Zoe Marie Andrew

Ways of Knowing 116c

May 28th, 2016
Critical Analysis: Science and God

Science Reduces the Probably of a God

In this debate, Jamie, Chanel, and Isabella argue that Science reduces the probability
that God exists. However, the opposing team, Sarah, Caylea, and Alexis, argue that Science and
God should be viewed as two separate ideas without interfering with each other. I believe
that the pro side did a better job at convincing us that science does in fact reduce the probability
of the existence of God. The Pro side argued against things like sufficient evidence, personal
experience, and traditional values while the Con team argued that science cant give us answers
about values thus we cannot trust it to teach us them.
Pro Side
Premise 1: If a hypothesis doesnt have sufficient evidence to support it, then the probability of it
being true is reduced.
Premise 2: There isnt sufficient evidence to support the idea of God.
Claim: Therefore, the probability of Gods existence is reduced.
They argue that insufficient evidence does not give us a reliable or safe source of
knowledge. The universe existing for 6,000 years has been disproved alongside many other
stated facts in the bible. The pro team argues that we are not justified in believing in a God just
because its a family, cultural, or societal tradition to do so. Humans often find comfort in
answers about life after death, about their morality, and about what they ought to be doing but
its not enough to say the bible or a God provides us with these things when there is no evidence
to prove so. They argue that personal experience is not reliable, not testable, and not replicable,
therefore it is not scientific and not trustworthy.

Zoe Marie Andrew

Ways of Knowing 116c
May 28th, 2016
Critical Analysis: Science and God

Con Side
Premise 1: If science and religion hold different areas of facts or values, science is not a valid
way to question God.
Premise 2: Science and religion support different aspects of life.
Claim: Science and God should be viewed as two separate ideas without interfering with each
other.
The con side argues that God and science are allowed to exist and cooperate because they
deal with two separate aspects of life. They believe the bible requires interpretation and deeper
understanding of the literature to gain knowledge about morals and values. If it is done in this
way, then biblical predictions can be more accurately accounted for, rather than claiming
scientific creationism is true.
The pro team convinced me against the idea during the rebuttal because they explain
against the idea of two separate domains, that religion isnt exempt from scientific testing
because one should think scientifically in order to find reason and reliability in knowledge.
Which is what led us to the greatest discoveries of the world, not just letting unjustified
knowledge do the talking. Humans need to try and understand these things, at least from an
empirical perspective. They also argue that science can write up alternative hypothesis for out of
body experiences that can explain phenomena. In fact, we do try to measure the existent of a
soul. They weigh bodies to see if that property exists. They then argue that religion makes claims
about morality that goes against empirically evidential findings. Such as homosexuality.

Zoe Marie Andrew

Ways of Knowing 116c
May 28th, 2016
Critical Analysis: Science and God
The con sides rebuttal lacks a fulfilling argument because they do no refute any of the
above arguments accurately. They say the universe was created by God, therefore science was
created by God. But how do we know that if we do not test it?? They then go on to speaking on
the neglect in interpreting the bible correctly once again. They then appeal to the masses by
saying that if everyone experiences these out of body feelings then its hard to explain otherwise.
Overall I dont like the idea of God and science existing separately or as one. Just
because this idea has a negative connotation. God brings this idea of religion and institution.
That God teaches us things, not that science teaches us things. I believe a better interpretation of
all this, in my own personal experience, is science does in fact reduce the probability of a God, a
divine creator, and benevolent one, because there is no substantial evidence pointing in that
direction, though we as humans should always question these things. We should, as scientific
thinkers and embodiments of knowledge, search for an ultimate creator because there isnt 100%
positive piece of evidence that says no that does not exist. But in general, I would say yes con
team- you go!

Zoe Marie Andrew

Ways of Knowing 116c
May 28th, 2016
Critical Analysis: Science and God

I considered this to be diversity of human experience because it was a challenge to analyze

between religion and scientific knowledge. Between two very valid ways of looking at the
universe in a subjective manner. I understood where I stood on this debate, as clearly stated in
the essay, but I also took intrigue with the other sides formulated understandings of the world.
We touched mainly on religious diversity and analyzed it in a scholarly fashion as a way of
knowing so that we can understand the differences in human ability, worldviews, and values.