Once upon a time there was an interesting discussion about religion and science on the Coast to Coast AM radio show.1 Host Art Bell was interviewing Dr. Bart Kosko, professor of electrical engineering and law at the University of Southern California. Kosko made it clear that in his mind, science rules out faith—but the ironic reality is that science depends on faith.
We’d better define our terms here. Kosko has asserted that faith is “unwarranted belief.”2 Is this definition fair or reasonable?
We can use faith in various contexts, not only religious. For example, you can probably point to someone who is your best friend, whom you’ve known for years and with whom you’ve shared a variety of experiences. You’ve seen how that person thinks and behaves in many different situations. Suppose one day you get news that your best friend has been accused of a grave crime, such as rape or murder. You may have no direct evidence by which to determine your friend’s guilt or innocence—yet you would likely say, “I believe in my friend. I’m confident he wouldn’t do a thing like that.”
Now it’s logically possible that your friend has fooled you all these years; that they had a dark side of which you were completely unaware. Still, would it be reasonable to label your faith in your friend “unwarranted belief”?
Of course not. While it’s logically possible you don’t know your friend as well as you think you do, your faith is warranted by the accumulation of your experiences with that person over the course of time. In trials depending heavily on circumstantial evidence, what are known as “character witnesses” will often be called upon to testify, because their knowledge of the defendant provides warrant for a reasonable expectation as to the defendant’s likely behavior in a given situation.
Certainly as fallible human beings we often cling to unwarranted beliefs. But there is no a priori reason to suppose that all beliefs are unwarranted, or that the term faith carries only Kosko’s definition. A synonym for faith is trust, and there are degrees of trust as well as good or bad reasons for trust. Kosko assumes that religious faith is spurious by nature, but that is question-begging.
The Atheist’s Blind Spot
Atheistic scientists like Kosko are unconscious of their own religious faith—naturalism. This involves two primary faith-based notions:
Raw nature “accounts for itself”;
Science is the “only way” to understand nature.
It is absolutely vital to see that these are faith-commitments—philosophy—RELIGION. These notions aren't scientific findings. So all these particular scientists are really doing is substituting one “god” (nature) for Another. This is a modern-day version of paganism, about which the Bible says:
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. [Romans 1:25]
There’s no such thing as “neutrality,” or “reason without faith.” Everyone believes in a “superhuman controlling power”: either a personal power, or an impersonal one—either an independent Creator, outside of nature—or Nature itself. There’s no third option. All religious and philosophical beliefs and personal convictions—and yes, even science—are founded on faith in Nature or a Creator.
According to the Bible, humans have a tendency to “suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:18). In other words, we have an anti-God bent in our hearts; a bias against Him. We choose to believe that either He doesn’t exist at all, or that He’s irrelevant to our lives—or, worse, that He’s our enemy.
But we only have two options: God or Nature—“created things” or “the Creator” (Romans 1:25). To place faith in either one is a “religious” expression, even if you don’t identify with any formal religious institution.
A Reasonable Foundation
Ironically, science and reason themselves are two of the best arguments for God's existence.
(1) Let’s start with reason: it simply makes sense that reason comes from an Ultimate Reasoner—that our minds come from Ultimate Mind. The universe is here either (a) by accident, or (b) on purpose. Again: no third option. If the universe is an accident, why should we assume that accidental, reasonless chemicals would produce reason? Or purpose? Or morality? How can an effect be greater than its cause? How can something give what it doesn't have to give?
(2) Science would be impossible without God's existence. This is because in order for us to conduct scientific investigations, the world around us must be orderly, because science is the study of how things work. Ah, but nothing could work if the universe was disorder rather than order. In turn, the existence of order logically implies an “Orderer”; natural laws imply a celestial Law-Giver.
Christianity is, of course, centered on Jesus Christ. What isn’t commonly known is how the Gospel of John refers to Jesus:
Before the world began, the [Logos] was there. The [Logos] was with God, and the [Logos] was God. . . . The [Logos] became a man and lived among us. We saw his divine greatness—the greatness that belongs to the only Son of the Father. The [Logos] was full of grace and truth. [John 1:1, 14]
The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the Greek term logos is normally translated “word”—but it’s also the source of the English term logic. Ancient Greek philosophers believed there was an abstract principle of Reason that ordered the universe; they called this orderliness the “Logos.” So what John is telling us in these verses is that Ultimate Reason is actually a Person.
And that Person wants to lead us back to Himself.
From Faith to Faith
Faith in the God of the Bible places bookends around not just science but all of life. We begin with faith in the Creator—acknowledging His “eternal power and divine nature [which] have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
In turn, God enables us to investigate His handiwork: “Knowledge begins with respect for the Lord” (Proverbs 1:7). This includes knowledge of ourselves. Not everyone has Bible-knowledge, yet
they naturally do what [God’s] law commands without even knowing the law, [in which case] they are their own law. . . . They show that in their hearts they know what is right and wrong, the same as the law commands, and their consciences agree. Sometimes their thoughts tell them that they have done wrong, and this makes them guilty. And sometimes their thoughts tell them that they have done right, and this makes them not guilty. [Romans 2:14-15]
Unlike animals, humans have the capacity for introspection, which means that our recognition of the moral compass inside ourselves should—logically—lead us to seek His mercy, and, upon receiving that mercy—appreciate and praise Him.
In other words faith on one end leads to faith on the other end: a relationship with our Maker, “the one who called us to himself by means of his marvelous glory and excellence.” (2 Peter 1:3)
The heavens proclaim the glory of God.
The skies display his craftsmanship.
Day after day they continue to speak;
night after night they make him known.
They speak without a sound or word;
their voice is never heard.Yet their message has gone throughout the earth,
and their words to all the world. [Psalm 19:1-4]
Some resources:
Fixing the “Science and Reason” Mistake (subsection)
“Nanomaterials,” Coast to Coast AM (24 July 2004) (program records go back only to 2008).
Bart Kosko, “The Problem With Faith-Based Funding is Faith Itself,” Los Angeles Times (19 Feb. 2001), http://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/oped_9.pdf (accessed 29 Sept. 2021; emph. mine).