Science and Religion
My book, Reality Check: Science Meets Religion,
is an attempt to come up with a satisfactory logical argument that makes
a convincing case for belief in God—supported by independent evidence
of all its suppositions. Given over half the world's population believes
in God, and that virtually everyone in the technological world also believes
in science, my assumption is that religion and science should not—and
cannot—be regarded as mutually exclusive. Probably the world's most
famous scientist, Albert Einstein, put it this way: 'Science without religion
is lame. Religion without science is blind.' I wholeheartedly agree.
While not a lot of people realise this, two popes have admitted evolution
might be part of God's plan. In his encyclical Humani Generis
(1950), Pope Pius XII said: 'There is no conflict between evolution and
the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that
we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.' Referring to this in his
message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in October 1996, Pope John
Paul II added: 'Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of
that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution
as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has
had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following
a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence
in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned
nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour
of the theory.'
There are, of course, enlightened scientists who do believe in a creator
God, and believers who do believe in science, but the plain truth is that
the majority of scientists feel there is no need for the concept of God,
and the dogma and long-held beliefs of traditional religions do not seem
to gel with science. Since religion is based upon understanding stemming
from ancient sources, however, is it not possible the problem might lie
in the interpretation of what is said in those sacred writings?
That is not to say they are incorrect, but that we need to look at them
more closely, and in a modern light.
As a result of apparent conflicts between science and religion, we have
atheists who are confident it is absurd to believe in God, agnostics
who try to keep their options open because they are uncertain about God,
and even believers who have to compartmentalize their beliefs
in those areas where there seems to be conflict: those same areas which
cause agnostics to hold back. So is there any common ground whereby the
two sides are able to conclude they are just looking at the same thing
from different points of view? I believe there is, and that is what my
book is all about. It provides an unfettered view of religion and science
and aims to show they are truly compatible.
Evolution offends the sensibilities of some believers because they say
God created man. But what if he did so through the process of evolution?
And if we admit this as a possibility, was their no creation involved
at all? In my book I show there was both evolution and creation,
and that this is supported by a careful reading of the book of Genesis
in the Holy Bible. In fact, my entire book shows that science is merely
the study of God's creation, and that the Bible is not at odds with modern
Atheists will scoff at anyone who believes in God, as does Richard Dawkins,
whose best selling book, The God Delusion, strives to prove there
is no God. Yet I show he is deluded when he implies God is part of creation.
He talks of 'god of the Martians' and of 'the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri'
when casting scorn on the belief of Christians. Yet it is illogical and
unscientific to assume any creator can be part of his creation, any more
than an artist can be a living part of his painting. To make such remarks
shows Dawkins' understanding of any god is a very shallow one. If we believe
God created our world—the space-time continuum—he could not
physically be part of it, even if he can make himself known within it
(eg through a human-being such as Jesus and the Holy Spirit). So Dawkins'
argument that any creator needs a creator, is a fallacy: this is not an
argument that can be constrained by physicality: it exceeds the physical
If you read—and were convinced by—the arguments of The
God Delusion, please now read my book's rebuttal of 16 classic arguments
against there being a God, including those of Dawkins, and my
presentation of a new argument to counter typical arguments against there
being a God. It also analyses a similar number of classic arguments for
there being a God and comes up with a new argument for God based on the
unique approach taken by this book.
Don't think my arguments for God are merely hypothetical. I start out
by offering evidence-supported facts that prove our consciousness—and
that of God—lies outside his creation of the space-time continuum.
Once you can accept the evidence that proves this, you are well on the
way to understanding how the classic arguments against there being a God
fall down due to their lack of perspective. Appreciation of this, and
of the multidimensional view science now has of space-time, actually leads
us to the position of reinterpreting where Heaven might be. The traditional
belief it is somewhere up in the sky, for example, might have worked a
couple of thousand years ago, but notions such as this no longer cut it
for most of us. I show how a modern interpretation, in line with science,
is actually confirmed by implication in the words of Jesus when asked
where the Kingdom of Heaven was.
Jesus told people they needed to believe 'like little children' in order
to be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I hope that Reality
Check: Science Meets Religion, will enable many of its readers to
pass beyond doubts they had about God once they understand belief is not
contrary to science. As a consequence of losing those doubts and fears,
they can then do just what Jesus suggested: 'believe like little children'.
If you always wanted to believe in God but thought that was impossible,
please give me a chance to change your mind through this book. Check out
the reader reviews alongside to see what others have said about it. The
subject might be deep, but the approach I have taken makes it simple to
understand. Hopefully you will find it entertaining, accessible, and not
without a little humour. And if it helps you, please also tell others
about it. Faith is the greatest gift you could give to anyone, so don't
keep it back from your friends: especially if you believe it is the route
to eternal life!
Click here to find out how to buy this book.
Back to top
Click here for BUY options
"Extremely well written, researched and set out. Every point is very clear. The analogies are extremely imaginative and very effective. The passion in this work is powerful and every paragraph is thought provoking. The arguments are well thought through and persuasive... I would suggest that everyone reads it and think very carefully about what you say." (Gareth Naylor - Authonomy)
"'Reality Check' is an interesting and accessible book... that sets up the basic argument well, an intriguing one at that: proof of God in brain and mind being two different things, mind existing beyond the time-space continuum. At this stage my interest was piqued. I haven’t come across an argument like this before so it appears original... I was entertained and informed along the way and feel richer for the debate. Anyone interested in these themes would do well to have a read of 'Reality Check'." (Ross Clark - Authonomy)
"This is one hell of a book, excuse the pun; and so well researched, and the thoughts are radical on this matter... [the] Albert Einstein line, very relevant to-day and very much relates to what you have written... I was totally intrigued... and found it to be very informative." (Tom Bye - Authonomy)
"The most abstract of concepts are communicated in a clearly digestible form… There is a tremendous need for the genre represented here: arguments which transcend the physical world. For many, if not most, the task of adequately preparing oneself to respond to such questions is simply too daunting. I appreciate the scholarly professionalism and the extensive referencing… [The author] rises to the challenge of what most would consider an extremely difficult calling." (James Revoir - Authonomy)