One Scientist’s Mystical Moment
Frank Wilczek is an American theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize winner. His expertise is in particle physics and quantum field theory—research that is as much mathematical as it is physical. He recently wrote an article where he described “My Mystical Moment” while looking at a huge particle detector used in verifying his mathematical theories.

The mystical moment came while I was visiting Brookhaven National Laboratory. . . . I wound up alone, standing on a jerry-rigged observation platform above a haphazard mess of magnets, cables, and panels. . . . And then it happened. It came to me, viscerally, that the intricate calculations I’d done using pen and paper (and wastebasket) might somehow describe this entirely different realm of existence—namely, a physical world of particles, tracks, and electronic signals, created by the kind of machinery I was looking at. There was no need to choose, as philosophers often struggled to do, between mind or matter. It was mind and matter. How could that be? Why should it be? Yet I somehow, I suddenly knew that it could be so, and should be so (emphasis added).

How did Wilczek’s paper and pencil scribblings have any connections to the unbelievably complex mass of heavy equipment that make up the accelerator ring and detectors of a particle collider, and the data that the huge contraption produced?

While on a short-term work assignment at Fermi National Lab near Chicago, I was given a personal tour of their CDF detector. I was overwhelmed by the massive three-story structure. Yet that huge machinery somehow reflected the mathematical theories that came out of the minds of a group of humans and from the numbers plugged into their mathematical equations and cranked through their computer algorithms. This process—the interplay of mind, mathematics, numerical computation, and experimental machinery—is a mystical feedback loop that lies at the heart of science and propels the accumulation of knowledge.

Figure 1: The Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF)
Image credit: Fermi National Laboratory.

Mathematical Abstractions, Numerical Computation, Mind, and the Physical World
What is the connection between the components of that mechanism, and why and how does it all work to produce useful knowledge? The equations of mathematical physics, as remarkable as they are, are only part of the story. Numbers, mathematical tools, algorithms, and computations play an equally important role.

In his book Pi in the Sky,¹ mathematical physicist John Barrow relates the long and tortuous path through human history that resulted in the development of the number systems we use today: the cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, . . .), the invention of zero and negative numbers, the set of integers, rational numbers, prime numbers, irrational numbers (√2), transcendental numbers (∏), complex numbers (¡=√−1), and so on. The study of number theory is perhaps the purest form of pure mathematics, yet it is essential.

In a famous lecture to his colleagues, physicist Richard Feynman, duly impressed with the indispensable set of numbers that were his tools, systematically explained how they arise “from the power of the process of abstraction and generalization.”² Do these number systems exist objectively in some Platonic realm? Are they just useful inventions of the human mind? Such questions have led to endless arguments. Nevertheless, scientific discovery would not occur without them.

Then there are the mathematical tools, such as calculus and its solution methods. The calculus came about through a contentious process dating back to the ancient Greeks and being rigorously completed by the nineteenth century.³ Finally, there are algorithms⁴ and computing machines that bring life to the equations of physics and produce numbers that describe our world. Why does it all work and why do we believe its results? That is the mystery that Frank Wilczek pondered.

Humans’ Unique Ability to Discern Truth and Understand the Universe
Physicist Paul Davies finds it remarkable that “the physics of the Universe is extremely special, inasmuch as it is both simple and comprehensible to the human mind” (emphasis original).⁵ In addition, the mathematics and algorithms are comprehensible and computable, and the results give us understanding of the physical realm.  However, our ability to perceive these truths does not necessarily come from rational, logical, or programmable thought processes. There are some truths that we just innately come to know.

Philosopher Kenneth Samples has identified a set of truths that cannot be verified algorithmically or scientifically: logical truths, metaphysical truths, and objective moral truths.⁶ Some truths must simply be accepted to be able to do science at all. John Barrow describes physicist Roger Penrose’s view:

An interesting case study to consider is the widely publicized claim of Roger Penrose that human thinking is intrinsically non-algorithmic . . . It amounts to the claim that the process by which mathematicians “see” that a theorem is true, or a proof is valid, cannot itself be a mathematical theorem . . . Penrose concludes . . . that human mathematicians are not using a knowably sound algorithm to ascertain mathematical truth.⁷ (emphasis original)

In addition, astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink shows how we sometimes rely on intuitive and nonrational thinking to arrive at creative solutions, and he recounts his own experience in doing so.⁸ From these considerations, we arrive at this conclusion: Humans can discern the truth of a variety of abstract ideas without employing the tools of logic, formal mathematics, or even rational reasoning.

The Only Plausible Explanation: Humans Were Made in the Image of God
During my years as a student at the University of Texas at Austin, I must have walked past the main building more than a hundred times. Very prominently across the facade is the phrase: “Ye Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Shall Make You Free.” Occasionally I would marvel that this promise from Jesus in John’s gospel is thought to have meaning to the overwhelmingly secular culture on campus. Yet, some innate ability to discern truth is necessary for the accumulation of knowledge. However, the ontology (the nature of being) of materialistic naturalism, if truly believed, would lead down into a skeptical abyss. What’s the knowledge potential of a brain that’s the result of incremental and undirected evolution and is located on an arbitrary branch of the evolutionary tree, not far from that of a monkey?

Figure 3: The Main Building of the University of Texas at Austin
Image Credit: Otis Graf

What gave that “human animal” the mind and ability to merge the laws of nature with mathematics, numbers, and computation to form a deep understanding of the physical world? There is no preferred direction or outcome in evolutionary biology, yet that process (supposedly) produced that remarkable achievement. Materialistic naturalism has no plausible explanation. The Bible has the explanation and even secular scientists—while denying God’s existence—must adopt elements of a biblical worldview to do their creative work of discovery.

Endnotes

1. John Barrow, Pi in the Sky: Counting, Thinking, and Being (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1994).
2. The significance of this lecture is discussed in James Gleick’s book Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (New York: Vintage Books, Random House, 1992), 182–183. The lecture has been published in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, Chapter 22, https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_22.html, accessed September 6, 2022.
3. David Berlinski, A Tour of the Calculus (New York: Vintage Books, Random House, 1995), 47–49.
4. A good example of a simple computational algorithm is the numerical evaluation of a square root. See “Newton’s Iteration,” Wolfram MathWorld, https://mathworld.wolfram.com/NewtonsIteration.html, last updated August 22, 2022.
5. Bernard Carr, ed., Universe or Multiverse (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 494.
6. Kenneth R. Samples, Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good? (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), 46–49.
7. Barrow, Pi in the Sky, 285.
8. Jeff Zweerink, “Does Human Reasoning Demonstrate Exceptionalism?,” Impact Events (blog), Reasons to Believe, June 10, 2022.

The post Exploring the Mystical Connection between Math, Mind, and Nature appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post "What’s All This Higher Dimensionality Stuff?", Part 4 of 7 appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Summary of the Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is a family of arguments that look at the universe and ask: Why does it exist? What caused it? When we trace causes backward, we eventually need a first cause that wasn’t caused by anything else — and many philosophers identify this first cause as God. This argument has been refined over centuries by thinkers from all three great monotheistic religions and connects with scientific discoveries about how our universe began.

What Is the Cosmological Argument?

The cosmological argument is a family of the most enduring philosophical arguments for God’s existence. One version of the argument looks at the existence of the universe and asks, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The answer, according to this argument, points to a necessary Being — one that exists by its own nature and couldn’t fail to exist — which this argument identifies as God.

The word “cosmological” comes from the Greek word kosmos, which means “world” or “universe.” So the cosmological argument is an argument about the origin and existence of the universe. This version is sometimes called the “first cause argument” or the “argument from contingency.”

Here’s the basic flow of the cosmological argument:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence (either in itself or in something else).
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore, the universe has an explanation.
4. This explanation can’t be the universe itself or anything within the universe.
5. Therefore, the explanation must be something beyond the universe — an uncaused cause, which many identify as God.

Who Constructed the Cosmological Argument?

The family of cosmological arguments has a rich history stretching back thousands of years. They weren’t invented by a single person but developed through the contributions of many minds across different cultures and time periods.

The earliest forms of the argument appear in the works of Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece (around the fourth century BC). Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover — a being that causes movement while itself remaining unmoved — laid groundwork for later versions of the cosmological argument.

The argument took a more familiar shape in the medieval period, particularly in the Islamic world. Muslim philosophers and theologians like Al-Kindi (ninth century) and Al-Ghazali (eleventh century) developed sophisticated versions of the cosmological argument that influenced later Western thinkers.

Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) presented five “ways” to prove God’s existence in his masterwork Summa Theologica. Three of these ways are versions of the cosmological argument:

• The argument from motion
• The argument from causation
• The argument from contingency

Later, the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (seventeenth to eighteenth century) developed another version focused on the “principle of sufficient reason” — the idea that everything must have an explanation.

In the twentieth century, philosopher William Lane Craig revived and reformulated the Kalam cosmological argument, drawing on both medieval Islamic philosophy and modern scientific discoveries about the beginning of the universe.

So, the cosmological argument has matured over millennia, with each subsequent person refining and adapting it based on the philosophical and scientific understanding of their time. The core idea has proved remarkably durable — spanning cultures, religions, and centuries while remaining recognizable.

What Are the Key Components of Cosmological Arguments?

The cosmological arguments have several common elements that form their foundation. Let’s break down these key components to better understand how the arguments work.

Cause & Effect (aka Causation)

At the heart of many cosmological arguments is the principle of causation — the idea that things don’t just happen or come into being without a cause. If you hear a noise in your kitchen, you assume something caused it.

The causation version of the cosmological argument applies this principle to the universe itself:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This cause-and-effect relationship is essential to how we understand the world around us. Science itself depends on the reliability of cause and effect. When cosmological arguments apply this principle to the universe as a whole, they lead us to consider what might have caused everything we see.

Dependence (aka Contingency)

Another key component of cosmological arguments focuses on contingency — the idea that things in our universe don’t have to exist; they depend on other things for their existence.

Think about yourself. You exist because your parents existed, who existed because their parents existed, and so on. You’re contingent — your existence depends on many factors outside yourself. The same applies to everything in the universe — trees, planets, stars, galaxies.

The contingency version of the cosmological argument reasons:

1. Everything in the universe is contingent (dependent on something else).
2. A chain of contingent things cannot explain itself.
3. Therefore, there must be a necessary being (not contingent) that explains everything else.

This necessary being would exist by its own nature rather than depending on anything else — a concept that aligns with traditional notions of God.

Infinite Regression

Some cosmological arguments — particularly the Kalam version — deal with the problem of infinite regression: the idea of an endless chain of causes stretching back forever with no beginning.

Is it possible to have an infinite chain of physical causes with no first cause? Many philosophers argue this is problematic. Here’s why:

1. If the past were actually infinite, an infinite number of events would have to have occurred before reaching the present moment.
2. But you can’t complete an infinite series by adding one event after another — you’d never reach the end.
3. Since we have arrived at the present, the past cannot be actually infinite.
4. Therefore, there must be a beginning — a first cause that isn’t itself caused by anything else.

Sufficient Reason

Some versions of the cosmological argument (particularly Leibniz’s) employ the principle of sufficient reason — the idea that everything must have an adequate explanation or sufficient reason for why it exists and why it is the way it is.

According to this principle:

1. Everything that exists has a sufficient reason for its existence.
2. The universe exists.
3. The sufficient reason for the universe’s existence cannot be found within the universe itself (because the universe and everything in it is contingent — it could have not existed).
4. Therefore, the sufficient reason must be outside the universe.

This component asks us to consider what would constitute a sufficient explanation for the existence of everything.

Necessity and Contingency

The distinction between necessary and contingent beings is central to the cosmological argument:

• A necessary being exists by its own nature and cannot not exist.
• A contingent being could have not existed and depends on something else for its existence (like you or the physical universe).

Cosmological arguments often conclude that a necessary being must exist to explain the existence of all contingent beings — providing the ultimate foundation for everything else.

These components work together in various combinations to form different versions of the cosmological argument, each emphasizing different aspects of the relationship between God and the universe. What they share is the conviction that the existence of the universe points beyond itself to a transcendent cause — one that exists beyond and independent of the physical universe.

Cosmological Arguments

Now that we understand the key components, let’s explore some of the most influential versions of the cosmological argument throughout history. These different approaches all aim to demonstrate God’s existence based on the reality of the universe, but they take different routes to get there.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam cosmological argument is one of the most discussed versions in contemporary philosophy. The word Kalam comes from Islamic philosophy and refers to a tradition of defending theological positions through structured argument and counterargument that flourished in the medieval Islamic world. This argument was developed by Muslim philosophers like Al-Ghazali and has been revived in recent decades by philosopher William Lane Craig.

The Kalam cosmological argument is simple:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

What makes this version distinctive is its focus on the universe having a beginning. The argument draws on two lines of support for the premise that the universe began to exist.

The first is historical and philosophical. Some philosophers have argued that actual infinities cannot exist in the physical world. If the universe never began, an infinite number of events would have already elapsed before today — and many thinkers argue that’s not possible in a world where events happen one after another in sequence. This line of reasoning goes back centuries, but it remains debated. (We’ll return to this in the objections section below.)

The second line of support — and the one we at Reasons to Believe find decisive — is scientific. Modern cosmology converges on a clear conclusion: our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang. Evidence from cosmic expansion, background radiation (the faint afterglow of the Big Bang still detectable today), and the laws of thermodynamics all point to a definite beginning. Because things that begin to exist require a cause, this scientific evidence gives the Kalam argument its most compelling support — grounded in what we can observe and measure.

Aristotle: Cosmological Argument

Aristotle’s version of the cosmological argument is one of the earliest and focuses on motion or change. He observed that everything in the universe is in motion or undergoing change, and he reasoned that all motion must be caused by something else.

His argument can be summarized as follows:

1. Everything in motion is moved by something else.
2. This chain of movers cannot go back infinitely.
3. Therefore, there must be a first mover (what he called the unmoved mover) that causes motion without itself being moved.

Aristotle’s unmoved mover isn’t exactly the personal God of Christianity — it’s more like a perfect, unchanging being that other things are drawn toward. Still, his reasoning laid groundwork for later arguments for God’s existence.

Aristotle wasn’t trying to prove God in a religious sense. He was simply following the logic of causation to its ultimate conclusion — that there must be something that initiates change without itself changing.

Thomas Aquinas: Cosmological Argument

Thomas Aquinas developed five “ways” to demonstrate God’s existence. Three of these are versions of the cosmological argument:

Aquinas integrated Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology, showing how reason could support faith. Unlike modern versions that often rely on scientific evidence for the universe’s beginning, Aquinas’s arguments work even if the universe were eternal — they focus on the dependent and contingent nature of everything in the universe rather than its origin in time.

Leibniz: Cosmological Argument

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who co-invented calculus, developed a version of the cosmological argument based on what he called the principle of sufficient reason.

This principle states that everything must have a sufficient or adequate reason or explanation for why it exists and why it is the way it is. Leibniz’s argument is:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in itself or in something else).
2. If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is God.

Like Aquinas, Leibniz distinguished between contingent beings (like us), which depend on something else and could have not existed, and necessary beings, which exist by their own nature and couldn’t possibly not exist.

For Leibniz, the entire universe — even if it were eternal — requires an explanation. Since nothing within the universe can explain the universe itself (that would be an inadequate reason, since it too would need explaining), he reasoned that a sufficient explanation must be a necessary being outside the universe.

What distinguishes Leibniz’s version is its scope. It doesn’t just ask why things began but why they exist at all. Even if the universe had always existed, Leibniz would still ask: Why does anything exist rather than nothing? The answer, he concluded, must be found in a necessary being — one that doesn’t just happen to exist but that could not fail to exist.

Each of these versions of the cosmological argument — Kalam, Aristotelian, Thomistic, and Leibnizian — approaches the question of God’s existence from a slightly different angle. And when their insights are taken together, a striking picture emerges: the universe points compellingly to a transcendent source, the one Christianity identifies as God.

Arguments Against the Cosmological Argument & Responses

No philosophical argument is without its critics, and the cosmological argument has faced many thoughtful objections over the centuries. Let’s explore some of the strongest challenges to the argument and how proponents respond to them.

Argument: “There’s no evidence of an ‘uncaused cause’ or God.”

Some critics argue that we’ve never observed anything that’s truly “uncaused,” so proposing God as an uncaused cause amounts to special pleading — granting God an exemption that nothing else gets.

Response: There actually is evidence for an uncaused cause when we look at the universe itself. By the weight of the evidence, modern cosmology converges on a universe with a beginning. That means something had to cause it. But that cause couldn’t be part of space, time, energy, or matter — it had to exist beyond them. The best explanation is a Creator who is powerful, transcendent, eternal, and personal to bring the universe into existence without needing a cause himself.

The cosmological argument doesn’t arbitrarily exempt God from needing a cause. The key principle is this: whatever begins to exist needs a cause. God, by definition, is eternal — he never began to exist. So he doesn’t need a cause, not because we’re making an exception, but because he doesn’t fall into the category of things that require causes in the first place.

Argument: “If everything needs a cause, then what caused God?”

This is perhaps the most common objection to the cosmological argument. If everything needs a cause, and God exists, then God must need a cause too — leading to an infinite regress of causes.

Response: This objection misunderstands the premise of the argument. The cosmological argument doesn’t claim that “everything needs a cause;” it claims that “everything that begins to exist needs a cause” or “everything contingent needs a cause why it exists.”

God, as conceived in historic Christian theology, doesn’t begin to exist — he is eternal. He isn’t contingent but necessary — his existence depends on nothing else.

Argument: “The universe could be self-caused or eternal.”

Some critics suggest that the universe might not need an external cause — perhaps it’s eternal or somehow caused itself.

Response: The scientific evidence is clear that our universe isn’t eternal but began about 13.8 billion years ago. The expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, and the second law of thermodynamics — which says that usable energy in a closed system always decreases over time — all point to a definite beginning.

As for the universe causing itself in the ordinary sense, this leads to a logical contradiction — something would have to exist before it existed in order to cause itself.

While some propose models like quantum fluctuations to explain how the universe might emerge from “nothing,” these models don’t start with nothing in the way we’d normally mean the word. They start with quantum fields, physical laws, and spacetime structures already in place. That’s not nothing — that’s a rich physical environment that itself needs explaining.

The real question isn’t how the universe emerged from some pre-existing physical state. It’s why that physical state exists in the first place. Quantum fluctuation models don’t answer that.

Argument: “The mathematical basis of the original Kalam argument (no infinities) was removed by Cantor.”

In the late nineteenth century, mathematician Georg Cantor developed set theory, which demonstrates that infinite sets are mathematically coherent. Some argue this undermines the Kalam argument’s claim that an infinite past is impossible.

Response: This is a genuine area of ongoing debate. Cantor showed that infinities work in mathematics — no serious philosopher disputes that. The question is whether a physically real infinite series of past events is possible, and here opinions differ.

Some philosophers maintain that an actual infinite in the physical world leads to conclusions that don’t make sense — like completing a task that by definition can never be completed — even if the math is sound. Others find these objections unpersuasive. Anyone advancing the infinity form of the Kalam argument should be aware that this remains contested ground.

That said, the modern Kalam argument does not depend on the infinity question alone. At Reasons to Believe, we emphasize the scientific evidence — the Big Bang, cosmic expansion, background radiation, and thermodynamic constraints — all of which point to a universe with a definite beginning. This scientific case for the universe’s origin stands on its own, independent of whether actual infinities are possible.

Argument: “The first cause might not be God as traditionally understood.”

Some critics grant that there might be a first cause but argue that it needn’t have the attributes traditionally ascribed to God (intelligence, consciousness, goodness, etc.).

Response: While the basic cosmological argument establishes a first cause, further analysis of what properties this cause must possess points strongly toward the God described in Scripture.

Since the cause created space and time, it must transcend the physical universe — existing independently of the dimensions it brought into being. Since it created matter and energy, it must be immaterial and possess tremendous power. And since it produced a universe governed by rational laws and capable of supporting conscious life, intelligence is a reasonable inference.

Furthermore, the cause must be personal — a free agent capable of choice. Here’s why: an impersonal force can’t decide to do something. If an impersonal cause had existed forever, its effect — the universe — would also have existed forever. But the universe hasn’t existed forever; it had a beginning. That beginning implies a choice, a decision to create. And decisions require a personal being — someone with a will, not merely a force.

Argument: “Quantum physics shows that things can happen without causes.”

Some critics point to phenomena in quantum physics — like virtual particles appearing to pop into existence from nothing or the apparent randomness in quantum events — as evidence against the principle that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Response: Quantum events aren’t truly uncaused. They happen within an environment that already exists — quantum fields, physical laws, and energy. That environment isn’t “nothing.” It’s a rich physical structure, and the events couldn’t happen without it.

As philosopher William Lane Craig has pointed out, the fact that quantum outcomes are unpredictable doesn’t mean they’re uncaused. Think of it this way: a coin flip is unpredictable, but it still has causes — someone flips the coin, gravity pulls it down, it bounces off a surface. In the same way, quantum events have real conditions that must be in place for them to occur, even if we can’t predict the exact outcome. Unpredictable isn’t the same as uncaused.

God Is the Uncaused Cause

Now that we’ve explored various versions of the cosmological argument and addressed key objections, let’s consider why many philosophers and theologians identify the uncaused cause with God.

The cosmological argument leads us to a being with remarkable attributes that align with the God described in Scripture.

Beyond Space and Time

The cause of the universe must transcend physical space and time since it brought space and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, there was no “before” in the way we normally think of time — time itself began with the universe. The cause must therefore exist outside the space and time dimensions of this universe, either timelessly or in a divine time independent of cosmic time.

This aligns with the biblical description of God as eternal: “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2).

Immensely Powerful

Creating an entire universe from nothing would require power beyond our comprehension. The cause must possess sufficient power to bring all matter, energy, space, and time into existence.

The cosmological argument thus points to an all-powerful or omnipotent being, consistent with God’s description in Scripture. “Ah, Sovereign Lord, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you” (Jeremiah 32:17).

Immaterial

Since the cause created all matter, it cannot itself be material — it must be immaterial or spiritual in nature. This aligns with the understanding of God as spirit. “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

Necessary Rather Than Contingent

The uncaused cause must exist by necessity of its own nature rather than contingently depending on anything else. If it were contingent, it would require its own originating and sustaining cause, leading back to the problem of infinite regress.

This necessity aligns with the God revealed in Scripture, who identifies himself to Moses as “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14) — a statement of God’s self-existence and independence from anything else.

Personal Rather Than Impersonal

For an eternal cause existing independently of cosmic time to produce an effect in time (the beginning of the universe), this cause must involve a personal choice. The cause freely chose to create, implying will and agency — characteristics of a personal being, not an impersonal force.

Intelligence and Rationality

The universe displays a remarkable degree of order and mathematical structure. This points to a cause possessing not only creative power but intelligence — one capable of producing a cosmos governed by precise physical laws.

The book of Proverbs reflects this understanding: “By wisdom the Lord laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place” (Proverbs 3:19).

The Cosmological Argument Points to a Creator

When we put these attributes together — transcendence, power, immateriality, necessity, personality, and intelligence — we find attributes that match the God of Scripture, and that thinkers across Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have recognized for centuries.

The cosmological argument doesn’t just lead us to some abstract force or principle but to a being with the core attributes traditionally ascribed to God. While it alone doesn’t establish all aspects of Christian theology (like the Trinity), it is a powerful case for the Christian understanding of God as Creator.

As the apostle Paul wrote, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Romans 1:20). The cosmological argument is one way these invisible qualities become “clearly seen” — through careful reasoning about why the universe exists at all.

Cosmological Argument — Summary

We’ve covered a lot of ground exploring the cosmological argument, so let’s take a step back and summarize the key points.

The cosmological argument is a family of philosophical arguments that reason from the existence of the universe to the existence of God as its cause or explanation. At its core, it recognizes that the universe requires an explanation beyond itself.

While there are several versions of the argument, they all share a common structure:

1. The universe exists and has certain features (it began to exist, is contingent, undergoes change, etc.).
2. These features require an explanation outside the universe itself.
3. This explanation has attributes that align with the traditional concept of God.

The major versions we explored include:

• The Kalam cosmological argument, which focuses on the universe’s beginning
• Aristotle’s argument from motion to an unmoved mover
• Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, three of which are versions of the cosmological argument
• Leibniz’s argument from contingency and the principle of sufficient reason

Each approach takes a slightly different angle, but they all point to a transcendent cause with attributes like necessity, eternal existence, immateriality, power, intelligence, and personal agency — attributes traditionally associated with God.

Critics have raised thoughtful objections to the cosmological argument, such as whether everything really needs an explanation, whether causal reasoning applies to the universe as a whole, whether it’s fair to stop with a necessary being instead of a “brute fact,” and whether the argument stretches causation beyond its proper bounds. Still, many philosophers have offered careful replies that keep the argument compelling.

What makes the cosmological argument compelling is its basis in principles that seem fundamental to human reasoning — that things don’t come from nothing, that contingent things require explanation, and that chains of dependence can’t go on forever. These principles aren’t philosophical abstractions but reflect how we naturally understand reality.

While the cosmological argument doesn’t prove every aspect of the Christian conception of God, it provides a rational foundation for belief in a Creator who transcends the universe — a foundation that complements other philosophical arguments, divine revelation in Scripture, and the decisive scientific evidence for the universe’s beginning.

As we reflect on the vast, intricate universe around us, the cosmological argument invites us to see it not as a brute fact without explanation but as the creation of a necessary, personal, and powerful being — the God whom Christians worship and Scripture reveals as Creator.

FAQ: Quick Answers

What’s the difference between the Thomistic and Kalam cosmological arguments for the existence of God?

The main difference between the Thomistic and the Kalam cosmological arguments lies in their focus on a particular feature or aspect of the universe (contingent vs. finite and has a beginning).

Aquinas’s versions (like his Five Ways) focus on the current existence and contingency of the universe, not necessarily its beginning in time. His arguments would work even if the universe were eternal — he’s concerned with what sustains existence here and now.

The Kalam cosmological argument, on the other hand, specifically argues that the universe had a beginning and therefore needs a cause for that beginning. It relies heavily on the impossibility of an infinite physical past and/or scientific evidence for the universe’s beginning.

In simple terms, Aquinas’s argument asks “Why does the universe exist right now?”, while the Kalam asks “What caused the universe to start existing?”

What Is an Argument from Cause?

An argument from cause is a type of cosmological argument that focuses specifically on causal relationships — the idea that effects require causes. It reasons that:

1. Every effect must have a cause.
2. The universe is an effect (it began to exist).
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause outside itself.

The argument from cause emphasizes that causes precede their effects and must be sufficient to produce their effects. Since the universe is the largest effect imaginable (including all space, time, matter, and energy), its cause must be unimaginably powerful and transcendent.

This approach is most prominently featured in the Kalam cosmological argument and in Thomas Aquinas’s Second Way.

What Is an Argument from Contingency?

The argument from contingency is another type of cosmological argument that focuses on the dependent nature of everything in the universe. It argues:

1. Everything we observe in the universe is contingent — it exists but doesn’t have to exist.
2. Contingent things require an explanation for why they exist rather than not exist.
3. The universe as a whole is contingent (it could have not existed).
4. The explanation for contingent existence cannot itself be contingent, or we’d need another explanation.
5. Therefore, there must be a necessary being — something that exists by its own nature and explains all contingent existence. This being is God.

This approach is featured in Aquinas’s Third Way and more thoroughly developed in Leibniz’s version of the cosmological argument. It deals not with how things began but with why they continue to exist at all, given that their existence isn’t necessary.

Imagine a book on a table. The book depends on the table, which depends on the floor, which depends on the foundation, and so on. The argument from contingency suggests that this chain of dependency can’t go on forever or in a circle — it must terminate in something that exists necessarily, by its own nature.

Does the Universe Need a Cause?

This question gets to the heart of the cosmological argument. Proponents argue that yes, the universe does need a cause, for several compelling reasons.

1. The universe began about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang. Things that begin to exist require causes.
2. The universe is contingent — it doesn’t exist by necessity. Its physical parameters could have been different, or it might not have existed at all. This contingency suggests it depends on something beyond itself.
3. The principle of causality — that effects require causes — is foundational to both science and everyday reasoning. To claim the universe is an exception to this principle without sufficient reason would be applying a double standard — requiring causes for everything within the universe but not for the universe itself.

Conclusion

The cosmological argument invites us to see the universe not as a brute fact but as the work of a necessary, personal, and powerful Creator — the God whom Scripture reveals and whom Christians worship. As we consider the vastness and order of all that exists, we find reason and faith pointing in the same direction: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

The post Cosmological Argument in Simple Terms appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Some say these two are in constant battle—each pulling in opposite directions.

Others believe they walk hand in hand, offering unique insights into life, the universe, and our purpose within it.

The relationship between science and Christianity often feels like a puzzle. On one side, science dives deep into how the world works through experiments and evidence. On the other side, Christianity (and religion in general) seeks to answer the big questions about why we’re here and what it all means.

But here’s the thing . . .

. . . we believe these two don’t have to be at odds. They can actually complement each other instead.

Whether you’ve wrestled with the tension or are just curious, we’re excited to explore this with you. Let’s unpack the connection between science and religion and see if these worlds are really as divided as they sometimes seem.

Is There a Conflict Between Science and Christianity?

At Reasons to Believe, we don’t see a true conflict between science and Christianity. Instead, we believe any apparent tension reflects misunderstandings or misinterpretations—not an inherent clash.

Relationship Between Science and Christianity

A Shared History of Discovery

When we think about the relationship between science and Christianity, perhaps it’s easy to assume they’ve always been at odds.

But history tells a different story.

Many of the greatest scientific advancements were born out of Christian thought and values.

During the Scientific Revolution—a period that shaped much of modern science—many pioneers of discovery were deeply committed Christians.

• Isaac Newton, often called one of the greatest minds in science, saw studying the natural world as a way to glorify God. 
• Johannes Kepler, who uncovered the laws of planetary motion, famously described his work as “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” 
• And let’s not forget Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, who was a monk studying pea plants in his monastery garden.

These figures are only a small fraction of influential thinkers who didn’t see a conflict between their faith and their scientific pursuits; rather, they viewed them as interconnected paths to understanding truth.

A Deeper Connection Between Science and Christianity

This connection isn’t just historical, either. If we take a closer look, Christianity played a critical role in the development of science itself. The belief in an orderly, rational Creator inspired early scientists to search for patterns and laws in the natural world. They assumed that if the universe was designed by God, it would make sense.

And remarkably, it does!

Science and Christianity share a foundational belief built on order and purpose—concepts essential for scientific exploration.

It’s clear the two are not strangers to each other. While they may ask different questions, they often meet in fascinating ways.

Science thrives on exploring the how—how things happen, how the world God created works.

On the other hand, Christianity focuses on the why—why we exist, why the universe matters.

Together, these perspectives can provide a fuller view of the world and our place within it.

This is why we believe the relationship between science and Christianity can’t be thought of as completely separate. They’ve influenced each other for centuries and continue to do so. Far from being opposing forces, they can work together to uncover deeper truths about creation and the Creator.

Christian Faith vs. Scientific Research

The key to understanding this relationship between the Christian faith and scientific research lies in how we view science and theology. Both are ways God reveals himself to us. Through the Bible, God communicates specific truths—what we call special revelation. Through nature, God reveals himself in a broader, more general way—often referred to as general revelation

As Christians, we believe both of these are authored by God and, therefore, cannot truly contradict each other.

Here’s the catch, though: we humans are fallible.

Our interpretations of Scripture and our interpretations of nature are imperfect. When a conflict arises—like a disagreement over the age of the Earth or the origin of the universe—it’s a signpost that we may have misunderstood one or both revelations.

It’s not Scripture or nature that’s wrong; it’s how we’ve interpreted them.

For example, early Christians like Augustine warned that we need to approach Scripture carefully when addressing scientific claims, recognizing the cultural context and literary style. Similarly, science often revises old interpretations to account for new data. This back-and-forth pursuit of truth and a growing body of knowledge is what allows us to grow in both faith and understanding.

After all, the God who inspired the Bible is the same Creator who designed the universe. Apparent conflicts can often be resolved not by rejecting either but by refining our perspective.

The Galileo Affair

One of the most well-known examples of the supposed science and faith conflict is the Galileo affair. Galileo Galilei, a renowned scientist of the seventeenth century, supported the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun—a theory originally proposed by Copernicus.

At the time, the church held the geocentric view that the Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo’s findings seemed to contradict Scripture as it was interpreted then, leading to his trial and condemnation by the Roman Catholic Church.

However, many historians now view the Galileo affair more as a clash of egos, politics, and miscommunication rather than a fundamental opposition to Christian beliefs in science. The church leaders of Galileo’s time were grappling over who got to interpret Scripture and with how to interpret Scripture in light of new scientific discoveries. Catholics and Protestants still disagree over who gets to interpret Scripture, but both have developed powerful tools and new perspectives that they use today.

Over time, the church acknowledged its mistake, and Galileo is now celebrated—not as a figure against faith, but as someone who helped pave the way for a deeper understanding of God’s creation.

Modern Science Conflicts

The push and pull between science and religion hasn’t disappeared. Modern science debates often center around issues like climate change, bioethics, or the origins of the universe.

Take, for example, the question of the big bang. While some see this theory as a challenge to Christian beliefs, many others, including scientists who are Christian, view it as complementary. The big bang strongly points to a beginning for the universe—a concept that aligns with the biblical notion of creation.

Similarly, advances in genetics and medicine sometimes raise ethical questions that seem to put science and faith at odds. Issues like gene editing or end-of-life care can feel like uncharted territory. But through open conversation, many Christians can engage with these advancements thoughtfully, weighing the moral principles of their faith alongside the benefits of scientific progress.

Building Bridges

Dialogue is key to resolving conflicts and fostering understanding. By talking openly and listening to one another, Christians are finding ways to reconcile faith with scientific discovery.

Ultimately, such conversations remind us that both religion and science seek truth—they just approach it in different yet complementary ways. Conflict often comes when we limit ourselves to either-or thinking, but harmony emerges when we embrace both-and perspectives, recognizing that God speaks through both Scripture and his creation.

Is There Conflict Between Science and Faith?

At first glance, science and faith might look like they’re standing on opposite sides of a dividing line. Often the perceived opposition flows from the reality that science and the Christian faith both pursue truth but have a different focus. Science usually asks “how” where faith usually asks “why”.

These different focuses can sometimes feel like a conflict between science and Christianity, but really, they offer individual perspectives that complement each other.

Faith provides a foundation for meaning and purpose that science alone can’t supply. Science helps us understand the mechanics of life, but it doesn’t answer the deeper, heart-level questions that faith does.

Take something as simple as a sunset; it’s breathtakingly beautiful. Science can explain the scattering of light through the atmosphere, but it’s faith that moves us to see it as beautiful and as a gift from God.

Similarly, faith can inspire scientific exploration. If you believe the natural world was created by an orderly and purposeful God, then it’s understandable to want to study it more closely. Many science pioneers of old (and even people today) are motivated by their faith to dig into the details of God’s creation.

Rather than being in conflict, science and faith often work in harmony. Together, they can provide a fuller picture of reality. Science helps us marvel at the intricate details of the universe, while faith invites us to connect those details to the broader story of the life we all live and a Creator who cares for us.

When looked at this way, the idea of conflict transforms into a relationship between science and Christianity that adds a richer understanding of how both can serve as tools to discover truth within our shared reality.

Do Scientists Believe in God?

Christian Faith in Science

When it comes to the question, “Do scientists believe in God?” the answer isn’t as one-sided as many might think. While it’s true that some scientists hold strictly materialistic views, many others willingly embrace faith and belief. They see no conflict between the work they do in science and their belief in a Creator. Some even argue that their research and practice deepen their understanding of and connection to God.

For example, physicist Jeff Zweerink shares in his blog post that being a Christian and a scientist isn’t about choosing one over the other. To Zweerink, science provides a way to better understand the intricate design of life, while Christianity gives that design a deeper, eternal meaning.

His insights echo the experiences of countless scientists who—to this day—view the universe as both a physical masterpiece and an expression of God’s character.

Recent surveys have shown that scientists’ beliefs about God are more varied than stereotypes might suggest. A Pew Research study revealed that about 33% of scientists believe in God, while another 18% report believing in a higher power, though not necessarily in the God of the Bible.

Collectively, this is 51%—over half!—of scientists who believe in the supernatural.

These numbers highlight that faith exists within the scientific community—and when we look further, even among those working in fields often assumed to be strictly secular or atheistic.

Prominent Voices of Faith

Scientists like Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and professed Christian, stand as modern examples of how science and faith intersect beautifully. Collins has shared how mapping the intricacies of human DNA deepened his awe for God’s creative power.

Similarly, John Polkinghorne, a physicist and theologian, devoted much of his life to exploring the harmony between science and Christianity, aiming to demonstrate how the two can work together to reveal profound truths about existence.

Supporting Scholars of Faith

At Reasons to Believe, we value the voices of scientists and scholars who are navigating the intersection of faith and science. That’s why we’ve established the Scholar Community — a network dedicated to bringing STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine) professionals closer and showing how science and religion can work hand in hand. This community not only encourages scientific excellence but also allows discussions about the connections that can be made between Scripture and creation.

Through workshops, courses, and mentorship programs, we’re equipping faith-filled scientists to share transformational messages with their peers. The more you explore the growing body of scientists who believe in God, the more you’ll realize that faith and science are not mutually exclusive.

Science Meets Faith in Harmony

Therefore, the question “Do scientists believe in God?” doesn’t have a simple yes or no answer. Instead, it reminds us there is diversity of thought within the scientific community as well as the fact that many scientists do believe in God.

From astronomy to biology, many researchers find that their explorations of the universe confirm their belief in a Creator. For those scientists, faith increases their drive to uncover truths about the natural world, while science strengthens their appreciation for the divine.

Together, these two realms don’t compete—they enrich each other—just as they did for Newton, Galileo, and so many more throughout centuries past.

Science & Faith: A Divine Harmony

Complementary Paths to Truth

Let’s take a minute more to highlight how science and faith can beautifully complement each other. Science lets us explore all of creation around us and reveals breathtaking complexities in areas like physics, biology, and astronomy.

Faith, in turn, offers insights into meaning, purpose, and the existence of something greater than ourselves. Together, they weave a richer, fuller picture of life and the universe.

Think of the astonishing way DNA encodes the instructions for life. Science uncovers the mechanisms at work, but faith marvels at the elegance and intentionality behind it. For many, discoveries like these don’t diminish belief or worse, cause deconversion; they deepen faith.

They bring reverence for a Creator whose handiwork lies in the quantum details happening everywhere, all the time, all throughout the cosmos.

Scientific Discoveries That Echo Faith

One striking example of science complementing rather than deconstructing faith is the big bang theory. The theory describes how the universe we see today developed from an incredibly hot, dense state. That initial state looks a lot like a beginning—a moment when all space, time, and matter came into existence.

For Christians, this idea resonates deeply with the opening words of Genesis, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Far from contradicting faith, the big bang aligns with the belief in a Creator who spoke the universe into being.

Another profound example is the fine-tuning and precision of the universe. Scientists have discovered that the physical constants of our universe, things like gravity and the speed of light, must exist within an incredibly narrow range to support life.

For many people, this precise balance—like computer code that, if not properly scripted, causes the program to fall apart—reflects intelligent design, pointing to a Creator who set everything perfectly in place.

Science Inspired by Faith

Throughout history, faith has often inspired scientific discovery. Figures like Johannes Kepler, who famously said he was “thinking God’s thoughts after him,” saw their work in science not as opposed to their beliefs, but as a continuation of their worship. Their faith drove them to explore the universe, believing it to be rational, orderly, and created by a God who delights in both complexity and beauty.

Even today, the harmony offered by integrating the Christian faith in science inspires researchers to dig deeper. Astrophysicists gaze into the far reaches of space, inspired by wonder at the heavens that declare God’s glory. Medical scientists seek cures for diseases, often motivated by a faith-driven desire to care for others, reflecting the image of a compassionate Creator.

Whether you’re marveling at galaxies or studying the intricate movements of molecules within a cell, these discoveries remind us that science and faith don’t have to be at odds at all—but can be partners, inviting us to explore both the grandeur of creation and the heart of the Creator behind it.

Exploring Deeper Meaning

For Christians, the interaction between science and religion opens the door to profound insights. When we study the natural world through science, we’re uncovering echoes of God’s creative work. At the same time, faith helps us make sense of the moral, relational, and eternal questions that science alone can’t answer. Together, they can truly act as partners in a grand exploration of truth that we all, in some way or another, are seeking.

Rather than asking, can science and Christianity work together?, which positions them as opposing forces, we can see them as two sides of the same coin. Whether observing the quantum superpositions of electrons or reflecting on God’s promises, combining faith and science can lead us toward awe, wonder, and a deeper connection to the Creator. It’s in this divine harmony that we find the fullest understanding of who we are and why we’re here.

Bringing It All Together

When we take a step back and look at the big picture, it’s clear that science and religion–specifically Christianity–don’t have to live in opposition. Instead, they can work together in beautiful harmony to help us uncover deeper truths about the universe and ourselves.

Science explores the intricate details of how things work, while faith helps us understand the greater meaning behind it all. Together, they form a partnership that enriches both our understanding and our wonder.

We’ve seen that the relationship between science and Christianity has historic roots, offering many examples of how these two realms have complemented one another. While conflicts may arise, they often stem from misunderstandings or misinterpretations rather than direct contradictions. By refining our perspectives and engaging in honest inquiry, we can move beyond these challenges.

At its best, the union of science and faith offers a more complete picture of reality. It reminds us that the pursuit of knowledge about the world and the search for spiritual meaning are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they are parallel paths leading toward the same ultimate Truth.

We encourage you to keep exploring—whether it’s the intricate beauty of God’s creation through science or the richness of his Word through faith. Together, they invite us into a lifelong adventure of discovery, awe, and connection to the Creator. Christianity and science, walking hand in hand, have the power to deepen not only our understanding but also the sense of purpose and wonder that makes life so extraordinary.

The post Christianity and Science: Is There a Conflict? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The question, “Is astrology real?” is one that millions of people contemplate. In the US alone, a recent study revealed that roughly 60 percent of American adults accept at least one “New Age” belief, with nearly a third specifically believing in astrology.

Even more surprising, many who identify as Christians also embrace these beliefs in their own life alongside their faith.

But what does scientific study and the evidence actually tell us? And more importantly, what guidance does the Bible offer on astrology and its practices?

What is Astrology?

Astrology is the ancient belief system that the stars—which includes various celestial bodies (planets, moons, solar systems, etc.)—set the destinies for individual people, groups of individuals, and for the events among nations.

In practice, astrologers attempt to use the positions of celestial bodies to make predictions about the lives and affairs of human beings and the events among nations in the world. Astrologers believe that the positions of the stars and planets at the specific time of a person’s birth affect their personality, temperament, mood, environment, and future course of life events.

Astrologers then use these calculations to create horoscopes that are personalized by specific dates of birth to both predict and affect one’s destiny. While some astrologers study the balance of elements in a person’s horoscope to interpret their personality, others use astrological calculations to help people make decisions and optimize their personal strengths in life.

Where Did Astrology Come From?

The practice of astrology has deep roots in the ancient world and originated in Mesopotamia as early as the third millennium BC. Astrology was initially used to interpret celestial cycles and predict seasonal shifts.

• The Babylonians used the stars and planets to interpret omens from the various gods. They developed the zodiacal system, which divides the heavens into twelve constellations.
• The ancient Egyptians believed that constellations were patterns of stars that the sun appeared to traverse through at specific times of the year.
• In ancient China, noblemen used eclipses and sunspots to predict good or bad times for the reign of a given emperor.
• The ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians are generally considered the originators of the Western practice of astrology. Astrology spread to India and China.
• The ancient Greeks developed the zodiac symbols and names used in today’s astrology.

The Greeks are credited with distinguishing the scientific practice of astronomy from astrology, with Claudius Ptolemy, an astrologer and astronomer from Alexandria, Egypt, establishing the foundation of Western astrology in his book Tetrabiblos.

Why Are People So Intrigued by Astrology?

People are drawn to astrology for numerous complex reasons that blend spiritual seeking, psychological needs, and cultural influences. Here are some of the main factors:

1. From a biblical perspective, the heavens exhibit the glory of God (Psalm 19:1–4). So people, whether they are fully aware of it or not, are receiving general revelation about the nature and glory of God. This is a spiritual, moral, and aesthetic experience and people may mistakenly associate aspects of this revelation with the claims of astrology.
2. Again from the Bible, the fallen nature of human beings makes worshippers into idolaters (Romans 1). Sinful people have a natural tendency to reject God but they intuitively replace him in their worship with other objects, with the cosmos being an attractive alternative. Some people even view astrology as a way to explore their spirituality and to connect with the cosmos in a spiritual and religious way.
3. People have an important aesthetic appreciation and attraction. Since the heavens abound with a beauty all their own, that natural aesthetic serves to draw people to its gaze and to consider its purpose and significance in life. 
4. One of the practical factors in our everyday lives is the need and desire to gain objective insights about one’s personality, relationships, and critical life events. Astrology offers a sense of guidance by providing interpretations via the so-called wisdom of the stars.
5. From a practical perspective, astrology can serve as a convenient, inexpensive, and easy coping mechanism. During difficult times of stress, anxiety, and uncertainty in life, astrology can offer a sense of structure and predictability, allowing people to feel more in control of their complex lives.
6. Astrology can offer social connection and a sense of belonging with people who together seek wisdom, knowledge, and guidance through their common zodiac sign and horoscope predictions.

Statistics on Belief in Astrology:

• The American Federation of Astrologers indicated that about 70 million Americans read their horoscope daily.
• In 2018, 29% of American adults said they believed in astrology, including 26% of Christians.
• In 2022, 27% of Americans said they believed in astrology, including 37% of adults under 30.
• In 2024, 70% of Americans said they either “somewhat” or “strongly” believed in astrology.

The Difference Between Astrology and Astronomy

While astrology and astronomy have very different definitions today, historically, the scientific discipline of astronomy grew out of the practice of astrology.

Astronomy researches everything outside of the earth’s atmosphere, including celestial realities such as planets, stars, asteroids, comets, black holes, galaxies, and the broader universe itself. This systematic scientific study involves principles of mathematics and physics, using direct observation and testing, critical features of science.

In contrast, astrology is a belief system that assumes the positioning of stars and planets influences human events and behavior. The Western scientific community views astrology as pseudoscience because it lacks a scientific basis grounded in observation and testing.

Reasons to Believe’s (RTB) staff scholars and scholar community include PhD-trained scientists who are professional astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists.

How Does Astrology Work?

Astrology is the mystical/magical belief system that the alignment of celestial bodies affects every individual person’s mood, personality, and environment, depending on when he or she was specifically born. Astrologers draw information from the zodiac and print horoscopes in newspapers and other sources that are personalized to one’s birth date.

The practice centers around creating and interpreting natal charts (sometimes called birth charts), which are essentially maps of where all the planets were located at the exact moment you were born. Astrologers believe these celestial positions influence different aspects of your personality and life.

For example, the position of the Sun determines your “sun sign” (the zodiac sign most people identify with), while the Moon’s position allegedly influences your emotions and private self. Each planet supposedly governs different areas of life—Venus for love and relationships, Mars for energy and aggression, Jupiter for luck and growth, etc.

Modern astrologers have expanded these basic interpretations into complex systems involving “houses” (representing different life areas) and “aspects” (the angles between planets). Different astrological traditions (Western, Vedic, Chinese) have their own variations of these principles.

Many astrologers claim to personalize readings based on these celestial patterns, creating the impression of a tailored message from the cosmos. In actuality, as we’ll see, there’s little evidence supporting these claims beyond coincidence and psychological factors.

Is Astrology True?

To help answer this thoroughly, we’re breaking it down into multiple questions that can be clearly defined and answered.

Is Astrology Real?

Horoscopes tend to work (appearing true, real, and accurate) but in a tricky and deceiving manner. Horoscope columnists write daily predictions that are applicable but also quite flexible. They can seem personal, giving the illusion of genuine knowledge and truth, but are often vague enough to avoid the risk of falsification.

John Ferrer writes: “Let’s be clear, though. By all scientific measures, horoscopes, the zodiac, and astrology lack reliable, specific, explanatory, or predictive power. Horoscopes do not ‘work’ in any scientifically credible way. They only seem to work because of different cognitive biases and parlor tricks like confirmation bias, the Barnum effect, cold-reading, placebo effect, educated guessing, self-fulfilling prophecy, and raw probabilities.”

From a Christian perspective, we need to consider whether there might be spiritual forces involved in astrology. The Bible warns about deception and spiritual practices that draw us away from God. While many people approach astrology casually, Scripture indicates that divination practices can potentially open doors to spiritual influence that isn’t divine in origin.

This doesn’t mean every horoscope reader is experiencing direct demonic influence, but it does suggest we should approach these practices with spiritual discernment and caution. The apparently “working” nature of astrology for some people might stem from psychological factors—or in some cases, from spiritual sources that Scripture warns against.

Is Astrology Accurate?

When it comes to horoscopes, they are overly general and lacking in specificity. Astrology has been shown to be highly unreliable in providing genuine information about people’s lives. Horoscopes never seem to make direct claims that can be objectively proven true or false.

Several psychological phenomena explain why people might feel astrology is accurate:

1. The Barnum effect: This is the tendency to accept vague, general statements as uniquely applicable to oneself. Horoscopes typically contain statements that could apply to almost anyone.
2. Confirmation bias: We naturally remember the hits and forget the misses. If your horoscope makes ten predictions and one comes true, you’re likely to remember only the accurate one.
3. Self-fulfilling prophecy: If your horoscope says you’ll have a confrontation today, you might become more defensive or sensitive, actually creating the predicted outcome.

Many scientific studies have examined astrological accuracy. In one famous experiment, psychologist Bertram Forer gave students a “personalized” personality assessment that was actually identical for everyone. Despite receiving the same generic description, students rated the accuracy of their “personal” assessment as 4.26 out of 5 on average.

Similar experiments have repeatedly demonstrated that people typically can’t distinguish between genuine astrological readings and random or fake ones.

Is There Any Truth in Astrology?

Truth has traditionally been defined as that which corresponds to reality (reflecting a realist or correspondence theory of truth). Astrology has a very poor record when it comes to the real and the true. Astrology trades on deception and doesn’t risk the chance of being shown false. Astrology is also an act and practice that the Creator God of the Bible forbids and condemns.

While the cosmos certainly reveals God’s glory as the psalmist declares, astrology misinterprets this revelation. Rather than pointing to the Creator, it elevates the creation itself as the source of meaning and guidance. This fundamental error takes us away from rather than toward ultimate Truth.

From a Christian perspective, truth isn’t merely factual accuracy but alignment with God’s revelation and purposes. Astrology may occasionally stumble upon factual truths by chance, but it isn’t rooted in the Truth that sets us free. Instead, it presents an alternative system of meaning that competes with biblical revelation.

Astrology and Science: Is Astrology Scientific?

The scientific community widely criticizes astrology as a pseudoscience due to a lack of evidence supporting its claims, inconsistent results in testing, no plausible mechanism for how celestial bodies could influence human lives, and the inability to make falsifiable predictions, meaning it cannot be definitively disproved through scientific methods. Essentially, astrology fails to meet the basic criteria of a scientific theory.

What Types of Tests and Experiments Have Scientists Performed on Astrology?

The basic scientific problem with astrology is that it fails to explain how the positions of planets and stars could in fact exert a physical force on humans to influence their personalities or life events.

Numerous scientific studies have failed to find any evidence supporting astrological predictions beyond chance occurrences and manipulation. Let’s look at some notable scientific examinations of astrology:

1. The Carlson Double-Blind Study (1985): This landmark study published in Nature asked professional astrologers to match birth charts to psychological profiles. Under controlled conditions, the astrologers performed no better than chance.
2. The McGrew and McFall Study (1990): This examination tested whether astrologers could match natal charts to psychological profiles of individuals. Again, the results showed no better than random matching.
3. The Shawn Carlson Study (1985): In another controlled experiment, astrologers failed to match birth charts with the correct California Psychological Inventory profiles of test subjects.
4. Statistical Analysis of Personality Traits: Multiple studies have examined whether people born under the same sign show similar personality traits. These studies consistently find no correlation between birth signs and personality.
5. Twin Studies: Research examining the lives of twins (born minutes apart under identical astrological conditions) shows significant divergences in personality and life outcomes, contradicting astrological expectations.
6. Michel Gauquelin’s Mars Effect: Though initially suggesting a statistical correlation between athletic champions and Mars’s position at birth, subsequent rigorous analysis failed to replicate these findings when selection biases were controlled.

What’s particularly notable is that when astrologers are tested under scientifically controlled conditions that prevent cold reading and other psychological techniques, their accuracy falls to levels consistent with random chance.

Does Psychology Influence the Belief in Astrology?

Psychology can significantly influence the belief in astrology. For example, factors like the Barnum effect, personality traits like openness and narcissism, and the deep desire for meaning in life contribute to why people might find astrology personally appealing.

Several psychological factors help explain why astrology remains popular despite lacking scientific support:

• The Barnum Effect: Named after P. T. Barnum, this effect occurs when individuals believe vague, general statements apply specifically to them. Astrological readings typically contain statements general enough to apply to almost anyone, yet people perceive them as uniquely personal.
• Illusion of Control: In times of uncertainty or stress, astrology can provide a sense of order and predictability, helping people feel they have some control over unpredictable aspects of life.
• Confirmation Bias: People tend to remember predictions that come true while forgetting those that don’t, reinforcing their belief in astrology’s accuracy.
• Need for Meaning: Humans naturally seek patterns and meaning in life events. Astrology provides ready-made explanations for personality traits, relationships, and life challenges.
• Self-Discovery Tool: Regardless of its validity, many people use astrological frameworks as tools for self-reflection and understanding.
• Social Identity: Identifying with a zodiac sign can provide a sense of belonging and social identity, fulfilling basic psychological needs.
• Cognitive Dissonance: Once someone has invested time and identity in astrological beliefs, they’re likely to interpret new information in ways that support rather than challenge these beliefs.

Research has also found that people are more likely to turn to astrology during times of personal crisis or stress. One scientific study showed increased internet searches for astrological information following economic downturns or political uncertainty.

These psychological factors don’t mean astrology works—just that our minds are predisposed to find meaning in such systems regardless of their objective validity.

What Does the Bible Say About Astrology?

The Bible forbids involvement with the secret and hidden practices of the occult. Historic (biblical) Christianity forbids involvement with all types of divination (the practice of using omens, rituals, or supernatural powers to gain insight into the future or the present).

The Bible’s stance on astrology and divination is remarkably consistent throughout both the Old and New Testaments. God repeatedly warns his people against seeking guidance from the stars rather than from him directly.

In Deuteronomy 18:10–12, we find a comprehensive prohibition: “Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.”

Isaiah 47:13–14 specifically addresses astrologers: “All the counsel you have received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn them up. They cannot even save themselves from the power of the flame.”

In the New Testament, Acts 19:18–19 describes new believers renouncing divination practices: “Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly

These passages reveal that seeking guidance from the stars rather than from God is not merely misguided but actively opposed to God’s will for his people. From a biblical perspective, astrology represents a form of spiritual rebellion—looking to creation rather than the Creator for ultimate guidance.

Horoscopes

Horoscopes are perhaps the most widespread expression of astrological practice in contemporary culture. These daily, weekly, or monthly forecasts purportedly offer insights into your future based on your birth sign. But what does the Bible say about horoscopes?

Scripture makes it clear that only God knows the future (Isaiah 46:9–10), and attempting to divine it through other means constitutes a form of spiritual infidelity. Horoscopes represent a substitute for divine guidance—offering a counterfeit form of wisdom that the Bible explicitly warns against.

The deceptive nature of horoscopes aligns with what Scripture tells us about false prophets and teachings. In Matthew 7:15, Jesus warns about false prophets who “come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” Horoscopes may seem harmless or even helpful, but they can lead people away from genuine spiritual truth.

From a practical standpoint, horoscopes typically offer vague predictions that could apply to almost anyone. This ambiguity allows readers to project their own meanings onto the text—creating an illusion of insight without delivering genuine prophetic knowledge. The Bible, by contrast, affirms that God’s guidance is clear, truthful, and aligned with his character and purposes.

Christians seeking guidance should turn to prayer, Scripture, and the counsel of mature believers rather than horoscopes. As James 1:5 promises: “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.”

Zodiac Signs & Celestial Bodies

The concept of zodiac signs emerged from ancient Babylonian astrology and was later refined by Greek astronomers. These twelve signs, each associated with a constellation, allegedly influence human personality and destiny based on the Sun’s position at birth.

Some Christians who use astrology may refer to Psalm 19:1:

Yes, God created the stars, but the stars weren’t created for our personal divination or revelation.

While Scripture acknowledges the beauty and order of the universe, it consistently points to it all as evidence of God’s creative power—not as sources of personal guidance. Genesis 1:14 states that God created the stars “to separate the day from the night” and “to mark sacred times, and days and years.” Their purpose is to aid in navigation and timekeeping, not to dictate human personality or destiny.

Some Christians who use astrology will point out the magi (three wise men) as astrologers, as if that supports/condones the practice. As Joe Carter explains: “Their description of seeing a celestial body as a portent of a significant event appears to be a type of mundane astrology (i.e., the study of significant celestial moments to social groups, nations, or all of humanity). Even if the magi (a term from which we get the word ‘magic’) were actual astrologers, this would not be a biblical endorsement of astrology. Instead, it would be an example of how even pagans would recognize Jesus as God.”

The magi’s journey illustrates how God can use various means to draw people to himself, even working through imperfect understanding. However, their story doesn’t validate astrological practices any more than Balaam’s story validates pagan divination (Numbers 22–24).

In fact, the magi story reveals something profound: these stargazers ultimately abandoned their astrological instruments to bow before the incarnate Word of God. Their journey represents movement away from various forms of divination toward direct worship of the true Source of wisdom.

The True Source of Wisdom

If astrology and horoscopes don’t provide reliable guidance, where should we turn? The Bible points us to God himself as the ultimate source of wisdom and direction for our lives.

God’s Word

The Bible includes many references to wisdom, especially in Proverbs, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes.

Consider the following verses from the book of Proverbs:

• Proverbs 2:6: “For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding”
• Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge”
• Proverbs 11:2: God’s wisdom is a safeguard for our lives
• Proverbs 16:16: Wisdom and insight are more valuable than material wealth
• Proverbs 19:20: “Listen to advice and accept discipline, and at the end you will be counted among the wise.”

Consider also the following verses from the New Testament book of James:

• James 1:5: “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.”
• James 3:17: “But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.”

Unlike astrological guidance, biblical wisdom comes with clarity and purpose. It’s not about divining the future but developing discernment to navigate life’s challenges with God’s character as our compass. While horoscopes offer vague predictions applicable to anyone, Scripture provides specific principles that transform our thinking and living.

God’s wisdom also comes through prayer, thoughtful study of Scripture, counsel from mature believers, and the gentle guidance of the Holy Spirit. These sources of wisdom bring us into closer relationship with God—unlike astrology, which creates dependence on impersonal cosmic forces.

True wisdom isn’t about knowing what will happen tomorrow; it’s about knowing the One who holds tomorrow. As we grow in relationship with God, we develop the discernment to recognize his guidance in our daily lives.

The post Is Astrology Real? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

This explanation seems likely because Bayes’ work, which he never published, was discovered after his death by his fellow minister and mathematician friend and colleague Richard Price. Price used Bayes’ theorem to argue that the existence of multiple independent witnesses to a miracle could overcome the improbability of the miracle happening and establish it as a fact. In this article we will take a brief tour of Bayes’ theorem, explore how the inventor of the analytical engine (one of the first computers!) used Bayesian thinking to counter Hume’s argument against the resurrection, and consider the role Bayesian statistics can play in Christian apologetics today.

What Is Bayes’ Theorem?
Bayesian statistics is often used to update prior beliefs after observing new data. How well do our existing beliefs explain the relevant data and do we need to update our beliefs? As an example, let’s consider the likelihood that Thomas Bayes wrote his essay on probability to refute David Hume, given that Richard Price used Bayes’ theorem for that very purpose. In this case, our “prior” belief is that Bayes wrote his essay to refute Hume, which we’ll assign a probability of 60%. Why? If 60% seems a bit arbitrary, that’s because it is and this fact drives a school of statisticians called frequentists crazy—but keep in mind that real life often requires making decisions in the face of uncertainty. Also, Bayes was known for engaging in intellectual debate and was devout in his faith.

Now, our data in this case is that Price, a friend of Bayes, used Bayes’ theorem to refute Hume. If Bayes himself had this purpose in mind, it is even more likely that Price, given their friendship, would do so. Thus, we’ll assign the probability of our data about our belief to 80%. Now the tricky part. What is the likelihood that Price would use Bayes’ theorem to refute Hume even if Bayes never intended it for that purpose? This is the probability of the data—whether or not our belief is true—and is necessary to calculate the probability of our belief given the data (see the equation below).

In this case, we’ll say that the probability of Price using Bayes’ theorem to refute Hume— regardless of Bayes’ intent—is reasonably high, since Price himself was eager to engage in such debates. We’ll set the probability of the data regardless of our belief at 65%. We can then calculate, based on our assumptions, the probability of our belief that Bayes wrote his essay to refute Hume.

Now, if we change our assumption and decide that we have no idea how likely Price would be to use Bayes’ theorem to refute Hume on his own, the probability Bayes wrote his essay to refute Hume jumps to 96% because the denominator in our equation changes from .65 to .5, giving us (0.8 * 0.6) / 0.5 = 96%. The point is that Bayes’ equation can give different answers depending on how sure you are that a particular observation could have occurred without the effect you are checking. For example, it’s not likely that a sunny day would give you a stomach ache, but sour milk definitely could. So, this is how you would calculate the probability of a stomach ache given a sunny day:

I’ll leave it to you to calculate this on your own. If you get stuck, just ask ChatGPT or Gemini and they can help you out. In real life there are cases where we can use historical data to know these probabilities more precisely, such as figuring out if a positive cancer test really means you have cancer, which is a very practical application of Bayesian statistics.

Babbage’s Refutation of Hume
Let us fast forward from Bayes in the 1740s to Charles Babbage, professor of mathematics at Cambridge and designer of a steam-powered programmable computer called the analytical engine, in the early 1800s. Babbage rephrased Hume’s challenge to eyewitness testimony of miracles (such as the resurrection) as, “The falsehood of testimony of the miracle must be more improbable than the miracle,”¹ or as an equation:

In common vernacular, Hume would only believe claims of the miraculous if the probability that the witnesses were wrong was less than the probability of the miracle, which would be difficult if you assume miracles have a very low probability of occurring. If we assume mutually independent witnesses who are reliable 99% of the time, then the probability of N (number) such witnesses being wrong is given by the following equation:

After crunching some numbers using Bayesian equations provided by Pierre-Simon Laplace (the scholar who came up with the mathematical equation for Bayes’ theorem after rediscovering the same principle around 1774), Babbage came to the conclusion that as long as your witnesses speak truth more often than falsehood, there will always be a number of witnesses who can satisfy Hume’s criteria (see Taylor’s paper² for details). In other words, eyewitness testimony could mathematically provide reasonable evidence for a miraculous event, given certain assumptions about the eyewitnesses.

So What?
Bayes’ theorem does not offer “proof” of the miraculous, but it does help us understand how our assumptions impact our beliefs. Hume assumed the probability of the resurrection occurring was zero (weighting the scales just a tiny bit), whereas Babbage calculated it to be 5 * 10^-12. By assigning the resurrection a nonzero probability, Babbage made it possible for eyewitness testimony (assuming certain properties of eyewitnesses) to function as reliable evidence for the resurrection (if it’s zero then no amount of evidence would be sufficient). While neither of these numbers may be the “correct” number, they at least allow us to ask fun, meaningful questions, such as “How many eyewitnesses should be necessary for me to accept the resurrection as a historical event based only on the data available to me?”

Ultimately, Bayes’ theorem helps us think about how prior assumptions influence our conclusions when we update our beliefs given a set of facts. Making our priors clear helps us have better apologetic conversations because we understand precisely where we are starting and, when engaging skeptics such as Hume, how to communicate in a way that may open doors for more meaningful dialogue.³

Endnotes  

1. Courtney K. Taylor, “Charles Babbage and Mathematical Aspects of the Miraculous,” ACMS 22nd Biennial Conference Proceedings, Indiana Wesleyan University, 2019.
2. Taylor, “Babbage and Mathematical Aspects.”
3. For a scholarly book that considers the probability of God’s existence, see Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004).

The post Bayes, Babbage, and Belief in the Resurrection appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Rhett and Link grew up as evangelicals and served with the campus ministry Cru. As a comedy team, they’ve achieved notable success, largely through their YouTube program and channel, both named Good Mythical Morning. The channel has over 18.4 million subscribers and over 8.9 billion video downloads. So, when they walked away from the faith, the reverberations were felt by untold numbers of young people in the church.

According to Christian apologist Alisa Childers, the reason for their deconversion started with concerns about science. Childers writes: 

The stories themselves weren’t so different from others that have lit up social media over the past few years. For Rhett, it started with questions relating to science, the age of the earth, and evolution. It morphed into doubts surrounding biblical reliability, the historicity of the resurrection, and the general idea of hell and judgment. But as both Rhett and Link recounted, something was brewing underneath the intellectual questions. They both felt a deep discomfort with biblical sexual ethics, which they perceived to oppress women and their LGBTQ+ friends.¹

Surveys Say Our Young People Are in Crisis
So, for Rhett and Link, perceptions they had about science and its relationship to Christianity initiated a journey of doubt that came to an end when they walked out the door of the church for the final time. Sadly, their story is typical. A well-known survey published by the Barna Group reports that 29% of young church attendees see churches as out of step with advances in science. Another 25% see Christianity as antiscience. And 23% are turned off by the creation-evolution debate.² In other words, the perception of conflict between science and Christianity is one of the reasons young people leave the church. 

My own experience aligns with this data. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met at speaking engagements who convey to me that one of their college-age children has walked away from the faith because of science. They often explain their heartache with a sense of desperation.

The Barna Group survey isn’t that shocking. A common narrative in our culture today is that science and religion are incompatible with one another. A Pew Research Foundation study discovered that nearly 60% of all Americans see conflict between science and faith. For those who rarely attend church services that number rises to about 72%. Shockingly, for those who attend church weekly, the number hovers around 50%.³

This number is discouraging because it means that half of people in churches embrace a conflict model for science and Christianity. No wonder young people have the perception that Christianity is antiscientific. They’re immersed in that mindset when they’re at church.

How a Creation View Contributes to the Disconnect
In my experience, this aversion to science in the church arises largely out of the influence of young-earth creationism (YEC), the view that God created the earth and humanity about 6,000 years ago. YEC is at odds with much of science. And the only way to maintain this form of creationism is to regard science—at least that which is interpreted from a secular worldview—as hostile to Christianity and, therefore, to dismiss many of its findings. Hence, conflict exists between science and the faith, and Christians must reject the “lies” of science and uphold the “truth” of God’s Word.

Young-earth creationism is pervasive among evangelical churches. A poll conducted by BioLogos determined that 54% of pastors support YEC.⁴ Thus, it’s not surprising that some of the most committed churchgoers see a lack of concord between science and their Christian faith. Their pastor may be proclaiming this message from the pulpit.

The results of the Barna and Pew surveys become more worrisome when we consider another Barna Group survey. Over 50% of young people in churches desire careers in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine) fields. According to the survey results: 23% are interested in medicine and health care, 13% want a career in engineering, 8% will pursue work in the sciences, 5% express interest in veterinary medicine, and 5% see themselves working in technology.⁵

These results make sense. STEMM careers are among the most exciting and lucrative ways to earn a living. In fact, these numbers align with the career aspirations of nonchurched youth. 

In the same survey, the Barna Group learned that only 38% of youth leaders and 36% of senior pastors discuss career interests with students in their churches. And only 1% of youth leaders discuss science-related topics with young people in the church. Yet, half of their students are interested in careers in science-based fields. 

The Need to Learn Other Creation Views
Herein lies the problem. If church leaders have an underlying suspicion about science, then young people in these churches are bound to absorb that mindset. Most likely any exposure that the youth have had to science-faith discussions is from the vantage point of YEC. Many of them go on to college, where they might take a course of study designed to prepare them to pursue a career in STEMM. But this pursuit requires that they take classes in science and math. In the process, they will be confronted by compelling scientific evidence that tells them that the universe and earth are old and life is ancient. They’ll also be presented with scientific claims that evolutionary processes can explain the origin, design, history, and diversity of life. All these claims run contrary to what they accepted on faith to be true. And doubts start to rise.  

These students will also interact with professors whom they likely admire and respect, and peers they want to impress who are more than willing to ridicule their belief in creationism. These professors and classmates will reinforce the students’ growing concerns that science makes belief in God unreasonable and renders the biblical creation accounts unbelievable. I know from firsthand experience as someone trained in the life sciences that this hostility to Christianity is most prevalent in the life sciences. Though I wasn’t a Christian when I was an undergraduate, I recall countless times that the professors in my biology classes went out of their way to say something derogatory about young-earth creationism and Christianity.

Since many churches don’t discuss science-faith issues, and if they do, it’s most likely from a young-earth perspective, these students are ill-equipped to handle this assault on their faith. 

This situation is so unfortunate because other science-faith perspectives exist. In fact, there are good biblical and theological reasons to think that YEC isn’t the best reading of Genesis 1–11. Old-earth creationism (OEC) accepts the antiquity of the universe, earth, and life’s history. It views the fossil record as a proxy for a real history of life on Earth. This perspective (also called progressive creationism) recognizes features of biological systems as reflecting bona fide design, the handiwork of the Creator. OEC expresses skepticism about the claim that all of biology can be explained as the outworking of evolutionary processes. Instead, OEC argues that key transitions in life’s history require the Creator’s intervention. According to the BioLogos survey, about 15% of pastors hold this view. If this view were more prominent in churches, I wonder if fewer young people would deconvert.

Another 18% of pastors embrace theistic evolution (also called evolutionary creationism). This view maintains that God created through evolutionary processes. Like OEC, theistic evolution accepts the scientific evidence for the antiquity of the universe and Earth. It also views the fossil record as a reflection of life’s history that spans 3.8 billion years. The difference between the two views relates to the mode of divine action. Does God intervene occasionally when he creates or does he create through process alone?

Both old-earth and evolutionary creationism find compatibility—even harmony—between science and Christianity, but in different ways. OEC embraces an overlap model, with the biblical creation accounts finding support from scientific advances. At Reasons to Believe (RTB), we employ an approach we call constructive integration in which we seek to integrate scientific findings with insights from the biblical creation accounts to yield a creation model, replete with scientific predictions. 

As a rule, evolutionary creationists employ a complementary (but not overlapping) model. They see the biblical creation accounts and the scientific models for origins as different expressions of truth. Each approach points to the same truth, yet each approach must be kept separate. The scientific insights tell us the how of creation. The biblical insights tell us the why of creation. Evolutionary creationists don’t see any scientific evidence in support of the creation accounts (such as in Genesis 1), because science belongs in a different domain of knowledge than do theological insights that come from Scripture. In other words, compatibility exists between science and Christianity because they speak to different facets of the truth.

These two approaches have different strengths and weaknesses. Thoughtful Christians hold to each of these views for various biblical, theological, philosophical, and scientific reasons. It seems to me that if church leaders want to equip their young people, then they will include presentations of these two views along with YEC. These types of discussions let young people in the church know that they have options when it comes to questions regarding science and the Christian faith. At minimum, by learning other views the students will be equipped to think for themselves and they’ll gain the tools they need to engage scientific challenges to their faith when in college.

Embracing Controversy and Avoiding Deconversion
Sadly, one reason why churches don’t equip students to engage with science is because these topics are controversial and they evoke a lot of passion in some people. This passion is understandable because of the importance of the science-faith discussion and the far-ranging implications that arise out of the various science-faith models. Unfortunately, discussing science-faith topics in churches can become divisive, and pastors and church leaders seek to avoid divisions in their congregations at all costs. They want to maintain peace and unity, which is understandable, but the youth pay the price for this feigned peace. They aren’t equipped to deal with scientific challenges to their faith in college and, worse, they develop the perception that discussions about science and Christianity are dangerous. And when they’re confronted with scientific evidence that seems to run counter to the ideas that they’ve been taught about Genesis 1–11—usually YEC—they conclude that their pastors and church leaders avoided these topics because there really aren’t good answers to scientific challenges. They’re vulnerable to the message of a popular YouTube duo that tantalizes them with the “freedom” of deconversion. 

Even though I have my convictions as an old-earth creationist, I recognize that others have differing convictions. It’s important to debate our differences with vigor but we must also engage with one another in a way that treats others who hold differing views in a gentle and respectful way. Our debates should help people understand the strengths and weaknesses of the positions we hold and the positions that others hold. While we all should advocate for our position, we need to move beyond defending our territory at all costs and consider how we can best serve young people in the church.

It’s been our conviction at RTB to model this irenic, educational approach as we engage young-earth and evolutionary creationists. It has also shaped our discourses with BioLogos and Peaceful Science and will continue to do so in the future.

Though I am an old-earth creationist, I would much rather that a young person embraces a science-faith perspective that differs from my own than walks away from the faith. 

Resources

• Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and Biologos (book)

• Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (book)

• “Christianity and Human Origins,” event sponsored by the Gospel Initiative, Denver Seminary, featuring Fazale “Fuz” Rana, S. Joshua Swamidass, Denis Lamoureux, and Jeffrey Schloss 
  

Endnotes

1. Alisa Childers, “Let’s Deconstruct a Deconversion Story: The Case of Rhett and Link,” The Gospel Coalition, February 29, 2020. 
2. Barna Group, “Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church,” September 27, 2011. 
3. Pew Research Center, “Perception of Conflict between Science and Religion,” October 22, 2015. 
4. Stoyan Zaimov, “Poll: Many Protestant Pastors Lean toward Young Earth Creation,” Christian Post, May 13, 2013.
5. Barna Group, “What Teens Aspire to Do in Life, How Churches Can Help,” June 14, 2011.

The post Does Science Cause Christians to Deconvert? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

1. The existence of the biblical God offers a rationally plausible explanation for the cosmos’s origin.

Scientific evidence supports the universe’s beginning. According to big bang cosmology, the universe had a singular beginning about 14 billion years ago. The universe came into being in a cataclysmic but controlled explosion of extreme heat and light. The big bang cosmological model, accepted by nearly all research scientists and based on comprehensive astronomical evidence and testing, shows that the cosmos is not eternal but had an origin in the finite past.

Knowing that the cosmos had a singular beginning, consider the Kalam cosmological argument:

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. 
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. 

2. The existence of the biblical God provides a rationally plausible explanation for the complex order and design in the world. 

The scientific community’s broad acceptance of the anthropic principle—the view that nature’s laws appear to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of human life—supports the view that the cosmos is the product of a designer. Even a committed atheist would have to acknowledge that the universe exhibits extraordinary order and design. Moreover, scientists have proposed that the cosmos didn’t have to take its present form and the statistical probability of producing a life-permitting world is virtually incalculable.²

In reflecting upon our life-friendly, orderly universe, consider this fine-tuning argument:

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe must result from physical necessity, chance, or design. 
Premise 2: It does not result from physical necessity or chance. 
Conclusion: Therefore, the fine-tuning results from design.

3. The existence of the biblical God provides a rationally plausible explanation for the compatibility between mathematical ideas and their capacity to describe the universe.

Over the last few centuries, scientists have recognized that abstract mathematics can be used as a type of tool or language to explain the physical cosmos. In his paper “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,”³ physicist Eugene Wigner even uses the word “miracle” to describe this extraordinary congruence between mathematical ideas in the minds of human beings and their explanatory power to describe physical reality. 

Does mathematics operate simply because that’s the way the universe happens to be (a fortunate accident as the result of a brute reality)? Or is the cosmos the product of reason because it was created by an infinitely wise divine mind?

Consider this abductive (inference to the best explanation) argument: 

Premise 1: Abstract mathematics accurately describes the universe. 
Premise 2: But if the biblical God exists, then math’s applicability to nature is an expected matter of course resulting from the act of creation. 
Conclusion: Thus, there is plausible reason to conclude that the biblical God exists. 

From a Christian perspective, mathematics and logic flow from the mind of the Creator God who imbued these rational elements into the nature of the universe. 

Takeaway
In terms of explanatory power, the biblical God can account for a broad range of science-related phenomena in the cosmos. In contrast, how does a godless perspective compare? Does a universe that (1) had an origin, (2) reflects order and design, and (3) corresponds to mathematics comport well with a naturalistic point of view? 

Resources

• Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God

• Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas

Endnotes

1. For a dozen such arguments, see Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012), chapters 7 and 8.
2. Physicist Paul Davies argues that the cosmos could have followed a vast variety of contingent outcomes. See Paul Davies, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), 169. And concerning chance being responsible for the universe’s fine-tuning, physicist Roger Penrose has calculated the chance, or undirected, formation of our cosmos to be one part in 1010(123). See Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 344.
3. Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” reprinted from Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 13, no. 1 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1960).

The post 3 Science-Related Arguments for God’s Existence appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Problems with Polytheism
Polytheism posits the existence of multiple deities, each distinct from the others. In one sense, animism may be considered the earliest form of polytheism. This diverse array of ancient cultural beliefs (still held by some people today) attributes soul, spirit, and sentience to animals, plants, rocks, and other elements of the natural realm. Each entity is thought to possess at least some unique characteristic, power, and/or responsibility, but none explains the existence of the whole realm of nature, nor does any possess an identifiable capacity for agency. 

Later, more fully organized and articulated belief systems, from Hinduism and paganism to the Greek and Roman pantheon, among others, posited distinct ways in which various gods interact with humans and the rest of nature. Each of the multiplicity of gods is said to exhibit a distinct mind, purpose, and agenda with respect to the world and people. Polytheism, thus, predicts that science may reveal evidence of design in nature; however, any apparent designs will lack evidence of a unified, coordinated, and/or integrated effort. Distinct agendas inevitably will produce some compromises, suboptimizations, and oversights in the designs.

A few millennia ago, even as recently as a few centuries ago, scientific advance was insufficient in most fields to determine with much certainty whether incongruities, compromises, oversights, suboptimizations, and/or a lack of coordination did or did not characterize the record of nature. Such is no longer the case. While the scientific record does reveal examples of design trade-offs, even the trade-offs appear optimized to achieve multiple purposes simultaneously. 

Rather than reflecting the agency of multiple independent minds with distinct purposes and goals, everywhere scientists survey nature’s realm, they see evidence of design that indicates planning, development, and implementation by a single Being with an integrated set of purposes.

If the natural realm owes its existence and operation to multiple distinct gods, science will lead to inevitable clashes. Findings would be inconsistent and incongruous. Science disciplines would collide. Researchers would find it nearly impossible to reconcile scientific data and interpretations. Given the hierarchical nature of polytheism with the gods possessing different levels of authority that sometimes overlap and conflict, moral and ethical chaos would also be inevitable.   

Problems with Strict Monotheism
Strict monotheism—religions and belief systems with one and only one God manifested in a single Person, such as Judaism and Islam—would seem to account readily for the harmony and consistency of designs and processes in the realm of nature, including the appearance of optimized templates in living creatures. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are often listed together as prime examples of monotheistic religions, but these three “Abrahamic” religious traditions identify the one God and define the term monotheism in distinctly different ways. 

Many Jewish scholars distinguish their version of monotheism from the Christian version by calling theirs “ethical monotheism.” These scholars emphasize the moral and ethical aspects of belief in a single God whose law applies to all of humanity and whose priority is that humans behave decently toward one another. Some Jews, like many Muslims, believe God demands adherence to a specific and narrow set of outward practices, including diet, dress, and grooming. However, Judaism does not demand the conversion of non-Jews as a condition of God’s mercy in judgment, whereas Islam considers non-Muslims as subject to condemnation by Allah, the Islamic name for God.

The most glaring problem with both forms of strict monotheism is the lack of any satisfying answer to the origin of love. If God is a solitary Being, then before creating anything or anyone, this God has no concept of love. This God has no one to express love to or to receive love from. Herein lies a dilemma: how can a Being who has no basis for conceiving of or experiencing love create beings who can and do manifest love? In strict monotheism, love does not exist until the one God creates other beings and endows them with a capacity that he lacks. In strict monotheism, God is compelled to create in order to know and experience what love is.

Islam declares that Allah (God) is greater than everyone/everything and has no need of anything. The dilemma of love’s origin contradicts this declaration. Those Jewish and Islamic apologists who are aware of the dilemma respond by appealing to God’s transcendence (beyond the physics and dimensions of the universe and, therefore, beyond human experience). They claim that God expressed and experienced love in his transcendent state in a manner totally different from the love that humans express and experience. However, this claim still fails to address the origin of the love that humans express and experience.

Problems with Atheism
In the words of the popular twentieth-century astronomer Carl Sagan, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”² Atheists claim that all the designs scientists and others detect in nature are “apparent” designs, only. They assert that these so-called designs represent accidents of nature, with no intended purposes or goals behind them. They assert the nonexistence of mind, person(s), or intelligence behind nature’s realm, including the origin and design of space-time, matter, and energy.

The problem with their assertions is that they fail to address why things in the natural realm are as they are. They fail to explain why anything exists at all. They face the challenge that strictly naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe, life, and humanity are becoming more problematic, not less, with advancing scientific research.  

Atheism fails to provide any rational explanation for the exponentially increasing evidence of fine-tuning at all size and time scales within the universe that makes possible not only the existence of humans and our global high-technology civilization but also that of bacteria and molecules. That fine-tuning includes the universe’s mass, age, geometry, expansion rate, rate of decay, laws of physics, and space-time dimensions.³    

How the Trinity Comports with Science
The doctrine of a triune God, which is both unique and central to Christianity, encounters none of the intractable problems associated with animism, polytheism, strict monotheism, and atheism. A God who exists as one Being in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) with identical and indissoluble character attributes, intents, goals, and purposes perfectly matches and explains what the scientific investigation of the natural realm reveals: ubiquitous coherence, consistency, congruity, harmony, efficiency, coordination, and optimization. It explains why the natural realm provides increasing evidence of having been designed and created by a single Being with a single set of purposes. 

The Trinity explains the origin of love. Before the Trinity creates anything, God is experiencing and expressing love. As a triune Being, God is complete and totally fulfilled before creating anything or anyone. Such a God has no need to create.

The perfect love experienced and expressed by the triune God explains the symmetry, elegance, and beauty evident throughout the natural realm—as well as in the mathematics that describe the operation of the natural realm. The triune God provides a complete and consistent explanation for morality, accountability, justice, and mercy. 

Christianity’s triune God explains why design is so ubiquitous, optimal, complex, and integrated throughout nature. It explains why scientists observe these characteristics on all size scales from the largest down to the smallest subatomic, even subparticle, level.

Why a Triunity?
Christian theologians and others have long pondered why God is not a duality or quaternity, rather than a Trinity. One conclusion to this mystery is that God, as a Trinity, best explains the perfection of his love.

Research psychologists have demonstrated that where love is expressed always and only between two persons, its perfection cannot be observed because it remains untested. A third person in a relationship becomes challenging in human (less-than-perfectly-loving) relationships where “triangulation,” or two v. one, presents a temptation. Nevertheless, as many couples have experienced, the birth of children not only adds but also multiplies love, rather than diminishing it.

In some sects of Christianity, an angel or a saint is elevated to the status of Godhead, which makes God a quaternity. As Christian scholars have observed, however, people within these sects struggle in attempts to worship each of the four “persons” equally, given that they possess unequal qualities. Worshippers tend to experience confusion over the roles, or division of labor, among the persons comprising the Godhead.

In the first chapter of his first epistle, the apostle John declares that God is light, and this light has been made visible to the heart of every human being. John goes on to explain in the chapters that follow the three primary components of this light: life, love, and truth. He points out that all three persons of the Godhead shower life, love, and truth upon God’s creation, upon human beings, in particular. In doing so, God the Son takes the primary role in bestowing life, God the Father takes the primary role in showing love, and God the Holy Spirit takes the primary role in communicating truth. This elaboration on what God’s “light” means explains how humans best receive God’s light and eliminates confusion about a divine “hierarchy.” 

The Trinity Demonstrates Divine Inspiration
The Trinity transcends the ability of humans to fully describe, accurately picture, or completely comprehend. As demonstrated in my book, Beyond the Cosmos, the Trinity transcends the limits of the physical laws and space-time dimensions of the cosmos.⁴ Since humans are confined to the dimensions and physical laws, our capacity to visualize is limited by them. 

Something I observed in studying the (non-Christian) major religions of the world during my late teens is that each presented God in a manner that can be visualized by humans. This observation led me to consider that these religions might be merely human constructions rather than divine revelations. When the space-time theorems established that the universe’s space-time dimensions came into existence at the origin of the universe,⁵ I realized that God, the Creator, must possess powers and attributes that transcend these cosmic space-time dimensions. A revelation from this God could and would describe real phenomena that go beyond the ability of humans to visualize.

I saw the Bible standing alone in this respect. The Bible revealed God in a manner that is impossible for humans to conceive through their own reason and imagination. The Bible alone bears the signature of a Being whose message comes to us from beyond the cosmos.

The triune God repeatedly and consistently revealed in both the Old and New Testaments is clearly and uniquely distinct from the gods of all other religious writings and teachings. Nothing like a triune Creator, Redeemer, and Empowerer can be found within the foundational books on which the world’s religions, other than Christianity, stake their claims. 

While Jews and Muslims describe the Old Testament as the true and trustworthy Word of God, they deny a doctrine made especially clear in the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Isaiah. In conversation with both Jews and Muslims, I’ve found that most are either unaware of or have given little attention to the many OT passages showing that God is triune, one essence manifested in three persons.

Given that Isaiah is highly esteemed by both Jews and Muslims, I believe it was more than a mere “stroke of luck” that the only complete book of the Old Testament found among the Dead Sea Scrolls was Isaiah. Three years ago, I assembled a list of verses from Isaiah that express God’s simultaneous singularity and triunity. (See my post, “Does the Book of Isaiah Teach the Trinity?) I encourage readers of this blog to share this scientific perspective on the Trinity not only with fellow Christians but also with Jews, Muslims, participants in cults, and all who struggle to believe that God can be one and three. God’s triune nature makes possible our redemption from sin and an eternal loving relationship with the Creator.       

Endnotes

1. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018); Hugh Ross, Designed to the Core (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2022); Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016); Hugh Ross, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008).
2. Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Ballantine Books, 1985), 1. Sagan previously made this declaration in his Public Broadcasting Service television documentary series, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, which has been seen by over 500 million people and worldwide ranks as the most widely watched series in the history of American public television. 
3. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos; Ross, Designed to the Core; Ross, Improbable Planet; Ross, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is. 
4. Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2017), 81–99.

Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 100–129.

The post How the Trinity Makes Sense of Science appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The combination of powerful computers and self-correcting/self-teaching algorithms has yielded AI systems that can now compete with and even substantially outperform human experts. One example is IBM’s Deep Blue system, which defeated world chess champion Gary Kasparov under tournament conditions in 1997. With access to data from its previous matches with Kasparov, Deep Blue could abandon weak strategies and avoid past mistakes whereas Kasparov, like any human, could not.

Go, perhaps the world’s oldest board game, is orders of magnitude more complex than chess. Not until 2016 was an AI system, AlphaGO, also known as Google DeepMind, able to defeat world Go champion, Lee Sedol, winning four out of the five games played. AlphaGO won by analyzing the entire online library on Go, including all tournament games between human Go masters, every book on Go, and every game AlphaGO had played against itself or against human Go masters.

If it seems computers have advanced rapidly, they have, and for good reasons.

Moore’s Law
Moore’s Law is the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated computer circuit roughly doubles every two years. Moore’s Law explains why computing power has risen exponentially while the price of computers has dropped exponentially. 

Back in the early 1960s, during my early teens, I wrote and ran computer programs on an IBM 7090 computer (see figure 1). It was the first transistorized computer. It contained 50,000 transistors and cost over $3 million (over $30 million in today’s dollars). Apple laptop computers today contain 67 trillion transistors and sell for about $1,000. Supercomputers built since 2016 include over 12 quadrillion transistors.

Figure 1: IBM 7090 Computer: The First Fully Transistorized Computer
Credit: NASA

Moore’s Law made AI possible. It made possible the development of computer hardware and software algorithms that can perform certain tasks and calculations with speed and accuracy that far surpasses what any individual human can achieve.  

AI Achievements
The amazing successes of AI systems can be attributed solely to associative learning. Associative learning is a data mining and “learning” technique that seeks out important relationships among variables or features in a data set. Examples are AI algorithms that count the frequency of complimentary occurrences or associations across a large collection of items or actions. Retailers use such algorithms to determine which products are best placed together in a store or online catalog to maximize sales. 

Other examples include computer programs that learn from their mistakes. Google Translate does this. Four years ago, a physicist in Ukraine began asking me questions on my Facebook page. I used Google Translate to convert his Ukrainian language questions into English. Similarly, he used Google Translate to convert my English language answers into Ukrainian. The first several exchanges were quite frustrating for both of us. However, we observed that Google Translate’s capabilities steadily improved as we continued. It acquired more data and corrected its mistakes. Today, it’s as if we are both speaking the same language.

Deep AI identifies previously unobserved correlations in databases. By applying a measure of “interesting-ness,” they generate an association rule for new searches. To be effective, deep AI systems need to be fed large, diverse databases. When deep AI appears to be making a new discovery or generating a new database, the “new discovery” or “new database” is actually derived from analysis of existing databases. Deep AI explores uncharted or previously unanalyzed databases. 

AI’s  Limitations
AI is 100% dependent on the databases loaded into its systems. It can merge or otherwise “massage” these databases to create what may appear to be a new database, but it can’t actually generate new data, or a new database. 

People have dreamed about creating autonomous AI systems. However, AI is entirely dependent on humans to feed it data or to provide the hardware—such as digital cameras—that feed it data.

AI becomes competent only after humans provide it with relevant data within a constrained range. AI can sort through unevaluated data to find relevant data but only at great cost. Some of the more remarkable achievements of AI have required more than 10 gigawatt-hours of electricity. Such energy use equals the total annual energy consumption of over 1,000 typical U.S. households. For the sake of comparison, the human brain can analyze a substantial body of data using only 20 watts of energy.

AI can churn out fluent overviews and reviews on almost any topic, and yet it falters miserably on mathematical queries that require reasoning. For example, the celebrated AI darling of today, ChatGPT, scored just 26% on its attempt to pass a simple freshman high school math exam. 

A more powerful AI system, Minerva, did better. Minerva scored 50% on simple high school math problems. However, Minerva is three times ChatGPT’s size. Furthermore, it was fed a curated diet of data. Minerva received millions of mathematics papers/articles and sorted through millions of math books and web articles to estimate the most likely correct answers. Minerva’s success depended on human help—prefacing math questions with relevant sample questions and correct solutions that included all the reasoning steps. 

Minerva only appears to reason as it uses templates encountered previously. Its score of 50% required a month of training. Minerva, like all other AI systems, displayed no actual reasoning power.

While extremely large AI systems, like Minerva, are getting better at answering questions within the scope of their training data, they still lack the ability to answer entirely new questions. AI cannot make sense of something it has not seen before.

AI-Human Collaboration
Clearly, AI systems can do certain tasks that humans cannot, and they can do things at much greater speed and with fewer errors than humans can. On the other hand, humans can do certain things that AI systems cannot, and we can do certain things much faster, more reliably, and with much less energy consumption than AI. Therefore, it makes sense for humans to collaborate with AI. 

To determine the best and most efficient ways for humans and AI to collaborate, a team of nine computer scientists at the Lam Research Corporation in Fremont, California, conducted a set of experiments on semiconductor process development.¹

The Lam research team had computer design engineers compete with AI in a virtual test to develop an efficient process for manufacturing computer chips. The test’s goal was to minimize the cost of producing a computer chip with specific target characteristics. The Lam team first had nine humans compete with one another: three senior engineers, three junior engineers, and three other engineers having no relevant experience. As expected, the most experienced and most capable of the three senior engineers won the competition. 

The Lam team then created several AI computer chip design players (AI algorithms that simulated human players). These AI players all used Bayesian optimization analysis on huge databases of computer chip designs. In only 13 out of 300 attempts did the AI players do better than the winning senior engineer—and then only slightly better. The Lam team concluded that the AI players’ lack of expert knowledge caused them to waste time and resources on exploring huge databases of possible processes that had no chance of success.

The team’s conclusion prompted them to try a “human-first, AI-system-second” strategy. In this approach, a human expert constrained data searches before handing over the task to the AI system. Lam’s team achieved the best and least costly result by optimizing the timing of the transfer from the human expert to the AI system.

Human-ChatGPT Collaboration 
After reading the paper published by the Lam Research Corporation, I did my own experiment in human-AI collaboration. My goal was to take technical content and rewrite it at a junior-high reading level without sacrificing scientific accuracy. The typical strategy brings together a science scholar with an editor or journalist who has demonstrated talent for writing science material for young readers. Several publications, including a few resources produced by RTB scholars and editors have shown at least some degree of success in this collaboration.

Last week, I decided to recruit a new collaborator, ChatGPT. I took my 4,000-word article on the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe, deleted the endnote citations, and found that the 3,200-word article scored a Flesch-Kincaid reading level of grade 17. I fed ChatGPT this 3,200-word article and instructed it to rewrite the article for an eighth-grade student. 

The result was unusable. AI did achieve the reading level goal, but nearly all the science in the article was mangled. To correct all the scientific errors would have taken me more time than rewriting the entire article myself. Nevertheless, the ChatGPT version showed me what a grade 8 reading level looks like.

So, I returned to the original 3,200-word article and worked on shortening the sentences, replacing technical vocabulary with simpler vocabulary, and injecting some idioms, illustrations, and humor. In less than two hours, I had brought the article down to a grade 12 reading level. However, the word count had bumped up to nearly 3,600 words.

Next, I fed this 3,600-word article to ChatGPT, again instructing it to make it readable at a grade 8 level. The result was an improvement over the initial attempt, but many scientific errors persisted. What I noted, though, was that most of the errors seemed to arise from ChatGPT going off on irrelevant tangents. So this next time around, I fed ChatGPT the 3,600-word article in bite-sized chunks. The smallest chunk was a single paragraph. The largest chunk was four paragraphs long. I chose the chunk size based on relevance to a specific subtopic. 

At this point, I was pleased with the outcome. Only a few scientific errors remained, and they were much less problematic. It became a relatively straightforward and efficient task for me to correct the errors without sacrificing readability. 

While ChatGPT rated the final readability level as grade 8, the Flesch-Kincaid rating came in at grade 9.5. Obviously, differences exist between the ChatGPT and Flesch-Kincaid algorithms for scoring readability. ChatGPT focuses more on vocabulary level and how sentences sound when read aloud. Flesch-Kincaid prioritizes paragraph length, sentence length, and average number of letters per word.

I took my experiment one step farther by feeding the grade 8 level article I had corrected to ChatGPT with the instruction to rewrite it for a grade 7 student. The new version came out with only a few and easy-to-fix scientific errors. The final result was a readable 4,400-word article containing nearly all the content of the original 3,200-word paper.

Through one day’s experimentation, I was able to develop a significantly beneficial strategy for ongoing collaboration with ChatGPT. The next time I want to transform one of my technically-written pieces into something that can be understood at an eighth-grade reading level, I can do so in a way that makes efficient use of both my time and the ChatGPT expertise. My experimental result aligns closely with the conclusions of the Lam Research Corporation’s team on how to optimize human-AI time and resources.    

AI and the Case for Human Exceptionalism
The Lam Research Corporation studies and my personal experiment with AI have something to say about human exceptionalism and the dual (body-mind) nature of human beings—two core biblical doctrines. AI can perform calculations and analyze vast, diverse databases at blinding speed. However, AI cannot reason. It has no mind. It is not conscious, much less spiritual. 

Like a parrot, AI can be trained to communicate in a way that, in many respects, mimics human communication. But this resemblance is entirely dependent on human input and training. Even then, what AI produces mimics only some of the features of human communication.

I have nearly 50 books in my office written by scientists and philosophers who have tackled the problem of explaining human consciousness in material terms. The books written by nontheists all insist that there must be some naturalistic explanation for human consciousness. However, to date, researchers have found not the slightest clue or hint as to what the explanation could be. AI seems to drive home the point rather effectively that physics and chemistry alone cannot explain human consciousness. As the Bible declared thousands of years ago when God created humans in his image (Genesis 1:26–27), that image is spiritual, not physical.   

Endnote
1. Keren J. Kanarik et al., “Human-Machine Collaboration for Improving Semiconductor Process Development,” Nature 616 (March 8, 2023): 707–711, doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05773-7.

The post A Model for AI-Human Collaboration appeared first on Reasons to Believe.