is neither provable nor disprovable, so God has no place in scientific
where the word religion,
though a useful term, carries a lot of negative baggage in my mind. Religion,
in one sense, can be described as human activity that seeks to fill ones
need for "God". In that sense, one is right in saying religion and its potential
biases have no part in scientific inquiry.
rule out the possibility that God's existence is a reality. To do
so would run the risk of blinding science to certain possible truths or
conclusions. If one's view of science is to find the truth wherever the
facts may lead, then no potential conclusion can be barred from consideration.
course, we both realize that the Bible describes God as spirit, and that
the material sciences deal with non-spirit; but the overarching concern
is that of finding truth. I address that implication more here,
here, and here
(and probably twenty other places).
Christian "religion" is absolutely dependent upon certain truths:
Jesus walked the earth, Jesus was resurrected from death, God created the
heavens, God created mankind, and more. To the extent that some evidence
exists of these things, then God, at least as a potential conclusion, does
have a part in scientific inquiry. If Christianity boasts to have a theory
that successfully accounts for the world around us, why not put it
to the test at least as far as such evidence allows? (See my ten chapters
for arguments both for and against doing just that.)
all this and can still agree with Kepler that it should not be the first
course of a scientist to look towards the divine. (Even Joseph did not do
that when he first heard Mary was pregnant with Jesus.) For God is as capable
of working transparently as he is visibly.
The cosmological argument
On freedom of inquiry
The origin of man
The origin of the earth
The origin of