The Stalemate between Science and Religion - Essay Example

Has Science Proven that God Does not exist? It is only on very rare occasions, in the past and contemporary times that science and religion make good bedfellows. In many cases the two subjects tend to be mutually exclusive with the claims made by science being deemed heretical and immoral by religion while atheist scientists view religions as a conglomeration of superstition, ignorance and at best non substantive beliefs and claims. The impasse is probably best described in David Hume’s famous words on miracles which the religious readily accept and scientists remain sceptical about. He said that for a miracle would require so much evidence to prove it has taken place at all that it would no longer be considered a miracle in light of the objective proofs (Hard, 2004). Quintessentially, it would appear that either religion or science can only be logically deemed correct to its full extent if the other is fundamentally wrong on the same grounds (Kurtz, 2008). The contention of this paper is that although science has been largely successful in casting doubt in as far as the existence of god is concerned it has not and cannot possibly objectively prove his nonexistence any more than believers can prove otherwise. The argument commences by discussing the various scientific and philosophical viewpoints that have directly imputed that god does not exist besides others that have been assumed to generate the same inference before winding up with those that prove despite the doubt that can be cast against it, his existence or lack of whereof is beyond philosophical and scientific comprehension. Background Science vs. Religion Given the rich and eventful history between the two, it is incumbent upon anyone aspiring to respond to this question to provide a brief post ex facto backdrop of the two so as to get the issue involved in the right context. Although science has been in existence possibly for as long as or even longer than religion, in the centuries predating the renascence, religions reigned supreme and in most of Europe the leaders, mostly monarch ruled at the pleasure of the pope or at least with his approval (John, 1996). Today, science has discredited and dismissed many religious doctrines and histories as fables and as aforementioned in the eyes of many modern scientists, god is just an out-dated creation of human mind in an attempt to explain the world, presently irrelevant as science is doing just that. Various arguments have been propounded by scientist in the attempt to prove that god does not exist and these shall be discoursed against those that argue there actually is a god or the agnostic side that presupposes it is impossible to know or not know for sure (Smart, 2013). Atheist and agnostic Scientists and Philosophers Given the influential nature of religions, most people have personal view on the subject of gods existence, one can either believe, be an atheist or agnostic (Smart, 2013), however in many cases people are suspended in ambivalence somewhere between either of the two former options and the latter. Understandably, before one can even begin to hold a scientific view on the matter, they must first pick a category under which they will commerce their criticism for religion. Naturally, either those opposed to the idea of god are atheists of agnostic; Atheism is simply defined as the negation of theism which is belief in god or denial of the same in the context of this paper, the definition will only include monotheistic religions who share the same god from a Christian, Jewish of Islamic perspective. Scientists and by extension non-believers have over the years attempted to disapprove the existence of god through philosophical and logical arguments as well as empirical reasoning. One of the most profound basis on which gods existence is denounced is the fact that his nature as a benevolent and powerful god as is prescribed by believers seems to be in direct contradiction to what is written in the very books from which the faithful learn their creed. Overt contradictions in regard to gods morality in the past have provided fodder for philosophical arguments which are founded on the fact that if god is indeed timeless and all good, they he should be the same today as he was in the past. (Incidentally the bible makes a similar claim). Explaining the Origin of The World Without God One of Britain’s and indeed the world’s most prolific physicists Stephen Hawking published a book co- authored with Leonardo Mlodinow in which they postulated and attempted to prove that the universe can be explained without the existence of God being factored in. Although they opposed claims that the book was designed to prove that God does not exist, many in the scientific community interpreted it as such and used the premise of the book and its writers impressive profile to strengthen the claim that science can indeed prove God to be inexistent. The book claims that the world emerged from nothing and the laws of nature were accidental in the particular part of the universe currently occupied by humanity (Castelvecchi, 2010). While the book does not outright claim there is no God, the underlying implications more or less make clear the fact that according to the authors, who are scientists, it can be scientifically proven that the world came into being without the contribution of a supreme being. Hawkins and Mlodinow are however not unique or even particularly original in their attempt to explain the universe in the absence of creator, in contemporary science there is the big bang theory in which the universe is proposed to have come into being after a cataclysmic explosion. From which the first matter was created from nothingness, as a result of the chain reactions following the explosion from the bang, the first simple celled organism were formed and from there the theory of evolution takes over explain how present life developed from the simple celled creatures. The Moral Incompatibility of God Richard Dawkins, a contemporary atheist takes issue with the fact that god allowed and sanctioned activities in the Old Testament, which by modern and even retrospective definition were immoral, both in the religious and human sense (McGrath and McGrath, 2007). He posits that Yahweh must be a moral monster and the very fact that millions base their lives on his actions and commands is appalling and crude (Copan, 2008). He cites the example of god ordering Abraham to sacrifice his only son an act he castigates as immoral inhuman and tantamount to child abuse. He also mentions the incidences where God breaks into a righteous wrath whenever his people worship another god, and he kills and burns them indiscriminately, how, Dawkins asks can the church claim to have a consistent and loving god when the past so overtly depicts him as a moral monster? When the Jews were given the land of Canaan he order the pillaging of Jericho, and in Dawkins opinion, this was no different from the xenophobic ethical cleansing carried out by Hitler against Poland or Saddam in his Massacre of the Kurds. Daniel Dennet, another atheist concurs with Dawkins, he also describes the nature of God as described by the bible to be a contradiction of belief and therefore impossible for it to be true. Scientifically, in his book The God Delusion, he attacks the idea of a creator using his regressive theory. In this theory, he claims that god would have to be extremely complex to have designed the world and would require a more complex designer who designed him and his designer would also require an even more complex one and the chain would go on ad infinitum (Montague, 2008). However, theists who rightly point out that his evidence of god’s existence commonly refute this argument is primarily based on theories that try to prove there is no evidence of his existence which does not amount to scientific proof. Secular vs God based Origin Theories The theory of evolution has probably struck the deepest scientific blow to the claim of a divine creator; Darwin provided both theory and empirical evidence of his claims something which neither the church nor earlier scientist had managed to achieve (Scambray, 2010). The theory proposes that life as we known it started in from low life forms, which gradually evolved into the complex organisms that exist today including humans. Ergo every two animal species on earth can identify at some level a common ancestor. This theory completely negates the literal idea of a creator as is described in the book of genesis, natural selection shows that nature selects those fittest for life and by so doing eliminates the role of blessings etc. Which are key pillars of religious faith mediated by god? VIctor J. Stenger tries to prove that god does not exist through a combination of scientific and philosophical arguments most of which are based on the nature of God as defined by the faithful, he argues in the problem of evil that God as is said to be all good and all powerful (Stenger, 2008). Therefore the fact that evil exists in a world in which he created with his infinite goodness and powerfulness is evidence that he cannot possibly exist since unless one argues that evil does not exist. He also suggests that if god exists, he must be transcendal and omnipresent at the same time, the later means he is everywhere and the former that he exits outside time and space, at the end of the day both of these attributes are mutually exclusive so once again god’s existence must be impossible. In the god virus, Ray Darrel talks about how difficult it is for rational discourse to be had on the irrational aspects of Christianity arguing that believers have been infected with an illogical tendency to defend their faith even when it appears to make no sense (Ray, 2009). This makes it considerably difficult for arguments such as the ones above to have any impact on the faithful as they do not always desire or believe it is necessary for the idea of god to make sense. Beyond Reasonable Doubt? While scientists and philosophers have no doubt created considerable doubt on the possibility of the existence of god, it is worth noting that science and even philosophy are never 100% right. In as much as scientists may be able to prove something empirically today, there is always the possibility that in light of new knowledge or technology they may be proven wrong which is the essence of evolution and development of scientific knowledge. Ergo in as much as scientific arguments may have merit and appeal to the logical person, they cannot be trusted beyond every shred of doubt. Secondly, several of the theories that have been suggested here as opposition for the existence of god from a scientific basis are actually acceptable to Christians and ironically for proving the opposite of what the scientists claim to prove. Take the big bang theory; it basically supports the creation story that claims that the world as created from nothingness, furthermore, the big bang theory which does not support the existence of a superior being is fundamentally flawed in one crucial area. In suggesting that matter was created from nothing, it contradicts itself by assuming that the bang was caused by gravity (Craig and Smith, 1995), while Christians may claim it was god who was responsible, scientist will be at pains to explain which part of “nothing” was occupied by the force of gravity. The theory of evolution can also not be considered as tacit proof that the creation did not take place at least in the Christian understanding, prominent Christians throughout the ages; among the John Paul the second have on several occasions suggested that the creation theory and the evolution one are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Creation according to the bible is argued to have been described symbolically as are many other things, ergo it is not necessarily to be assumed that god took 6 days to create man in the conventional sense. Furthermore, in the same way science tries to discredit religion through scientific methods, religion also tries to discredit science and support the argument that god exists from a logical point of view. Consider the following argument that seeks to prove that scientific claims that creationism is a superstition are just as superstitions as the beliefs they mock should they be followed to the logical conclusion. Thermodynamics Argument From a scientific perspective, the law of thermodynamics states that energy and mass can neither be decreased of increased in supply from the world but only shifted from one place and form. Based on this, the earth is an open system that can only acquire and regenerate content from within itself since outside influence would imply a creator which is inadmissible at this point of the argument. Should this be the case, they it means that by virtue of the fact that one can actually perceived matter is and impossibility according to scientific rules. The corollary being that if there is no external being and the law of thermodynamics is indeed real, then the matter would not exist since it would be impossible for it to have gotten to the universe in the first place. While this argument does not explicitly prove if there is or there is not god, it pokes holes in the assumption that the laws of physics are water tight in their perception of the world and therefore cannot reasonably be used to disprove gods existence with all certainty. On numerous occasions, religious believers have often been challenged to prove the existence of god by scientists who believe that a god who can only be understood through faith is practical of even possible. Ultimately, when told to provide scientific proof of his existence they cannot do so and science uses this as a basis on which to “prove” he cannot possibly exist. Besides religion is a divided house and while some religious personalities and creeds aspire to match science by constantly been on the lookout for empirical evidence and matching scientific findings with theological facts, there are those who believe this to be blasphemous and have no desire to prove god exist as they consider belief to be sufficient. One should be cognisant of the fact that science rather than prove god exists is more successful in proving that Christians or anyone else for that matter cannot prove that he does. However the absence of proof is not proof of absence, the fact that religious people cannot scientifically prove the god they worship exist simply means that they cannot prove it and it has no bearing on his existence. Even the best atheist scientist will be at odds if they try to explain their theory to a 5 year old because the child will keep asking; “what was there before that?” Despite Hawkins and others before him claiming, they can prove the origin of the universe without including a deity in the equation, the truth is they can only prove up to a limited extent and their research still leaves unanswered the same questions that have begged answers for decades. This does not by any means imply that their theories would be any more complete if they included a deity but it does imply that they are far from conclusive since they ultimately neglect to explain where what was there before the nothingness from which matter came from sprang from. In a sense the scientific theories of the origin of the universe are no less abstract than the biblical creation story and they can only be believed not proven otherwise there would only be one which was universally accepted and grounded on scientific evidence. Another major factor that lends credence to the contention that scientist have not been able to prove god does not exist is based on the fact that the world of science is also heavily divided on the subject with some scientists trying to use science to prove he exists and others the opposite. Einstein and other scientist of note claimed that the complexity of the physical universe can only be attributed to and intelligent design, this was one of the arguments that convinced Flew on of the most renowned atheists to accept that there must be a higher more intelligent power(Flew, 2007). Science argues that the world emerged from a combination or random events and in this regard, religion seems to make more sense than science in the claim of an intelligent creator, arguing that the universe with its extremely intricate yet organized and interconnected element was an accident has been dismissed as a comical at best even by scientists. Conclusion Ultimately, while there are many reasons behind the fall of religion from the pinnacle of human affairs to a somewhat neutral and even optional level as is evidenced in light of contemporary secularism, there is little doubt that science has played the biggest part in this diminution. This is primarily because the key tenets of science are based on the laws of physics which seek to explain the world objectively and empirically based on knowledge not faith, in these circles, there is no room for an all-powerful deity or beliefs which are the building blocks of religions At the end of the day, when it comes to proving each other wrong in their respective beliefs, it all comes down to what one believes as a scientist or believer since they two camps are united by the inability to explain or proof the most fundamental question in regard to god’s existence. The human mind is limited in many ways and claiming that god does not exist simply because it cannot be proved he surpasses in the face of scientific logic. Consequently, the stalemate between science and religion is likely to go on until such a time that one side can provide irrefutable proof of the others incorrectness something both have failed to do for millennia. References Castelvecchi , D. 2010 Oct 1. Hawking versus God: What Did the Physicist Really Say about the Deity? Scientific America. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hawking-vs-god/ Copan, P. 2008. Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics. Philosophia Christi 10:1, pp. 7-37. Craig, W, L . and Smith ,Q 1995. Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology .Clarendon-Paperbacks Flew, A., 2007. There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind . New York: HarperOne. Hard, M., 2004. Hume on Miracles. Eudaimonia : the Georgetown Philosophical Review, 1(1), pp. 45-47. John, Tabliabue 1996, Oct 25. POPE FINDS EVOLUTION, RELIGIOUS FAITH COMPATIBLE. Daily News, 0. Kurtz, P. 2008. Forbidden Fruit : The Ethics of Secularism. New York: Prometheus McGrath,A and, McGrath, J., 2007. The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. MONTAGUE, R., 2008. Dawkins Infinite Regress. Philosophy, 83(1), pp. 113-115. Ray, D., 2009.The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture. London. IPC Press, Scambray, T., 2010. God vs. Darwin: The War Between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom. New Oxford Review,77(5), pp. 43-45. Smart, J. C., 2013. Atheism and Agnosticism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Stenge, V. 2008God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. New York: Prometheus Books. Read More