Dr Paul Allen

“All scientists —including agnostics and atheists—believe in God. They have to in order to do their work.” The dependable regularities and constants we observe in nature are the basis for all scientific inquiry and progress. Whatever their philosophical theory of these regularities might be, all scientists in practice depend on these laws to be a reliable guide to the external world . These natural laws or regularities are simply the providential speech of God upholding the world. Our beliefs about natural law are eerily similar to classical divine attributes . We assign to natural laws such properties as omnipresence (operating in all places), eternity (at all times), immutability (constant effects), immateriality (seen only in its effects), omnipotence (incapable of being broken), transcendence (applies generally), immanence (applies particularly), incomprehensibility (mystery as to why such laws work), goodness (natural laws are reliable), rectitude (consequences for breakin

Image via Wikipedia Image via Wikipedia Image via Wikipedia Image via Wikipedia Image via Wikipedia The so-called new atheists—the late Christopher Hitchens , Sam Harris , and Richard Dawkins —represent the perspective that science, properly understood, renders belief in God untenable. Dawkins argues that the best argument for God was always the argument from nature, but now that we know nature arose by natural processes, we know that God either does not exist or leaves no evidence of His existence. This perspective conflicts with the biblical view. The psalmist says the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 19). He looks at nature and talks about something beyond nature. The new atheists' view is also directly opposed to the view of early modern scientists such as Robert Boyle , Johannes Kepler , and Isaac Newton . Many of the leaders of the scientific revolution were devout men of faith. They had a deep conviction that nature was intelligible because it was made by a rational i