The answer is “No.” Objective knowledge is not neutral. It is “common,” because we share the same reality and the same authority. Non-believers are still subconsciously relying on God to make sense of the world around them.
Atheists are not being true to their worldview when they use logic and facts as authoritative. This does not fit the notion of a purposeless reality. They borrow from the theist’s worldview in order to do science.
Conversely, Christians are not being consistent when they compartmentalize science as if it were independently authoritative. When they treat human knowledge as autonomous, they merely prove that they can be inconsistent with their worldview.
Christians know that there’s more to life than what they see, so they don’t fall for the empiricist fallacy, but some do fall for the pretended neutrality fallacy. This means that when they study science, they put on the naturalist glasses and interpret the world as if God and the Bible were irrelevant.
Georges Lemaître, the Belgian astronomer who developed the Big Bang theory, was an ordained Catholic priest. Lemaître said, “As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside of any metaphysical or religious question.”
Notice that the statement itself is metaphysical. Assuming that science is neutral to God is a religious assumption; it assumes that the cosmos is understood independently of God.
How do we gently correct this dualistic worldview? One way is to show how the proponents of this view are not proving it empirically. They are presupposing it and using it as their paradigm. They are not doing their metaphysical (religious) studies and empirical (scientific) studies independently. They are assuming metaphysically that we live in a dualistic reality.
There are lots of things to which we can be neutral. God is not one of them. God created the physical world, and everything in it exists for his purposes. According to the Bible, no activity is neutral to God, and anything we do apart from faith in God is sin. Thus, any attempt to claim neutrality toward God is sin. Romans 14:23
I am not saying that we ought to bring God into science. God is already the authority on which science depends. We don’t add him to our equations; he is the reason that we have equations.
Nor am I saying that an atheist cannot understand science to a great extent. An atheist can learn a lot by studying this orderly cosmos, but his own idea of chance will affect his interpretations.
Do the natural sciences point to God? The Bible tells us, “Since the creation of the world his invisible attributes eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so that they are without excuse.” Scientists see the order and purpose of God so clearly that they have no excuse if they ignore him. Romans 1:20
God says that nature points to him. Naturalists say that it does not. Why do Christians allow naturalism to govern science? It’s because they have borrowed the humanist dichotomy, compartmentalizing science and religion. Let me make some points about this:
· This idea that God is irrelevant to science is a
metaphysical assumption. It goes beyond what we
learn from our physical senses.
· This idea is not a scientific assumption. That is, we do
not need to ignore the agent (God) in order to study
the mechanisms of nature.
· It is a religious assertion; it pertains to ultimate truth.
It is a claim regarding God and nature.
· This dualist ideology affects the interpretation of
data. It determines many conclusions in the name of
“science.”
God is necessary to both science and religion. Neither one makes sense without him.
