Chapter Content
Okay, so, um, reading the Bible with Laurel... yeah, it didn't exactly, like, cause me to suddenly, you know, fall to my knees or have some kind of, uh, Damascus-like conversion experience. Instead, what happened was, I just kept asking questions. Tough questions, actually. Both of my beloved science and Christianity, you know?
And most of my, uh, my efforts really centered on this one big quandary: Is it even, like, remotely possible to reconcile what today's science says is true with what some book from, like, thousands of years ago says about reality? I mean, I'd sort of discovered that both, you know, the New Testament and quantum physics, they share this, uh, kind of affinity for translogical thinking, but... how far did that similarity really go? How alike were the biblical and scientific worldviews, like, *really*?
So, being a scientist, naturally, I sought an answer to this, like, million-dollar question by using a systematic, evidence-based strategy. Basically, I just, uh, I just figured out where science and the Bible – specifically Christianity, actually – stood on major issues.
Now, I can't, like, fit *everything* I discovered in, uh, this thing, but, you know, my exploration included, like, three popular Western worldviews: scientific, atheistic, and Christian. And I asked each of them three, uh, deep questions. Okay? Number one: Does absolute truth exist, or is truth entirely relative? Number two: Are there truths that cannot be proven? And number three: Is the universe designed for life?
When I first did this exercise, it included all the religions I'd studied. And I asked them, like, a bunch *more* questions than these three. Uh, for example: What's the nature of time? Is there life after death? Are humans unique? But I think this, uh, you know, this small sampling will give you a good sense of what I found. And honestly, the results, they surprised me a lot, I'll tell ya.
Okay, so let's look at the scientific worldview. Does absolute truth exist? The answer is yes. Back in the late 17th century, Isaac Newton, he discovered evidence that, uh, gravity exists, like, throughout the entire universe, not just here on Earth. I mean, this was, like, a *shocking* revelation. It totally contradicted the long-held Aristotelian belief that the universe was divided into two, like, nearly opposite realms: the terrestrial and the heavenly.
Think of it kind of like, uh, like the cosmic equivalent of the separation of church and state. The terrestrial realm, you know, everything from the moon on down, was supposed to be, like, corruptible and always changing. It was made of, and governed by, the mixing and matching of, you know, these four imperfect elements: earth, air, fire, and water.
And the heavenly realm? Supposedly, it was incorruptible and unchanging. It was made of and governed by a single, perfect element: the quintessence. Literally, the fifth element. So, yeah, understandably, people were stunned to learn that, you know, not just Earth but also the starry heavens, were subject to, like, gravity’s influence. That gravity is not just a regional force, but this, like, universal one described by a universal law. I mean, it’s now taught in high school, right? F = GMm/r squared.
Put simply, there isn't, like, one law of gravity for you and another one for me. There isn't one truth for you and one truth for me. Your law of gravity is, like, *identical* to my law of gravity. Whether you are rich or poor, Muslim or Christian, white or black, male or female, if you jump off a cliff, you will drop at 32 feet per second per second. It’s, like, an absolute truth.
Oh, and one more thing. Science *has* identified, like, certain superficial aspects of reality that are relative, right? They depend on your frame of reference, your point of view. But even *they* are subject to laws of physics that are absolute. Case in point: energy, matter, time, and space. They're relative quantities, but they obey the strict, absolute, and universal laws of special and general relativity.
Okay, next question. Are there truths that cannot be proven? And the answer is, again, yes. Both science and math agree on this one. So, let me give you a quick example of each.
First, science. Consider Einstein's famous equation from his theory of special relativity: E = mc squared. We now have, like, over a century's worth of evidence that it’s true. Is that proof? Nope. Why not? Well, I'll let Einstein answer this one for you. He said, "The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusion."
Over the years, that observation's been paraphrased like this: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong." So, even though special relativity appears to be true, science can’t ever prove it.
Second, mathematics. Say hello to Kurt Gödel. After Aristotle, probably the greatest logician who ever lived. In 1931, this young Austrian proved what’s now called Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. The math behind it is a bit complicated, but its central message, it's not. According to GIT, there are many truths that can never be proved using conventional logic. Yeah, you heard that right. Ordinary Aristotelian logic just isn’t, like, powerful enough to affirm the veracity of certain big, complicated truths.
I like to summarize Gödel’s astonishing findings this way: Truth is bigger than proof. Here's another way to think about it. What happens when you ask too much of your computer? Like, when you open too many windows at once? The computer crashes, right? Well, Gödel’s theorem proves – *proves* – that logic is kind of like that. Ordinary logic is good at proving simple truths. But logic crashes when you ask it to prove big, complex truths.
Consider, for example, this big, bold statement from the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal." Is it true? Not true? The question cannot be settled using logic. Believing this "self-evident" truth requires faith. I call statements like that – those that are absolutely true but can never be proved true – Gödelian truths, or translogical truths. They, like, defy the pedestrian rules of ordinary reasoning.
Okay, last question for the scientific worldview. Is the universe designed for life? And the answer, surprisingly, is yes. Let me introduce you to cosmologist and astrophysicist Sir Martin Rees, Britain’s Astronomer Royal. He's an Atheist who once declared, "I've got no religious beliefs at all."
Sir Martin wrote a positively wonderful book titled *Just Six Numbers*. In it, he itemizes what I call six vital signs of the universe. When you go in for a checkup, the doctor measures your vital signs, right? Temperature, blood pressure, pulse, breathing rate, etcetera, to see how you're doing. Well, Sir Martin's six numbers tell us how the universe is doing. And when we take measure of them, the results are shocking.
The six vital signs encompass *exactly* – not approximately, *exactly* – the values necessary for life to exist in the universe. And not just human life, mind you, but any and all organic life forms. Uh, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences,” says Stanford physicist Andrei Linde, “and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible."
If any of those vital signs were off by even a smidgen, neither you nor I nor any of Earth’s plants and animals – nor any life forms possibly existing on other worlds – would or could exist. The universe would be thoroughly desolate, like some cosmic-sized ghost town.
Is it really just coincidence? Did our universe just get lucky? Well, you could shrug off a few perfectly calibrated vital signs. But six or more? To comprehend the enormous improbability of our situation, take a look at one of Sir Martin’s vital signs: lambda, the cosmological constant. Lambda tells us something about how fast the universe is accelerating outward, like a gigantic inflating balloon of spacetime. An expansion that we believe might be driven by a repulsive, omnipresent, invisible fog called dark energy. Lambda also tells us something about the age of the universe and about whether life in the universe is possible or not.
Your chances of winning the Powerball or Mega Millions lottery are, like, one in 175 million. The chance of lambda having precisely the value necessary for life, which it does, is, like, one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. In scientific notation, that’s one to ten to the 120th power.
Now, one way to explain away our astronomical good fortune is by assuming that many other universes exist, right? The multiverse. If it’s true, then our good fortune isn’t miraculous. Given enough contestants in a lottery, someone is bound to win.
One particularly ardent supporter of the so-called multiverse theory is Sean Carroll, a physicist at Caltech. He says, “The number of universes could well be infinity. So it is possible that somewhere else in this larger structure that we call the multiverse, there are people like us, thinking about similar questions."
Another way of explaining away our good fortune: Maybe we're overstating the importance of perfectly tuned vital signs. Maybe a universe with "bad" vital signs can have life. Yes, they’d need to be exotic life forms that science cannot presently imagine, but, you know, it wouldn’t be the first time science was taken by surprise.
I enjoy theoretical musings like that, I think they're worth keeping in mind. But right now, there's no evidence for any of that speculation. And even worse, no prospect of ever obtaining any such evidence.
For instance, after decades of trying, no one’s been able to come up with a workable experiment that can detect the existence of multiple universes. And it’s not very likely anyone ever will. I mean, how can we hope to observe legions of universes out there somewhere when we can’t even fully observe our own?
Lee Smolin, a physicist at Canada’s Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, summarizes the dilemma like this: "The multiverse theory has difficulty making any firm predictions and threatens to take us out of the realm of science. These other universes are unobservable."
Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, agrees. She says, “Without making contact to observation, a theory isn’t useful to describe the natural world. It’s not part of the natural sciences, and not physics."
So, for the time being, the hypothetical multiverse remains as fictional as the Land of Oz. As otherworldly as heaven and hell. In the meantime, there’s no denying our universe is miraculous, having won the lottery not once or twice, but at least six times over. It is indisputable evidence, admits Atheist astronomer Sir Martin Rees, that "we are in a privileged subset of all possible universes."
A privileged cosmos, exquisitely tailor-made for us.
Alright, so let's move on to the atheistic worldview. Does absolute truth exist? The answer here is no. I mean, there are many denominations of Atheism, just like there are of any religion. But let's talk about Post-truth Atheism. It's an especially popular sect, and it holds that truth is relative. Truth depends entirely on feelings and experiences, which are totally subjective.
One movie assigns this belief to its chief protagonist, a psychologist who specializes in altered states of consciousness. The Atheist scientist declares, "The final truth of all things is that there is no final truth."
It's on full display in a YouTube video that features a young woman named Rebecca, having a disagreement with some demonstrators in Los Angeles. And what she says, with sincerity, pretty much sums up the post-truth worldview. She said, "As a human being, we should pay attention to fear and not logic."
Someone replied, "Wait, wait. You said pay attention to fear and not logic?" She said, "Yes." He said, "I should pay attention to emotions and not facts?" And she replied, "Yes… emotions are the only thing that are real in this world."
Okay, next question for the atheistic worldview. Are there truths that cannot be proven? Well, here the answer is no. Fundamental to all atheistic worldviews is the belief that something is true if and only if it can be proven. Thomas Edison, inventor extraordinaire, said it like this: "I cannot accept as final any theory which is not provable. The theories of the theologians cannot be proved. Proof, proof! That is what I always have been after; that is what my mind requires before it can accept a theory as fact."
In other words, for Atheists, truth equals proof. I'm intimately familiar with this worldview. As a scientific monk, I sided with Edison. I believed only in things that could be proved logically. You claim God exists? Prove it! Otherwise, shut up.
And finally, is the universe designed for life? Again, for Atheists, the answer is no. Consider the remarkable life and work of Atheist Steven Weinberg, American physicist and Nobel laureate. Weinberg wrote a book titled *The First Three Minutes*, which describes the universe during the three minutes immediately following the big bang.
With a long career under his belt, Weinberg has come to a conclusion. He said, "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."
For Weinberg and other Atheists, the universe and everything in it is the product of a series of accidents. So, all of it is meaningless. Including Weinberg’s career, his achievements, and his opinion that the universe seems pointless.
Okay, so last but not least, the Christian worldview. Does absolute truth exist? Yes. According to the New Testament, Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" And Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well."
A couple of things to notice. First, according to the Christian worldview, Jesus is the human equivalent of God. "The Father and I are one," Jesus declares. In math, equivalence is much stronger than mere equality. One plus one equals two. But the number three is *equivalent* to the number three. So, according to the Christian worldview, Jesus is equivalent to God.
Second, within the Christian worldview, there isn't a God for you and another God for me. We all live under the authority of a single, universal God. Just as we all live under the constraints of a single, universal gravitational force. The prophet Isaiah reports, "I am the First and the Last; there is no other God." The apostle Paul declares: "There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus."
Okay, next question. Are there truths that cannot be proven? The answer is yes. The New Testament recounts the experience of a disciple named Thomas. When the other disciples told him that Jesus had returned to life, Thomas wasn't buying it. "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe."
Thomas’s motto is a common one: Seeing is believing. He would have made a good candidate for governor. But then Jesus appeared to Thomas and gave him a faith-building invitation: "Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!” Thomas obeyed and was convinced of the reality of Jesus' resurrection. "My Lord and my God!" he cried.
Jesus’ reply is telling: "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me." According to Christianity, there are truths – like Jesus’ existence – that cannot be proved. They must be believed to be seen.
The skeptical Thomas believed enough that the crucified Jesus was alive that he touched the wounds. He believed enough to determine the truth for himself. If he hadn’t, he would have remained in the dark. The same goes for you. Unless you’re willing to believe that something *might* be true, you’ll never bother to investigate and see for yourself whether it is true. You’ll remain in a state of confident ignorance.
And last question: Is the universe designed for life? According to the Christian worldview, yes. The universe is not an accident, and neither are you. It is all the deliberate creation of a brilliant, loving, rational being, God.
The Bible makes this clear by opening with the words, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The narrator then describes the unfolding masterpiece, culminating with the formation of the first spiritually intelligent creatures, Homo sapiens sapiens, Adam and Eve.
So, when you put it all together, the scientific worldview says: Yes to absolute truth, yes to truths that can't be proven, and yes to a universe designed for life. The atheistic worldview says: No to absolute truth, no to truths that can't be proven, and no to a universe designed for life. And the Christian worldview says: Yes to absolute truth, yes to truths that can't be proven, and yes to a universe designed for life.
Do you notice anything interesting? Anything surprising? When I first did this analysis, I noticed two things that took me aback. First, the atheistic worldview is fundamentally opposed to the scientific worldview. And second, the Christian worldview is fundamentally in line with the scientific worldview.
This shocked me because I'd always taken it for granted that Atheism was in line with science. And that Christianity was in conflict with my beloved science. Today, many Atheists perpetuate that lie. They boast that science is on their side and that Christianity is an antiscientific superstition. But they're mistaken. And so are the many Christians who see science as an enemy, as an institution out to undermine their Bible-believing worldview.
As a scientific monk and devout Atheist, I couldn’t shrug off the results. The results rocked my lifelong secular worldview far more so than even the missing mass problem had done. But I still wasn't ready to come to a definitive conclusion. I still had more questions that needed answering.