My Christian testimony, Part I: The scientific case for theism

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas, an oil painting by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571-1610). Jesus did not rebuke Thomas when he demanded proof of his bodily resurrection; He invited him to inspect his scars. Thomas then proclaimed him Lord.

As I consider my search for and reunion with my birth mother, several events and discoveries strike me as providence at work.

Like the fact Mom tried four years without success to conceive, then got pregnant about a year after adopting me. Or the fact that my biological half-brother Cain was a close friend and college roommate of my adoptive cousin Andy. Or that, out of nowhere, Mom and Dad named me Jeffrey — just as Lynette did after sneaking to the hospital nursery for what she believed might be her last glimpse of me.

My wife, Debi, calls these “God moments,” and I found them impossible to ignore. After reuniting with Lynette in April 2022, I was baptized in September 2023 and confirmed into the Anglican Church in May 2024.

The short testimony I delivered at my confirmation alluded to one of my favorite verses, Psalm 111:10. It went something like this: “Once I stumbled blindly, groping for wisdom, believing it was something I could discover on my own. But fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and by His grace, I know now where to look.”

As one might infer from my statement, my commitment to Christ was as much a “convincing” as a “conversion.” I have always cared about demarking the line between good and bad, right and wrong, true and false. I have always wanted to think correct and proper thoughts. To understand my theological beliefs. To defend them rationally whenever necessary.

Christianity resonates with me in part because it has a long history of intellectual inquiry. Indeed, when Thomas doubted Jesus’s resurrection, our Savior did not admonish him; He invited His disciple to inspect the wounds suffered on the cross.

Moreover, Christians who seek proof of their beliefs will find nothing to fear from the truth. The evidence for the empty tomb is ample, and it is ancient.

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR THEISM

To hear atheists like Richard Dawkins tell it, though, Christianity “teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don’t have to make the case for what you believe.” But Dawkins’ assertion tells us less about Christianity, more about his ignorance of it. As biblical scholar Kyle Butt asserts in an article at Apologetics Press:

Biblical faith is based on truth and reason, as the apostle Paul states in Acts 26:25. The prophet Isaiah underscored this fundamental fact about biblical faith when he recorded God’s invitation to the Israelites: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the Lord” (1:18). Luke, in his introduction to the book of Acts, pressed the point that Jesus’ resurrection was attested by “many infallible proofs.”

Dawkins is widely regarded as one of the “Four Horsemen” of the "New Atheists." This movement, which was at its zenith in the early 2010s, rejects religion — Christianity specifically, though not exclusively — as a non-rational mind virus. Further, Dawkins and other New Atheists argue that, if a god were to exist, it would have an effect on the material universe. As such, theistic religion is essentially a scientific claim – one that can be tested and falsified.

The motive for this claim seems patently obvious — to keep debate about the existence of a higher power on the New Atheists' "home turf." However, the premise that science is the only fair barometer of truth does not hold up well against reason. For instance, this view ignores that science is a method of understanding the material, natural world, and that it does not purport to explain a supernatural realm where a god might exist.

Further, science itself does not lean solely on observations of the tangible, but is further dependent upon non-material concepts such as mathematics and logic. These concepts – as with historical facts and moral precepts – cannot be affirmed by the scientific method, though that hardly makes them untrue or even unprovable. In fact, some argue credibly that the very nature of such immaterial truths proves the existence of a supernatural, all-knowing, all-present and all-powerful god. (Check out the video below for a more complete explanation.)

Further, the claims of Dawkins and his ilk fail even on their own terms, for science has not falsified the possibility of an immaterial, unchanging god existing outside time and space. To the contrary, it has done much to make such a god seem plausible, if not likely.

Big Bang cosmology, for instance, proposes that everything in the universe came from nothing at a fixed point in the distant past. True, some Christians reject the theory (not only because they believe it contradicts a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis’ creation story, but also because it is scientifically incomplete). However, Big Bang theory or iterations of it are more or less universally accepted by Western scientists, as well as a substantial number of Christians.

And that is problematic for the atheist worldview because the Big Bang blows to smithereens the notion that the universe is eternal. For if one assumes everything that begins to exist has a cause … well … as Christian apologist Gregory Koukl puts it, this means the Big Bang needs a big banger.

And this banger would be the sort of immaterial, unchanging being that exists outside time and space – the kind of entity we would call a god.

Of course, the Big Bang Theory remains a theory, albeit one supported by much evidence. Still, it might be incorrect, just as I might be wrong about God’s existence. But the belief in either or both is neither unscientific, nor unreasonable.

Further, scientific evidence suggests that the universe’s creator possesses a mind because of the manifest intricacy of virtually everything in existence. Catholic apologist Trent Horn explains in the video below how the “fine-tuning argument” rests on the virtually non-existent odds that chance alone would produce laws of physics hospitable to life.

All of this suggests the existence of a monotheistic god, who created with intention.

That gets us only half way home, however. The next question is, “Which god?”

Want to receive updates when new content is added to this site? Go to the home page and sign up for email notifications.