In 2024, would you lean more towards science or God for insights into our world? This question transcends mere affirmations of faith or disbelief, aiming instead to address the fundamental aspects of human existence.

Nearly a century ago, Albert Einstein remarked:

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

Since then, both science and religion have evolved significantly. Science has achieved remarkable feats, such as mapping the human genome, developing FMRI technology, splitting the atom, and identifying quarks, the smallest subatomic particles. These milestones deserve recognition.

In contrast, the trajectory of religion appears less triumphant, especially when we consider recent data. Pew Research, a respected non-partisan organization, conducted a comprehensive survey across various American demographics. For the first time, the predominant response to the question regarding religious affiliation was “none.”

Interestingly, this demographic of religious “nones” still grapples with the science-religion debate.

Many of these individuals do not harbor anti-religious sentiments. While most acknowledge some negative aspects of religion, many also recognize its benefits. They generally hold more favorable views of science compared to their religious counterparts; however, they reject the notion that science has all the answers. (Source: NPR.org)

Many religious individuals express skepticism towards science and its critical stance on outdated religious beliefs. Meanwhile, those identifying as religious “nones” feel that science does not encompass all explanations. In 2024, the divide between these groups is widening, with both sides increasingly distrusting one another’s capacity to provide meaningful insights.

Science does not account for God, nor does God provide explanations for scientific phenomena.

I propose that, in 2024, the concept of God is more enduring than ever, partly due to advancements in science and technology. While cultural trends may suggest a distancing from divine assurances, science seems to be moving in the opposite direction, even if it often overlooks this reality.

Let’s start with a positive perspective.

Growing up, did you ever hear the saying, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away”? This phrase traces back to Wales in 1866. Similarly, the idea that “carrots are good for your eyesight” emerged over a century ago. The scientific and medical communities began to understand the beneficial properties of fruits and vegetables, recognizing them as more than mere sustenance.

We could argue that we’ve come to realize that Food is Good for Us in recent decades.

Science has established food pyramids and recommended diets based on the impact of various foods on our well-being.

However, scientific inquiry has progressed further.

The scientific and medical fields transitioned from the belief that “Food is Good For Us” to recognizing “Food is Beneficial.” Researchers began analyzing the nutrients and compounds in food, discovering how certain elements contribute positively to our daily functioning. Notably, it was only in 1994 that the FDA introduced its first nutrition labels in the U.S. This allowed consumers to make informed choices based on the protein, sugar, carbohydrates, and calorie content of their food.

As scientific advancements continued, researchers expanded their focus beyond food to examine a wide array of elements within our environment. They uncovered how everything—from algae to gold—can positively influence our lives. We learned to extract, diffuse, stimulate, and infuse products from the natural world for our benefit. Thus, we evolved from the notion that “FOOD was Good for Us” to the understanding that “Most of the Created Order is Life-Generating and Beneficial.”

While we should be cautious about certain elements in our environment, such as cobra venom or catnip, science demonstrates that humans can derive valuable uses from nearly everything on the planet.

Scientific advancement continues.

The FMRI machine, introduced in the early 1990s, revolutionized medical imaging. Unlike X-rays, which take static images, FMRI technology captures real-time video of bodily functions.

This innovation fundamentally altered our understanding.

To appreciate the advancements in science, consider the developments from 1990 onward. New discoveries emerge almost daily, driven by technologies like FMRI, profoundly impacting our understanding of the brain.

Neuroscientist Andrew Huberman, a former Navy Seal, recently shared his perspective on God, stating, “You know the body is cool, and there are amazing things about things like the heart. But when you start to really understand the brain, you can’t not consider that there is a Creator.”

This reflects advancements in areas such as neuroplasticity, cognitive-behavioral learning, and synaptic responses, which dominate contemporary neuroscience. With the ability to observe the body and brain in real-time, we unveil the intricacies of human biology.

Most elements in our environment benefit humanity, designed to enhance, heal, and work harmoniously with our physical bodies. Every new scientific discovery reinforces the idea that “Everything created on the planet seems to wholly benefit one organism: the organism that one religious system claims was made in THE IMAGE OF ITS CREATOR.”

It’s not that omega-3 fatty acids in fish exist solely for the benefit of smarter dolphins or that monkeys extract nutrients for better skin. Rather, scientific advancements help us understand how human bodily functions operate while revealing how everything in creation serves to benefit us.

As beings made in the image of our Creator, we continuously discover how the created order is “designed” for our benefit. This is not a religious assertion, but rather a statement supported by reputable sources like the NIH, a respected scientific organization.

At the very least, science supports the case for a Creator.

The pressing question remains: WHICH Creator is science revealing?

To explore this, we must briefly examine the belief system that claims we are made in that Creator’s image.

This leads us to the concept of “sin.”

However, I propose we approach this topic not from a moralistic standpoint but rather from an activity perspective.

Specific actions have been labeled as “sinful” by this Creator through the Bible. While the list is familiar to many, we often find enjoyment in these actions.

This brings us to the historical context.

Now let’s consider the negative aspects.

For centuries, we understood that many sinful actions are fun and pleasurable.

Although various religious organizations sought to suppress these behaviors, humans naturally gravitate towards activities that provide enjoyment. The idea that God endowed us with erogenous zones to encourage us to glorify Him during moments of ecstasy is a humorous take on this.

However, science has also progressed.

We learned that sinful actions can be harmful. Overindulgence in alcohol, for instance, can lead to liver damage, while gluttony can have similar consequences. Remember the infamous ad showing “this is your brain on drugs”? Science has established that narcotics can be dangerous. From X-rays revealing the dangers of smoking to studies on STDs and their impact on health, we have come to recognize that many sinful behaviors can be detrimental.

But the evolution of science did not stop there.

We discovered that sinful actions can directly hinder us. For example, early sexual promiscuity can lead to HPV and various cancers. STDs can result in infertility, affecting not only the present but future possibilities as well.

Moreover, science introduced us to epigenetics, a fascinating field indicating that individuals without genetic predispositions to certain addictive behaviors can pass those traits on to their descendants if they engage in those actions repeatedly. This connection is both intriguing and worthy of personal research.

Scientific advancements reveal that sinful actions intentionally hinder us. These behaviors correlate directly with the limitations of human potential—the very being said to be made in the image of its Creator.

The implications are even more alarming: science has shown that sinful actions exploit our biological predispositions against us. The body can develop cravings for harmful substances once triggered. Understanding dopamine and its role in our responses highlights how our physical bodies experience pleasure alongside mental gratification.

I encourage independent research into these findings. My references to the NIH underscore the credibility of this information, merely scratching the surface of the extensive scientific literature available.