The Response from Scientist and others to Kalam and the Big Bang Argument
The strength of the evidence for God’s existence that I have presented can be seen by the reaction to this evidence from scientist who can evaluate it with an objective mind. Dr. William Lane Craig, Ph.D., while attending the Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation in Germany, met a prominent Eastern European physicist who claimed that her study of physics destroyed her faith.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.121.[/ref] Dr. Craig was working on his second doctorate and was using the Kalam argument as the topic for his thesis. Mrs. Craig invited the physicist to read her husbands thesis which uses physics to prove the existence of God and the scientist agreed to read it. Over the course of the convention they were attending, the Eastern European scientist read the dissertation with increasing excitement remarking, “I know these people you are quoting! These are my colleagues!” After reading the entire work she announced to Mr. and Mrs. Craig,
I now believe in the existence of God. Thank you so much for restoring my faith in Him.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.122.[/ref]
Thrilled to hear the good news, the Americans invited her to know God in a personal way. Dr. Craig pointed out to the scientist that just as there are physical Laws that govern the universe there are spiritual Laws that govern our relationship with God. She replied, “Oh, Physical laws! Spiritual laws! This is something I can understand. This is just for me.” After explaining how to receive Jesus as her Savior and Lord, she was asked if she was willing to accept Jesus for herself. Preferring to think on these things in private she delayed responding. But the next day the Craigs met her and noticed her countenance was radiant. The Eastern European scientist explained how she went to her room and prayed to receive Jesus as her Lord and Savior. She then flushed her booze and tranquilizers down the toilet. Several months later at another convention, she was still as radiant and joyful as the day she received Jesus.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.122.[/ref] A similar incidence occurred when Dr. Craig was speaking at a college in Canada. An agnostic student after hearing Dr. Craig use the Kalam argument to prove God’s existence changed his mind and confessed to Dr. Craig,
I’ve been an agnostic all my life. I’ve never heard anything like this. I now believe that God exists! I can hardly wait to go share this with my brother, who’s an atheist.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.123.[/ref]
Another man named Patrick Glynn, an atheist and former arms-control negotiator for the Reagan administration investigated the evidence for God’s existence after his wife became a Christian. Having received his doctorate from Harvard University, he was convinced that science and reason were the only legitimate tools for assessing truth and Darwinism had eliminated the need to believe that God was the creator of Life. But at the urging of his wife, he agreed to examine the evidence from science for the existence of God that previously Mr. Glynn thought did not exist. Mr. Glynn comments that since his days at Harvard “…a vast, systematic literature had emerged that not only cast doubt on, but also, from any reasonable perspective, effectively refuted my atheistic outlook…”[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.125-126.[/ref] He concluded the account of his investigation by saying,
Today it seems to me, there is no good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of atheism or agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I made.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.126.[/ref]
But sadly, many people are committing the same mistakes of Mr. Glynn. Unlike those mentioned above, others have contrary reactions to the same evidence that establishes the existence of God and strongly points to the God of the Bible. In the page Do All Roads Lead to God, in the sub-page on the Bible, I used the acronym M.A.P.S. as the four point basis for establishing the Bible as the only sacred writing originating from God. Under the final point (S) for Science, I mention scientists like Sir Fredrick Hoyle, Einstein, Eddington, and Jastrow, who disliked the Big Bang because of the theological implications. Entire theories were invented, and later proven false, in an attempt to subvert the truth of the Big Bang. It wasn’t the science establishing the Big Bang that repelled scientists; it was the being to Whom the science was pointing that created the repulsion to accept the evidence objectively.
I believe two reasons scientists and other intellectuals devote so much of their professional abilities denigrating the Bible and Christianity is predominately fueled by ego and morality. Many scientist become aware of the intellectual gifting fairly early in life, and like every other teenager, seek to make their own way in life as soon as possible. If they were exposed to Christianity earlier in life, for them, intellectual freedom is reached by jettisoning their parochial upbringing, seeing it as unsophisticated and constraining. They might see their youth as any episode of All in the Family, where they are the educated and open-minded Mike “Meathead” Stivic and their parents and all who hold Christian beliefs as the uneducated narrow-minded Archie Bunker. It may be surprising to people but a large number of scientists who are agnostics or atheists as adults had some sort of Christian upbringing or exposure in their pre-adult life. So upon college graduation, they are finally professionally endowed by their Professors, with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of atheism; holding to the vain hope that atheism will grant them life and liberty. Life: in that they can say to their hilly-billy religious relatives, I was right after all. Liberty: in that with God removed, they can live their life according to their own moral code and not to the beat of someone else’s drum. It’s hard to keep in step with the Bible’s moral code, in a world where professional and personal expedience is playing a different song at a different tempo. Thus, reluctance to objectively consider the scientific evidence, is fueled by emotions rather than logic. Even when the mind is convinced by the evidence, they will stubbornly resists because of pride and the deception of libertine “liberty.”
Still, others are reluctant to accept God’s existence because of the existence of evil and suffering. And by clicking on the link Evil and Suffering?, you can read the Christian response to that age old question.