Not all scientists are disbelievers, but many are. If you are an anthropologist or a sociologist and you do not believe in God, then you need to formulate an explanation for the observable phenomena of religion. That explanation goes like this, more or less, primitive man developed a belief system to explain what he observed in nature and did not understand. And all modern religions evolved from this or a similar belief system predicated on ignorance.
Scientists seem to suffer from this mindset as well. The more they learn about the universe seems to pose more questions about what they have yet to learn. It seems that our ignorance grows exponentially with the acquisition of knowledge. Consider what Sir Isaac Newton said in his day, “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before me.” The more we learn, the more we need to discover
I have been doing some research for a two-day seminar entitled Faith and Science: Do They Contradict? My research into inorganic evolution (how the universe and earth began and were formed et cetera) led to some interesting statements.
One of those came from Lawrence Krauss professor of physics at Arizona State University. Krauss is an award-winning theoretical physicist and has written a book entitled A Universe from Nothing sharing his cosmological theories. Krauss is also opposed to the Christian cosmology of Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design is the view that the universe is replete with observable order and purpose inferring a Designer. In the same way a watch infers a watchmaker, the detailed complexity and delicately balanced sequencing of DNA implies an Intelligent Designer. This explanation is rejected by Krauss.
This is odd because of something Krauss said during the filming of How the Universe Works: Big Bang. Regarding the beginning of the universe he says, “In that moment of creation, the shape and structure and size of the universe were decided.” The use of the word “creation” is not unusual because it can be used in a sense that has no divine connotations, but when he says the shape, structure and size of the universe were “decided” that is not consistent with opposition to Intelligent Design.
Krauss would probably say it was a slip of the tongue, or he did not mean it to be used in the sense of inferring some form of deity or supernatural intelligence, and I would not want the discussion of the origin of the universe to devolve into a debate of semantics. But it is interesting that when scientists try to explain the unexplainable they seem to unwittingly personify the event. Actually, when you consider the significance and scope of the Big Bang, saying something was “decided” implies more than a personification, it apotheosizes the event.
This sort of Freudian slip or parapraxis is common when scientists speak about things they have not observed or cannot explain. They unconsciously tend to deify the event. Paul writes, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools (Romans 1:21-22).” Are such statements an unconscious recognition of the Creator, an Intelligent Designer?
If you listen carefully when scientists talk about the unobserved past they make these sort of comments repeatedly and I am sure they would argue they are no indication of a belief in God, but Paul speaks yet again “that which is known about God is evident within them: for God made it evident to them (Romans 1:19).” Paul would say they are “men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).”
Paul is clear when he states that the disavowal of God is a suppression of the truth. Scientists may deny the God of nature, but they cannot deny that they do not speak of Nature as if it is a god. Despite the knowledge they have amassed and the technological advancements they have made, they cannot escape that primitive mindset.