In the 18th and 19th centuries, scientific discoveries led many thinkers to believe that the universe operated strictly under a system of cause and effect (causality). Some atheistic philosophers interpreted these findings as evidence against the need for God, though the very scientists who uncovered these laws, like Isaac Newton, did not share that motive. Newton famously asserted that these laws were merely God’s method of governance, expressing divine will through physical means.
Yet, philosophers who built materialist worldviews on science adopted a “mechanical interpretation of the universe”—asserting that all cosmic events were bound by natural laws with no need for divine intervention. Thus, causality was seen as a self-sufficient explanation for everything.
“Natural philosophers, chemists, and physiologists believe that a specific cause always yields the same result. Once an explanation succeeds, it is taken as universally valid. There is no disagreement on causality in natural sciences; the debate exists only in metaphysics.”
However, this materialistic optimism was short-lived.
Physicists and cosmologists increasingly realized that conscious will, not random laws, was a more consistent explanation for the observed order and precision in the cosmos. This marked a turning point—science began returning to the same fundamental questions that religions had addressed for centuries.
Who created it? Who sustains its order?
While ancient civilizations proposed multiple gods under a supreme deity, modern secular thought has suggested that the universe emerged from chance events governed by material laws.
This modern hypothesis rests on two assumptions:
① Chance (accident)
② The law of causality
According to this view, roughly 20 billion years ago, the universe didn’t exist. The cosmos began as a cloud of matter, at rest and evenly spread. At some point, a tiny disturbance—its source unknown—caused motion. This movement led to clustering of matter, forming stars, galaxies, and planets.
✔ It admits that the initial disturbance has no cause, yet bases the rest of the universe on a chain of causes.
✔ If the universe started in perfect balance, what sparked the first disturbance?
✔ Why did cosmic events unfold in such an ordered, life-permitting way?
✔ Why did only Earth evolve to support life?
The accidental theory fails to explain:
◈ The origin of motion in inert matter
◈ The emergence of life from lifelessness
◈ The intricate design of planetary systems
◈ The continuity and purposefulness of biological evolution
This leads to an unspoken acceptance of two “gods”:
① Chance, to explain the initial movement
② Natural law, to explain everything that followed
This theory gained prominence in the 17th century and peaked in the 19th century. Scientists aimed to translate all natural phenomena into mechanical models. Yet, the principle failed to fully explain gravity, light, and other mysterious forces.
✔ The universe’s events cannot be reduced to simple mechanical causes
✔ The past doesn’t guarantee the future
✔ There is no absolute scientific explanation for the origin of the universe or life
Thus, science returned to where it began—acknowledging the limits of materialism and the necessity of a conscious, purposeful Creator.
This intellectual journey confirms that faith in God is not a retreat from reason, but a natural conclusion of exploring the universe with honesty and depth.
Modern science, when liberated from materialistic bias, becomes a powerful testimony to the truth of Divine creation and intelligent design—bringing humanity full circle, from doubt back to faith.
Yet, philosophers who built materialist worldviews on science adopted a “mechanical interpretation of the universe”—asserting that all cosmic events were bound by natural laws with no need for divine intervention. Thus, causality was seen as a self-sufficient explanation for everything.
❖ 19th Century Optimism and the Myth of Self-Sufficient Nature
This confidence is reflected in the Chamber’s Encyclopaedia (1874):“Natural philosophers, chemists, and physiologists believe that a specific cause always yields the same result. Once an explanation succeeds, it is taken as universally valid. There is no disagreement on causality in natural sciences; the debate exists only in metaphysics.”
However, this materialistic optimism was short-lived.
❖ 20th Century Science: Challenging the Mechanical Model
In the early 20th century, science uncovered phenomena that defied mechanical interpretation. It became clear that the law of causality was not a universal explanation for all events in the universe.Physicists and cosmologists increasingly realized that conscious will, not random laws, was a more consistent explanation for the observed order and precision in the cosmos. This marked a turning point—science began returning to the same fundamental questions that religions had addressed for centuries.
❖ The Fundamental Question of Existence
Looking at the universe, one must ask:Who created it? Who sustains its order?
While ancient civilizations proposed multiple gods under a supreme deity, modern secular thought has suggested that the universe emerged from chance events governed by material laws.
This modern hypothesis rests on two assumptions:
① Chance (accident)
② The law of causality
According to this view, roughly 20 billion years ago, the universe didn’t exist. The cosmos began as a cloud of matter, at rest and evenly spread. At some point, a tiny disturbance—its source unknown—caused motion. This movement led to clustering of matter, forming stars, galaxies, and planets.
❖ Flaws in the Theory of Accidental Creation
Despite its popularity, this theory suffers from internal contradictions:✔ It admits that the initial disturbance has no cause, yet bases the rest of the universe on a chain of causes.
✔ If the universe started in perfect balance, what sparked the first disturbance?
✔ Why did cosmic events unfold in such an ordered, life-permitting way?
✔ Why did only Earth evolve to support life?
The accidental theory fails to explain:
◈ The origin of motion in inert matter
◈ The emergence of life from lifelessness
◈ The intricate design of planetary systems
◈ The continuity and purposefulness of biological evolution
This leads to an unspoken acceptance of two “gods”:
① Chance, to explain the initial movement
② Natural law, to explain everything that followed
❖ The Principle of Causality: A Half-Truth
To resolve this, scientists proposed the Principle of Causality—that each event arises from a cause within the universe itself, like a row of falling dominoes.This theory gained prominence in the 17th century and peaked in the 19th century. Scientists aimed to translate all natural phenomena into mechanical models. Yet, the principle failed to fully explain gravity, light, and other mysterious forces.
❖ Science’s Humble Return to Metaphysical Inquiry
By the 20th century, science conceded:✔ The universe’s events cannot be reduced to simple mechanical causes
✔ The past doesn’t guarantee the future
✔ There is no absolute scientific explanation for the origin of the universe or life
Thus, science returned to where it began—acknowledging the limits of materialism and the necessity of a conscious, purposeful Creator.
❖ Conclusion: A Return to Faith
The shift in scientific thought over the past century demonstrates that atheistic interpretations of the universe have collapsed under the weight of scientific discoveries themselves.This intellectual journey confirms that faith in God is not a retreat from reason, but a natural conclusion of exploring the universe with honesty and depth.
Modern science, when liberated from materialistic bias, becomes a powerful testimony to the truth of Divine creation and intelligent design—bringing humanity full circle, from doubt back to faith.
