premises are true, then the conclusion is at least more likely to be true than false. Induction thus allows true premises and a false conclusion in an inference but disallows true premises and a conclusion likely to be false". The assertion is made that uniformity has always been the case. But there is a problem with this assertion for the atheistic worldview. How does he know this to be the case without assuming the uniformity nature? The atheist could point to all of the scientific data gathered over the last couple hundred of years or so. But do we really have scientific data measuring the speed of light continuously over the last two hundred years? Even assuming the universe is only 6000 years old yields a lot of time where the uniformity of nature is neither confirmed nor denied let alone a universe that is on the order of 15 billion years old. How about the mass of an electron; are all electrons the same? Has anyone measured the mass of every electron, or a majority of all the electrons in the universe? Simply put, atheists have to assume the uniformity of nature to even get induction started. This is a problem that is even acknowledged by renowned atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell:
"In ontology, I start by accepting the truth of physics ... Philosophers may say: What justification have you for accepting the truth of physics? I reply: merely a common-sense basis ... I believe (though without good grounds) in the world of physics as well as in the world of psychology ... If we are to hold that we know anything of the external world, we must accept the canons of scientific knowledge. Whether ... an individual decides to accept or reject these canons, is a purely personal affair, not susceptible to argument."
According to Russell, the uniformity of nature is not susceptible to argument but is a purely personal affair. But since the uniformity of nature is assumed and is the foundation of science, this leaves atheists without justification for science, that is, science is not a source of knowledge. The uniformity of nature is not something that logically follows from the atheist worldview if true, but rather it is assumed outright in the beginning. Christianity on the other hand, if true, leads to knowledge of uniformity. More than this, atheists (majority at least) believe in a chance universe which is incompatible with uniformity. Even if one were to assume an infinite number of universes, which there is no evidence for, the atheist is still left with the same problem. Between any two seconds, there are an infinite number of real numbers that can be mapped to time in between those two seconds. Now taking all succession of seconds to be say N, we have an N times infinity problem. So, in computing the probability, the denominator goes to infinity much faster than the numerator. The probability in this case becomes 1/N where N is large. (See L'Hopital's Rule for computing limits involving infinity in the numerator and denominator) It can be further shown that this number is so small that it passes as a mathematically impossible event.
Atheists operate under this principle every day and even use science to attack Christianity using tools such as evolution. Atheists such as Richard Dawkins claim to "know" that evolution is true. But as we have seen, they do not "know" anything in science to be true. What does this mean for the atheist to claim knowledge in science as use it for justification for their lack of belief in God? Simply put, atheists are inconsistent. And if they are inconsistent on this point then what are they consistent with? Christianity, for only Christianity provides a rational basis and justification for science. The greatest evidence for Christianity is due to the impossibility of the contrary.
Why is the atheist unable to escape this problem? Because we live in the world created by God and we are made in God's image. The atheist suppresses the truth in unrighteousness but is unable to completely suppress it because he is created in the image of God also. The atheist in operating as if the uniformity of nature is true is living consistent with Christianity, not atheism and thus is operating with two conflicting worldviews.
Objections Objections, such as miracles contradict uniformity, will be addressed in a future posting.
References 1) Paul Moser, The Theory of Knowledge, pg. 190
2) Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits, xv-xvi as quoted in "Pushing the Antithesis" by Greg Bahnsen, pg 190-191