click for home page

 

Commenting on:
Science and Religion


My book, Reality Check: Science Meets Religion, is an attempt to come up with a satisfactory logical argument that makes a convincing case for belief in God—supported by independent evidence of all its suppositions. Given over half the world's population believes in God, and that virtually everyone in the technological world also believes in science, my assumption is that religion and science should not—and cannot—be regarded as mutually exclusive. Probably the world's most famous scientist, Albert Einstein, put it this way: 'Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.' I wholeheartedly agree.

While not a lot of people realise this, two popes have admitted evolution might be part of God's plan. In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII said: 'There is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.' Referring to this in his message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in October 1996, Pope John Paul II added: 'Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory.'

There are, of course, enlightened scientists who do believe in a creator God, and believers who do believe in science, but the plain truth is that the majority of scientists feel there is no need for the concept of God, and the dogma and long-held beliefs of traditional religions do not seem to gel with science. Since religion is based upon understanding stemming from ancient sources, however, is it not possible the problem might lie in the interpretation of what is said in those sacred writings? That is not to say they are incorrect, but that we need to look at them more closely, and in a modern light.

As a result of apparent conflicts between science and religion, we have atheists who are confident it is absurd to believe in God, agnostics who try to keep their options open because they are uncertain about God, and even believers who have to compartmentalize their beliefs in those areas where there seems to be conflict: those same areas which cause agnostics to hold back. So is there any common ground whereby the two sides are able to conclude they are just looking at the same thing from different points of view? I believe there is, and that is what my book is all about. It provides an unfettered view of religion and science and aims to show they are truly compatible.

Evolution offends the sensibilities of some believers because they say God created man. But what if he did so through the process of evolution? And if we admit this as a possibility, was their no creation involved at all? In my book I show there was both evolution and creation, and that this is supported by a careful reading of the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. In fact, my entire book shows that science is merely the study of God's creation, and that the Bible is not at odds with modern scientific theory.

Atheists will scoff at anyone who believes in God, as does Richard Dawkins, whose best selling book, The God Delusion, strives to prove there is no God. Yet I show he is deluded when he implies God is part of creation. He talks of 'god of the Martians' and of 'the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri' when casting scorn on the belief of Christians. Yet it is illogical and unscientific to assume any creator can be part of his creation, any more than an artist can be a living part of his painting. To make such remarks shows Dawkins' understanding of any god is a very shallow one. If we believe God created our world—the space-time continuum—he could not physically be part of it, even if he can make himself known within it (eg through a human-being such as Jesus and the Holy Spirit). So Dawkins' argument that any creator needs a creator, is a fallacy: this is not an argument that can be constrained by physicality: it exceeds the physical world.

If you read—and were convinced by—the arguments of The God Delusion, please now read my book's rebuttal of 16 classic arguments against there being a God, including those of Dawkins, and my presentation of a new argument to counter typical arguments against there being a God. It also analyses a similar number of classic arguments for there being a God and comes up with a new argument for God based on the unique approach taken by this book.

Don't think my arguments for God are merely hypothetical. I start out by offering evidence-supported facts that prove our consciousness—and that of God—lies outside his creation of the space-time continuum. Once you can accept the evidence that proves this, you are well on the way to understanding how the classic arguments against there being a God fall down due to their lack of perspective. Appreciation of this, and of the multidimensional view science now has of space-time, actually leads us to the position of reinterpreting where Heaven might be. The traditional belief it is somewhere up in the sky, for example, might have worked a couple of thousand years ago, but notions such as this no longer cut it for most of us. I show how a modern interpretation, in line with science, is actually confirmed by implication in the words of Jesus when asked where the Kingdom of Heaven was.

Jesus told people they needed to believe 'like little children' in order to be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I hope that Reality Check: Science Meets Religion, will enable many of its readers to pass beyond doubts they had about God once they understand belief is not contrary to science. As a consequence of losing those doubts and fears, they can then do just what Jesus suggested: 'believe like little children'.

If you always wanted to believe in God but thought that was impossible, please give me a chance to change your mind through this book. Check out the reader reviews alongside to see what others have said about it. The subject might be deep, but the approach I have taken makes it simple to understand. Hopefully you will find it entertaining, accessible, and not without a little humour. And if it helps you, please also tell others about it. Faith is the greatest gift you could give to anyone, so don't keep it back from your friends: especially if you believe it is the route to eternal life!

Click here to find out how to buy this book.

Back to top

  CLick here to buy
Click here for BUY options


READER COMMENTS:

"The survey of arguments both for and against the existence of God provides the reader with a way to better compare and contrast different viewpoints… Presenting the strengths and weaknesses of all of these different viewpoints was one of the things I liked most. I was really interested to read these chapters because, as a mathematician and a Christian, while there may be perceived conflicts between science and religion, I believe there are no conflicts between the structures and systems of the universe and God. This book also explains things very well… [and is] accessible without sacrificing scientific integrity… I think the book will be enjoyed by many and will encourage lively discussion." (David Bortress - Authonomy)


"Extremely well written, researched and set out. Every point is very clear. The analogies are extremely imaginative and very effective. The passion in this work is powerful and every paragraph is thought provoking. The arguments are well thought through and persuasive... I would suggest that everyone reads it and think very carefully about what you say." (Gareth Naylor - Authonomy)


"'Reality Check' is an interesting and accessible book... that sets up the basic argument well, an intriguing one at that: proof of God in brain and mind being two different things, mind existing beyond the time-space continuum. At this stage my interest was piqued. I haven’t come across an argument like this before so it appears original... I was entertained and informed along the way and feel richer for the debate. Anyone interested in these themes would do well to have a read of 'Reality Check'." (Ross Clark - Authonomy)


"This is one hell of a book, excuse the pun; and so well researched, and the thoughts are radical on this matter... [the] Albert Einstein line, very relevant to-day and very much relates to what you have written... I was totally intrigued... and found it to be very informative." (Tom Bye - Authonomy)