Scientific Materialism: Can God Be Disproved?

Science and religion have long been controversial topics of thought. Lawrence Krauss’ and William Lane Craig’s debate titled, “Has Science Buried God?”, explores both sides of the argument revolving around the question at hand. While both make strong cases, William Lane Craig gives his arguments without showing strong emotion, which can overall lead to a stronger case. That does not, however, mean that Lawrence Krauss’ arguments are weak, per say, but that his argument is more opinionated. Overall, William Lane Craig gave a more sophisticated and logical argument to the guiding question, “Has Science Buried God?”

In the world we live today we are making new and profound scientific discoveries everyday but there is a realm that is untouchable for the scientific field which is the realm of religion. In Dr. Amir Aczel’s book Why Science Does Not Disprove God, he argues against scientists such as Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins who attempt to refute the existence of god using different sciences. Dr. Aczel clearly notes that the purpose of this book is not to prove the existence of god but rather to state that science has not disproved god and will not disprove god.

I believe it is not humanity’s purpose to prove the existence of God or to even understand the logic behind his existence. What I grasp from the readings and lectures is that God is very good and he has all the power. I have peace of mind knowing that the person in control of the universe has the best intentions for everyone. Moses described God as being compassion, slower to anger, faithful, forgiving, and maintaining love (Exodus 34:5-7 NIV). I believe this best describes Him because he is the best traits that a person could possess. God created the universe, more importantly the world, and most importantly humankind. His creation was good until sin

Physicist Paul Davies ideas about God and the place of science and religion are somewhat true to me. I can see how he is relating religion to science when he is talking about trying to question the basics of science. When he asks questions like “Why those laws?” and “Where have they come from?” I understand how he is associating that to when people ask questions about God and religion. He says that the word God to him is a rational ground, not a person. I can understand that his reason for believing this could be that science doesn’t answer all the questions about the world. I completely agree with Paul when he states that people turn to religion to find out their purpose and for guidance. At the end, Paul Davies writes how a God who is a rational

In contrast, science tends to refrain from generating assertions regarding the creator and instead focuses entirely on the actual creation. Science primarily addresses many different aspects of the creation, including the beginnings of the universe, the matter and features of the world, how stars and galaxies formed, how planets were established, how our planet generates life, and how life functions and develops on Earth. Although science and religion both express divine laws, science focuses on the laws of nature that govern the motions and developments of

"Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam."

The Article Are Scientist Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion, by John Tiereny goes into

“Myths don’t give clear answers to such questions about the formation of universe” anymore (Wil van Breugel). With the emerged of science, many either believe in the “evolution theory” or the “creationism theory.” There is, in fact, a middle ground for both. The large difference is each had their own way to interpret or combined their beliefs and religion to science. Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist in history, has his religious beliefs remained in the shadows of his life, yet it had a major impact toward his science (Frank 96). To Newton, “there is no way (without religion) to come to the knowledge of a Deity but by the frame of nature” (Frank 96). Newton knew exactly that science and religion must work together in order to achieve the perfect equation just like God, the “absolute power” who were able to create the universe, the earth, and life in such perfect form that was able to solve by science. For other scientists, they found God “directly intervenes in the world stands in direct opposition to sciences efficacy and power” (Frank 99). Einstein, for example, “could not bear the idea of a personal god, his abandonment of religion was linked to his distaste for traditional concepts of God” (Frank 100). Einstein believed that God played absolute no part in science and that God would only interfere with the growth of science, whereas, Isaac Newton believed God and Science go hand in hand because God, the absolute power, created this

H. J. McCloskey wrote the article “On Being an Atheist” in 1968 giving his reasons for rejecting God. He attempts to define God all while dismissing Him at the same time. He focuses on one of the most difficult things to explain in general which is evil and suffering in the world, yet we claim to have a perfect, and loving God. Though McCloskey desires proof and critiques the cosmological and teleological arguments against Gods existence, the most reasonable explanation for the universe itself is nothing else but God.

Does God exist? That is the question that so many scholars, peasants, governments, and individuals have been trying to answer from the beginning of human civilization to the present and beyond. Every group in the history of mankind, from Taiwan to Jamaica, from the top of Russia to the bottom of Chile, has said yes to a form of divinity. Their religions have ranged from one God to one million Gods to no God and these religions have defined culture, tradition, lifestyle, and the society of the place; they have ruled nations and defined nations, inspired nations and controlled nations. Not every person has been a believer but every culture has had a belief. Yet somehow, despite this vast evidence that there must be something or else

I began after reading this introduction to look far the proof of the statements written above. The introduction went on to explain that Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who are, where we come from, and were we are going. Well I sure was going to read this book because to be honest I have always believed and was taught The Holy Bible was the only I could look to know who we are, where we came from and where we are going.

“Why Science Does Not Disprove God" by Amir D. Aczel appeared in the April 27, 2014, issue of Time magazine. In this article, Aczel asserts that science shows that the universe is so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life science. According to Aczel “All of the masses, charges and forces of interaction in the universe had to be in just the precisely needed amounts so that early light atoms could form” (paragraph 6). Aczel also writes “the purely hypothetical multiverse does not solve the problem of God” (paragraph 8). Finally, he states “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” (paragraph 7). There are a multitude of

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Science “aims to save the spirit, not by surrender but by the liberation of the human mind” (Wilson, 7). Both religion and science seek to explain the unknown. Instead of surrendering reasoning with the traditional religion, a scientific approach one takes full authority over it. Being an empiricist, Wilson takes favors the scientific approach to the question: “why are things the way they are?” This question can pose two meanings: How did this happen, and what is the purpose. Traditional religion answers this question with stories, many of which are impossible to prove or disprove, making them arguments of ignorance. These explanations entail the adherent surrender reasoning and put faith in the resolution. According to Wilson these are always wrong (Wilson, 49). Science is the most effective way to learn about the natural world. Religion is merely speculation.

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data