“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” This apparently simple bit of advice from Thomas Jefferson actually raises some very complicated questions for anyone trying to follow it. How can one go about questioning the existence of a God? The usual manner of proceeding, which is to put the idea of God to some sort of test involving logic and reason, raises contradictory and confusing answers. Science and religion both attempt to explain the world around us through the use of facts. Both involve the use of two kinds of facts: postulates and theories. However, science and religion, in spite of their similarities, have many major differences. One of these is the way each views facts: in science, a fact is a statement or idea that is supportable by evidence of the five senses; but in religion, a fact is a statement or idea that is supported by the word of the religion’s God or gods, whether that word is the Bible, the Koran, or some other source. It is because of the differences in the views of science and religion concerning facts that ideas lending themselves to religion, such as the existence of God, cannot be coherently studied or questioned by the processes of science (or vice versa).

The reason science and religion have arrived at such different definitions of “fact” is that each has its own base for viewing the world. This base is made up of postulates. A postulate is any idea or statement that is considered to be a fact although it cannot be proven. All postulates are a priori assumptions. It is from these assumptions that people form theories: provable facts. However, theories are not provable unless one agrees upon the postulates used to prove them. It is because science and religion work on different postulates and have different a priori assumptions that they arrive at different conclusions, or theories.

The basic postulate of science is that the five senses are generally reliable. In spite of the fact that the senses may be fooled and humans may make mistakes, scientists believe that the key to understanding the universe is the way we view it. All of the theories of science, which were developed by the use of the scientific method, rest on this general postulate. A scientist would not believe in evolution had he not seen the evidence. He would not believe in the law of gravity or the wave-particle theory of matter. He would not believe the earth is more than four billion years old if he had not seen the evidence of radiometric dating, nor would he believe that radiometric dating were valid if he had not seen it proven. A scientist is so sure of his basic, unprovable postulate, that even if something contradicts it, he assumes that the contradiction is incorrect and his basic premise holds true. If the Bible disagrees with his senses, then the Bible is wrong. It is impossible to prove to him that the postulate is wrong without using the postulate itself, which involves paradox and is therefore highly unlikely.

Religion, like science, has a basic postulate. Although religions differ, the basic postulate of all religions is that there is some superior being, usually called a god. Most religions believe that God has shown Himself to the people in some way. A well-known, classic example of this is Christianity’s doctrine of divine verbal inspiration. This states that God wrote the Bible through the people; that is, He told the human writers of the Bible what to write. Because God, by definition, is without error, so therefore must be the Bible, assuming this concept. Humans may make mistakes in interpreting God’s work, just as scientists may make mistakes in interpreting the evidence of the senses, but the Bible itself is without error. Just as scientific theories may be developed from the evidence of the senses, so may religious theories be developed from the evidence given to them by God. As an example, in the mid-seventeenth century, James Ussher, Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland, figured out that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. As Ussher was a noted Bible scholar whose name carried weight, science had an obstacle to overcome for over three hundred years. The sensory evidence scientists used contradicted the religious evidence Christians used. Note that Ussher’s statement on the age of the earth was a theory, not a postulate. It was based on the Bible which in turn is based on the concept of God. Ussher’s theory is similar to scientific theories on the age of the earth, which are based on radiometric dating which is in turn based on sensory evidence that radiometric dating works. It is as impossible to prove to a Christian that the Bible is wrong as it is to prove to a scientist that his senses are wrong. The only evidence the Christian would accept would be religious evidence, which supports religion more than it does science.

All people have basic postulates and a priori assumptions. There is nothing wrong with this; it is unavoidable. As long as two people agree on approximately similar postulates and thinking patterns, they can discuss theories based on those postulates. Problems arise, however, when two people with completely different thinking patterns and a priori assumptions can’t even agree upon common postulates. The difference in thought processes prevents agreement upon theories. In fact, it often prohibits coherent communication.

Thomas Jefferson posed an unanswerable question when he advised questioning the existence of a God. God is a religious concept. If one were to question His existence using religious postulates, one would have to agree that He does exist. His existence is a fundamental postulate, and questioning a postulate with itself yields no useful answer: the answer will always be positive. On the other hand, to question His existence by the use of scientific postulates is equally absurd. The concept being questioned does not lend itself readily to the postulates used to question it. God cannot be directly sensed. As a result, no meaningful answer will be found. Before a question may be answered, a ground from which to answer the question must be found. Until one is found in this case, Jefferson’s question will not be reasonably answered.