I keep meeting folk who reject God and then try to embrace some kind of “science”. Well, if you are a “scientist”, then you are familiar with the scientific method. Roughly speaking the scientific method begins with a hypothesis. In this case that God exists. This means not finding sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis that God exists. Presumably you would have to test the hypothesis. And of course, any good scientist knows that you would not simply reject on the basis of one test, but repeated tests under various conditions and constraints. Yet these atheists masquerading as scientists have by their very atheism rendering themselves incapable of ever testing the hypothesis and have simply dismissed God on the basis of their personal belief that there is no evidence for such a test. They then have the audacity to argue that the faith of believers like me is UNscientific. In truth, we who are believers are the TRUE scientists for we have tested the hypothesis BY engaging the cycle of faith and experience and have been repeatedly unable to disprove the null within our own lives. Over and over again, we are confronted with results in the form of our evidence, which we call our testimonies, in which God in word and deed has acted in our favor, redeemed, and renewed us. Over and over again, we find we cannot ascribe the events of humanity or nature or our own biographies to mere chance without clearly perceiving an intentional and divinely ordained trajectory, a logic, a system of consequence. Any “science” without God can only confirm itself, and cannot prove or disprove Him for to do so, it would have to have sufficient faith to engage a test. As such, atheistic science can only reason about elements of life that are in fact, atheistic, about the manipulation of material and the physical, the visible, and abstractions of the visible. Those things beyond are invisible to such a “science”. Those things are rendered by them the substance of art. God’s science is the science of the artisan who creates something out of what is apparently nothing and imagines that which was heretofore not. The science of the world can go no further than what is and has been before and as such in spiritual terms can only reify the status quo. So the question should be asked what kind of “science” so we need, one that operates solely in the world that is, or one that can envision a world that is yet not.