Under the Microscope: I recently wrote a column on astrology. I declared that, since astrology makes extraordinary claims, we should demand extraordinarily strong evidence in its favour before we could believe in it, writes Prof William Reville
I reviewed the evidence for astrology and concluded that it is far too flimsy to justify belief in this practice. A number of readers asked why I don't require extraordinarily strong evidence for the existence of God - the ultimate extraordinary entity. In this article I will argue there is sufficient evidence in favour of God to make it reasonable to believe. I will only speak about Christianity, as I know too little about other religions to do them justice.
Although it is not possible to prove or disprove the matter, there is evidence of two kinds for the existence of God. First, there is dilute scientific evidence for an impersonal God. Second, there is evidence for a personal God, based on personal response to Jesus Christ.
Many scientists have pointed to the fact that the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned to facilitate life. If any of a great number of the physical constants of the universe were only slightly different, life could never have evolved. For example, life needs stars to burn reliably for billions of years to supply energy to nearby planets.
The rate at which a star burns is determined by the balance between two fundamental forces - gravity and electromagnetism. If this ratio were only slightly different, stars would either burn too coolly to act as effective energy sources or burn too fast and exhaust themselves in a few million years - far too short to allow life to evolve.
Also, many elements are essential for life. Almost all of the 92 natural elements were bred in stars as the universe evolved. Many details of how the elements were forged were worked out by Fred Hoyle, a fiercely independent-minded, atheistic British astrophysicist. However, Hoyle was so shaken by the details of the atomic physics that allow carbon and oxygen to accumulate, that he concluded the laws of physics were rigged by a superintelligence to allow events as we know them to evolve. This area of science has been formulated as a principle - The Anthropic Principle.
There is evidence of a different kind for a personal God. Jesus Christ claimed to be in close contact with God, whom he referred to in familiar terms as his father. If we judge that Jesus was sane, if his teachings stake a claim on our hearts and minds, and if we find that abiding by the principles that Jesus taught brings peace and joy into our lives, then it is reasonable for us to accept the word of Jesus about God just as it is for us to accept the word of any tried and tested friend on some matter about which we have no direct experience.
The tenor of the times in Europe is unsympathetic to religion. The West, over the past several hundred years, has been relatively successful in many ways compared with other cultures, and many intellectuals attribute this success to overcoming religious barriers to progress. The only credit given to religion is to acknowledge the contribution of Protestantism. The previous 15 centuries of Christianity are largely written off.
This assessment is described as nonsense in The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success (Random House, 2005) by Rodney Stark, a professor of social science at Baylor University, Texas.
Christianity accorded a privileged position to reason, unlike other belief systems that emphasised essences and intuition, and this, Stark claims, explains the rise of the West. The Christian God is a rational God who created a rational universe that invites our comprehension. Reason is seen as a gift from God, to be used to increase understanding.
Church theologians used reason to develop Christian doctrine. The scientific revolution in the 16th century was built on centuries of progress by medieval scholastic thinkers, and sustained by the universities, a 12th-century Christian invention.
Stark claims the idea of the medieval "Dark Ages" was an invention of anti-Catholic intellectuals. He points to very significant medieval advances in the development of water- and wind-power and in agricultural technology that allowed the feeding of cities. Christianity welcomed and promoted these advances. Monastic orders created an early form of capitalism, moved away from subsistence economy towards specialisation and trade and fostered a work ethic. This facilitated the rise of a cash economy to replace barter and the creation of credit and money lending.
Stark also argues that the birth of democracy in Europe was spurred more by Christian ideals than by recovered Greek philosophy. Christianity teaches the value of the individual, equality of all under God, and personal responsibility for moral decisions. The classical notion of democracy was not rooted in the notion of the equality of all citizens.
Christianity has been enormously influential in making us what we are, and we turned out reasonably well. So why is there such a strong tendency in intellectual circles to speak ill of our Christian heritage? It seems to me this is entirely unjustified. If we lose our nerve now, if we spit on our heritage, there are other traditions around, with followers full of confidence and resolve, willing to move in and to bend us to their ways.
• William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science Officer at UCC - http://understandingscience.ucc.ie