In my prior post I told of meeting up with Larry the science professor for lunch one day, and how he pressed the point on me of the superiority of science over religion in discovering truth and acquiring knowledge.
As an atheist, Larry’s point was clear: God as an explanation is not only inferior to science, God is not needed at all.
Larry is a caring guy and a good listener, rare in my experience of science-only atheists.
I asked him why I should settle for science when I can have both science and God, and thus a more complete picture of the world.
This question challenged Larry’s assumption that God and science contradict. I was suggesting that the relation of science to God is not an either-or question but a “both-and.”
That is, science and God are compatible.*
“For we theists,” I said, “science and the laws of nature are gifts from God to help us discover his beautiful world and offer him gratitude and praise.”
* * *
I’d like to report that Larry then fell on his knees in the restaurant and converted to Christianity. Not so. But to his credit he said he’d consider my proposal of the both-and nature of God and science.
So my closing question is this: Which would you rather have: science only or science and God?
Next post: I return to the main question of whether believers in God must “prove” his existence.
*See chapter 12, “Elephant Traps,” in my Faith is Like Skydiving, for a fuller treatment of the relation of science to faith.