In the middle of May, 2008, Washington hosted a strange gathering of theologians, philosophers and religious skeptics-from militant atheists to agnostics and New Age "spiritual" atheists, if you can imagine such a thing. They gathered to read papers on what some scientists like to call "The God Hypothesis."
The general infidel line is:
1. Science has failed to find natural evidence of God. Natural evidence is all there is. No God. Case closed.
2. Slightly softer is this line of reasoning: Science erases the "need" for God as an explanation of our experiences, and God either doesn't exist or is at best a hypothesis (to the agnostic).
3. And then there's the view expressed in the title of University of Hawaii physicist and astronomer Victor Stenger's new book "God: The Failed Hypothesis - How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist."
So the "scientific" consensus would seem to be that scientists hate God or at least find God very disturbing. Modern science has found no evidence of God, and so it's stupid to think God exists. I say that this "would seem to be" the scientific consensus. In fact, a full 40% of "scientists" (and there's no clear definition as to who may qualify to be counted in the number) have stated their belief in God.
The Bible says that those who deny God are fools. I know that it does not make me look good to pronounce a learned scientist a fool but if God says it, then it is so. But, you ask, how can a man who knows so much about physics or astronomy or some other branch of science be a fool? The answer is not hard to find. Listen again to the starting point of the skeptical scientists: "Science has failed to find natural evidence of God." Without "evidence," there can be no God. That's the argument. But look at the assertion that science has found no evidence of God. That is simply untrue. That some scientists have sought to explain away the evidence is clear but that the evidence does not exist is just a statement of an atheist's faith. The skeptical scientist starts off with the assumption that everything in the universe can be explained naturalistically-that is, without reference to God. As one such scientist put it, he believes that there is no such thing as miracle and that the things that now appear to be miraculous will one day be explicable in purely naturalistic terms. Can he "prove" this? Not at all. It is a statement of blind faith.I say "blind faith" because (1) it denies the most basic intuition of human nature-the innate knowledge that God is; (2) it ignores the clear evidence of design throughout creation; (3) it also ignores the impossibility of anything but theism to account for the existence of the material universe; and (4) most of all it ignores the supreme evidence of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially His resurrection from the dead. Christ is the rock on which all atheism must finally perish. It's not science that demands that men reject the reality of God's existence; it is the perversion of science. The trouble with atheists is that, as the Bible says, they do not "like to retain God" in their minds. Their denial is a cover for their depravity. That's why the Bible calls atheists "fools." And no amount of degrees or academic jargon can change that. You know the old saying, "A rose by any other name..." Well, a fool by any other name is still a fool and the supreme fool is the man who denies the very existence of his Creator.