I‘m not going to sit here and tell you that science disproves God because it doesn’t. It’s just that it has nothing to point toward. Nothing to measure. Nothing to say equivocally one way or another about its existence. What it does tell us is that the earth definitely wasn’t made in 7 days. What it does disprove is the word of humans in the name of God.
So many people seem to forget that the bible was written by humans, not god. Word – the English language, any language for that matter – that’s humankind’s invention. So why not accept we got a lot of it wrong given it was written 2000 plus years ago by humankind in the name of God, but not by God itself?
The way I see it you can hardly sit at home while staring at your smart phone or flat screen television and tell me that science is wrong. The last I checked there wasn’t a blueprint in the bible about how the combustion engine works, how aeroplanes fly or how your iPhone or television are built. Science gave us these things. Humankind has been able to create these things because of what science has taught us. Of course science isn’t always right but it’s the first to admit when it’s not.
One of the big problems we have today – what I believe to be one of its major failures – is religion’s resistance to what science has to tell us. If it opened its mind to what science has to say and accepted that, as a consequence, it disproves a huge amount of scripture but not, crucially, the existence of a grand creator, I believe religions could go further in keeping people part of their respective faiths in the years to come. I also believe this would be mutually beneficial to both science and the world at large, convincing millions of the need to take what science has to say much more seriously.
Softening its stance toward science would also help shine a light for those who detest religion about why many of its moral principle’s are worth considering. Why a moral code is both important for living a meaningful life and for pursuing science within.
I might add that I believe it would help teach many about the dire need to question one’s own beliefs – to not take everything written in a book (and especially the Internet) as absolute. In my opinion religious fanaticism (or any form of extremism) is born from such rigidity. And I will say, in defence of religion, that the popular and pervasive Western notion that religion is the cause of all our problems (or wars) is one I strongly disagree with. As I see it extremism has nothing to do with a belief in God but a lack of questioning one’s beliefs (of questioning one’s own ego). People end up killing others not because they believe in God but because their egos can’t stand the thought of being wrong. Rigidity of belief is a bigger issue than any belief in and of itself.
Anyway why is it that so many religions view science as a threat? If religion is part of the same human desire to understand the world and our place within it, (which I believe it is), then why wouldn’t it take an active interest in what science has to say? Science is, after all, simply, “the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation.” If you believe in God, are you not interested in understanding the world and the laws by which it created it? Is this not also a more accurate interpretation of what God actually has to say? I mean why not listen to the word of God in the form of far less disputable science, rather than the extremely disputable word of man? Logically speaking this makes far more sense does it not?
And hey let’s!
Let’s look at what science currently has to say and what it currently fails to explain. As Amir D. Aczel points out in his fascinating essay – Why Science Does Not Disprove God – “Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang. Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells — the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms — ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things?”
But get this!
“Much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the universe: Why is our universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life?… How was all of this possible without some latent outside power to orchestrate the precise dance of elementary particles required for the creation of all the essentials of life? The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated — based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe — that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)”
He goes onto state, “The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God. Lacking convincing scientific evidence to the contrary, such a power may be necessary to force all the parameters we need for our existence—cosmological, physical, chemical, biological and cognitive—to be what they are.”
Now at this point I could counter with an argument about the possible existence of a multiverse – an infinite number of universes each with its own set of parameters making the existence one just like ours not only likely, but inevitable. And while that might solve Penrose’s particular math problem, it still fails to answer a number of other important questions including why it is that anything exists at all?
Anyway, without going down that particular rabbit hole, the major point I want to make is not a question of whether God exists or what it all means, but that such arguments are irresolvable. We will never know and, perhaps, can never even hope to. It’s for this reason I ask you open your mind to the possibility that you’re wrong, which ever side of the fence you happen to be. To show one another a great deal more respect as a result. Because whether you’re an atheist or a theist the fact is, we are ALL agnostics.
I’ll close by saying one more thing.
We all live in a society where both science and religion will always play massive roles. For me a far more important question is how do we bring them closer together? How do we allow for a deep respect for both to exist independently? And while I would never tell someone they must believe in God (or not), I strongly believe we all need to give what science has to say a great deal more respect.
With that in mind, let’s take the premise that science is, in fact, the word of God (or the closest thing to it). If you do, then one must also conclude what God is telling us right now. That is, although I gave you the miraculous and highly, highly improbable conditions for the existence of life, I did so on a knife-edge and now, because of global warming, you are playing with the very fires of my creation.
Are you sure you want to keep ignoring what God is trying to tell you?
(Thanks for reading once again everyone. I appreciate that the above is an extremely complicated and thorny subject but I am genuinely interested in your thoughts. I won’t judge you whatever it is you believe. I’m simply interested in the dialogue. Wishing you all the very best, AP2 🙏 )
SOURCES:
- Time.com – Why Science Does Not Disprove God BY AMIR D. ACZEL
- Washingtonpost.com – ‘Faith vs. Fact:’ why religion and science are mutually incompatible BY JEFFERY SCHLOSS
Clear Air Turbulence 
I saw something not long ago where someone was criticizing scientists who accepted the big bag theory for assuming there is no God. But like you say, it does no such thing; it just provides certain answers as to what happened after that point.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Hi Ashley – the Big Bang theory helps explain what happen but not why or what predates it. Science often unlocks more mysteries the deeper it goes. Perhaps one day it will disprove God but it certainly hasn’t done that yet. My honest opinion is that we won’t ever be able to say conclusively one way or the other. Thanks for stopping by – I appreciate your input 🙏
LikeLiked by 4 people
“Science often unlocks more mysteries the deeper it goes.” like Allan Watts says, “the bigger the telescope the scientists build the further the universe expands on the contrary the stronger the microscope the more (smaller) elements you discover.” The scientist stopped at the atom because they couldn’t find a small enough knife to dissect it further…
LikeLiked by 3 people
It certainly appears that way – now they talk about the existence of a multiverse – an infinite number of universes of which we no absolutely nothing – let alone the little we know about our own! It’s a fascinating subject – the mysteries of the cosmos – honestly I like the idea that there will always be mysteries to solve and discover. It reminds us how small we really are. Thanks Francis 🙏
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome buddy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting post, yes to opening our minds and this did make me think 🤔 you’re right that both play a part in today’s society and I’m okay with that 👍
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Kellie. Thanks for stopping by again. Yes we don’t have much choice about the roles they have to play in our society. Accepting of the right for both to exist simultaneously and being respectful of all people whatever their faith is important. My feeling is simply we don’t know and never will so why fight about it? That said I do believe we need to trust what science has to say. To not see it as the enemy of religion. Of course this is all fanciful thinking. I’m simply putting thoughts down for the sake of debate and dialogue which I believe is important.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How interesting that one of my posts for November touches on the same things you’ve mentioned, though reversed. It starts from the perspective of religion and how atheism can be intolerant to it, then accounting for the intolerance of religion towards anything that isn’t part of it. It’s theme was about being respectful towards one another long enough to be able to realise that there are values we can all agree on and call each other towards.
I believe there’s a lot to sift through when it comes to respecting one another, and that doesn’t mean we have to necessarily understand every detail of the differences in our beliefs. For example, if I had to assume anything, through no fault of your own, your opinion on religion wasn’t tailored toward Islam because the scriptures are considered the revealed word of God, the Quran being one with its original language preserved from the moment it was revealed. Likewise, although the Quran does state that everything was created in six days, it also indicates that time doesn’t work the same way to God as it does us, even having mentioned in some cases that the records of our matters are sent to Him in a day that we would’ve counted as a thousand years. It hints at the fact that the measurement of our days is relative, something that science accepts. It also tells us to think and realise that there are signs everywhere, and so it can be implied that denying science is as though you would’ve denied Him. But I wouldn’t have blamed you whatsoever for not having accounted for any of this, the same as I would expect to be unable to account for every detail in the beliefs of others.
Although I accept that there are matters we can never agree on, it’s unwise to say that there’s absolutely nothing to agree on. That invariably creates conflict where there needs none, in areas that ironically has us contradicting our own beliefs in order to fuel. I’d have thought that the similarities between your post and that scheduled post of mine show that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey friend. Thanks for stopping by once again. You’ll have to take a lot of what I have to say with a pinch of salt. Of course you can write an entire thesis of this subject and not even scratch the surface.
I completely agree that atheists and atheism can be very intolerant and arrogant towards others of faith. Often such an attitude only serves to strengthen their respective positions and deepen the divide. Not what any of us need. My argument isn’t really interested in the believer versus non believer debate at any rate, but that because it’s impossible to say for certain it’s futile to fight about it. For the same reason I believe we should respect what all of us have to believe – without trying to force people one way or the other. That said I also believe science needs to be respected simply because it’s not interested in the debate. The last thing science needs is to be demonised for simply trying to find the truth about things like how long it took for the earth to form. Right now it needs to be urgently heard.
Anyway your point about scripture being open to interpretation makes a lot of sense – but disagreeing over respective interpretations has caused a lot wars. This I find desperately sad and clearly not what any God (should it exist) would want. You’re right I don’t know about what the Quran has to say and was referring more to Christianity and it’s history with science. I’ll certainly admit my ignorance there.
Thank you so much for engaging me on such a thorny subject and for doing so with such grace. I think it’s important to have these difficult conversations, but to always remain respectful. I shall keep an eye out for your November post. Wishing you the very best, AP2 🙏
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m actually glad that you wrote up the content in the first place, and don’t mind whatever was said. We like to avoid divisive topics like these because of how people would think if we did or the chaos that can come from it, so it was a pleasure being able to discuss without having it turn into some climactic fight scene over who has the high ground.
But yeah, poor science, keeps getting dragged into random agendas when all it does is act in truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Awesome attitude. Yes unfortunately science is twisted and used for all the wrong reasons. I think many don’t believe much of it for exactly that reason. Thanks again for imparting your wisdom 🙏
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Pilot! God vs Science? YIKES! Your a braver man to tackle this very old and ongoing debate. One that often times fuels argumentative reactions. Because, it involves long-held personal beliefs. Along with this, and many other good points and opinions you’ve well-stated, are part of the reason that we are no-closer, in fact may never solve this ongoing debate.
In my opinion, Religion (about 4,000 different ones with their own belief’s world wide) along with parental and inherent cultural dogma, have hijacked many a belief system starting from childhood. This, making individual critical thinking on the subject later on, that much harder. — “You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.” ― Ben Goldacre
And Science? In reality, doesn’t care about religion or the question of God’s existence at all! They’ve stated clearly and many times that they deal in the questions of the natural world and universe. And not on the question of faith! So science will never win this age-old debate, because believer’s can and do, counter-argument with scientifically unprovable points of contention.
Side note here Ace! Perhaps you were unaware my friend, but a quick search of Mr. Amir D. Aczel, and one finds he dislike atheists very much. Going as far as publicly debating against well known atheism supporters. His view then, at least in my mind, is biasedly tainted. And that being said, he then certainly doesn’t represent the scientific view on this subject. Just a heads up buddy! You’d do the same for me I hope! Be well my friend!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Wayne – great inputs as alway. Am I braver or… ? I did try to tread a little more lightly on this one. No swearing for a change Wayne!
Anyway you’re right – we will never solve the debate. This is really my point. That’s why I feel it’s futile to fight about it. We should let others believe what they want. They are going to anyway. Indeed – to paraphrase your quote – many believe what they do through no choice (or fault) of their own.
That said I do believe we need to respect science if for no other reason than it isn’t interested in disproving God (because it can’t). My fanciful reasoning was that if you do, it makes sense to consider science as the word of God
Re. Amir D. Aczel. I must say my research on the man didn’t extend too far. I saw that he was a well respected mathematician and scientist but not that he was especially anti atheism. At any rate Wayne, my using his words was really a way to get others who see science as the enemy of religion to soften their stance. What better way to do that than pick a well respected scientist of faith? I guess I was being deliberately biased in the context of the argument. He does though, make a lot of good points (even if he rather conveniently skips over the theory of a multiverse a bit).
LikeLiked by 2 people
You bet buddy! No argument here, science should always be respected! No other system even comes close when it comes to the truth of our natural world. Including us and what makes us tick! Good stuff Ace!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I keep telling people to stop reading the Bible like a novel hanging to its every word. Much like the constitution it was written by man and he says he was inspired by God, if you can take a 2000 year old guy for his word. Man can’t be trusted with matters Divinity.
We have not yet taken into consideration the bias and meaning altering nature of translations and revisions of the many versions of the Bible. I believe in a God but not the Authoritarian father figure religion puts out.
The bible/quran does provide wisdom and understanding of some aspects but should never be taken too seriously. It may be used by man to help the few oppress and control the many, like many constitutions do.
About science VS religion, very few might see our perspective about the two because many do choose one or the other but science has never been the enemy of religion. Maybe the steps it’s taking might lead to finally understanding the mysticism of the divine. Maybe. But for now people should keep an open mind.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with you – I think having the ability to understand there is no black and white but only grey regarding anything – but maybe especially when reading Scripture is very important. People kill each other over how they interpret the details which is complete lunacy and also so very tragic. Your point about the constitution is spot on – one of the biggest problems with politics in America is its inability to evolve because the constitution is seen as gospel even though it was written over 200 years ago.
And yes – people should ALWAYS keep an open mind. The moment it’s closed you’re in trouble. Thanks Francis – great chat. 🙏
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe in Infinity, but the authoritarian figure isn’t from the bible, but what religion made of the bible and made into reality. (I’m not passing an opinion on whether the bible is true. I’ve never worked through that issue. Yet?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
AP, religion/ philosophy operates in the spiritual realm and teaches us how to live our lives. Science is more concerned with physical realities. The troubles seem to begin where one encroaches on the domain of the other. Human beings are capable of distinguishing between the two and profiting from the wisdom of each, just as we can distinguish a lullaby from a tango. Both have a role to play.
Thank you, AP, for tackling this often contentious subject. All the best! Cheryl
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Cheryl – thanks for your input. Yes I agree – the issue is when the two encroach on the other and while I agree in theory that human beings are capable of distinguishing between the two, in practise it seems they tend to side with one over the other which I believe is a big problem. Especially when religion becomes an excuse to ignore or even deny pressing issues like global warming. Or, on the flip side, when a lack of faith because an excuse to live without any sort of moral code. Both of these things have had disastrous consequences for all us.
Anyway just my random thoughts on the subject that I thought I’d put out there. I often find these difficult debates are the ones most worth having – if for no other reason than you learn a great deal more about people who think differently to you. Thanks again Cheryl. All the best to you too, AP2 🙏
LikeLiked by 1 person
I liked the book The Science of God by Herald Schroeder.
I don’t like the word god for there’s too much religious connotations but I believe that science and god aren’t mutually exclusive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m with you there Eliza. I think the word itself is subject to meaning and whatever it is (should it exist) i believe is beyond anything we comprehend as humans. I’ll be sure to look that book up. Thanks for stopping by Eliza 🙏
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally agree with that perspective… I am not totally sure what I believe … I still have my things (I am Catholic – or raised that way anyway) but I don’t go to church and I do my own thing. My way lol
I half believer and half science lol – I conflict lol
But I am open to learning many things. I don’t like blindly following or being told how I should think lol
But yes agree here
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Trisha. It’s a difficult conversation in which one must tread lightly! The most important thing is to keep an open mind. To be respectful of other people’s faith but also be respectful of what science has to teach us. Wishing you well 🙏
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello. I just began following your blog, primarily because of your reference to Dr. Aczel’s wonderful book. I read his book shortly after it was published, around the same time I read Lawrence Krauss’ book A Universe from Nothing. I appreciate your comment about the rigidity of belief – Dr. Krauss’ book being a prime example of such rigidity.
I have studied different religions for the majority of my life – over 50 yrs, in fact – and have consistently found that the idea of “the other” seems fundamental to religious dogma, often couched in lovely rhetoric that expresses the need to forgive and understand those whose beliefs are “different”. I have found that even Buddhism utilizes this outlook, although it is largely hidden.
I look forward to reading more of your work.
Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the follow and your comments. Dr Aczel offers an interesting perspective. I’ve not read Dr. Krauss’ book but I’ll be sure to look it up. Thank you sharing. That’s really interesting- I tend to think that the label is often the problem. When we identify heavily with being Christians or Buddhists or Americans, British, Republican, Democrats… when the ego identifies with those labels then everyone else who thinks differently becomes a threat.
LikeLike