Epilogue

So ends our journey exploring the roots of belief in God. We have seen that getting to know God was primarily a matter of coming to terms with what one finds imprinted in the depths of consciousness. We were mistaken in trying first to find him through a scientific study of the physical world. Only having got to know God through introspection is one sensitized to the marks of God’s imprint on the world.

Given this to be the case, one might well ask why so much has been written about the relationship between religious belief and the sciences. Each year sees the publication of book after book based on the arguments we have earlier summarized – all centred on what one finds in the physical world. Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion, claiming to have done away with God on scientific grounds, became a bestseller. Stephen Hawking was equally dismissive of theology in his popular book The Grand Design. In it he declares philosophy also to be dead, and that in our time ‘scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’.

I myself have written books and given countless talks on the subject. I have been involved in public debates about these issues with atheists such as Dawkins. But why? If the study of the physical and biological world, by its very nature, is incapable of supplying cast-iron proof of a personal God, what are we all arguing about?

Speaking for myself, I believe no one ever gets argued into a belief in God. It is not like that. However, there are these writers who argue the opposite – that on the basis of science, the weight of evidence disproves the existence of God. It is that last step that is false and needs to be countered. While agreeing that science cannot prove the existence of God, neither can it disprove belief in God. It is this misleading impression that needs to be challenged.

As just noted, books written from this atheistic point of view receive a lot of attention – despite being written by those who, though highly qualified in their own scientific field, often know little or nothing about modern theology. Books written in refutation of these views, by those properly qualified to talk on theological matters, never seem to make it on to the bestseller list. Neither do these informed contributions get an airing in the media. The media has a vested interest in stoking up controversy. It is good for increasing viewing and listening figures and boosting the circulation of newspapers. ‘God is dead’ makes a good headline. ‘God is alive and still in charge’ does not. One understands why the bias is there. Unfortunately the public thereby is denied a proper, well-balanced discussion of the issues.

It is because of this that I have considered it important to engage in the debate. As far as I am concerned, our initial study of science was in effect telling us to go and look for God in some more appropriate way. Only then should we come back and take a fresh look at the world, this time having a better idea of the signs we should be seeking. This I have tried to do.