Premier On Demand | – Is faith the enemy of science? …in 90 seconds!

This 90 second answer from Glen Scrivener was brought to you by Premier Christianity, the UK’s leading Christian magazine.

For a free sample copy of the latest print issue, visit [support us] ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

[support us]

Premier exists to enable people to put their Faith at the heart of daily life and bring Christ to their communities. We support people on their faith journey and help them put their faith into action by providing spiritual nourishment and resources.

About The Author

Premier On Demand Our mission is to enable people to put their faith at the heart of daily life and to bring Christ to their communities.

Comment (9)

  1. There are only four valid explanations of how the universe began to exist. Either

    1: It was created via nothing,
    2: It created itself,
    3: It was created by something else that was created, or
    4: It was created by something else that was uncreated.

    #1 is illogical because it expects us to assume that something came from nothing. However, mathematics dictates that 0+0+0=0, not 3.

    #2 implies that the universe was in existence and not in existence at the same time. This is a logical impossibility. It is like asking, “Can your mother give birth to herself?”

    #3 does not answer anything. In this case, we can keep asking the question, “What created the thing that created the universe?” and “What created the thing that created the thing that created the universe?” etc. This cycle will never end and will only lead to the absurdity of an infinite regress. For example, let’s say in order for the current universe (universe 1) to happen, universe 2 had to happen. In order for 2 to happen, 3 had to happen. Similarly, without 5 happening, 4 cannot happen, and without 6, 5 cannot happen. If this cycle goes on forever, 1 will never happen or come into existence because of the fact that infinity can never “happen”. Infinity does not exist in reality, but rather only exists as a thought. Infinity cannot be “completed” for us to start existing because infinity is forever. However, the fact is that we do exist. Thus, if the “infinity explanation” were correct, then we would not even exist yet because the infinity phase would not have ended yet in order for our phase to start existing. Therefore, our mere existence proves this explanation is not the correct one. This means explanation

    #4 is the only valid explanation left. It does not run into the problems of #3 since there is a stop in the infinite regress of cause-effect with the introduction of a causeless cause. It also does not run into the problems of #2 or #1 because there is something else to cause the universe. Therefore, the only valid explanation of how the universe began to exist is that it was created by something that was uncreated. This ‘something’ Must be uncreated, by necessity. Let’s delve deeper into the qualities of this creator.
    First, this creator (which was uncreated itself) must logically be eternal since it was uncreated. Second, it must be transcendence since it is outside the boundaries of the universe and space-time. Third, it must have a will since it chose to create a finite universe when previously it was living in timeless conditions. Choice indicates a will, which indicates it can have relationships with sentient beings. Fourth, it must be powerful since it created the concept of power. Fifth, it must be knowing since it created the natural laws of the universe and thus would know how they operate. Sixth, it must be one because according to Occam’s razor theory, multiples would only complex the problem and raise further questions (such as how can multiple all-powerful beings co-exist?). There is no valid reason to believe in multiples and thus is unnecessary according to Occam’s razor. Therefore, looking at all the qualities (Eternal, Transcendence, Will, Powerful, Knowing, One, etc.) this creator must possess, which direction does this point to?

    This directly corresponds to what the Quran says about God. “He is Allah, who is One, Allah the Eternal Refuge, He neither begets nor is he begotten (meaning he is Uncaused), And there is Nothing Like Him (meaning he is Immaterial, he is outside of the universe) [Quran: 112 -Surah Ikhlas].”

  2. THE CHURCH DID NOT "INVENT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD"! What liars you are! It was done despite you! YOU BURNED THE LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA! YOU burned Giordano Bruno at the stake! YOU put Galileo Galilei under house arrest! YOU ARE STILL BLOCKING THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION! Then you have the stupidity to lie about this! What horrible people you are!

  3. "Science and faith are the best of friends." Wrong. Faith is belief in something despite or even against the evidence. That is totally contradictory to science, which is based on evidence. STOP LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH. YOU ARE AGAINST EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. If you were not, you would be OBJECTING to all those idiotic creationists and "intelligent design" people. Are you doing that? No.

  4. If I cant find a scientific understanding for love and romanticism then it must not be science.

    This is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    The problem with fitting god into the gaps of our knowledge is he keeps getting smaller and smaller and less important.

  5. The answer to the question "Is ( Roman Catholic) faith the enemy of science" is "no".

    "Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives."

    "100. More than a hundred years after the appearance of Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Æterni Patris, to which I have often referred in these pages, I have sensed the need to revisit in a more systematic way the issue of the relationship between faith and philosophy."