Why God doesn't Exist - Essay Example

Why God doesn’t exist Introduction The controversies surrounding science and religion have been long overdue. Scientists have in the recent past tried to insinuate that science and religion are not ‘allies’ (Perterson et al., 9). Theologians, from a religious standpoint, insist that science undermine the cultural underpinnings of religion (Perterson et al., 13). Some philosophers such as Bertrand Russell have made efforts to harmonize theologians and scientists in a special way. Others have insisted on an existence of a wide berth between religion and science (Perterson et al., 17). This essay will, in an argumentative manner, delve into various viewpoints from philosophers like Bertrand Russell, on science and religion which raise the questions on whether God really exists or not. Tangible examples of scientists opposed to religious ideas and theologians against science will be revisited. Their divergent views will, however, be harmonized at the end of the essay paper. Science is characterized by systematic study of the natural or physical world. The approaches in the study are usually observation, explanation and experimentation. Religion on the other hand, is faith, creed or belief in a power beyond human understanding. Most scientific breakthroughs before scientific revolution emerged from organized societies that had strong religious traditions. Science and knowledge contradicts religion I will set the ball rolling by citing the works of the 19th century scientist, Charles Darwin. There are two main theories of creation- the Scientific and Religious theory. The Scientific theory is also known as the Evolution or Darwinian Theory (Darwin 12).The religious theory is also referred to as Creation theory. The later points out that God created the universe and everything on it. This is according to the first book of the Bible (Genesis 1.1) and the Quran (Darwin, 19). The former on the other hand, holds that, living things gradually and continuously changed from simple creatures or life forms to more complex ones over a long period of time (Darwin, 31). The process of change is what Charles Darwin called evolution. By use of experiments on living organisms and wide travels Darwin proved that the universe indeed evolved and didn’t happen by chance (Darwin, 67). These works were compiled and published in 1859 in the Evolution of Species by Means of Natural Selection. According to Perterson et al (189), in the late 19th and early 20th century, the theory of Darwin was to be negatively interpreted in the neo-Darwinian society. European imperialism was taken to Africa in form of colonialism. Perterson et al (206) argue that it was the moral obligation of the Europeans as a civilized society to rid Africa of barbaric religious practices, poverty, disease, slave trade and slavery. Social atavism gave justification to this by stating that, human beings, by nature would want to override others (Perterson et al., 253). This was so much opposed to Christian religious teachings of humankind being equal. According to Darwin, the argument about the existence of God vis a’ vis the universe happening by chance is not of any value. Many scientists indeed have proclaimed to be atheists and view the existence of God as waste of time. The philosophies of Bertrand Russell also openly betray the general view of scientists on faith. His publication titled, why I am not a Christian and other Essays on Religion and other Subjects, tells us all. He argues that, man created God in his image and likeness and placed him in heaven. This is contrary to what we know and hold that man was created by God in his own image and likeness. He finalizes by asking, who said that God created man in his image and likeness? Who said God resembled man? Is not man himself? What prove is there that God is in heaven? (Russell, 4) In his publication the Future of Illusion, Sigmund Freud, the pioneer of modern Psychology, talks about religion. Freud associates God to a mental disorder-Neurosis (Freud 14). He further reveals that the belief in God was a false perception, idea or belief. After acquiring sufficient knowledge, man frees himself from religious dogma. Religion is left to uneducated masses. He finalizes by saying that the masses would, by no chance; turn into murderers if they were told there is no God. His works, however received a lot of criticism. Sanders for instance in the publication Christianity and Freud (1950) talked of Jesus Christ to be the greatest “psychiatrist.” Religious standpoint against science Since the times of great scientists like Charles Darwin, Sigmund and many others the church stood in the way of science. Claudius Ptolemy, a Greek scholar, is well remembered for the Ptolemaic concept of the universe as highlighted by Kurzweil (97). As Kurzweil notes, Ptolemaic’s model was known as the Geocentric (Earth-centered) model. According to Ptolemy, the Earth then was the center of the universe and other planets including the sun were around it. He also held that other heavenly bodies were fixed in space (Kurzweil, 131). The idea was unquestionably held by people and the church for centuries. According to McGrath’s A Fine-Tuned Universe: the Quest for God in Science and Theology, it took the genius of Nicolas Copernicus (1543) during the age of reason, to bring about the heliocentric model. According to Copernicus, the sun was the center of the universe and other planets including the earth oscillated around it. He also introduced the idea of the heavenly bodies being spherical in shape and not ‘perfect circles.’ By placing the sun and not the earth at the center of the universe and introducing motion, Copernicus had shaken the very foundations of God’s creation according to the church. The church was quick in response. Copernicus was taken to the inquisition and ordered to refute his ideas of misleading mankind (McGrath, 89). As highlighted by McGrath (176), the story of Galileo Galilei, the father of the telescope, also highlights a moment where the church stood in the way of knowledge.Taking a telescope, he directed it into the sky to prove the works of Copernicus that the sun is still and the earth is on the move. Earlier on, he had brushed aside ‘the common sense’ notion on falling bodies by carrying out experiments and explaining the results. According to McGrath (209), Galileo demonstrated that to be able to have a clear picture of the universe, one require to examine, explain and above all prove. By discrediting the church and the scripture, these scientific discoveries, stood at the barricades of progress. There is evidence that society went back to the dark days and these sciences were part of the retrogression (Kurzweil, 67). Instead of being drastic changes to take society to another level, they became a swing-back according to Bretch in The life of Galileo (McGrath, 271). That is the reason why they never amounted to a revolution. To this effect, the church organized its reaction forces and reasserted its power over the masses (Kurzweil, 167). Rene Descartes in his famous statement, I think therefore I am, introduced the idea of proof. Through his dreams he had doubts about his own existence (Descartes, 75). His works were compiled in a book titled Meditationes de Prima Philosophia, or Meditations on First Philosophy, which brought the idea of mind and body. These are the two faculties that control human beings. He further argued that, senses emanate from the body, yet they might be deceptive. He pointed out that the mind is the only faculty endowed with reason and should therefore be trusted (Descartes, 441). From these demonstrations, we can infer that the limitations of human mind mark the beginning of religion. Descartes’ idea of Scientific method happens to contradict Christian beliefs of reincarnation (Descartes, 189). From Descartes meditations of first philosophy, Scientific method which calls for experimental stages therefore cannot apply in this case (Descartes, 143). When one dies it becomes impossible to prove his rebirth. The scientists’ idea of prove, beyond reasonable doubt looks at life after death as a farce (Descartes, 231). As highlighted by McGrath (19), it is difficult to point out that the church has been against science. McGrath notes that; it is evident today that, from the lessons learnt in the dark ages and the beginning of renaissance, the church today stands at the center of providing and encouraging acquisition of knowledge. Church based institutions; healthcare facilities are evidence of this (McGrath, 43). Religion and Science According to a survey that was conducted by top research institutions, 75% of people believe that religion is true. More than 48% of the sample holds that one doesn’t have to be an atheist-believer in inexistence of God-in order to be a scientist (McGrath, 65). Indeed McGrath shows his gratification in seeing the universe through the realms of science and religion. Despite these perpetual conflicts, many people are of the opinion that science and religion are not at conflict (William, 27). In fact, according to a survey in the USA, 27% of Americans believe that science and religion address different issues in man’s life (William, 89). While science delves in the physical world, religion is concerned with both spiritual and beyond i.e. supernatural. An American physician and director of National Human Genome Research Institute refuted that science is the perfect way to study the natural world (William, 97). The universe is investigated in various ways. Religion and science coexist, and illuminate each other. The cosmological argument of William Rowe sheds more light to this argument. It is indeed difficult to agree with a theologian who today denies various scientific inventions and innovations. Likewise, contending with a scientist who refutes the existence of a supernatural being behind the universe is difficult. As much as we marvel at the technological breakthroughs, science will never give us remedies to all our problems and answers to all our queries. Russell Bertrand in his publication, Why I am Not a Christian and other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, remarked that when he thinks about the universe, he feels that there is an existence of an underlying force that is greater than human force. He offers a simple yet deep argument about the existence of God. In his works, Russell points out that, whatever scientific works discovers is only re-cognizing and re-thinking what was earlier conceived by the human mind. With this he continues that since both signify God and intelligence, religion and science need to be at harmony. It is further ironical that modern scientific emerged in Christian studia generalia/universitas where creation ideas were also taught (Russell, 97). It is imperative that we acknowledge the work and role of science in society. Without science, the earth would still be perceived as flat. The earth and not sun would be the center of the universe and so would the heavenly bodies be ‘perfect circles’ and not spheres. Indeed faith without action is dead. Religion is the faith; science is the action (Kurzweil, 77). Science can and indeed it does provide direction to arguments. McGrath in his book, A Fine-Tuned Universe: the Quest for God in Science and Theology, highlights about the existence of God always put it that the assumption that the universe began to exist made work of atheists easy. From Genesis chapter one, he compared the universe to motion. The argument is in line with the general theory of relativity of cosmology which can be deducted to mean that the universe began to exist, therefore it has a purpose. Many religious factions accept today that diversity in living organisms over a long period of time is a product of scientific evolution. Philosophers such as Russell Bertrand and scientists like Rene Descartes have made publications with an opinion that evolution and faiths are not in any way divergent. Those religious beliefs that still see a contrast in religion and science should revisit their interpretation of religious articles. When the conflict thesis is applied, some of works of Rene Descartes and other philosophers are regarded as ‘crime’ in the field of science and ‘original sin’ in religious practice. I can critically analyze that from the new astronomy, Descartes evolved a sharply defined science which was able to uninterruptedly thrive. The nuclear bomb today is both a problem in technology and to the people. This is therefore, his contribution to science and failure in society. In conclusion, the issue of science and religion remains contentious. Despite statements by scientists refuting religion and counter-statements by theologians downplaying science, I have tried to demonstrate the two are indispensable components of the society. The arguments, however, are far from conclusion. In the recent past, efforts were made toease of tension between the two main antagonists-science and religion. A number of societies have been set up, to promote the harmony that was earlier witnessed between science and religion before the 19th century (Kurzweil, 190). Berkeley Centre for Theology and Natural Science, the Vatican Observatory, the Science and Religion Forum and the European Society for the Study of Science and Religion (Kurzweil, 209). Conferences are held, professional journals written and so are departments formed in institution for better understanding of this issue. All this point out to one theme; there is no conflict between true science and true religion. Or may be modern science is a legitimate scion of the church. Many academic pundits view science as a scion of the church that has emancipated itself and turned against the parent-church. Works cited Darwin, Charles. The origin of Species by Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. New York: Random House Value Publishing Inc., 1979. Descartes, Rene. Meditations of first philosophy: In which the existence of God and the distinction of the soul from the body are demonstrated. Trans. Donald Cress. India polis: Hackett publishing company. 1993. Fred, Sigmund. The Future of an illusion. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 1989 (1927) Kurzweil, Ray. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Toronto: Viking Penguin, 2005. McGrath, Alister. A Fine-Tuned Universe: the Quest for God in Science and Theology (Gifford Lectures). Westminster John Knox, 2009. Perterson, Michal & Hasker, William & Reichenbach, Bruce & Basinger, david. Philosophy of Religion: Selected texts (4th edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 2010 (1996). Rowe, W. Cosmological argument Princeton: Princeton university press. 1975. Russell, Bertrand. Why I am Not a Christian and other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957. Read More