In the Pensées, at the very moment of the birth of science as we know it today, Pascal prophesied its downfall–which we are witnessing. As men came to grasp the vast extent and complexity of creation, ranging between the minuteness of the atom and the immensity of the universe, they would become, as he predicted, terrified by the “eternal silence of these infinite spaces.” A choice would confront them between seeing the whole future of man locked up immutably in his physical being, in his genes, or accepting with humility and contrition a role in the mysterious purposes of a loving God.
A Third Testament
The great delusion of modernity is that the laws of nature explain the universe for us. The laws of nature describe the universe, they describe the regularities.
But they explain nothing.
If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong, good or bad. To admit this would force philosophers to confront the possibility that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality. And since philosophers very much wish to think of themselves as scientists, this would offer them an unattractive choice between changing their allegiances or accepting their irrelevance.
― David Berlinski,
The Devil’s Delusion:
Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
We come back to the same tireless note touching the nature of Christianity; all modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls. But according to orthodox Christianity this separation between God and man is sacred, because this is eternal. That a man may love God it is necessary that there should be not only a God to be loved, but a man to love him. All those vague theosophical minds for whom the universe is an immense melting-pot are exactly the minds which shrink instinctively from that earthquake saying of our Gospels, which declare that the Son of God came not with peace but with a sundering sword.
–G. K. Chesterton
[It is a] false alternative of ‘either science or God’. That’s like saying it’s either ‘Henry Ford or internal combustion, choose between the two. You can’t have both. You either explain the motor by the laws of internal combustion or you explain it in terms of Henry Ford’. That is very silly. That is to confuse two levels of explanation. Explanation in terms of mechanism (the motor and laws of internal combustion) or in terms of agency (that is, Henry Ford). Richard Dawkins says ‘it’s either science or God’. But of course you can have both. God is the agent who designed the whole universe which science attempts to describe!
The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a ‘what’ created the universe; the theist believes a ‘who’ created the universe.
― Criss Jami