In this blog post, we examine what the film God’s Not Dead sought to convey amidst the debate between science and religion, briefly summarizing questions for us to reconsider.
Based on a true story, God’s Not Dead centers on the debate over “Does God exist?” between freshman Christian student Josh Wheaton and the coldly atheistic Professor Jeffrey Radisson. The film incorporates episodes in an omnibus format, depicting the tragedies and conflicts experienced by surrounding characters, as well as the comfort and salvation found through religion. Created from a religious perspective, the message the film seeks to convey is unmistakably religious. Ultimately, the film asserts that God exists, that science cannot prove God does not exist, and that behind the scenes of our lives lies God’s great plan. However, even from my perspective as a believer, I felt the logic presented in the film’s journey to its conclusion had many flaws. I worried how non-believers might perceive the film. It also prompted me to reconsider the position religion holds in our society and the role it should play.
The film’s first core message is that ‘the non-existence of God cannot be proven.’ Professor Geoffrey Radisson cites Stephen Hawking’s statement, “Nature can create something from nothing because laws like gravity exist,” arguing that creation is possible without God. Josh Witten counters this by quoting mathematician John Lennox. He contends that all scientific theories, including evolution and the Big Bang, cannot explain ‘how’ or ‘why’ they came to be. He argues that the emergence of life is not a product of chance but the result of some intelligent design. If the universe did not arise by chance, he asserts, then a Creator must exist. According to Josh Witten, while science can explain the process of the universe’s birth, only religion can explain its fundamental reason or cause.
However, even if science cannot explain the cause and reason for creation, this does not prove that religion provides complete logic. Evolutionary theory is not a complete theory of life’s origin, but it has scientific basis for the process of evolution, and evidence continues to be discovered. It may only be a matter of time before mechanisms are discovered showing that higher life forms can arise naturally without intelligent design. Yet the film criticizes atheism while scarcely mentioning the evidence supporting it. Instead, it seems to fall into the dichotomous fallacy that science is incomplete, while creationism can explain everything. The film ultimately concludes with Professor Jeffrey Radisson being persuaded by Josh Witten’s logic, revealing the personal event that led him to despise religion. As a believer, I worried that Josh Witten’s flawed logic might actually fuel more resentment toward religion. Additionally, the debate felt unresolved, ending with an open conclusion, leaving a sense of disappointment.
The film’s second core message is that ‘behind human life lies the great plan of a transcendent being.’ The film depicts various human figures enduring suffering. A freelance journalist, once an atheist, is diagnosed with cancer, then dumped by his lover, and wanders aimlessly before infiltrating a Christian music festival intending to cause a disturbance. There, he encounters a black gospel group, finds solace, prays with them, acknowledges the existence of a savior, and releases his emotional burden. In another episode, a Muslim girl who secretly believes in Christianity faces conflict when her father discovers her faith. After being expelled, she finds peace of mind under a pastor’s protection. A businessman who had drifted from religion after his devout Christian mother developed dementia also finds peace. He visits her and receives comforting words from her, who miraculously regains her senses, finding solace. All these individuals are saved or come to understand divine providence through religious experiences amidst their suffering. The film suggests that all suffering we endure is predestined by God, part of a plan to elevate us to a higher stage.
But is this kind of transformative experience through fateful events truly universal? In reality, more people struggle to escape tragedy without such experiences. For instance, finding divine providence in events like terrorist attacks that claim hundreds of innocent lives is difficult. Learning that good people have been sacrificed can also lead one to doubt God’s existence. If God exists, can we say there was some plan behind the sacrifice of innocent lives? The film defines such suffering as temporary pain endured according to divine providence until an ideal world arrives someday, but it’s questionable whether the victims’ families or those around them can readily accept this.
As a believer, I can relate to parts of the message this film conveys, but I found the depiction of the process lacking. First, there is the question of God’s existence. The Bible explains that the world was created by the Creator’s word, dismissing the processes science explains through theories like the Big Bang or evolution. Accepting this as truth is the freedom of believers, but non-believers require a different logic. To critique scientific theories, one must respond with logic grounded in scientific evidence. The Bible, lacking such scientific basis, appears an incomplete text. This is also why creation science is not accepted. Attempts to explain science from a religious perspective inevitably result in half-baked explanations that are neither truly religious nor truly scientific.
When we acknowledge the Bible’s scientific incompleteness, we can embrace it differently. The Bible states, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Believers do not trust in the existence of a supreme being because of evidence; rather, faith itself becomes the evidence of God’s existence. This stands in opposition to scientific argumentation, explaining why religion is fundamentally distinct from natural science. Without faith, religion cannot exist, and attempts to explain religion scientifically inevitably fall into contradiction. When the Bible is not taken literally, religion can be freed from logical contradictions.
What meaning should religion hold in our lives, and what role should it play? The Bible, through the authority of the Creator, demands that people relate rightly to the world and live by moral standards. The Bible still presents moral norms and a direction for life worth upholding, playing a vital role in human relationships. In the film, religion fulfills this role as characters find solace through the help of well-meaning neighbors. The journalist receives help from a gospel group, the businessman from his fiancée, and the girl from the Muslim family from a pastor. Thus, concern and love for neighbors transform people, and I believe this stems from religious bonds. Today, religious people must also show concern for others and practice the biblical teaching of loving one’s neighbor.
In conclusion, while this film is acceptable for believers, it leaves ample room for criticism and questions from non-believers or atheists. It would have been better if the relationship between religion and science had been explored from a broader perspective. I hope future films will candidly address the significance and limitations of religion.
