Templeton Foundation Series - Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?

http://www.templeton.
org/belief/
a Templeton conversation
Does science make belief in God obsolete?
This is the third in a series of conversations among leading scientists and scholars about the
"Big Questions."
Articles by :
w001 Steven Pinker

w002 Christoph Cardinal Schonborn
w003 William D. Phillips
w004 Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy
w005 Mary Midgley
w006 Robert Sapolsky
w007 Christopher Hitchens
w008 Keith Ward
w009 Victor J. Stenger
w010 Jerome Groopman
w011 Michael Shermer
w012 Kenneth R. Miller
w013 Stuart Kauffman
w014 Comments by readers of the Templeton series
1
Table des matières
Steven Pinker......................................................................................................................................... 3
Christoph Cardinal Schönborn................................................................................................................ 5
William D. Phillips................................................................................................................................... 8
Pervez AmiraliHoodbhoy...................................................................................................................... 11
Mary Midgley........................................................................................................................................ 14
Robert Sapolsky................................................................................................................................... 17
Christopher Hitchens............................................................................................................................ 20
Keith Ward............................................................................................................................................ 23
Victor J. Stenger................................................................................................................................... 26
Jerome Groopman, M.D....................................................................................................................... 29
Michael Shermer................................................................................................................................... 31
Kenneth Miller....................................................................................................................................... 34
Stuart Kauffman.................................................................................................................................... 37
Comments by readers of the Templeton series :..................................................................................39
2
W001
Does science make belief in

God obsolete?
Steven Pinker
Yes,ifby...
“science”we mean theentireenterpriseofsecularreasonand knowledge(including
historyand philosophy),notjustpeoplewithtesttubesand whitelabcoats.
Traditionally,a beliefinGod was attractivebecauseitpromisedtoexplainthedeepest
puzzlesaboutorigins.Wheredidtheworldcome from? What isthebasisoflife?How
canthemind arisefrom thebody?Why shouldanyonebe moral?
Yetoverthemillennia,therehasbeenan inexorabletrend:thedeeperwe probethese
questions,and themorewe learnabouttheworldinwhichwe live,thelessreason
thereistobelieveinGod.
Startwiththeoriginoftheworld.Todayno honestand informedpersoncanmaintain
thattheuniversecame intobeinga few thousandyearsago and assumeditscurrent
form insixdays(tosaynothingofabsurditieslikeday and nightexistingbeforethe
sunwas created).Nor istherea moreabstractroleforGod toplayastheultimatefirst
cause.Thistricksimplyreplacesthepuzzleof“Wheredidtheuniversecome from?”
withtheequivalentpuzzle“WheredidGod come from?”
Whataboutthefantasticdiversityoflife,and itsubiquitoussignsofdesign?At one
timeitwas understandabletoappealtoa divinedesignertoexplainitall.No longer.
CharlesDarwinand AlfredRusselWallaceshowed how thecomplexityoflifecould
arisefrom thephysicalprocessofnaturalselectionamong replicators,and then
Watsonand Crickshowed how replicationitselfcouldbe understoodinphysical
terms.Notwithstandingcreationistpropaganda,theevidenceforevolutionis
overwhelming,includingourDNA, thefossilrecord,thedistributionoflifeon earth,
and ourown anatomy and physiology(suchasthegoosebumps thattrytofluffup
long-vanishedfur).
3
Formany peoplethehuman soulfeelslikea divinesparkwithinus.Butneuroscience
hasshown thatourintelligenceand emotionsconsistofintricatepatternsofactivityin
thetrillionsofconnectionsinourbrain.True,scholarsdisagreeon how toexplainthe
existenceofinnerexperience—some sayit’sa pseudo-problem,othersbelieveit’sjust
an openscientificproblem,whilestillothersthinkthatitshowsa limitationofhuman
cognition(likeourinabilitytovisualizefour-
dimensionalspace-time).Butevenhere,
relabelingtheproblem withtheword “soul”addsnothingtoourunderstanding.
Peopleusedtothinkthatbiologycouldnotexplainwhy we havea conscience.Butthe
human moralsensecanbe studiedlikeany othermentalfaculty,suchasthirst, color
vision,orfearofheights.Evolutionarypsychologyand cognitiveneuroscienceare
showinghow ourmoralintuitionswork,why theyevolved,and how theyare
implementedwithinthebrain.
Thisleavesmoralityitself—thebenchmarksthatallowustocriticizeand improveour
moralintuitions.Itistruethatscienceinthenarrow sensecannotshow whatisrightor
wrong.ButneithercanappealstoGod.It’snotjustthatthetraditionalJudeo-Christian
God endorsedgenocide,slavery,rape,and thedeathpenaltyfortrivialinsults.It’sthat
moralitycannotbe groundedindivinedecree,noteveninprinciple.Why didGod
deem some actsmoraland othersimmoral?Ifhe had no reasonbutdivinewhim,why
shouldwe takehiscommandmentsseriously?Ifhe didhavereasons,thenwhy not
appealtothosereasonsdirectly?
Thosereasonsarenottobe foundinempiricalscience,buttheyaretobe foundinthe
natureofrationalityasitisexercisedby any intelligentsocialspecies.The essenceof
moralityistheinterchangeabilityofperspectives:thefactthatassoonasIappealto
you totreatme ina certainway (tohelpme when Iam inneed,ornottohurtme for
no reason),Ihavetobe willingtoapplythesame standardstohow Itreatyou,ifI
wantyou totakeme seriously.Thatistheonlypolicythatislogicallyconsistentand
leavesbothofusbetteroff.And God playsno roleinit.
Forallthesereasons,it’sno coincidencethatWesterndemocracieshaveexperienced
threesweepingtrendsduringthepastfew centuries:barbaricpractices(suchas
slavery,sadisticcriminalpunishment,and themistreatmentofchildren)have
decreasedsignificantly;scientificand scholarlyunderstandinghasincreased
exponentially;and beliefinGod haswaned.Science,inthebroadestsense,ismaking
beliefinGod obsolete,and we arethebetterforit.
Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Professor in the departmentof psychology at Harvard University. He is the author of seven

books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, and most
recently, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature.
4
W002

God obsolete?
Christoph Cardinal Schönborn
No,andyes.
No,asa matterofreasonand truth.The knowledgewe havegainedthroughmodern
sciencemakesbeliefinan Intelligencebehindthecosmosmorereasonablethanever.
Yes,asa matterofmood,sensibility, and sentiment.Notscienceitselfbuta reductive
“scientificmentality”thatoftenaccompaniesit,alongwiththepower,control,
comfort,and convenienceprovidedby moderntechnology,hashelpedtopushthe
conceptofGod intothehazytwilightofagnosticism.
Superficiallyitmay seem thattheadvancesofsciencehavemade God obsoleteby
providingnaturalexplanationsforphenomenonthatwereoncethoughttobe theresult
ofdirectdivineactivity—thesocalled“God ofthegaps.”Butthisadvancehasbeen
thecompletionofa program ofpurificationfrom superstitionbegunthousandsofyears
ago by Athensand Jerusalem,by a handfulofGreeksages,and by thepeopleofIsrael,
who “de-divinized”Naturetoa degreeunparalleledintheancientworld.Summarizing
an establishedtradition750 yearsago,St.Thomas Aquinastaughtthatthewise
governorordinarilygovernsby delegationtocompetentsubordinates.Inthecaseof
Nature,God’sordinaryprovidencegovernsby meansoftheregularities(“laws”)built
intothenaturesofcreatedthings.
Thistheisticoutlookhasbeenfullyvindicated.As theancientGreekmaterialists
recognizedlongago,ifwe wishtoexplaintheobservedworldintermsofMatter
withoutreferencetoMind,thenitmustbe explainedby thingsmaterial,ultimate,and
verysimpleallatthesame time—by indivisible,notional“atoms”and a chance
“swerve”tosetthem inrandom motion.Ifthethingsofeverydayexperiencearemere
aggregatesofthese“atoms,”and ifthecosmosisinfinitelyoldand infinitelylarge,
thenchancecando therest.To be thecompleteexplanationofmaterialreality,these
5
“atoms,”and whatevernaturalregularitiestheyexhibit,mustbe sosimplethattheir
existenceasinexplicable“brutefacts”isplausible.
Fast-forwardtothepresent:Modernsciencehasshown thatNatureisordered,
complex,mathematicallytractable,and intelligible“alltheway down,”asfarasour
instrumentsand techniquescandiscern.Insteadofnotional“atoms,”we have
discoveredtheextraordinarilycomplex,beautiful,and mathematical“particlezoo”of
theStandardModelofphysics,hoveringon theborderofexistenceand intelligibility
(asAristotlepredictedlongago withhisdoctrineofprimematter).And order,
complexity,and intelligibilityexists“alltheway up”aswell.We seea teleological
hierarchyand chainofemergencethatcontinuesalltheway from quantizedphysics,to
stablechemistry,tothenearlymiraculouspropertiesofcarbonand biochemistry,
providingthematerialbasisfortheemergenceoflife.Beyond thisastoundingorder
and intelligibility,
we now know oftheprecisefine- tuningofthephysicallawsand
constantsthatmake possiblea life- supportinguniverse.Inshort,theNaturewe know
from modernscienceembodiesand reflectsimmaterialpropertiesand a depthof
intelligibilityfarbeyondthewildestimaginingsoftheGreekphilosophers.To view all
theseextremelycomplex,elegant,and intelligiblelaws,entities,properties,and
relationsintheevolutionoftheuniverseas“brutefacts”inneedofno further
explanationis,inthewordsofthegreatJohnPaulII,“anabdicationofhuman
intelligence.”
Butthemodernmood isentirelya differentmatter.Intermsofmodernsensibilities,
theintellectualcultureoftheWestisdominatedby a scientificmentalitythatseeksto
explainqualitativeand holisticrealitiesby quantitativeand reductivedescriptionsof
theworkingsoftheirparts.Though thescientificprogram thatgivesrisetothis
mentalityhasbeenquitesuccessfulinexplainingthematerialbasisforholistic
realities,
and inallowingustomanipulatenaturalthingstoouradvantage,itfailsto
grasptherealityofnaturalthingsthemselves.The unlimitedapplicationofthe
“scientificmentality”isscientism,thephilosophicalclaimthatthescientificmethod
and scientificexplanationscangraspallofreality.Formany,scientismis
accompaniedby agnosticismoratheism.
Intermsofpopularsentiment,however,scientismhasnotcarriedtheday.Mostpeople
stillintuitivelyclingtothenotionthatatleasthuman natureand human experienceare
notreducibletowhatisscientificallyknowable.Butwithno rationalalternativeto
scientism,mostpeopleliveina “soft,”non-rational,and relativisticworldoffeelings,
opinions,and personalvalues.The increaseinleisureand healthbroughtaboutby our
masteryoverNaturehasnotresulted,astheancientsagessupposed,inan increasein
wisdom and thecontemplationofthegood,thetrue,and thebeautiful.Instead,our
technology-basedleisureismorelikelytoresultinquiethedonism,consumerism,and
mind-numbingmassenter tainment.Whilemany stillclaimbeliefinGod,thecourseof
theirlivesreflectsde factoagnosticisminwhichthe“God hypothesis”isfarfrom
everydayexperiencesand priorities.
Inallourscientistic“knowledge”oftheinnerworkingsofthings,and ourtechnology-
basedcomfortsand distractions,thereseemstobe no placeforthestill,
smallvoiceof
6
God.Inthatpracticaland existentialsense,scienceand technologyseem tohave
pushedbeliefinGod towardobsolescence.
Or havethey?
Inourinnermostbeing,we modernsremainunsatisfied.Soonerorlaterwe facean
existentialcrisis,and recognizeinourlivessomethingbroken,disordered,inneedof
redemption.The factthatwe canrecognizedisorder,brokenness,and sinmeansthat
theyoccurwithina largerframeworkoforder,beauty,and goodness,orelsein
principlewe couldnotrecognizethem assuch.Yetbrokennessand disorderare
painfullypresent,and thehuman soulby itsnatureseekssomethingmore,a deeper
happiness,a lastinggood.Considerationoftheorderand beautyinnaturecanleadus
toa Something,the“godofthephilosophers,”butconsiderationofourincompleteness
leadsusbeyond,insearchofa Someonewho istheGood ofusall.
Sciencewillnevermake thatquestobsolete.
Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, O.P., is

_____________________________________________________________________________________
a Dominican friar, the Archbishop of Vienna, Austria, a Member of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Education of the Roman Catholic Church,
and was lead editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
7
w003

God obsolete?
William D. Phillips
Absolutelynot!
Now thatwe havescientificexplanationsforthenaturalphenomenathatmystifiedour
ancestors,many scientistsand non-scientistsbelievethatwe no longerneedtoappeal
toa supernaturalGod forexplanationsofanything,therebymakingGod obsolete.As
forpeopleoffaith,many ofthem believethatscience,by offeringsuchexplanations,
opposestheirunderstandingthattheuniverseisthelovingand purposefulcreationof
God.Becausesciencedeniesthisfundamentalbelief,theyconcludethatscienceis
mistaken.Theseverydifferentpointsofview sharea common conviction:thatscience
and religionareirreconcilableenemies.They arenot.
Iam a physicist.Ido mainstreamresearch;Ipublishinpeer-reviewedjournals;I
presentmy researchatprofessionalmeetings;Itrainstudentsand postdoctoral
researchers;Itrytolearnfrom naturehow natureworks.Inotherwords,Iam an
ordinaryscientist.Iam alsoa personofreligiousfaith.Iattendchurch;Isinginthe
gospelchoir;Igo toSundayschool;Iprayregularly;Itryto“dojustice,lovemercy,
and walkhumblywithmy God.”Inotherwords,Iam an ordinarypersonoffaith.To
many people,thismakesme a contradiction—aseriousscientistwho seriously
believesinGod.Buttomany morepeople,Iam someonejustlikethem.Whilemost
ofthemedia’sattentiongoestothestridentatheistswho claimthatreligionisfoolish
superstition,and totheequallyclamorousreligiouscreationistswho denytheclear
evidenceforcosmicand biologicalevolution,a majorityofthepeopleIknow haveno
difficultyacceptingscientificknowledgeand holdingtoreligiousfaith.
As an experimentalphysicist,
Irequirehardevidence,reproducibleexperiments,and
rigorouslogictosupportany scientifichypothesis.How cansucha personbasebelief
on faith?Infacttherearetwo questions:“How can IbelieveinGod?”and “Why do I
believeinGod?”
8
On thefirstquestion:a scientistcanbelieveinGod becausesuchbeliefisnota
scientificmatter.Scientificstatementsmustbe “falsifiable.”Thatis,theremustbe
some outcome thatatleastinprinciplecouldshow thatthestatementisfalse.Imight
say,“Einstein’stheoryofrelativitycorrectlydescribesthebehaviorofvisibleobjects
inoursolarsystem.”So far,extremelycarefulmeasurementshavefailedtoprovethat
statementfalse,buttheycould(andsome peoplehaveinvestedcareersintryingtosee
iftheywill).By contrast,religiousstatementsarenotnecessarilyfalsifiable.Imight
say,“God lovesusand wantsustoloveoneanother.”Icannotthinkofanythingthat
couldprovethatstatementfalse.Some mightarguethatifIweremoreexplicitabout
whatImean by God and theotherconceptsinmy statement,itwouldbecome
falsifiable.Butsuchan argumentmissesthepoint.Itisan attempttoturna religious
statementintoa scientificone.Thereisno requirementthateverystatementbe a
scientificstatement.Nor arenon-scientificstatementsworthlessorirrationalsimply
becausetheyarenotscientific. “Shesingsbeautifully.”“He isa good man.”“Ilove
you.”Theseareallnon-scientificstatementsthatcanbe ofgreatvalue.Scienceisnot
theonlyusefulway oflookingatlife.
Whataboutthesecondquestion:why do IbelieveinGod? As a physicist, Ilookat
naturefrom a particularperspective.Iseean orderly,beautifuluniverseinwhich
nearlyallphysicalphenomenacanbe understoodfrom a few simplemathematical
equations.Iseea universethat,had itbeenconstructedslightlydifferently,would
neverhavegivenbirthtostarsand planets,letalonebacteriaand people.And thereis
no good scientificreasonforwhy theuniverseshouldnothavebeendifferent.Many
good scientistshaveconcludedfrom theseobservationsthatan intelligentGod must
havechosentocreatetheuniversewithsuchbeautiful,simple,and life- giving
properties.Many otherequallygood scientistsareneverthelessatheists.Both
conclusionsarepositionsoffaith.Recently,thephilosopherand long-timeatheist
AnthonyFlew changedhismind and decidedthat,basedon suchevidence,he should
believeinGod.Ifindtheseargumentssuggestiveand supportiveofbeliefinGod,but
notconclusive.IbelieveinGod becauseIcanfeelGod’spresenceinmy life,because
IcanseetheevidenceofGod’sgoodnessintheworld,becauseIbelieveinLove and
becauseIbelievethatGod isLove.
Doesthisbeliefmake me a betterpersonora betterphysicistthanothers?Hardly.I
know plentyofatheistswho arebothbetterpeopleand betterscientiststhanI.Ido
thinkthatthisbeliefmakesme betterthanIwouldbe ifIdidnotbelieve.Am Ifreeof
doubtsaboutGod? Hardly.Questionsaboutthepresenceofevilintheworld,the
sufferingofinnocentchildren,thevarietyofreligiousthought,and other
imponderablesoftenleaveme wonderingifIhaveitright,and alwaysleaveme
consciousofmy ignorance.Nevertheless,Ido believe,morebecause ofsciencethan
inspiteofit,butultimatelyjustbecauseIbelieve.As theauthorofHebrewsputit:
“faithisthesubstanceofthingshopedfor,theevidenceofthingsnotseen.”
9
William D. Phillips, a Nobel Laureate in
_____________________________________________________________________________________
physics, is a fellow of the Joint Quantum Instituteof the University of Maryland and the
National Instituteof Standards and Technology.
10
w004

God obsolete?
Pervez AmiraliHoodbhoy
Notnecessarily.
Butyou mustfinda science- friendly,science-
compatibleGod.First,trythepantheon
ofavailableCreators.Inspectthoroughly.Ifnonefitsthebill,inventone.
The God ofyourchoicemustbe a sticklerfordivineprinciples.Sciencedoesnottake
kindlytoa deitywho,ifpiquedoreuphoric,setsasideseismologicalorcosmological
principlesand causesthemoon toshiver,theearthtosplitasunder,ortheuniverseto
suddenlyreverseitsexpansion.ThisGod must,among otherthings,be stoically
indifferenttosupplicationsforchanginglocalmeteorologicalconditions,thetask
havingalreadybeenassignedtothedisciplineoffluiddynamics.Therefore,
indigenouspeoples,eveniftheydancewithgreatenergyaroundtotem poles,shallnot
causeevena dropofraintofallon parchedsoil.Yourrule- abidingand science-
respectingGod equallywelldispenseswithtearfulChristianssingingtheBook ofJob,
piousHindusfeverishlyrecitingthehavan yajna,orearnestMuslimsperformingthe
salat-i-istisqa astheyfacetheHolyKa’aba.The equationsoffluidflow,notthe
numberofearnestsupplicantsorqualityoftheirprayers,determineweatheroutcomes.
Thisisslightlyunfortunatebecauseonecouldimaginejoiningthefaithfulofall
religionsina hugesimultaneousglobalprayerthatwipesaway theperniciouseffects
ofanthropogenicglobalclimatechange.
YourchosenGod cannotentertainprivatepetitionsforgood healthand longevity,
preventan aircrash,orsendwoe upon demand totheenemy.Mindfulofmicrobiology
and physiology,She cannotcureleprosyby dippingtheafflictedinriversorhave
humansremaininunscathedconditionafterbeingdevouredby a hugefish.Faster-
than-lighttravelisalsooutofthequestion,evenforprophetsand specialmessengers.
Instead,She mustruntheworldlawfullyand untotheletter,closelyfollowingthe
Book ofNature.
11
A scientificCreatorshouldcertainlyknow an awfullotofscience.To differentiate
betweenthecountlessuniversesofferedby superstringtheoryisa headache.Fine-
tuningchemistrytogeneratecomplexproteins,and theninitiatinga cascadeof
mutationsthatturnmicrobetoman,isalsono trivialmatter.Butbearinmind that
therearedefinitelimitstodivineknowledge:God canknow onlytheknowable.
Omniscienceand sciencedo notgo wellwitheachother.
The difficultywithomniscience—evenwithregardtoa particleashumbleasthe
electron—hasbeenrecognizedasan issuesincethe1920s.Subatomicparticlesshow a
vexing,subtleelusivenessthatdefeatseventhemostsophistc iatedefforttomeasure
certainoftheirproperties.Unpredictabilityisintrinsictoquantum mechanics,the
branchofphysicswhichallparticlesareempiricallyseentoobey.Thisdiscoveryso
disturbedAlbertEinsteinthathe rejectedquantum mechanics,pronouncingthatGod
couldnot“playdicewiththeuniverse.”ButitturnedoutthatEinstein’sobjections
wereflawed—uncertaintyisdeeplyfundamental.Thus,any science- abidingdeitywe
choosemay be incompletelyinformedon atleastsome aspectsofnature.
Isonebeingexcessivelyaudacious,perhapsimpertinent,insettingdown termsof
referencefora Divineentity?Notreally.Humans havealwayschosentheirobjectsof
worship.Smarterhumansgo forsmarterGods.Anthropomorphicrepresentations—
suchasa God withoctopusarms—area bitoutoffashiontodaybutwereenormously
popularjusta few centuriesago.As well,some peoplemightobjecttobindingGod
and human tothesame rulesoflogic,orperhapsevensharingthesame space-time
manifold.Butifwe dropthisessentialdemand thenlittleshallremain.Reasonand
evidencewouldlosemeaningand be replacedby tradition,authority,and revelation.It
wouldthenbe wrong forustohave2 + 2 = 5,butokayforGod.Centuriesofhuman
progresswouldcome tonaught.
Let’sfaceit:theday oftheSky God islonggone.IntheAge ofScience,religionhas
beendownsized,and themedievalGod ofclassicalreligionshaslostreputeand
territory.Todaypeoplepay lipservicetotrustingthatGod buttheystillswallow
antibioticswhen sick.Muslim-runairlinesstarta planejourneywithprayersbutask
passengerstobuckle- up anyway,and mostsuspectthatpeoplewho appeartorise
miraculouslyfrom thedeadwereprobablynotquitedeadtobeginwith.Thesedaysif
you heara voicetellingyou tosacrificeyouronlyson,you wouldprobablyreportitto
theauthoritiesinsteadoftakingthepoorladup a mountain.The oldtrustis
disappearing.
Nevertheless,thereremainsthetantalizingprospectofa divinepowersomewhere“out
there”who runsa mysterious,butscrupulouslymiracle-free,universe.Inthisuniverse,
God may choosetoactiningeniouswaysthatseem miraculous.Yetthese“miracles”
neednotviolatephysicallaws.Extraordinary,butlegitimate,interventionsinthe
physicalworldpermitquantum tunnelingthroughcosmicworm holesorcertain
symmetriestosnapspontaneously.Itwouldbe perfectlyfairfora science- savvyGod
tousenonlineardynamicssothattinyfluctuationsquicklybuildup toearthshaking
results—thefamous“butterflyeffect”ofdeterministicchaostheory.
12
Nietzscheand thetheothanatologistswereplainwrong—God isneitherdeadnorabout
todie.Even asthedivinehabitatshrinksbeforetheaggressiveencroachmentof
science,thequantum foam ofspace-timecreatesspareuniversesaplenty,offering
spacebothfora science-friendlyGod aswellasforself- described“deeplyreligious
non-believers”likeEinstein.Many eminentpractitionersofsciencehavesuccessfully
persuadedthemselvesthatthereisno logicalcontradictionbetweenfaithand beliefby
findinga suitableGod,orby clothinga traditionalGod appropriately.Unsureofwhy
theyhappentoexist,humansarelikelytoscourtheheavensforeverinsearchof
meaning.
Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy is chairman

_____________________________________________________________________________________
of the departmentof physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan, and is the

author of Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality.
13
w005

God obsolete?
Mary Midgley
Of coursenot.
Belief—ordisbelief—inGod isnota scientificopinion,a judgmentaboutphysical
factsintheworld.Itisan elementinsomethinglargerand morepuzzling—ourwider
worldview,thesetofbackgroundassumptionsby whichwe make senseofourworld
asa whole.
We seldom noticetheseassumptions,butwe oftenusethem inresolvingourinner
conflicts.
As lifegoeson,we shapethem graduallyintopatternsby whichtorelatethe
thingswe findmostimportant.And occasionally,when somethinggoesbadlywrong,
we realizethatwe mustsomehow thinkdifferentlyaboutourwholelives.Doingthisis
notan irrationalsubstituteforformalproof.Itisthegroundworkwithoutwhichnew
thoughtisimpossible.Thisisclearifwe considerfora momenta few unprovable
assumptionswe quiterightlyuseatthislevel:
Otherpeopleareconsciousbeings,notmindlessrobots.
They havethoughtsand feelingsmoreorlesslikeourown.
Mostofwhattheytellusistrue.
The physicalworlditselfwill,on thewhole,go on actingprettymuch asithasdoneso
far(the“regularityofnature”).
We trusttheworldaroundus,and itsrelationtoourselves.Thattrust—thatfaith—is
notirrational;itis,infact,thefoundationofourrationality.Ifwe reallydidstartto
doubtotherpeople’sconsciousnessand truthfulnessortheregularityofnature,we
wouldlosenotjustoursciencebutoursanity.We couldnotactatall.
Worldviews,then,arefoundationalforhuman lifeand underlieeveryculture.On the
pointsIjustmentioned,theymostlyagree.Buton otherpoints,theydifferbecause
theyemphasizedifferentaspectsofthehuman experience.What isnow seenasa
14
universalcoldwar betweenscienceand religionis,Ithink,reallya morelocalclash
betweena particularscientisticworldview,much favoredrecentlyintheWest,and
mostotherpeople’sworldviewsatmostothertimes.
Of course,thoseotherviewsdifferhugelyamong themselves.Some centeron
Godhead;some,suchasBuddhism and Taoism,don’tusethatideaatall.Butwhat
theyalldo istosethuman lifeina context.They don’tseeourspeciesassealedina
privatebox thatcontainseverythingofvalue,butasplayingitspartina much wider
theatreofspiritualactivity—activitythatgivesmeaningtoourown.Scientismby
contrast(followingsuggestionsfrom theEnlightenment),cutsthatcontextoff
altogetherand looksforthemeaningoflifeinScienceitself. Itisthisclaimtoa
monopolyofmeaning,ratherthanany specialscientificdoctrine,thatmakesscience
and religionlooklikecompetitorstoday.
Sciencedoeshaveitsown worldviewthatincludesguidingpresuppositionsaboutthe
natureoftheworld.The foundersofmodernscienceexpressedtheseveryplainlyfor
theirtime.Cosmicorder(theysaid)flowswhollyfrom God,soscienceredoundstohis
glory.When,however,God wentoutoffashion,new prophets—Comte,Marx,Freud,
and therest—craftednew and differentbackgroundpictures,whichwereallsupposed
tobe scientific.
Buttheseeventuallybecame soconfusingthatKarlPopperexiled
them all.Sciencewas thendeemed toconsistonlyoffalsifiablestatementsaboutthe
physicalworld.Thisisextremelyneat,butwhatthenhappenstopsychology?
Behaviorismgavethisquestionan answerthatwas widelyacceptedformuch ofthe
lastcentury,butonesostrangethatitsimplicationsarestillnotfullyunderstood.
Scientificpsychologymust(theysaid)dealexclusivelywithoutsidebehavior.
Consciousness,ifitexistsatall,issomethingtrivial,
unintelligibleand ineffective.
They thusrejectedthefirsttwo assumptionsthatwe haveidentifiedasbeingbasicfor
human thought—theconsciousnessand innersimilarityofotherpeople.They didnot
noticethatlosingtheseassumptionswouldlandusinan alienworldand thatitwould
actuallyundermineourothertwo foundationstonesaswell.Ifwe reallydidnot
believethatothersthinkand feelaswe do,we couldsurelynotunderstandwhatthey
said.And ifwe werethusdeprivedofallcommunication,how couldwe everform the
notionofan objective,reliableworld?
Infact,itfinallybecame clearthatthebehaviorists’starvationdietcannotsupport
intellectuallife,sothetabooon mentioningconsciousnessinscientificcircleshasbeen
lifted.Unfortunately,however,thevisionsby whichpeopleconsoledthemselvesin
theirtimeofstarvation—JacquesMonod’sdream ofa cosmiccasinorunby natural
selectionand RichardDawkins’sdrama ofdominationby selfishgenes—arestillwith
us,causingconfusion.Butourmaintroublenow isperhapsourambivalentresponseto
theideaofvisionsassuch.We arestillinclinedtosuspectthatany talkexceptliteral
truthsaboutthephysicalworldisanti- scientific.
Scientismthusemergednotastheconclusionofscientificargumentbutasa chosen
elementina worldview—a visionthatattractedpeopleby itscontrastwithwhatwent
before—whichis,ofcourse,how peopleveryoftendo make suchdecisions,evenones
15
thattheyafterwardscallscientific.
We ought,Isuggest,topay a lotmoreattentionto
thesecrisesand takemoretroubletomake surethatourworldviewsmake sense.
Mary Midgley is a philosopher with a special interest in ethics, human nature, and science,
and is the author of Evolutionasa Religionand ScienceasSalvation.
16
w006

God obsolete?
Robert Sapolsky
No.
DespitethefactthatI’m an atheist,Irecognizethatbeliefofferssomethingthat
sciencedoesnot.
Scienceisn’tremotelyabouta scientistannouncingtruthsorThe Truth.It’sabout
statingthingswitha certaindegreeofcertainty.A scientistwillsay,“Inthis
experiment,IobservedthatA causesB; itdidn’thappeneverysingletime,and my
statisticalanalysesshow thatIcanbe X percentcertainthatthisA/B connectiondidn’t
happenby chance.”The conventioninmostscientificpapersisthatyou don’treport
somethinguntilyou’remorethan95 percentcertain.Itisimpossiblewithstatisticsto
statesomethingwith100 percentcertainty.
Now, I’m nottryingtobe a postmodernistgibberingabouthow scienceisa purely
subjectiveprocessand thereareno objectivetruths.Therearetruths,and scientific
knowledgeproducestemporarypointsofsolidgroundinpursuitofthem.An
observationmusthavepredictivepowerand be capableofindependentreplicationby
others.And scientistsmustbe willingtoabandonsupposedknowledgewhen a
completelydifferentexplanationarises—“Hey,thisisan orangutanjawbonestained
dark,soPiltdownMan reallyisn’tourgrandfather.”Farmoreoften,scientistsare
askedtomodify theirknowledge:“Rememberwhen you saidthatA doesn’tcauseB
everysingletime?ItturnsoutthatA causesB onlywhen C ishappening.”This
increasesthesubtletyand nuanceofscience.As a surprisingexample,itturnsoutthat
themosticonic“fact”inthelifesciencesisonlya temporaryfoothold:DNA doesn’t
alwaysform a doublehelix,and thoseexceptionsaremightyinteresting.
So itdoesn’tevenmake a wholelotofsensetoframea science/religionfightaswho
hasthetruthiertruth.Butyou canstateitas,“Whichapproachgivesyou more
17
predictivepowerand abilitytochangean outcome?”When statedthisway,science
winshandsdown.There’sno questionthatwhen facedwith,say,a sickchild,it’s
bettertoprescribeantibioticsthantoinvokesome ceremonialgoatinnardsorto
employa fetishgee-gaw.Even ina countryasthrottledby religionasourown,the
courtshaveconsistentlyruledthata parentcannotdenymedicalcaretoa sickchild
and insteadsubstituteattemptsatreligiouscures.That’snotwhy beliefresists
obsolescence.
The nextlogicalarenaintheculturewarsistheissueofwhetherreligionorscienceis
betterforsociety.On thisfront,there’sno questionwhichapproachhasproduced
morehistorical(andcontemporary)harm.Sure,sciencehascome up with
Lysenkoism,eugenics,lobotomies,and thepeoplewho methodicallytestednew uses
forZyklonB. Butthatdoesn’tevenbegintonudgethescalefrom itsone-sidedtilt.
And theargumentthatthelikesofTorquemadaareaberrationsofreligiosityis
nonsense;theyaretheonlylogicalconsequencesofsome facetsofreligiosity.The
bloodon thehandsofreligiondripsenoughtodarkenthesea.
Itmightbe arguedthatreligiousbeliefremainsrelevantbecauseofthecomfortitcan
provide.Butthisonedoesn’tdo much forme.Solaceisnotbenignwhen reality
provesthesolacetohavebeenmisplaced,norarebeliefsthatreduceanxietywhen the
beliefsystemissooftenwhatgeneratedtheanxietyinthefirstplace.
So why isbeliefstillrelevant?To thisI’doffera verya-scientificanswer.Itisforthe
ecstasy.I’m nottalkingaboutglossolalicfrothingintheaisles,norotherexcessesthat
mostreligionsneithergeneratenorvalue.Imean thoseinstanceswhereyou’re
suffusedwithgratitudeforlifeand experienceand thechancetodo good,whereevery
neuronisfloodedwiththemomentnessoffeelingthebreezeon itscellularcheek.A
scientistora consumerofsciencemay feelecstaticabouta finding—thatitwillcurea
disease,savea species,orisjuststunninglybeautiful—butscience,asan explanatory
system,isnotverygood atproducingecstasy.Forstarters,therearegood argumentsto
be made forwhy scienceshouldn’tdo ecstasy.One reasonisthatscientificprogressso
oftenconstitutesminutiaethatlurchyou two stepsbackforeverythreestepsforward.
Itisalsobecauseofthecontent—thegratitudepartofecstasyisparticularlyhardif
you spendyourtimestudying,say,childhoodcancer,orthebiologyofviolence,or
causesofextinction.By contrast,thepotentialforecstasyisdeeplyintertwinedwith
religiosity,wherethemerepossibilityofbeliefand faithintheabsenceofproofis
whereitcanbe an ecstatic,movingtruth.
Thismay seem an unfairtiltingofthedebateagainstscience.Afterall,you wouldn’t
writean essaytrashingtheprofessionofcommoditiesbrokerbecauseitdoesn’t
produceecstasy.Butbuildingyourlife’sexplanationsaroundscienceisn’ta
profession.Itis,atitscore,an emotionalcontract,an agreementtoonlyderivecomfort
from rationality.
Scienceisthebestexplanatorysystemthatwe have,and religiosityasan alternative
hasa spectacularpotentialforharm thatpermeatesand distortseverydomainof
decision-
makingand attributioninourworld.Butjustbecausesciencecanexplainso
many unknownsdoesn’tmean thatitcanexplaineverything,orthatitcanvanquish
18
theunknowable.Thatiswhy religiousbeliefisnotobsolete.The worldwouldnotbe a
betterplacewithoutecstasy,butitwouldbe oneiftherewasn’treligion.Butdon’t
expectsciencetofilltheholethatwouldbe leftbehind,ortoconvinceyou thatthereis
none.
Robert Sapolsky is John A. and Cynthia

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Fry Gunn Professor of Biological Sciences and professor of neurology and neurological
sciences at Stanford University. He is the author of Why ZebrasDon’tGetUlcers, The
Trouble with Testosterone, and A Primate’sMemoir.
19
w007

God obsolete?
Christopher Hitchens
No,butitshould.
Untilabout1832,when itfirstseemstohavebecome establishedasa noun and a
concept,theterm “scientist”had no reallyindependentmeaning.“Science”meant
“knowledge”inmuch thesame way as“physic”meantmedicine,and thosewho
conductedexperimentsororganizedfieldexpeditionsormanagedlaboratorieswere
known as“naturalphilosophers.”To thesegentlemen(fortheyweremainly
gentlemen)thebeliefina divinepresenceorinspirationwas oftenmerelyassumedto
be a partofthenaturalorder,inratherthesame way asitwas assumed—oractually
insistedupon—thata teacheratCambridgeUniversityswearan oathtobe an ordained
Christianminister.ForSirIsaacNewton—an enthusiasticalchemist,a despiserofthe
Papist—themaincluestothecosmoswere
doctrineoftheTrinity,and a fanaticalanti-
tobe foundinScripture.JosephPriestley,discovererofoxygen,was a devout
Unitarianaswellasa believerinthephlogistontheory.AlfredRusselWallace,to
whom we owe much ofwhatwe know aboutevolutionand naturalselection,delighted
innothingmorethana sessionofectoplasmicorspiritualcommunionwiththe
departed.
And thusitcouldbe argued—thoughifIwerea believeringod Iwouldnotmyself
attempttoargueit—thata commitmenttoscienceby no meanscontradictsa beliefin
thesupernatural.The bestknown statementofthisopinioninourown timecomes
from thelateStephenJayGould,who tactfullyproposedthattheworldsofscienceand
religioncommanded“non-overlappingmagisteria.”How trueisthison a secondlook,
orevenon a firstglance?Would we haveadoptedmonotheisminthefirstplaceifwe
had known:
Thatourspeciesisatmost200,000yearsold,and verynearlyjoinedthe98.9percent
ofallotherspecieson ourplanetby becomingextinct,inAfrica,60,000yearsago,
20
when ournumbersseeminglyfellbelow 2,000beforewe embarkedon ourtrue
“exodus”from thesavannah?
Thattheuniverse,originallydiscoveredby EdwinHubbletobe expandingaway from
itselfina flashofredlight,isnow known tobe expandingaway from itselfevenmore
rapidly,sothatsooneventheevidenceoftheoriginal“bigbang”willbe
unobservable?
ThattheAndromedagalaxyison a directcollisioncoursewithourown,theominous
butbeautifulpremonitionofwhichcanalreadybe seenwitha nakedeyeinthenight
sky?
Theseareveryrecentexamples,post- Darwinianand post-Einsteinian,and theymake
patheticnonsenseofany ideathatourpresenceon thisplanet,letaloneinthisofso
many billiongalaxies,ispartofa plan.Which design,ordesigner,made sosurethat
absolutelynothing(seeabove)willcome outofourfragilecurrent“something”?What
plan,orplanner,determinedthatmillionsofhumanswoulddiewithoutevena grave
marker,forourfirst200,000yearsofstrugglingand desperateexistence,and thatthere
wouldonlythenatlastbe a “revelation”tosaveus,about3,000yearsago,but
disclosedonlytogapingpeasantsinremoteand violentand illiterateareasofthe
MiddleEast?
To saythatthereislittle“scientific”evidenceforthelastpropositionistoinvitea
laugh.Thereisno evidenceforit,period.And ifby some strenuousand improbable
revelationtherewas tobe any evidence,itwouldonlyarguethatthecreatoror
designerofallthingswas either(a)verylaborious,roundabout,tinkering,and
incompetentand/or(b)extremelycapriciousand callous,and evencruel.Itwillnotdo
tosay,inreplytothis,thatthelordmovesinmysteriousways.Thosewho dareto
claimtobe hisunderstudiesand votariesand interpretersmusteitheracceptthecruelty
and thechaosordisown it:theycannotpickand choosebetweenthewarmlybenign
and thefrigidlyindifferent.Nor canthereligiousclaimtobe inpossessionofsecret
sourcesofinformationthataredeniedtotherestofus.Thatclaimwas,once,the
prerogativeofthePopeand thewitchdoctor,butnow it’sgone.Thisisasmuch asto
saythatreasonand logicrejectgod,which(withoutbeingconclusive)wouldbe a
fairlycloseapproachtoa scientificrebuttal.
Itwouldalsobe quiteneartosaying
somethingthatliesjustoutsidethescopeofthisessay,whichisthatmoralityshudders
attheideaofgod,aswell.
Religion,remember,istheismnotdeism.Faithcannotrestitselfon theargumentthat
theremightormightnotbe a primemover.Faithmustbelieveinansweredprayers,
divinelyordainedmorality,heavenlywarrantforcircumcision,theoccurrenceof
miraclesorwhatyou will.Physicsand chemistryand biologyand paleontologyand
archeologyhave,ata minimum,givenusexplanationsforwhatusedtobe mysterious,
and furnisheduswithhypothesesthatareatleastasgood as,orverymuch betterthan,
theonesofferedby any believersinotherand inexplicabledimensions.
Doesthismean thattheinexplicableorsuperstitioushasbecome “obsolete”?Imyself
wouldwishtosayno,ifonlybecauseIbelievethatthehuman capacityforwonder
neitherwillnorshouldbe destroyedorsuperseded.Buttheoriginalproblem with
21
religionisthatitisourfirst,
and ourworst,attemptatexplanation.Itishow we came
up withanswersbeforewe had any evidence.Itbelongstotheterrifiedchildhoodof
ourspecies,beforewe knew aboutgermsorcouldaccountforearthquakes.Itbelongs
toourchildhood,too,inthelesscharmingsenseofdemandinga tyrannicalauthority:a
protectiveparentwho demandscompulsoryloveevenashe exactsa titheoffear.This
unalterableand eternaldespotistheoriginoftotalitarianism,and representsthefirst
cringinghuman attempttoreferalldifficultquestionstothesmokingand forbidding
altarofa Big Brother.Thisofcourseiswhy onedesiresthatscienceand humanism
wouldmake faithobsolete,evenasonesadlyrealizesthataslongaswe remain
insecureprimateswe shallremainveryfearfulofbreakingthechain.
Christopher Hitchens is the author of

_____________________________________________________________________________________
God IsNotGreatand the editor of The PortableAtheist

.
22
w008

God obsolete?
Keith Ward
No.
Farfrom makingbeliefinGod obsolete,some interpretationsofmodernscience
providepositivereinforcementforbeliefinGod.
The methodologyofthenaturalsciencesrequirestheformulationoffruitfulquestions
aboutthenatureoftheworldthatcanbe answeredby carefuland repeatable
observations.The useofcontrolledexperimentsaidstheconstructionofilluminating
schemesofclassificationorofcausalhypothesesthatexplainwhy thingsareasthey
are.The developmentofmathematicaltechniquesfordescribingand predicting
observableregularitiesisusuallyan importantpartofa scientificapproachtothe
world.
Therearemany differentsortsofnaturalscience,from thepatientobservationsof
botanyand ethologytothemoretheory- ladenhypothesesofquantum cosmology.
WhatistheirrelationtobeliefinGod? The answerdependson how onedefinesGod.I
shalladopttheratherminimalview thatGod isa non-physicalbeingofconsciousness
and intelligenceorwisdom,who createstheuniverseforthesakeofdistinctivevalues
thattheuniversegenerates.
Ifthereissucha God,itfollowsthata non-physicalconsciousintelligenceispossible
—so a materialistview thatallexistentthingsmustbe physical,ormusthavelocation
inspace-timeand mustbe subjecttothecausallawsofsucha space-time,mustbe
false.Itfollowsthatthenatureoftheuniversemustbe compatiblewithbeingthe
productofintelligentcreation,and mustcontainstatesthatareofdistinctivevalueand
thatcouldnototherwiseexist.And itfollowsthatthereisa form ofnon-physical
causality—thewholephysicaluniverseonlyexistsbecauseitistheeffectofsuch
causality.So some factsabouttheuniverse(minimally,thefactthattheuniverseexists
asitdoes)mustbe suchthattheycannotbe completelyexplainedby physicalcausal
lawsalone.
23
Alltheseclaimsaresubjecttodispute.Such disputesareasoldasrecordedhuman
thought.Buthasthespectacularadvanceofthenaturalsciencesaddedanything
significanttothem? Some writershavesupposedthatsciencerulesoutany non-
physicalbeingsorformsofcausality.AugusteComtepropagatedthenineteenth
centuryideaofa progressofhumanitythroughthreestatesofthought—religious,
metaphysical,and positiveorscientific.
The finalstagesupersedestheothers.Thus
sciencerendersbeliefinGod obsolete.
Butquantum physicistshavedecisivelyrejectedComte’sphilosophicalproposalthat
human sense-observationsprovidetheultimatetruthaboutobjectivereality.They
morenearlyvindicateKant’salternativeproposalthatoursensesonlyrevealrealityas
itappearstous.Realityinitselfisquitedifferent,and isaccessibleonlythrough
mathematicaldescriptionsthatareincreasinglyremovedfrom observationorpictorial
imagination(how do you picturea probabilityw
-ave inHilbertspace?).
Itisalmostcommonplaceinphysicstospeakofmany space-times,orofthisspace-
timeasa 10-or11-dimensionalrealitythatdissolvesintotopologicalfoam below the
Plancklength.Thisisa longway from thesensationalismofHume and Comte,and
from theoldermaterialismthatinsistson locatingeverypossiblebeingwithinthis
space-time.Some modernphysicistsroutinelyspeakofrealitiesbeyondspace-time
(e.g.,quantum fluctuationsina vacuum from whichthisspace-timeoriginates).And
some physicists,suchasHenryStapp,EugeneWigner,and Johnvon Neumann,speak
ofconsciousnessasan ultimateand irreducibleelementofreality,thebasisofthe
physicalaswe know it,notitsunanticipatedby-product.
Itissimplyuntruethatmodernphysicsrulesoutthepossibilityofnon-physical
entities.And itisuntruethatsciencehasestablisheda setofinflexiblelawssotightly
constrainingand universallydominatingthattheyexcludethepossibilityofother
forms,includingperhapsnon-physicalforms,ofcausalinfluencethatwe may notbe
abletomeasureorpredict.Itismoreaccuratetosaythatfundamentallawsofnature
areseenby many physicistsasapproximationstoan open,holisticand flexiblereality,
aswe encounteritinrelativelyisolatedand controlledconditions.
An importantfactaboutGod isthatifGod isa non-physicalentitycausally
influencingthecosmosinnon-physicalways,God’smode ofcausalinfluenceismost
unlikelytobe law-governed,measurable,predictable,orpubliclyobservable.To the
extentthatthesciencesdescriberegular,measurable,predictable,controllable,and
repeatablebehavior,actsofGod willbe outsidethescientificremit.Butthatdoesnot
mean theycannotoccur.
Even opponentsofintelligentcreation(not“intelligentdesign,”whichinAmericahas
come todesignatea view thatspecificscientificevidencesofdesigncanbe found)
oftenconcedethattheamazinglyfine- tunedlawsand constantsofnaturethatleadto
theexistenceofintelligentlifelookasiftheyaredesignedtodo so.The appearance,
theysay,isdeceptive.Butitcouldbe true,asStevenWeinberghassuggested,that
intelligentlife-
formslikeuscouldonlyexistina cosmoswiththefundamental
constantsthiscosmoshas,thatintelligentlifeissomehow prefiguredinthebasiclaws
oftheuniverse,and thattheuniverse“knew we werecoming,”asFreemanDyson has
24
putit.Ifso,thenthehypothesisofintelligentcreationisa good onebecauseitmakes
theexistenceofintelligentlifevastlymoreprobablethanthehypothesisthatsuchlife
isa productofblindprocessesthatmay easilyhavebeenotherwise.
Butthisisnota scientifichypothesis.Itpositsno observationallyconfirmableentities,
and producesno specificpredictions.Itisa philosophicalhypothesisaboutthemost
adequateoverallinterpretationofa verywidesetofdata,includingscientificdata,but
alsoincludingnon-scientificdatafrom history,personalexperience,and morality.And
thatisthefundamentalpoint.ItisnotsciencethatrendersbeliefinGod obsolete.Itis
a strictlymaterialist
interpretationoftheworldthatrendersbeliefinGod obsolete,and
whichscienceistakenby some peopletosupport.Butscienceismoreambiguousthan
that,and modernscientificbeliefintheintelligibilityand mathematicalbeautyof
nature,and intheultimately“veiled”natureofobjectivereality,canreasonablybe
takenassuggestiveofan underlyingcosmicintelligence.To thatextent,sciencemay
make a certainsortofbeliefinGod highlyplausible.
Keith Ward is a Fellow of the British

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Academy, an ordained priest in the Church of England, a Canon of Christ Church, Oxford,
and the author of The Big Questions in Science and Religion, Pascal’s Fire: Scientific Faith
and Religious Understanding, Is Religion Dangerous?, and Re-ThinkingChristianit.y
25
w009

God obsolete?
Victor J. Stenger
Yes.
Once upon a timetherewerea numberofstrongscientificargumentsfortheexistence
ofGod.One oftheoldestand mostprevalentistheargumentfrom design.Most
peoplelookatthecomplexityoftheworldand cannotconceiveofhow itcouldhave
come aboutexceptby theactionofa beingorforceofgreatpowerand intelligence.
The designargumentreceivedperhapsitsmostbrilliantexpositioninthework ofthe
AnglicanarchdeaconWilliamPaley.InhisNatural Theology or Evidences of the
Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearance of Nature,first
publishedin1802,Paleywroteaboutfindingbotha stoneand a watchwhilecrossinga
heath.Though thestonewouldbe regardedasa simplepartofnature,no onewould
questionthatthewatchisan artifact, designedforthepurposeoftellingtime.Paley
thenproposedthatobjectsofnature,suchasthehuman eye,giveeveryindicationof
beingsimilarcontrivances.
When CharlesDarwinenteredCambridgein1827 he was assignedtothesame rooms
inChrist’sCollegeoccupiedby WilliamPaleyseventyyearsearlier.By thattimethe
syllabusincludedthestudyofPaley’sworksand Darwinwas deeplyimpressed.He
remarkedthatPaley’swork,“gaveme asmuch delightasdidEuclid.”
YetDarwinultimatelydiscoveredtheanswertoPaleyand showed how complex
systemscanevolvenaturallyfrom simpleroneswithoutdesignorplan.The
mechanism he proposedin1859 inThe Origin of Species (inferredindependentlyby
AlfredRusselWallace)was naturalselection,by whichorganismsaccumulatechanges
thatenablethem tosurviveand haveprogenythatmaintainthosefeatures.
But,asDarwinrecognized,a seriousobjectiontoevolutionexistedbasedon the
known physicsofthetime.Calculationsby thegreatphysicistWilliamThomson
(LordKelvin)estimatedagesforthesunthatwerefartooshortfornaturalselectionto
operate.
26
However,atthetime,nuclearenergywas unknown.When thisnew form ofenergy
was discoveredearlyinthetwentiethcentury,physicistsestimatedthattheenergy
releasedby nuclearreactionswouldallowthesunand otherstarstolastbillionsof
yearsasstableenergysources.
Priortothetwentiethcentury,thesimplefactthattheuniversecontainsmatteralso
providedstrongevidencefora creation.At thetimeitwas believedthatmatterwas
conserved,and sothematteroftheuniversehad tocome from somewhere.In1905
Einsteinshowed thatmattercouldbe createdfrom energy.Butwheredidthatenergy
come from?
Thisremainedunansweredforalmostanothercenturyuntilaccurateobservationswith
telescopesdeterminedthatan exactbalanceexistsbetweenthepositiveenergyof
matterand thenegativeenergyofgravity.So,no energywas requiredtoproducethe
universe.The universecouldhavecome from nothing.
Independentscientificsupportfora creationwas alsoprovidedby a basicprincipleof
physicscalledthesecond law of thermodynamics, whichassertsthatthetotaldisorder
orentropyoftheuniversemustincreasewithtime.The universeisgrowingmore
disorderlywithtime.Sinceitnow hasorder,itwouldseem tofollowthatatsome
pointinthepast,evengreaterordermusthavebeenimpartedfrom theoutside.
Butin1929,astronomerEdwinHubblereportedthatthegalaxiesweremovingaway
from oneanotheratspeedsapproximatelyproportionaltotheirdistance,indicatingthat
theuniversewas expanding.ThisprovidedtheearliestevidencefortheBig Bang.An
expandinguniversecouldhavestartedwithlow entropyand stillhaveformed
localizedorderconsistentwiththesecondlaw.
Extrapolatingwhatwe know from moderncosmologybacktotheearliestdefinable
moment,we findthattheuniversebeganina stateofmaximum disorder.Itcontained
themaximum entropyforthetinyregionofspace,equivalenttozeroinformation.
Thus,eveniftheuniversewerecreated,itretainsno memory ofthatcreationorofthe
intentionsofany possiblecreator.The onlycreatorthatseemspossibleistheone
Einsteinabhorred—theGod who playsdicewiththeuniverse.
Now, sucha God couldstillexistand playa roleintheuniverseoncetheuniverse
explodedoutofchaos.We no longerhavetotaldisorder;butdisorderstilldominates
theuniverse.Mostofthematteroftheuniversemovesaroundrandomly.Only0.1
percent,thepartcontainedinvisiblepartsofgalaxies,hasany significantstructure.
Ifhe istohaveany controlovereventssothatsome ultimateplanisrealized,God has
topokehisfingerintotheworksamidstallthischaos.Yetthereisno evidencethat
God pokeshisfingerinanyplace.The universeand lifelooktosciencejustasthey
shouldlookiftheywerenotcreatedordesigned.And humanity,occupyinga tiny
speckofdustina vastcosmosfora tinyfractionofthelifeofthatcosmos,hardly
looksspecial.
The universevisibletouscontainsa hundredbilliongalaxies,eachwitha hundred
billionstars.Butby farthegreatestportionoftheuniversethatexpanded
exponentiallyfrom theoriginalchaos,atleastfiftyordersofmagnitudemore,liesfar
27
beyondourhorizon.The universewe seewithourmostpowerfultelescopesisbuta
grainofsandintheSahara.Yetwe aresupposedtothinkthata supremebeingexists
who followsthepathofeveryparticle,whilelisteningtoeveryhuman thoughtand
guidinghisfavoritefootballteamstovictory.Sciencehasnotonlymade beliefinGod
obsolete.Ithasmade itincoherent.
Victor J. Stenger is emeritus professor of

_____________________________________________________________________________________
physics and astronomy, University of Hawaii, adjunct professor of philosophy, University of

Colorado, and the author of seven books including God: The Failed Hypothesis—How
Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
28
w010

God obsolete?
Jerome Groopman, M.D.
No,notatall.
As a physicianand researcher,Iemploysciencetodecipherhuman biologyand treat
disease.As a personoffaith,Ilooktomy religioustraditionforthetouchstonesofa
morallife.Neithersciencenorfaithneedcontradicttheother;infact,ifone
appreciatestheessenceofeach,theycanenricheachotherina person’slife.
So,thequestionofobsolescenceismiscast,becausescienceand faithshouldexistin
separaterealms.Scienceuseslogicand experimentalmethodstomeasureand describe
thematerialworld.Ityieldsknowledgeabouttheworkingsofmoleculesand
machines,mitosisand momentum.Sciencehasno moralvalence.Itisneutral.DNA
technologycancrafta curefora cancerorproducea weaponofbioterrorism.Itisonly
a person’sapplicationofsciencethattakeson a moraldimension.
Inthatlight,an atheistcreateshisorherown moralpreceptsintheabsenceofGod.A
believerlookstoreligioustextsforguidanceinwhatisrightand whatiswrong.Right
and wrong,forboth,do notcome from physicsorchemistryorbiology.Sciencedoes
notinstructhow totreatone’sneighborasoneself,how toclothethenakedand feed
thehungry,why itiswrong tomurder,steal,bearfalsewitness,honorone’sfatherand
mother,and perhapsmostdifficultofall,subsume envyand covetousness.Thereare
no Ten Commandmentsinthermodynamicsormolecularbiology,no pathto
righteousnessand charityand loveinEuclideangeometryoratomicphysics.The
truthsofmathematics,biology,chemistry,and physicsaredifferentfrom thetruthswe
seekinhuman behaviorand human choices.The truthsofsciencecanbe measured
and experimentallyverified;thetruthsofa morallifearemattersofbelief—whether
you arean atheistora religiousperson.Religionshouldview scienceasa way to
improvetheworld;scienceshouldseereligionnotasa threatbutasa deeplyfeltpath
takenby some.
29
So why arewe bombardedwithpolemicsfrom extremistson bothsidesofthisissue?
Why isthequestionofobsolescenceaskedaboutGod,who isnotmaterialand
thereforedoesn’t“age”?
The clashcomesfrom thetwo extremes.Fundamentalistreligiousbelieversinthe
UnitedStateswanttochangetheConstitutionsothatitincludesinjunctionsaboutsex
and prayerfrom theBible.IntheMiddleEastand inpartsofAsia,theircounterparts,
theWahhabis,pressforsharia, Islamiclaw,toprevailovera liberalsociety.Atheists
havetheirown fundamentalistswho characterizepeopleoffaithasnaïve,infantile,
and neuroticintheirrituals,tooirrationaltoliveby thelightofpurelogic.The
polemicsofbelieversshow an ignoranceofscience,whatitofferstoimprovelife,and
thepolemicsoffundamentalistatheistsignorethewisdom foundinreligioustexts.
Bothseem threatenedby diversityand wishtoeraseany doubtundera blanketofblind
belief.
Thereisanotherway,a “thirdway” ofarticulatingthebenefitsofscienceand faith.On
thismiddleground,a personcanholdtwo differentsensibilities,two differenttypesof
thought,feeling,and action.Yes,therearetimeswhen a scientistlikemyselfwho
believesinGod isfilledwithdoubt.Butthatshouldbe expected.As theesteemed
ProtestanttheologianPaulTillichonceobserved,thebasisoftruefaithissuchdoubt.
Similarly,atheistsshouldsometimesdoubttheirnegationofGod,becauseitisnota
matterofproofbutofsubjectivebeliefon theirpart.
Inmy own tradition,therabbi,philosopher,and physicianMaimonides,alsoknown as
theRambam,embodiedan apparentcognitivedissonance.He was a scholarofthe
Bibleand Talmud while,atthesame time,a scholarofscientificmedicalpractice.He
was a personoffaithwho rejectedmagicand sorceryasnonsense.He viewedthe
naturalworldasgovernedby lawsfamiliartousthroughphysicsand chemistry.But
he alsocontendedthateachofusmakesa personaldecisionaboutwhetherornotto
believeinGod.Thereisno needformentalgymnasticstogeneratea proofofGod’s
existence;itisa futileexercise.God isaxiomaticornot.Faithisnotdeducedbutfelt.
Religion,atitsbest,becomesa vehicletoarriveatthegood—thegood foroneself,the
good forothersand fortheworld.
Toleranceisactuallya tenetofmy tradition.The Hebrew Bibleassertsmorethan
thirtytimesthatwe shouldrespectthestrangerand treathim withdignity,becausewe
werestrangersinthelandofEgypt.The strangerrepresents“theOther”—whatis
foreignand differentand attimesthreateningtoourbeliefs.Thereisno needto
conquerorerasedifferencesincultureorperspective.The same toleranceshouldbe
foundamong atheists.They shouldnotbelittleorridiculeasfoolsthosewho struggle
tofindmeaninginlife,toconfrontmystery,basedon a beliefintheDivine.Science
doesnotthreatenfaith,and faithneednotrejectscience.Neitherwilleverbe obsolete.
Jerome Groopman is the Recanati

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Professor of Medicine at Harvard and author of How DoctorsThink.
30
w011

God obsolete?
Michael Shermer
Itdepends.
The answerturnson whetheroneemphasizesbelief orGod.Sciencedoesnotmake
beliefinGod obsolete,butitmay make obsoletetherealityofGod,dependingon how
farwe areabletopushthescience.
On thequestionofbeliefinGod,theanswerisclearlyno.Surveysconductedin1916
and againin1997 foundthat40 percentofAmericanscientistssaidtheybelievein
God,soobviouslythepracticeofsciencedoesnotmake beliefinGod obsoleteforthis
sizablegroup.NeitherdoesitforthehundredsofmillionsofpracticingProtestants,
Catholics,Jews,and mem bersofotherfaithswho bothbelieveinGod and fully
embracescience.Even on oneofthemostcontentiousissuesinallofscience—
evolution—a2005 Pew ResearchCenterpollfoundthat68 percentofProtestantsand
69 percentofCatholicsacceptthetheory.
Of course,realitydoesnotbendtothepsychologyofbelief.Millionsofpeoplebelieve
inastrology,ghosts,angels,ESP,and allmannerofparanormalphenomena,butthat
doesnotmake them real.Mormons believethattheirsacredtextwas dictatedinan
ancientlanguageontogoldplatesby theangelMoroni,buriedand subsequentlydug
up nearPalmyra,New York by JosephSmith,who thentranslatedthem by buryinghis
faceina hatcontainingmagicstones.Scientologistsbelievethateonsago a galactic
warlordnamed Xenu broughtalienbeingsfrom anothersolarsystemtoEarth,placed
them inselectvolcanoesaroundtheworld,and thenvaporizedthem withhydrogen
bombs,scatteringtothewindstheirsouls(calledthetans,inthejargonofScientology),
whichattachthemselvestopeopletoday,leadingtodrugand alcoholabuse,addiction,
depression,and otherpsychologicaland socialailmentsthatonlyScientologycan
cure.Clearlytheveracityofa propositionisindependentofthenumberofpeoplewho
believeit.
31
On thematterofGod’sexistence,theanswertothequestionslidestowarda yes,
dependingon how farwe extendthesphereofscienceintothespaceoftheology.Ifwe
applythemethodsofsciencetounderstandingallofnature,wherewouldGod be and
how wouldwe detectHim orHisactions?That’stherub.God isdescribedby most
Westernreligionsasomniscientand omnipotent,thecreatorofallthingsvisibleand
invisible,an IntelligentDesignercapableofconstructingtheuniverse,Earth,life,and
us.Ifscientistsgo insearchofsucha being—asIntelligentDesign(ID)creationists
claimtobe doing—how couldwe possiblydistinguishan omnipotentand omniscient
God from an extremelypowerfuland reallysmartExtra- TerrestrialIntelligence(ETI)?
Icallthisproblem Shermer’sLastLaw (paceArthurC. Clarke):any sufficiently
advanced Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence would be indistinguishable from God.
Hereishow theproblem breaksdown.Biologicalevolutionisglaciallyslow compared
toculturalevolution.Becauseofthis,and thefactthatthecosmosisverybigand the
spacebetweenthestarsisvast,theprobabilityofmakingcontactwithan ETI thatis
technologicallyequaltooronlyslightlymoreadvancedthanusisvirtuallynil.Ifwe
everdo encountertherepresentativesofan ETI,theywillbe sofaraheadofus
technologicallythattheywillappearasgodstous.Considersomethingasrelatively
simpleasDNA. We canalreadyengineergenesafteronly50 yearsofgeneticscience.
An ETI thatwas,say,only50,000yearsaheadofuswouldsurelybe abletoconstruct
entiregenomes,cells,multi- cellularlife,and complexecosystems.The designoflife
is,afterall,justa technicalproblem inmolecularmanipulation.To ourbronze-age
ancestorswho createdthegreatmonotheisticreligions,theabilitytocreatelifewas
God-like.To ournot-so-distantdescendents,ortoan ETI we mightencounter,the
abilitytocreatelifewillbe simplya matteroftechnologicalskill.
By pursuinga courseofscientificinquirytoitsnaturalextensionofexaminingthe
natureofGod,whatwe willfind,ifwe findanything,isan alienbeingcapableof
engineeringcells,complexorganisms,planets,stars,galaxies,and perhapseven
universes.Iftodaywe canengineergenes,clonemammals,and manipulatestem cells
withscienceand technologiesdevelopedinonlythelasthalfcentury,thinkofwhatan
ETI coulddo with100,000yearsofequivalentpowersofprogressinscienceand
technology.Foran ETI who isa millionyearsmoreadvancedthanwe are,engineering
thecreationofplanetsand starsmay be entirelypossible.And ifuniversesarecreated
outofcollapsingblackholes—whichsome cosmologiststhinkisprobable—itisnot
inconceivablethata sufficientlyadvancedETI couldevencreatea universe.
Whatwouldwe callan intelligentbeingcapableofengineeringa universe,stars,
planets,and life?Ifwe knew theunderlyingscienceand technologyusedtodo the
engineering,we wouldcallitExtra-TerrestrialIntelligence;ifwe didnotknow the
underlyingscienceand technology,we wouldcallitGod.
Sciencetrafficsinthenatural,notthesupernatural.The onlyGod thatsciencecould
discoverwouldbe a naturalbeing,an entitythatexistsinspaceand timeand is
constrainedby thelawsofnature.A supernaturalGod wouldbe sowhollyOtherthat
no sciencecouldknow Him.
Doessciencemake beliefinGod obsolete?Belief,no.God,yes.
32
Michael Shermer is the publisher of
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Skepticmagazine (www.skeptic.com), a monthly columnist for Scientific American (www.michaelshermer.com),
a professor at Claremont Graduate University, and the author of How We Believe, Why Darwin Matters, and
The Mind of the Market.
33
w012

God obsolete?
Kenneth Miller
Of coursenot.
ScienceitselfdoesnotcontradictthehypothesisofGod.Rather,itgivesusa window
on a dynamicand creativeuniversethatexpandsourappreciationoftheDivinein
waysthatcouldnothavebeenimaginedinagespast.
As an outspokendefenderofevolution,Iam oftenchallengedby thosewho assume
thatifsciencecandemonstratethenaturaloriginsofourspecies,whichitsurelyhas,
thenGod shouldbe abandoned.ButtheDeitytheyrejectsoeasilyisnottheoneI
know.To be threatenedby science,God wouldhavetobe nothingmorethana
placeholderforhuman ignorance.ThisistheGod ofthecreationists, ofthe“intelligent
design”movement,ofthosewho seektheirGod indarkness.What we havenotfound
and do notyetunderstandbecomestheirbest—indeedtheironly—evidenceforfaith.
As a Christian,Ifindtheflow ofthislogicparticularlydepressing.Notonlydoesit
teachustofeartheacquisitionofknowledge(whichmightatany timedisprove
belief),butitalsosuggeststhatGod dwellsonlyintheshadowsofourunderstanding.
IsuggestthatifGod isreal,we shouldbe abletofindhim somewhereelse—inthe
brightlightofhuman knowledge,spiritualand scientific.
And whata lightthatis.Scienceplacesusinan extraordinaryuniverse,a placewhere
starsand evengalaxiescontinuetobe born,wherematteritselfcomesalive,evolves,
and risestoeachnew challengeofitsrichlychangingenvironment.We liveina world
literallyburstingwithcreativeevolutionarypotential,
and itisquitereasonabletoask
why thatisso.To a personoffaith,theanswertothatquestionisGod.
The EnglishpoetMatthew Arnold,atthedawn ofthemodernera,oncelamentedthat
allhe couldhearofthe“SeaofFaith”was its“melancholy,long,withdrawingroar.”
To some,thatmelancholyroarisa soundtobe savoredbecausefaithisa delusion,an
34
obstacle,a stumblingblockon theroadtoprogressand enlightenment.Itisthe
antithesisofscience.
Inthisview,God isan explanationfortheweak,a way outforthosewho cannotface
theterriblerealitiesrevealedby science.The courageous,thebold,the“brights”are
thosewho facethatrealityand acceptitwithoutthecomfortingcrutchoffaithby
declaringGod tobe obsolete.
Butscienceitselfemploysa kindoffaith,a faithallscientistsshare,whethertheyare
religiousintheconventionalsenseornot.Scienceisbuiltupon a faiththattheworldis
understandable,and thatthereisa logictorealitythatthehuman mind canexploreand
comprehend.Italsoholds,asan articleofscientificfaith,thatsuchexplorationis
worththetrouble,becauseknowledgeisalwaystobe preferredtoignorance.
The categoricalmistakeoftheatheististoassume thatGod isnatural,and therefore
withintherealmofsciencetoinvestigateand test.By makingGod an ordinarypartof
thenaturalworld,and failingtofindHim there,theyconcludethatHe doesnotexist.
ButGod isnotand cannotbe partofnature.God isthereasonfornature,the
explanationofwhy thingsare.He istheanswertoexistence,notpartofexistence
itself.
Thereisgreatnaivetéintheassumptionthatourpresenceintheuniverseisself-
explanatory,and doesnotrequirean answer.Many who rejectGod implythatreasons
fortheexistenceofan orderlynaturalworldarenottobe sought.The lawsofnature
existsimplybecausetheyare,orbecausewe findourselvesinoneofcountless
“multiverses”inwhichourshappenstobe hospitabletolife.No needtoaskwhy this
shouldbe so,orinquireastothemechanismthatgeneratessomany worlds.The
curiosityofthetheistwho embracesscienceisgreater,notless,becausehe seeksan
explanationthatisdeeperthansciencecanprovide,an explanationthatincludes
science,butthenseekstheultimatereasonwhy thelogicofscienceshouldwork so
well.The hypothesisofGod comesnotfrom a rejectionofscience,butfrom a
penetratingcuriositythataskswhy scienceisevenpossible,and why thelawsof
natureexistforustodiscover.
Itistrue,ofcourse,thatorganizedreligionsdo notpointtoa single,coherentview of
thenatureofGod.ButtorejectGod becauseoftheadmittedself- contradictionsand
logicalfailingsoforganizedreligionwouldbe likerejectingphysicsbecauseofthe
inherentcontradictionsofquantum theoryand generalrelativity.Science,allof
science,isnecessarilyincomplete—thisis,infact,thereasonwhy somany ofusfind
sciencetobe suchan invigoratingand fulfillingcalling.Why, then,shouldwe be
surprisedthatreligionisincompleteand contradictoryaswell?We do notabandon
sciencebecauseourhuman effortstoapproachthegreattruthsofnatureare
occasionallyhamperedby error,greed,dishonesty,and evenfraud.Why thenshould
we declarefaitha “delusion”becausebeliefinGod issubjecttoexactlythesame
failings?
AlbertEinsteinoncewrotethat“theeternalmysteryoftheworldisits
comprehensibility.”Today,evenassciencemovesahead,thatmysteryremains.Is
therea genuineplaceforfaithintheworldofscience?Indeedthereis.Farfrom
35
standinginconflictwithit,thehypothesisofGod validatesnotonlyourfaithin
science,butoursheerdelightatthegiftsofknowledge,love,and life.
Kenneth R. Miller is a professor of

_____________________________________________________________________________________
biology at Brown University and the author of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search
for Common Ground between God and Evolution and of Only a Theory: Evolution and the
Battle for America’s Soul.
36
w013

God obsolete?
Stuart Kauffman
No,butonlyif...
we continuetodevelopnew notionsofGod,suchasa fullynaturalGod thatisthe
creativityinthecosmos.
Humans havebeenworshippinggodsforthousandsofyears.Our senseofGod inthe
Westernworldhasevolvedfrom Abraham’sjealousGod Yahweh totheGod oflove
oftheNew Testament.Scienceand faithhavesplitmodernsocietiesjustassome form
ofglobalcivilizationisemerging.One resultisa retreatintoreligious
fundamentalisms,oftenbitterlyhostile.The schismbetweenscienceand religioncan
be healed,butitwillrequirea slow evolutionfrom a supernatural,theisticGod toa
new senseofa fullynaturalGod asourchosensymbolfortheceaselesscreativityin
thenaturaluniverse.Thishealingmay alsorequirea transformationofsciencetoa
new scientificworldviewwitha placefortheceaselesscreativityintheuniversethat
we cancallGod.
We must“reinventthesacred,”butitisdangerous:itimpliesthatthesacredis
invented.ForbillionsofbelieversthisisGodlessheresy.Yethow many godshavewe
worshipeddown theeons?Itiswe who havetoldourgodswhatissacred,notthey
who havetoldus.Thisdoesnotmean thatwhatwe deem sacredisnotsacred.Itmeans
somethingwonderful:whatwe deem sacredisourown choice.At thisstageinthe
evolutionofhumanity,arewe readytotakeresponsibilityforwhatwe willclaimas
sacred,includingalloflifeand theplanet?Ifso,we mustalsoavoida dangerous
moralhegemony and findwaystoallowoursenseofthesacredtoevolvewiselyas
well.Reinventingthesacredisalsolikelytoangermany who,likemyself,do not
believeina supernaturalGod.Formany ofus,theverywords“God” and “sacred”
havebecome profoundlysuspect.We thinkofGalileoforcedtorecanthisheliocentric
viewsby theInquisition.We do notwanttoreturntoany form ofreligionthat
37
demandsthatwe abandonthetruthoftherealworld.We thinkofthemillionskilledin
thename ofGod.We oftenignorethesolace,unionwithGod,and theorientationfor
livingthatreligionbrings.
Ibelievethatreinventingthesacredisa globalculturalimperative.A globalraceis
underway,betweentheretreatintofundamentalismsand theconstructionofa safe,
sharedspaceforourspiritualitythatmightalsoeasethosefundamentalistfears.
The new scientificworldviewisjustbeginningtobecome visible.Itgoesbeyondthe
reductionismofDescartes,Galileo,and Laplaceinwhichallthatoccursinthe
universeisultimatelytobe describedby physicallaw.Initsplace,thisnew scientific
visionincludestheemergenceoflife,and withlife,ofagency,meaning,value,doing,
henceof“ought”and ultimatelyourmoralreasoning.The rudimentsofmoralityare
alreadyseeninthehigherprimates.Evolution,despitethefearsofsome faithful,isthe
firstsourceofmorality.Whileno law ofphysicsisbroken,theemergenceofallthisin
thenaturalevolutionofthebiospherecannotbe deducedby physicsalone.
Whatwe thinkofasnaturallaw may notsufficetoexplainnature.We now know,for
example,thatevolutionincludesDarwinianpre-adaptations—unusedfeaturesof
organismsthatmay become usefulina differentenvironmentand thusemergeas
novelfunctionalities,
suchasourmiddleearbones,whicharosefrom thejaw bonesof
an earlyfish.Couldwe prestateallthepossibleDarwinianpreadaptationsevenfor
humans,letalonepredictthem? Itwouldseem unlikely.And ifnot,theevolutionof
thebiosphere,theeconomy,and civilizationarepartiallybeyondnaturallaw.
Ifthisview holds,thenwe willundergoa majortransformationinourunderstanding
ofscience.Partiallybeyondlaw,we areina co-constructing,ceaselesslycreative
universewhosedetailedunfoldingcannotbe predicted.Therefore,we trulycannot
know allthatwillhappen.Inthatcase,reason,thehighestvirtueofourbeloved
Enlightenment,isan insufficientguidetolivingourlives.We mustreunitereasonwith
ourentirehumanity.And inthefaceofwhatcanonlybe calledMystery,we needa
meanstoorientourlives.Thatwe do,inreality,liveinthefaceofan unknown isone
rootofhumanity’sageoldneedfora supernaturalGod.
YetourAbrahamicGod istoonarrow a stageforourfullhuman spirituality. Inthe
Old Testament,thisGod createdtheworldand allitscreaturesforthebenefitof
humanity.How self- servingand limitinga visionofGod.How much vasterareour
livesunderstoodaspartoftheunfoldingoftheentireuniverse?We areinvitedtoawe,
gratitude,and stewardship.Thisplanetand thislifeareGod’swork,notours.IfGod is
thecreativityintheuniverse,we arenotmade inGod’simage.We tooareGod.We
cannow choosetoassume responsibilityforourselvesand ourworld,tothebestofour
limitedwisdom,togetherwithourmostpowerfulsymbol:God,asthecreativityinthe
naturaluniverse.
Stuart Kauffman is the director of the

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Institutefor Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary and an external

professor at the Santa Fe Institute.His most recent book is Reinventing the Sacred: A New
View of Science, Reason, and Religion.
38
w014
Comments by readers of the Templeton series :
RE: Whole Series

Dr. Roger O. Walter
07/29/2010
Have just finished "Does moral action depend on reasoning?" and was inspired and elevated
by what the authors had to say aboout this subject. Being a scientist and an agnostic, I am
looking foward to receiving this booklet. We need organizations like yours. Many thanks.
RE: Whole Series
V. Abraham Kurien
07/25/2010
The question itself is obsolete! Scientific search and religious quest are not polar opposites, of which
the latter is obsolete because the success of the former is self-evident. The question assumes
incorrectly that science is capable of demonstrating that the idea of God, from which belief in God
arises, can be disproved by logic or scientific methodology. Acceptance of scientific theories as
provable and the assertion therefore that they represent universal laws do not mandate that
declaration of belief in God is invalid because it does not provide universal utility.
They are two very different approaches to epistemology. Science is the objective knowledge of the
differntiated Reality that exists in time and space, the universe in which human beings live and which
they can study through a specific consensually validated methodology. Undifferentiated Reality, often
called God, that some human beings claim exists beyond time and space, and who is claimed to have
created differentiated Reality, human beings experience as an internal belief based on self-awareness
that can provide validation that human life has meaning and purpose. Science, by the limits it places
on its own methodology (providing "objective' proof") cannot address whether God (Undifferentiated
Reality) exists or not. In spite of its great technological achievements and the sophistication of its
mathematical equations, science can only deal with differentiated Reality that human beings can
comprehend. The claim that Undifferentiated Reality exists as distinct from the different Realities of the
world is a postulate that arises from the internal experience of mankind.
There can be no external "objective" proof. Undifferentiated Reality as the origin of infinite possibilities
of existence cannot be an axiom of science. On the other hand, denial of the existence of
Undifferentiated Reality and the assertion that belief in God is a delusion are not scientific proofs for
the nonexistence of God!
RE: Whole Series
Peter
07/25/2010
Time and again I see the question of gods discussed by christians in this type of forum as a
philosophical problem without adequately defining what is meant by "god" and skirting the issue of
where they are really coming from--a belief in the biblical god. The first step for these believers is to
provide evidence for their particular notion of god, validate the bible, quran, whatever. Ignoring their
true beliefs (based in their scriptures) and talking more like philosophers gets them off the hook and
lends them credibility where none is due. There is no credible version of history (informed by sciences
such as archeaology) which supports biblical creation or the supernatural events described in their
39
bible. So why are we having these discussions? If the discussions must take place, let's be honest, as
others have pointed out, and define the kind of god we are talking about, otherwise we talking past
each other.
RE: Whole Series
DTG
06/23/2010
Brian Lockett: "Many Catholics preach Jesus, but Jesus preached many things they deny, like keeping
the Ten Commandments, including the sabbath (which the Catholic church has candidly admitted to
refuting and ignoring)."
You are writing nonsense. You evidently have no clue about Catholicism. What I would be curious to
know is, what pushes you to writing such ridiculous statements?
RE: Jerome Groopman
ted strom
06/17/2010
If only it were true, as you say, that these two magisteria did not overlap, except when easily identified
extremists launch vitriol onto the clearly marked field. It ain't so. Rational inquiry collides with dogma
regularly because it is fundamentally inconsistent with faith. It is not only extremists who are
threatened when rational inquiry suggests that morals evolve in response to changes in the
environment, and that they survive when they contribute to a tribe's survival. And it's not only those
loudmouthed atheists who are threatened when religious groups sanctify single cells as human life,
cutting off a decade of potential stem cell research advances as they did under Bush. To claim, as you
do, that science is value neutral leaves no place for the subject of research ethics--or for the
passionate attachment most scientists feel to honesty. Their enterprise would fail if they didn't feel it--
and has, in places like 1930's Russia, when that passion was literally murdered. Trying to wish away
the conflict of religion and science will work about as well as the Missouri compromise, which was just
as well intentioned.
RE: Whole Series
John Williamson
05/27/2010
Both the Big Bang theory and the religious "God Creator" theories require that there be something
existing before the Universe, either an extreme "dense nucleus" mass in Big Bang theory or a "God."
To argue these theories is to argue in essence that there was something before there was something.
It is irrational to say that either a "God" or a "dense nucleus" existed before a Universe existed for a
"God" or "dense nucleus" to exist in! It makes a lot more sense (think Occam's razor) to simply accept
that there has always been a Universe. We know through the theory of the conservation of energy that
energy can't be destroyed, but can only change form. So "God" or a "dense nucleus" could not have
existed in a non-Universe void of energy.
RE: Whole Series
Brian Lockett
05/17/2010
I say, define "science" and define "God." The goal of science is simply one thing--to know. To know
how things work. To know how we exist, at least at a material level. To know how to better use things
to make our lives better. Science itself does not condemn the logical possibility of a "God."
And as for "God," who said that anyone here on Earth got the definition for such a "God" correct?
Some people don't even live up to their own recognized definition of "God." Many Catholics preach
Jesus, but Jesus preached many things they deny, like keeping the Ten Commandments, including the
sabbath (which the Catholic church has candidly admitted to refuting and ignoring). And the Bible is
the only "religious" book that tells that we need a new universe, as this "God" repeatedly speaks of
creating a new heavens and a new earth, even as own his chosen home--because this universe is
ruined with entropy and dying, and apparently, that wasn't part of the plan.
As far as I'm concerned, if "God" exists, then he is clearly a strictly logical being--a scientist, even!
Who says that "God" can't wear a lab coat? But what if human nature is hindering both science AND
any possible understanding of a "God"? Human nature is plagued with crude assumptions. Let us not
40
throw away logical possibilities on the basis of personal dislikes. Science is not prejudiced against a
"God" necessarily--people are.
RE: Whole Series
Kyle Wallace
05/17/2010
Why is the necessary first step in discussions such as these almost always ignored? Namely, how are
people using the word "God"? (I didn't say "meaning" of, think Wittgenstein--look for the use). It is
presupposed that the subject of the conversation is clearly understood and agreed upon by
discussants. There was activity regarding this question "way back when" by a group of analytic
philosophers doing "God talk." Seems to have been of no avail. Flew did some work trying to
communicate to (the general public) how this question must first be dealt with. Evidently it's more fun
to argue whether a "something-I-know-not-what" exists--and what supposedly follows--is rendered
obsolete by science. Hitchens at times seems to be aware of the import of these "problems." Who else
in this discussion is?
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Opacic
05/16/2010
Randomness and cosmic law governance cannot exist together. Either the laws of cause and effect
apply, or they do not. Apparent randomness can exist only in local isolated systems with unknown
cause to its (uninitiated) observers. "Partial" chaos in the Universe would mean the following:
watermelon is sweet now, but the next moment, who knows, might be salty or bitter; a bear could give
birth to lamb or rabbit. All is in ever increasing chaos, indeed! The consequence of an "orderly-
disorderly" Universe will be: no valid experience, no learning, and no evolution--meaning NO LIFE. No
surprise that "mainstream" science could not come up with narratives better than Big Bang and
"Inflation of Space." For astrophysicists it seems to be taboo to talk about time BEFORE "Big bang."
Creationists believe in the Universe which is miraculously designed by God. Contrary to them, neo-
Darwinists believe in randomness and mutations. Certainly, mutations are necessary but not sufficient
to lead evolution. According to Cosmic Science, the Universe is constructed with purpose that leads to
the perfection, and creation takes place in gradual evolution not through the miracle. It is obvious that
matter is governed by the Consciousness and not vice versa. Material science stubbornly refuses the
existence of a transcendent/invisible cause that lies outside of matter. Clearly, the SOLUTIONS of Big
Questions of Life are not in job description of materialistic science and associated thought.
RE: Whole Series
Peter
05/15/2010
Wow, if Mr Opacic had read the views of the scientists on this site he would clearly see there is no
monolithic "official science" position on the so-called "creator" but a diversity of opinions. Science, to
me, is a method of trying to undertand the world which involves reasoning and evidence and when
done well welcomes critisism as a correcting mechanism. On the other hand self correction and
evidence are for the most part lacking in much of the "spiritual talk" whether institutionalized old school
religion or new age stuff. Always peculiar to me when one tries to employ reasoning to argue against
reason.... But getting back to the question. Yes, science based reasoning (archaeology, etc.) which
informs the study of history has already done enough to dispense with the God of Abraham (and of the
Templeton Foundation). But if you're playing a shell game and defining god as simply the creator of the
universe, with no other known attributes, well that's another tougher question, which really isn't
religious (as we know religion) in nature... So what is meant by "God" in the question?
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Opacic
05/14/2010
Both religion and material science are indispensable transitory phases in the process of human
consciousness evolution and will be obsolete, gradually replaced by the True Cosmic Science. The
Universe is a highly organized, sparkling ocean of Life or consciousness. It is clear that well funded
official science monstrously confuses the created and the Creator. Idea and planning are always
before a house building. The "I" is behind the ability to create and the created. Religion will last and
have its remarkable role as moral corrective in the mentality of the many, where still blind belief
prevails over wish for logic and universally valid explanation. The answers on Big Questions of Life,
41
which are SPIRITUAL in nature, cannot come and will not come either from material science or religion
but from the True Cosmic Science, which is based on intuitive consciousness or cosmic logic.
RE: Whole Series
Krishna G Misra
05/14/2010
Thanks, for this question. What is a science? Very simply, it is a network of cause and effect cycles. It
is also called System because of its cyclic movement of cause and effect. Also called Laws of Nature
by study of the actions of reaction from a point of view where it is considered unchanging. Any system,
for example, physical system (physics), economic system (economics), solar system or anything with
suffix of 'system' is knowledge of certain cause and effect. Systems or sciences exist whether or not
we know it. Laws of Nature existed even before Newton and Einstein and Archimedes. They only
discovered the Laws. Sciences or Systems were discovered more and more because these helped to
predict future (based on cause and effects) and make use of it to reduce effort in work (by machines
and other ways).
People with wisdom have thought System or sciences, but they looked for ConScience, which is
popularly called the God. This is very simple. Each effect has a cause, and that cause is an effect of
yet another cause. Finally, there is a Root Cause which is the terminal of the whole world, which is
System (cause and effect) Generated. Root cause which has no cause and is self generated is the
God, or Conscience or Free Will. This is nothing but the Root Cause of All System (called Sciences, or
cause and effect). Saints and philosopers try to go from branches to the Root, and therefore they have
pure knowledge but very small. More they know, less they know (because of high purity). Finally, this
purest knowledge or Root Cause of Universe is the God. I hope this answers the question. It is so very
well defined by Sri Krishna in the Bhagwat Giita.
RE: Whole Series
David
05/08/2010
I agree with Kierkegaard, who said that man's basic condition is one of anxiety. Human beings are, on
the one hand, obviously animals, but, on the other hand, transcendent beings conscious of themselves
as animals. This causes anxiety. Religion is still in play because it addresses fundamentally this
human condition. Religion is not in the first instance an attempt to explain the physical world. It is a
means by which humans situate themselves in the world. The atheist scientists don't seem to
understand that, when people do religion, they are not doing science badly--they are doing something
altogether different.
The other thing is that science takes place only within a given paradigm. It is not correct to state that
scientists deal with "facts" or "reality." Their facts and reality can only be evaluated by the paradigm
they are working in, which is itself not true or false. The paradigm can and often does change, making
what was once thought of as "true" change. So it is more apt to talk of scientific knowledge as useful
rather than true. There is no conflict between science and religion, properly understood.
RE: Whole Series
daniel
04/07/2010
Yes.
RE: Whole Series
Peter
03/25/2010
I agree very much with Marjorie--what a waste. And again, for believers in the Christian god like
Gordan, they must start by validating the Bible as a historically accurate document first, and only after
that is done, talk about the motives of the Christian god and quote scripture as if it has meaning. That
hasn't been done, otherwise it would be apparent in non-religious history texts. If, on the other hand,
we're going to talk about god as the prime mover, an intelligence behind the universe, then we're
talking about a concept that's disconnected from Earthly religions and more in the realm of philosophy.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Appleby
03/25/2010
42
Thank you. I saw this in the Financial Times a couple of years back and am just getting around to
studying it.
RE: Whole Series
Jim S
03/25/2010
The whole god concept exists because the religious can make god anything they wish, since there are
no rational limits, as science has, which is defined by reality. God can be anything one wants it to be.
But ultimately science and religion come together pre-big bang, since this is unknowable.
RE: Whole Series
Jason McGrady
03/21/2010
Science has explained many things that were formerly attributed to the hand of God, such as weather
patterns, mental illness, etc. In instances where religion makes specific, falsifiable claims about our
world, science can render these beliefs obsolete. By extension, science can render God obsolete only
if God depends necessarily on some falsifiable claim. Is it safe to say that science has changed the
way many view or understand God?
Believers feel adequately safe to reject notions of fairies, ghosts, and leprechauns under the
confidence that they can disprove specific effects of their existence. Has anyone ever found a pot of
gold under a rainbow?Certainly, one can reasonably take a position of non-belief in most things until
solid evidence of their existence is shown. In this light, the burden of proof does rest on those who
make the claim. Otherwise, we would find ourselves trying to falsify an infinite number of possibilities.
It is impractical and unreasonable.
While organized religions can fall by the wayside, the nebulous concept of God will remain--God the
first cause, God who made our natural laws, God as energy. This kind of God will not be made
obsolete. Any attempt to do so is simply unfruitful and a waste of time, as proponents will make ad hoc
modifications to their premise ad lib.
Beliefs systems such as Christianity, Islam, etc. are vulnerable to obsolescence, but an ambiguous,
undefined belief in God seems invulnerable to science. The more defined the God, the more
vulnerable. For many, an indeterminate God is too impotent for their liking, so they cling to unjustified
tenets and dogma. For others, the nebulous God gives them just the right amount of latitude in choice
with a sprinkle of meaning. Still for some, like me, the false dichotomy of belief leads one to reject the
notion and observe patiently, actively, and thoughtfully while human knowledge advances and
ignorance fades. The null hypothesis is the default position until evidence arrives.
RE: Whole Series
Gordon Tatro
03/06/2010
Dear Marj, Why did you waste your time spouting off about a God who you do not believe in? Who's
wasting time here? You say "There is no way to know if God exists." But there is too much design for
chance to be the operative force. The default condition should be Zip, Zero, Nothing Naught-ta; but it is
not. You are here, you do exist, and you will graduate life through death and you will come out of these
limited four dimensions to exist in dimensionality of up to ten; like it or not, believe it or not you have an
eternal spirit. God does not make junk. We turned what He created into junk by estranging our
relationship with Him.
You say that "he hasn't wasted a minute in letting us know what he wants." You need to read the
Bible--do Romans. We are to seek Him and be changed into His Image (like we were created). We are
to Love (Life is all about relationship, even gravity is relationship). Need I mention Jesus: or is He just
going to send you into another bout of frustration? You cannot put God in your Box so that you can
dissect Him at your leisure. God can't waste a minute; He does not have time as a limitation--He
created Time and Space, Matter, Energy, and seeded it all with information and relational ability. God
"resides" outside of that which He created and is not restricted by that which He created--like an author
is not restricted by his own plot. You have a spirit; it allows you to express abstract qualities such as
love, integrity, honesty, courage, friendship etc.
43
RE: Whole Series
Marjorie Holden
02/25/2010
What a waste of time for outstanding scientists. There is no way to know if God exists, and even if he
does, it is obvious that he hasn't wasted a minute in letting us know what he wants. As any scientist
must admit, the Bible, the Koran, and other so-called sacred texts are thousand of years old. The
originals went missing centuries ago. The tranlators cannot be interrogated; and the line between
observation and gloss, if it ever existed, has disappeared.
We are obviously totally on our own on this planet, and instead of worrying about the preferences of an
inscrutable God, the best and brightest should be applying themselves to the widespread physical,
economic, and psychological miseries of the human race. Belief in a personal Deity who is actually
listening and will respond is similar to believing that our parents who care will always be there to take
care of us. Grow up.
If God were as described in the traditional literature, why doesn't he show his face in Times Square
where we can tape him? Why doesn't he tell the creationists to shut up, and why doesn't he tell
scientists that all their work will go for nought if we don't figure out how to live with each other? In short,
why did he manifest himself in the Middle East for a few years well before the media could preserve
his every word, and why does he refuse to give contemporary seekers even five valid verifiable
minutes? Faith in the unseen, undocumented, and unresponsive suggests some kind of mental deficit.
If God gave you a brain, recognize that he is too busy watching sparrows fall to pay any mind your
problems.
RE: Whole Series
Peter
01/11/2010
MikeEM makes a good point, and it appears close to my position, which is to first resolve the historical
questions pertaining to the validity of the books which are central to the belief systems of the religious
participants. What do professional historians say about the origins of these books and the nature of
some of the main characters such as Jesus? If the general consensus of these professionals is that
these texts are basically a mash-up of the writings of ordinary people who relied on heresay and their
own imagination, then where does that leave one? Where does it leave Ken Miller, for instance, and
his Catholicism? What would Mr. Miller, an intelligent and respected scientist, say on the issue of
"faith" if he seriously looked at the historical underpinnings of Christianity and found it wanting? It
seems that we would have to turn from religion when discussing the nature of some ultimate creator to
the realm of reason (even if speculative), and discuss morality outside of the framework of the church.
If the Bible is shown to have no historical standing, then the god of the Bible must evaporate, at least in
terms of an informed, educated argument on the subject of first cause.
RE: Whole Series
MikeEM
12/15/2009
Shouldn't the question be: Does science make the belief in the Bible or Koran obsolete? God is not a
well defined term. Everybody has a different idea of what God is. To some, the Bible or Koran is the
literal unerring word of God. These people believe that the universe was created in 6 days and that
Jonah lived for 3 days in the belly of a big fish. One cannot believe in science and the literal
interpretation of the holy books. For that to work, one would have to believe that when God created the
Universe 6,000 years ago, He planted evidence to prove that the universe was indeed much older,
orders of magnitude older. Was this an intentional deception or lie by God? Many others believe that
the holy books are inspired by Him but are not literal truths. This God is more compatible with science.
We can make some headway with your original question only if we define what we mean by God. If I
define God as the creator of the known Universe and all of the physical laws that govern it, then
science is the study of God's creation. The holy books which are among the greatest works of art
inspired by God are still the creations of men. While it is true the holy books contain good morals which
we should keep, they contain laws that are clearly antiquated and some frankly immoral by today's
standards. Morals and justice do not come out of the holy books perfect since we choose what is and
what is not moral out of these books. We have just and good laws that are never mentioned in the holy
books. Morals and just laws are acquired the same way as scientific truths, by examining and testing
44
them.
I cannot believe in a God that created a universe and then wrote a book to conflict with it. I can believe
in a God that created the Universe and the laws that govern it. And if there is a God, then there can be
no shorter path to God than to study His creation. Science does not make God obsolete, but it has
made the literalist interpretation of the Holy Books obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Edward Goodrich
12/14/2009
My Unitarianism is looking for a discussion of theology vs. science. Your pick. Gordon Hill (see
comment below) seems close.
RE: Jerome Groopman
gordon hill
11/28/2009
When Jerome Groopman wrote, "Why believe? I have no rational answer" in his debate with Michael
Shermer, he may have touched the epicenter of the controversy. What is God? God is a word used to
identify with the unknown which--as we move into the unknown--must change, but will remain with
humanity forever, provided there are things unknowable.
RE: Whole Series
gordon hill
11/28/2009
For me, the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" begs the question. Where is
Socrates when we need him? The answer to the question depends on one's definition of two terms:
science and god. No one holds firmly to their original understanding of these two. Too many scientists
hold theism to an unchanging standard while allowing their scientific views to change with new
evidence. Too often the religious misrepresent science through their reliance on opinion.
Me? I believe in an original cause and transcendent continuation of this causation. I was taught to call
this God and now refer to it as the Source because "god" is too often defined with a rigidity that
disallows the incorporation of unfolding scientific knowledge and premises to be employed in updating
my belief in the Source. After all, every culture (those I know) has a creation story that changes with
new knowledge. The book of Genesis describes a flat earth. What happened to the flat earth society?
Some creationists I know claim Darwin's Origin of Species attributes the creation of life to natural
selection, which it does not.
RE: Whole Series
Nathan Heflick
11/27/2009
The answer for me is no. There are some things that science can't touch. But that doesn't mean
science can't illuminate the effects of these beliefs, or explore why people have them.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
11/16/2009
The existence of science entails the existence of God. To explain something scientifically means to
explain how it came to be. Therefore, something that has always been cannot be explained
scientifically. But "has always been" has two relevant meanings: 1. "has always been" temporally and
2. "has always been as the source of being for what is here now."
For purposes of scientific explanation, however, "has always been temporally" depends for its
coherence--literally--on "has always been as the source of being for what is here now." Otherwise,
temporal succession would comprise ontologically discrete elements with respect to being, and there
can be no scientific explanation of how the discrete temporal elements came to be. But neither can
what has always been be explained scientifically. Therefore, either there is no scientific explanation, or
there is being that has always been as a source of being for what is here now. There is scientific
explanation. Therefore, there is a scientifically inexplicable source of being for what is here now, which
everyone understands to be God.
When Augustine introduced this line of reasoning, which I adapted for this big question, he used the
45
phrase "anything which exists but [did not come into being] cannot have anything in it which was not
there before." What is always "there before" cannot enter into time, and is thus eternal. This argument
basically sets up the last three "books" of the Confessions, in which the relationship of Eternity to the
world is used to interpret what it means for God to "create."
RE: Whole Series
Rick Badman
11/13/2009
God is the most powerful source of energy in all the dimensions of the universe. He is a
transdimensional being. He supposedly created the universe, but I have suspicions he shifted the
universe we know from another dimension. It is impossible for the universe to have been only the size
of an atom before the "Big Bang" because that would violate Newton's law of objects being in motion
tending to stay in motion unless they are acted upon by another object or force, since everything in the
universe at the beginning would have to expand many times beyond the speed of light. A Creator God
capable of shifting this universe into this dimension makes more sense to me.
If miracles were just violations of nature, as is often the case, they shouldn't exist. Everything that
happens should be orderly and predictable. But when a person on their deathbed is suddenly healed
and the person had nothing to do with it, either that is a violation of the known rules of biology and logic
or a miracle of God. When an atheist turns from not believing in the existence of God to defending him,
it isn't a form of mental illness. It is the discovery that God is real.
Man is not the highest form of animal as a result of evolution. If that were the case, this world would
really be brutal, since animals can do almost anything they want to do because they don't have the
restraints of morality. There are no animal judges condeming predators to death for killing other
animals and even their own kind. Humans do that. Animals don't willingly die for those they don't see.
People do. Even the name God would make no sense if we were just the highest form of animal. God
created us.
RE: Whole Series
scrosby
10/28/2009
Rationalism is the only way. Evidence is our only reference. The cosmos is a dark and cold place. If
the light comes, I'll look at it, but until then I'm on my own.
RE: Whole Series
Edlyne Mercharles
09/24/2009
Are there any good science-based arguments for God?
RE: Whole Series
John Hartman
09/17/2009
First of all, I have felt the presence of God. It is a very powerful and convincing emotion. Skeptics
might claim that this is just a construct of the mind, but I say that to be able to feel such an emotion at
all (or any of the emotions for that matter), there must have been some sort of a rational force that
created the world. I cannot imagine a God creating the world and then having nothing to do with it--
either observing or interacting with it.
God doesn't have eyes, so he can't "see" the world directly. I think he sees the world through *our*
senses and consciousnesses. God helps us achieve what we wish for. A long time ago, I would've
made the argument that there is physics, everything obeys physics (including the atoms in our brains),
and that's that. What I didn't realize is that physics is just a model, a *man-made* model of the
universe. For macroscopic, slow-moving objects, Newtonian physics is "good enough," but it is
fallacious to extrapolate this success to other realms (like a nervous system). I believe that a
predictable universe is a gift from God. It allows us to engineer, and gives us comfort (how spooky
would it be if things were to move around without any apparent cause).
I do believe in heaven and hell. I do not believe they are physical places (either in this universe or
outside of it), but rather more of an emotion. If you're good, you feel eternal bliss. If not, you don't. If
you believe in a benevolent God that created the universe, and you believe in hell, then of course there
46
is free will. How unfair would it be if people were "destined" to go there.
Does the universe have a purpose? When you die (assuming you are good), you feel eternal bliss.
Nothing can take this away, no matter what happens in the future. It is my belief that the purpose of the
universe is to send as many people (and animals) to "heaven" as is possible.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Matt Scott
08/17/2009
Kauffman has it right and appears to be the best representative of the institute's cause here. It's rare to
find people who understand why he is right. Your organization impresses me. In any case, the fact is,
God is all about intelligence and creativity, the science of mind. Bioinformatics is a great combination
of clues to start to understand this properly. Physics and AI is also a good combination. I think AI is the
prime science, because it gets to the core of what intelligence actually is, regardless of the
implementation. If your guys are up with me, then you are kickin ass, and it looks like some of your
guys might be a ways ahead of me. I am really impressed. Congrats on the quality of minds you have
gathered. Perhaps one day I can connect with your organization meaningfully.
RE: Steven Pinker
Scarlet
05/30/2009
My apologies to Dr. Pinker, whom I find to be rational and open-minded in his essay save for this one
instance: "I have to be willing to apply the same standards to how I treat you, if I want you to take me
seriously. That is the only policy that is logically consistent and leaves both of us better off."
It is completely illogical. Humans only drag one another down. When the unprovoked attacker smiles
and apologizes, perhaps he is just waiting for your back to be turned. Path of least resistance. By
removing him from this and any further situations, you make yourself and several more potential
victims "better off". Likewise, by taking the lives of others, he makes himself "better off"; he is doing
something that brings him pleasure. There is no "better off" for both parties in most real situations
because the difference from one human perspective to the next is so absurd.
So we attempt to inflict upon one another this sad balance through compromise. As this idea grows
and spreads, humanity becomes stagnant. We fake our smiles and hide our nature just like we're
"supposed" to. It really doesn't matter at this point if there is or ever will be a god; we've certainly lost
the potential as a race to achieve what might be considered godhood, and we've left ourselves too
limited in perception to ever discover a being that could be truly labeled as a "god."
The human condition is nothing but a simple game, a series of interactive programs with mock
successes and failures, all carefully constructed to stimulate the right chemicals in our brains at the
right times. Science has given us such great things as medicine we cannot have unless we are
allowed to, technology we cannot afford, and plenty of other roundabout ways of suffering. What use is
knowledge if it cannot be properly applied? All these words we cling to, my own included, are nothing
but a joke; the voice of a dead race yearning for a life it can never have. I desperately wish to be
proven wrong, though.
RE: Whole Series
Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim
05/28/2009
Science, a non-deviating and intelligent system, demands a source for 1) its existence; and 2) its
design. Just as the presence of a chair demands the existence of a carpenter, science, a far more
complex reality, all the more so demands the existence of a Designer. Furthermore, and more startling,
must be the absence in any science of a "will." Yet, all sciences complement each other. Vegetation
complements the specific needs and functions of the digestive system in animate beings. Atmospheric
conditions cater precisely to the needs of Earth's environment. And all organs in a body which cannot
survive or function alone work together to sustain each other and the body as a whole.
We witness the will of an Orchestrator not located "within" the individual functions of any natural
system. Natural systems do not overstep their sphere of function, so as to also create or control other
systems, or to make them all harmonious. For example, the digestive system has limited functions,
none of which relate to precipitation. The laws that repeatedly cause all flying birds to grow wings
47
suited for flight are unrelated to laws that govern the properties of air, making flight a reality. And the
laws governing vegetation are unrelated to the laws governing digestion: yet, vegetation is perfectly in
line with the needs of animate beings.
These numerous, independent, natural systems are limited in their functions, never deviate, and
possess no "intent." So if these systems have no intent or will to work together, what is it that guides
such extreme and perfect harmony? This harmony points to something external to the natural
world . . . an Orchestrator: a Creator Who willed all sciences into existence, Who sustains all sciences,
and Who designed all sciences to be harmonious. Science makes the conviction in God mandatory.
RE: Whole Series
mike stern
05/19/2009
God exists. The proof that god exists is that through conscious beings the universe has generated self-
awareness. The laws of physics are fine-tuned for life and zeroed in on an uncannily bio-friendly form
as the universe fine-tuned itself to bring about life and consciousness. In the first split second of the big
bang, the universe "knew" about the emergence of life billions of years later. Life has its evolution
programmed into its cells. Biology determines the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are
expressible mathematically. God is the creativity in the universe. He answers no prayers and does no
miracles.
RE: Steven Pinker
ruby
05/11/2009
Yes, science does make god obsolete, but this should not be so. Science is not the only belief in how
the world was made.
RE: Whole Series
john jacob lyons
05/06/2009
Any scientific explanation of belief will appeal, in the first instance, to the conscious, rational mind.
How might the conscious, rational mind of an open-minded, questing agnostic react to its first
exposure to the scientific explanation of belief? Would it contribute anything meaningful at all to his/her
thoughts about the reality or otherwise of a god? Our agnostic reasons that a good basis for personal
belief would be either positive empirical evidence or positive, allbeit subjective, personal experience.
Bearing in mind the lack of any scientifically acceptable empirical evidence for the reality of any god,
and the fact that only a relatively modest proportion of believers have had a confirmatory personal
experience, he reasons that the scientific explanation that he has just been given could well explain
the very high proportion of adults (80%?) worldwide who would claim to believe in the existence of a
higher power. Furthermore, the diversity of the deities cited by the thousands of different, and
contradictory, religions around the world would also be consistent with this scientific explanation.
I think it is highly likely that the consilience of the scientific explanation of belief together with the points
I have made above are indeed relevant to our questing, open-minded agnostic. It explains the high
level of belief, in many cases in the absence of either empirical or personal evidence, and the diversity
of the gods proposed by the multi-various religions, sects, and cults around the world. At the rational,
conscious level it would appear that the scientific explanation is indeed relevant to the issue.
What about the unconscious, intuitive level of cognition? The complete scientific explanation of belief
includes explanation of the fact that such belief brings meaning, beauty, inspiration, a sense of calm
and inner peace and other wonderful feelings to many believers. However, our unconscious and
conscious levels of cognition do not operate independently and, once the strength of belief is
weakened at the conscious level, it is likely to have a negative impact on the benefits of belief that I
have referred to. In some ways sadly, when doubt creeps in at a conscious level, it may well erode
faith at all levels. Realization of self-delusion has always played a large part in apostasy. I conclude
that explaining belief will tend to explain away belief.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Joseph S. Johnson
05/03/2009
48
David Hockey (4/30) questions my views (4/17). Exposition can be found at www.ctr4process.org/.
Click on: Interact, Discussion Board, Forum, Process and Science, "Query: Whitehead vs. New
Process Physics" and "Abstraction Theory of Process and Physics." Discussion welcome.
RE: Whole Series
David
05/02/2009
I don't think that science makes belief in God obsolete. We will simply never be able to prove or
disprove the existence of God. However, I think science (and history) DO make religion obsolete. It is
simply an arrogent and psychological flaw to believe that God endorses a specific group's particular
beliefs (and traditions) over others.
That a universal creator would share his divine secret among one group (or actually a select group,
which preaches to the rest of the group) and allow the rest of the world to be fooled by "false" or
"lesser" religions is utterly ridiculous.
RE: Steven Pinker
Dr. Gert Traupe
05/01/2009
Sorry, terrible simplifications! First: What about the trends over the millennia? Does Pinker try to
design a law or regularity of historical development? Pinker seems to have a bias of cultural theory:
that the belief in God is associated with superstition and cruelty. One can verify this tendency in the
end of his essay, where he cites the coincidence between humanity and science within western
society, on the one hand, and superstition and cruelty, on the other. What about the destructive
tendencies within the western societies, manifesting in World War II, genocide, and so on?
Pinker should first give a definition of what kind of phenomena he would attribute to what he calls
"God." I'm not speaking of the psychological phenomena: inner experience, mind, emotions. We can
leave them out of consideration, because they are phenomena of a human being. But the other
questions about the beginning and the genesis of the cosmos are more fruitful.
The belief in God can accept the paradigm of evolution and is not at all strictly connected to the
Intelligent-Design-Nonsense. There remains the fact that the Big Bang and the fine-tuning of cosmic
constants cannot be explained by a cosmic lottery or random chance. The probility is too small (p <
1/10^200). The quanta fluctuations at the beginning are attributed by Vilenkin to a spirit, a "spiritus
rector" (that's my term), that one can denote as "God." Some cosmologists seriously reflect about the
possibility of multiple gods, fitting universes. If Pinker does not know, he should look more into the
magazines of modern physics.
RE: Whole Series
David Hockey
04/30/2009
I'm sorry, I do not understand Joseph S. Johnson's thesis (04/17). I thought that reciprocity developed
as a conflict-resolution technique. But could I address all presenters now? Yes, of course, a God may
have existed (and may still exist) before our universe, and its space and time, began. And this God
may have set the conditions that led to this universe's (and life's) existence. But we are unlikely to ever
"scientifically" prove or disprove this. And, as most say these days, Gods do not intervene in human (or
the universe's) affairs.
So why do we need a "God"? For many reasons, as we all know. The principal reason being to provide
a purpose for us to seek. Doing this allows us to solve moral problems "rationally" and makes our lives
seem "meaningful." Whether this purpose is to reach Heaven, Paradise, a better reincarnation, or
whatever, matters not. However, I suggest we adopt a purpose similar to de Chardin's Omega Point. It
is more appropriate to our modern conditions than seeking our God's "objectives." See
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Purpose/_Conclusion_To_Part_Three to continue these thoughts.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Tom Sarbeck
04/26/2009
No, but it promises so hard a look at the evidence that believers will find it a waste of time to offer it.
49
RE: Whole Series
Connor Toohill
04/20/2009
I wholeheartedly enjoyed the well-thought-out essays and the spirited debates that followed. While I
myself am a believer, I felt like the majority of the writers gave excellent reasoning for their opinions,
whether I agreed with them or not. The one exception was Christopher Hitchens, who (in his debate
with Kenneth Miller) came off as simply mean-spirited. I applaud the John Templeton Foundation for
sponsoring such an excellent program.
RE: Steven Pinker
Xavier March
04/19/2009
Regarding your paper, please take a look at another perspective: http://the-philosophy-of-
science.blogspot.com/
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Joseph S. Johnson
04/17/2009
David Hockey (04/12) seems to imply that natural law is adequate to explain all the complexity of the
universe, including moral reasoning. But natural law is entirely objective, while, as Kauffman points
out, the complexities transcend the reductionism of Descartes, etc. What reductionism describes is the
hierarchic structure of natural order which includes but transcends natural law, in that biology reduces
to chemistry that reduces to physics. But natural order is an actual hierarchic structure that includes
but does not end with physics, or even with objectivity, but transcends the objective into the subjective
realm of aesthetics at the transition point of symmetry. Symmetry constrains each of the emergent
forces with the particulars of conservation law, and reduces into the higher abstracts of aesthetics and
beyond, qualities for which the subjective faculties of the dominant species (the integral creative agent
of the cosmic process imperative) are uniquely evolved to perceive. This evolved faculty and related
emotions, plus the stress of various historical crises, have given us a most remarkable and relevant
insight, if largely ignored today, into an essential symmetry for species survival. It is called the Golden
Rule--our subjective conservation law. Kauffman is right.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
David Hockey
04/12/2009
Stuart Kaufmann writes that if we could not "prestate" all "preadaptions," then they are "partially
beyond natural law." This is an incorrect conclusion. We cannot prestate all preadaptions because the
complexity of the universe (and of life) is too large for us to handle.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
03/12/2009
From C.S. Peirce's point of view, science confirms the God hypothesis. If we entertain the idea that an
analogue of mind is suggested by the universe, the only way to test the hypothesis is to investigate the
world in a way that sees to what extent it does conform to human understanding. Thus, the ongoing
march of science is the basis for belief in God.
But Peirce was careful to separate the reality of God from an understanding of God that supposes
God's "[reacting] with other like things in the environment," which he called "fetishism" ("A Neglected
Argument for the Reality of God"). If so, neither can the kind of understanding science provides
undermine Peirce's God hypothesis.
Peirce begins with a simple analogy that suggests the reality of God; the operation of science confirms
it in the only possible way; and yet the analogy cannot be critiqued by science without implying
"fetishism." This fine little conundrum deserves a name: how about "Peirce's Pretty Pickle"?
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
03/07/2009
I just came across an article by the founder of pragmatism, C.S. Peirce, titled "A Neglected Argument
for the Reality of God." Its content is tremendously relevant to this conversation. Peirce thought that
"many of the [scientists] of [his] generation" believed in the reality of God, without knowing it. Why?
50
Because "the discoveries of science, [with] their enabling us to predict what will be the course of
nature, is proof conclusive that . . . we can catch a fragment of [God's] thought."
Peirce's view follows from his claim that a universal feature of our scientific understanding is "its
provision for later stages in earlier ones" and from his view that the statement in quotes entails an
analogue of mind, and therefore God. In Peirce's view, science is the confirmation of the God
hypothesis. Since a famed philosopher of science and the founder of America's only native philosophy
framed a view of the relationship of science and God that turns your "Big Question" upside down, I
thought you'd like to know about it.
It's an idea that brings to mind Paul Davies's "The Mind of God" and Einstein's famous statement to the
effect that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility. So the idea's
been around, but Peirce was correct in calling it a neglected argument. It deserves better. Maybe
someone at your foundation should assign an investigation of Peirce's view to a real scholar. My guess
is that people of good will on all sides could applaud it.
RE: Whole Series
Mary Morse
03/05/2009
Are there no women in the world who can comment on these big questions?
RE: Steven Pinker
Theodore Ferdinand
02/18/2009
How can you explain scientifically (1) the creation of life on earth, (2) self-consciousness and free will
in humans, (3) an ethic of brotherly love and forgiveness of flaws, and (4) mankind's unique ability to
design a democratic civilization and to remake itself via DNA? No other animal can or has done any of
these.
RE: Whole Series
James Perry
02/18/2009
Brilliant idea and a great contribution to general thought. Thanks.
RE: Whole Series
Sriram Raghuraman
02/10/2009
I think some of the authors make very good distinctions between science and faith as belonging to
entirely different realms and therefore not duty bound to be reconcilable or irreconcilable. However
they (conveniently) forget to mention that as soon as god is a creature of belief, it is no better or worse
than any other belief. However the position and acclaim that religious beliefs hold in society are in
stark contrast to their "worthiness." I think there could have been some deeper insights into the idea of
a god that/who has no connections with religion of any sort. I think we will find that god is pretty
uninteresting once you drop the storybook.
RE: Whole Series
Byron Rogers
01/30/2009
Studies seem to confirm that religious belief has social benefits. The real question is whether this is
any more than a desirable placebo effect. The capacity to believe which confers these benefits is the
real issue. Maybe those who exhibit this capacity have what is called "grace," but what can overcome
a skeptical turn of mind, something we otherwise try to cultivate as democratic citizens? The very
essence of religion seems to be the opposite of "evidence-based," which we also otherwise try to
cultivate to enhance our actions. Perhaps that is the nub of the "belief" dilemma.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Paxson
01/22/2009
In response to Mr. Sapolsky's essay: atheists do not believe that atheism alone will rid the world of
Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos. There will always be cruel and wicked people. A commitment to humanism
is certainly a better cure for fascism and totalitarianism than atheism is. Atheism, however, ensures
that tyrants will never be able to justify their tyranny with the divine. Thus, while not eliminating tyranny,
51
atheism deprives tyrants of one of their most effective tools.
Moreover, while I agree that religion is blind without science, the belief that science is lame without
religion completely misses the point. Science is lame without morality to inform its appropriate use and
direction, but morality and religion are very different things. We all know atheists who act morally, and
religious people who do not. Sapolsky's conflation of morality and religiosity is all too common, and all
too unnecessary.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
01/15/2009
Few educated people would choose scripture over science as a means of understanding the origin of
the universe and its features. By that measure, science clearly makes belief in God obsolete. On an
emotional level, things are less clear. Nature does inspire awe, and an understanding of science helps
further those emotions. But it does not tie the awe to a sense of devotion to something greater than
oneself the way belief in God does. That leaves a huge void for religion to fill when we consider the
crucial aspects of human life that outstrip any factual understanding of the world that science can--
even in principle--offer. Hopes, fears, desires, hunches, metaphysical speculations, etc. go beyond the
known facts and yet serve to motivate us. Moral sensibilities, emotional commitments, and competing
cultural values add further layers of complexity that no understanding of the "facts" that science might
give us can encompass. In William James' words (conclusion to The Varieties of Religious Experience)
"our overbeliefs are the most interesting and important things about us."
In comments exchanged here with Eugene Bucamp, I had assumed it would be obvious that,
historically and factually, belief in God provides an authoritative center by which the diverse points of
view--the hopes, fears, desires, morals, etc.--that are not subject to science can be ordered. Thus, my
point is extremely simple, and can be conceived by imagining a simple Venn diagram. Science cannot
rule in the crucial sphere of human understanding where "overbeliefs" play a major role in human life.
That sphere has traditionally been the sphere of religion. Now Bucamp might think that science can
eliminate all overbeliefs in some hypothetical future omniscience. In that case, it will certainly make
belief in God obsolete. But I think that overbelief is based on a confusion. I believe that human beings
will always face existential questions that science cannot answer, leaving the door open for religious
beliefs of all kinds--including Bucamp's seeming faith in science.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
01/12/2009
Let's go back to Tracy Witham's example (12/19) of the young person wondering whether "she should
become a teacher to use her life to help others or become an actor to fulfill a personal passion," an
example given, as he put it (01/10), to illustrate that "existential questions are not answered by science
but can be answered by religion."
Witham may call this an existential question (I call this a moral question), but my point remains that
Witham still has to show that belief in God helps. In my view, God does not exist, and values are
formed in the crucible of our personal, social, and political relationships, through time, and so-called
religious values are no exception. Like Witham put it, "human beings can decide what their lives are
about." To claim that religion helps is to claim that it helps people find an appropriate response to
moral problems. But how could we assess whether this is the case? As Witham contends, this is not a
scientific issue, so presumably there is no way to do that. So we cannot assess Witham's claim, which
is therefore gratuitous.
From a rational perspective, moral problems cannot be the object of any short-cut methodology.
Science can help us guess to some extent what the near future will be, but it will never tell us all the
consequences for all time of our actions now. This is the reason why we remain free. We are free
because there is no rational methodology to tell us what our actions should be. Let me repeat that
animals, small and large, as well as pre-historic man, including Australopithicus, Homo erectus, Homo
neanderthal, and Homo sapiens have all thrived for eons without the support of the Ten
Commandments. Witham may think religion or a belief in God can help, but he still needs to
substantiate his claim, whereas we already know how science helps. Nobody really needs religion or a
belief in God, but we are all free to soothe our anxieties as best we can.
52
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Steve Mardigian
01/12/2009
Unless Robert Sapolsky thinks that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all religious men, I would point out that
the seas run red from the blood of science in the 20th century. Religion did not develop and drop the
bomb on Japan. Greed is at the center of man's barbarism; the transformation of man's behavior
mirrored by the reflection of a loving, caring, forgiving Creator is the cure. Science is lame without
religion, and religion is blind without science. This is a wonderful website for open minds and free
willers.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
01/10/2009
Eugene Bucamp (01/05/09) comments that he fails "to identify any substantive point" in the examples I
gave to illustrate that existential questions are not answered by science but can be answered by
religion (12/19/08). But then how could he, since he does not know what an existential question is? For
Bucamp: Jean Paul Sarte's famous slogan, "existence precedes essence," is the usual shorthand way
of defining existentialism. From it we are to grasp that--in contrast to other kinds of beings--human
beings can decide what their lives are about.
Careers, moral frameworks, marriage, children, and, yes, belief in God are all subject to choices via
values and assumptions that science cannot determine for us. Religion informs value systems and so
helps answer existential questions in ways that science cannot. In a discussion about whether science
makes belief in God obsolete, that is a very "substantive" point. I take this to be an instance of Mary
Midgley's view that the question of God "is an element in something larger and more puzzling" than
science considered apart from wider questions of human existence.
On a separate point I think that p (01/07/09) made a great suggestion: "let's clarify where to begin the
discussion of God." How about starting with two separate definitions that would give us a real subject
matter that everyone can subscribe to: 1. objectively, God is whatever explains the existence of the
universe (or would explain it if human beings understood it), and 2. subjectively, God is whatever
contributes most fundamentally to one's value systems. In both cases, "God" attains agreed upon
"existence" via semantics, albeit semantics that retain core aspects of the traditional meaning of "God,"
and yet real referents are also given. It might be a way to start p's "flowchart."
RE: Whole Series
p
01/07/2009
What really needs to be done is to advance the whole "God" discussion. For example, it seems to me
that the question is largely rhetorical, and many of the essayists said so in their opening statements. It
is not about belief or if there is a God, but whether, if there is a God, you can prove it or not. It seems
things like these could be organized on a flowchart of sorts--that is, let's clarify where to begin the
discussion of God by discarding or explaining away the standard errors in logic.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
01/05/2009
Concerning Ya'akov's considerations about a Supreme Creator (12/17), the idea that human beings
could rationally derive from their experience of reality the notion of a necessary creator of reality is
quite literally absurd. Going one step further to claim some actual knowledge of the particulars of this
putative creator is also intellectually fraudulent. Aristotle, no doubt a brilliant mind, was only guilty of
the literally absurd. Thomas Aquinas, also a brilliant mind, chose to go the extra mile and commit the
intellectual fraud, which the Catholic Church is still enthusiastically endorsing.
I fail to identify any substantive point in Tracy Witham's comment (12/19) or indeed in any of his
previous comments. Animals, small and large, as well as pre-historic man, including Australopithicus,
Homo erectus, Homo neanderthal, and Homo sapiens have all thrived for eons without the support of
the Ten Commandments. Witham may think religion or a belief in God can help, but he still needs to
substantiate this strange notion, whereas we already know how science can help. Nobody really needs
religion or a belief in God.
53
Regarding Peter Thoss's comment (01/03), if spirituality requires hard work and time, then the busy
man can be forgiven for giving it a pass.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Thoss
01/03/2009
When I came to Canada from Germany, I had to learn English. When I go to deal with spiritual matters,
I have to learn spiritual (symbolic) language. Therein lies the problem. It takes effort to learn a
language. Understanding comes slowly, like the dawn of a day. All we have to do is wake up to it.
RE: Whole Series
Betsy Whitfill
01/03/2009
The scientists of today, the evolutionists, are undoubtedly correct in their analysis of man's
development from the animal kingdom. We owe our physical bodies to the animal kingdom. That,
however, does not make us animals. Darwin, and those who correctly followed his thought, describes
only the outer, physical development of man, largely ignoring that we are all engaged in the
development of consciousness. The human body has all but reached its completeness: there remains
little further to be achieved. From the standpoint of consciousness, however, man has scarcely taken
the first steps towards a flowering which will prove that man is indeed divine, a soul in incarnation. One
day, the fact of the soul will be proved by science and so become generally accepted, and the old
dichotomy will be healed.
RE: Whole Series
Amanpreet Singh
01/03/2009
I'm a believer, and I want to listen to all points of views and decide for myself. Truth exists, whether it
has been proved or not. Thanks for sharing your points of views.
RE: Whole Series
p
12/31/2008
The problem is that any discussion about God is somehow defining God, which leaves open any
argument, no matter how sophisticated, to criticism or another new interpretation. It is therefore more
desirable to define your own God, since all these fine-tuning God discussions are mainly some kind of
academic psychology for our current philosophies of God or the universe. But if God is everything,
then we must be in some small way a part of God. Despite the flaws in 12-step literature, "higher
power" seems a more accurate description. A lot of the words that are used are wrong, like
"supernatural." You could say there is no such thing as supernatural. It's all real. Even the word God,
as used in some of these discussions, is only a placeholder of some kind for some unknown, like a
zero in mathematics. Wherever it says "God," it should just say "insert word here." Often you come up
with some interesting insights.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
12/19/2008
In considering Eugene Bucamp's comments of 12/16, I am led to the view that science (and research
more generally) cannot answer an existential question. Two examples: 1. A young person wonders
whether her life would be more productive of good if she became a teacher or an MD. In this case, a
battery of tests and multiple research projects would be telling. Consequently, the question is
instrumental; it asks how to achieve a goal, and science can help. 2. A young person wonders whether
she should become a teacher to use her life to help others or become an actor to fulfill a personal
passion. In this case, the question is existential because it asks what her life is to be about. It involves
a choice between two values competing for primacy in her life, and science must wait till the choice is
made to be of service.
It is obvious that the Ten Commandments, for instance, seek to tie a person's sense of what life is
about to love of God and God's law, or as rendered in the New Testament, love of God and "neighbor,"
which is seen as fulfilling the law. Now one can clearly and truly speak of one's foundational value
system as one's "God." This is apparent even in the atheistic writings of Sartre, for instance.
In that case, "God" remains relevant even for atheists, at least to the extent that they live according to
54
well-formed value systems, systems that can be informed but not determined by science. Science
cannot make "God" obsolete in this sense. In fact, "God" remains the most relevant question a person
can ask, in this particular meaning of the term. Since the Foundation's Big Question HERE concerns
God's continued relevance, not existence, this view carries the day.
RE: Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy
Ya'akov
12/17/2008
Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy has presented a very thoughtful, clear, and convincing essay for science and
belief in the existence of God(s). The first priority for any theist is to develop a Supreme Creator(s) that
is consistent with all the derived principles and theories of scientific knowledge. A deistic God(s) that
fine-tuned the universe as a "scientific experiment" or an "architectural project" would be entirely
possible, since space and time had a finite beginning in the past. Historically, many prominent
freethinkers from the Enlightenment (Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Voltaire) were deists and a number of
ancient Greek philosophers (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) held beliefs in a "prime-mover" or "first
cause."
Perhaps the greatest objection to a deistic God(s) would be the question, why they would go to all the
effort in designing a universe, without further intervention? My response would be as follows: an
engineer or scientist who can manufacture a system that can run autonomously is more ingenious that
an engineer or scientist who develops a system which requires constant twiddling and adjustment.
Such a God(s) would only require philosophers and scientists to discover the fingerprints of creation in
the order and complexity of the natural world. Therefore, there is no need for "holy books" as a "divine
revelation." It is axiomatic that the Bible, Qur'an, and the Veddas have no authorship from God(s); they
are marred with inconsistencies (one verse contradicts the other), and a fundamentalist interpretation
of the scriptures is incompatible with scientific knowledge.
Only a deistic worldview based upon reason, freethought, and skepticism of religious dogmas would
be credible to the scientific fraternity. To quote the great philosopher Thomas Paine, "science is the
true theology." If that is the case, then there is a new philosophy that can adequately supplant
traditional theism and the rising tide of atheism.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
12/16/2008
Tracy Witham (09/19) claims that religious faith helps answer existential questions that science
cannot. This is not true. There are in fact two very different kinds of existential questions, at least as I
know of them: the metaphysical ones and the ones arising from some form of psychological misery.
Metaphysical questions exist in two varieties, those that are trivially absurd and those which we don't
quite understand, let alone try to answer, and are likely absurd too. Both sorts we can ignore here
unless someone gives an example worthy of consideration.
The second sort of existential questions, those that arise from some form of psychological misery, e.g.,
a medical condition, inadaptability to social intercourse, a serious conflict with somebody else, etc.,
most likely would not arise if not for the underlying misery. Hence, they would disapear if scientific
progress could remedy the underlying condition. Though we are trying, it is true that we are not very
good at it yet, but we can also note that science already remedies many cases of physical distress,
something no religion does, which are also cause for psychological misery and hence a source of
existential questions. Hence, science demonstrably does what Tracy Witham says it could not.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
12/15/2008
It is axiomatic that religious beliefs are universal, contrary to Eugene Bucamp's assertions that they're
incidental, because religions are found among indigenous tribes of Australia, North and South America
as well as the Greeks, Phoenicians, Arabs, and Egyptians of the Mediterranean. In addition,
conceptions of Gods are metaphysical questions, and there will always be degrees of variation
between what one or another theologian accepts. However, there is a commonality among theists, with
respect to the fact that they consider God or Gods to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and to
be the Creators of the natural world.
55
Bucamp does not take into account that there is a wide spectrum of beliefs amongst atheists as well.
Why would atheists divide themselves into weak/implicit atheists and strong/explicit atheists if they are
all a homogenous group of disbelievers? His article would also benefit if he carefully examined the
history of state atheism and the totalitarian communist regimes of the USSR, Albania, etc., which all
suppressed free thought and used military and public propaganda to indoctrinate the minds of entire
populations.
To state that nature is only evidence of itself is begging the question; it assumes the conclusion before
attempting to prove it. The existence of God or Gods is falsifiable on rational and empirical grounds,
something which no atheists to date have successfully achieved. To assert that it is impossible to
assess other realities apart from each other is merely an argument from incredulity and ignorance. The
principle of falsification was developed by Karl R. Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Imre Lakatos, who
assert that scientists work within a conceptual paradigm that strongly influences the way in which they
see data. To disprove the hypothesis that God or Gods created the universe would require the same
system of reasoning to disprove Bucamp's "Gloxburg" hypothesis--inductive and deductive reasoning,
a priori and a posterior reasoning.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
12/15/2008
In September I jumped into a thread of comments here that turned a bit nasty. I think that you will find
my reactions to that experience to be interesting. See the last five posts at:
metaponderance.blogspot.com. Thanks for hosting this discussion.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
12/15/2008
Contrary to Ya'akov's claims (12/13), belief in God is not universal but incidental. Only our ability to
believe from evidence is very nearly universal, and usually it is not about God. It would also be
impossible to retrieve what most people would believe if insulated from religious propaganda, including
that coming through parents. Religion is an undeniable cultural and historical phenomenon, but there
is no reason to see it as universal. If belief in God were universal, why would anybody need a priest
and, hence, a religion? Who would need a Holy Book? And why so many incompatible religious views?
Notions of God are clearly arbitrary, and religious teachings clearly depend on their non-universal
historical and cultural contexts.
We have also no idea what most believers would see as convincing empirical evidence for God. We
have in fact little idea what it is exactly that believers believe because religious practice does not tell us
that. Whatever people believe is locked within the privacy of their minds, which presumably is
inaccessible to Ya'akov. The evidence we have is that different people believe different things. Indeed,
we had to pass specific legislation to protect freedom of thought against totalitarian religions claiming
some universal principle.
Nature is only evidence of itself. The claim that nature, or some aspect of it, is evidence for God is
vacuous. I could claim that nature is evidence of the Gloxburg and how would Ya'akov disprove my
claim? And yet, he does the same thing with God. Ya'akov misunderstands the principle of falsification.
As to the notion of teleology, to test its validity we would need to compare our reality to alternative
realities, and this is a logical impossibility. Reality is what it is, and the notion of teleology is vacuous.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
12/13/2008
The existence of God or Gods is a metaphysical and ontological question that has profound
implications for science, education, and philosophy. The question of purpose and meaning to the
universe and humanity has historically inspired the establishment of many important institutions:
universities, grammar schools, libraries, seminaries, and royal academies. For millennia, philosophers
have constructed various arguments to demonstrate the existence of God or Gods, based on
deductive and inductive reasoning within the paradigms of acquired scientific knowledge. It is
axiomatic that belief in the existence of God or Gods is universal, since many cultures, from Western
and Eastern to pre-literate societies, have held various creationist beliefs in the origins of the universe.
56
In response to these claims, there have always been materialistic atheists who disbelieved and denied
the existence of Gods altogether and believed that the only elements that are proven to exist is matter.
In response to Eugene Bucamp's comment (12/08), the crux of the issue is that every field of science
supports the worldview that the universe, as far as nature can reveal, is a dynamic system of trillions of
particles of energy and matter, constituting the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each
containing countless numbers of stars, planets, moons, and quasars, that are all governed by the laws
of physics and chemistry that are expressed as mathematical postulates.
For a theist, this is the most convincing empirical evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being(s)
that endowed the universe with teleology and guided the natural processes of matter and energy
through a purposeful, directive process. If Eugene Bucamp or any other atheist can subject this claim
to direct disproof and falsification, every theist would accept this worldview as justified true belief.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
12/08/2008
On Ya'akov's comment (12/06), my view that it is rational to ignore possibilities on the basis of an
overwhelming lack of evidence does not need to be established, because it is simple common sense,
shared by nearly all human beings, even most of those who pretend otherwise. While it has been
proved wrong in specific instances--by scientific enquiry in the most important of cases, like cosmology
since Newton, quantum physics, and special relativity, not to mention medical discoveries--it is not
possible to prove that the principle is generally absurd or usually wrong, which is also why people stick
to it. Of course, the world will be extremely interested if you ever succeed in proving the contrary.
Common sense, for all we know, is based on our shared experience of reality. This includes, as we
now believe since Charles Darwin, experience accumulated by life in DNA since its beginning on earth
something like 4 billion years ago. People prefer to ignore remote possibilities simply because there
are too many of them. We simply don't have enough brainpower and time in a day to take account of
all the remote possibilities, for example, of our life being endangered. Instead, we take measures
against the small number of the most likely threats: we lock our door, look left and right when crossing
the street, but we don't look up at the sky to see if there is a meteorite coming at us or some hideous
gremlin with a three-horn hat intent on chewing on our brain. We don't need to prove anything; it is
common sense.
When ordinary people and scientists decide that it is time to prove that a particular common sense
view is mistaken, this is nearly always because there is new evidence that the common sense view is
mistaken. They then conceive of some new theory and go looking for more evidence to confirm the
theory. I don't see anything remotely resembling this situation regarding the issue of God.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
12/06/2008
The purpose of this essay is to respond to Eugene Bucamp's assertion (12/05) that it is rational to
ignore the remote possibility of the existence of God or Gods based on an overwhelming lack of
evidence. To establish this premise, he would be required to demonstrate to a very high degree of
certainty and knowledge that the entirety of energy, matter, space, and time, governed by the laws of
physics and chemistry, dispersed over the billions of galaxies within the observable universe, is not
empirically verifiable evidence to demonstrate the existence of God or Gods. In addition, he would be
required to falsify all possible proofs for the existence of God or Gods, since he is establishing the
metaphysical belief that they do not exist, which is just as much an assertion as stating that they do
exist. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Also, it is very condescending to proclaim that the arguments theologians have proposed for the
existence of God or Gods are stupid. Is Bucamp aware that these arguments were proposed by Plato,
Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm, Descartes, Kant, etc., who are widely respected as the greatest
philosophers of Western civilization? Is he privy to the fact that many empiricists, rationalists and
freethinkers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment were deists or theists? In addition, Bucamp has a
vague concept of the term "proof." In philosophy, a formal proof or derivation is a finite sequence of
sentences, each of which is an axiom or follows from the preceding sentences in the sequence by a
rule of inference.
57
RE: Whole Series
Andrei Romanov
12/06/2008
Notions of faith and religion are metaphoric. As with all uncertain concepts, this problem is unsolvable,
thought there are several paradigms under which to consider it.
In a rational paradigm, belief is acceptance of probable and hypothetical judgements as absolute. Its
subject coincides with a subject of science. Belief (as hypothesis) is a source of scientific axioms. God
is identified with a methodological principle of world rationality. But, as has been shown by Kant,
scientific theology cannot cognize transcendental ideas and achieve doubtless assertion of God's
being. In an empirical paradigm, religious statements are asserted as sense data. Empiricism excludes
the transcendental. It does not assert and does not deny the existence of God; it reveals the social and
psychological bases of belief in God. In the theology of experience, religion is individual and is also
deprived of scientific character.
In a pragmatic paradigm, the God image is a hypothesis, bringing benefits, satisfaction; belief is a
result of agreement. Under an authoritative paradigm, the person avoids stress and finds feelings of
support by obeying God as an authority (Fromm). In an aprioristic paradigm, the God image is
intentional, determined by transcendental (mental) structures, and is deprived of objectivity. In the
psychoanalytic paradigm, religion is identified with the neuroses of all persuasive conditions (produced
by frustrated needs). God is identified with the all-mighty father for the helpless, infantile person. In an
axiological paradigm, God is a symbol of ultimate values. Any wordly phenomenon is potentially
sacral. In a paradigm of the irrational and absurd, God is cognized not by reason but by adoration.
Belief in an all-powerful God is determined not by rational arguments but by irrational interests of
ultimate concern, produced by experiences of absolute dependence and fear. Theological pretensions
of scientific character are a form of inferiority complex. Beyond ultimate concern, science does not
determine either belief in God or its elimination. The most "scientific" belief is irrational. Science does
not make belief in God obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
12/05/2008
On Ya'akov's comment (12/02), atheism is, very simply, a belief that God doesn't exist, based on our
shared experience of reality. Only a minority of atheists irrationally insist they know there is no God.
The position of most atheists is that while we can't know for sure, it is nonetheless extremely likely,
based on the overwhelming lack of evidence, that there is no god. So God is a possibility but so
remote that it is more rational to ignore it. If Ya'akov is unable to find this view of atheism in his
encyclopaedias, he can drop them at the nearest refuse dump.
Proof is often misunderstood as meaning necessarily a logical proof. No, a proof is any kind of proof.
There is indeed no proof of any sort for God, but it is sufficient that there is a lack of evidence, because
it is then rational not to believe in God. I believe a logical proof could not prove God because I believe
a logical proof cannot prove the reality of anything, except of reality itself, as a whole, which is trivial
enough. Effective proofs of the reality of things have to be founded on our common experience of
reality. I would call them rational proofs, including all scientific proofs.
Obviously, I couldn't review all alleged logical proofs for God, but the ones I know about are very
stupid, including that of serious theologians. But the point is that logical proofs for God, like all logical
proofs for the reality of things, are necessarily inconclusive and I don't have to falsify any of them. Also,
it is not just God that could not be disproved by a rational or even a scientific proof. It is generally all
things that we have no idea what they are: You need to know what you are looking for. If you know a
property of God that we could find evidence of, please tell us.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
12/02/2008
It has taken Eugene Bucamp (11/26) more than five months to respond to my last post on this
question. My answer: first, the term atheism, as defined by the The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy and
The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, is the "metaphysical belief that affirms the non-existence
58
of God or Gods" or "disbelief and denial of the existence of God or Gods." Bucamp assumes that
atheism is a rational position since there is no evidence for the existence of God or Gods. This
presupposes that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the arguments theologians have
proposed (cosmological, teleological, etc.) for the existence of God or Gods. How would Bucamp know
that there is no proof for the existence of God or Gods unless he has tried all possible proofs and
falsified them? What precisely would count as proofs since it is a mathematical term? Perhaps he
means valid arguments with true premises and the justified conclusion "God or Gods exist."
He also establishes the premise that you can't prove the non-existence of an entity like God(s). There
are in fact two means in which to demonstrate that God or Gods do not exist. The first is through a
priori reasoning, i.e., define the concept of "God" or "Gods" and if there are any logical inconsistencies
with the definition, then you have proven that they do not exist. The second means to prove the non-
existence of God or Gods is through a posteriori reasoning. To confirm that God or Gods do not exist,
you would need to explore every geometrical dimension of space and time across each solar system
and galaxy within the universe. Many atheists would retort that they need not prove the non-existence
of God or Gods and that the burden of proof is only upon the theists to demonstrate the existence of
God or Gods. But atheism is just as much an assertion as theism. Therefore, the burden of proof falls
equally on both sides, and a fairer debate question would be "Do God or Gods exist?" or "Are there
any Gods?"
Bucamp also stated that it is hubris to assume everything is natural. Since this belief already
presupposes that the supernatural does not exist, he is already begging the question. In philosophy
the terms "natural" and "supernatural" are difficult to define precisely and the demarcation between the
two concepts leads to a lot of disagreement. However, a materialistic atheist would state that matter
and energy are natural and anything beyond the physical constants and laws governing matter and
energy is supernatural. By this definition, ghosts and gods are supernatural since they are deemed
beyond the physical realms of nature. On the other hand, Bucamp's definition of natural as the "quality
of everything that exists" is only justified by that meaning only. I could argue that the quality of
everything that exists is defined as the universe. The term universe means the entirety of all existence,
whether it arose by natural processes involving only matter or through supernatural intervention by a
God or Gods.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/26/2008
Betty (10/25) says that, in the 1960's, the Holy Bible was read to her fellow students and that most
"turned out very well" and "became productive people in society"! Believers who regard this sort of
claim as good reason to believe in God should know that they definitely help give God and belief in
God a bad name. Obviously, even if most young people who read Peter Pan stories later "turned out
very well," that still wouldn't make Peter Pan real, yes?
Or does she simply mean that people who are not read the Bible inevitably don't "turn out very well"
and that this is reason enough to read the Bible whether God exists or not? Or that it does prove God?!
Finally, would she know among those who were read the Holy Bible in Germany in the 1920's and 30's
how many turned out "productive members" of the Nazi Party later in life? Or simply how many at that
time would quote the Holy Bible on Judas to justify their anti-Semitism?
RE: Kenneth Miller
Baffour Boahen
11/26/2008
Miller makes a lot of sense. God is the one that created us and this whole universe. God then gave us
science to continue the legacy that he started for us. Without God there is no science. "He is the
answer to existence, not part of existence itself." Miller is on the money with that one.
RE: Whole Series
Shekhar Hardikar
11/25/2008
It is not about God or science; it is about our perception and change in perception that changes the
way we look at things as our awareness increases. We all know that the Earth revolves around the
Sun, but for our daily convenience and for the purposes of the calendar, we say that the Sun rises in
the East and sets in the West.
59
It is our belief and tendency to classify information in certain categories. Our mind observes and
records and behaves according to these patterns. These patterns actually define or defend our beliefs.
It is not about language or maths or about technology; it is about our ability to recognise and create
new patterns. These patterns are dependent on the lenses that we have, and then comes the million
dollar question, what lenses do we use to see a frame of reference? And the debate goes on . . .
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/25/2008
Ya'akov says (06/26) that atheism is unsubstantiated. I agree, but the point is vacuous: How would you
prove that something does not exist? You can't. We can show when there is no money in our wallets,
but we are unable to prove that there is no God, or a Gloksburg for that matter, anywhere in our
universe, in nature, or better still in "reality." I cannot prove that a Gloksburg does not exist, and
nobody can, but who cares that our common disbelief in the Gloksburg cannot be substantiated?
Atheism is a word, and it means "to not believe in a god." Somebody cannot claim "to know" that God
doesn't exist, as indeed some but not many atheists do (and indeed there is no "atheist Pope").
However, it is definitely reasonable "to not believe in God" when it is the case that we don't have any
good reason to believe in it, since there is no evidence for it. Ya'akov probably doesn't believe in the
Gloksburg but could not substantiate that a Gloksburg does not exist. In fact, we don't know what a
Gloksburg is. Which is the point: we don't know what a God would be. Ya'akov's notion that the claim
that all things are natural is "hubris" is equally pointless. How do you define "unnatural"? If ghosts
existed, ghosts would be natural. Or how would you prove that something is not natural? Say you meet
God: How do you prove he is not natural?
It is therefore misleading to say that it is "beyond our present science" to claim that the natural world
has emerged from within itself. If you define "natural" as the quality of everything that exists, you don't
need science to prove anything because logic is enough. The naturalist claim seems to be that the
cause of "reality" (call it "nature" if you want) is not something "like a spirit" (in the sense of "like our
mind"). This claim is beyond current scientific knowledge, but it could conceivably be substantiated
one day because all you need to know is the nature of our mind, and we are getting close to do that.
RE: Whole Series
Ian Haggis
11/24/2008
I am finding these essays fascinating. Please send me a copy of the whole series, for myself and for
my friends.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/24/2008
Many comments below are testimony to the difficulty, and indeed in my view impossibility, of having
any kind of rational conversation whenever God is the starting point. Contributions by those professing
a belief in some kind of spiritual realm also confirm the scattergun arbitrariness of spiritual beliefs.
What is also clearly demonstrated, to come back to the question of obsolescence, is that if there is
something that might indeed never become obsolescent, it is not a belief in God but the undeniable
freedom of the human mind to lose itself in the infinite possibilities of a Mickey Mouse fantasia world.
God is just one arbitrary speck in that limitless dimension.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Hampton
11/23/2008
Answering the question from a predominantly western point of view extends the error that science and
spirituality are separate and distinct. References to classical Greek thinking as ancient and
authoritative, without consideration of advanced civilizations that pre-date western thinking, contribute
to the Phenomenal Fallacy, in which the field of relativity is viewed as the causal level, rather than as
the gross level of effects and phenomenal manifestations reflective of the subtle causal plane.
RE: Whole Series
Don Kaple
11/21/2008
60
I define religion as the human response to the mystery of existence. God, for me, is that mystery. In
algebraic terms, God is the big X, and both religion and science are solving for X. Scientists are
theologians of the 21st century. So the God I believe in is not obsolete. It goes without saying, some
images of God are indeed obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/14/2008
Contrary to what Brent Orrell (10/16) seems to suggest, the point of the argument about the crimes
committed in the name of religion is definitely not to decide who the bad guy was. The point is simply
that belief in God is no guarantee or even a good predictor of morality; that you can be a Pope and a
murderer; that belief in the absolute, as introduced to mankind by Abrahamic religions, breeds
totalitarianism.
Philip Wesel's assertion (11/05) that science rests upon "pure belief" is vacuous and disingenuous.
Science is solidly founded on nothing less than our collective and continuing experience of reality. To
call that "pure belief" is a renunciation of rational thought and a sad denial of our humanity. "Pure
belief" cannot produce the vast amount of knowledge about the universe and nature that we now
enjoy.
RE: Whole Series
Abdul
11/11/2008
Science is in its infancy yet. Thousands of years, many schools of thought, but they have not come up
with the right or the true explanation of God, life, death, and almost everything that exists. So I say
keep on looking. I believe that you should keep in mind that this complixity of existence cannot be of
natural selection or chance. There has got to be a higher, more intelligent power. Our own existence
should have more meaning than what we are doing. God does not need me or all of us. God needs our
worship. Let us all look for the truth out of our own limitations for the sake of humanity and peace. I'm a
Muslim. I truly believe in the freedom of thought for all. We have to be careful not to step on others in
our quest for the good.
RE: Whole Series
Jerry H. Milam
11/06/2008
Just wishing I could wake up and understand.
RE: Whole Series
Philip Wesel
11/05/2008
The best answer regarding God's potential obsolescence is a combination of yes and no. By definition,
"obsolescence is an object's attribute of losing value because the outside world has changed." In
economic terms, "Obsolescence is a source of price depreciation." To me, the deeper question is not
whether science makes belief in God obsolete. It is the question, "Does all science rest on rational
thought?" and I think the answer to this is "no."
The foundation of much of science initially rests upon pure belief, which we subsequently work to
either prove or disprove. Even here perhaps God is at work in encouraging us to question the nature of
all things, to dig deeper and to uncover some truths while discarding others. I'm not ready to put God
on mankind's dustbin of truth because both rationally and irrationally, I think that God's existence
deserves more compelling proofs.
But science could make belief unnecessary and hence obsolete if it could solve problems which cause
us to believe less deeply in God. Problems like poverty, energy, scarcity, and generosity could be
solved. Are these things that science has the power to alter and overcome? If so, then I think some
people will have less need for God in their lives. On the other hand, some people will see solutions as
proof that God continues to exist and has relevance to both scientist and lay person alike. At a very
basic level, some of us still need belief in God to guide us. As long as someone needs something and
finds it useful, by definition it isn't obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Hurly
61
10/30/2008
Of course it does. Thinking scientifically means that you question assumptions and that you ask
questions and you try to rationally justify the acceptance of ideas, and that's the antithesis of religious
thinking. If you apply scientific reasoning to religion, it crumbles. There is simply no evidence for any of
their claims.
Of course, some people avoid that problem by simply never thinking scientifically about their beliefs.
That's an easy out, because most beliefs aren't the product of rational thought anyway. Does scientific
thinking imply atheism? No, I don't think so. It's the lack of evidence of theistic and superstitious claims
that scientific thinking demands that implies atheism.
An interesting study done in the Journal of Religion and Society was titled "Cross-National Correlations
of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous
Democracies" and seems to imply the correctness of my answer: "The absence of exceptions to the
negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of
a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on
the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary
science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By removing the need for a creator, evolutionary
science made belief optional."
RE: William D. Phillips
Stanley Rowden
10/27/2008
UK senior person, with a special interest in this subject.
RE: Whole Series
L. Zellmer
10/25/2008
Expanding on a key point in Angela Lloyd's 10/13/08 comment: In addition to unexplainable healing,
too many beyond-science-encounters occur to be ignored. Anyone, after having such an experience,
has no doubt about its reality. There are no words, pictures, or science to fully convey its reality to
another person. That specific event can't be repeated. Even if it only happens once in a lifetime, it is so
real, so powerful, it can change a life and give new meaning to everything. It seems such clues would
entice science to check it out. Anyone hoping to intelligently discuss this without such an experience
will have little to offer on the subject. How can they even assume to know anything about it?
Occasionally such experiences happen without any previous belief. Often belief has become the first
step in turning an individual's life into an incredible new adventure. Sometimes this leads to a beyond-
science-experience. Beyond coincidence, the evidence suggests something like an unknown reality
does exist. Religion as modified by humans, while related, is a different subject. It seems a scientific
thinker, a true researcher, would be eager to explore all the possibilies. If existing scientific tools can't
find any access keys unlocking understanding, perhaps the tools are the problem. Possibly obsolete?
The term God, as typically understood, on one extreme is too small and on the other almost toxic.
Words become useless. Discussions, especially between those extremes, can't be expected to prove
anything. This is a new frontier to be explored. Everyone needs more respect for each other and the
experiences they have had. When and if that's possible, working together to overcome obstacles to
understanding, hopefully some progress can be made.
Related comments on this site: Ya'akov, Prichard, Zellmer, Barbara, Ruth (which can be found using
the "find" tool).
RE: Whole Series
Richard A. Cormier
10/25/2008
God is Santa Claus for grownups. What does that have to do with science? We can believe in almost
anything and still be scientists, mathematicians, artists, or basket-weavers. If we know one thing, it is
that the human mind is quite adept at holding a myriad of conflicting ideas within itself and devising
ways of justifying them all.
62
Betty
10/25/2008
Yes, it does . . . when educators advocate that dinosaurs walked the earth, which you know in truth
was no such thing. Proof: the Holy Bible, specifically the Book of Genesis, states as true fact that man
was created in God's own image. Nowhere does it say anything about apes. When mankind chooses
to believe falsehoods as true creation facts, then we as a generation are lying to our children. I went to
school in the 1960's, and a chapter from the Holy Bible was read to my junior high school homeroom
class every morning. Guess what? Most of the students from that class and most of the other
homeroom classes of other students turned out very well and went on to college or the work force and
became productive people in society. Today our children are not taught the true Christian values which
our founding fathers had established during formation of the constitution.
RE: Whole Series
Donald Kaple
10/24/2008
I made a comment on June 3, 2008 and am now revisiting this website. I'm amazed at the interest
generated by the question of whether science makes God obsolete. I'd like to recommend Raimon
Panikkar and John Hought. No doubt God is a human projection, but this needs to be examined
further. Panikkar suggests that humans are a God projection. Interesting!
RE: Whole Series
Darryl Roberts
10/22/2008
Your essays are inspirational!!
RE: Whole Series
J Whitson
10/17/2008
In order to make God "obsolete," one must replace him/her with something better. Since God is not
materially manifest, one must perceive his/her existence through belief; therefore, in order to replace
God, one must obtain a better belief. Though whole communities and nations may hold a common
belief, believing is fundamentally the prediliction of an individual, used to provide him/her with the
perception of order and control over the apprehension of an existance with an unknown conclusion in a
seemingly disorderly and uncontrolled universe.
Considering this, an individual may find more comfort, order, and control in the tenets of science, while
another might not, finding greater comfort in one or more deities or, in the coin-of-the day, "greed is
good." So, of course not: belief is entirely subjective. If people find comfort and happiness in their
beliefs, then those are the true and correct beliefs for them. A "universally true belief" or the "only true
belief" is an oxymoron. The disagreements among my learned colleagues on this dais rests my case.
Robert Hargett
10/17/2008
As an agnostic/skeptic, Mr. Hitchens makes the most sense to me.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Brent Orrell
10/16/2008
I have to take issue with Robert Sapolsky on the issue of whose hands have more blood on them. The
religious wars of human history as well as the Inquisition and other domestic purges of non-believers
can't hold a candle to the losses caused by secular ideologies like fascism and, even more so,
communism. The rivers of Asia and Europe run red with the innocents slaughtered following these
false Gods. Religious wars, having occured so much earlier in our industrial development, simply didn't
have the tools for mass killing that modern ideologies have deployed in trying to bring their malign
heavens to earth. I don't disagree that religion can act similarly as an impetus to murder, but it hasn't
even come close to the scale of harm caused by atheistic philosophies.
RE: Whole Series
David
10/14/2008
63
The question is a subjective one. By this I mean that "God" as I understand Him and the concept of
God reside completely within the mind. It may be that outside of the physical universe He also exists,
but that is unknowable. It is really a metaphysical question, one not amenable to rational examination.
Just trying to explain it, I go around in circles of reasoning. I believe that without man or another
creature capable of higher reasoning, maybe a dolphin, the God I understand would not exist. He is
because I believe He is. But He is more than that because as I live the "good" life, it becomes more
difficult to separate "God" and "me."
The idea in transactional analysis, a type of psychotherapy, is that there is the parent, the adult, and
the child. Or in the vernacular of the psychotherapist, the superego, the ego, and the id. God would be
the father and mother of the very young child. As the child grew and began to solve problems, the
adult, the problem solver would grow. And the id, the child, would make all this business worth while.
Without the superego, it would be very difficult for the ego to nurture the id. Without God and some
promise of permanence, however ephemeral, life would be very chaotic. God is that still, small voice
that speaks to us as we lay upon our bed, waiting for sleep.
The historical evidence for God is, I believe, based entirely on human interactions with the physical
environment and other human beings, and as such becomes a historical and sociological study,
bringing us back full circle to the individual's inner life. And so the question really remains unanswered.
RE: Whole Series
Angela Lloyd
10/13/2008
Not at all. People who already believe in God are not impressed by the marvels of science. No matter
how science evolves, it could never explain how a person suffering from cancer could be cured
(healed) after doctors did everything scientifically and humanly possible. God will prove himself to be
the master scientist. Through the wonders of science, humans impress themselves by duplicating what
God has already done. So does Satan. Just keep living, and we will all see how BIG God is and how
wonderfully we are created because of Him.
RE: Whole Series
Purple Neon Lights
09/30/2008
I ran into this while reading "East of Eden" by John Steinbeck: "Adam said, 'Let me tell you. The proofs
that God does not exist are very strong, but in lots of people they are not as strong as the feeling that
He does.'" As mentioned in an earlier post, I suppose that the instrument for detecting God is human
awareness. God can't be detected with physical instruments measuring the ping-pong balls of
pulsating matter. An instrument that interfaces with the metaphysical is needed. Otherwise it's like
trying to detect a smell with a microphone. Using a metaphysical microphone wisely still requires
skillful application of the principles of scientific method.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
09/24/2008
Walter W. Lee (09/22) theorizes that the basis for human values is the survivability of the species. I
agree, but I would add to that the survivability of the culture. The ongoing discussion on this page is
testimony to that. This forum has become one of many battlegrounds where the God culture and the
science culture struggle for supremacy. The survival of science is not in doubt. At this point I think the
culture of God just wants to coexist.
RE: Whole Series
Walter W. Lee
09/22/2008
Regarding John Cozijn's comment of (09/19): I submit a scientific theory: the inescapable basis for
human values is the survivability of the species.
RE: Whole Series
John Cozijn
09/21/2008
Tracy Witham upbraids me for insulting people "I don't understand" and insinuates I haven't done my
"homework," etc. Well, let us not waste time feigning outrage at the polemical tactics of those with
whom we disagree lest we be accused of that worst of New Testament sins: hypocrisy. My starting
64
point, as per my first post in this thread, is that the God discussed here has virtually nothing in common
with the religious beliefs and practices of actual believers, including "educated, intelligent people." To
take Tillich as an example, his entire "method of correlation" requires the acceptance of Christian
revelation as a fact. To quote: "The Christian message provides the answers to the questions implied
in human existence. These answers are contained in the revelatory events on which Christianity is
based ..."
However, the historicity of these "events" is itself entirely based on the implausible and contradictory
narratives contained in the extended press release we now call the New Testament (and its rather
troubled relationship to a diverse set of ancient Jewish texts we know as the Old Testament). Now if
the test of historicity fails, so does Tillich's entire project. This is an empirical question, and it seems to
me that in these "highbrow" discussions people go to great lengths to disguise their necessary
adherence to dogmas of talking snakes, virgin births, assorted miracles, bodily resurrections, and
other Iron Age nonsense. Instead we are treated to meaningless abstractions such as "God is Love" or
vacuous philosophising that purposefully disguises its preposterous premises. I actually have no
problem with Deism (since it implies no empirical claims at all), but I do object to this kind of high-
minded theism which deliberately obscures its relationship to the myths fervently held by the real
people--educated or not--who populate the pews and prayer mats of this muddled world.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
09/19/2008
John Cozijn's (09/19) words show that he feels free to demean and insult people he doesn't
understand. The pity is that he asked a good question: "What makes anyone think that religion has
anything to offer?" It deserves a good response. But he quickly--between insults--asserts that "The
entire history of the Church would seem eloquent testimony that religion provides no special insight
into moral problems or any other dilemmas." That's a big claim. Then he must have really done his
homework!
Since I have great respect for Paul Tillich's theology, perhaps he will disabuse me of the view that
Tillich's use of ultimate concern and false ultimacy successfully re-interprets religious faith for
educated, intelligent people, and that it offers the key to solving humanity's central moral dilemma. Or
perhaps, since I originally brought up the problem of existential crisis, he would rather explain why
existential estrangement isn't a good modern re-interpretation of the concept of sin, one that both
secular and religious persons can learn from and respect. Perhaps he spent more time in philosophy.
How about a critique of Kant's assertion that the only unqualified good is a good will and its
relationship to the central theme of his Religion Within the Bounds of Reason Alone--followed, of
course, by an explanation of why Kant or any neo-Kantian religious thinker is such a rube that she or
he deserves only ridicule?
So, can Mr. Conijn give us an expert abstract of any of these concepts and explain why they deserve
his mocking? His big claim implies that he can. My suspicion is that his "argument" has much in
common with the straw man it attacks.
RE: Whole Series
John Cozijn
09/19/2008
Values and ethics are not derivable from science--that would indeed be the worst kind of scientism.
But what makes anyone think that religion has anything to contribute? Fall of man via a trick played by
a talking snake, followed by a blood sacrifice that "saves" humanity from this Original Sin? Puh--lease!
Why is a prelate more qualified to offer "moral guidance" than a plumber? The entire history of the
Church would seem eloquent testimony that religion provides no special insight into moral problems or
any other human dilemmas. And given that science has effectively overthrown its entire ontology, the
pronouncements religion does make on such questions are invariably wrapped up in layers of
obfuscating mumbo-jumbo.
This of course is the fundamental problem with Steve Gould's position of "non-overlapping magisteria,"
or NOMA, which just hands over the entire sphere of morality to "religion." The reality is that the world
does not need men in dresses to pontificate or evangelical conmen to command others "how to live."
65
Religion in the 21st century is surplus to requirements. We are on our own, so let's just grow up and
start taking responsibility for our ethical and personal choices based on the best information about the
world we can get (which is where science comes in).
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
09/19/2008
Jack King (09/17) concedes that science cannot address the existential doubt in Marcel's play (see my
9/15 comment). Perhaps it will help to make the underlying argument explicit: If faith provides a
framework for answering existential questions and science cannot, then science cannot supersede
religion. The core of the great religions expressly provide that framework (the Shema, the Eightfold
Path, The Great Commandments, etc.).
The Marcel plot was a specific example to illustrate how it can be that a person must choose a
meaning in response to a situation that cannot be better understood "scientifically," and where faith
provides the only helpful way out. Then I pointed out that the facts of natural history are also beset with
opportunity for existential doubt, and that more facts are not likely to change the need for faith--and
just think of faith here as "belief where doubt is possible," to use William James's definition--in making
up one's mind.
Last, I used the naturalistic fallacy to point out that the understanding of the world that science gives us
cannot be turned into the moral and value systems that people use to make decisions. My conclusion
follows: science cannot supersede religion. In reply to Mr. King's counterpoints, "science" does not
"apply" itself; human beings working as scientists do. Science does not accomplish the greater good.
People decide to use science to do good.
To drive the point home that science is contingent on the non-scientific value systems of its
practitioners, I ask, will science still contribute to the greater good if a scientist gives atomic bomb
technology to terrorists? Is that a terrible thought? Yes. Is that judgment scientific? No. Would the
terrorist share it? No. Could the scientist be a terrorist? Yes. Mr. King should consider whether
"science" has become his "god." If so, my faith says he can upgrade for free.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
09/17/2008
Tracy Withan (09/15) makes a number of pronouncements and offers two challenges (actually, three
questions). He asks if there is any reason to think that the self-doubt afflicting the character in Marcel's
story can be addressed by a complete scientific account of his mental states and personal history. No,
but perhaps it could be explained that way and therapy could issue from there. Perhaps a Dr. Phil
could be of more help than a frozen prophet.
Then he asks, "Second, is a grand unified evolutionary narrative likely to clarify how problems
concerning the correct ordering of values and morals in human life is to be done (as though the
naturalistic fallacy will someday be overwhelmed by the logic of science)?" Well, while observation of
the naturalistic fallacy is observed in scientific research, it is not observed by all who utilize the fruits of
that research, so indirectly, science can play a vital part. The research may reveal which values
provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and secular administrators could foster those
values. much as many do now. The system could be adaptive and enact modifications over time rather
than view the original values as absolute. This would be far better in an adaptively evolving world than
a one-size-fits-all-forever kind of value system.
Withan also speaks of ontological mystery as if it were something other than identity crisis and of
teleology as something science has abandoned altogether. He's obviously ignoring applied science,
but even pure science, while it doesn't expain nature in terms of purposes, does investigate for a
purpose: that of understanding the natural world. In that area, religionists do not experiment and
discover, but only speculate and pontificate.
Thirdly, Mr. Withan asks, "Is science about to make itself obsolete (because it's about to enter the
moral sphere)?" Not at all. Even in its standard amoral method, it will always have the capacity to
66
provide new tools for those who labor for positive adaptive change, and it has already done more to
relieve human suffering than religion ever did.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
09/16/2008
Tracy Withan (09/15) claims to know that "in an existential crisis, science has nothing relevant to offer."
But the claim is unfounded. Withan should know that we are as yet short on science whenever the
mind is concerned and that more of it would help, not less of it. No doubt one cannot wait for science
when experiencing an existential crisis, yet, when science is not available, the next best thing is
rationality, not a belief in God. Rationality may also be in short supply when going through an
existential crisis, but this also only emphasizes the need for it.
Withan also made a suggestion on the difficulty of finding the "correct ordering of values and morals in
human life." I doubt that many scientists would insist that the theory of evolution could be a basis for
any particular ordering, let alone that it should be. But equally, isn't it true that during the First World
War, soldiers on both sides of the front line believed God was on their side? Somebody must have
been wrong. Contrary to what many believers, like Withan, seem to think, it does not make any sense
to confine the "correct ordering of values and morals in human life" to the small community of true
believers. A fundamental rethink is long overdue.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Withan
09/15/2008
Not everyone thinks that the idea of a coming scientific hegemony is even coherent, let alone likely.
Two challenges: First, consider the plot of Marcel's "L' Homme de Dieu"(further compressed from his
summary in The Mystery of Being, Vol. I, p. 153--the 1949 Gifford Lectures). A young man overcomes
enervating self-doubt after discovering that his wife has had an affair when he finds the strength to
forgive her. Years later the man with whom the wife had an affair returns. He is dying and asks to meet
the couple's child, who was born out of the affair. The husband grants a visit. But the wife sees the
grant as "a professional gesture" (the husband is a pastor), which precludes "real, human love." She
"infects her husband with her doubts," and he returns to his enervating self-doubt. Is there any reason
to think that the man's self-doubt can be addressed by a complete scientific account of his mental
states and personal history? In fact, in an existential crisis, science has nothing relevant to offer.
Second, is a grand unified evolutionary narrative likely to clarify how problems concerning the correct
ordering of values and morals in human life is to be done (as though the naturalistic fallacy will
someday be overwhelmed by the logic of science)? How thoughtful of my Viking and Saxon forebears
to have clubbed and slashed their way to victory with biological imperatives of such moral clarity!
Marcel was right. Faith, not science, operates within the sphere of ontological mystery that forms the
background to human existence. Science is said to have left that sphere when Aristotle's teleology lost
favor, and it flourished as a result. Now science is thought to be on the verge of re-entering that
sphere. And so I ask, is science about to make itself obsolete?
RE: Whole Series
John Cozijn
09/13/2008
Well, it would appear that God is indeed dead--at least the God that people actually worship, as
distinct from the desiccated philosophical entities discussed by the "believers" here. Take the
Catholics Schonborn and Miller. Where is the God of the magic cracker, the God who took the "virgin"
Mary physically into heaven, the God who has confided to the current Pope that it is still a "sin" to use
a condom even for HIV-discordant married couples, the God who would listen to my prayer, if I were
ever of a mind to say one?
Never mind the God of the ever-shrinking gaps. The corresponding gap between the abstract,
philosophical entity discussed here and the actual beliefs and practices of the religiously inclined has
yawned into an unbridgeable chasm. There are indeed many mysteries to be plumbed about the
nature of existence, but the one thing we can say with some certainty is that science has so far proved
to be the only mode of cognition that has any track record at all in decoding such mysteries.
67
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Victor Phelemba
09/12/2008
Cardinal Schonborn closes with a comment that should be repeated: "consideration of our
incompleteness leads us beyond, in search of a Someone who is the Good of us all. Science will never
make that quest obsolete." If I could add my humble two cents: it seems that the more we learn as
humans, the larger the question becomes and the larger our responsibility to offer future generations a
chance to answer the very same. It may not simply be a matter of "is science making a belief in religion
obsolete," but a matter of how can we use what we are learning to better commune with ourselves,
each other, and God.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Michell
09/12/2008
The arguments in the "God debate" annoy me intensely, because, as Leendert Huisman points out,
they are arguing about a huge unknown. I feel I want to shout "What do you mean by GOD!?" I
personally haven't the remotest idea of what this word is supposed to mean. It's a real joker of a word,
changing its meaning all the time depending on context and individual background. Having read Karen
Armstrong's brilliant "History of God" and other accessible works of this kind, my confusion has grown
worse. The word "God" just does not work as a concept; it's simply a paradox par excellence, and if
you use it as a metaphor or symbol, it becomes as vague as mist. In fact, in the contemporary
postmodern context, it has turned into its opposite, spreading destructive confusion, which is the
meaning behind the word "diabolical." By all means, let religious folk continue to use it, at least they
(think they) know what they are talking about. The rest of us are wise to avoid it altogether.
RE: Whole Series
Steven Katz
09/11/2008
I am not sure. I thought the answer was yes until recent days, but now I have become more equivocal.
RE: Whole Series
Leendert Huisman
09/09/2008
Interesting as these answers to the Templeton question are, they suffer from the same problem as all
discussions on the existence of God: nothing even resembling a definition is given of the entity, called
God, whose existence is in dispute. Consequently, some deny this existence, some affirm it, and no
one knows if the opponents are even talking about the same thing. The Templeton Foundation would
do everyone interested in these questions an enormous favor if they would pose the question: "what
do we mean by God?" and continue guiding the discussions until something resembling a consensus
emerges.
The foundation should also consider that this is not even the most important question to be asked. One
can always define God so vaguely that the question regarding His existence becomes meaningless. Of
much greater importance is the question whether this God, assuming He exists, wants something from
us and how we would know what that is. Believers say yes to the first question and find the answer to
the second one in their favorite interpretation of their favored sacred texts. Christians have their texts,
Mormons theirs, Muslims theirs, and so forth and so on, and they teach different things. Can believers,
Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. come to an agreement on what God wants? Or can they at least
come to an agreement on how interested individuals like myself would know about God's desires?
RE: Whole Series
Wesley
09/09/2008
There are many questions that we cannot answer. My definition of God is an intelligent being who
exists outside of time and outside of space. The Big Bang and evolution are highly irrational if they are
done on their own. When you add something like God, the whole thing becomes a lot easier to explain.
To be truly open-minded, one has to consider that God may exist, so don't throw the concept away just
yet.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
09/09/2008
68
Purple Neon Lights (09/07/08), for purposes of this discussion, has defined God for us. He says God is
the final or ultimate cause from which all else springs. Well, first of all, causes are not final but previous
to the outcome they bring about. I'm sure PNL knows this, so perhaps he's referring to the finality of his
conclusion about what God is. That conclusion is by no means final or we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
Secondly, if all else springs from God, then God is responsible for cancer and parasites, torture and
genocide, suffering and pain, injustice and terror, and everything else that is hideous and bad. He is
not worthy of worship nor adoration nor any kind of respect other than the respect one would give a
rattlesnake or a callous despot, and those who cringe before him are putting the continuance of their
own miserable existence before any acceptable definition of honor or justice.
PNL also says that love, loyalty, addition, and beauty are entities because they are palpable, and
human awareness is the instrument by which we detect them. Space being limited, let's look at love, a
feeling induced by hormonal changes in the brain. The neurons, enzymes, receptors, and
electrochemical signals that produce the feeling we call love are entities, but the feeling itself is a
movement, just as a pendulum is an entity and its swing is a movement. Movements are not entities.
Every particle in the universe is moving in relation to all other particles all the time in a ceaseless
dance of perpetual change. Motion is occurring in our brains and bodies all the time and often results
in conscious feelings that arise from algorithms encoded in our genes or behavioral responses
imposed by culture. None of this movement can be properly classified as entity.
Love, for the most part, is wonderful and good, but sometimes not. How many stalkers and abusive
spouses are motivated by desire to control or possess the object of their love? How much crime has
been committed for love of money? How many suicide bombers have wreaked death and destruction
for love of God?
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
09/08/2008
George S. Nischik's argument (06/18) is as follows: transcendence implies God, and denying
transcendence would imply our own non-existence, which we cannot do. Ergo, God exists. The view
that transcendence implies God does not mean anything so I will simply ignore it. Transcendental
means "what is beyond the natural world." We can translate Nischik's argument thus: "If you accept
that there is a realm beyond the natural world, then God is a necessity. If not, then God never was but
then 'you' never were either."
Nischik's main assumption here is that our mind is self-evidently beyond the natural world and, since
you cannot possibly deny your own mind, you have to accept the "transcendental" and God with it. In a
nutshell, Nischik says that our mental experience as conscious being implies God. Nobody has ever
explained why this should be, and Nischik does not either. The reality is that there is no reason
whatsoever to believe this to be true.
If by "mind" we mean our cognitive capabilities, perception, memory, reasoning, language, etc., the
neurosciences have very convincingly shown that it is all natural. Plus, each of us has compelling
evidence of it in other humans but also in nature at large: in animals, from apes and cows to insects,
worms and spiders, and in machines, although they still only very partially emulate our range of
cognitive capabilities.
Now the subjective experience we have of our own consciousness is entirely private: none of us has
any evidence at all that other humans experience it. Beyond our private experience, the only evidence
is indirect: others have the same cognitive capabilities as we do, so we assume they experience
consciousness the way we do. However, since cognitive capabilities are themselves all natural, we
have to presume that consciousness is also natural.
RE: Whole Series
Rik Delaet
09/08/2008
God? Define! Then ask again.
69
RE: Whole Series
Purple Neon Lights
09/07/2008
First off, God has to be defined. All this talk of God, and seldom if ever is it defined. I'll define God for
the purposes of these discussions as being the final or ultimate cause, from which all else springs.
Hypotheses: (1) Metaphysical entities exist and are palpable (examples are: love, loyalty, addition,
beauty). (2) Metaphysical entities are detectable with the instrument of human awareness. God is the
ultimate metaphysical entity. The existence of metaphysical entities can be substantiated by groups of
trained observers applying scientific method, just as, say, heliocentrism of the solar system is verifiable
by trained astronomers.
(3) Metaphysical entities very frequently, but not necessarily, have physical correlates. For example,
consider one who is experiencing the feeling of beauty, triggered by looking at a rose. The rose is the
correlate but not the metaphysical entity of beauty. The metaphysical entity of beauty is palpable and
discernible without the rose or another physical correlate. Beauty in the abstract exists, and human
awareness is the device necessary to "pick it up."
Where a lot of people get hung up is thinking that scientific method is usable only if one uses physical
instruments to detect physical entities. But there is nothing barring using the human awareness as an
instrument for objective detection of metaphysical entities. Groups of individuals well-trained in
scientific method can have very significant agreement about the existence of otherwise non-physical,
or metaphysical, entities.
Take the concept of addition. Or beauty. Or loyalty. Or love. There is a vast consensus throughout
history that these metaphysical entities exist. By what basis could one reasonably hypothesize that
these entities do not exist? Some will say they are "merely" a construct of the mind. If that is so, is the
existence of a distant star "merely" the construct of a telescope? Is the existence of bacteria "merely"
the construct of a microscope? Not so.
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Jack
09/04/2008
Bill (09/02) says that truth is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to metaphysics. Actually, that's
not necessarily true for truth, but rather for perception, opinion, and belief. The truth is more elusive
and requires a more exhaustive search and closer examination of all that's relevant to the question.
Perceptions, opinions, and beliefs can come in conflict with other perceptions, opinions, and beliefs,
but definitive truths about the nature of reality (which can sometimes be conceived in metaphysical
terms) cannot be in conflict. If they are, then at least one of them is incomplete or is only an
approximation of truth. In nature, paradox abounds, and in language, ambiguity abounds. This often
confuses the observer or hampers the speaker or writer who attempts to convey a "truth" to others.
Deductively, the existence of God cannot be proven because the premises from which the conclusion
would have to be drawn would have to be sound, and the logic leading to the conclusion sound as well.
No sound premises that would lead to such a conclusion have been found. However, the nonexistence
of God can be proven inductively, and Victor J. Stenger appears to have done that fairly well in his
essay.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
09/04/2008
Margaret (09/03) says that science asks how and religion asks why. I agree, up to a point. To ask how
is to ask for the mechanics of an event or phenomenon, and to ask why is to ask for reasons. Since
mechanics are found in all of nature, and science is the study of nature, how is certainly a question that
scientists ask.
Reasons, however, are found only in minds, and minds are relatively recently evolved features of
nature, but part of nature nonetheless. The social sciences (psychology, economics, etc.) examine the
reasons people act and behave the way they do, so reasons as well as mindless mechanics are within
70
the domain of science. Reasons wouldn't exist if brains hadn't evolved to produce them. So mechanics
(the hows, not the whys) are ultimately at the root of all that is and all that can ever be.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
09/04/2008
Bill says (09/02) that a negative can be proven in mathematics. This is of course totally beside the
point. Nature is not made of mathematical objects, and therefore no mathematical proof can be used
as evidence about reality. Observation is always required to validate the mathematical models of
nature that are proposed by scientists. Not the other way round. Once a model is validated by precise
observations, it can be used for practical purposes until somebody comes up with a better model, if
ever.
The doctor who knew about "decreasing the amount of infection by washing hands" had acquired his
personal conviction by observing the evidence available in nature, not by reading the Bible or by
writing equations. Other doctors "who thought it nonsense and would not investigate"--i.e., would not
look at the evidence--have been proved wrong by the repeated observation that washing hands
decreases the amount of infection, not by metaphysics.
It is also noteworthy that Bill seems to be advocating relativism in truth: "Truth is in the eye of the
beholder when it comes to metaphysics." In a nutshell, we can believe what we like! No doubt you are
free to put together any metaphysical claim you want since you cannot be proven wrong! But this
sounds like a pretty vacuous activity. A metaphysical claim is not at all the same thing as truth. Truth is
always a potential. We can only believe in the truth of the statements we make; we're never sure.
Hence, don't expect others to take seriously any of your beliefs unless you can properly justify them!
And I don't know of any proper method for justifying metaphysical claims. You may believe things, but
if you don't have any evidence, expect your beliefs to remain pretty much irrelevant to real life or,
worse, to be detrimental to you and others.
RE: Whole Series
Margaret
09/03/2008
Science does not make belief in God obsolete. Science and religion address different fields. Science
asks the question "how?" and religion asks the question "why?" It is only when some versions of
religion attempt to dictate what should be questions of science, e.g., the age of the earth and whether
or not the earth circles the sun, that they make themselves look ridiculous. Science does not concern
itself with "why?" The Baha'i religion, to which I belong, says that science and religion should be in
harmony
RE: Whole Series
Bill
09/02/2008
Oh, pish tush. Saying proof is on one side and not the other is like saying a negative cannot be proven.
Mathematically it can. Was the burden of proof on the doctor who knew about decreasing the amount
of infection by washing hands? The other doctors thought it nonsense and would not investigate. The
truth is neither a positive based in belief or a position of unbelief that can be proven. But to claim the
default position is incorrect. Truth is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to metaphysics.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
08/31/2008
Theodore Lundy (08/29) has written a piece with which I largly agree, especially his conclusion. We're
pretty much on the same page. The part I disagree with is the separate reality business. There is only
one reality but many perceptions of that reality. All those perceptions are incomplete, and many are
erroneous. They are produced by brains which are physical objects mechanistacally creating those
perceptions from a very small portion of the data that is out there to be gathered by the senses. We
can't gather it all, and it would be beyond the computational power of a single brain to process it all.
We rely on a network of other minds to help make sense of it, and in doing so we expose ourselves to
false interpretations.
So if everything is physical and mechanistic, where does this spiritual nonsense come from? No one
71
has ever found a spirit outside their imagination. There is no objective evidence for the existence of
spirits or souls or supranatural entities. The problem, I think, is that we take conceptual shortcuts to
conclusions. We utilize the abstract to arrive at conclusions quickly, and we begin to think of time and
space and freedom and justice and beauty as real tangible entities when they are only abstractions,
constructs, or conventions created and adopted by networks of minds to process information more
quickly, to facilitate communication, and to make perceptions more meaningful in human terms.
The real problem is that meaning arrived at in such a speedy and convenient fashion is often so far
from a true representation of reality as to be utter nonsense. So Theodore is right. Those who put their
necks on the track for a physical god are going to eventually get run over by the oncoming train of
physical reality. And mercifully, when their last flicker of awareness fades to black, they'll never know
whether they went to heaven.
RE: Whole Series
Jamie
08/30/2008
Certain humans are starting to see patterns in the world around them in the form of coincidences--
Deepak Chopra, James Redfield, etc. Now, you may think these people are crazy and suffering from a
delusion, but the same message is repeated time and again. That is, coincidences contain meaning,
and some of that meaning comes from the person experiencing it. It is true I have not put forth a full
theory due to lack of space (Eugene 08/29), but here is a simplified explanation.
All highly intelligent beings express themselves symbolically with coincidences. God does it (see
Jamie 08/20), and humans do it individually and in groups, unconsciously. The earthquakes example I
referred to in my 08/27 response was indeed short on detail, but there is a message being relayed,
coming from the group consciousness. Each of the earthquakes in the filter can be seen as part of a
message, but there is not enough space here to explain it fully. Individuals express themselves using
coincidence as well. Jack King (08/29) says he sees coincidences everywhere but cannot see any
meaning in them. Another interesting point he makes is that people not versed in physics and math
cannot comprehend Einstein's theory. Don't you think the same thing can apply to other areas of life,
such as understanding what coincidences are?
If you do not have the training or knowledge, then they are incomprehensible and usually ignored.
Theodore Lundy (08/29) talks about separate realities, but it is not necessary to separate God and
science, as one expresses the other. To see it, you must understand about coincidences and this will
come from experiencing them in your own reality over time. A suggestion: next time a coincidence
occurs in your life, try to break it down symbolically and see if there is a reference to your own thoughts
or feelings.
RE: Whole Series
Theodore Lundy
08/29/2008
Having read the articles and many of the comments, I can see an overarching theme. It is described
directly by Jerome Groopman in his essay and by the commenters Nischik and Bucamp among others.
It is the only theme, in my view, which allows belief in both science and God. This is the principle of
separate realities.
We all exist in a dual reality. Each human being interacts with the universe around him based on his
personal perception. It is safe to say that no two humans perceive exactly the same things. Yet our
perceptions of the actual must be sufficiently consistent that we don't, for instance, run into one
another on the highway. We settle comfortably into the paradigm which holds that our perceptions are
the same as what is physically there. It is difficult to pull these two realities apart and see them as
actually being separate and occasionally very different.
This question pitting science against God is precisely a case of this difference. Perhaps this is the
epitome of such distinctions. Science is purely about the physical characteristics of reality. Religion
and, at its heart, God are equally clearly a matter of internal, spiritual, subjective, and personal reality.
The answer to this series's question therefore is NO! No because both exist in separate realities.
There is one hold-out against this nice clean answer. It is that devoutly religious persons insist that
72
God is a physical reality. If the believer projects his God into the realm of physical entities, then there is
a conflict in which science shall prevail. The scientific method has demonstrated, beyond reasonable
doubt, that it is a reliable method for understanding physical phenomena. It has done so and advanced
human knowledge greatly without encountering a physical God anywhere. In this conflict, I see the
believer defiantly putting his mind on the track of scientific advancement and ignoring the oncoming
train of knowledge.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
08/29/2008
Jamie (08/27) sees a correlation between the timing of deadly earthquakes and the timing of wars
(even cold ones). He challenges us to put aside our belief systems and look at what's really out there.
But when I look at what's really out there I can either attribute what I see to God's mysterious ways or
some other supranatural activity (which is not looking into it at all), or I can look for a natural
expanation, or I can simply look at it as coincidence. But to look at earthquakes as a cause of war or
vice-versa is like looking for guidance in planetary alignments, tea leaves, or goat entrails. One can
find random coincidence everywhere, but that seldom if ever leads to anything useful.
Jamie also uses the word rational to describe Newton's ideas but not to describe Einstein's. But
Einstein, after evaluating the Michelson-Morley experiment, came up with his theory of relativity, which
he said was the way it had to be. His rationality, based on observed data and utilizing higher levels of
mathematics, was entirely logical and entirely rational, though admittedly incomprehinsible even today
to those not versed in physics and math.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/29/2008
Jamie (08/27) still doesn't make sense. Open mind? The "idea of keeping an "open mind" is, with
rationality, at the foundation of science. While scientists defend their own theories, other scientists
usually have enough of an open mind to do the hatchet job. Some specific "extra piece of information"
could conceivably make belief in God rational; rational people would then believe in God. So? The fact
is that today we don't have any such information and no reason to think it will ever materialize, which is
indeed why belief in God is irrational.
There is grave confusion in Jamie's argument. That certain past scientific theories have been proven
wrong by scientists coming afterward is no indication at all as to which particular theory today will turn
out later to be correct or wrong. Nobody at the time of Newton suggested anything like the theory
proposed later by Einstein. The reason is that if you look for answers merely by blind guessing through
zillions of potential theories, all equally unlikely because there is no evidence at all for any of them, the
likelihood of finding the correct answer is one over many zillions, or very nearly impossible.
Einstein was in a very different position because by then there was plenty of evidence that effectively
limited the number of candidate theories. A few people, Henri Poincarr� in particular, had already made
suggestions much like Einstein's Special Relativity. While he needed much more than just "a little
more information," he didn't have nearly as much to guess as is often said. Rather, his special merit
was that he put aside the long-established views about space and time and took the available
evidence at face value. True, one zany theory could one day prove correct, yet there is no good
example of that in our history and this is because the odds of zany theories are truly awful.
Regarding earthquakes, Jamie obviously doesn't have any rational theory to begin with. Short of that, it
just looks silly.
RE: Whole Series
Jamie
08/27/2008
Eugene Bucamp didn't get my earlier point, which was a general observation about scientific history.
There have been many instances in which scientists think they have the answers to a problem, and yet
a little more information proves them incorrect. I was attempting to use the scientific method to
promote the idea of keeping an open mind. Eugene's discussion of the real choice being between
rationality and irrationality does make sense, but this is an area where people cannot agree. Who gets
to choose what is rational? Something that is irrational, like the belief in God, can become rational with
73
a little extra piece of information. It is the same as before. Newton's ideas were quite rational, yet most
people who study Einstein come out confounded. I was asked if there are very precise observations of
God, and my answer to this is that the observations of God are not necessarily in the precise parts, but
the overall whole.
I will give an example using earthquakes with a casualty rate of 25,000 or more. Between 1932 and
2004 inclusive, four out of 12 earthquakes occurred on December 26, using universal time where
available (or possibly Dec 25). The chances of this occurring are on the order of a million to one.
Looking at the last 100 years using the same filter, you will find earthquakes falling on very interesting
years. At the start of WWII in 1939, two occurred. The Soviet Union has two on the list, with one in
1948 and another in 1988, being the approximate boundaries of the Cold War. Earthquakes occurred
in 1990 and 2003 in the Middle East, the same years Gulf Wars I and II started. You may also include
the Iran earthquake in 1978, the same year the revolution started. And so on. Here is the challenge:
Put your belief systems aside for a moment, whether they are scientific or religious, and see what is
really there. It may not be anything like you have previously imagined.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/27/2008
Humanity has proven its capacity to change radically the conditions of life on this planet. Science has
only recently revealed the amazing scope of our fundamental options. Yet, for too many human beings
today these conditions are still determined by war, poverty, disease, insecurity, economic exploitation,
and lack of education and prospects, not to mention distrust and hatred. A truly moral society would
not leave so many people outside.
Moving towards a more moral society presupposes the willingness to compromise with as many as
possible of the six billion people living on this planet. Because each person is also a unique being, and
uniquely awkward, compromise is only possible on the basis of a rational dialogue among people
recognized as possessing equal rights. While there may be some progress in this direction, too little is
done and there is a considerable amount still to be done. It is time that religious people realize at last
that founding their priorities on irrational beliefs is a fundamental obstruction to this necessary
dialogue. The real choice is not science or religion, but rationality or irrationality.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
08/26/2008
Bill (08/24) says that all the evidence might point against the existence of God, but Darwin's theory
does not provide a scientific underpinning to disbelief. In my view, it's not that all the evidence points
against the existence of God, but that none of the evidence points toward the existence of God. The
most persuasive argument for the existence of God has always been the argument from design, but
Darwinian theory has shown us that design can be accomplished by mindless natural forces. We don't
need a scientific underpinning to our disbelief. Our disbelief in supernatural explanations is the
underpinning for our belief in natural explanations, the only explanations that affirm the intelligibility of
our universe and point us toward a methodology for better prediction and control.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/26/2008
Jamie (08/25) didn't get my point about "likelihood." There is nothing remotely similar between a guess
of the likelihood of God and Einstein's formula for time dilation. According to Einstein, the local time of
a traveller (e.g., his watch) appears "dilated" (slow) to an observer if they are moving relatively to each
other (this is reciprocal). This depends on the speed and only becomes substantial at a fraction of the
speed of light (300,000 km/s). Einstein's General Relativity also says that time is dilated in the vicinity
of massive objects. All this was confirmed by various observations. No probability here.
The point is that the notion of likelihood does not make sense once you have the answer. Before
General Relativity, the likelihood that any specific theory contradicting Newton was right would have
indeed been something less than 0.000000001%. But Einstein's theory did not and could not come to
confirm any such theory because nobody ever suggested any theory similar to Einstein's before
Einstein did. Moreover, all theories against Netwon were also proven wrong by Einstein. So, a
likelihood guess of 0.000000001% at the time would have been very good. Again, before Einstein, the
74
likelihood of the general claim "Newton is wrong" would have been much more likely (and true) but
vacuous because not specific enough. Newton's theory was the best guess.
Then, well after Newton but crucially before Einstein, scientists discovered a small discrepancy
between Newton's predictions and the observations on Mercury's orbit. At this point, anybody could
safely guess that Newton was wrong, but only Einstein explained why and how and therefore not only
Newton but all theories imagined during this period by other scientists were proved wrong in the end.
The crucial point? Einstein's theories were only accepted after they proved consistent with very precise
observations. This is what rationality means. Do you have any very precise observations of God?
RE: Whole Series
Jamie
08/25/2008
I find it interesting to see a figure for the likelihood of God existing as 0.000000001% (comment by
Eugene Bucamp, 08/22). Anyone with an interest in scientific history may be aware of a figure just like
this causing a huge change in our understanding of the universe. The historical events I am referring to
are the Michelson-Morley experiment (1880s), which proved the speed of light was constant, and the
discovery of Special Relativity (1905) by Einstein.
These two events essentially proved that Newton's Laws of Motion, which had reigned supreme for
centuries, were only approximations. Einstein came up with a formula for time dilation which included a
figure just like that quoted for the existence of God. And not just time but distances as well. Our
understanding of space and time are now counter-initiative because of these tiny numbers that pop up
in relativity calculations.
This evolutionary jump in understanding of the physical laws shows that a small unaccounted-for thing,
like the speed of light being constant, can have a dramatic effect on our understanding of the universe.
Newton's laws ruled for two centuries, only to be supplanted by a vastly different and more complex
set of laws which describes virtually the same result. Until life and consciousness are completely
understood, don't rule out different ways of viewing the world we live in. It makes scientific sense!
RE: Whole Series
Bill
08/24/2008
All the evidence might point against the existence of God. This depends on your position. All the
arguments against His existence may be excellent. One thing I have learned: just because the
evidence leads in a certain direction does not make it so. Scientists and non-theists are capable of
their own irrational beliefs. Darwin's theory (and I understand the meaning of theory as opposed to the
vulgar meaning) can be used to prove things scientifically but does not provide a philosophical
underpinning to disbelief.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
08/24/2008
William James wrote an especially apt comment on this topic more than 110 years ago: "[Our] moral,
aesthetic, and practical wants form too dense a stubble to be mown by any scientific Occam's razor
that has yet been forged. The knights of the razor will never form among us more than a sect; but when
I see their fraternity increasing in numbers, and, what is worse, when I see their negations acquiring
almost as much prestige and authority as their affirmations legitimately claim over the minds of the
docile public, I feel as if the influences working in the direction of our mental barbarization were
beginning to be rather strong" ("Reflex Action and Theism" in The Will to Believe).
James's advice? "Burst the bonds" of both "a narrow ecclesiastical tradition" and "a narrow scientific
tradition . . . which would pretend to leave out of account those forms of being . . . to which . . . our
active and emotional tendencies are our only avenues of approach." Only when science need no
longer be reductionistic to lay claim to a comprehensive authority in human affairs will its doctrinaire
supporters be more than an anti-religious sect. Those of us who are religiously broad-minded will
cheer for any possible progress toward a scientific "beatific vision" or "omniscience."
And so I wonder, won't a broad-minded scientific approach want to fully appreciate the best that
religion offers? Or should the approach be that religion has spawned narrow-minded bigotry, so
75
science is justified in doing the same? Here's a challenge. Can anyone confound the best of what
religion offers from a scientific standpoint without assuming a reductive faith in science that has
nothing more to offer than that it opposes the worst of what religion has wrought, thereby making its
point of view irrelevant to broad-minded people?
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/22/2008
If I am not mistaken, Andy Ray (06/28) put a brave figure on the likelihood of God: 0.1%. This may
sound pessimistic to some, but this is not even close to a more rational guess. First, in the case of an
incoherent or inarticulate notion of God, the question of the likelihood of the existence God is obviously
meaningless. An example of this is God as "the entity that created reality." This is meaningless
because reality is the totality of what exists, and therefore the view that "God exists and God created
reality" necessarily implies that God created itself, a proposition that nobody rational can pretend to
understand. Unfortunately, "God created reality" is also what most believers have in mind. Then, if part
of your notion of God is meaningless, its other characteristics, say kindness and what not, become
meaningless too.
In the case of less prevalent but more rational notions of God, such as for example "the intelligent life
form that caused mankind to appear on earth," the likelihood of its existence may conceivably be
evaluated. My personal optimistic guess, in the absence of any positive indication, would be something
like much less than 0.000000001%, i.e., it is not a total impossibility but still a very unlikely possibility.
Coming to the more usual notions of God, say the Christian or Muslim one, and leaving aside for the
sake of argument the vexed issue of whether God created reality or not, they are so specific,
counterintuitive, and gratuitous that we should guess the likelihood of these kinds of Gods as less than
1 over the number of informational states our brain could possibly have, say less than one in many
zillion times. The rationale for this figure (if you want to know) is simply that the Christian or the Muslim
God is merely one idea among zillions and zillions of zany ideas we can make up in our minds
(cartoon characters may provide a crude reference for that), and each of these zany ideas is just as
likely as the next one.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/21/2008
William Kincaid (08/15) put to us the rhetorical conditional "if there were no God, there could be no
logical morality." This is flimsy logic. First, why would it be that "there could be no logical morality"?
There is neither evidence nor rationale for that. Second, we might not have any kind of "logical
morality" even if there were a god. Who knows? Third, we might have a god and a different "logical
morality." We can imagine a god commanding to man: thou shall kill the innocent. Why not? This grim
scenario is no more unlikely than the Good News scenario.
Fourth, the likely situation is that God does not exist, and yet most of us are all very fond of morality.
Go figure. Fifth, despite their claim they get their morality from a divine source, Christian people have
enthusiastically demonstrated they are no better or worse than the average. What is the value of your
claim about whence came your "logical morality" then? Kincaid logically concludes that without God
we would be "going in circles." The reality is that without science, it is humanity itself that would go in
circles and that the least we can say is that religion does help.
RE: Whole Series
C. Kent Ruth
08/20/2008
Where current science is at a loss, religion attempts prayer. Perhaps there's common ground for
research. Consider accounts of an individual mentally encountering foreknowledge of an event, who
shares this information with others, then later the event happens and is witnessed to have the same
details as originally described. This refers only to an event where it could not have been influenced by
anyone involved, or any possibility of earlier information and is not connected by any previous
condition that might have served as a clue to such an event happening.
Researchers not trapped by word-games or rehashing conventional thinking find this to be exciting. Is
it a clue (by current definition) of a supernatural reality? Is it an extension of what some might call
God? Is there a reality beyond current scientific understanding? Science is at a loss how to approach
76
this type of research. Religion attempts prayer; and under special conditions there appears to have
been some success with this approach.
Science is finding within the smallest foundations of physical reality (quarks, six variables, leptons,
etc.) conditions that resemble sophisticated computer-type activities. On this level, in the most basic
sense, memory, identification, interaction, or even communication is performed. From this everything
we know grows. This process and its starting point might be called the source of everything that is.
If all the complexity of the physical reality we recognize can evolve from such basic elements, what
would prevent an equally complex thinking function from starting to perform, evolve, and extend its
sophistication in a similar manner? Could a thinking reality actually exist? Imagine this as a new
frontier. Become a sincere researcher. Report your results. This may sound like a joke, but it is not. It
could be an interesting experiment. Privately meditate to the very depth of your being in an attempt to
connect specifically with the source of everything that is.
RE: Whole Series
Istv�n Tat�r
08/20/2008
Average people do not know and do not understand the modern sciences of physics and biology, so
they will never come nearer to the fundamental discoveries of our modern time. Belief is a weapon
against the uncertainty, sufferings, horrors, and reasonlessness of existence and death. Religious
belief remains for mankind an asylum, and the church has the obligation to strengthen the moral force
of men. On the other hand, very intelligent people do not need the "existence" of God; they can live
without this assumption, as Kant, Laplace, Voltaire, and Spinoza could live. I do not believe in God.
However, I do not think that my personal character is worse than that of a believer. Social
sensitiveness has nothing to do with God.
In spite of my atheist conviction, I would support the Christian church in educating people to moral
behavior, to respect the opinions of other people. Of course, those who like to cope with the most
modern science and know well the controversional and long story of the development of science--
Giordano Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg--may come to the
conclusion that symbols of the Bible are valid today. I would never try to kill the normal belief of
anybody who never heard the name of Kant, Schopenhauer, Hume, or Russell, still less who never
read anything by Schr�dinger, Einstein, or Bohr. This is my opinion on religion and science.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/20/2008
Owen Dykema's claim (07/24) that "science makes some unsupported assumptions" is misleading and
unsupported. Scientific assumptions are minimal. Take Newton's concept of gravitational force. Our
experience tells us that any modification in the movement of massive objects requires the application
of a force. Newton's novel assumption was that all massive bodies--the sun, the moon, the earth,
ordinary objects, or our own bodies are subjected to a force he called the gravitational force and that it
was caused by a property intrinsic to objects: its mass (or quantity of matter). The evidence for this
was the movement of the moon in the sky and the weight of objects on the earth, causing them to fall,
causing us to experience the weight of our body, and the effort required to keep a heavy object above
ground. This, however, would not prove that the gravitational force is caused by mass. Yet, it is the
simplest assumption you can make about its nature.
Newton also proposed an explanation of inertia. He posited that the force required to effect a particular
modification in the movement of a massive object was exactly proportional to its mass: massive
objects required bigger forces to achieve the same change in their movements (this can be measured).
By combining these two ideas on gravitation and inertia, Newton was able to explain Galileo's
observation that all bodies fall at the same speed if they are sufficiently heavy and small for the
resistance of the air to be negligible. An object in free fall is subjected to its weight (the gravitational
force) and to its own inertia, with the result that only the mass of the earth remains a factor (because
the inertial and gravitational effects of the mass of the object compensate each other). The mass of the
object is not a factor in its free fall, and therefore all objects, heavy and light, fall at the same speed.
Obviously, Newton's theory works well enough to send people and very expensive probes out into the
solar system. So what exactly does Mr. Dykema mean by "unsupported assumptions"?
77
RE: Whole Series
Jamie
08/20/2008
Big questions are always interesting, but what about the big answers? The heart of this conversation
comes down to a single issue, which is whether there is enough evidence to support the existence of a
God or an Intelligent Universe. For some, the evidence is obvious, and for others it is not. My
comments on 08/13 regarding the known forces provided some answers to this issue, but I know ideas
must be expressed in different ways to get the desired results.
Force 1 (gravity) is about objects compressing and expanding. Force 2 (electromagnetism) is about
objects attracting and repelling. Force 3 (strong nuclear) is about objects confined and being free.
Force 4 (weak nuclear) is about objects being destroyed and created. This may not be the answer you
are looking for, but here is another question to ponder. What is the probability that the forces known to
science express this bizarre pattern?
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/19/2008
William Lee (08/18) says that it is not possible to "disprove the existence of someone/thing that so
transcends our finite capabilities." I don't know of anybody who wants to prove God does not exist.
What for? To most people, it is amply sufficient that the possibility of God should be very nearly zero.
The probability of being injured or even killed just by going out is many orders of times more than the
likelihood of God, and most people still go out for the flimsiest of justifications.
Further, people who have no reason to believe in God see themselves as part of nature, so obviously
not as "the greatest thing that exists." People who have no reason to believe in God simply comply
with the best evidence there is, while those who believe in one of the many gods that have been
invented over the millennia are sinners who make up stories out of thin air. Mr. Lee also indulges in
tautologies. He says: "You may believe that God doesn't exist, but that will not change the reality of it."
In the absence of any indication that God exists, his statement is completely meaningless.
John Bowman (08/14) says that the consistency of the laws of nature requires an "intelligent creator."
Requires? No, it does not. We have no indication that it does; there is no reason why it should. We
don't know why the laws of nature are consistent. The notion of natural law merely describes the fact
that our repeated measurements of certain natural phenomena remain consistent over time. However,
this may be a particular case rather than the general case. We simply don't know; there may be
another universe or another part of our own universe where this is not the case. Why pretend to know
something you don't?
RE: Whole Series
William Lee
08/18/2008
It is such a joke to think you can disprove the existence of someone/thing that so transcends our finite
capabilites. In science and logic it is impossible to prove a negative. This is such a display of ego--to
think that we are the greatest things to exist! You may believe that God doesn't exist, but that will not
change the reality of it.
RE: Whole Series
Jack Zylman
08/18/2008
The purpose of the universe is found and created in the relationships within it--this is relativity. There is
no "outside" around the universe. The heavily Platonic "Gospel of John" gave us the idea that belief
has power, there to save and now to create reality. Reality itself makes belief absurd. Indeed, the
common term "the existence of God" is wrong--God IS, rather than exists. To exist is to have limits and
place, as in the German term "dasein." Being is "sein" and is wholly different--spiritual and not bound
by borders. So science has nothing to do with belief. It deals with existence. And, wonderfully, science
can be put to the task of searching out the ways in which we can provide the optimal conditions for
God to operate--not to cause God to operate but to open the way for the highest likelihood of God's
acts taking place.
78
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/18/2008
Re: Rob Sweitzer's comment (08/16), the "astronomical improbability of us happening" does not have
to be a "cosmic fluke" or some sort of "design." The solutions currently considered by scientists are all
based on the idea of the likelihood of our universe and therefore of mankind. Remember that the
improbability of mankind as a natural phenomenon has been the main prop of our long held creation-
by-act-of-god belief (long before the notion became properly part of Christian propaganda) until
Charles Darwin offered in the 19th century a rational theory, since essentially confirmed. Recall that
Darwin didn't know about genes when he wrote "The origin of the species"; as it turned out, genes
provide the basic mechanism that makes evolution possible.
William Kincaid (08/15) reproaches the absurdity of a philosophy club wondering if they really existed.
Yet, he does something just as absurd. "Remember," he says, that "God treats us all as intelligent
creatures, made in his image." How could a god that does not even exist create us, let alone in his
image? He also promotes the "going in circles" he reproaches to others.
Richard H. Spiess (08/12) indulges in disingenuousness by asking "why non-believers in God get so
involved in proving their beliefs." This is obvious to all non-believers: religion has demonstrated its
totalitarian potential in the past, religious people still insist on brainwashing their children, and religion
still adversely affects non-believers in their daily lives. Those are all very rational motivations.
Gerry Aboyme (08/09) believes that "the beauty and power of science seem to reflect the glory of
God." He does not seem to know his fellow Christians too well. The reality is that most still indulge in
the notion that Darwin's theory of evolution is flawed in some "mysterious" way.
RE: Whole Series
Corey Mondello
08/18/2008
Neither "science" nor a belief in a "god" can be proven or disproven by the laws of science. Neither is
an absolute; both are just theories. As an atheist, I believe with 100% of my reasoning that there is no
god like the one we hear and read about throughout the history of humankind. I do believe, though,
that we are not alone and there are many dimensions or levels that human animals will never
understand. In matters involving education and the law, science should trump any belief in a "god."
One does not need to believe in a "god" to have common sense when creating and supporting rules
and laws.
RE: Whole Series
Dan McKinsey
08/17/2008
I'm disappointed that Bill Phillips and Kenneth Miller both commit the "god of the gaps" fallacy. This is
even after Miller specifically rejects this fallacy when coming from creationists. Phillips invokes the
fine-tuning of fundamental constants to lend credibility to the existence of God. Likewise, Miller invokes
God to explain our presence in the universe, and invokes God to explain why the world is repeatable
and understandable.
It is not unlikely that science will find further arguments to explain the relationships between the
fundamental constants or why there is something instead of nothing. The question of why the laws of
nature are repeatable is likewise an open question in science and philosophy. To assume that none of
these questions will be answered is a shaky foundation on which to base one's faith. It is similar to the
pre-Darwinist conviction that the diversity of life held proof that God must exist. Now we have the Big
Bang version of the same argument. Does this fallacy really have to be repeated every time that
current science doesn't yet have an explanation for something? And how convenient that the
explanation found by the true believers is, inevitably, their own particular religion, surrendering to
ignorance and calling it God.
Linked to this questionable intellectual leap is the attitude that if we can't prove either that "God exists"
or "God doesn't exist" then we should treat the two propositions as equally likely. This is like treating
the two statements "an invisible, intangible elf lives in my coffee cup" and "there is no elf in my coffee
cup" as equally likely. Religious people don't believe in elves in their coffee cups. But they do believe
79
in God, because of their upbringing and because of psychological weakness. Similarly, Phillips and
Miller cling to God as an explanation for the things we don't yet understand. Someday our descendants
will look at human history and marvel at how long we clung to our primitive religions.
RE: Whole Series
Rob Sweitzer
08/16/2008
I think it has to begin with what a person's definition of "god" is. The wonder of science helps to
demonstrate how magnificent this entire universe is (the one we are currently inhabiting); that the laws
of physics apply from this planet all the way to the edge of the cosmos is significant. Ultimately,
however, it will come back to the F word, "faith." You will have to choose to believe that the absolute
rarity of us, the astronomical improbability of us happening, the transmogrification of matter into
consciousness are either a cosmic fluke or . . . (another bad word among empiricists) design.
RE: Whole Series
George Genung
08/16/2008
Science does not make belief in a deity obselete. It does offer liberation from the restriction of ancient
theologies that were formed to provide answers to what was then unanswerable. Science gives rise to
the freedom brought forth by doubt, relishing in the unknown, not fearing what is yet to be understood.
Could there be a deity? Of course, but without verified evidence the most reasoned position is to hold
such existence in doubt. Rather than a negative position, this allows a person to continue the search
for meaning with an open mind.
RE: Whole Series
bipolar2
08/15/2008
Science is the arbiter of which statements about the world are given the always provisional
metalinguistic accolade of "true." Such statements are methodologically fit according to the relevant
testing procedures within science itself. This is the meaning of the scientific revolution: who certifies
empirical knowledge, who shall decide which statements are true,and by what criteria?
Neither ethical fitness as in Heraclitus and his Stoic followers, nor theological fitness as in Plato and
his Christian followers stands as a viable principle for assessing the truth of an empirical statement.
Whenever so-called sacred writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly
the same forces of potential refutation as any other empirical claim. There is no "executive privilege"
for God.
RE: Whole Series
Irving Krakow
08/15/2008
The concept of a deity must be separated from the concept of a religion before this discussion can
make any real progress. For example, both Plato and Aristotle examined the notion of a deity
independently of any specific religion. If you want to discuss a deity in connection with Judaism,
Christianity, or Islam, you must deal with the question whether it is a known fact, not a matter of
unjustified belief, that a deity authored the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Koran. If no
justification exists for that belief, then the notion of a deity must be discussed without reference to any
aspect of any of those religions.
The relation between the concept of a deity and physical science has absolutely nothing to do with any
of the religions mentioned unless and until it can be shown a deity authored at least one holy book. My
most general comment on all the discussions I've read is this: they all reveal either ignorance of the
underlying logical issues, or an inability to deal with those issues, or both.
RE: Whole Series
William Kincaid
08/15/2008
A better question is: Does disbelief in God make people obsolete? I remember in high school an
extracurricular philosophy club with members who argued interminably over whether "we really exist"
or "anything really exists." I found them fascinating not because of their intelligence, but because of
their excitement over their intelligence, coupled with the absurdity of their conversations. This list of
essays on both sides of the equation fascinates me equally. Folks with their intellectuality on display
80
can say some of the funniest things, like Victor Stenger's, "So, no energy was required to produce the
universe." But even the "Nos" and "Not necessarilys" are rather humorous, as if serious contemplation
on whether "science" has made "God" obsolete even requires an answer. The question itself reduces
God to a "concept" invented by early (read: ignorant) man to fill an emotional or rational need.
Whoever answers the question acknowledges the premise.
Long story short, if you insist on considering the hypothesis that God may not exist, and assuming you
are grounded enough to recognize that you in fact do exist, don't forget that if there were no God, there
could be no logical morality, no purpose or meaning in life, and nothing whatsoever to "live for" except
for pleasure. The miserable attempts in these essays to either evoke "appreciation of nature" on the
part of unbelievers or to "divide scientism from theism" on the part of quasi-believers are nothing more
than subliminal cries for help.
Remember, God treats us all as intelligent creatures, made in his image. Everything we can know
about God every functional human mind can also know. You aren't that much smarter than anyone
else. But if you skip the basic lessons of life, the "God 101" class, the rest of your life will be spent
going in circles, asking questions like "Is the mind real?" and "Are there mirror universes out there?"
There are answers to real questions. Find the real question.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Reid
08/14/2008
The first question to the believer should be "What is God and how do you visualize this entity?" It is
truly frightening to hear the unexamined childish simplicity of many people's responses, a sort of early
Sunday school image of an old man with a beard. If you don't have a rational conception of God, I can't
see how you could believe in, much less worship, such an entity.
RE: Whole Series
Rob Hale
08/14/2008
Re: Sue Mitchell's comment (08/14) asking someone to define "God." When asked, God's answer has
been, "I AM."
RE: Whole Series
Rob Hale
08/14/2008
Science without reference to empirical data is a bunch of silliness. Miracles abound, and they are
particularly pointed in their meaning. If you don't see them, you aren't looking (or you don't want to
see). Of course God exists. Perhaps more to the point, how long will you exist?
RE: Whole Series
Richard H. Mock
08/14/2008
Thank you for the booklet. I have shared it with friends.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/14/2008
Wilburn L. Moore (08/08) finds Patty Koltko's comment (05/22) the "most cogent" comment in favor of
a religiously motivated no answer. He also wonders why nobody cares to respond. Please! Have a
look at my rebuttal (06/12) of Kenneth Miller's claim that "science itself employs a kind of faith." I
believe it works well enough for Koltko's comment, for example when she says that "science-as-
religion has as a basic belief the impossibility of a god."
Let's repeat here the main point in my rebuttal: Religious faith is invariably personal, arbitrary, and
unverifiable. Science is based on the careful observation of nature and on repeatable experimentation.
Accordingly, why should anyone rational give any credit to personal, arbitrary, and unverifiable claims
about nature? Needless to say, the most cogent of comments doesn't say. Contrary to Koltko's
suggestion, scientists don't usually believe in the impossibility of God. Koltko herself does not even say
how many scientists she thinks do; for all we know, maybe none at all. As for me, I think the true
answer is zero. Now, that no scientist should believe in the impossibility of God would not imply at all
that God is likely. My personal estimate is that God is less than one in many zillion times likely; too little
81
to waste one's wits in prayers. But again, terribly unlikely does not mean impossible. God is terribly
unlikely because there is simply absolutely no reason to believe it exists.
Of course, it is easier for Koltko to imply fraudulently that scientists believe in the impossibility of God
than for her to provide any reason why they should not believe that God is terribly unlikely. Equally
painful is Koltko calling her religious beliefs "knowledge." The use of the word "knowledge" to brand
what are in fact wild speculations that are most probably entirely false is in keeping with the usual
mind-numbing Christian routine. The "most cogent" comment is only a tedious repeat of religious
propaganda.
RE: Whole Series
John Bowman
08/14/2008
I am amazed that any scientist would reject the idea of an intelligent creator. I am a mechanical
engineer who graduated from Drexel Institute of Technology in the late sixties. As I studied the natural
laws during my college years, I was amazed at their consistency and their repeatibility. In order for
laws to be present, they need a developer and a maintainer. In other words, a Creator who constantly
keeps them going in a precise and consistent manner. Otherwise, gravity would fail and in the next
instant, it would work perfectly and later, it would work somewhere in between.
Order is everywhere. And it is wonderfully fine tuned with such precision that man has yet to discover
the dimensions of it. Even within humanity, the Bible states that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
The Universe is too amazing for it not to be made by an incredible Creator who cares for it even when
it is poisoned by the effects of sin and death.
RE: Whole Series
Sue Mitchell
08/14/2008
Please pardon the ignorance of a "newbie," but could someone first define "God"? Thanking you in
anticipation.
RE: Whole Series
David Brandon
08/14/2008
I enjoyed reading these essays, but I would have liked to see the net spread much wider, to include
thinkers whose background was in Moslem, Buddhist, Indian, and Asian philosophy. I also found the
intellectual standard rather uneven: some of your contributors would surely wish to revise their
comments in the light of other contributions and published comments.
RE: Whole Series
Jamie
08/13/2008
The way I see it, a smart God would use science to communicate. The evidence can be seen by
looking at the basic forces in the simplest way. Gravity is compression and expansion;
electromagnetism is attraction and repulsion; the strong nuclear force is freedom and confinement; etc.
Quantum theory has a whole bunch of these pairs, like velocity and position. It really should come as
no surprise to physicists that the two branches of science used to describe our physical reality,
relativity and quantum physics, use completely opposite building blocks. Relativity is based on a
continuum and quantum physics discrete elements. And don't forget Male and Female in evolved life!
So what is going on? We find coincidences in science communicating primitive ideas like attraction
and repulsion. Yet to understand the simple, first you must understand the complex. This concept
leads to a larger topic related to the way coincidences communicate other things. Once you start to
see coincidences in your own life, the question posed here becomes obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Richard H. Spiess
08/12/2008
It is difficult for me to understand why non-believers in God get so involved in proving their beliefs. If,
as they say, there is no God, what are they afraid of? Certainly, if their beliefs are true, God will not
strike them dead. Could it be that they are really like the soldier in the foxhole--that is, no atheists?
82
RE: Whole Series
D. Williams
08/10/2008
Wow! I may spend the rest of my life trying to understand all I have seen here. Looks to me like one is
the reason for the other. Yes?
RE: Whole Series
C.M. Ramakrishna
08/10/2008
Absolutely yes. Belief is essentially speculative or assumptive. It may not be factual at all. So, yes, we
can believe in anything we like, including God. But it does not make it a fact unless it is proved to be
so. We need to examine the origin of (the concept of) God. The existence of God can be disproved by
reductio ad absurdum. So, yes, science does make belief in God obsolete. Absolutely.
RE: Whole Series
Rob
08/09/2008
The Egyptians considered all they knew and all they did not know to sum up everything. It amazes me
how much some people (like these professors) trust in current knowledge. If someone tells me the
population of China is 1 billion, I naturally believe it, but I cannot verify it. With the rate at which
theories are created and proven false and revised and proven false again and then later learned to be
true after all, it just seems ignorant to throw so much emotion into them and their veracity.
To say your best effort at logic strongly implies there is no god seems rational, but to scream and yell
and get angry shows bias. I believe that the reason why atheists often feel deeply committed to their
position and have faith in atheism is because their life is full of what they consider sin from their own
perspective. Why would it bother you if all adults still believed in Santa? Why would it bother you if
common culture believed Al Gore invented the internet? Why would it bother you if your culture
thought Britney Spears was better than Beethoven? If you want to stop religious fanatics from killing
one another, convince them not to kill, don't destroy their faith. You are solving the wrong problem!
Whether there is a god or not, belief in consequences after death has proven to be essential for
humans to create a cooperative society. I think it is wanton ignorance to think humans can get along in
the future with atheism and corporate ethics as a moral compass. Why do so many cultures have
punishment or reward for the next life? Denying this for an evolutionist is arrogant, to think man can be
stronger than his genes. All our genes are from those who survived at least to the age of reproduction
when heretics were killed. Our DNA makes us believers; we need to do some genetic engineering or
selective breeding to make a human species that can accept and will want to accept atheism, plus a
willingness to be kind and cooperative without fear of hell.
RE: Whole Series
Joseph R Peer
08/09/2008
I think this question is irrelevant, like comparing a rock to an orange. Science is based on fact, and
religion is a belief system based on faith. Religion is like a quantum phenonoma. You either have
knowledge or faith, so trying to apply science or factual knowledge to religion would invalidate it. I think
science and religion should exist on their own, until such time as we can understand the divine science
that God utilized to create us, a science that is beyond our imagination, at which time religion will no
longer be religion.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Best
08/09/2008
Until "God" is defined (and that will never happen), the question is meaningless. But that fact hasn't
dissuaded anyone from the fray. The entire argument is an example of the fallacy of equivocation and
will remain so as long as there is no agreement on the nature of God. It's a nonsense argument.
RE: Whole Series
Gerry Aboyme
08/09/2008
Just a casual observation after having read all the contributors' comments is the difference in tone
between those of faith and those whose faith rests somewhere else. The difference being that those of
83
faith have a sense of a hope that has a far stronger anticipation of an ever increasing harmony in the
world. The others seem to fall into a pit of distortions where "the blood on the hands of religion drips
enough to darken the sea," as Sapolsky says. One even sarcastically mocks otherss comments and to
paraphrase: "you can cherry pick the type of God you want to explain away conflicts between God and
science." I doubt Mr. Hoodbhoy previously read the thoughful and lucid comments of Phillips,
Schonborn, Miller, Groopman, Midgely, Kauffman, and Ward before he wrote his dismissive
comments. Resignation and bitterness seem to describe this crowd as well.
Fortunately for many, faith seems to be a spring of living water rising out of our souls towards the
anticipated fulfillment of the promise from God for a better tomorrow. Now is that a crutch as some
"brights" might say? A deep and personal faith in God brings much happiness and peace, especially
when it's because of suffering not despite it. From a reality far stronger than the material, God can
create for us refreshing lemonade out of bitter lemons if our mind is right and our heart is willing, and
with a more dynamic and fairer perspective. The beauty and power of science seem to reflect the glory
of God, as Midgely says.
I don't abandon my faith if I take antibiotics for my infection. Rather by faith I have hope that the
antibiotics will cure me. There's a reality out there that's bigger than us, and most of the contributors
understand that. The application of a proper balance of both good science and good religion will help
mankind in its journey with God to its divinization--where human attributes of mercy, peace, and love
will make us to be the human beings we were designed to be.
RE: Whole Series
Wilburn L. Moore
08/08/2008
The affirmative-side commentators, like Jack King and Eugene Bucamp, have been very diligent about
responding to the comments of the negatives in this debate. Sometimes they even provide same-day
service. But the most cogent of the materials on the negative side, the comment of Patty Koltko on
5/22, sits ignored more than two months after its posting. I don't want to annoy or upset you guys, but
you are running out of time. If I don't read a plausible rebuttal soon, I am going to file Ms. Koltko's
posting with my other unassailable truths of life.
RE: Mary Midgley
Robert
08/08/2008
Alleging, as Mary Midgley does, that all who accept the theory of evolution are as dogmatic as those
who believe in other religions is stereotyping as well as wrong. The points she asserts as things we all
believe in are founded on evidence. If one gets picky about it, then of course we can't be absolutely
sure of them. That does not put them in the same realm as faith in a supernatural, magic-wielding
superbeing. This not intended to be an argument against god's existence, only against her reasoning.
The crafty way in which religion is usually defined makes it impossible to falsify, much like an invisible
tea pot in space. But saying that religion cannot become obsolete simply because it underlies many
peoples moral or ethical structure is too broad a claim. One could always put it the other way: religious
tenets could have come from already present social norms. When the first religions were created
thousands of years ago, these rules were attributed to god as a way for the priests to impose order. I
don't think science makes god obsolete--not because it's something people can't live without, but
rather something they won't live without.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Park
08/07/2008
The question is a red herring. The question should be about authority. Does science have authority
over the way we do things or does religion? There is a great deal of emotional investment in the belief
in God. The first thing I'd like to do is take God out of the question and ask "does science make belief
obsolete?" Belief is exercised when and where the science is unknown or has perhaps provided a new
belief and "hopefully" a more accurate one.
The easy mistake to make here is an expression of faith in science; it's empirical evidence we have
faith in. After all, seeing is believing. But with that in mind, good data coupled with good reasoning can
lead to insights beyond the apparent. Science does not just provide you with a belief but with a good
reason to believe it and through repeatedly demonstrating it. Many things are demonstrated so well
84
and are so well understood that they in fact elucidate the truth.
Where the purpose of science is to elucidate the truth, the belief in God, through religion, has been
used to provide communal cohesion, political control, continuity of knowledge. However, as we have
become more enlightened, these cultural duties have been divested away into specialized sectors of
society like governments, businesses, universities, etc. to a point that religion seems to be becoming
vestigial.
RE: Whole Series
Albert Kelly
08/07/2008
What a ridiculous question! Inanity is never obsolete, since it stems from the never-ending font of
human fear and ignorance. Science does its best to determine the facts of nature based on logic and
experiment, so it should not be related to or weighed in any manner against a belief system which is
antithetical to that process.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Lansky
08/07/2008
The whole debate is rather silly. The onus of proof is on those who say there is a God. Which God?
There are thousands of religions and thousands of "Gods." They can't all be correct. Which one is
right, making all others wrong?
RE: Whole Series
Epicurean
08/06/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Shermer says it depends on whether we emphasize belief
or God. Belief, no. God, yes. I say no to both. Sapolsky gives the best answer to the belief question.
No, because religious belief offers something that science does not (always): ecstasy. Let me explain.
Skeptics may find it dysfunctional to be ecstatic with something unreal. Nonetheless, ecstasy is
subjective. How can you argue against what makes me feel ecstatic? Truth is religious belief is ecstasy
for many people. And ecstasy cannot be obsolete.
Hoodbhoy gives the best answer to the God question. Not necessarily, because we can invent a
science-friendly God. Let me expound on that. To the extent that he exists in the human mind, God is
resistant to scientific falsification. No matter how far we push science, we can always reinvent a God
that is superior to or at least compatible with science. God can always outclass science because the
latter is constrained by reality while the former is constrained only by our imagination. And human
imagination cannot be obsolete. Science need not disprove the reality of God, because it is self-
evident. It is extrasensory claims that need positive proof.
Brandon
08/06/2008
William Phillips says that making statements like "I love you" or "She sings beautifully" has nothing to
do with science, but science could prove that the fact you make a response at all has nothing to do
with "god" whatsoever. It has to do with your environment, the way you were raised, and if you were
born in a literate society. Religion had nothing to do with the first humanoid primates, who probably
saw everything as "gods" that scared them. Phillips's whole justication is that he has "faith" in "god"
and that is why science absolutely doesn't make belief in God obsolete! That is an easy creationist
answer! As for science and its proof, although there is not exact evidence to denounce "god," there is
not exact evidence that "god" does exist. Phillips's "absolutely not!" should change to "almost certainly
not."
RE: Kenneth Miller
William A Barrett
08/06/2008
I admire Ken Miller for his stunning testimony at the Dover trial and for his recent book. However, I
think he misses a critical point about religion, which is that ALL of us, religious or not, are trying to
figure out how to manage our lives. The central problem is that, whether we are scientific or not,
predicting the consequences of our life decisions is terribly uncertain and will always be so. For the
religious, prayer, meditation, and a "boring" church service may help us in that process, whether or not
85
we accept all or any of the biblical truths.
I am an avowed atheist, yet I love listening to the very religious Brahms Requiem or the choral works
of Bach. There are depths of experience and motivation in these great works that seem to transcend
the more mundane studies in quantum mechanics. And, let's face it--95% of the public wouldn't be
able to explain evolution or much basic science enough to explore their future. Who are they to fall
back on? I'm for enlightened priests and ministers who can guide people away from fundamentalist
views and into humanistic ones, consoling and aiding when needed, using biblical text if necessary to
make their point.
RE: Whole Series
ipu4me
08/06/2008
You're kidding, right? Science doesn't make god obsolete, lack of ANY evidence does. Also, the
choice of the word "obsolete" is ridiculous. There will always be a group of idiots who choose to live in
a world of self-delusion, irrationality and without reason. It's amazing how these cowards and
superstitious nuts all give credence to this invisible sky pixie superstitious nonsense. Thanks to Prof.
Stenger for bringing us all back to reality.
RE: Whole Series
Terry M
08/06/2008
Define God, then get back to me.
RE: Whole Series
Owen Darrell
08/05/2008
No, because of three beliefs which I would like to share. I believe that man made God the Three in
One and the Virgin Mary, and that mankind has greatly benefited ever since. I believe that the Pearly
Gates, with Saint Peter as guardian, and heaven and hell, are all concepts of man. Where there is
intellect with life and death, there will always be creation. I believe that all that is said, sung, and
prayed in church and outside is consistent with these beliefs.
RE: Michael Shermer
epicurean
08/04/2008
Shermer's Last Law says that "any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence would be
indistinguishable from God." Shermer goes on to "prove" this premise and then concludes that science
has made (the reality of) God obsolete. I agree with the premise but disagree with the conclusion.
What science has made obsolete is not God per se but a supernatural one. Science in fact allows for a
natural god which is indistinguishable from a supernatural god. The line that divides the natural from
the supernatural is merely our (lack of) knowledge of science.
I would follow Einstein's intuitive leap and conclude that what is indistinguishable is essentially one
and the same. The difference is simply a figment of our imagination or a stubbornly persistent illusion.
Besides, if super-intelligent ETs can create universes, these universes may have physical laws quite
different from our own universe. This would make these gods supernatural from our point of view. Of
course plausibility is by no means proof. We are in the realm of scientific speculation.
RE: Whole Series
Prof. Rati Ram Sharma
08/03/2008
Further to my comments of 21 May & 7 July, I would develop the concept of God scientifically.
Einstein's equation E=mc2 compellingly suggests a "basic substance" to compose all forms of energy
E & mass m, otherwise E & m cannot interconvert. The total basic substance (mass-energy) of the
Cosmos is eternally conserved as an eternal cosmic body, the Megovum (mega= extremely big,
ovum= egg) as it gives rise to all, including the Universe. The basic substance is all-composing and all-
pervading, that is, it composes and pervades all particles, things and beings. Megovum is also the all-
intelligence Megamind, managing the Cosmos justly with inviolable basic laws. Megamind is
omnipotent & omniscient and not illegally kind or cruel but just and only just. Man has limited free will,
limited intelligence, and limited freedom for action. The human behaviors, moral values, and social
scenario obtaining at any time are man-made.
86
Religions are many because they are based on the preaching of their founder(s) and holy books.
Dharm refers to the unpolluted basic nature, properties or behavior. To burn is the dharm and not a
religion of fire. Universal dharm of man comprises truth, non-violence, non-stealing, non-lust, non-
anger, non-greed, non-accumulation, altruism, contentment, forbearance, devotion to God, etc.
Meditation helps always.
RE: Steven Pinker
Gerry Aboyme
08/02/2008
I can agree with Mr. Pinker's view of improving human behavior through history, and I thank God for it!
When it comes to ultimate humanity, which displays great attributes of love, peace, happiness,
humility, perseverance, a well-guided sense of right and wrong, generosity, and faithfulness to the idea
of justice and peace not for a privileged few but for all, the bible is arguably clear in pointing it out
through Jesus Christ, who demonstrates these attributes in spades.
Mr. Pinker asserts that man at some point in time began to improve his behavior because of himself.
Wow! If man created the universe, then I can believe that it's possible he arbitrarily imposed his will
upon himself and collectively improved society. If man is truly the king and a messiah for himself, he
does not need God! He deserves all the adoration and praise that his collective nature as a society can
muster for himself. Indeed, as it were, his God is himself--a divinization of his former barbaric being.
I believe, however, that God is there to lead and strengthen our path to those things that encourage us
to not only take care of ourselves and our families but also to help raise the well-being of the entire
world, both poor and rich. The mechanics of the natural laws that we discover that govern the
absolutely beautiful physical existence of our universe are so sublime that it would be the height of
ignorance and arrogance or just simply misunderstanding to attribute it either to the fortuitous luck of
man or to his amazing abilities. If this were the case, how sadly limited and shallow is our human
existence.
RE: Whole Series
Micheal Hankins
08/01/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? When science discovers something new, we are finding
out how God made it. In an infinite time line and infinite space, the ability for a god or an infinite
number of gods to be real can exist. We should accept the infinite possibilities. I look at what science
has shown us. Life is here on earth because of where our planet is in the Milky Way galaxy, where
there is less violent activity. We are in need of a moon to survive. We need water. I am sure all of us
could go on and on listing the things that needed to be just right for us to stand and ask the question, is
there a god?
Every time I see this question I want to yell. How can you not see that everything science has ever
reviled has given more and more proof that something great has had to happen for all of us? Call this
god or a random happening in an infinite world of time and space. We are either the luckiest elements
in the universe or something had a hand in our ability to live.
Science is God. It is the greatest path of worship. I ask science to show me the great works of God. I
ask religion to show me the great love of man. I continue to see people using science to disprove God.
I see others using religion to disprove love. Fighting the idea of evolution is like telling God that he
didn't create evolution. Fighting abortion is like telling someone that you do not love them because of
their actions. Great minds, I call you to keep things simple. Look at the big picture. Look at the
possibilities of the impossible. We may not need god, but science is not why. We need to love. Until
every person on this Earth can love each other, science will not replace god. Love will make God
obsolete, not science.
RE: Whole Series
John Courtney
08/01/2008
I have only recently become aware of the John Templeton Foundation but, like many others, have
been asking myself the same kind of questions Templeton was interested in for some time. For
example, where does the split between science and religion come from? Galileo believed in God while
87
proposing that the earth was not the center of the universe. The use and abuse of power is behind a lot
of the split. The Catholic Church was not very understanding of Galileo's approach and abused their
power. Currently, there are many atheistic scientists who would like to silence religionists, especially
within scientific circles, such as publications, once and for all. Equally, some fundamentalist Christians
would like to silence scientists who promote an evolutionary understanding of the development of all
living creatures.
The wish to have power and influence extends to what we know and what we can know. Is it possible
that there are some things that are beyond our understanding, given sufficient time and endeavor?
Perhaps the scientific atheist would hope to say "No," while a religionist may be happy to say "Yes." I
have read that some propose that the universe began with a Big Bang, that it inflated, that the ripples
in the cosmic background radiation are evidence for the seeds of galaxies, solar systems, stars and
planets that coelesced from primordial matter, that eventually the earth cooled down enough for the
kind of chemistry to occur that gave rise to the first amino acids and ultimately life itself (including me
and you).
As a Christian, I have no problem in considering such propositions. But do I believe in them? Well, no,
I do not. I would not as an act of faith defend them with my life. Although I studied maths and physics
beyond undergraduate level and have worked as a scientist for nearly 30 years, I do not understand,
for example, what electromagnetic radiation is. I do not believe that anyone else does either. I read
Professor Richard Dawkins's book, The Selfish Gene, and found only a mish-mash of hypotheses,
many of them plausible, but not a robust theory that proves anything. Science has a long way to go to
answer all the questions, big and small. In the meantime, science has no answer for the vast
proportion of the world's population living in poverty. Religion, on the other hand, does--if only the
religious would knuckle down and do the business! Love your neighbor.
RE: Whole Series
T. Ruth Goader
08/01/2008
Consider this line of reasoning. It suggests science and religion benefit each other throughout history.
While both have strayed from progress toward greater knowledge at times, they have often challenged
each other to greater understanding. The worst digressions occurred for the longest periods when one
side believed their knowledge was absolute and they had the power to enforce it.
Christianity commands each individual, in a comprehensive way, to seek true and pure knowledge,
understanding and wisdom. It cautions that gaining everything without love will amount to nothing,
potentially disaster. Science seeks a theory about unknowns and then challenges it to the point of
proof. That proof has to be in terms understandable within currently measurable means.
Sometimes the proof process takes generations, even new science. During that process, absolute
dedication and commitment are required. The investigation must be carried on to completion, even if
it's eventually proven wrong or only partially right. Once the challenge is accepted, there is no room for
discouragement. Every new step offers important information, even if negative. To notice unexpected
possibilities, each step must be approached with a sense of discovery, open-mindedness. This
process is exciting. In spite of science and religion, Copernicus, following his basic Christian
command, rediscovered heliocentrism. Allowing oneself to be trapped by a currently held theory
without final proof is not fair to the theory or to ultimate truth and understanding.
Today a lot of energy is spent in the process of getting funding. Beyond that, arguing between
unproven theories is a waste of time. All energy must be dedicated and open-minded enough to
explore every possibility in order to find the missing pieces. Until then, complete open-mindedness is
necessary. Once science has a reliable proof, religion has always accepted it. Why? If proven true, it
moves us closer to ultimate understanding and wisdom.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/01/2008
Andre Ruan (07/29) says that science has a faith position because there is no way of reproducing the
experimental conditions that obtained at the big bang. This argument is a brazen show of ignorance.
According to Ruan, only experiments could provide evidence about the past. Thus, the most significant
88
events of the past would be off-limit: the Big Bang itself but also nearly the whole of evolution of life on
earth not to mention history. Ruan's twisted logic is evidence that the religiously minded would soon
get us back to obscurantist times. Ruan in effect shows that he does not understand how observation
is used in science.
Contrary to what Ruan implies, a theory does not have to be validated by experiment but by post-
prediction observation. This can feature experiments when necessary and possible, but we sometimes
can and often have to do without it. Why post-prediction observation? Well, it is relatively easy given
human craftiness to tweak a theoretical model to fit past observations (they did so a lot prior to Kepler
to explain the movement of planets). It is therefore absolutely essential that post-prediction
observations confirm predictions of the theory. Post-prediction observations are simply observations
made after a prediction has been made public.
What Ruan does not understand is that post-prediction observations may be and are often about
events that occurred in a distant past. This is definitely true for the Big Bang but more generally for
events that occurred so far away from us that we can only observe now information generated millions
or even billions years ago (more than 13 billion years for the Big Bang). The good news,
notwithstanding Ruan's apparent ignorance of them, is that models of the Big Bang have been
validated this way. This occurred most publicly through observations by the Hubble and other
telescopes in orbit around the earth.
A scientist may need to be confident that his model is correct before it could be validated, but science
itself does not do that. The Big Bang is now regarded as the best theory we have. It still needs more
observations but the point is that we are able to make them.
RE: Whole Series
C. Ken Ruth
07/31/2008
There is evidence something real is going on beyond what science is able to understand. The word
God as commonly used has too much baggage; this encourages a lot of irrelevant discussion. Some
encounters with "whatever it is" can be determined by evidence to be real; conditions can be
duplicated. Current methods are not adequate for testing; it's a new opportunity for science. To help
visualize the challenge consider the following scenario.
To a man blind from birth, how would you describe color? How could the same inner appreciation of a
sighted person be engendered in his mind? How could anyone expect him to intelligently think or talk
about color and all of its potentials? If he wanted to know as much as possible about color, would it be
possible to describe color by comparing with sound? How realistic could that comparison be? If there
was a technique others had used to give them the ability to see the world, including color, do you think
he would be eager to follow that procedure? How hard would it be to convince him to be brave enough
to do the procedure? Would it be different if he were a young person? Would it be different, near the
end of life, if he had always wondered how color would actually appear to him?
Because of personal experience sighted people know that color does exist and has amazing value;
would they be eager to encourage him to attempt the procedure? If he were someone you loved would
you want him to be able to enjoy seeing? What if there were some risk in the procedure? What if there
were absolutely no risk in the procedure? What if, as is common in the medical field, the procedure
was more successful for people who believed they would actually see a world of color? What if he
believed it was all some kind of a trick? Before attempting the procedure, what if he demanded proof
that color existed? Would he simply have to trust you? If he did not have the science to satisfactorily
prove to him that color existed, would that make color obsolete?
RE: Whole Series
big jack
07/31/2008
No one has knowledge beyond the moment. Not one person knows that he or she will get up in the
morning. The alarm clock has sounded many times for those who did not awake to answer it. We who
believe in God live in hope, and hope that is seen is not hope. Christian doctrine teaches me to believe
and not prove. The fool has said in his heart that there is no God. That was written long before my 84
years came to be.
89
RE: Whole Series
Mike Wickerham
07/31/2008
Science has provided us with many things, things used for both good and bad. We could make an
extensive list of these things and rate the merits of each. But with all of our accumulated knowledge,
science has not brought us peace, justice, or an increase in life expectancy that generally matters very
much. Until science brings us these things, there is still room for Hope.
If one looks at the condition of the world, with famine and war and injustices all around and death
everywhere, where is science? Why has it let us down so badly? It seems that those that believe not in
God are the first to blame Him for our condition, or reason that if God existed He would not let the
conditions be such. Rather odd logic.
I consider myself to be a rational person. Yet I remain hopeful in the existence of God, a position which
some see as irrational. If it makes one feel better, just consider my position a hedge. If you are really
that certain that God doesn't exist and believe that science is all we need, then more power to you.
Until someone proves God doesn't exist, I think I'll continue to be hopeful that He does.
RE: Whole Series
Mahendra
07/31/2008
I think there is no difference between human and god. Humans created god just to have a support, so
that when we get failure we can blame god and when we fight with a huge problem we can believe that
some power will help. I think we are such a powerful organism that we don't need any kind of god. God
has been created by poor people to console them.
Arthur O. Roberts
07/30/2008
To use my Quaker lingo, "Friend Phillips speaks my mind!" As a philosopher I appreciate how this
scientist and others such as Polkinghorne, Gingerich, and Collins have bridged that false chasm
between scientific inquiry and theistic faith. As a Christian I find my experience and worship of God to
be personally fulfilling, intellectually coherent, and ethically foundational.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/30/2008
Bill (07/29) shares with us the irony that some of these scientists who are criticizing religion are
working for universities started as seminaries and so many of the positive aspects of our society were
started by Christians, including hospitals and schools. Still, he missed the greater irony that a great
many scientists were Christians themselves: the worst offenders have to be Charles Darwin, who
ended up agnostic but started out as Christian; Isaac Newton, who didn't like Popes but was a
Christian nonetheless; Ren� Descartes, self-professed Christian and the author of the tour de force of
explaining how to be a free rational thinker to a faculty of dogmatic theologians; Nicolas Copernicus,
who was a Christian cleric but rediscovered the idea of heliocentrism.
Yet, Bill is again missing the point of the argument. The point made by non-believers is that Christian
clerics are at best no better than everybody else and therefore that they should stop pretending that
they are by claiming they have a moral authority because they speak in the name of God. If religious
people were serious about morality, they would regard Popes (and other religious leaders) as morally
responsible for the crimes committed under their watch and sometimes at their instigation (irrespective
of whether they may also be legally responsible). I don't see how one can be a Catholic knowing that
the Catholic Church and the Pope himself did next to nothing to prevent priests already identified as
paedophile from approaching children, and this for a very long time.
Non-believers definitely do not reject moral values sui generis, but they believe that moral values can
only be assumed after a rational and democratic deliberation. The Christian argument that God is the
source of morality is unacceptable to non-believers precisely because they don't believe in God. It is a
totalitarian argument because it makes any rational argument impossible (including between believers
themselves). But again, nobody thinks religious people are serious about morality.
90
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/30/2008
Dave (07/26) seems to believe that belief in God answers the question of why when science does not.
The contrary is true. To the question of why, science gives us the simple, beautiful, and fundamental
answer that human beings are a part of nature. This also gives the best clue we will ever have:
solutions to problems can only be found if we understand how nature works. Only science can explain
how nature works, and by doing so it also explains why things are and why they are as they are,
including human beings.
But belief in God does not answer the question of why except as a naive fairy tale. It is an irrational
belief that promotes ignorance and a fundamental irrationality towards the practical decisions we have
to make in life. How could belief in God answer the question of why when we are told that He works in
mysterious ways? If God created us, why do that? And why is it that God exists in the first place? And
if God is good, as we are sometimes told, why is it that there is so much suffering? Why do we have to
suffer countless ailments and diseases? Is this because God is good but also sadistic?
Why did the God you believe in give us a gallbladder? Why did He put marrow inside our bones? Why
is it that so many babies are born with debilitating abnormalities even when their parents look fine? Do
you know why, Dave? No you don't. Science does.
RE: Whole Series
Dave Pullin
07/30/2008
The word "obsolete" has several nuances of meaning, one of which is "no longer useful." One answer
to the question "Does science make belief in God no longer useful" is "No, because belief in God never
was useful." From the point of view of understanding anything, the "God hypothesis" never made any
contribution. It never explained anything but merely replaced the unexplained with a different
unexplained.
Another nuance is "no longer in use." "God" is most certainly still "in use." It is used as a tool of power,
a tool to justify arbitrary and self-serving actions, and to co-op support for it. Another is "inferior to a
successor." It is curious that, in the US, the successor to God (in the sense that it is used, not useful) is
not science but marketing, propaganda, or the slogan "Freedom and Democracy" when used to
describe "Oppression and Autocracy" in a way that mirrors, almost exactly, the way "God" is used to
support the same arbitrary and self-serving exercise of power.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Bill
07/29/2008
I think the argument that religion has been bloody is fairly simplistic. The first question would be . . .
which religion? Are we really trying to say that it doesn't matter which religion it is? I do not think that
makes any sense. To be more "scientific" you would have to be more specific and you would also have
to look for control groups. That is: where are all the non-violent and wonderful non-religious people
during that same time period? There is ample research noting that Christians have had a wonderful
impact on society. See some of the research of Jonathan Haidt, for example, as well as the recent
book, "Who Really Cares."
It is ironic that some of these scientists who are criticizing religion are working for universities started
as seminaries. But then, so many of the positive aspects of our society were started by Christians,
including hospitals and schools. I have no axe to grind as far as other religions or science. However, I
am aware of the underlying beliefs of Christianity. The idea that is has been a "bloody religion" is
ridiculous. It is also interesting to note that in the 20th century, the huge blood baths in Russia,
Germany, Cambodia, etc. were not associated with religion. Christianity is epitomized in the person of
Jesus Christ. It is very difficult to see how the teaching of "turn the other cheek" is detrimental to
society.
Christians are obviously not perfect. However, to blame a faith in Christ for the immoral actions of
some of his so-called followers is about as scientific as saying, "There are a lot of fat people at Weight
91
Watchers. I guess it must be a lousy program." I am sure Weight Watchers is great if you follow the
program. People who actually follow the teachings of Jesus are not the ones who are killing people.
RE: Whole Series
Rob Meredith
07/29/2008
I find it interesting that 10 of the 13 scholars on the panel wrote on behalf of the negative in some form
or another. Several used limiting/qualifying language, however. Only two stated categorically a yes. I
think the majority has it right. Religion and science and not irreconcilable.
RE: Whole Series
Adrien Wild
07/29/2008
Mathematicians believe in numbers. Some may be constructivist, some may be idealist, some may be
foundationalist, but they all have to get along with their cardinal concepts. Likewise, religious people
may be of different minds about God(s), but they make their whole theistic worldview work for them.
Behaving as a believer is a way of life, just as behaving as an academic researcher is a way of life.
My point is that theists and atheists alike are just humans with brains, and their "ideas" are embedded
in the linguistic habits of the communities of which they are part. So the only sense in which science
makes belief in God obsolete is that atheistic scientists are nowadays more actively competing for new
adherents to their preferred metaphysical story, while various religions are under increased assault for
their all-too obvious faults. No one takes much time to criticize equally the tyranny of western atheist
logocentric materialist technologism that is just as dangerous as any other loose ideological leviathan.
RE: Michael Shermer
Jason Wooden
07/29/2008
I find it ironic that one of the religions that Michael Shermer disses (the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints, aka "Mormons") is the only one I know of which professes a belief in God who has
all the characteristics of Shermer's "ETI." Take this excerpt from Mormon scripture for example: Moses
1:33-39(God instructing Moses): "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them
for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. . . . But only an
account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds
that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable
are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them."
Shermer correctly states: "Science traffics in the natural, not the supernatural. The only God that
science could discover would be a natural being, an entity that exists in space and time and is
constrained by the laws of nature. A supernatural God would be so wholly Other that no science could
know Him." Yet isn't the purpose of science to close the gap between the natural and supernatural?
Eventually, we all have the potential of becoming ETI's ourselves and to come to know God in the
process.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/29/2008
Dan Hamm (07/28) says a disbelief in God is a belief because you have to "believe" that matter in
some way, shape, or form has always existed, and that is against everything that we observe in
science. What about providing serious justification for this? As far as I know, science does not provide
any clue about whether matter always existed (or not). I don't even think "always" means anything
talking about a universe that started in a Big Bang.
There is such a thing as being agnostic, and one can be a believer on certain matters and an agnostic
on others. Believers don't understand that disbelief is not a belief at all. You believe something
because it is likely in your opinion that something is the case. You disbelieve it not because it is likely
in your opinion that something is not the case but because you have no indication that it is the case.
RE: Whole Series
Emmanuel Ande Ivorgba
07/29/2008
For a long time, many people have held the mistaken idea that science is anti-God. It appears then
92
that belief in the power of science at once eliminates the existence of God. This has been proved to be
wrong, for science and religion, which deals with belief in God, are not enemies but symbiotic
disciplines. History has shown very clearly that the great scientists in world history have strong faith
and believe in God.
RE: Whole Series
Andre Ruan
07/29/2008
The question boils down to one of faith based on available evidence. The evolutionary approach to
science has adopted but not declared its faith position. It is an act of faith and a not particularly
scientific one, as it rules out one possibility from the outset--the existence of God. There is no way of
reproducing the experimental conditions that obtained at the presumed big bang, so evolutionary
science also has a specific faith position and agenda.
There is ample evidence of a specific creation, namely, the detail of the eye, the anthropic principle,
the fact that there are no missing links between species and no evidence of on-going evolution that is
observable today. There are also competing and contradictory evolutionary theories, such as the big
bang, steady state, and punctuated equilibrium, the implications of which never seem to be explored
by evolutionary scientists.
RE: Whole Series
Rob MacKay
07/28/2008
God may well exist--I have no evidence either way. The very well educated people on this page can't
provide a concrete answer either. Simple belief in God is not proof of God's existence, lack of evidence
of Gods existence is also not proof of the lack of a god.
I do know that I have spent my entire life, like many before me, trying to find something extra-human in
our world, and all things I have found are either simply of man's making or beyond our current capacity
to understand--which is not proof of god's power but proof of our ignorance.
For Gilbert Garcia (07/28): This is going to be an exercise in futility. I fail to understand why seemingly
intelligent people such as listed here cannot figure out the age-old question of does the god of the
Koran or the bible exist--obviously not. How can any one book or person be right about religion? They
cannot be because the measurement medium (humans) is not well tuned enough to discern reality.
RE: Whole Series
Dan Hamm
07/28/2008
No. The belief in God is outside the realm of science and should be kept there. After all, even a
disbelief in God is a belief because you have to "believe" that matter in some way, shape, or form has
always existed, and that is against everything that we observe in science. Matter can neither be
created nor destroyed, so a disbelief in God is just a belief that matter has always existed and gave
rise to what is around us.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/28/2008
Owen Dykema (07/24) seems to make science and religion equally responsible for any incompatibility
between the two. Dykema's implication that science makes some unsupported assumptions betrays a
profound misunderstanding of science. No, science does not make unsupported assumptions. Some
scientists probably do but the question is about science, not about what some scientists do.
Scientific theories are entirely validated by observation, including, when necessary, specific
experiments. The degree of validity of a scientific theory is therefore always qualified by the extent to
which observation agrees with the theory's predictions. Obviously, validity cannot be absolutely
guaranteed. This is not specific to science but to the way that we, as human beings, relate to nature
(specifically, it is the long debated issue of induction).
It would be futile to argue, for example, that Einstein's Special Relativity makes unsupported
assumptions. SR cannot be said to be certain (no more than Newton's theory of gravitation was), but it
93
has been shown to be very precisely in agreement with a wide range of observations. Rather than
proving that SR is wrong, although this is still a possibility, the more likely evolution for the future would
be that SR be recast within a more general theory.
Further, the conditions of validity of the hypotheses that it is necessary to make in each specific case
are first that of the principle itself (of making hypotheses) and second whether the specific hypotheses
themselves are justified or not in each particular case. Concerning the principle itself, there is enough
literature on the subject, from David Hume to Karl Popper and Henri Poincar�, to require requalification
of any claim that science makes unsupported assumptions. Concerning specific scientific hypotheses,
the way they are arrived at is probably a story specific to each theory, but I doubt very much if there is
any example of hypotheses made that would ressemble something like an unsupported assumption
because the basic strategy is that of having the smallest assumption possible to begin with.
RE: Whole Series
Melanie S.
07/28/2008
I find it problematic that of 13 essayists, only one is a woman and one is of color. Surely the diverse
opinions of a bunch of white men is not nearly as interesting as a piece with a much more inclusive
body of writers and thinkers would have been.
RE: Whole Series
Gilbert Garcia
07/28/2008
This is going to be an exercise in futility. I fail to understand why seemingly intelligent people such as
listed here cannot figure out the age-old question of who we are, what is our purpose here, and where
we are going! Mind you, this is not an ego thing on my part. But the following is based on facts, not my
opinion. The truth of the matter is that we are all supposed to be spiritually minded. This is just another
way of saying we are God-conscious all the time during our existence and doing what he commands
all the time, just as his son Jesus Christ was faithful when he did his grand sacrifice for all of us by his
God and father's command. But being a true believer doesn't pay very well, and there is not much
glory in it. But there is fame and glory in being an atheist. Look in the Bible, you will find the truth there!
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Arnold J. Meagher
07/27/2008
I find the entire discussion invigorating, although some of it is beyond my comprehension. The last
essay in the series by Stuart Kauffman gave me the most satisfying answer to the question posed:
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Yes and no. Yes, science makes our belief in the Gods of
the Holy Books of Tipitaka and Diamond Sutra (Sacred Books of Buddhism), the Old and New
Testaments (the Bible), the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc. obsolete. Each Holy Book (or set of Holy
Books) has its own distinct belief system giving us multiple images of the sacred and of God. The Holy
Books often present a dogma of exclusive salvation, which leads to intolerance. And this intolerance at
one time or another has been expressed in torture, war, death, and murder of those who do not
believe, and this is justified in the name of defeating evil, saving souls, and "eliminating the weeds
from the wheatfields" (the New Testament). This is no better than primitive cultures that sacrificed
human beings to their deities.
All of the Holy Books are recent entries on the stage of human history--all within the past 5,000 years.
Yet humans have been on the planet for at least a few million years. Why would the Divine have
waited until relatively recent times to reveal his word? Were the people of ancient times not important
to the Divine? If the Divine planned to communicate with humans, surely it could have been done with
more clarity to the entire human audience? Furthermore, why would the Divine have stopped
communicating with his children, as some contend, with the end of the Bible at the end of the 2nd
century or with the end of the Quran in the 14th century? Anyway, why would the Divine think it fitting
to intervene in human history with revelations that have been largely failures, for the majority of
humans do not accept the revelations, and sadly, the "revelations" have only served not to unite
humans but to set one group against another? Maybe the Divine made no revelation and that would
mean that all the various religions are but human attempts at various times and in different parts of the
world to understand and explain the divine. That would help us understand the multiplicity of religions
and let the Divine off the hook for causing such confusion with multiple revelations that don't agree with
one another.
94
As for the future, we know that many facts and principles that we now accept will be replaced by ones
that are superior, not just a little better understanding, but whole new ways of looking at things. What
we now believe about the natural world will someday be completely revised with the advent of new
discoveries, improved analytical tools, and more refined measurements. Nowhere is that more obvious
than in the world of medicine. Science is constantly in a discovery mode and never makes its answers
final. Religious faith would do well to emulate science.
Is it too much to ask religions to build on the accumulated insights of the planet's great religious
leaders and reach for greater understanding, not dogmatic pronouncements that only attempt to stop
further inquiry and understanding and set people apart into opposing camps. It is not helpful to say that
God's revelation stopped with the Book of Revelations some two thousand years ago, or that Allah's
revelation stopped with the Quran some fourteen hundred years ago. That is to say that God and Allah
not only started very late in the day communicating with humans (over a million years too late) but
stopped communicating with humans in one belief system 2000 years ago and in another belief
system 1400 years ago. So all that humans can do through history in matters of religion is rehash old
news over and over!
Imagine where we would be in matters of scientific understanding if we dogmatically stated that we

reached the pinnacle of scientific understanding back in the second century with the thinking of the
Greek mathematician, geographer and astronomer, Claudius Ptolemy (83-161 CE) or with the
geocentric solar and lunar theories of the 14th-century Arab Muslim astronomer, mathematician and
engineer, Ibn ash-Shatir (1304-1375 CE), with no further growth possible in scientific knowledge! That
would be to permanently condemn our scientific thinking to a twilight zone.
RE: Whole Series
John R Moffett
07/27/2008
The human mind created the notion of a "God," and human reason can dispel that notion just as easily.
RE: Whole Series
James
07/26/2008
I get frustrated every time this argument comes up because. It's an argument of apples and oranges. It
can be neither proven nor disproven, and here's why. The concept of God is so totally abstract and
absolute that the human mind is simply unable to comprehend it. Thus, we get definitions from any
number of religious faiths or organizations on what God and the nature of God might be to them, and
we get individual interpretations as well. The truth is, none of us has the slightest clue and we probably
never will.
As to the apples and oranges of the argument, science deals with substantive information that can be
seen in black and white and can be proven or disproven. On the other hand, belief in God is a matter
of faith, not science, and God can be neither be proven or disproven. Thus it becomes a matter of
personal, moral conscience and belief to define God and the nature of God in a way that works for us
or, alternatively, we simply reject the whole concept.
I personally believe in that which we call God because (1) I exist and I sure didn't create myself. I don't
know if anything else exists, for it may be an illusion of relative, material existence. But I am aware of
myself, so I know I exist. (2) Being human, I need an explanation for all the who, what, why, where,
and when's that abound, and what we call God is the only available answer for it all. That doesn't mean
I throw myself blindly into anyone else's declaration of what constitutes God or the accompanying
theology that ultimately goes with it. What I've come up with, so far, is the culmination of a lifetime of
contemplating the subject and rejecting some answers and accepting others--for now. Perhaps I'll
never find the final answer, but I'll keep trying nonetheless.
RE: Whole Series
Dave
07/26/2008
No, the purpose of belief in God is not related to the function of science. Science itself in no way
covers or even begins to address the core nature of relationship with God, which is both intellectual (in
the sense of answering the core question "why?") and experiential in giving us the answer (it begins
95
with "L"). We might better ascend to a form of question that better serves us, such as "Why would we
see this question as even relevant? What god are we worshipping by even asking this, given a working
definition here of 'god' as 'that which we believe has the power to give and sustain life.'"
What about science gives any sense of THAT capacity? Isn't it just the desire for ego to have some
sense of control, so joyfully absent in true communion, that would motivate such worship of "false
gods." I love science--the order it explores and reveals, the ever more brilliant mysterious integrity of
life itself. It is not science that is the issue but the belief that somehow by having "control" over thought
and science that the scientist understands the "why" of life any more. Humility is the issue, not the
"value of science." It has none, unless it serves Love, which is God. So long as we keep the horse
before the cart, we will be OK. If not, things get very messy! God is not a construct of religion but Love
itself. Does science replace that? No.
RE: Whole Series
Carl Martin
07/25/2008
This is logic: if God exists, He continues to exist whether or not we believe. Religion and science strive
toward some version of truth. If the universe was created, then science studies the products of
creation. The domain of science is that of physical continuity. The domain of creation is one of
discontinuity--for example, the emotional state of resentment is one of commensurability with some
past hurt, and forgiveness is an act of creation breaking with the continuity that binds the emotion to its
source.
Occam's razor is not infallible, but it would seem to tell us that physical existence came from some
source and not from nothingness. That source may be outside the realm of scientific inquiry, but it
would seem important to science and not obsolete. Such a source would seem superior to physical law
in much the same way that true forgiveness is superior to resentment.
Does belief in God make science obsolete? I think neither one can be obsolete if we strive to
understand the whole. The beauty of physical reality and the elegance of the mechanics of creation
are both valuable to our growth toward Truth.
RE: Whole Series
Germano Paiva
07/24/2008
Science does not make the concept of God obsolete, but it makes it impossible to believe in the Holy
Bible.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Collazo
07/24/2008
I find it hard to believe that this many people can miss the overall point of the question that badly. Of
course science makes the concept of god obsolete. The concept was created by humans long before
they had even a rudimentary understanding of the world around them. God was invented as an answer
to questions that were as yet beyond their limited scope of understanding.
You can backfill history all you want to try and justify religion's usefulness, but in the end it really is
nothing more than superstition and fairy tales. That a professional scientist cannot recognize the
intellectual dishonesty of belief in god is a testament to the special treatment faith is accorded in
today's society. If you make a truth claim about any other subject, you will be confronted and in all
probability ridiculed if it has nothing to support it. Only with religion is the mechanism of logic and
evidence ignored in the pursuit of political correctness. Even within the religious discussion the subject
is biased and illogical. If one were to claim faith in an ancient religion that is no longer popular (Greek
or Norse mythology), it is not afforded the same respect. As if Christianity is more believable than
those faiths!
It is time for us as a species to evolve past our need for these dangerous superstitions and have a
greater respect for truth, or we may find that our "faith" is what will be the end of us all!
RE: Whole Series
Owen Dykema
96
07/24/2008
If you look closely, science and religion appear incompatible only when science makes some
unsupported assumptions, religion sticks by some uncertain interpretation of the word, or both.
RE: Whole Series
David Mandeville
07/24/2008
I found this debate quite by accident, and I have enjoyed this back and forth. It was, with one small
exception, well done. The exception was Mr. Hitchens. His argument seemed based on some deep
resentment of religion. In my thinking, ALL religion is political and totally separate from spiritual
experience. Though a spiritual experience can come to a "religious" person, I don't believe that religion
promotes spiritual revelations. Rather, it provides for a communal thought process. Either God is or
God is not. The choice is ours and that, I believe, is my purpose in this creation. To decide if I have the
willingness to look at the world and the universe around me and be awed by it or upset that so many
things are outside of my liking.
Mr. Hoodbhoy could only accept a God that was, well, like Mr. Hoodbhoy. Just a shade of a
patronizingly edgy ego. But none the less all was very intresting. I believe there is God. He did not
write the Bible for everybody but for those who wish to increase the wisdom and understanding that is
required to enjoy a conscious contact with God. His name is I AM. Jesus said that God is a spirit. I do
not belong to a religion, but I consider myself a Christian because I understand what Jesus was trying
to do for me and the spiritual price He paid for me to be able to grow in this wisdom and
understanding. I first had to be humble enough to understand that God cannot and will not be mocked
by my sense of importance.
I think therefore I am. I think of God and His creation. I don't think of how old it is or could be. I leave
that to those that think of such things. Then I read what they say, and I make my decisions concerning
their value to my spiritual growth. Since I think of God, I believe that makes me of God. Simple and
convoluted, but it is my proof. "The mind of man has many plans, but the purpose of the Lord is
established" (Prov. 19:21). You have all helped me better understand my purpose today and to all I
thank you.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/23/2008
David Heintz (07/21) notes briefly that "it is the paradox of consciousness that forces a belief in a soul."
Whatever subjective experience we have, we subsequently don't remember it or we remember it as a
conscious experience, even when at the time we seemed totally unconscious to other people, for
example if asleep and dreaming. The rather logical "paradox," therefore, is that consciousness does
not seem capable of experiencing states of unconsciousness.
There is little doubt that belief in God has at least in part developed historically (and possibly to a
lesser extent pre-historically) on this "paradox." It also seems reasonable to assume that science will,
now sooner rather than later, explain consciousness, with possible technological applications that will
convince the non-scientifically minded of the pedestrian nature of our mind. If we do that, there will
truly be no compulsion in religion.
RE: Whole Series
Erik Fest
07/23/2008
Man's greatest burden is that he hasn't yet evolved enough to grasp a concept of God so that it leaves
room for outside the box thinking rather than fairytales for career preachers who warn us to fear life
and Sunday school scholars who would have us fear death. Faith in science must answer to logic,
reason, common sense, and what can be proven within the honest realm of evidential fact. Given the
physical makeup of a ubiquitous universe of cyclical patterns in time and space and the infinite atomic
satellites therein, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
God must be something that simply always was, is not a vain wrathful creator, and is as
interconnected as the wires that link us all to the communications age. We must first and foremost
define what God is. If we can do no better than bring to light man's image or an aloof personage who
97
acts like more of a mortal than divine spectator of our big blue planet, then we are just tilting at
proverbial windmills.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/22/2008
Regarding the meaning of life, I have to agree with Bucamp (07/22). There is no absolute or objective
or intrinsic meaning to life. Meaning refers to the feelings or ideas associated with whatever provoked
them, even ideas themselves. There is no meaning outside the conscious mind of the observer. There
is only a stark reality, the many facets of which may or not be acknowledged or properly interpreted. If
an author dies before his manuscript is read, the text has no meaning until someone reads it, and even
then the meaning it generates in the mind of the reader may not be the meaning the author intended to
convey. Meaning exists only in the brain, and the meanings of life are as many and varied as the
conclusions drawn by all those countless nervous systems.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/22/2008
The notion of "fine-tuning" of cosmological constants as used by Schwartzbaum (07/01) (see also
Cardinal Sch�nborn's contribution and Owen Gingerich's contribution to the previous Templeton
question on whether the universe has a purpose) requires a higher level of reality within which the
universe could be "fine-tuned." This in turn would imply the possibility of other universes with a
different "tuning," with or without life. If our universe is alone then, irrespective of this apparent "fine-
tuning," it is what it is, i.e., it is certain, and its putative "improbability" is nonsense.
Further, cosmological constants may not be the same throughout our universe (irrespective of whether
other universes also exist). Each constant may have a different local value in different regions of the
universe. With most other regions having different constants from our own, they would probably not
feature the elementary particles we know (electrons, neutrons, and protons), atoms as we know them
and life as we know it. However, some of these regions could feature something different at the
microscopic level yet featuring macroscopic properties very similar to what we know here, possibly
somewhat like life itself. This scenario is very, very unlikely to be ever fully substantiated, but it is
currently being investigated by a few cosmologists (see Bruno Guiderdoni's contribution to the
question of the purpose of the universe).
This shows the putative improbability of "fine-tuning" as nonsense. In a universe with many different
regions having their own local values for cosmological constants, the probability of these constants
having values necessary for life as we know it would be a non-issue. In each region where some kind
of life would exist, "people" would notice that their local constants have the proper value for them to
exist. In other regions, local constants would be improper for life to exist, but no one would be there to
notice. So, no "fine-tuning improbability," only certain ignorance and ideology.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/22/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum (07/16) claims that Intelligent Design is an alternative to Darwin because "all the
characteristics of design are present." The truth is, there are no such "characteristics of design."
Design is a very general notion, universally understood as what people do in order to obtain a
particular result. Design is only characterized by intentionality, not by any characteristic in its outcome.
In the case of the universe, none of us obviously was there at the time to report any intention in the
creation of the universe. All we have to test our theories is the universe as we can observe it now, and
there is no indication of design because we could not possibly say it has been "intentional." Intelligent
Design is no alternative to Darwin.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/22/2008
David Heintz (07/21) suggests that "It is death, more than any other factor, that gives life its meaning."
I guess I understand the idea, but I believe it eludes the question of the possibility of some sort of
intrinsic meaning to life. The question of meaning is similar here to the question of "purpose"--as in the
other Templeton Big Question, "Does the universe have a purpose?"--or the question of "the aim of
98
life" (see comment from Carl H. van Zijll de Jong, 07/15). However, things and events simply don't
have a meaning of their own.
Any notion of meaning and purpose can only be arrived at as a collective and social construct. We
have to "give" a meaning or a purpose to things and events in the course of our interactions and
exchanges, and we may indeed even disagree about it. The meaning that you give to certain things
may completely elude me, and vice versa, but our basic needs as living organisms impose a
commonality of meaning to certain things and events. A work of art may mean different things to
different people, including nothing at all, but food and birth mean life to (nearly) all of us.
Ultimately, meaning is the mental connection we choose to make between various things and events,
and because life itself is the biggest event in our lives, we have to use it as the ultimate meaning for
other things. Of course, we also make a mental connection between our own individual life and the rest
of humanity and possibly life "in general," but that's the most we can make of it. The question of the
meaning of our universe is thus rather trivial: without our universe we wouldn't have a life, full stop. The
rest is gobbledygook (meaningless).
RE: Whole Series
Rev. Dr. Apollos Yuan
07/21/2008
It is interesting to see that among the participating scholars, the closer they are to "hard sciences" in
their personal expertise, the stronger their support for the scientific link to the existence of God. The
more we know about the amazing unity among diversity in the laws of the universe, the less likely they
come by themselves and the more likely a designer exists. This is simple logic. Any denial would take
more faith than simple acceptance of theism.
RE: Whole Series
Evelio Ranurez
07/21/2008
To respond intelligently to the question requires, first of all, that one be a scientist or have a basic
knowledge of science and also a deep knowledge of God. As one who lacks scientific knowledge, I
would have to rely on my senses; that is, as I look around and behold the incredible works of nature or
closely observe a human being, I cannot believe that such are the products of accident, evolution, or
the result of any science. My inner conscience dictates that it had to be created by some supreme
knowledge which is given an identity as God, Jehovah. Else, how does one explain that aborigines,
cavemen, our ancestors all over the world believed in a supernatural being? This, before there was
any knowledge of any science!
RE: Whole Series
David Heintz
07/21/2008
This great question must be broken down. Why must the Creator be less stunningly beautiful than the
creation? Is it only ego that wants God to be an entity, a mirroring personality? Can't we imagine that
an order and an energy inherent in the laws of physics spawned DNA and the potential of a living
intelligence, and that THAT generative force is more powerful, fascinating, and sacred than our puny
idea of The Father?
Does death rob life of purpose and meaning? The most fearful mystery demands an elaborate
explanation. If we ever realize that purpose and meaning are inherent in the living of life, it's probably
too late to live by the understanding. It is death, more than any other factor, that gives life its meaning;
but fear prevents us from seeing it. In the distinct possibility there is NO afterlife, the great irony in a
belief that promises one is that those who lived their lives in this belief will not know their error. Not
even an "oops" at the end.
Why must meaning be defined from without? All the "words of God," were written, edited, and
translated by men, each with their own political agenda, in ages of ignorance and fear. To shrink from
searching for personal meaning is a sign of intellectual, if not moral cowardice. How is it that God is the
only ethical authority? Again, this belief masks a deeper truth: nature and consciousness demand in
parallel the rigorous use of logic and the acceptance of paradox, and a simple nod to human
interdependence.
99
Do we have immortal souls? Do we live on only as an anonymous form of energy without a
personality? Or do we simply end? I think it is the paradox of consciousness that forces a belief in a
soul. Simply because we cannot imagine ourselves not existing in recognizable form, we have to
construct a belief that trivializes life on this plane, and belies again our lack of imagination.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/21/2008
Rev. Ray Lane (07/21) says repeatability is essential to science and not possible if all is evolving. I
disagree. The laws of nature, upon which all science is based, do not evolve. But patterns and
configurations of matter and energy in both the living and nonliving world do change over time, and
that gradual process is called evolution whether it applies to a solar system, an ecosystem, or a living
organism.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/21/2008
Wayne Wohler (07/19) says we bring physical reality into being when we observe physical objects.
This is a common mistake referred to in philosophy and theology as idealism and as applied to
quantum mechanics was ridiculed by Erwin Schrodinger in his thought experiment regarding the dead-
and-alive cat. It is ludicrous to think the cat is in a state of being both dead and alive until the moment
we actually open the box to see if it's dead or alive.
Since quantum particles such as electrons and photons are too small to seen, the only way to
"observe" one is to conduct an experiment in which one particle is impacted by another. We don't see
the collision, but we do observe the results, and this is how we gather data. The reality that's created
by the collision is the direct result of the collision and is not caused by observing the results afterwards.
Consciousness is created by activity in the brain, and it's ridiculous to declare that consciouseness
creates anything other than an inner awareness of a world outside itself that was already real enough
to impact the senses. Everything we know or think we know about the world came to us as sense data
and was processed, often badly, by our brains to create our thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors.
RE: Whole Series
James H. Schulman
07/21/2008
"Does science make belief in God obsolete?," proposed as one of the Foundation's "Big Questions,"
has been seriously and vigorously addressed by a panel of invited scholars, who have treated the
Question as quite meaningful or even profound. It is the purpose of this note to point out that the
Question makes no sense when one considers the essential characteristics of the three constituents of
the Question--science, God, and belief.
It is a cardinal principle of science that a meaningful concept must be testable, directly or indirectly. But
the generally assumed attributes of God--an incorporeal, omnipotent Being, who has always existed,
who has created the universe and its inhabitants, and who can hear their prayers--preclude any
possibility of testing. Because of these attributes, science can say nothing about either God's
existence or non-existence, nor can it confirm, modify, or "make obsolete" belief or disbelief. The same
would be true for any concept, religious or secular, that consisted of untestable elements. The
mistaken attempt to couple the scientific requirement of testability with the untestable attributes of God
thus makes complete nonsense of the "Question."
Disregarding the illogic of the "Question," the panel gave a wide spectrum of answers, from "yes" to
"no" and several gradations in between. Their essays reflected not only their knowledge of science but
also included arguments from history, religion, and philosophy. The extreme variety and subjectivity of
the responses vividly illustrate that science is only one factor, and not the dominant one, that
influences belief. Some respondents apparently had needs leading to what Kierkegaard called "the
leap to faith"; others found the leap too great, and became agnostics or atheists. Thus, just as the
Question is nonsense in principle, it does not shed any light on belief in practice.
Despite missing the mark by attempting to deal with a Deity, the posing of this "Big Question" by the
100
Templeton Foundation is an implicit acknowledgment that science has a legitimate input into religious
questions. It should be noted that this contradicts the views of more than one Templeton Prize
Laureate who argue that science and religion occupy two "non-overlapping magisteria." Since the time
of Galileo it seems to have become increasingly clear that there is only one "magisterium." Its essence
is the only "Big Question."
RE: Whole Series
Kristine Madera
07/21/2008
No, science makes God evident. What science makes obsolete is the belief in religious dogma, which
is too often confused with belief in God.
RE: Whole Series
Rev. Ray Lane
07/21/2008
Your series of "Big Questions" is great! Obviously, it encourages deep thinking. The contrasting views
and references to philosophers through the ages that are quoted by both official and unofficial
respondents bring to mind the gnostics that the Apostle Paul and the beloved disciple John confronted
2000 years ago. The questions are still difficult to frame, and the answers are only marginally
expanded by vastly increased amounts of information. During my years in Los Alamos, I was told that
there was only one atheist in town. Repeatability is essential to science and not possible if all is
evolving.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/21/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum (07/18) claims that "similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA" is "highly
misleading." The reality is that it is only a small item of the entire evidence in favor of evolution.
Scientists have shown that species are more or less related according to the amount of similarities
found in their DNA so that the many species that still exist today can be organized in a genetic tree
according to their genetic similarity. It is a fact that those species that are genetically similar and
therefore close on the genetic tree also tend to look more similar (humans and apes), display more
similar organs (brain, limbs), body organization and structures (the vertebrate body plan), behavior
(predatory strategies), and organ functionalities (breathing). Even the dolphin, which despite a very
different aspect, seems a relative to us because of its behavior and intelligence, is genetically and
anatomically much closer to us than any fish is. Apes are closer to us than monkeys are. Monkeys are
closer to us than lemuroids and other mammals. All mammals are closer to us than fish, insects, or
spiders. The goes all across the entire tree of life. What is it that is "highly misleading" in that?
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/21/2008
Contrary to what Eric Schwartzbaum says (07/16), intelligent design is no alternative to the theory of
evolution. The theory of evolution, like all scientific efforts, tries to make the least possible assumptions
about what we don't know yet in nature. Intelligent design does the reverse: it makes the maximal
assumption. In this case, the assumption is the stupendously maximal one that there has been some
entity that designed the universe so that "natural" processes would lead at some point to Homo
sapiens.
Maximal assumptions are by way of consequence the most improbable of all, and intelligent design is
happy to root for the most improbable explanation without any serious justification for that, except
ideology. Science makes use of the fact that simple causes can produce complex or complicated
effects, and to explain complex or complicated phenomena is simply to try to uncover simple
mechanisms that could produce them. On the contrary, intelligent design wants absurdly to justify the
existence of something complex or complicated (Homo sapiens) by something even more complex
and complicated (some universe-designing entity). Intelligent design is not science, it is absurdity.
RE: Whole Series
David Longino
07/20/2008
Science is God's method of achieving his goal. It is the tool to complete his work. This question is like
asking if the nail gun will put the carpenter out of work. Some day there will be peace on earth whether
101
we help it or not. Those who can imagine what that will be like are the ones called to bring it into
existance. Those who work against it must feel God's wrath. You cannot go against nature because
going against nature is part of nature too.
RE: Whole Series
Lee Burker
07/20/2008
Pierre de Chardin, SJ, theologian and paleontologist, has been my "authority" on this, and I wish to
hear the continued dialogue.
RE: Whole Series
Mike Ingoldsby
07/19/2008
I don't understand why creationism and Darwinism cannot stand side by side. To argue that
creationism is "science" only makes those of us who believe in God look like fools.
RE: Whole Series
Stuart G. Poss
07/19/2008
No, science only makes belief in God less relevant to explanations concerning the natural world. There
remain and always will remain questions that fall outside the realm of science. However, as the use of
logic and reason as applied to an understanding of the natural world advances, less remains to be
explained. For scientists, this implies that they must remain focused on expanding knowledge,
particularly at the boundaries of imagination and concerning the core of what it is to be human. For the
religious, this expansion of science means that men may better focus their efforts regarding the
spiritual and ultimate questions toward things that really matter to humanity and how answers to such
questions may help men to live with one another so that differing concepts of God are not
irreconcilable.
RE: Steven Pinker
Wayne Wohler
07/19/2008
The ultimate science of quantum physics is discovering and proving the true non-physical origins and
nature of our so-called material reality. Steven Pinker's reductionism fails miserably in the light of just
one principle: non-locality. We now know that we, as self-referential beings of intelligent energy of an
even higher creative consciousness (God, if you will), literally bring physical reality into being when we
observe (that is, measure) quantum objects. This involves a domain of interconnectedness that
transcends the immanent space-time domain of reality, where things are seen as independent and
separate.
Mr. Crick wasted the last 15 years or so of his life searching for consciousness in the brain.
Consciousness is the creator of the brain, for it is the ground of all being. Our physical bodies,
including the brain, are simply the receiver, like a radio or television, of a transcendent consciousness,
which in turn creates the physical reality that science tries to understand and master. Consciousness is
not an epiphenomenon of the brain or mind but literally created those structures that are required to
receive and actualize it by observing or collapsing the wave function of possibility into what we call
material reality.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Arthur S. Jensen
07/18/2008
The Big Bang proves that God exists! A proper addition we would make to the Bible today would be
chapter zero of Genesis: In the beginning, God created the laws of logic, mathematics, and physics.
Then He said, "Let there be Light," and there appeared one enormous photon containing all the energy
and mass-energy of the universe. It immediately began to expand and divide into the plasma of the Big
Bang, the cosmic background radiation. The true miracle of creation is that fewer than thirty laws of
nature suffice to determine the course of the universe since its beginning. Though it is highly doubtful
that an infinitely wise Creator would ever have had need to suspend any of these laws, the statistical
nature of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Uncertainty Principle provides means for the
Creator to influence our lives without violating any law, by affecting our thoughts and perceptions.
All religious people, not just those who believe in the Torah and the other books of the Bible, should
102
rejoice that Drs. George Gamow, Alpher, Bethe, Herman, Penzias, and Dicke, along with the many
astronomical measurements made by the wonderful telescopes, spanning many octaves of the
electromagnetic spectrum, have shown by actual measurement that the universe has not been forever,
but did, indeed, have a specific, finite beginning we now call the Big Bang. This is well established and
the age of the universe has now been measured accurately to be 13.7 billion years!
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/18/2008
Response to Bucamp (07/18): Eugene again confirms my assertion that evolution is basically an
argument from ignorance by admitting that no direct empirical evidence exists to confirm
macroevolution. The evidence is circumstantial and only works when viewed through the lens of
evolutionary theory, which is assumed to have awesome creative power to generate information and
intelligence from random processes. One has simply shifted the sense of awe from an intelligent
creator to the unexplained creative magic of evolution.
With respect to the required evidence for evolution, two things come to mind: (1) The ability to
demonstrate significant morphological changes in the lab via use of large bacterial populations.
Scientists clearly consider such a demonstration important since much time and money is being spent
on these experiments. The fact that this result has not been achieved does not bolster confidence in
the theory. (2) The development of a plausible step-by-step molecular mechanism confirmed by an
unbiased computer simulation. No such models or simulations exist.
Regarding evidence for common descent, I am not ruling out a teleogical form of evolution. However, I
believe a more reasonable assumption is that commonality of genetic structure is explained by the fact
that all life has emerged from the same intelligence, and successful genetic strategies are reused.
Reuse is the goal of any good engineer. As for similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA, this
statement is highly misleading. Genome mapping has shown 68,000 places where chimp and human
DNA are misaligned because the corresponding place is missing in the other species. A comparison of
231 genes revealed 47 places in which the produced amino acids differed significantly. Massive
differences exist between the brain cells of human and chimps. Genetic differences between chimps
and humans result largely from different uses of the same gene. Hence the assertion of 95% similarity
becomes almost irrelevant.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
07/18/2008
The crucial question for this "big question" has been missed. Faith can be seen as the culmination of
the self-transcendence implied in all learning, beginning at the point where the natural growth of
conceptual understanding ends. For faith begins by conceiving of one's situation in the broadest
possible way and then choosing the most productive way forward--as determined by projecting human
values into the conceptual void. Kant's antinomies and William James's "subtle edge of things . . .
where thought expire[s]" are the most explicit examples of this view, but the banter in this forum can be
taken as a tacit example.
If so, the crucial question for addressing the big question of "God's" continued relevance has been
missed: How can theism make a positive, productive contribution to human progress, if religious faith
begins at the point where the natural growth of conceptual understanding has been reached? At least
two important consequences follow: (1) "God" (or religious faith) must answer questions that science
cannot and (2) some account of how that is so must be forthcoming, or faith in God becomes, in fact, a
"leap" into a conceptual void.
In that sense I can agree with Aldo Matteucci's assessment below (07/17). But religious faith cannot be
dismissed on that basis. For Matteucci's view only follows if one takes religion to offer views outmoded
by science. But clear thinking tells us that Matteucci's view is confounded by the fact that informed faith
resides at "the subtle edge where . . . thought expire[s]." The challenge for a person of faith is to make
that meaningful.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/18/2008
103
Eric Schwartzbaum (07/16) says "there is no evidence (none!) which demonstrates that random
mutation can result in the large-scale morphological changes required by Darwinian evolution." What
kind of evidence do you need? Obviously, no scientist will run an experiment where a fish species
evolves into a new mammal species. "Large-scale morphological changes" took ages to occur. Our
own species has only been around probably less than 100,000 years, but it took more than 2 million
years for Homo sapiens to evolve out of (possibly) Australopithecus, a chimpanzee-like hominid able
to make simple flint stone tools; and 200 million years were necessary for hominids to evolve out of the
first mammalians!
You might think bacteria evolved faster, but they have existed in very large populations that only occur
in natural settings and yet it took them many hundreds of millions of years to produce the first plants
and animals, and there is absolutely no comparison between the populations you can test in a lab,
however big your cesspool, and the total bacteria population that existed say in the swamps of
southern Europe. Not only the sizes of the populations are not commensurate but the variety of the
environmental conditions to which bacteria have been subjected is also much larger in the open
environment of the wild, conditions that would be difficult to reproduce.
There is, however, evidence for common descent in different species, and thus for Darwinian
evolution, in the similarity of gene sequences we can find in all species that exist today. Thus, while
our genetic material has about 3,200,000,000 basic pairs of molecules (adenine-thymine or guanine-
cytosine pairs), 95% of it is identical to that of the chimpanzee (meaning we have a common ancestor
species) while 5% is identical in all mammal species, which include whales!
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/18/2008
Response to Bucamp (07/17): Eugene again misses the point. The argument is not about complexity
per se but about the lack of empirical evidence and detailed analytical models to support the Darwinian
mechanisms which allegedly produce that complexity. No one assumes that complexity in and of itself
implies design--this is a specious argument. Rather, intelligent design is a logical alternative when all
the characteristics of design are present and the laws of physics do not provide a non-intelligent
mechanism to explain the observed phenomenon. Thus, the argument for evolution is an argument
from ignorance since it invokes unknown material mechanisms or known mechanisms that act in
unknown ways (assuming random mutation in concert with natural selection provides no insight into
the details of the process). This renders evolutionary theory immune to falsification in actual practice
because there will always be an infinite number of unknown material mechanisms, i.e., evolution must
be true since it can't be proven to be impossible.
RE: Whole Series
Aldo Matteucci
07/17/2008
The straightforward way to assess the value of religion would be to review it as a real, existing
historical phenomenon. The long trail of murder, mayhem, intolerance, its failure to address core
human problems like slavery and discrimination of women should suffice to question its value. Ever
since Zeus was supposed to be fulminating against evil-doers, religion has claimed impassable
boundaries for "the sacred." These boundaries have shrunk and shrunk like shagreen under the
corrosive acid of ordinary science (note Cardinal Sch�nborn's "delegation of competence" approach to
find wiggle room for God's vanishing act). Geocentrism is now forgotten. Creationism is discredited.
The Garden of Eden (and God's zapping of the "soul" into the emergent human ape) looks increasingly
dicey, now that we can study the trail of human migration across the continents. Life may well exist on
Mars or in inter-stellar space. The current boundary would seem to be the brain: what emerges hardly
justifies the pretension of an interface between a "soul" and a chaotically emergent brain. Expect more
of the same in the future.
For 2,000 years, Western thinking has been under the spell of reductionism, essentialism, and
idealism. Religion has happily piggy-backed on metaphysics, claiming God to be "first cause," the
"cause without a cause." Call it teleology; intelligent design is its vulgar form. Most of the essays that
defend religion here are based on this mechanistic worldview. Adam Smith was the first to describe a
"self-organizing" complex system, the market. He used the image of the "invisible hand" to describe
outcome, not causality; for in such a system there is no causal chain, just a causal network. Function
104
had replaced purpose. Darwin extended this novel view to evolution. Ever since then, we recognize
such complex emergent systems everywhere. All of life may be viewed in this way. Now the paradigm
is nearing fulfilment: the essence has been grasped and formulated scientifically in chaos theory.
Such systems are adaptive, not teleological or mechanistic. They are creative yet without design or
purpose. No direction can be ascertained, they are inherently unpredictable. This scientific discovery
should put paid to reductionism, essentialism, and the "first" or "final" cause. Life just does not work
that way. The ultimate battle between science and religion has been joined. No longer is science
querying this or that religious myth. Science is questioning teleology altogether. How long will this
battle last? A generation at least, until the reductionist and essentialist worldview has been flushed
through.
RE: Whole Series
Szabolcs Tornai
07/17/2008
Only wrong answers can be given to a wrong question! The above "big" question is wrong because it
takes for granted that the concept of god is clearly defined, which is absolutely false. Thus the whole
discucussion makes no sense! A right question is: how would you define the concept of god? (If it can
be defined at all, for it seems to be a grand misnomer, a jolly joker, a monumental product of wishful
thinking.)
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/17/2008
The argument of complexity used by Eric Schwartzbaum (07/01) subsumes various arguments to
provide a rationale for believing in a creator God. This point is constantly re-hashed (see for example
K. Ward and C. Sch�nborn's contributions or the case of William Paley reported in Victor J. Stenger's
contribution). The re-hashing of the Genesis myth into the theory of Intelligent Design is yet another
example. The argument of complexity is certainly a rational one because complexity is a reality that we
can all witness and science investigates. It is of course a very old motivation for believing in God,
perhaps the main one. When we find a complex or complicated object, we presume that it is not a
natural one and that a human being made it. Most of the time our guess is justified, but this is only
because we obviously live close to each other.
The most complex thing we know of is life itself and mankind, but we don't usually presume that a
human being created life because that would be poor logic. A theory where aliens would be the
creators of life on earth would be similarly problematic; hence the temptation for some to explain
complexity by a creator God and to justify one's belief in God by the argument of complexity. Clerics
and most Christian scholars have long insisted that it is impossible that simple natural processes could
ever produce the complexity apparent in life and in mankind. However, people today no longer have
the excuse of the general ignorance that characterized humanity in the past. The theory of evolution
and genetic science now explain why complexity emerges naturally from simplicity. Biological
processes are effectively extremely complex and a full description of them cannot be expected any
time soon. However, the current situation is truly that of millions of specific facts that support genetic
science and the theory of evolution. In this context, it is truly childish and somewhat pathetic to insist
like Sch�nborn and many others do that a creator God is still a necessary explanation.
RE: Whole Series
Alan Greener
07/17/2008
Would you hire an all-powerful being that has mankind as the crowning achievement on his resume?
RE: Jerome Groopman
Neel
07/17/2008
Richard Dawkins, in his The God Delusion, explains the evolutionary roots of modern morality.
Science does not give us morality but explains it as genetic. Slavery, bigotry, egotism, rape,
intolerance, and genocide are part of the moral make-up of the Bible (here I assume your references to
morality are sourced biblically). We are moral in spite of religion, not because of it.
Neel
105
07/17/2008
Faith in Abraham's God is what is being challenged. An abstract god (only a force of creation) allows
for faith, but surely science challenges the existence of a God as defined by the Bible. Genesis, Noah,
virgin births-- surely these are decimated by science?
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/16/2008
Response to Eugene Bucamp (07/16): There is no evidence (none!) which demonstrates that random
mutation can result in the large-scale morphological changes required by Darwinian evolution. Studies
of large bacterial populations, which provide the closest simulation to historical evolutionary processes
(large number of trials, simulating the large number of organisms required for evolutionary theory to
work) show only minor molecular changes due to random mutation. Speciation has never been
demonstrated even though significant "intelligent design" has been injected into such experiments.
And, as stated previously, the probabilities associated with the required number of beneficial mutations
to cause even a single macro-evolutionary change is formidable (not to mention the millions of such
changes required to result in the diversity of life on this planet).
So, in my opinion, the standard version of evolution does not even pass the threshold of being a
scientific theory. It is conjecture based on fertile scientific imagination, circular logic which uses a
hypothesis to prove a hypothesis and lacking in a single, agreed upon step-by-step model to verify its
assumptions (at the molecular level). The theory seems to fail empirically, probabilistically, and
logically. We can argue this point endlessly without resolution. In the end we will both look at the facts
as we perceive them and decide which scenario is more likely.
With respect to the probabilities of other universes, you have clearly missed my point. I was
responding to the ambiguity of a statement from another blogger; you quoted me out of context. It may
be true that anything, including other universes, is possible. However, this is a metaphysical statement
based on an unprovable assumption about reality, so adds nothing to the discussion. My point is
simply that probability provides a useful tool to evaluate the reasonableness of a theory. It seems to
me that belief in Darwinian evolution requires more faith than virtually any other alternative.
RE: Whole Series
Texasguy01
07/16/2008
Can you please be a bit more specific on the "God"? God who? There are many to choose from. An
abstract "God" makes fair comparisons difficult. It assumes a blandly universal god like a Unitarian
diety. You should identify which "God." My personal favorite is Jesus and Jehovah. All of these lost
academics debating dry and dead religion is mildly amusing and quite boring actually. Maybe they
should visit a real Pentecostal church and learn the meaning of the fire of God, watch a real exorcism,
and see a healing. I suppose that would contradict their nicely put together theories. How about
miracles I have seen in church from a "God" that does not exist? How about an honest accounting and
analysis? All I ask for is an open mind--something Christians rarely get.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/16/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum (07/01) says that "vast amounts of information are embedded in organic life (the
genetic code), which makes life unlikely, at least based on the current understanding of the laws of
chemistry and physics." This is simply not the case. The very simple mechanism of random mutation of
the DNA contained in the reproductive cells in living organisms with selection of those organisms that
just happen to be the more adapted to the environment is a scientific explanation of why "vast amounts
of information" came to be "embedded in organic life."
Second, Schwartzbaum should make up his mind about the "probabilities associated with the
emergence of the universe": First he says (06/25) "It's easily shown that the probabilities associated
with the emergence of the universe as we know it are vanishingly small" and then (07/01) "with respect
to the probabilities of the emergence of other universes, such a concept is meaningless since there is
no evidence for other universes, and thus we can't discuss the probabilities." You can't hold both
views: the idea of "probabilities associated with the emergence of the universe" implies the possibility
of "other universes."
106
RE: Whole Series
Chris
07/16/2008
Religion, dealt a body blow by the incredible explanatory power of modern science, will go down for
the count when modern medicine begins to dramatically extend human life. One only has to attend a
funeral to realize that religion's fundamental purpose, religion's hold on the human psyche, comes from
the promises of the faith and the comfort it provides as we face the death of others and our own certain
demise.
But as the 21st century rolls along, our scientific understanding is starting to deeply penetrate the
workings of our bodies and, to a lesser degree, the workings of our minds. Once life expectancy starts
to extend dramatically, the urgent psychological need to believe in an afterlife will diminish. Until
science dramatically affects human aging, no explanatory power or modern marvel will substantially
affect religion. After science dramatically affects human aging, religion will truly be obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Nadia
07/16/2008
If we believe throughout our thinking, what are we able to believe in? Do we believe in the Mind? What
is the source of God?
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/16/2008
Dan Tanno (06/30) made an interesting point by suggesting removing all the nonsense from religion to
keep only moral aspects. I have a connected but less optimistic point: if religious people were really
serious about moral issues, they would refrain from publicly making the offensive claim that God is the
only source of morality, a God that other people don't even believe in. The fact that they keep harping
about it only shows the shallowness of their moral understanding.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/16/2008
George Madden (06/28) believes that he can only leave open the question of whether God exists or
not. Obviously, Madden drifted from the initial question to the narrower one of "Can science prove that
God does not exist?" Still, elements of the notion of God that science could not possibly prove (or
disprove) are those which are entirely abstract and hence entirely non-sensical, such as the notion that
God created reality (including himself).
To take one example of a more realistic element: the Catholic catechism teaches that "God is
everywhere." Obviously, this could mean something real, but if it was the case there would come with
that a real possibility of proving it true or false. Conversely, once you start with the premise that there is
no possibility of proving it true or false, you also have to accept that any notion of God that contains
"God is everywhere" is simply non-sensical, i.e., that this particular kind of God simply could not
possibly exist.
RE: Whole Series
Manuel S. Louren�o
07/16/2008
I agree with W. McKim (07/13) that the whole question revolves around adequate definitions. It is
useful to start with Pascal's distinction of the two concepts of God, one the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob and the other the God of the philosophers. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a
subjective experience and as such impervious to any science. The God of the philosophers has a
claim to generality that makes it accessible to reason and in principle to science.
The God of the philosophers can be described as the belief in the existence of the Actual as opposed
to the Potential Infinite. Can such a claim be verified? Not in the natural or in the formal sciences. We
can of course question wheather it would be desirable to turn God into a fact of science. I think it
wouldn't be, and that is the reason why the pursuit of God will never become obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
David L. Moody
107
07/16/2008
Science has yet to discover the "Origin Of Things" from which all things eventually evolved. Was there
ever a time when there was no-thing.? If mankind could prove that there was a mind behind the
existence of the universe, that mind would certainly give him the ultimate reason for his being. Science
tells us we are a piece of meat destined to die and evaporate from existence. The stories in the Bible
give meaning and purpose to this life and describe the possible attainment of eternal life. It says there
is a mind behind all existence, and that is a mind of pure, unconditional, magnificent love. I'm betting
on the mathematical probability that the stories are the inspired word and will of that mind.
RE: Whole Series
Amilius
07/16/2008
As science clearly reveals with ever increasing awareness, there is a Graciously Organized Design to
the events that make these conversations possible. It all has to do with grace, the awareness that
choice generates benefit for purposes of appreciation. Science reveals the series of choices being
appreciated in a gracious universe.
The curious thing about a gracious universe is that it allows us the benefit of our choices, gracious and
ungracious alike. Gracious choices generate benevolence for sharing. Ungracious choices generate
instructive consequence that remind one that a more gracious choice was missed in the choosing.
Both benevolence and instructive consequence might be graciously appreciated or not. That is the
challenge of free will: waking up to the law of grace.
Religions would serve their purposes better if their leaders would observe that their sacred texts are
histories of the science of gracious and ungracious choices. Missing that, religions miss the purpose of
life's appreciation as evidenced by the consequences of ungracious yet religious choices. We are all
One. The evidence is all about us.
RE: Whole Series
AST
07/15/2008
This is a really stupid question. Why not ask whether science has make the concepts of truth and belief
obsolete? The only response can be equivocation, as Pinker's and Schoenborn's answers illustrate.
What do we mean by "belief," "God" or "obsolete" anyway? What proof do we have that anything really
exists?
RE: Whole Series
C. Ken Ruth
07/15/2008
Re: previous comments by Ya'akov, Prichard, Zellmer, Barbara, C.K. Ruth. Just as humans evolved,
what some have considered connecting with something called God could have begun to evolve from
the beginning. As others have mentioned, using the types of variables we find in quarks, six flavors
that change when observed, could have evolved non-human memory, communication, even
collaboration. That process is similar to using two variables to build computers. It's widely believed if
we had four variables we could make a computer approaching the abilities of our brain. Our brain
evolved. Why not some of the same processes in some other natural physical context?
Atoms have those types of abilities. Something akin to those abilities allows them to form everything in
the physical world. Each atom knows what to do under certain circumstances; it's as simple as three
atoms getting together to make water. Why? Who knows? It's just natural. The thinking process could
also be an integral natural part of the overall physical evolutionary process. It could be the most
important part. It almost seems a thinking system would have been easier to evolve than the entire
physical world, particularly humans.
Everything in nature may have memory and communication abilities. In the beginning they could have
been very primitive. There could be a level of thinking occurring all around us. It could be like radio
waves, but without a receiver on the correct frequency, it's presence would be unknowable. Humans
are the first life form that has freedom to think and act independently, at least that's what we assume.
Perhaps our brain is the receiver.
Rehashing old debates with outdated religious and scientific thinking is a dead end. Think about how
108
to move beyond that. It may require working together, sharing and exploring every avenue of
experience that has been encountered in many places though all of history.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/15/2008
Ben Jones (07/14) claims that "brotherhood" and "human rights" came "from religion." This is simply
not the case. No doubt many individuals who contributed to the recognition of human rights have been
religious people, and why not since nearly everybody was in the past. However, many instances of
abuse of human rights were either encouraged by religious organizations or even perpetrated by them:
systematic torture, systematic slavery, war, killing, sexual abuse, forced conversion and many more.
What was God doing when the very church of Jesus and the infallible Pope himself were responsible
for the murder of thousands of "heretics," most often for no good reason at all?
Things have improved on earth to the extent that people have taken action rather than leaving it to God
or to the Church. Human rights principles and democracy came against the politics of the Church.
John Paul II himself criticized democracy by implying that "the will of the people" should be subjected
to the will of God (see "Evangelium vitae"): What kind of democracy is it that requires people to believe
in God?
RE: Whole Series
Carl H. van Zijll de Jong
07/15/2008
Any conclusion one uses as the basis/justification of one's life pursuit should be founded on the
question "What is the aim of life?" Knowing "the aim of life" will give meaning to everything we
encounter and pursue. The answer to the question whether "science makes belief in God obsolete" will
then be easily and correctly answered. But we need to define the term "God." Who are we referring to?
When "God" is a supernatural being whom we understand only through revelation, we fall short in
every aspect. The answer to the question is no, because God is the source of science.
RE: Whole Series
James Ward
07/14/2008
What belief in God cannot accomplish is to enter into the theoretical and research work of science
directly. This is why Intelligent Design is sophistry. At no point in the formulation of a researchable
scientific problem, or in the methodology required to answer it--which will differ in various scientific
disciplines--is there a point where the responsible scientist can "plug in" God in the research process.
At no point is the scientist warranted in saying, "Well, God has to be the reason why" some physical
process is the way it is.
Where God belongs is at the level of such questions as "Why is there a physical universe at all?" Even
at this level, the skeptical view that there is no reasaon why there should be such an explanation--that
the universe simply is--cannot be refuted by the religious believer. The invoking of God for questions of
ethical living and the like, once again, cannot be shown to be necessary. There are certainly ways of
thinking about the principles of practical reason, including ethics (Aristotle, for instance), that don't
require God.
RE: Whole Series
Ben Jones
07/14/2008
The question I have with regard to vvolution is: at what point does intelligence enter the equation?
Humans are not content to sit around waiting for evolution to randomly occur. They selectively breed.
They develop technologies to give themselves advantage over nature. What is the difference between
our brute ancestors of a few thousand years ago (or even a few decades ago, for that matter) and our
sophisticated society of today? We have education and cooperation on a vast scale that is unthinkable
without abstract concepts like brotherhood and human rights, which came from religion.
Look at the Ten Commandments. They are all about justice, fairness, self control. The God that gives
these commandments begins essentially by saying that nobody is above the Law (thou shalt have no
other gods before me). That means that even kings, presidents, popes, and prophets are subject to
these laws. Empires rise and fall, but these laws stand. The fact that unscrupulous individuals and
109
groups try to bend these laws to their own purposes does not make them any less true. Atheists rail
about the Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, the Holocaust as if these were the products of religion.
No, these atrocities are violations of the laws of God. Jesus Christ reserved his greatest condemnation
for hypocrites, those who do not practice what they preach. Would we be better off if people didn't
believe in this invisible God who commands justice, fairness, and cooperation? I don't think so.
RE: Whole Series
A. Hamid
07/14/2008
I am in the middle of reading the whole series. Excellent essays indeed--I am feeling fortunate to have
read them. It would be perfectly furnished and more universal and "colorful" if some more contributors
are invited to share their views. Preferably they should come from the following background: scientists
of oriental origins, philosophers of Islamic/Buddhism/Hinduism or other oriental belief. I am looking
forward to having some more views from the other side of the world.
RE: Whole Series
William McKim
07/13/2008
Much can be lost in a discussion like this by not clearly defining terms, so I will attempt in this small
space to present definitions that I believe most will agree with. Science: a method that can be used to
further knowledge about Nature. The best description has been provided by Karl Popper, who
maintained that a theory was scientific only if it was possible to demonstrate by experiment or
observation that it was false. The only reason the scientific method can work is the presumption that
mature is lawful, otherwise it would not be possible to make meaningful predictions. The fact that
Science has been so successful is testimony to the lawfulness of Nature.
Religion: most religions presume the existence of a God, so the definition of God is crucial. In all such
religions, God has one common attribute: God is "supernatural, i.e., God does not obey the laws of
nature. It is important to Western religions that God be omnipotent, i.e., be able to dabble in all
matters. Therefore, if we are looking for evidence for the existence of God, we must look for events
that do not follow laws and cannot be predicted.
It is possible that science and religion could co-exist happily. Science could study a lawful nature, and
religion could restrict itself to the study of the supernatural, but this has not happened. Religion has
always found it necessary to impose "supernatural" beliefs on its followers, such as we see in the
creationist/evolution debate. In such confrontations, religion inevitably loses, although it may take
some considerable time.
The crucial question is whether anything "supernatural" can happen in the universe. Are all things
determined by laws? In point of fact, we do not really know the answer to this question, but as science
proceeds, we are discovering that more and more phenomena are lawful. Science is slowly
conscribing the domain of religion and, in fact, making it "obsolete."
RE: Whole Series
Thomas
07/13/2008
Terminology and understanding are important when addressing a question. This question should be
stated more clearly. First, does "obsolete" mean that science makes God outdated or that science
replaces belief in God? Second, people can observe and test only aspects of reality, while still forced
into believing something without observation or proof. We all (after all) believe a great deal of things
that are not scientifically tested or testable, so the question is comparing two divergent realities, belief
and observation and testing. It is not feasible for everyone to test every observation in our lives. Third,
do we have to assume with this question that God means Christian God? Though it is not stated, it
seems implied.
I know the spirit of the question is, technically, atheistic science vs. Christianity. The answers all seem
philosophical and not scientific. The question seems biased toward the Christian God concept. How
about instead: Can science be used to methodically disprove the existence of the God of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam, thus making that concept obsolete? Or: Can science be used to prove that
belief in God is good or bad for the believer? Or: If belief in God is good for the believer, could science
ever replace it? It is, after all, not a belief but a system of checking reality.
110
Jon
07/13/2008
Having read Hitchens's book God is Not Great, I am led to believe that he does not understand the true
nature of science. It is in large measure culturally and historically determined. Nor has he got religion
right. It too is historically and culturally conditioned. Hitchens is making the reverse mistake that the
Church made in condemning Galileo's work.
RE: Whole Series
Michael Masuch
07/13/2008
Answer to the question: Yes, increasingly so, as science progresses. Religious beliefs are based on
superstitious interpretations of nature, and science does away with such interpretations. Two simple
examples: in Roman times, a thunderstorm with lightning would bring everything (and in particular the
political process) to a halt, as it was interpreted as a sign from Jupiter. The existence of life (creatures)
was attributed to godly powers until Darwinian evolutionary theory provided a scientific explanation.
RE: Steven Pinker
Bob Cvetkovic
07/13/2008
The sweep of science encompasses the inquisitive 2-year-old attempting to make sense of his world,
hypothesizing and rationalizing his experiences, and the physicist/mathematician concluding not
everything is knowable. Both are still in awe of the perceived unknown and unknowable. Belief in God
is the experiental act in the daily experiment of life.
RE: Whole Series
Jim Caputo
07/13/2008
Thanks for exploring the "Big Questions." We'll never know who got it right, or will we?
RE: Whole Series
Isaac Segal
07/13/2008
Does science make belief in god obsolete? One would hope--but not in my lifetime.
RE: Steven Pinker
Tracy Witham
07/13/2008
Steven Pinker argues that "the more we learn about the world . . . the less reason there is to believe in
God." But his arguments illustrate the opposite. To be brief, consider just the first two. #1: "God . . .
[playing the role of] ultimate first cause . . . replaces the puzzle of . . . [the universe's origin with that of
God's]." But what about aseity? Is he unaware of the role of eternal Being in, say, the theology of
Thomas Aquinas and Paul Tillich? Ignoring a vast expanse of scholarship undermines Pinker's
argument at this juncture.
#2: He claims that "it was [once] understandable to appeal to [God]. . . to explain . . . [the fantastic
diversity of life]." Again, Pinker ignores a vast area of scholarship in order to fit "the facts" to his thesis:
Pick up any current philosophy of religion text and you will find that the teleological argument nows
focuses on the fine-tuning of the cosmos--not Paley's and others' outmoded gems. Again, one
wonders why Pinker would ignore the informed arguments of those who disagree with him. And similar
points could be made in reply to Pinker's other "examples."
I want to be charitable in two ways. First, by surmising a positive motivation on Pinker's part. This is
pure guesswork, but perhaps he shares the view of one of my intellectual heros (and the most famous
of Harvard psychologists) William James: that the vast areas Pinker ignored suffer from "the
ontological wonder sickness." But if so, it is Pinker's pragmatic or positivistic assumptions that require
exposition.
The second charitable concession: What Pinker did, we all do; that is, we all operate from positions of
faith. In that vein, I propose addressing this "big question" from a more productive angle: Can religion
credibly answer Pilate's question, "What is truth?," in a way that science cannot? Since all of the major
111
religions originate in pre-scientific times, that is the real question concerning the continued relevance
of "God."
RE: Whole Series
C.K. Ruth
07/13/2008
Regarding comments by Prichard (07/11) and Zellmer (06/08): Unscientific experiences are beyond
the limits of current science. Could unscientific experiences make current science obsolete? They
could, if science doesn't continue to progress. Unscientific experiences offer a clue that there is
something beyond what we are able to understand with current science. Historically, some have called
those experiences God-like, often to describe something beyond their understanding. Throughout
history, many have written about personal experiences in terms that were understandable at the time.
Because the antiquated descriptions or science of that time have limitations, that doesn't automatically
limit the truth of the experience.
Important: Aristotle's ideas had support, like science does today. His proofs held that the Earth was the
center of our universe. For hundreds of years, almost everyone ignored beliefs that the sun was the
center.
The only access to the realm of unscientific experience that has evidenced any real success has been
by directing efforts of sincere communicative thoughts to that something beyond, which I call "the
source of all that is." Some might define that as part of the comprehensive evolutionary process. All
that is includes, by definition, thinking. Did thinking occur for the first time in humans? Why did it occur,
prepackaged, with such unlimited potential and then exist for so long while its effective use often
remains so shallow?
Proof of "the source of all that is" might be as understandable to us as the formulas of a modern
mathematical proof would be to a caveman. The experience itself is the only observable proof, just like
in any science. Except in this case the experimental experience occurs directly within the human mind
rather than on a lab table by way of secondary natural extension devices of the mind, like eyes,
observing other devices made by humans. Without appropriate testing how can we believe that one is
more direct, reliable, or obsolete than the other?
Arlie Anderson
07/13/2008
I see them as two things that deal with unknown things. One tries to find out how and the other gives
credit to who.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Sunman
07/13/2008
A.C. Grayling, in New Scientist (July 12), has written a polemic against religion, damning the
Templeton Foundation, and appears to be claiming that religion would destroy science. I'm a scientist
and have been for sixty years. I am also a committed Christian and can see no controversy between
my Christianity and my ability to investigate the universe and all that in it lies. The Bible is, I know, a
set of allegorical stories, inherited from older religions. This does not in any way prevent the allegories
from being true descriptions of incomprehensible events. Grayling and his ilk may blather about the
accuracy or purity of science, but none of them can answer the big question of "where did it all come
from--us, the universe, music, art, beauty etc?"
And science never created the beauty which religion does every moment of every day. Furthermore, to
some people, science becomes dogma and must be defended even at the cost of blood: doesn't that
sound a bit like fundamentalist religions (which, I agree, are a cancer)? The renaissance was
stimulated by a young and vibrant Islam. It would not have happened without it. Religion and science
are just two fingers on the same hand, both trying to find the ultimate answers and both, for the most
part, realizing that they are never going to understand everything.
RE: Whole Series
Xavier Haurie
07/13/2008
112
What a non-question. I don't know if/what/who/why I believe, but I sure know that this question makes
no sense whatsoever.
RE: Whole Series
Barbara
07/12/2008
It would have been a good idea to include Gerald Schroeder. He is an MIT-trained scientist who has
worked in both physics and biology, and has emerged in recent years as one of the most popular and
accessible apostles for the melding of science and religion. He first reconciled science and faith as
different perspectives on a single whole in The Science of God. In The Hidden Face of God, Schroeder
takes a bold step forward, to show that science, properly understood, provides positive reasons for
faith.
RE: Whole Series
Bruno Curfs
07/12/2008
If science can find the truth, belief in God will become obsolete. But it is a big if. Note that "faith" is not
identical to "belief in God." Even Jesus taught that with the faith of a mustard seed, you can
accomplish things, but "God" is not mentioned! (Mat 17:14-21, Luk 17:6-10) On the other hand, if there
would be any other way--that is, a personal, direct way of knowing God--science would become
obsolete and faith would instead take its place. This is a much smaller if. Actually, all great spiritual
teachers through the ages have taught that it is possible. However, to reach a state of direct
knowledge of God comes at a price. You will surely die. All the questions humanity has asked will
vanish into the void, and the truth becomes alive within you, replacing whatever is holding it back right
now.
RE: Whole Series
Wes
07/12/2008
As temporal beings, our lives are fundamentally immersed in a temporal world. The only factual
knowledge we can attain is fundamentally and inextricably bound to the "real world." Through the
ages, many claims of truth have been made, but until the advent of science and the scientific method,
those claims were baseless. Religious beliefs, by their very nature, are grounded in the "supernatural"
realm--of which there is absolutely no real-world legitimacy and thus no real claim to the truth. Limited
to living in the real world as we are, it would be illegitimate to base our beliefs on anything other than
real-world truths.
A quote from Richard Dawkins essentially sums it up: "Science shares with religion the claim that it
answers deep questions about our origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos. But there the
resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths
are not and do not." If we are to advance as a species, we must continue to shed our archaic past and
beliefs. The only real way of doing that is to base our lives and beliefs upon our interaction with real-
world facts and events, not upon unprovable ideas and beliefs.
Susan P
07/12/2008
It is my wish that someday humanity starts to wake up and believe that there is no one (or thing) that
looks down on us from above as we have been "coerced" into believing. Since most persons need
proof of certain things before they can attest to them or feel something about them, why is it okay for
persons to believe in a super being without proof that this god exists. Not one iota has there been in
proof of God, not one. Science, however, shows us more proof than anything that we are what we are,
that humans were in existence long before the thought of God crossed their small minds. If God was
so great as so many people think, why did God not create more habitable planets for more people to
worship him? I read "God is Not Great." from which I learned how science and knowledge prevail over
belief. Thank you, Mr. Hitchens, for your fine work.
RE: Whole Series
Dolores Lear
07/12/2008
Should "life" be substituted for the word God in the question? With our high-tech knowledge for
colonizing a planet and making a fetus in the lab without the sex act, life could be eternal. We today
113
make all types of "regeneration" miracles with our science, including immaculate reproduction of a
fetus. Life should be the God for humans, not some spirit "being." With all our nuclear bombs, what
good have mis-bred humans done for God's planet and their brothers and sisters in life?
RE: Whole Series
The First Domino
07/12/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? No. God makes belief in science obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Phil Prichard
07/11/2008
This certainly is a great group of thinkers, but as is so often the case, many of the same sorts of
arguments and ideas are thrown back and forth. Egos seem to be more of the issue, as points of view
are set forth seemingly expecting others to immediately change their differing opinions. So far, science
can only go so far. Our methods of understanding this universe will improve, and current articles and
commentaries discuss whether discoveries need the scientific method. I think our definition of science
will be altered.
In any event, reality shows more about spirituality and God than does pontificating from organized
religious doctrines, even with slight personal alterations. Mass communication has made it clear that
it's not just a few individuals who have unscientific experiences, such as dreams which come true,
ESP, feelings of despair before news reaches us of the death of a loved one, visions or visitations from
the departed, observing ghosts, etc. I guess the intellectually conservative Big Time Thinking Club
doesn't have room for reality as experienced by hundreds of millions of residents of Earth.
RE: Whole Series
Geoff Lloyd
07/11/2008
Great debate. I've often wondered what a lunar astronaut would have thought about this when looking
back from the surface of the moon at the distant Earth. Would he have felt the presence of God there
with him or would he have seen it in the face of the small blue globe out there in the dark? The
potential scale of God in space and time really seems to supercede our comprehension. While we
make all the right noises about a universal God, I expect in the bleakness of space, God is embedded
in home and safety. Does that make Gaia a candidate?
I expect with further excursions into space and the eventual encounter with non-Earth life, it will be
clear that we are creations of our very unique planetary conditions. And when we meet those aliens,
whose God and which creation myth supercede? Our anxious, tribal Gods, hovering over us, seem
simplistic and dangerous as they justify all manner of bad behavior in the "name of . . ." If there is a
God, it's beyond our capacity for knowing in any case. "Presume not God to scan, the proper study of
mankind is Man." --Alexander Pope
RE: Whole Series
Conn
07/11/2008
What a stupid question. Science doesn't really relate to God. Common sense makes belief in God
obsolete.
RE: Steven Pinker
Jayesh A. Patel
07/11/2008
When Steven Pinker talks of the universe coming into being in six days, he is obviously referring to
Judeo-Christian religion. But who created the notion of seven days in a week? For that he has to look
to ancient Hindu rishis (saints). It arose from the pagan worship of the five visible planets, the moon,
and Sun. Funny. Science still uses days of the week to operate and has not yet come up with a
modern answer. If the rest of Pinker's arguments are this hollow, they won't hold. He has to study
Sanskrit and Vedas to find out if God exists and where he is. The answer is not in science.
RE: Whole Series
William D. Cox
07/11/2008
114
Why the big brouhaha between creationism and evolution? They appear to me to be two sides of the
same coin, with evolution being the mechanism in the process of creation. The issue won't be resolved
with a mishmash of doctrines and religiosity and all the -isms rolled into one. Organized religions are
man-made attempts at controlling their practitioners. There is no religion higher than truth. Any dogma
that cannot stand the closest scrutiny in the clear, cold light of day is suspect. Foolish man has created
God in his own image.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/11/2008
William R. Clough (06/28) claimed to know what "the vast majority of Christians" think: more than a
billion people scattered in more than 150 countries and almost as many cultures and traditions, usually
completely different from each other, and divided between dozens if not hundreds of Christian
denominations. Clough does not even know what his closest kin think in the privacy of their minds.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/11/2008
Michael Dooley (06/26) claimed that it is a "matter of simple logic" that "Science is made for
discovering natural processes" and that it ignores, in "its very premises," supernatural explanations.
However, the question is not whether science disproves God but the import of science on any belief in
God. Crucially in this respect, science is making it more difficult to believe in God on a rational basis by
exposing the flaws within the various specific beliefs associated with a belief in God. Faith in itself is
not a compelling subject, and we are only talking about it because religion can have profound political
implications. And we wouldn't be trying to have a rational debate about it if it remained a private
activity. The logic is not simple but political.
Religious dogma, however, can only be maintained over time if there is a rational defense against
schism, "heresy," and ideological drift. The Catholic Church is the archetype of this in that very early in
its long history it tried to deliver a rational re-interpretation of its core beliefs consistent with the Bible. It
is a rational re-interpretation because it is arrived at essentially through a unique protocol-based
collective reflection. Because they do not have any comparable process, other religions are usually
more prone to schism, heresy, and ideological drift. Their beliefs evolve more rapidly and haphazardly,
easily following outstanding individual thinkers or the vagaries of local sects and prominent individuals.
If people keep trying today to have a rational argument about faith, this is largely because the Catholic
Church developed as a rational body. The irony, of course, is that science today makes rational re-
interpretation of the scriptures so much more difficult. There is no simple logic.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Grahame Blackwell
07/11/2008
An oldie but a goodie: God and a molecular biologist are sitting together discussing the nature of life.
The biologist says, "Actually, God, we don't need you anymore. We know all about life now--how it's
made, how it ticks. I'm afraid you're obsolete." "Ok," says God, totally unfazed. "Show me how you go
about making life." "No problem," says the scientist, and he reaches down and scoops up a handful of
earth and starts to work on it. "Oh no, no--not so fast," says God, raising His hand. "Make your own
dirt!"
RE: Whole Series
Tushar Sharma
07/11/2008
A lot of old civilizations like the Indian are built on structures of religious beliefs which are interesting
and vast in philosophical breadth. They cannot even be simply explained via a single god. How does
science deal with the source of all these beliefs? I think all of them cannot be wrong. If there is even a
small amount of truth in them, science still has to cover a lot of ground to fill those "god gaps."
It's heartening that people no longer believe that there is a person sitting on the moon or that ancient
musicians commanded the rains. The ancient texts are replete with examples of different species of
men--half human/half monkey, forest dwellers, and others--who maybe got lost somewhere in the
stride of time. I hope that science builds the universal bridge for the evolution of mankind and that we
ourselves do not end as a second-grade universal species.
115
RE: Whole Series
Gene Broughten
07/11/2008
Thank you, Atlantic Monthly, for having these in your magazine.
RE: Whole Series
Todd Weitzel
07/10/2008
Science is nothing but a gift of God on how things operate. He has the ultimate truth in His hands.
However, we leave our beliefs to Charles Darwin, nothing but a man who hasn't proven anything. How
does natural selection explain love and hate? How does it explain emotions? How does natural
selection explain a husband and wife during a plane crash in water who sacrifice their lives for their
handicapped daughter? It doesn't. Within every man is the truth, God tells us that.
My main argument is with the Christians who believe in evolution (as far as man evolving from other
primates). Evolution is based on death and rebirth until it comes out "right." However, there is no such
thing as death until man sinned. Nothing (animal or plant) died until man sinned. Therefore, how can
we have evolved through apes?
As far as the other scientists: you have done so much for us and you are truly gifted with your work and
knowledge. Please don't dismiss the One we came from. It didn't come by chance. If science has the
goal of telling us there is no God, then I will become a serial killer because, hey, no consequences, no
afterlife. Remember that Darwinism drove men like Hitler, Stalin, Marx, Pol Pot, etc.
RE: Whole Series
Alex Dimitrov
07/10/2008
Sometimes I wonder about these scientists. If you take the scientific method seriously, belief in
anything (and God, specifically) is obsolete: you form a hypothesis and go and test it. Or rather, you
entertain many beliefs but ardently try to dispose of them by testing against observations. Some of the
contributors here also answered a different question: whether God is obsolete, not belief in God, as
stated. As the saying goes, you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
I don't know how a scientist can believe in God and do science at the same time (and the majority of us
don't), but I can understand how people not trained in the scientific method can believe whatever they
like. These days we also understand better the biological foundations of such beliefs (see E.O.
Wilson's "On Human Nature"). The point is that the origin of beliefs is also a scientific hypothesis that
will ultimately be tested. When we understand why we as humans do some things and not others, we
will know ourselves better and maybe we will not have a need of Big Brother in the sky to keep an eye
on us.
RE: Whole Series
Mohammad Azhar Aziz
07/10/2008
No, rather it reinforces the belief in the oneness of God. While studying biology at the molecular level, I
was struck by a beautiful pattern of relatedness that was indicative of oneness of its creator. Such
patterns are visible at the molecular as well as celestial level. Science cannot be understood
completely without having the concept of god. Science in itself has not been able to satiate the
appetite to know about the surroundings. Science can only give us a binocular to see the wonderful
creation of God.
RE: Whole Series
Michael JR Jose
07/10/2008
It all depends what you mean by "science" and "God." For me, science is how things work or, in a
word, "mechanism." And God is the personal creator (or super-personal for the theologians) of all
things seen and unseen. So the answer is no. God made the mechanisms, we study the parts and
workings. Insisting that science is the entire "enterprise of secular reason and knowledge" (as Steven
Pinker does) merely cheats as it sweeps no-god or anti-god assumptions into the definitions to be
used in the purported debate. Science does not explain reason itself, or morality. Facts and
mechanisms do not explain metaphysical entities.
116
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Ron Surels
07/10/2008
A lot of science has itself become a "religion." To reject that the universe has no "first-cause" Creator is
utter foolishness! It is like saying about a building that it had no creator, that it just assembled itself.
Scientists were not there when the universe came into being, so their theories about it are just
that--"theory." And that is a belief system. All too many worship at the shrine of science-ism, prefering
the ramblings of men rather than what God says in His Word. Want to know true science? Read the
Bible! And then look about---and wonder. Science merely discovers what God has already created. But
the main reason so many try to rationalize God out of existence is that they do not want to be
accountable to God. And so, in their arrogant pride, man goes on in his folly (Colossians 2:8).
RE: Whole Series
Paul Kurts
07/10/2008
No, and yes. What was before science and the "elements" that went into what triggered the BIG
BANG? Big Bang, science, and evolution are not the place to start. If we are talking about a god who
has been created in the minds of man, then science has definitely overtaken this puny god in
relevance. But if we are talking about the God who has always existed and brought into being the
entire cosmos and created humans to live inside His life through the incarnation of His son, then and
emphatic no resounds in those honest with the obvious design and complexity of all of the cosmos.
RE: Whole Series
Nuno Nunes
07/10/2008
A belief in God is not essential to science or life. Many people, including myself, have no use for a
belief in God. In that sense, God can become obsolete. But on the other hand, many people find such
a belief very useful, even central to their lives.
Science can provide an alternative worldview to that of religion, a worldview in which there is no need
to conceive the idea of a God--a worldview which discourages the introduction of ideas based on faith.
In that sense, science provides the means for God to be made obsolete. It doesn't itself do so. In the
end, that is a personal decision and, in some sense, a matter of imagination. Many people find it too
hard to imagine a world without God. Many people find life too complex to imagine it originating and
evolving without an external "design."
Science doesn't make a belief in God obsolete, but it allows people to make a belief in God obsolete.
Strawberries are not essential to a balanced diet. They could easily become obsolete. Still, some
people find them very tasty!
RE: Whole Series
Mustafa Ali Kahn
07/10/2008
Yes, science does make god obsolete. The more we know about things, the smaller is the purview of
god. We need god for things which we cannot explain. Once we know about them, we don't need god.
RE: Whole Series
Christopher Zajac
07/09/2008
The progress of civilization is facilitated by asking the right questions and answering them. The wrong
questions do not take us one millimeter farther. The question here is formulated as if science and God
were excluding each other. They are not. If God exists, science in the hands of humans is God's tool. If
there is no God, science is still science. The basic question that would help us is this: If God exists, is
he the creator of the laws of the universe or is he subject to these laws?
We know that the existence of other universes is possible. What we do not know is if those other
universes have the same laws. We do not know if God's power (in case he exists) extends to other
universes either. Whether somebody believes in God or not, science is answering a lot of questions. It
may even prove or disprove the existence of God in the future.
Since Einstein, physicists have been working on a "final theory," as if once they discover it they will be
117
able to know the past and predict the future. That is a fallacy for which apparently the greatest minds
fall. If we have learned anything from the past it is this: there is no end to science. The more we know,
the wider are our horizons and the more is to be discovered. Maybe that is how God makes fools of all
of those who think that they know it all?
RE: Whole Series
Peter Drew
07/09/2008
When I was a young boy, my mother gave me the single most precious pearl of wisdom one person
can give to another: the more we learn, the more we learn there is to learn. Science has brought us so
far and accomplished both atrocities and miracles. But with all the things that we have learned, and all
the disciplines we have developed to understand our universe, the same thought runs thru my head:
there is still as much again unknown to us, waiting for us to figure it out. How much exists in this
universe that we do not even know we don't know about?
I believe that science reveals to us exactly how majestic God's plan is and how much wonder he has in
store for us, if only we have the fortitude and courage to explore it fully. Science won't answer all the
questions. It does very well with how, what, where, when, and who. But it has the most terrible difficulty
answering why. Faith gives us that why. God will never be obsolete so long as we keep asking why.
Let science answer what and how.
Dr. Grahame Blackwell
07/09/2008
Hitchens writes of biblical revelation that it was "disclosed only to gaping peasants in remote and
violent and illiterate areas of the Middle East." The Bible was set latterly in the Roman Empire and
before that largely in Persia, Babylon and Egypt, the cradle of civilization, source of the origins of both
literacy and numeracy. Saul of Tarsus, Moses, Abraham, Joseph, Nehemiah, the Wise Men who
visited the infant Jesus, even Pontius Pilate's wife--all highly articulate people of considerable standing
and influence. Where exactly are all these gaping peasants?
In his debate with Kenneth Miller, Hitchens writes that the "apparitions" of religion "ought at least once
in human history to have shown themselves to people who were able to read and write, who were not
terrified of demons and ghosts, and who possessed the ability to test evidence in the crucible of
experiment. It hasn't happened yet." Francis of Assisi, son of a rich merchant, had no difficulty with
reading and writing, appears to have been afraid of nothing, time and time again tested the evidence
for God through the very practical life-long experiment of his own calling.
RE: Whole Series
Craig Nim
07/08/2008
It is for no small reason that Our Blessed Lord stated "Amen I say to you, unless you be converted,
and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." If that is the basis for
salvation, that we cry out unto God like children for our needs, then how can Almighty Science� in its
pomposity believe it can find God? Did not Jesus upbraid the arrogance of the Sanhedrim and
Pharisees? Did He not allow Himself to be led like a meek lamb unto the slaughter as did all the early
martyrs if they were in a state of grace? Was not Christ's example of meekness the absolute inverse of
that of the Sanhedrim and Pharisees? Arrogance and condemnation of all things religious (save that of
Islam, of course, in this liberal environment of modern leftist America) is *not* the path by which the
Lord tells us the truth is to be found.
RE: Steven Pinker
Pau Cortes Font de Rubinat
07/08/2008
Richard Hudon states (07/06) that Steven Pinker is "deeply ignorant of the contribution of Christianity
to the advancement of science throughout the ages, Galileo and others included." I wonder who is the
deeply ignorant one. The history of Christianity is one of persecuting any deviations from the accepted
doctrines. Whereas Aristarcus, in the 3rd century BC, already proposed a heliocentric theory and the
Vedic Sanscrits mention this theory as early as the the 7th century B.C., the church persecutes
anybody that does not agree with the dogma of the earth being the center of the universe until the 16th
century.
118
Mr Hudon does not seem aware that Galileo abstained from publicly supporting the views of
Copernicus because of his fear of being ridiculed by the Christian authorities. Until Galileo's time, it
was considered anathema to look for anwers in nature. All the answers were to be found in Aristotle's
writings, no matter how ridiculous some of his writings were. The church clings to its dogmas until it
becomes absolutely impractical.
RE: Steven Pinker
Joe Lang
07/08/2008
It is impossible to make belief in God obsolete. I am not attempting to pass judgment on whether or not
belief in God is morally justifiable, given all the evil done in the name of religion. I am also not
attempting to advance atheism as a more rational approach to the world today, given the amount of
good that has come from those who profess no belief at all. I am simply pointing out that the
fundamental question regarding the debate is, within the scientific approach, a logical non-sequitur.
From the scientific point of view, one must always allow for the possibility of an unproven theorem,
under one, and only one, restriction. The theorem advanced must fit with that which we already know
about the world. As long as one's personal belief in God makes room for the evidence seen in the
world around us that testifies to what has happened in the past, that belief is not inconsistent with
science. Many who profess a belief in an omnipotent God will, in their next breath, deny this belief by
saying that "God would not do that." How do they know?
In addition, how do scientists know what came before the Big Bang? What began the singularity that
led to the universe as we see it today? One theory that a person could advance, lacking any evidence
to the contrary, would be God, and it would not necessarily controvert anything that we know to be
scentifically correct. As a scientifically minded agnostic, I must admit to at least the possibility of the
existence of God and, therefore, to a foundation for those who express a belief in such, as long as it
fits with what we know to be true. Advances in science do not make belief in God obsolete, even
though my personal opinion is that given what we have discovered to date, the origin of the universe is
much more likely to be natural than divine.
RE: Whole Series
Pau Cortes Font de Rubinat
07/08/2008
There is absolutely nothing logical about our being here or about some kind of supreme being to
excuse and justify our doings and experiences. When you look at any event in the world, the
conditions have to have been very finely tuned to produce the results. Different tuning, different results,
but this does not mean planning of any kind. If you need to view evolution as a miracle, you will view it
that way. It does not matter what your logical processes are: you will choose your premises to get your
desired results. Evolution has been rather sloppy, developing species that become unviable and the
need to survive by eating other beings. If I were that smart and omnipotent, I would figure it out
differently, although I do not know why I would bother doing anything at all. Perhaps out of boredom
with my own eternity? Rather senseless, all of it.
Craig Nim
07/08/2008
Mr. Phillips complains of "Questions about the presence of evil in the world, the suffering of innocent
children, the variety of religious thought." Let's take it from the top. Evil exists because God demands
fidelity, and when Satan was the highest form of angel, he rebelled. Hence, how can God take faith for
granted? He can't and we must prove ourselves, so He provides fire and water; we choose. Sin must
be atoned for, hence suffering, most poignantly found in suffering innocent children. If sin/evil exists,
suffering atones, hence Christ, the Son of God, on the Cross.
Variety of religious thought? Satan is a master of divide and conquer--it's that simple. It is why Christ
complained in Luke, "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"
Pray the Rosary for 54 days (27 in petition, 27 in thanksgiving) if you really want proof. The Catholic
Church has the answer and is the only one with all the sacraments necessary for salvation.
119
RE: Whole Series
rgrigsby
07/07/2008
Anti-Darwinists are missing the point. I believe that one of God's greatest miracles was evolution.
Parting the Red Sea, sending numerous plagues, etc. are merely cheap parlor tricks compared to this
miracle. And, as for science making God obsolete, I think the opposite is true. If I understand the
current notion of the Big Bang correctly, the initial conditions of the Big Bang were so finely tuned that
miniscule variations in the composition of its forces would result in a universe uninhabitable by
mankind. Maybe we should broaden our definition of God: Yaweh may be improbable, but isn't it
logical for some design in our being here (metaphysically, not scientifically, speaking)?
RE: Whole Series
Mamdouh Fayek
07/07/2008
I am not really surprised to hear people defending their faiths and the existence of God. After all,
almost 90% of the entire world population needs a God. Just imagine what the Neanderthal, for
example, thought when he had to deal with crazy matters like predators, diseases, and death, let alone
earthquakes, volcanoes, thunderstorms, tornados, etc. He obviously picked up the weirdest looking
rock and placed it in an altar-like niche and started pleading and worshipping it. I am afraid that, even
though in a much more sophisticated way, believers today are doing the same thing.
Pau Cortes
07/07/2008
Science has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is a matter of psychological insecurity and emotional
need. How can William Phillips affirm "that the universe is the loving and purposeful creation of God"? I
am glad I am not one of his students. Someone who sees a purpose in creation and love in nature--
despite the strong feeding on the weak and all the rest that you have heard a thousand times--cannot
have a very clear awareness of his surroundings.
RE: Steven Pinker
Jack King
07/07/2008
Richard Hudon says Pinker used the old trick of judging yesteryear's behavior using the standards of
our time. Richard is obviously a moral relativist if he believes it is wrong to do that. There's hardly a
religion on the planet that would agree with him. The universal doctrine is that God and his moral
dictates are absolute and not relative to culture or historical circumstances.
Richard also has not studied biology, or he would know that evolutionists do not claim that one species
evolves directly into another, but that generally one population of a species adapts to a different
environment or lifestyle and becomes a new species gradually as it continues along a different path.
Robert E. Begley, Jr.
07/07/2008
The one thing science proves daily is that God has a very unique sense of humor.
RE: Whole Series
07/07/2008
In continuation of my 21 May comments, I would like to paraphrase the big question as: "Can cogent
scientific logic establish the existence of God?" And the answer is: Yes, as I have already done.
RE: Steven Pinker
Richard Hudon
07/06/2008
Pinker's wailing about Darwin, Wallace, Watson, and Crick being the great de-bunkers of any reason
to believe in God is tantamount to asserting that he is deeply ignorant of the contribution of Christianity
to the advancement of science throughout the ages, Galileo and others included. Contrary to Pinker, I
firmly hold the evidence for evolution underwhelming. Yes, there can indeed be some evolution within
a species, as demonstrated in centuries past by Christian monks working with selective crossbreeding
of plant life, but for one species to evolve into another has been thoroughly debunked by much
120
scientific research. His statement that "It's not just that [God] endorsed genocide, slavery, rape, and
the death penalty for trivial insults" is fallacious and an insult to scientific investigation. Pinker is using
the old trick of judging yesteryear's behavior using the standards of our time. At the time of those
behaviors, the people involved were totally ignorant of the higher moral expectations of today.
Also, how can he forget that it was Christianity that brought about the end of slavery? Wilberforce,
remember him? Since when has the traditional Judeo-Christian God endorsed anything? He is the one
saying that God was endorsing this or that reprehensible behavior, but that is not what enlightened
Christians assert or have asserted throughout the ages. It is man who has said that God endorsed this
or that behavior. Men or a group of men or a society may say that God endorses this or that, but that
assertion is a false, misleading, and demeaning statement of God's true being. And God plays no role
in it.
RE: Whole Series
David Collier
07/06/2008
I know a Ph.D. who tells me he is attempting to establish the existence of God scientifically. He
assumes that method is valid in this area: it is absolutely not. He further assumes that God will play
that game, but he has not questioned his assumptions. I leave him to his own devices; he would not
believe my experience (it is a gift of Grace, actually, mediated by the Holy Ghost, known as the
kundalini in Hinduism).
The problem is that this knowledge is purely experiential and thus is not transmissible to others
through any form of intellectual discourse. What tends to happen is that the recipient of such an
experience (who will have worked for it, it should be remembered) is instantly disbelieved by others,
and his or her experience rationalised away by them in the ways described by Sigmund and Anna
Freud. Jealousy may play a part in this response, but the ego is, by definition, threatened by self-
realization in self or indeed in others.
RE: Whole Series
Jim Koltveit
07/06/2008
Science sees what God has put together. The possibility that life as we know it was created by chance
is so astronomically remote that God, the Creator, must exist.
RE: Whole Series
Greg Miller
07/06/2008
Of course it does, if you are referring to the Christian/Judeo/Muslim God. The religious have stated
that God is the sole purveyor of truth--truths like the demon theory of disease and the sin theory of
harsh weather. Religion is based on fear and superstition, always has been and always will be.
Science makes God obsolete for explanation of anything other than what happens after you die. God
is obsolete for everthing but assuaging our fear of mortality. Using God as an "explanation" for
anything else is simple willful ignorance. Get over your fear and you will get over your God.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Odom
07/06/2008
I seriously have my doubts about the Christ event. I am not sure about the God thing. I don't think that
people who have made a way of life with their various religions will ever be affected by any scientific
findings. They will just adjust their approach and say that God created the world that way. The Big
Bang theory is just one of those examples. There are 5% of the people who have an open mind that
science may influence their thinking so long as they are able to understand the scientific theory.
RE: Whole Series
Stan H. Perkins
07/06/2008
Thank you for sending me the booklet put together by your Foundation and Michael Shermer. Very
well done, both form and content.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
121
07/05/2008
I agree with Paul Kositzka (07/05) that if there's a god it's Spinoza's God, nature herself, a god who set
out the immutable laws of nature in the beginning, or perhaps I would reword it say the set of nature's
laws is god. But Paul also says that god gave us free will and we alone will have to account for our
lives. That contradicts what he said earlier. If the laws of nature are immutable, then everything,
including human behavior, has to proceed in accordance with those laws, and all activity, including
mental activity, is deterministic not free.
Our accountability is only to the inevitable consequences of our actions while we are alive, whether
they are fair or not. We can do what we want but not choose what it is we want. Our individual wants
are imposed by heredity, experience, and circumstance. There's nothing in Spinoza's philosophy about
rewards and punishments after death because in a deterministic world human behavior is never moral
or immoral; it's simply inevitable. So the only just consequence would be to let the dead have their
oblivion. No holding anyone to account or further manipulation by gods required.
RE: Whole Series
Tony Walton
07/05/2008
It depends on what is meant by "God." A desperate touchstone of fearful and guilty humankind,
desperate to assert the universal centrality of our pitiful yet grandiloquent species? The Biblical
creation myth is revealed, by Big Bang cosmology and sub-atomic exploration, to be every bit as false
and primitive as any other. A quest that we are, perhaps, only coming to the end of beginning, at both
the cutting edge of physics and the problem of mind, to say nothing of that of soul and/or spirit? It is,
however, a mistake not only to believe that science has all the answers. As Tony Benn has written, "all
the great religions taught us how to live our lives."
But unwise theologians and their faithful followers fail to acknowledge that their doctrines do not
provide the only moral counterweight to scientific materialism and its rather chilling messages for
humanity's ghastly intimations of insignificance. Having been raised a Christian, I have been morally
shaped and underpinned by the earthly teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and the profound yet simple
and very straightforward wisdom of his injunction that we love one another, and treat each other--
regardless of race, creed, sect, neighborhood, or allegiance--as we would ourselves be treated. Were
we able to implement that code of conduct unequivocally throughout our dealings with each other, the
trouble that humanity has visited upon itself would vanish overnight.
The trouble that we have visited upon our home is another matter altogether, and one
that offers the opportunity for a concerted effort between scientific materialism and spiritual
morality if we are to make any headway, and fast, in rising to the enormous challenge. Love is
at the heart of the matter: love and reverence. The God referred to in this question is a real and
perhaps insuperable obstacle, a major part of the problem.
RE: Steven Pinker
Paul Kositzka
07/05/2008
God and science are not in conflict. God, in the pantheistic sense expressed by Spinoza, is nature and
nature is God. That gives a little gas to a lot of people, mostly those who have invested heavily in a
belief in God as a human-like creature. The more that science uncovers the wonders of the universe,
the more obvious it is that there was intelligent design. Unfortunately, for many religions, the seven
days as set out in Genesis are literal and cannot be deviated from in any way. I prefer to believe that
God can create the earth as he sees fit, certainly not limited to a seven-day marathon.
Once the laws were put in place, the system is allowed to work, always subject to the immutable laws
as set out in the beginning. Such a God would have no interest in micro-managing the everyday affairs
of individuals. He gave us free will to sort out our lives. In the end, we alone will have to account for our
lives. How has science affected that law?
RE: Whole Series
Tom
07/05/2008
First, we have to distinguish between God and religion. Religion is a combination of custom,
122
philosophy, history, and mythology all rolled into one package. Religion is a man-made device that
was created for the rulers to more easily control the common man, and religion was also created to
give comfort to people by explaining the mystery of our existence. Science doesn't completely destroy
religion, but it definitely destroys the mythological aspects of religion. The customs and philosophies of
religion are still valid, so long as religious dogma is taken metaphorically and not literally.
One example of this is the Jewish belief that the world is only 8,000 years old (don't quote me on the
exact number, I don't tend to remember useless information very well). Many Christians and Muslims
also believe that the world is that young because of the bible story of the creation. Well, science has
proven that the world is much older, and it is obvious to any intelligent person that the creation myth in
the bible should not be taken literally. However, even though the story is only a myth, its value is not
diminished. There are still many wonderful lessons to be learned from it.
As for the concept of God, science cannot and never will be able to prove or disprove God. If God
exists, he is the first cause. He is the power that set everything into motion. All science can do is trace
the hand of God and discover the mechanism by which his universe functions. I have followed
scientific progress my whole life, and for every question science answers, five new questions arise.
There will always be awesome mystery in the universe, so the idea of God will always stay with us.
Does God exist? No one knows, and one can't prove or disprove God. It comes down to faith. An
atheist has faith that God does not exist. A spiritual man has faith that he does. It's a choice. I choose
purpose and hope over random coincidence. Therefore, I choose to believe in God
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Graves
07/05/2008
It depends on how we define God. If by God we mean some crotchety white-bearded spirit who grants
wishes to his cowering, fearful worshippers, then perhaps so. Science, after all, is in the business of
updating fairytales. But if by God we mean some mysterious and vast unity of Creation--a unity felt by
mystics for millenia and finally confirmed by science in the 20th century-- then clearly, no. A God as a
Unity that encompasses yet transcends the self, that defies material law through its bizarre nonlocal
reach, that transcends our ability to analyze--this God IS science, is it not? This God picks up where
science may no longer tread.
The question might be better put: Does science make religion obsolete? Because this is where the
collision really occurs, in the realm of competing belief systems. Mythology vs. history, scripture vs.
discovery, creed vs. theory. Eventually science and religion will essentially merge, if we should last
that long. They will be recognized as complementary rather than contradictory perspectives. The one
reveals the murkiness that is inside while the other explores the external objectively.
Is the Garden of Eden really at odds with the theory of evolution? Of course not. Evolution examines
the evidence of our journey while Eden tells us what it was like to evolve into human beings. To evolve
into self-reflection is a difficult, painful journey. It undoubetdly felt very much like being cast from the
Garden, from the unconscious (and since idealized) womb of Creation. Did God actually invent death
for our transgression? Or is the awareness of death that emerges with self-reflection curse enough?
Even science and religion can co-exist when they acknowledge the perspectives from which each
arises. God is EVERYTHING; how can everything possibly be obsolete? Whether you think of it in
spiritual or material terms, everything is everything. The Unity of All That Is is beyond argument.
RE: Whole Series
Jerry
07/05/2008
Interesting comments by Dr. John Martin below (07/04). I have to say that the God described, that is, a
God that assures "that nature should obey rational, comprehensible laws and law-like regularities," is
not the God most people believe in. The God most people believe in is one who has the will, power,
and tendency to interfere in the workings of the universe, through acts of creation, reward, or
retribution. That God, through His potential for arbitrary and capricious action, certainly overturns our
expectations "that nature should obey rational, comprehensible laws and law-like regularities." In fact,
that God threatens the very nature of human knowledge, since our understanding can change not
123
through better data, but through seemingly random violations of the orderly laws Dr. Martin's God
apparently enforces.
One might note that we observe a universe that seems to "obey rational, comprehensible laws and
law-like regularities," and this is the true expression of the nature of God. I would say, why complicate
our understanding of the universe with this anthropomorphic universal constant? What purpose does
God really serve in the universe if his only role is to assure the orderly workings of natural laws?
RE: Whole Series
Maureen Duffy
07/05/2008
I don't understand why the two concepts have to be exclusive. Obviously, it comes down to beliefs,
and how much they can differ, that drives this debate. But I believe that everything comes from God,
so to me science comes from God. God and evolution can exist together. Has no one ever considered
this? Why is it all or nothing? To me, science is simply our human way of studying and explaining the
universe around us in tangible, measurable ways. Even if we can scientifically prove that things came
about in some way, why does this have to prove that God does not exist? On the contrary, it should
confirm His existence even more. The wonderfully complex and fascinating processes that sustain life,
our environment, etc, are evidence of God/the higher power that created them.
When I read the bible, some things may be interpreted literally, some things symbolically. "In the
beginning," for example, everything is created in "seven days." What we consider to be seven days
could be millions of years from God's perspective, if God exists in eternity. How can you measure
eternity? You can't. I believe in God, and my wish for all, even those who do not believe in God, is this:
"Live by the spirit . . . love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and
self-control" (Galatians 5:22).
Why do some of those who don't believe in God try so fervently to disprove His existence? I am sorry
their hearts have been burdened in some way that they refuse to have faith. Take love. When
someone dies, does love die? No, love for someone remains in your heart, forever. Love is the bridge
between life and death, and God is love (wow, that's original--not), but that's my point. You don't have
to be a scholar to know that.
RE: Whole Series
Bib Massey
07/04/2008
It's popular to think men and women are inferior to their creator. But that clearly describes an inferior
creator! Supernatural miracles, which ignore the nature that God, according to Moses, said was very
good, confound natural understanding and negate natural reason, which is the greatest skill of
mankind.
RE: Whole Series
Jeff Carpenter
07/04/2008
The human mind has always been inquiring and certainty-loving. Those characteristics are driven by
evolutionary pressures. To survive, one needs to observe one's world and to make decisions. Survival
is a practical venture and, like all such ventures, requires making decisions at crucial points with
whatever information and resources are available, however suboptimal that availability may be. That
explains why humans "got religion." What is surprising is how persistent such wildly outmoded thinking
is in the face of compelling modern knowledge.
Those who don't see the obvious fact that anything like a conventional notion of God has been
thoroughly superseded by our scientific achievements seem to suffer from one or more of the following
five ailments: (1) "what does it all mean?" (a question that has not been, and perhaps cannot be,
answered by science, except perhaps with the sad but likely-accurate "nothing" -- but more importantly
a question, like all questions, that cannot be answered by wishful thinking!); (2) the old "you can't know
God doesn't exist" (which is technically true but exhibits a lack of common sense that is akin to
purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge from a stranger for the second time, or opting to travel over a bridge
designed by untrained believers instead on one designed by engineers); (3) an inability to separate the
discrete issue of the existence of God from social and cultural influences (and pressure); (4) an
understandable reluctance to recognize that one has invested so deeply in something that turns out to
124
clearly not even exist; or (5) hyperreligious tendencies, which in my view is the only legitimate reason
to still believe in God in the 21st century.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/04/2008
Thank you, Eric Schwartzbaum (07/04) for offering me the last word, athough you're certainly welcome
to continue. You say that it's not true that Shannon's theorem only applies to communication theory
because it's also used in biology. Yes, but have you investigated how it is used in a biological system?
A single nucleotide in a gene is acknowledged to be a "bit" of information. These bits of DNA are
strung together to form a chain of digital instructions that are communicated via RNA to the ribosomes
that synthesize proteins. So it's still digital communication. But this discussion is about belief in God.
You said in an earlier post that only God could have created the big bang. How do you know that?
Couldn't it have been natural circumstances?
RE: Whole Series
Ran Sivron
07/04/2008
I, for one, don't know, but I am working on it. The questions answered here so far are very limited.
What is the god that may or may not exist? Is it the metaphysical white-beard god of a fundamentalist;
the omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god of medieval theologians; the principle that good
begets good, common to many religions; the Spinoza god that is in the self-consistent fundamental
laws of nature; the "god of creativity" of Schopenhauer and to a certain degree Nietzsche; the
recognition that the self can never fathom the whole or even one other conscious being, of Descartes
and, to a certain degree, of quantum physicists?
We may use "science" (as defined by Pinker, for example) to counter a subset of these questions. The
white-beard god is dead, of course, but we are not even close to posing a question most of us are
comfortable with from the others, so how can we claim that we know what the question is? However,
trying to answer even one of these questions proved beneficial in the past. There are more to go. So
why not continue and be aware of our limitations?
RE: Whole Series
Dr. John D. Martin
07/04/2008
The very phrasing of the question gets it exactly wrong. The proper question is, Does science depend
for its existence on the foundation of rational theism? The answer is an emphatic affirmative. Only
those who are intellectually commmitted to the existence of a rational, law-giving Creator who is prior
to and beyond nature have any rational expectation that nature should obey rational, comprehensible
laws and law-like regularities. Not most, not some but all of the most important, influential scientists of
all time (Faraday, Maxwell, Linnaeus, Mendel, Boyle, Maxwell, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, etc.) were
committed to some kind of theism, which provided the basis for their intellectual conviction that truths
concerning, and laws governing, physical reality were objectively real and discoverable.
RE: Whole Series
David
07/04/2008
This argument is couched in extreme terms by most of the participants. You either believe that man
descended because mud was struck by lightning or because God placed man on Earth 5,000 years
ago and he/she rode dinosaurs to work. God is real; I feel His presence constantly, witness His power
in answered prayers, see Him transform lives, and feel His unfathomable love every time I look upon
my children.
I don't need science to tell me anything. Whatever the discovery du jour may be, all it does is explain
how God created the universe and all that exists within it. This is exactly where science and faith
should be forever separated. My wife is a scientist and is constantly awed by the majesty of His
creation, the intricacies of His design, and the ways He made everything interdependent.
RE: Whole Series
Allan
07/04/2008
What I find most incredible pertaining to the human mind is that a lack of knowledge never stops it from
125
forming and having an opinion (or, in other words, a faith or belief). I can fully understand the lay
person suffering from perceptional knowledge, but when I see or hear a scientist suffering from the
same syndrome, it really does blow my own mind.
In order for me to understand what spiritual enlightenment was, what it does and how it worked (if it
worked), I had to put it to the test, something that many scientists--atheist, agnostic and theist--don't
believe they have to do. They think they know the answer already. This of course is not surprising; I
thought I knew the answer too, before I started to become enlightened. The closest thing to which I
could relate a path of spiritual enlightenment was going to a psychiatrist or a psychologist and having
every single barrier removed. As I became more enlightened, especially removing some big barriers, I
could literally feel a sensation stemming from my brain and down my spinal cord. I believe this was a
modification to the hard wiring of my brain, some synapses closing and new ones opening, or it could
be greater ones replacing the old ones.
What does all this have to do with science making God obsolete? Well, anybody can make anything
obsolete when they live in denial. What all paths of enlightenment have in common is that they came
from spiritual teachers who said they came from God or a God-like figure. From my own perspective,
after following the path of enlightenment as left by Lord Jesus, it really does give a new understanding
to the words, "Unless you change and become like this child." Enlightenment simply means purifying
the mind.
RE: Whole Series
De Quency
07/04/2008
No matter how much science can probe and explain, it can never justify or explain one thing: the order
in which our lives, this earth, this universe has been created. The sun appears every day in our sky,
bringing light and energy to a world 93 million miles away. This did not occur just because of some
explosion or chance of the dice. It was God--His calculation, His force, His love.
RE: Whole Series
Jagan Nathan
07/04/2008
The belief in the existence of "god" is as old as human civilization and is the result of man wanting to
know more and more as he learns through science. What used to be unexplainable was considered as
beyond him and was given the name "god" to indicate his limitation. Through the centuries, such
limitations were conquered, and his knowledge expanded. It is a matter of convenience at present to
keep the concept of god, since there is ever so much information that man needs to know thru science.
Science is helping to keep the concept of god alive since man has to go a long way before the final
verdict is pronounced.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/04/2008
Response to Jack King (07/03): Jack, we clearly are not understanding one another. You did in fact
state that Shannon's Theorem was restricted to communication theory. Your quote: "Yes, but that only
applies to encoded messages such as the one you are now reading." This is not true, since information
theory, based on Shannon, is used extensively in the biological sciences. Here is a quote from a
researcher, Dr. Thomas Schneider at the National Cancer Institute:
"Claude Shannon founded information theory in the 1940s. The theory has long been known to be
closely related to thermodynamics and physics through the similarity of Shannon's uncertainty
measure to the entropy function. Recent work using information theory to understand molecular
biology has unearthed a curious fact: Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applies to living
organisms and their products, such as communications channels and molecular machines that make
choices from several possibilities. Information theory is therefore a theory about biology, and Shannon
was a biologist."
I think any further discussion on the subject will be unfruitful, but feel free to provide a rebuttal and you
will have the last word.
126
RE: Whole Series
E. Curry
07/03/2008
I'm no scientist or theologian, but I would like to point out an observation I have noted through religious
writings. In the the Bible, God is called a "consuming fire," "the light of the world," "the alpha and
omega," "having no beginning or end." In science, the only thing that remotely fits those definitions is
pure energy. It cannot be created or destroyed, it can take on any form, and Einstein hinted at the fact
that all matter (as well as anti-matter we later discovered ) is made of energy. So if there is a God, He
can be defined as intelligent energy. This would also fit the "omnipresent, omnipotent" definitions. We
have learned that the so-called emptiness in space is really not empty at all but filled with energy. So if
all that we have studied holds true, we have been literally looking at the face of God. With every
scientific experiment, every quark or gluon, every electron accelerator, we have been proving His
Existence. Here is a theory for everyone.
RE: Whole Series
E. Curry
07/03/2008
In my life's experience I have found that the truth is always found somewhere in the middle. It is
common knowledge , amongst those who have had any education at all, that the KJV of the Bible is
flawed, as are the writings of other holy books. It is also known that there are things that science can't
answer right now, and some things science may never be able to answer, such as how to reanimate
dead tissue. Not just reanimate the tissue but have it have the same characteristics it had before it
died, such as personality or soul, in the case of a human being.
I find it humorous, to say the least, that we are finite creatures in a rather insignificant planet that is
less than a speck of dust in a galaxy amongst countless galxies, in a universe amongst countless
universes, and yet we have the arrogance to state, with such absolute certainty, that there is or is not a
God. All this arrogance from creatures of whom the strongest only exist a bit longer than 100 years.
We go to universities to learn one thing and one thing only. We learn how ignorant we really are and
how much knowledge these is out there that we will never grasp, unless there is a God who quietly and
patiently leads us from discovery to discovery.
I doubt He/She is anything like us, if indeed He/She does exist. He gave us a part of himself (he for
brevity) that makes us most like him: the desire to know truth and the desire to grow. Most of all, He
would have us learn to love and forgive. All of the science, theology, mathematics, wealth, and
education means nothing at our time of death. Whatever we believe when we die, one truth reigns
supreme. We will all learn the truth on that day. So does science make belief in God obsolete? Ask the
survivors of a natural disaster or those who mourn the death of a loved one. Or those facing terminal
disease. No. If anything science can fill the gaps that religion leaves open.
RE: Whole Series
Kevin Zelhart
07/03/2008
My answer would have to be no. Some in science believe that discovered fact and logic invalidate a
belief in God. There are those on the opposite side who believe that God's works are beyond man's
ability to comprehend. If one looks to knowledge as an asymptotic curve with time being the horizontal
axis and the level of knowledge the vertical axis, man, as a species, is very close to the beginning of
the curve, low on the y axis. God would be near the end of the x axis and so high on the y axis that, to
us, the knowledge would be infinite. Could such a being posses the knowledge and ability to
manipulate matter and energy in ways that to us would be unexplainable and miraculous? Certainly.
I used to anger my physics professors when, after their statement of the speed of light being the limit of
velocity, I would always chime in, "by the laws of physics as we know them." We, however, do not
know all the laws. Often this argument of science vs. religion tends to confine God to the world that we
know. Though when operating in our dimensions, God must obey the laws of physics of this
dimension, if he operates exterior to our dimension, can different laws apply that may affect outcomes
in our own dimension?
Religious belief, ideally, also serves as a moral benchmark that is relatively stable. When I look at
man's attempts to replace religion with other constructs, I cannot say that I see any that are appealing.
127
All have the same basic failing. That failing is that they rely on man as the ultimate judge. I would
rather put my faith in a God I believe perfect than in man who I know to be imperfect.
RE: Whole Series
ahansen
07/03/2008
I am agog. Having read your advert in the Atlantic Monthly, I wonder how you can aspire to a credible
dialectic without including either a spiritualist (which I am not) or a female (which I am) in your
discussion of the "relevance" of a "God." It seems to me that hierarchy is inherent in the biology of the
human brain, hence the commonality of all of humanity's social structures throughout its existence and
its seeming need for a higher authority in all things humanly knowable.
Moreover, one either "believes" in infinity/god as a concept or in infinity plus one (or infinity plus
infinity) or one doesn't care about it because the very concept of an Absolute is absurd. Those of us
who have given birth know that some "god" has nothing to do with it. In either case, your God is a
relative concept, a fact that has apparently eluded your commentators. Just because you can conceive
of it doesn't mean it exists. And just because you can't conceive of it doesn't mean it does not.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/03/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum says I redefined Shannon's law when what I actually did was to repeat Eric's own
interpretation of it and go with that. Shannon's law is actually about the speed limit of digital
communication and not about the complexity of information in general, so the examples I used in my
post were examples of digital information, which is always symbolic, one symbol representing parts or
multiples or combinations of others, sometimes layer upon layer in a variety of languages, machine or
human, until an intelligible message is available to a recipient that/who is capable of extracting
meaning in accordance with his own knowledge or just mindlessly following the encoded instructions in
the message as a computer does.
I did not, as Eric said, use evolution to prove evolution. I used the principles inherent in Darwinian
systems to show that intelligence evolves. Humans are more intelligent than their distant ancestors
and have more sophisticated coding systems, and therefore are more capable of encoding or decoding
a complex message. Of course, a creationist will not see it that way.
Eric finds probability theory useful in refuting evolution. I wonder if he's aware of the Law of Large
Numbers: the more trials there are, the more probable it becomes that something improbable will
happen. The world has been here an awfully long time, and there have been countless trials, so why
do random mutation and natural selection seem so incapable of producing life as we know it?
RE: Whole Series
Erik R.
07/03/2008
Forget Genesis and the whole creation story. Do I believe it? I argue all the time about it. I have
questioned it from my childhood. Things can get lost in translation. The world is not 4 to 7 thousand
years old! But what I don't question is the spirit of God. Not a chemically induced feeling, not a
chemical produced by my brain to make me feel a certain way, but the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost). It is the
most powerfull thing I have ever experienced. Nothing compares. I can sit in my room and start talking
to God and something incredible washes over me. I experience a feeling of utter peace--all the world's
weight is lifted off my shoulders, and it is almost like my body as a whole is transported to a place of
peace. Do I believe in God? Yes! Did he create everything? I believe he did. How? I think science
explains that. How much more beautiful it is that he let things become what they are in such a complex
manner.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/03/2008
Response to Jack King (07/02): Jack, you've just redefined Shannon's law. Shannon makes
generalizations about information probability without defining the source of the information. You're free
to do that, of course, and I'm free to not take such an assertion seriously. With respect to your other
statements, you are again employing circular logic to prove your point--using the theory of evolution to
128
prove evolution. Darwinian evolution is assumed to be true, and you then filter the data per that
assumption to show that it is true.
I'm trying to take a more deductive approach here based on first principles. So here is a question:
What law of physics or thermodynamics makes information-bearing complexity more likely than
randomness? Note that inorganic complexity (crystal structure, for example) may be highly complex
but carries very little information (generally no more than a few bits). Shannon's law predicts a
reasonable probability for such phenomena. If you say that the likelihood of life from non-life and
Darwinian evolution is not relevant to the discussion, I would then ask you to define another area of
science where probability is not used as one basis for testing the truth of a theory.
In the world of engineering and physics (where I work), probability and statistics are one of the
backbones of any analysis. The likelihood of an event (failure of a component or system, for example)
is paramount to making design and programmatic decisions. That is the real world. Certain areas of
science are apparently immune from this process and can conjecture the most fanciful scenarios
without experiment or detailed step-by-step modeling that includes probabilistic factors. Sorry, but I'm
not that gullible.
RE: Whole Series
David
07/03/2008
Of course not, since science does not have all the answers. Something existed before the big bang--
something went bang. What is that essential energy that existed before time and space if not "God"?
RE: Whole Series
Tom
07/03/2008
Science absolutely makes the idea of "God" obsolete. No doubt belief in god will continue for a long
time, but that belief has never been based on anything even remotely provable, just fear and
superstition, so science does not even need to address belief, it has far more relevant things to tackle.
The notion of god may never be 100% proved or disproved, but we can get close. We can already say
that the chances of a god existing are incredibly unlikely, and all the scientific data we have says so.
Science effectively removes god from the equation even when it is not dealing with the subject directly.
Modern science does not set out to prove or disprove god; the erosion of god is just one marvelous
outcome. Scientists who cling to the idea of god realize that if they let that idea go, they will be
admitting that their view on things was tinged with irrationality, and that is a hard admission to make in
the scientific community, but a necessary one.
RE: Whole Series
Abdulla
07/03/2008
If you ask scientists in any age, they would propably say they have all the answers. If they had lived
longer, they would have seen many of their theories (the world is flat, etc.) proved by SCIENCE to be
wrong. Scientists talk as if they can prove their theories are right, but that doesn't mean you get the
whole picture. Science doesn't deny the existence of God but proves it. Sometimes people fail to see
beyond the horizon, talking about technical skills and biological processes as the initiators or life, while
they are just tools. It is hard to put aside human boundaries when thinking of the supernatural, but God
doesn't need to have fingers to poke in the world. God governs by will, while giving humans freedom of
will to seek whatever path they want.
RE: Whole Series
Jack king
07/02/2008
Elaine (7/2) says God gave us free will, but free will is by definition a will not influenced by any
constraints. Such a will would operate in a random fashion and would be totally irrational. We need
constraints to organize and give purpose to our actions. God doesn't give us free will. Nature
constrains our will, and that's a good thing.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/02/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum (7/1) says the assumption that simplicity leads to complexity is unfounded, that the
129
more information imbedded in a message, the less likely it is to occur in the absence of intelligence.
Yes, but that only applies to encoded messages such as the one you are now reading or the lines of
code in your computer that make its appearance on your monitor possible, because, generally
speaking, intelligence is required to create a coded message (and to derive meaning from it as well).
As intelligence and the analytical tools it creates become more evolved and sophisticated, the
information it generates becomes more complex. I say "generally speaking" because there is an
exception: the evolution of intelligence requires a Darwinian system in which the traits most capable of
dealing with forces disruptive to life are favored. Intelligence is one such trait.
So on the one hand we have mindless, indifferent Darwinian forces creating higher intelligence as an
adaptive trait, and on the other we have higher intelligence creating more complex infomation as a
result. Keep in mind that the simple, mindless, indifferent forces came first. Simplicity leads to
complexity.
RE: Whole Series
Gabriel J. Rodriguez
07/02/2008
The topic is very interesting, but in order to debate deeply and clearly, we first have to address the
following questions: What do we mean when we talk about God and belief in God? What do we mean
when we talk about science? If there is a God, are we able to prove his existence? Are we able to deny
it?
I know a lot of smart scientists and religious people who remember what Socrates said: "I only know
that I don't know anything." Those who recognize that that they do not know search for the answers.
Those who think they know the answers do not look for them. What keeps science and faith in
movement is the search for the truth. Science answers questions about how the world works. Religion
tries to answer different questions, about why the world works and the meaning of our existence. For
me, the answer is no, science does not make belief in God obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Anthony Faber
07/02/2008
Science absolutely does not make belief in God obsolete. In truth, science has to verify the existence
of God. The essential question is how can a knowledgable, learned, clear-headed scientist not believe
in God? Is it a matter of the elect or the non-elect? Christians believe that God came to earth,
incarnate. And we believe He not only told us of an elect, but we believe the matter of "election" by
God does not interfere in any way with our own free will or, in other words, our own "self-election."
Of course, there are many brilliant scientists who are atheists. So the real question that demands
exploring is what self-governing and self-issuing quality, if not intellectual limitation, is the limitation to
believing in God? I think that answer is more compelling and complex than any physical/chemical
inquiry that would presumably lead to clues to the existence of a creator.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Ian Tizard
07/02/2008
If you are asking whether science alone makes belief in god obsolete, the answer is clearly no. Belief
in the supernatural as exemplified by a belief in a supreme being and, defined as faith, is intrinsically
irrational. Science cannot do away with something that does not exist in the first place. Don't blame
science for irrational beliefs.
RE: Whole Series
Sarah Pottinger
07/02/2008
God is evident in all of science, in something as simple, for instance, as the four units of D.N.A. that
can combine to produce something as complicated as a human being. It's a miracle that it all works,
and to me that is the mark of God
RE: Whole Series
Elaine
07/02/2008
130
Absolutely, positively no! God is the reason we are able to have science. The free will He gave us
enables us to explore all possiibilites. Those who choose God as creator are right. God bless
RE: Whole Series
Hernan Tasies
07/02/2008
In practical terms, we are much more dependent on science for our survival. Humans are bound by
self-preservation, despite the thunderous monotheistic roars. We have yet to imagine science at its
most advanced stage, and assuming that science will eventually be able to disprove God is at the
center of the discussion. God may eventually be disproved, but there is an underlying instinct for faith.
Science perhaps will be unable to disprove faith, thus we return to the principal of faith without God.
Can science, faith, and God co-exist? Not in harmony, not when one disproves the other. Science
doesn't need an anti-monotheistic agenda to disprove God. By the very nature of the process, science
can only disprove God through proof. Eventually, monotheism will have to evolve. It has evolved,
unfortunately, at a much slower pace than science. As people further witness the benefits of scientific
advancement, they will eventually embrace science over God. Most of them will simply say, "thank
God for science."
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Kost
07/02/2008
If anything, science seeks to understand what God truly is and what God has set forth in the intricate
and delicate balance of the universe. I believe in a trilogy of infinites: time, space and energy. I also
believe that the Big Bang was not a first and certainly won't be the last. The so-called black holes will
eventually devour all matter including themselves and at some point in the future form the great
singularity again. And around and around it goes. Forever. Infinitely.
For the most part, the antiquated view of God in our own vain image is totally irrelavent to reasoned
and logical thinking. There is no "big man" in the sky judging people on their moral merits during their
stay on earth and within the confines of humanity. It was never God who helped us discover moral and
ethical behavior. It was men and women who did that. To me, God IS science. God makes every
thought, wonder, and moment of amazing discovery possible. God is the energy that makes everything
possible. God is infinity. God is, above all else, love.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/01/2008
In response to Jack King (6/26): Thanks for your respectful response to my apparently controversial
statements (other have been less benevolent). I'd like to try to respond to your questions. First, it
needs to be clear that your statements are philosophical/metaphysical in nature and are devoid of
knowledge in the scientific sense, i.e., not based in evidence and not subject to the scientific method.
You start with an unfounded assumption that simplicity must lead to complexity, apparently because
this universe is complex. There is no law of nature that says complexity is inevitable or even probable.
In fact, the opposite is true since there is an inverse relationship between information and probability
(Shannon's law), i.e., the more information embedded in a message, the less likely it is to occur in the
absence of intelligence. This reality is employed, for example, in archaeology, forensics, and the SETI
program, in which assumptions need to be made about whether evidence points to an intelligent agent.
Vast amounts of information are embedded in organic life (the genetic code), which makes life unlikely,
at least based on the current understanding of the laws of chemistry and physics.
With respect to the probabilities of the emergence of other universes, such a concept is meaningless
since there is no evidence for other universes, and thus we can't discuss the probabilities. It's kind of
like saying, if unicorns exist, what's the probability that they will eat grass? However, one can speak
mathematically about the probability of the world as we know it. Consider fine-tuning of the universe.
This is not just a metaphysical principle. One can do a simple mathematical analysis of the likelihood
for the conditions required for complex life on earth to exist. There are about 20 factors which need to
be present, and one can make reasonable estimates regarding the probability of any one of them. The
likelihood of all existing simultaneously is then the product of those probabilities. This is a very, very
small number.
131
Or consider the probabilities associated with the assembly of complex molecules, like proteins, via
random processes. This is also a relatively simple analysis, and the likelihood of even a simple 20-
amino-acid protein with biological function developing is vanishingly small. This does not address the
more difficult problem of the development of a self-replicating molecule (DNA, RNA) from strictly
chemical processes. Science does not have even a single coherent, agreed-upon theory regarding the
origin of life, much less the evidence to support it. Since life from non-life is necessarily the first step in
evolution, I'm not sure how one can say that evolution is probable or even possible; it is beyond
scientific reasoning and evidence. Evolutionary scenarios are just-so stories without a single detailed,
step-by-step model of even the simplest macro-evolutionary transition. Perhaps the future will resolve
these problems, but I wouldn't put my money on it.
RE: Whole Series
Ken Valkenburg
07/01/2008
Science and religion are two totally separate things. Science is the realm of discovery; it is about
gathering data and trying to interpret what that data means. Religion in and of itself can be separated
into a wide vareity of subjects, denominations, belief systems, etc.
There are two reasons I think religion should be separate from science. First, religion is almost totally
faith-based, and most of the historical things religious people believe in happened way too long ago to
really be proven scientifically. Second, there could be religious bias in science. If a religious person
believes something a certain way, that may get in the way of accurately and soundly interpreting their
data.
There are endless good things that come out of both science and religion. I firmly believe that both are
NEEDED in our world. Science provides so much knowledge, with which we can do so much good,
and with which we can figure out how this world works. Religion should provide us with a set of morals
and ethical standards to live by. It also provides a great sense of love, peace and security to billions of
people in the world.
All this being said, I am a strong Christian, and I am an avid scientist. I will have a biotechnology
degree next spring. I find it very easy to be both a Christian and a scientist, without compromising on
either end.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Ernest Anemone
07/01/2008
Science is our belief in God, whether we admit to it or not. By observing the mechanics of nature and
attempting to reduce complexities to singularities, we are seeking to commune with God in newer and
better ways. Many people may say this is incorrect; they may say, "science has consistently debunked
miracles and disproved divine intervention of all kinds. Science exists to disprove God."
Well, these people are correct insofar as science has dispelled our primitive notions of God as a
supernatural theistic being; however, as Stuart Kaufmann suggests, this does not mean that the
concept of God or a belief in God becomes irrelevant. Religion (at least according to the etymology of
the word) is the study of what connects us--to one another, to the universe, to the divine. It is not only a
natural companion to science, but it lies at the very heart of science. I sincerely hope Kauffman's ideas
signal a new era of colloboration between scholars in both fields--one in which both sides must evolve
for the benefit of the other.
RE: Whole Series
Just Asking
06/30/2008
Science taught in publicly-funded schools and in publicly-funded museums says without any
uncertainty that a higher power absolutely does not and absolutely cannot exist. How can scientists be
so certain? Because they are the self-appointed high-priest authorities of our day who believe they are
privy to information the rest of us Neanderthals just can't seem to wrap our inferior minds around. Just
as certain religious beliefs in the past have been pushed on the people by certain authorities, scientists
of today don't even seem to realize they are doing the same.
So what's the average explanation from a "scientist" on how life started? From lightning hitting a
132
puddle of mud or possibly on the back of a magic crystal. This is another theory which is gaining
popularity amongst the elite minds of our time. Don't get me wrong. I do believe in evolution, but to
somehow apply the theory of evolution without coming up with a better original cause than mud or
crystals is bound to sprout some questions from inquisitive minds. So how do scientists of today
explain the trillions of stars and possibly trillions of planets and everything in between, including the
laws of chemistry, biology, physics, etc.? Well, our best and brightest scientists tell us that it was a big
ball of ammonia which started on fire and exploded, or what I like to call the "big ass bang." Are we
really to accept this as our new, enlightened beliefs?
RE: Whole Series
Dan Tanno
06/30/2008
Although I think this series of discussions is extremely meaningful and interesting, I also think that
there is a lot of unnecessary discussion in the world about science and religion. In order to minimize
this unnecessary discussion, I think the notion of religion should be separated into two parts. The first
part is about "being good." You should be good, not harm other people but help them, etc. This part of
religion should remain. The second part will be all the superstitious nonsense, about how God created
the earth and humans, about Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc. This part of religion can be discarded.
Atheists should accept the first part as meaningful and correct. (They probably do already.) Believers
in religion should accept that the second part is wrong and that science is correct. (They probably
already do inside their heads, but it is difficult to openly admit this, since it may sound like they are
denying religion as a whole, which they are not.) This compromise will shut out most of the
unnecessary discussion about religion, make atheists act in a better way, and relieve believers in
religion from the burden of having to make illogical arguments about how the earth and humans came
about.
RE: Whole Series
John
06/30/2008
The question, as worded, infers that in the absence of science, belief in God is not obsolete and
therefore has value. The presence of science may provide greater value, rendering belief in God
obsolete, or so we are asked to consider. Framing the issue this way seems about as meaningful as
asking, "Which has more value, a toaster-oven or love?"
RE: Whole Series
Dave
06/30/2008
Isn't the real issue prophesy and revelation? The notion that ancient men (whether the Hebrew
prophets, Paul of Tarsus, Mohammad, or, more recently, Joseph Smith) received direct
communications from the creator of the universe, upon which we all should base our morality and
worldview, seems obsolete. Belief in a god (whatever one means by that term) may not be obsolete,
but surely prophesy and revelation are.
RE: Steven Pinker
Richard M. Harrison
06/30/2008
I was surprised that no one mentioned that the Hebrew word translated as "day" in Genesis should be
translated as "a period of time for which there is a defined beginning and ending." The days in Genesis
could be millions of years as we know them today and would not need to be equal in length. It is
difficult to believe that God would make the universe in 144 hours and then have mankind develop the
knowledge and intellect to measure the age of fossils and distances to the distant galaxies. Could God
design the universe to make it appear old and distant? Yes, but why would a loving god do that? To
test our faith? I think not
RE: Kenneth Miller
Ron Powell
06/30/2008
Miller writes that faith "includes science, but then seeks the ultimate reason why the logic of science
should work so well." I find this one of the more bizarre claims articulated on this subject. Does this
mean that Miller, as a Catholic, believes in transubstantiation? If so, I am stunned, since even as a ten-
133
year-old altar boy I found that to be an absurd claim, a "miracle" that reminded me of both cannibalism
and black magic.
RE: Whole Series
Anil K Rajvanshi
06/30/2008
The biggest tragedy of such debates is compartmentalization. Human thought, imagination, and
reflection are part of a continuum. Hence God, science, and the things in the universe are part of this
continuum.
RE: Whole Series
Taylor Hart
06/29/2008
This will be an interesting discussion. Obviously there will be no resolution because of it, but with such
a wide spectrum of thinkers, it should provide for some excellent debate and great stimulation for
future philosophical pursuits!
RE: Whole Series
Smith
06/29/2008
Thank you for introducing the careful thoughts of eight intelligent men in the June 2008 issue of
Scientific American. It's quite disconcerting to find, at your website, that a woman's thoughts have also
been presented.
RE: Whole Series
Andy Ray
06/28/2008
I find the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" an obsolete question. All it does is
encourage a rehashing of personal opinions and philosophies on the notion of "belief" in God. The
debate should shift to a question which is somewhat less obsolete: "Does God exist?" Or perhaps for
the less philosophically inclined: "With the rapid progress in science, technology, and the gathering of
knowledge over the past couple of decades, do you feel we are closer to discovering whether there is
a god or are we further away? " For me the answer is clear (99.9%) and should be clear to any
critically thinking person.
RE: Whole Series
Frank Loomer
06/28/2008
We seem to be accumulating a wide variety of views by individuals, mostly male, with no sense of
resolution, not even agreement on what constitutes rules of evidence or validation. One might
reasonably think that if God did indeed exist, he might simply speak up for himself (gender TBA) and
address us all in a way that we could commonly understand. This, I think, was Jeremiah's radical
vision when he looked for God to directly communicate and do away with the need for priests and
teachers to convey his directives by proxy.
As a matter of historical record, that simply has not happened. And that, I suggest, says a great deal
about the nature of our problem. In the absence of a sharable communication in which we can all
participate, the alternative possibility must be seriously considered. We may have just "made him up."
This isn't a way of resolving why we did it or the inherent mystery of our existence, the world and
universe in which we seem inextricably enmeshed. But it suggests for me that approaches which are
public and sharable and which can lead to consensus on a practical working level are far more likely to
provide the best overall result.
Is it my imagination that so many of the participants here are male? Why not more women?
Suggestions?
RE: Whole Series
George Madden
06/28/2008
It seems to me that we humans can quantify what we know. We have an aggregate sum of affirmable
information developed by both practical and scientific methods. But I don't know how it would be
possible to grasp the scope of what is unknown to us. We can, however, be certain that there are
134
unknowns (at least as long as there is a future). I strongly favor the view that more is unknown than
known. If that view is reasonable, I cannot definitively assert that God, however defined or described,
does not exist. I can only leave the question open.
RE: Whole Series
William R. Clough
06/28/2008
Perhaps the problem arises from how the whole discussion is framed. It seems to me that it is
eccentric, just a half bubble off plumb. Most of the contributors write as if the purpose of God was to
explain things; as if God did it" explained anything. The statement "God did it" can be a conversation-
stopper when used by literalists or otherwise defensive persons who wish to pursue a question no
further. But for the vast majority of Christians, "God did it" means two things: one, that whatever we're
talking about is wonderful, thrilling, important, and meaningful; and two, that whatever we're talking
about is understandable, accessible to observation and reason.
It seems to me that belief in God generally provides people with a way to express things we know but
cannot fully justify on the basis of the facts (human observation and rationalization), such as: the
conviction that life has meaning, hope, the feeling that the universe is (quite literally) wonderful, and,
when faced with something painful in life, that there's Someone to appeal to.
That's why science can never make belief in God obsolete. Science is the result of the emotionally
tinged conviction that the universe makes sense; atheism is the result of the emotionally tinged
conviction that some people make stupid statements and need to be corrected; belief in God is the
result of the emotionally tinged conviction that the universe is wonderful and intelligible and that some
hope is justified.
RE: Steven Pinker
J. Robert Brock Hacker
06/28/2008
Pinker offers a fine set of generalizations and bald assertions, but he has a few questions to answer.
How does he explain ex nihilo fit? If anything at all exists today, there can never have been a time
when no thing existed, thus some eternal "it" must be. If one considers this iron law of logic a "trick,"
what other rules of knowledge may be manipulated? How can science conclude anything if its
observations and measurements cannot be trusted? What of the immutable laws of mathematics?
Does the scientific method permit 2 plus 2 equalling 5 if it fits one's hypothesis?
As for "morality itself," if there is no ultimate moral authority, ethics does not exist at all, and morality is
no more than preference. Why is Pinker's idea of right and wrong more valid than, say, Stalin's? The
moral relativist needs to remember that not that long ago slavery was "moral." Further if "it" is God, he
must be sovereign, and who may bring a charge against one who is above law?
If, indeed, there must be an eternal "it" that possesses the power of being and of creation--and of
annihilation--and if "it" decrees what is right and wrong, it seems only rational for man to seek to know
"it" rather than mockingly denying "its" reality. Of course if one can accept that once there was nothing,
what's the point?
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/28/2008
Though belief in God is useless in scientific investigation of the natural world and in applied technology
as well, it still has its uses and will never become universally obsolete. Those uses, of course, are
political. Even people who claim to support democracy over authoritarian rule will declare their nation
and their selves to be under God, a supposed entity who is not to be questioned or disobeyed.
RE: Whole Series
George Ricker
06/28/2008
I think the question would be more honestly framed and might yield more interesting results if it asked
"Does science make belief in a god obsolete?" By talking about "God" as though there were some
commonly agreed definition of the term, such questions inevitably lead to garbled answers. It's just too
easy to fudge the results.
135
In my view, the first requirement for any valid discussion of "God" is a clear, concise, and non-
contradictory definition of the term and what it means. Why not ask, "Is there a conception of god that
is compatible with science and why do you think so?" Clearly science does not render the belief in a
god obsolete. A god can mean anything from a desert sky god to the "ineffable essence of an
otherwise inexpressible reality." The possibilities for defining gods are as limitless as human
imagination. All of which says a lot about human imagination and nothing at all about the reality of
gods.
RE: Whole Series
RJ Evans
06/28/2008
The claim that a God can exist in an infinite scope is an impossibility. If one embraces the scientific
concept of infinity (no beginning or end), then positing a God destroys the scientific concept of infinity.
One cannot say a line is infinite if a point/quantity is assigned to the line as "the beginning" or, in this
case, a God.
Let us keep in mind that philosophy gave birth to science and religion. One (science) embraced
inquiry, observation, test, and falsifiability. The other (religion) embraced rhetoric, assumption, and
myth. These two children of philosophy can no longer co-exist. Science has matured and continues to
do so. Religion flounders in ignorance and an archaic uneducated past.
RE: Whole Series
Jim Pharo
06/28/2008
Easy question. We now have several thousands of years of experience attributing to supernatural
causes natural phenomena we do not understand. Every time a natural cause is uncovered, we
manage to move the goal posts and conclude that the latest revelation proves nothing. To me,
thousands of years of constantly pulling back the curtain on "God" only to find rationality is enough to
conclude that the idea of God is simply terribly unlikely.
And I think the truth is that this is something we all know, deep down, to be true. We wish it were
otherwise and sometimes spend a great deal of time and energy trying to convince ourselves
otherwise. But I think if most people were quite honest, they'd have to admit their doubts outweigh any
hope of "faith" they might have.
I'm always struck by Christians who profess a belief in the afterlife, yet feel the sting of loss when
someone they love dies. I think those Christians know perfectly well what death is and its real-world
consequences. Getting past one's wishful thinking is a sign of personal maturity. I applaud everyone
who has done so, and wish more would "come out" and say what they know to be the truth.
RE: Whole Series
Pana
06/28/2008
God is not a coherent concept to begin with. Religions don't even know or agree on what a god is--it's
vague. At least with a unicorn, you could make a real unicorn through genetics by giving a horse a
horn. But the concept of god is really what older peoples called the natural world. They were
expressing a feeling that everything was connected and, in awe, called the natural world god.
The word god exists in our language, but we don't even know what we mean when we say it. No one
has ever seen or measured such a thing or would even begin to know if one has the sense perceptions
to know it. Is god a manlike entity with a white beard sitting "outside" the universe or in a parallel
reality? No one can conceive of or even know what "outside the universe" means. God is not a
coherent concept. It's like talking about "the evil greenies." If I don't coherently show you what a greeny
is, how are you going to know one when you see one?
RE: Whole Series
Miles Lawrence
06/27/2008
Science does not make belief in God obsolete. The existence of humans proves that God does not
exist.
136
RE: Whole Series
Claude Hosch
06/27/2008
Science can't have it both ways. It proves organic matter cannot come from inorganic matter and then
suggests, without any proof, that it did. Science can only reach conclusions on finite matters. Since
infinity has no end, science can't reach a conclusion. Otherwise, scientists would approximate the
extent of the universe. If evolution is the origin of life, why do species become extinct rather than
continue to evolve? I submit that science is restricted by its own rules.
As for the mind, science can't find anything in the brain it can call the mind. Can it be that the
relationship between the right and left brain is the mind? The two sides converse--a relationship. Man
can ask himself a question and give himself the answer he is seeking. Relationships are as important
in life as facts, objects, and tests. They make the whole greater than the sum of its parts, yet the
relationships exist because of the sum of parts.
RE: Whole Series
John Pallyn
06/27/2008
First, science is not a belief system. It is a tool that facilitates human understanding of the universe. It
has no agenda, mythology, or predispositions. Second, God is myth. God does not belong in the same
discussion as the search for truth. It is an individual mythology wholly dependent on faith, in the
complete absence of empirical evidence. Nothing can be done with faith but provide true believers with
meaning for their existence. I find the capacity for faith to be a terrible waste of the creative capacity of
the human species. It is our incredible capability for imagination that has been our strength and
weakness.
In the context of myth and faith, anything that can be imagined can be believed. In science,
imagination is used to expand the knowledge base when our inventions have been thoroughly and
empirically tested. Faith won't start your car in the morning or move mountains. The use of science
does make God obsolete, but our predisposition for imagination keeps God in the collective
consciousness. We will never ascend as a species until we have a clear delineation between truth and
truth imagined.
RE: Mary Midgley
Manfred Baumgart
06/27/2008
Mary Midgley has it. Both Christians and scientists have taken themselves much too seriously. When I
look at images of God and at science, I only can say: I know that I know nothing.
RE: Whole Series
Michael Dooley
06/26/2008
This is a very curious series. At times it is less about religion/science than it is about philosophical
atheism and belief. I wish that some of the commenters could get beyond the functionalist error of
stating that human beings believe in God so that some existential need on their part is met. Merely
because we see a connection between one and the other does not mean one was the "mother of
invention" for the other.
Still, it seems a simple matter of logic. Science is "made" for discovering natural processes and motion
in the physical world. In it very premises, it ignores supernatural explanations because that is not what
it is about. Science doesn't ask supernatural questions. What is embedded in one's assumptions can
scarcely be expected not to be reflected in one's conclusions.
The supernatural, on the other hand, is simply that: matters beyond the natural world. Scientific
pronouncements concerning theological questions are as vapid as what has been done by religious
figures in commenting on science. Asking "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" is a little like
asking cooking to explain the complexities of baseball. Is belief in God obsolete? Maybe, but it is not
by science that the question will be answered.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
137
06/26/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum says that our universe in intractibly complex and further states that the
probabilities of such a universe emerging are vanishingly small. Yes, but ANY complex universe that
emerges from simpler origins will be vastly more complex after its unfolding. Of all the possible
universes that could emerge from any simpler state, what makes the probabilities of this one any
smaller than the probabilites of any other similarly complex universe that one (even a god) could
imagine? What makes this one so special?
Eric says that design is a more plausible explanation. But design proceeds from purpose, and no
purpose has been found for our universe, and I doubt seriously if anyone could find one that comports
with reality. He says there is not a single scientific discovery that points away from God. I would say
that anyone who bothers to list the desires and attributes of his god will find all kinds of scientific
discoveries that belie that description.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/26/2008
David Young asks if anybody sincerely wants to know. Of course they do; some of us possess a rage
to know, and to increase our knowledge we investigate the only world that is available to investigate:
the natural world. It is those who believe in a supernatural world who don't want to know. They have
been promised forgiveness and everlasting life and punishment for those who don't believe as they do,
and they won't surrender any of that for fear that even a smidgeon of doubt will take it all away.
Superstition does terrible things to the human mind.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
06/26/2008
To Jack King: As an agnostic, I would state that your position is no more intellectually tenable than the
other possible positions (theism or deism), and I've also assessed the evidence that has been
revealed from quantum mechanics to cosmology. What is the evidence that you believe proves there is
no God? As an empiricist, skeptic, and rationalist, I base my position consistently within the framework
of the scientific method--conclusions are not drawn until all the evidence is ascertainable and
verifiable. On the other hand, you have precluded a serious potential answer (Creator Deity), which
prejudices your position towards atheism.
Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. This principle does not apply only to theists or
deists making supernatural claims. It falls equally upon the atheists. Carl Sagan wrote the following
concerning the question of atheism, God, and science: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God
does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such
compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate
causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that
no such God exists."
To assume that ALL which exists in the natural world has emerged from within itself is beyond our
present science. Really, there isn't much I can say on that comment other than, what can be asserted
without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. There is far more unknown than what is known
about the universe and any scientist will state that for the record. There are plenty of questions on the
frontier of research without explanations, and to claim that all things have naturalistic explanations is to
expose one's intellectual hubris.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/26/2008
Schwartzbaum (06/25) does not seem to understand the theory of evolution. Species are subject to
evolution because they live in interaction with each other and with an environment, and because living
organisms are all subject to genetic mutation. Each new offspring thus may have a different genetic
make-up from its parents. From time to time, mutations provide an advantage to the new organism
compared to the species from which it originates. This makes it more likely that the mutated organism
will survive, reproduce, and lead to a new species. The "human mind" is simply a genetic possibility
that has been preserved because it gives the human species a clear evolutionary advantage. This
helps explain why humans are still around and so successful.
138
That the "human mind" is a possibility in nature is evidenced by scientific observations. Current
research in neurobiology correlates brain activity in real time to aspects of the experience the subject
has of his own mind. In animals, the size and organization of the brain is correlated to the abilities of
the species. In paleoanthropology, although brain organization is not available from fossil bones, the
size of the brain in humanoids is still broadly correlated to their abilities. Each successful mutation
provides a stepping-stone for future mutations. The brain of Homo Sapiens was made possible by the
brain of ancestor species, possibly one of the Homo Erectus species and Australopithecus. The brain
of the first humanoids was made possible by the brain of mammalian species ancestor to humanoids.
Paleoanthropology cannot possibly repeat in a lab billion of years of evolution on earth from the first
bacterium to the first human, but fossil evidence available today is simply compelling. Schwartzbaum
does not seem to understand that if the theory of evolution had been fanciful it would have been easily
discarded long ago--for example, if no fossils had been found of species possibly ancestor to Homo
Sapiens.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/26/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum (06/25) is a good example of where a religious agenda can lead. While he seems
superficially to accept science as the rational way to investigate our universe, his dogmatic
preconception that God has created the universe leads him nonetheless to jettison rationality. This is
made clear when he choses to argue on the basis of the "probabilities associated with the emergence
of the universe." The truth is, no one knows what these probabilities are, and this is because we don't
know what the conditions of "the emergence of the universe" were. We in fact don't know if the
constants of nature could have been in any way different from what they are.
This is a very basic mistake, but it is not surprising that all religious minds seem intent to make it again
and again. Only those religious minds who prefer to maintain that God is beyond any rational
understanding are immune, but this is the same as saying that God is an entirely meaningless
concept. Further, and notwithstanding Schwartzbaum's muddled claim, the hypothesis of "multiple
universes," though a rational one, is not science and is unlikely to be presented as science by
scientists, at least yet. It is a pre-scientific hypothesis, and we will have to see if it can ever be
substantiated.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/26/2008
Rick Chan Frey (06/25/2008) sees the notion that "matter was created in a big bang" as problematic
because "matter, energy, and universal constraints don't tend to come into being on their own." In a
scientific perspective, this is of course a reasonable issue. However, while it is reasonable to assume
that there is possibly a cause to the creation of our universe, and certainly cosmologists do, it is truly
absurd to argue that reality itself necessarily has a cause, as indeed Thomas Aquinas believed and as,
following him, the whole Catholic Church still maintains. Thus, the Catholic doctrine is fundamentally
absurd, giving the lie to the claim of John Paul II and Benedict XIV that Christianity is rational at heart.
It is not the job of science to make God obsolete, but scientific knowledge and a rationalist perspective
certainly do.
RE: Whole Series
Sazib Bhuiyan
06/25/2008
Faith stands on desire and disregards evidence and rationality, therefore, no amount of evidence and
reasoning will eliminate faith in any belief. Billions of people believe self-contradictory and mutually
contradictory religions which don't stand on evidence but dogma. It is impossible to prove the non-
existence of the non-existent. You can't prove that omnipotent, omniscient, and omniversal aliens don't
exist, but just because you can't prove it doesn't mean that they do exist.
I find one hypocrisy very revealing. Those who claim to be saved and going to heaven keep clinging on
to this life despite all its struggles and suffering. Why not commit suicide and go to heaven? That
would be the logical thing to do. And I won't even start on the hypocritical failure to love your neighbors
and enemies.
139
RE: Whole Series
David Young
06/25/2008
"But in his motion like an angel sings,/Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubims./Such harmony is in
immortal souls;/But, whilst this muddy vesture of decay/Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it."
--The Merchant of Venice, act V, scene 1
Thank you for this enlightening forum. I will be honest. I am left more with a question than resolution.
My question is this, "Does anybody sincerely want to know?" Most ideas presented seem to be
delivered from the cozy confines of whatever conventionalized and hardened groove has been
accepted by each individual. It is apparent that it would frighten most of us to let ourselves wander out
of our comfy foxholes of protected opinion. Once we have been frozen in the mold, the thought of
having to get out and move around in the open is a terrifying proposition.
Does anybody really want to know? I think that is the first question. That takes courage. Courage that
few great scientists "disciples" have shown. This debate will really never lead any of us anywhere until
there is a realization, or perhaps acceptance that none of us really know much of anything.
There is that "Mormon" book, though. Where did it come from? Wait! Before you answer it from your
established groove of opinion, what about an honest examination of it? Is Joseph Smith's story of
where it came from true or not? A simple question. Whatever answer you come up with, Joseph Smith
was one of the most remarkable humans to have ever graced the stage. This volume has no equal, in
terms of a single human producing such a work. A worthy "scientific" thesis as well as an honest
seeker of the ultimate "truth." It is my humble belief that the origins of the Book of Mormon give real
answers to this question of God and science . . . or produce the right questions. Or perhaps we just
"cannot hear it." Would any of us really give up everything, including our comfy confines, to really
know?
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
06/25/2008
On the contrary, science confirms God's existence for several reasons. First, science confirms an
intractably complex universe undergirded by exquisite mathematical laws. It's easily shown that the
probabilities associated with the emergence of the universe as we know it are vanishingly small. The
latest scientific ruse to deal with this problem is the invocation of multiple universes to make our
universe inevitable. However, such a theory is inherently unscientific (not supported by data and
unfalsifiable) and violates a basic tenet of science, which states that the simplest explanation is usually
the most probable (Occam's razor). The multiple universe theory involves infinite complexity, the
antithesis of the simplicity principle.
The fact that science exists and that the human mind is capable of understanding and explaing the
universe also points to an intelligent creator who designed the human mind. There is no scientific
evidence which even suggests that the human mind is the product of evolutionary forces. Design is a
more plausible explanation unless you start with the bias of materialism, which is an exercise in
circular logic (evolution must be true, regardless of its improbability since it's the only solution that
coincides with the unproven assumptioon of materialism).
There is not a single scientific discovery which points away from God. All point toward His existence
(assuming a nondogmatic interpretation of the Book of Genesis). Hence, the association of atheism
and science is unwarranted, not evidentially based, and inherently unscientific. It involves a logical
leap of faith that says more about the subjectivity of the scientist than the nature of the universe and
the existence of God.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Chan Frey
06/25/2008
What a great series. Thank you so much for putting it together and gathering this group of authors. For
me the critical question is similar to the debate between Stephen Pinker and William Phillips as to the
origin of the universe, yet I see both answers as problematic.
140
Though Pinker proposes explanations for a finely tuned universe, one still has to explain how multiple
universes came into being or why a unifying deep physical principle exists in the first place. Pinker
argues that questions about where the universe came from are equivalent to where did God come
from, but part of the idea of God as an explanation is to address to a certain degree the extra-
naturalness of matter coming into being. Arguing that matter has always existed or was created in a
big bang is problematic in that matter, energy, and universal constraints don't tend to come into being
on their own. There is nothing about them that suggests they could.
On the other hand, a significant part of the idea of a divine being is that it is capable of existing outside
of nature and of the act of creation. Though one could argue that both require a pre-existing power to
create, it seems a logical paradox to have a pre-existing set of conditions under which existence can
come into being.
My main problem with Phillips is that if one were to look at the history of reasons why humans believe
in God, it is littered with examples that turned out not to be true. As Pinker argues, from Earth as the
center of the universe to God creating man in His image, each of these we know now isn't true. If I had
to bet on Phillips having discovered the ultimate reason that truly proves God's existence or this being
one more situation where science will eventually come up with an explanation, the odds, as Pinker
points out, greatly favor science.
Eugene Bucamp
06/25/2008
To Christoph Sch�nborn, the knowledge gained through modern science "makes belief in an
Intelligence behind the cosmos more reasonable than ever." This is truly extravagant. There is no
scientific justification for Sch�nborn's claim, and yet he says "we" see a "teleological" hierarchy in
nature from quantized physics to chemistry, biology, and the human species. Science does not see
any teleological hierarchy in nature; only the religious do and a few philosophers like Kant and Hegel.
Teleology is the doctrine that nature could not have possibly produced complex biological organisms
all by itself. To the religious mind, if natural mechanisms have produced the human species, this is
because God made the human species the purpose of these mechanisms. They only work because
they are somehow "driven" by God's purpose or have been designed by God to achieve this purpose.
Sadly, teleology is truly fanciful. It appeared in Christian thinking at a time when science was still
unable to describe properly the natural mechanisms that make possible Darwinistic evolution from
basic forms of life to complex organisms and to the human species. Today, rather than brutishly claim
that no natural mechanisms could have produced the human species on their own, people like
Sch�nborn simply claim that they "see" a teleological hierarchy in nature.
Sch�nborn says his view is "more reasonable than ever," but it is poor reasoning, justified only by an
analogy. Teleology is modelled on our natural assumption that anything in our environment that looks
complex or complicated is likely made by a human being. However, analogy itself is pre-rational
thinking, and to make the extravagant claim of an "Intelligence behind the cosmos" based on mere
analogy is definitely not very reasonable. By hugging the minimally rational, Cardinal Sch�nborn does
us the favor of giving the exact measure of Pope Benedict XVI's claim in his Regensburg lecture
(2006) that Christianity is rationalist.
RE: Whole Series
dg
06/25/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Even if it was the year 2517 and we had starships
travelling to distant solar systems, humans would believe in some kind of god. Belief gives meaning to
life, and people don't like ambiguity. People have difficulty accepting the real world. They'll continue to
believe in gods or make them just to avoid having to face reality.
Belief in gods is a personal choice. The stories of gods and their heroes are what helps us define who
we are. Gods are human inventions. We'll have them around in one form or another. After all, we're
story-telling apes who are the byproduct of 3.6 billion years of evolution. We can't just chuck
generations of superstition overnight.
141
Jack King
06/24/2008
Cardinal Schonborn says, "To view all these extremely complex, elegant, and intelligible laws, entities,
properties, and relations in the evolution of the universe as 'brute facts' in need of no further
explanation is, in the words of the great John Paul II, 'an abdication of intelligence.'" Backing up to his
original use of the words "brute facts," I couldn't tell if they were his own or a translation of words
expressed by ancient Greek philosophers.
Does a rebuttal of ancient Greek philosophy discredit today's scientists? Of course not. The
"abdication of intelligence" was not accomplished by today's scientists, who continue to investigate
and refine current knowledge with string theory, supercolliders, and a host of other methods and
instruments. The abdication is by those who have abandoned it all to a supernatural entity.
RE: Whole Series
Patrick
06/24/2008
This whole enterprise is a little bit absurd. Saying that "belief in God" can become "obsolete" implies
that there is a purpose to believing in God. But ask anyone: what is the purpose of believing in God?
No matter how you try to slice it, the ultimate answer is that there can't really be a purpose. Either you
believe or you don't. In large part, it's an emotional decision informed by one's upbringing and natural
dispositions. I'd venture to suggest we don't even control whether or not we believe in God. I certainly
don't control it. Most people believe as their parents do. Many evidence-based thinkers believe; many
conspiracy theory wackos do not.
In fact the only sensible way to reply to this question is to ask another question: "what kind of God are
you talking about?" If you believe in an unfalsifiable god, science clearly can't do anything to
undermine that belief. Why debate it? If you think you have a purpose for believing in a God, and if that
purpose involves explaining where life and lightning and the Grand Canyon come from, then, yes,
science will make belief in that God obsolete--but only with regard to that particular purpose.
And if by "god" you simply mean the universe or the totality of existence, as many religions do . . . well,
how can observing the universe make your belief that the universe exists obsolete? See what I mean?
The answer depends on the answerer's definition of god, or the answerer's ideas about god's
supposed "purpose." But almost every answer is ultimately meaningless. No minds will be changed by
this. Nonetheless, it was all fantastic reading. Very nice.
RE: Whole Series
Jack king
06/24/2008
Ya'akov asks (6/23) if I've observed everything that exists over the entirety of all time across the
universe to KNOW for certain that there isn't anything which doesn't require a naturalistic explanation.
Of course I haven't, but I've observed as much as any theist, and my belief is based on evidence while
the theist's view is based on intuition at best.
It's funny that in support of his argument he would quote Carl Sagan, author of The Demon-Haunted
World. Carl identified the extraordinary claim as the one that posits a supernatural entity. Ya'akov
paraphrases me as saying the nanoparticles that comprise the physical matter of the universe are
innate and immutable. What I said was that the PROPERTIES of said particles are innate and
immutable. The particles themselves are not. Electrons, for example, come and go. We can create
them out of mechanical energy by cranking the handle on a generator, and we can convert them to
other forms of energy once they are created. But while they exist as electrons, their properties do not
change.
I would add that the natural forces that move the constituents of the universe are in the constituents
themselves: Gravity is a feature of mass, which in turn is a feature of matter. Electromagnetic forces
are a feature of charge, which is a feature of particles. The strong nuclear force is a feature of quarks,
etc. Ya'akov asks me if I believe that all that exists in the natural world is an emergent outcome of
itself. The answer is yes.
142
RE: Whole Series
Peter Cyrus
06/24/2008
Science demands that we accept the universe as it is, not as we would like it to be. It would be nice if
the universe were completely controlled by supernatural aliens who cared deeply about our little
problems, who responded to our prayers, and who whisked us away to another universe when we
died, but that doesn't make it true, and our acceptance of that sad fact is what underpins science (and
adulthood). The humility of science is incompatible with the arrogant self-importance of faith.
RE: Whole Series
G Terrell
06/24/2008
Even if you do no not believe that humans climbed down out of trees and became bipedal, evidence
suggests that humans were smart enough to get out of the rain. Caves and primitive structures
became a new way to deal with the elements of weather. At some point the increasingly abstract
thinking humans began to ponder their existence and with some powers of reason, driven by fear and
ignorance of the many unknowns, developed explanations for things using their limited experience and
a unique human ability . . . imagination. To comfort our fears and to control our savage urges, the early
people created Gods. Most of these Gods were in animal or human form so that we could identify with
them. These divine and powerful entities provided reasons/comfort and rules that guided the morality
and structure for humans.
Our powerful new science has now created a point or a crossroads in our ancient social religious and
moral structures. Do you go left, the no path, do you go right, the yes path, or do you go down the
middle path? I for one, have chosen the no path based on what I have observed of the history of our
existence. When we are confronted with fear and the unknown, we fall back on the comforting God for
a quick and easy way out! Stand up morally, face the unknown, stare fear in the face but do not lean
on fantasy and far-fetched creations in your weakness.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/24/2008
Could Milt Johnston (06/24/2008) describe how a society could work where citizens would have the
fundamental right not to be subjected to other people's beliefs, not least that of our own parents? How
could we make this society come about? What would be the political system of it?
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/24/2008
A view often expressed here is that science could not make God obsolete because belief in God is in
the nature of the human mind. Scientists have shown that specific brain structures are associated with
certain "mystical" experiences such as feeling united with one's environment. However, to investigate
a brain structure associated with a belief in God, we would have to define "God," and one trait of
religiosity is in the diversity of what people believe: Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't have the same
god; monotheistic religions are not universal, nor have they always existed; religions splinter; the
Christian god is not the same for the Vatican, Lambeth Palace, and countless Christian denominations.
Catholicism was made against "heresies," showing that "heretics" believed in a different God.
However, belief is ultimately a personal and completely subjective experience. I don't know of anything
completely subjective we can define properly. Compare to color perception: color is a subjective
experience, but it is also objective since we are able to look at one real flower and agree to call its
color "yellow." This does not imply that the subjective experiences people have of "yellow" are
identical, but it works because we are can look at real things in our environment and define colors
accordingly. This could not work with "God" because there is no God out there. Thus, it is not possible
to define properly a notion of God that would be "in the nature of the human mind" to recognize.
This explains why certain views of God are easier to communicate: anthropomorphic ones (Zeus, the
God of the Ancient Testament), real things in our environment (trees, clouds, the Sun), real people
(Jesus), general notions and feelings (good god, i.e., God, and bad god, i.e., Satan), etc. It is only to
the extent that it is defined by a real thing that a view of God can be understood at all. Belief in God is
not natural. It is cultural.
143
RE: Whole Series
Milt Johnston
06/24/2008
Let's put this in the simplest mathematical terms. A creator is a sufficient but not a necessary condition
for the existence of the universe. If people would just leave it at that and leave each other alone to
believe as one wishes, all of us could pursue more important matters.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
06/23/2008
Jack King (06/20/2008) says "Everthing that exists and happens is a result of natural forces acting on
the constituents of the universe." My response, as an agnostic, would be to pose the question that
naturally follows: Have you observed everything that exists over the entirety of all time across the
universe to KNOW for certain that there isn't anything which doesn't require a materialistic
explanation? Where is the factual evidence that conclusively confirms your point? Are you decreeing
by fiat that the totality of the constituents of the physical universe--existence, potential, energy, matter,
space, time, laws, and constants--is an emergent outcome of itself?
If a deist or a theist came along and stated that all this existence, complexity, and emergent order is
the design of a Creator Deity, you would instantly dismiss it, even though they have deployed a
theoretically plausible argument based on a similar logic and reasoning. I believe it was Carl Sagan
who stated that extroadinary claims require extroadinary evidence. All you have postulated is that the
nanoparticles that comprise the physical matter of the universe are innate and immutable. If that is the
case, then you are concluding that they have always existed, which only leaves us heading toward
infinite regression. This doesn't provide anything that can be factually known, and an unknown is not
an explanation. Your argument could be constructed as the argument from personal incredulity, that is,
we do not know how the universe came into existence, but I believe it came out of emergent order
within itself.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/23/2008
Curtis Raskin's suggestion (06/21/2008) that religion and science make similarly unsupported claims
about the creation of the universe is misguided. On the one hand, the claim that God created the
universe is dogmatic because it is inherent to the notion of an "almighty" God. On the other hand, any
scientific notion of the creation of the universe still is at the moment merely a matter of conjecture.
Different scientists offer different theories, and most scientists would accept that only one may not be
wrong. It is even a possibility that the origin of the universe could not be scientifically investigated.
Unlike in "almighty God" religions, there is nothing in science per se that requires that the universe
should be a "creation." Science simply tries to find the best interpretation of what we are able to
observe of the universe. As of today, scientific observations are "only" able to largely confirm the
general scenario of the Big Bang, outside however the vexing question of the "first instant in time." It
also remains a possibility that there never was such a "first instant."
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/23/2008
Let's be honest with ourselves. We all know that human society cannot thrive without sanctions against
killing, stealing, cheating, and lying. And we know that people who accept these sanctions as good and
proper will often, for their own reasons, try to get around them and will often succeed. Enforcement
mechanisms of one kind or another have always been necessary and the threat/promise of sanctions
to be imposed after death have been employed with dubious success for thousands of years. Some of
the bloodiest tyrants in history have justified their barbarity on religious grounds. The gods of men and
the edicts they supposedly issue are malleable. One culture's evil is another's virtue.
But thanks to scientific progress, we are now growing up, and many of us are searching for truth in the
heretofore unexplored recesses of the natural world, the only place that truth can be confirmed by
testing. To converse with God is like having sex by oneself. It relaxes some tension, but it's not real
intercourse. The dialogue is always one short of a quorum. An appreciable percentage of clerics
around the world routinely violate the very rules they impose upon their congregations, and they speak
144
to educated adults as if they were children. It's high time we fired them and sent them out in search of
honest jobs. It's time we declared God obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/23/2008
Leonid Perlovsky commented (06/20/2008) that "Eugene Bucamp judges God and natural order." He
asked: "where are his criteria for judgment? Did he invent them himself? Are they obvious?" My
comment was indeed a judgment but not on "God and natural order." Not on "God" because God does
not exist and not on "natural order" because natural order does not lend itself to moral judgment. It was
simply, and quite obviously, a judgement on Kenneth R. Miller and on his view.
My rather uncontroversial claim was that "any notion of harmony that includes genocide as a
necessary or even a possible evil can only be meaningless to most people." Since natural order does
include genocide, my point was also that Miller's premise that "natural order is harmonious" was
equally "meaningless to most people." Perlovsky, by not saying what he himself saw as the "meaning"
of a harmonious natural order that includes genocide, only confirmed my point that it is indeed
"meaningless to most people."
RE: Whole Series
Stutz
06/23/2008
For me, the whole issue is best summarized in the Groopman vs. Schumer debate. Essentially, the
active God of the Bible is, if we are being clear-headed, obviously ancient mythology, prima facie. A
deist God who created the universe and disappeared seems unlikely and unsatisfying; after all, what
can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A God-as-philosophical-concept
who lies outside of space and time, and thus outside of comprehensibility, is an unintelligible concept.
Such a God would be indistinguishable from nothingness.
Therefore, it's pretty simple to be an atheist with regard to the Biblical God who speaks to humans and
performs miracles. Nobody could ever confirm the existence of the deist or philosophical-concept God.
So as far as claims of knowledge, we must be technically agnostic about such a being. As far as belief,
I see little reason to believe in an unknowable and inconsequential being, so in practice we can be
atheistic about him as well. The only thing left to debate is whether belief in a myth is good for us or
not, but I suspect that most of us, once we admit to ourselves that something is a myth, would be
reluctant to live our lives according to its precepts.
RE: Whole Series
VIG Menon
06/23/2008
Science, in essence, is studying and interpreting the impersonal, absolute energy which can modify
itself in various stages of its physical, organic, social, and spiritual evolution. That absolute sentient
"energy" is God, whose manifestations we find in various laws and rules governing logic, aesthetics,
and ethics. The deeper the science goes, the deeper the veneration for that absolute consciousness of
which we are all part. Amen!
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/22/2008
Leonid Porlovsky asks below if I want all people to be alike, like electrons. No, but people could not
exist unless electrons and other kinds of microparticles maintained immutable sets of properties over
time. Natural forces cannot evolve systems that work unless the components of those sytems, whether
electrons or something else, can be relied upon to maintain their properties and continue to play their
special role in the system. Without order at the bottom, there can be no order at the top. If there is a
god, he is composed of particles of a constancy that existed before he/she/it came together, and that's
not the way people think about God.
RE: Whole Series
John Hanks
06/21/2008
Science has found religion in the upper right temporal lobe of the brain. All the theology and traditions
are just scenic props. No need to murder anyone anymore.
145
RE: Whole Series
Curtis Raskin, MD, PhD
06/21/2008
The question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" is intellectually inept. The question
presupposes that only those who believe in organized religion can believe in the concept of "God."
These are not equivalent concepts, and they must be separated in order to have an intellectually and
philosophically productive discussion. Part of why so many people believe in religion is that they would
like to believe in the concept of God. I have no problem with this.
But religion, on the level of the individual, varies according to the vagaries of personality and
environment. Individuals pick and choose those aspects of religion they will obey and those they will
not. No two religions are exactly the same, and even within a particular religion there are typically
numerous variants and sects. The only common theme is that religion attempts to define God. But
each religion defines and describes God in its own way, claims that its explanation is the absolute and
immutable truth, and refuses to be challenged by deductive reasoning or empirical evidence. Followers
are encouraged to disregard inconsistencies and inaccuracies in religious teachings as a matter of
faith.
Therefore, the question that should have been asked is "Does science make belief in religion
obsolete?" Science tries to explain how the universe behaves. However, I am unaware of any credible
scientific theory that explains how the universe came to be. I am not referring to whether the universe
was created in a Big Bang after two branes collided, but I am asking where did the branes themselves
come from, and what set them in motion?
God is an equally mysterious concept. How did God come to be? To suggest that God and/or the
universe always existed and that there was no beginning still evades the question. On this very
fundamental level, there is no reason why one can't believe in both God and science, as at present
there is no intellectually satisfying concept that can explain how either God or the universe came to be.
Keeping in mind that the concepts of religion and God are not irreducibly linked, we currently have no
way of proving or disproving the existence of God. We are also unable to explain scientifically how
time, space, energy, and matter came to be. Therefore, there is no intellectual prohibition against
believing in both science and God. On the other hand, science, via the intellectual reasoning it
engenders, makes believing in any particular religion highly problematic.
RE: Whole Series
Luis Cruz
06/21/2008
Does science make God obsolete? No, it only makes religion obsolete as it has been practiced in the
Judeo-Christian traditions. Two thousand years ago, one of many spiritual genius's incarnated on earth
and described a "doorway" to our spiritual inheritance. He described a way to conduct our lives to be
closer to the Divine and to benefit ourselves and our reality. But for the last 2000 years, we have been
celebrating the doorway, and very few people have actually ventured to walk thru it. That is, we can
describe every brick and seam of that door, but what actually happens if you live by those rules, not
just talk about them or give them token use?
Spiritual teachings are a user's manual for existence, not a bludgeon to beat true believers into line.
Orthodox religion is obsolete and is harming the planet's spiritual progression. Science is just
beginning to detect the outer edges of God's universe, while religion makes God's universe small,
vindictive, and glib. It's time for mainstream religion to address the 21st century's needs, and truly live
by the teachings.
RE: Whole Series
Omar Fletcher
06/21/2008
I think science proves that God exists. I see people constantly trying to separate the two, but
everything seems to point to the theory that the entity that created this planet has a scientific mind. If
we have evolved so much in a few million years, imagine a race, a person, a spirit that has been
around for a few billions. The possibility is endless. The complexity of how lifeforms interact on this
146
planet proves to me it was well thought out.
One thing is evident: no civil or social progress has ever been made without the presence of religion or
worship of some kind. The belief in God have stimulated us to do extraordinary things, whether it was
trying to find God or trying to prove he does not exist. The concept of God keeps us moving in the right
direction.
RE: Whole Series
Jonathan London
06/21/2008
It is so clear that the Templeton Foundation is an organization committed to the idea that the answer is
no. This website is a clear example.
RE: Whole Series
Leonid Perlovsky
06/20/2008
Eugene Bucamp, in his comments below, judges God and natural order. But where are his criteria for
judgment? Did he invent them himself? Are they obvious? We know today of rights and wrongs after
tens of thousands of years of moral and religious thinking.
As for Jack King's comment, does he want all people to be the same, like all electrons? Theology does
not call for a tyrant, nor does science call for democracy, with people being the same as all electrons.
And to Purple Neon Lights: your back IS to the wall, the same as everyone else's. Or do you think you
are an eternal being? And you are right: God is seldom defined. But you can read my previous
comment.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Eugene Bucamp
06/20/2008
Kenneth R. Miller, in the debate with Christopher Hitchens, noted that the "natural order is
harmonious" and that the real issue is "the source of that harmony," which he thinks is God. Miller's
first mistake is to use the word "harmony." Obviously, in a religious belief system where the natural
order is said to be the creation of God, religious propaganda has to pretend that the creation of God is
harmonious. This looks like a sick joke. The reality of natural order is that most living creatures have to
eat each other if they are to survive and humanity has to face famine, disease, death, war, genocide,
and possible annihilation. Any notion of "harmony" that includes genocide as a necessary or even a
possible evil can only be meaningless to most people.
Miller's second mistake is in not questioning his premise that there should be a source for what he
thinks is "harmony." In fact, the natural order is only an order, which implies only some regularity and
stability. Human beings can observe this regularity and stability in elementary particles, atoms and
molecules, in the solar system and our galaxy, in the whole of the known cosmos and in all animal
species, in us, in our memory and our understanding. However, there is no necessity to it. If biological
processes were not regular and stable, animal species could not exist; if our universe was such that
atoms were not regular and stable, there would be no atoms, only incidental groups of elementary
particles that would disband immediately.
In those conditions, human beings could not possibly exist. Without human beings, there would be no
genocide, and the natural order would arguably be more harmonious. However, without human beings,
none of us would be here to report that the universe does exist, with more "harmony," but also without
us. Unfortunately, therefore, Miller himself would not be here to realize his mistake.
RE: Whole Series
David Lowell Stacy
06/20/2008
Science has its areas of belief as well. For example, string or membrane theory is now much like
where special and general relativity were when first proposed by Einstein; they cannot be rigorously
tested. There are areas of overlap between science and faith. We know from experiments with light
and diffraction gratings that we coexist with at least one other universe we cannot see. Does that mean
it does not exist? Likewise, life forms, angels, and a God could exist in dimensions we cannot see or
147
experience. There is no proof for the existence of God, although I believe you can see indirect
evidence for God's effect on people.
I have not had a problem with belief in God and science. I believe Genesis is actually the account of
man's evolution. The creation of the universe and evolution are still going on 13.7 billion years after the
big bang. As primates evolved to the point of self-awareness, they then had the knowledge of good
and evil and were responsible for their actions. Adam and Even were types of the first intelligent, self-
aware humans. Since we know good from evil, we will make mistakes and thus sin. We are not born
with sin, as so many wrongly claim. When we get to a certain age or evolve to the point of awareness,
then we have to take responsibility for our actions.
As Carl Sagan correctly pointed out, the cost to man for the brain evolving to a larger size and
becoming more complicated was pain in childbirth. I believe having the spirit of God in us allows us to
be even more aware of the spiritual world, which we see "through a mirror dimly," as St. Paul said. The
man Jesus was the intersection of an infinite God with this finite world. That is how He could be both
God and man.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/20/2008
The universe does have an organizing principle, but it's democratic not authoritarian. Everthing that
exists and happens is a result of natural forces acting on the constituents of the universe--
nanoparticles. The properties of the forces and the properties of the particles are innate and
immutable. One electon has the same inherent properties as every other electron. Control is from the
bottom up. All of creation is a natural emergent outcome of these interactions--natural forces acting on
particles and aggregations of particles. There is no authoritarian tyrant directing the activity of the
universe from above. It all happens from the bottom up in accordance with the laws of nature and the
properties of her steadfast constituents.
RE: Whole Series
Purple Neon Lights
06/19/2008
Common sense and established scientific knowledge shows us that everything obvious and "agreed
upon" is part of a greater system, often appearing quite different from the component parts. Our
planets, for example, are part of the quite different-appearing organizing system of the solar system.
Our bodily organs are part of the quite different-appearing human body. Our cells are part of the quite
different-appearing organizing system of each organ. People organize themselves into spontaneously-
emerging gestalt entities of villages and cities. Atoms organize themselves into elements. Molecules
join together to form various substances.
Clearly, if your back was to the wall, and you had to pick a hypothesis about whether there is or isn't a
larger mind or some sort of organizing system that our individual intelligences are subsumed by, you'd
have to pick the hypothesis that there IS a larger intelligence or deliberate organizing system
subsuming our individual minds. How could you not hypothesize that? Precedents observed in nature
would compel you to make that hypothesis.
So, to address the question, "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" My response is to say that
science points strongly to the likelihood that there is an intelligence greater than our human minds, and
probably unexpectedly different from our minds. One could rephrase the question thus: "Does science
make the HYPOTHESIS that God exists obsolete?" I would say that established scientific observation
supports the notion of a larger organizing intelligence, loosely called "God." One big problem with
discussions of God is that God is seldom operationally defined. It is pretty amazing that this lack of a
clear definition occurs among the scientifically minded--that should be step one.
RE: Whole Series
Leonid Perlovsky
06/19/2008
The foundations of all religions are in emotions of the religiously sublime. These seemingly mysterious
feelings, which everyone feels, even if rarely, without noticing them consciously, even if without being
able to name them properly, today can be explained scientifically, and soon we will be able to measure
them in a psychological lab.
148
Neuroimaging experiments have proved that perception proceeds from vague to crisp, from
unconscious to conscious. Higher cognitive models are vague and less conscious. The highest model
of meaning and purposiveness is vague and unconscious, so that many people doubt that their life has
meaning. Everyone has an ineffable feeling of partaking in the infinite, while at the same time knowing
that our material existence is finite. This contradiction cannot be resolved. For this reason, models of
purpose and meaning cannot be made crisp and conscious. They will forever remain vague and partly
unconscious. Whereas the beautiful relates to cognition, the sublime is related to the improvement of
the models of behavior realizing the highest meaning in our life.
Beautiful and sublime are not finite. The improvement of complex models is related to choices from an
infinite number of possibilities. Beauty and spiritual sublimity are at once objective and subjective.
They really exist as mechanisms in our minds; cultures and individuals cannot survive without these
abilities. Still, they cannot be described by any finite algorithm or sets of rules.
Models of one's purposiveness do not belong to oneself. They are outside of personal consciousness.
We do not consciously rule over these models--they rule over us. They have the property of agency,
agency bigger than ourselves. If one does not use scientific jargon, our consciousness perceives it as
something that exists outside us and rules over us. For millennia, people used the word God.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/19/2008
The atheist position is more tenable because it doesn't contradict itself or build its case on mutually
exclusive or unsubstantiated permises. There is no supernatural world to examine, so the theist must
base his belief on nothing more than his own wishes and chauvinistic sense of justice.
RE: Whole Series
mike shaw
06/19/2008
"God cannot be explained, He cannot be argued about, He cannot be theorized, nor can He be
discussed and understood. God can only be lived. . . . To understand the infinite, eternal reality is not
the goal of individualized beings in the illusion of creation, because the reality can never be
understood; it is to be realized by conscious experience. Therefore, the goal is to realize the reality and
attain the 'I am God' state in human form." --Meher Baba
RE: Whole Series
Purple Neon Lights
06/19/2008
Atheism is not tenable. The atheist is saying he or she has examined every possible place or way that
God be found and has not found God. They've lifted every rock, looked behind every picture. No doubt
about it--God doesn't exist. They've done the research. This is absurd, of course. What makes atheism
even more untenable in most cases is that the atheist rarely has laid out a working definition of the
God he or she is certain doesn't exist. How can it be said that something doesn't exist if one doesn't
have a clear description of the non-existent thing of which one speaks?
RE: Whole Series
Kira Hutchens
06/19/2008
Science neither proves nor denies god as the creator of the universe. Until we can say what created
mass, matter, space, and time, we cannot give an answer to the question presented in this forum. To
assume the existence of a certain god does not give an honest depiction of the information humanity
has obtained of our origins. It is important that we continue research to solve these questions before
we mandate that others live under some entity that may or may not exist. We may never know the
answer, but we do know that we exist and that it will not last forever.
RE: Steven Pinker
Allan King
06/19/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Yes, Steven Pinker answers, "if by science we mean the
whole enterprise of secular reason and knowledge (including history and philosophy), not just people
with test tubes and white lab coats." But by the "whole enterprise of secular reason and knowledge"
149
does Pinker mean the whole enterprise of "worldly" reason and knowledge, or does he just mean that
reason and knowledge which he and perhaps his peers see as secular? How can any supposed
scientist of any disposition even claim to be a scientist when he formulates a conclusion knowingly
admitting that he has purposefully and intentionally left out worldly knowledge--that is, knowledge of
spirituality. Pinker should open his mind, body, and soul to Lord Jesus and a whole new world of
psychology will open to him. Though if Lord Jesus doesn't suit him, he might try Buddha instead.
Buddha does the same job but takes twice or three times as long.
Kyle Deloske
06/18/2008
Yes, as William Phillips says, god cannot be proved false. But neither can the flying spaghetti monster.
Does that make him a believer in it? As for the complex, fragile balance of the universe and the
extreme coincidence that the conditions were perfect for life, I ask Phillips this: if conditions were
different, would life be different and the new conditions under which life appeared be considered
strangly perfect to that new life? Was this question answered by the deep sea vents? This is like an
atheist finding religion after winning the lottery. The mystery of creation did not change, but good
fortune is never assumed to be the result of coincidence.
My problem with the belief in god has always been that it is belief without reason. If this being
transcends time, there is no reason he cannot take a couple minutes to stop by my house. Don't tell
me he avoids me to test my faith. Why must I be tested and why is faith so great? People had a lot of
faith in Hitler. People had faith in the church leaders who led them to war in the crusades. Aztecs had
faith in their bloodthirsty religious leaders. No good came of any of this. A lot of bad things come from
belief without reason. Stop contributing to it, I beg you. As a respected mind, William Phillips should
not inspire people to accept unfounded beliefs.
RE: Whole Series
Bill Atkins
06/18/2008
The answer to the question is "no." Science is the search for an understanding of God. End of story.
Why bother scholars and other important people with a question to which a child inherently knows the
answer?
RE: Whole Series
Mali
06/18/2008
Science is testimony of God's creations, many of which man tries to plagiarize.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Berry
06/18/2008
Wonderful series. Science also makes assumptions, postulating a single universe only to come upon
the multiverse, and the creationist makes assumptions too that go full circle away from science. I like
to refer to the Immaculate Assumption--the same mistakes that are repeated over and over in lieu of
letting knowledge beget knowledge. We are all body-bound time slaves in this life, and to assume that
it's simply over at death is something like the old single universe theory. What of God . . . or god? For
those who have lived a very full life and are not ready to hang about being bored, it's probably time to
move on. There will be something else, and why not simply let that "something else" be a god or a God
or a Goddess or Jello Pudding of another realm?
RE: Whole Series
Elys Rand
06/18/2008
Yes, science does make belief in God obsolete, or at least obviates the need to create an imaginary
God to explain away the Unknowns. There will always be those few who will continue to have a
psychological need to delude themselves into seeing things that are not there in order to fill a
weakness or shortcoming within themselves. There will be those who are comfortable being told what
to say and what to think by other mere mortals. They will claim to have seen a god that no one else
can see and that by all rights cannot exist and insist that you believe in what that "prophet" says or else
you die at the hands of other similarly deluded mere humans.
150
People throughout the hundreds of thousands of years since our ancestors achieved sentience on the
African continent have invented all sorts of deities to explain away the Unknown things that scared
them, and to soothe their own egos because the universe is indifferent to them, as with all animals.
There is no real evidence that even one of those claimed deities has ever been truly seen by its
followers or shown to actually exist, not one. Science has successfully explained away a critical mass
of the classic Unknowns that caused people to have a need to create their own brand of imaginary
god. Now we know, and it is no longer Unknown.
RE: Whole Series
Rob Freeman
06/18/2008
How can people can be so unbelievably ignorant and think for one second that there is evidence, any
evidence at all, ever, found against evolution?
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Eugene Bucamp
06/18/2008
Stuart Kauffman, making the case for redefining God as "creativity in the natural universe," is not
creative at all. Creativity could be defined as an occurrence where entropy does not increase, as
expected on average, but actually decreases locally. This is when the unexpected occurs--hence the
idea of "creativity." It is just such occurrences that have been seized upon by various clergymen as
proof of Divine intervention in the universe. Darwinian evolution is probably the most spectacular
instance of this, particularly in its most creative outcome, Homo sapiens sapiens.
Crucially, we just happen to be Homo sapiens himself, and we have a long history of creative design.
We can see a pattern emerging here: we come to define what "creativity" is, based on our own
example both as industrious creatures and our existence as a seemingly unique example of the "most
creative outcome" in the universe. And then, hey presto, we contrive this notion of a creative entity that
should be "intelligent" and "spiritual," that is to say, more or less what we think we are, but crucially an
entity that could have created the most spectacular and unexpected events that have ever occurred:
the creation of mankind and the universe. So, yes, God is really the god of creativity because it
provides a ready explanation for the unexpected.
As Anglican archdeacon William Paley had noticed (see Victor J. Stenger's contribution), when a
human being comes across something that looks like an artifact, his impulse is to assume that there is
a creator and designer of it: any artifact would have been naturally understood as an indication that
another group of humans were in the vicinity. Now, and unlike Paley in 1802, we are able to
understand how "creativity" comes about in nature and how natural it is. Who could still need a God of
creativity?
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Eugene Bucamp
06/18/2008
Stuart Kauffman is misguided if he really believes that "religious fundamentalisms" resulted from a split
"between science and faith." As other contributors have noted, there is of course no split: "40 percent
of American scientists believe in God" and "68 percent of Protestants and 69 percent of Catholics"
accept the theory of evolution (see Michael Shermer's contribution). The main religions are also
generally accommodating of science.
Fundamentalists have always existed. Protestantism, for example, at least in its initial thrust, was
clearly a fundamentalist impulse, with its requirement that believers should seek the word of God
directly from the Bible rather than take the words of a clergy for it. Fundamentalism is often a
psychological condition, where order and dogma look attractive while democracy, liberalism,
individualism, and relativism look somehow nauseating. Clearly, this condition is not specific to
religious people.
RE: Whole Series
George S. Nischik
06/18/2008
In browsing through these comments, I am struck by the nebulous nature of "God concepts" that are
argued either for or against. No wonder there is so much confusion. Maybe we should try more
defining before we do so much pontificating. Please allow me to try. I think that this discussion should
begin by answering the following questions. Is knowledge transcendental? Does science acknowledge
151
a transcendental domain? A yes or no answer to these questions has interesting and profound
implications for our discussion. If you acknowledge a transcendental domain, "God" is a very real
necessity and can never be obsolete. But if you deny the possibility of the transcendental, obviously
"God" never was. The problem with that position is that "you" never were either.
RE: Whole Series
Alan Joyner
06/18/2008
Thank you for addressing what has bothered me since the age of 13 or 14, namely the self-centered
idea of an omniscient being who traces the flight of each sparrow yet visits us with bone cancer. What
we now know about the size and age of the universe should obviously preclude the existence of such a
creature. Thanks again for a most interesting exploration of all sides of the issue.
RE: Whole Series
Marc Menard
06/18/2008
Interestingly, the word science has its root in the Latin "sciente," knowing or knowledge. Consequently,
science is the sum total of all knowledge revealed to man up to this point. (Compare science of, say,
1920 to that of the present.) According to Judeo-Christian belief, God is all-knowing and not confined
to time restraints. When considered in its cosmological fullness, faith renders science no more than a
human conceit, an attempt at self-inflation no different from Satan's role in the Garden of Eden story.
What we know is minuscule compared to what we can know. And belief posits God as knowing so
much more--often proven by miraculous personal experiences quite provable by scientific data. Such
used to be, then one meets God, and such no longer exists. The dynamics speak for themselves.
RE: Whole Series
Trevor
06/18/2008
Caitlin, the problem with your premise is that you claim that there's evidence against evolution. That's
simply not true. And life happens by chance all of the time. In fact, life is incredibly resilient, stout, and
stubborn. You'll also find that science did not throw down the first gauntlet. This was done by religion
when scientific advancements were seen as a threat to the church. It's been a battle ever since.
Finally, the complex machine that is the human form comes with many, many flaws. I can't begin to list
my ailments, most of which have nothing to do with my own doing. Nor is complexity an argument for
design. In my opinion, a belief in God can exist outside of religion. It's religion that should suffer in the
face of science.
RE: Whole Series
Jonathan
06/18/2008
Dear Caitlin, you should read Dawkins's "The God Delusion" in order to see just how wrong some of
your ideas are. Dawkins is an eminent biologist who has continuously campaigned against ignorance
of the sort you are preaching. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, and all serious biologists,
whether religious or not, treat it as physicists treat the theory of gravity, that is, as fact. Furthermore,
Darwin's theory of natural selection is the complete opposite of chance.
RE: Whole Series
Caitlin
06/17/2008
No! It's obvious that there are many many people who still believe in God, so it's not obsolete now, nor
should it ever be. Christianity, for one, actually goes hand in hand with science, not against it. You'd be
surprised how much evidence there is against evolution! Science and its discoveries are not the
opposite of God, but rather the evidence of Him. Scientists ought to know that life, in all its complexity,
cannot have happened by chance. Just study DNA, or even an amoeba. Now think about it. Chance? I
think not. People need to stop warring against religion because they believe it contradicts science.
Maybe you should read "The Case for A Creator" By Lee Strobel. Evolutionists--and the media--only
tell you what they want you to hear. The reason all life forms seem so similar to each other--apes and
humans, for example--is because of a common designer, not a common ancestor. If you design a
complex machine and it works, would you not design your other machines to be similar?
RE: Whole Series
Lloyd Zellmer
152
06/17/2008
Does science have any limitations? It would be interesting to have a blog limited to people who believe
they have had an experience that can't be explained by science. They may be more open to seeking
explanations than most previous commentators on both sides of this subject. I don't simply mean a
feeling. It needs to have been an actual set of observable conditions that actually happened. The event
needs to be real and verifiable enough to have been for them a proof as valid as a scientific
experimental observation. After that event happened, how would anyone expect them to make it
happen again since they probably didn't make it happen in the first place? Maybe that scientific
requirement misses something. It prevents us from going beyond what we currently think we know.
Science can't know or test or measure what I think. But thinking is nonetheless real. Most great
discoveries came from thinking, some sincerely claim from beyond thinking. A thinking-reality would
certainly be available to whatever is beyond what we understand to be God. Tapping into the thinking-
reality might be the connector, the missing link, the next step for scientific exploration.
If that's possible, and it certainly is, it doesn't seem logical for our discussions using thinking to form
the words to argue that something like a thinking-reality doesn't exist. That's not very scientific. Words
are primitive, but that's the best we have. Words may help us organize ideas, but cleverly organized
words are not the best device to test scientific proofs or God. When science can probe the thinking-
reality, then we might be in a better position to imagine and share questions about God.
RE: Whole Series
Village
06/17/2008
If you have faith in God, then God created evolution and science and picked the year 2000 to reveal
the secrets of DNA. If you don't believe, then he didn't. I'd like to see a person who has had a near-
death experience who doesn't have faith.
RE: Michael Shermer
Tra Bass
06/17/2008
I am always amazed at how Mr. Shermer can analyze a circumstance without making judgements
about the arguments. This is a sign of true writing brilliance. Once again, he has amazed me in his
answer by distinguishing between "belief" and "God," neither of which can be proven or disproven with
the science that we currently know. It is a spirited debate that can only end when we find out for
ourselves the truth, whatever that may be.
RE: Whole Series
Patricia
06/17/2008
Part of the issue lies in the role that faith in God, or religion, plays in the lives and psyches of people, a
role that science has now come to take up in the collective Western understanding. But science is not
completely successful in satisfying the human mind or in answering the fullness of the truth. Whether
there is a surpreme intelligence/consciousness with a sense of purpose may or not be provable or
even relevant, but the need to have that being and the natural inclination to seek out that being still
plays a role in human history as it continues to unfold. Science has not yet made that concept
obsolete. I believe in God, and I also believe in the rigors of science and its ability to bring humanity
closer to knowledge, even to moral consciousness by forcing us to ask ourselves questions. If the
premise of God doesn't support or withstand questioning, it is fair to call God obsolete in the face of
science.
But the attitude of many believers, which shuns the investigation of faith, should not be used against
God, no more than the inability of science to prove all things knowable should be used against its
ability to expand knowledge. God may not be fallible, and the knowledge science seeks may be
absolute, but our understanding of both is abbreviated at best. If one day there is a merger between
what we know in science and the purpose of faith, perhaps all that we would achieve is to prove that
God and science are actually the same thing and that our understanding of both requires revision.
RE: Whole Series
John Stanich
153
06/17/2008
Good stuff to teach teens how to be critical thinkers.
RE: Whole Series
Vitaly Sorokin
06/17/2008
To answer the question of whether science makes belief in God obsolete one needs to know what God
is. Obviously, science has made belief in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God obsolete or at the very least
discredited. You have to heavily "interpret" the "Holy books" in order not to look downright ridiculous,
and if the "word of God" needs so much editing and revisions, either the author is not very good or
those who wrote it down badly misunderstood or simply lied. In either case, current religions must be
abandoned or reconciled with what we know.
RE: Whole Series
Baba
06/17/2008
Science and God are the same thing. Like time and space, science and God are ways of slicing and
dicing creation to make it understandable. Each of us is responsible for creation. If we see ourselves
as separate, we are still seeing ourselves as the thoughts we produce and not as the underlaying
wholeness.
RE: Whole Series
Craig Duckett
06/17/2008
Religion, like science, is dependent upon language for its transmission, but science, unlike religion, is
still experimentally viable in the absence of language. This means that the scientific method is still
functional in a world without words, but religion is not. Religions depend solely on words (God, heaven,
hell, soul, life after death, angels, devils) and cannot exist without them. A simple test for reality is
whether the "it" in question be experienced without resorting to language. If it can, it is "real." If it
cannot, it is nothing more than an abstract, artificial, cultural construct.
RE: Jerome Groopman
Eugene Bucamp
06/17/2008
Jerome Groopman claims that only the "extremes" and the "fundamentalist religious believers" are the
problem. The reality that should be obvious to him, as it is to everybody else, is that many religious
people and certainly most religious leaders would love to impose on everybody what they regard as
the absolute truths of their faith. Not only would they love to do that, but many are effectively organized
to achieve this goal.
Groopman also offers as uncontroversial the view of a Protestant theologian that "the basis of true faith
is doubt." Never mind the self-indulgence. Never mind that some religious people would probably beg
to differ, not least fundamentalists, but how are non-believers to understand this convenient notion? Is
it a hint that "true faith" is rational? Or should this be regarded as a tenet of one's faith, which might
then lead to interesting logical difficulties? Is it some new species of objective fact that only most
people fail to notice? If none of that, should we not regard it as just another piece of self-indulgence?
The oft repeated piece of religious propaganda that "negation of God" is a "belief" is only silly. Atheists,
Groopman says, "should sometimes doubt their negation of God." Why? Not believing in nonsense is a
"belief"? Would Groopman say that his not believing in the Gloxburg is a "belief"? Should he doubt his
"negation" of the Gloxburg? What is a Gloxburg, do you ask? Precisely.
I shall not "belittle or ridicule as fools those who struggle to find meaning in life." Come to think of it, I
struggle to find meaning in life too. And who is he then to even implicitly imply that "belief in the Divine"
is the only way to do that? Religious faith is by definition totalitarian, and it is therefore only healthy that
the unfaithful should belittle and ridicule. Believers who can't take the flak should think of keeping their
faith private.
RE: Steven Pinker
Samuel Pachuau
06/17/2008
How can anyone know his purpose in this world? We do not create ourselves. We must simply go to
the creator who created us. Science may puzzle us in our belief, even about the existence of God, but
154
to me, science is a means by which I integrate with my savior amd realize that out of all the things He
has made and created on this earth and in the entire universe, He also created me and knows me by
my name. That's the greatest privilege I can achieve on this earth. Religion without science is lame,
and science without religion is destructive.
Garland McClendon
06/17/2008
Victor Stenger writes that "even if the universe were created, it retains no memory of that creation or of
the intentions of any possible creator." I know of no mechanism, Artificial Intelligence (AI) computer
system, device, or Boeing 737 airplane that could possibly retain any memory of its creation or the
intentions of its creator (designer), or any information except maybe the AI computer system case,
which could remember information only if so programmed by its designer. Yet, without intelligent
design and information, none of these things could exist. The above statement by Stenger makes
absolutely no philosophical or logical sense.
I propose to Stenger, as George Gamow proposed, that the cause behind the hot big-bang beginning
was initiated by a very high-order-intelligent being who fine-tuned the force constants of nature, which
was required to control a just-right-universe development for the existence of an intelligent observer on
a just-right placed planet revolving around a star--a mathematical engineering task beyond human
comprehension. I simply can see no other explanation. I do not have the faith to believe Stenger's
answer to the topic question. To answer the question with an absolute yes, as Stenger does, implies
that he is a man of great faith in his philosophy and beliefs.
Being human brings us to the point that allows us to make decisions based on our faith and beliefs. An
intellectual about 1900 years ago by the name of Saul of Tarsus made the statement, "Work out your
own salvation (philosophy and beliefs) with fear and trembling." This requires a lot of sound decision
making based on reality and faith, that, in the end, brings contentment and peace-of-mind with no
questions, anxiety, or an ax to grind concerning your philosophy and beliefs. You know that you know
and will have to answer to no one except to yourself and/or God.
RE: Jerome Groopman
Eugene Bucamp
06/17/2008
Jerome Groopman pleads with us that "science and faith" should exist in "separate realms." This plea
is misguided. There is no other possibility than for each of us to experience reality as "separate
realms": one is our disconnected subjective lives, the other is our interconnected objective lives. In our
subjective lives, precisely because they are not interconnected, each of us is free to believe whatever
he wants to. In our objective lives, however, because they are interconnected, each of us has to share
living space with other human beings and we have to make a choice as to the best way to live
together. According to this, faith, as a subjective activity, seems hardly a problem, but religion, as an
objective reality, definitely is.
Human beings certainly don't need religion to turn nasty to each other but, as history has shown,
religion can easily be turned into the instrument of choice that various people will use to bludgeon
others. Today, political life in most if not all democratic countries reveals how religion continues to try
to exert, and indeed exerts, an undue influence within the political process and within society. If
separateness of "science and faith" is not an issue, separateness of religion and public life is. Jerome
Groopman should therefore try to plea with the Pope and other religious leaders that religion and
public life should be kept separate.
RE: Whole Series
Cavanha
06/17/2008
It's not a matter of yes, no, or perhaps. Possible, probable, and proved are the three steps for a
tentative understanding.
RE: Steven Pinker
Greg Robinson
06/17/2008
First off, Steven Pinker attacks the strawman of a 6,000-year-old Earth. There is a minority of
155
Christians who maintain that the Bible is to be read as a science text or a newspaper, but Christian
scholars from St. Augustine to C.S. Lewis and now N.T. Wright maintain nothing of the sort. In
addition, neither Wright nor Lewis has found evolution contrary to a proper reading of the Bible.
Francis Collins, the leader of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical Christian and has no
trouble with DNA, evolution, or the Bible.
Pinker then claims that if one is to say that God created the universe, it leaves open the question of
where did God come from. Why is it that we can accept theories from science that speak of other
spatial dimensions as well as other time dimensions? What does another time dimension look like?
Many physicists would agree that time is essentially an illusion of sorts. Why then is it so hard to
accept the idea of a god who exists outside of our dimension of time?
Pinker then makes the claim that Western democracies have brought about the decrease in slavery,
sadistic criminal punishment, and the mistreatment of children. I would suggest that Judeo-Christian
culture spawned Western democracies in the first place and that it was largely Christians like
Wilberforce who were responsible for bringing an end to those barbaric practices within those
democracies. I would go further and say that the Christian community is still at the forefront of trying to
bring an end to the barbarism that still exists in parts of the world today.
I'd like to make the humble suggestion that if Pinker is going to critique the Christian faith, he should
start by understanding what orthodox Christianity actually teaches instead of attacking the position of a
poorly informed minority. Theology has nothing to say about science, and science has nothing to say
about theology.
RE: Whole Series
Mark Pasternak
06/17/2008
Science is the study of what is knowable, so it can't make the concept of an abstract, unknowable God
obsolete. It can contradict untenable claims about God, which should be healthy for those who choose
to hold religious beliefs. Unfortunatley, many believers are unaffected by science or reason.
James Ogilvie
06/16/2008
Christianity has always been a faith-based religion. Faith is its very essence. As a scientist, I could
never find the answers in the laboratory that Christ posed. The reverse is also true. Having someone
criticize Christianity because it cannot be verified by the scientific process only makes a Christian
respond with, "Yes, we are well aware of that."
RE: Whole Series
Mary Ulrich
06/16/2008
Scientific knowledge should make belief in God obsolete, if by God we mean an invisible guy in the sky
who created everything. Such gods were invented by early humans to explain how the land and all
living things in their corner of the world came to be. They also imagined powerful gods to explain
heavenly bodies and frightening natural phenomena. Thanks to scientific knowledge, we now know
what causes these catastrophes, and so we no longer worship angry mountain-fire gods, or thunder
gods, or the sun, moon, and planets. We also know that fertility does not depend on a goddess.
Now that science has also discovered how life evolved, including human life, no one should believe in
a god sculpting a clay statue and making it instantaneously come to life, or in a talking snake and
magic fruit. Though many have given up belief in these types of literal biblical stories and the
anthropomorphic god, they still cling to a personal god or a universal creator, and still refer to it as he.
What started out as a tribal or local god was first promoted to god of the world, and then to creator and
ruler of the whole universe.
The human moral sense also does not come from a god. As the more advanced life forms evolved, so
did empathy and a sense of justice. We see evidence of this development in social animals such as
wolves, chimpanzees, and elephants. Early humans quickly learned that they would not have a
peaceful or prosperous tribe if people were robbing and killing each other. The Golden Rule predates
Christianity by many centuries and is found in the social code of indigenous cultures throughout the
156
world. Long before a child is old enough to be told "There is a God and these are his rules," he has an
innate sense of justice, and instinctively rebels when he has been treated unfairly.
There is a difference between man's sense of justice and the laws supposedly handed down from a
god to a tyrannical earthly representative. God's laws are often oppressive, as seen in the theocracy
described in the Old Testament and in the Taliban: ridiculous prohibitions against harmless or normal
behavior, cruel punishments, wasteful sacrifices of time and resources, hierarchies and caste systems
that oppress large segments of the population. In contrast, laws established by enlightened humans
who tap their own evolved judgment usually forbid tyranny and demand equality and justice, as
demonstrated in our Bill of Rights.
For tyrants and the unscrupulous, "God commanded it" is a convenient excuse to oppress others. For
the compassionate, God is defined as love and gives vindication and hope of reward, if not in this life,
then in the next. For the weak, he is a powerful ally. For the guilty he is justification and salvation. As
demonstrated by the variety of concepts of god given on this site, he is a human invention, and can be
whatever you want him to be.
RE: Whole Series
Steve Chaput
06/16/2008
I greatly appreciate the essays you have made available. I also wish to thank those individuals who
took the time to address the question in such a thoughtful fashion. As a skeptic myself, I still found it
interesting to read the thoughts of those writers with whom I disagree. It never hurts to have one's
beliefs questioned.
RE: Steven Pinker
Harold L. Lane Jr.
06/16/2008
My comments are not meant to be a way of creating a God to fit a negative argument. They are meant
to be a view of God explaining a simplicity of faith in an impossibly complex universe. Why would I
enjoy a God who does not revel in the amazing outcomes of his creation? Why would I enjoy a God
who orchestrates at a moment's notice what will occur? I would argue that God is fascinated by what
occurs in the universe and proud to be an observer of His own handiwork. Am I arguing for a
"mechanistic" view of God and creation? He created, set in motion, and now simply enjoys?
Absolutely. Is science not a "mechanistic" thing in the sense of cause and outcome? Are these not the
same processes? I believe in science and religion. I believe, as a friend so eloquently stated, that there
were dinosaurs and that God decided to let them occur.
RE: Whole Series
John
06/16/2008
I'm surprised that Richard Dawkins has not submitted an essay given the amount of material he has
written on atheism and religiosity.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Bill Newnam
06/16/2008
As a humble student and great admirer of Dr. Sapolsky's course with the Teaching Company, I must
say I'm surprised and disappointed in his response equating ecstasy with belief in god, which he finds
unaffected by science. 0ne would think that his deep knowledge of what is now known of brain function
would lead to him to have an inkling into the mental processes of atheists, including himself, that lead
them to ecstatic feelings without conflating them with God. Otherwise, he provides a marvelous
overview of the scientific process that stands quite apart from the abrupt shift he makes to favor
"religiosity, where the mere possibility of belief and faith in the absence of proof is where it can be an
ecstatic, moving truth."
Quite frankly, I'm always astounded when brilliant scientists persist in going along with or hanging onto
the God concept, or something like it, as in some way explanatory of those mysteries of nature that
science has not yet unraveled or perhaps never will. Why is it not permissible just to say that we do not
know? The majority of scientists are atheists and, by definition, the response for them should be
similar to Laplace's reply to Napoleon's query as to where God was in his scheme of things: "Sire, I
157
have no need of that hypothesis."
For the majority, belief in God or in similar phantasmagoria will probably never become obsolete--or
surely not until every remaining unknown will be known and elucidated by science. The latter is an
unlikely prospect or certainly a far distant one. Even then the "normal" brain, cognitively evolved as it is
(see Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained"), would probably continue to see what isn't there. But for
scientists that won't do. As Sam Harris has said, "we are in the truth business."
RE: Keith Ward
Eugene Bucamp
06/16/2008
To Keith Ward, the laws and constants of nature "look" as if they had been "designed" to "lead to the
existence of intelligent life" and "it could be true" that "intelligent life is somehow prefigured in the basic
laws of the universe." This argument stems from scientists becoming aware that had these laws and
constants been ever so slightly different from what they are, the galaxies, life, and humans could not
possibly exist. In a rationalist outlook, the existence of something requires the laws and constants of
nature to be such that this something become a naturally occurring event. Hence, laws and constants
of nature should be such that stars, planets, life and Homo sapiens are all natural events. As is indeed
the case.
Keith Ward seems to concede that much, and his is no longer the traditional Christian argument that
"Man" is so improbable that his existence requires an "act of God." He seems instead to concede that
Man is entirely natural while also suggesting that the laws and constants of nature are so improbable
that they require an act of God. It is noteworthy that religious minds today have to look at what science
says before making their trademark claims.
In fact, however, science does not say that the laws and constants of nature are in any way
"improbable." They are what they are and had they been ever so slightly different, then the stars, the
planets, life, and Homo sapiens would not have been possible, and there is nothing strange in this.
Further, science also says that if an event is to be regarded at all as improbable, it is necessary that an
alternative event could be regarded as possible so that the occurrence of the alternative event could
possibly be regarded as more probable. Otherwise, the one possible event is simply necessary. Here,
we would have to show that nature could have had different laws and constants. Absent this, the claim
that the laws and constants of nature are improbable is vacuous.
RE: Whole Series
P.V. Maiya
06/16/2008
To me, God is the one who is making the universe work. Until someone, maybe a scientist or a
philospher, finds his identity, I just salute the one unknown. Maybe it is a force or energy that is not
graspable within our current knowledge. It is experientially felt and recognized more in crisis than in
"normal" times.
RE: Whole Series
Betty Ellis
06/16/2008
We don't need a "God" to explain things anymore. The whole debate is a bad joke.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Woo
06/16/2008
The term "God" can have a different meaning for different people. I am assuming that it refers to the
God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Belief in this God has a history going back thousands of
years, has played a significant role in the lives of people in the past, and is still definitely having a
major influence in the lives of many people today, considering that about three billion people, half of
the world's population, are keeping faith with this God. In fact, going by the increase in numbers alone,
especially for Muslims, belief in God appears to be on the upswing rather than on the decline. Although
science has a relatively shorter history, science has contributed much more to humanity in the last few
hundred years than all the religions put together in the last 3,000 years. But does science make belief
in God obsolete? In terms of the evidence we have just provided, the answer is no. Will it happen in
the future? Not likely. Religion, we need to remember, is an area that is totally different from science,
158
hence has nothing to do with science, notwithstanding the argument that both can co-exist, exclusively
or independently of each.
Should belief in God take a dip or become obsolete, it would probably be the result of people coming
to realize that their beliefs have produced no real benefit for their lives, apart from benefits that are no
different from taking a placebo, or are just psychological. But we cannot discount that some people in
the wake of scientific advancement have given up their belief in God; so to these people God has in a
sense become obsolete. I am one of those who have terminated their belief in God as a result of
becoming more aware of the God they have been worshipping--ironically, by picking up the Bible and
reading it critically.
No one can be serious in continuing their God-belief or God-worship after reading the Bible, the so-
called scriptural writings inspired by God. The stories of the Bible portray God as a barbaric,
capricious, covenant-crazy, cruel, despotic, egoistic, freakish, hypocritical, insane, intolerant,
malevolent, racist, revengeful, genocidal maniac. Going by the Bible, God can be said to be very
dependent on human assistance to execute his wishes or plans. To claim that he is all-loving is to be
totally ignorant of biblical accounts of his cruelty, intolerance, racism, and murderous instinct, or to be
dishonest or irrational. It it is truly amazing tha treasonable or rational people can continue their
worship of this God. But if people prefer to let faith, rather than reason, rule their lives, what can we
say?
RE: Mary Midgley
Eugene Bucamp
06/16/2008
I disagree with Mary Midgley's view that belief in God cannot be made obsolete because it is not a
"scientific opinion," only an element in personal "worldviews." Her view would be nearly correct if the
god in question was some undefined supernatural entity. The question, however, was about "God."
God with a capital "G" usually stands for the many, multifarious but very specific and concrete views of
God, essentially Abrahamic traditions. The God of the question could not be some undefined
supernatural entity because this is not the kind of God people say they believe in. God very nearly
always comes with down-to-earth beliefs: the earth has to be at the center of the universe because
Man is at the center of God's Creation; God's own son lived in Nazareth 2,000 years ago and bled on a
wooden cross; Lazarus came back from the dead. Without such graphic details, a "belief in God"
would make little sense to most people and would become uninteresting.
Though the hypothesis of some undefined supernatural entity may be regarded as non-falsifiable by
definition, each additional down-to-earth belief potentially makes for a suitably falsifiable statement. As
it turned out, the earth revolves around the sun and is not at the center of the universe: Galileo was
right and the Pope was wrong. Equally, homo sapiens Sapiens, "Man", wasn't created in a few days
less than 6000 years ago, but more than 100,000 years ago as the accidental product of billions of
years of Darwinian evolution.
Apparently, only falsifiable beliefs have any "spiritual" value for those who hold them. We want our
gods to come with resurrections, poltergeists, and miraculous relics, but each scientific discovery
makes our complicated religious narratives less and less probable. Yes, Gods won't be proven false,
simply uninteresting, which is a very good definition of what obsoleteness is.
RE: Whole Series
izAriver
06/16/2008
I don't need science to make it obsolete. To become obsolete, it had to actually exist in the first place.
Paul Dash
06/15/2008
Phillips argues that as a scientist he can believe in God because religious statements are non-
falsifiable, and since some allegedly non-falsifiable statements ("she sings beautifully") are
meaningful, religious statements are meaningful too. But the second argument is clearly a non-
sequitur. Not all non-falsifiable statements are meaningful ("the tweedlebug forgot to interrogate the
galumphnot"), and arguably religious statements like "God loves man" fall into the meaningless
category. What does it mean for a non-physical postulated entity like "God" to love? At least in people
159
one can measure various correlates of love, like brain activity in certain areas. And it seems to me that
Phillips betrays his scientific background by being willing to accept such meaningless or non-verifiable
statements "on faith."
He also uses the anthropomorphic argument: God must have created the parameters of physics or
else we wouldn't exist. But in the multiverse hypothesis, there may in fact be myriad universes where
those parameters are different, and life cannot exist in them. Of course it is a truism to say that life
exists only where it can exist. Finally, addressing the question of why he believes in God, it all boils
down to because it makes him feel better. What a ridiculous argument. It makes me feel better to
imagine that my investments are going to make me a multimillionaire, but if I start spending the money
now I will run into trouble quickly! Drugs of abuse make people feel better too; hardly a good argument
to take them. All in all, an extremely unconvincing essay.
Ronald Markham
06/15/2008
I am curious. When Christopher Hitchens disciplines his own children for their own good, do they call
him "incompetent and/or extremely capricious and callous, and even cruel," as he says of God? Would
Hitchens still love them if they did?
RE: Whole Series
Ronald Markham
06/15/2008
As an older and senior scientist, it is interesting to see these younger scientists retracing my exact
thoughts through the years. Some scientists see a painting and doubt a painter ever existed. If they
can prove that dyes occur naturally, they conclude that the painting did as well. Some scientists create
a simple enzyme or protein in a natural way and conclude all organic organisms were created this way
as well. Many scientists overlook the unexplained, yet no less important, intermediate steps. That is
the definition of faith--faith that God does not exist.
A true scientist knows that the more we understand about the universe, the more we realize we do not
know. As we begin to understand more about the universe, we see how awesome God is. Gaining a
better understanding of his work does not make Him any less real. I believe that these young scientists
will eventually come to the same conclusion I did. Einstein said it best: "My religion consists of a
humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able
to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Both science and God require faith. Both have theories that
will be proven or disproven after we die.
RE: Whole Series
Charles T. Rowe, M.D.
06/15/2008
Science, by definition, is knowledge gained from fact and experience. Its theories deal with the natural
world, are objective, testable, and can always be changed. Faith, by definition, is certitude not based
on fact. It is an individual's subjective opinion, and it is resistant to being changed by facts.
Many study the supernatural as well as the natural world, and for them, God is not obsolete. Rather
science and God coexist. But there are two types of coexistence to consider. First is the personal
decision each makes regarding belief or non-belief in God. The second type involves how those who
believe in a God coexist with those who do not. Ethics is the study of ideal behavior. The problem with
the coexistence of the subjective concepts of God and the objective thought structure of science arises
because we humans must determine the basis for ethical behavior. Is humanity to base this decision
on subjective faith or the objective facts of science? If there is no universally accepted basis for ethics,
as Bertrand Russell pointed out, significant ethical differences will be decided using propaganda
and/or force, as in religious wars.
There is one fact with which humanity as a whole agrees: there is nothing more important than the
continuation and well-being of our children and grandchildren and our grandchildren's grandchildren.
Even those who have no personal descendants do not want humanity's existence to cease with their
deaths. This concept is known as perpetuation of the species. Our descendants' survival will be an
objective determination, strictly a function of how things work in the natural world. Hence, ethical
160
behavior must fundamentally be determined by science rather than the supernatural personal opinions
of faith. If we get our priorities correct, then indeed God can coexist with science.
RE: Steven Pinker
Scott Chadderdon
06/14/2008
I have read the Bible from cover to cover, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that the universe has
been here a few thousand years. It's obvious to anyone looking up at the night sky that the earth and
stars have been around for billions of years. Nor does the Bible say how long a creative day was;
maybe it was a billion years. It also does not say that there was day and night before he created our
star the sun. It simply states that he set into motion the division of light and dark here on the earth. It
could simply mean that the sun was already here and he started the earth rotating on its axis to
accomplish this. Please be more open-minded and careful when reading God's word.
RE: Steven Pinker
Carl Golden
06/14/2008
I agree that scientific positivism makes faith in a deity unnecessary. However, it does not make faith in
a creative source or ground unfounded, such as faith in the Buddhist idea of the Dharmakaya or the
Vedantist notion of Satchitananda. So I find it curious and suspect that positivists tend to argue against
the existence of God as it is understood biblically as if the biblical notion of god were the only
understanding of the divine. Isn't this something of a strawman? The theology of biblically-based
religious fundamentalism, or any form of religious fundamentalism, is mythic in nature and, therefore,
pre-rational. So there is never going to be any common ground for a real discussion.
The science and God discussion needs to extract itself from the mere mythic construct and more
robustly engage the rational and trans-rational forms of religious and spiritual experiences. Buddhism,
for instance, is compatible with most, if not all, of the scientific worldview, but it would significantly
challenge the scientific conclusion of materialism. As the pre-rational forms of religion have had much
to learn from science and modern positivism, so too does the entrenched rationalism of positivism
have much to learn from the trans-rational mystical philosophical and religious traditions. In fact,
science and the mystical traditions would work very well together once common ground were
established for joint inquiry and dialogue.
RE: Steven Pinker
Carl Weisser
06/14/2008
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam begin with Abraham. What kind of rational entity asks a father to slay
his son? This entity allows violence to continue on an even grander scale to this very day. Genocide,
mass starvation, and Islamic children trained to be suicide bombers discredit the entity whom billions
worship. These atrocities occur even with free will subjugated to these religions. This is the dark side.
These religions do bring out the better qualities of humanity, which still outweigh the dark side.
James North
06/14/2008
I tend to agree with Mr. Hitchens. We as a species have been able to achieve a level of humanity to
the point where we are able to increase our number and not destroy ourselves completely. Fear of
reprisal (here on earth and/or eternal hell after death) and promised eternal happiness (here on earth
and/or in heaven) were used by religion in our earliest times to achieve this. Science will never make
an esoteric belief obsolete, but it can make the actions and reactions taken on behalf of that belief
obsolete. That is what we as a species should be working toward.
RE: Whole Series
William Roth
06/14/2008
God in the sense of any biblical God, yes. God in the sense of a greater universe that we have yet to
truly understand and identify, no. Religiously minded people (organized religion) inappropriately blend
these two very different topics, ultimately retreating to the "chicken and egg" argument of "universe
and god" and abandoning objective reasoning.
The Bible contains too many inaccuracies about our universe to ever be viewed by a truly objective
161
person to be a deity-inspired text (take the age of existence). Once a fundamentally important part of a
story (that is deemed infallible and authoritative) is proven to be incorrect, the credibility of the balance
is lost and can no longer be viewed as infallible, absolute, or authorative. Thus, the Bible as a literal
work and, consequently, the biblical God have been proven false. So, yes, science has killed the
concept of the biblical God. But in reality, this God never existed, so killed is not the right word, but
rather the curtain was pulled back and the wizard is indeed a mirage. The unthinking majority has yet
to admit it to themselves because of a lack of critical study or aptitude, fear of societal/family pressure,
or not understanding how to fill the void left by this acknowledgement.
However, god as a concept may still be proven by science. The universe is a paradoxical mix of chaos
and order, and we would be remiss to say there is not something greater than ourselves. But to throw
proverbial rocks at one another as to what this god wants from us is not only myopic but represents a
dividing force among us and a danger to our species and our world.
RE: Whole Series
Cecil Eiland
06/13/2008
Here we go again: trying to mix oil and water.
RE: Keith Ward
Eugene Bucamp
06/13/2008
Keith Ward tries hard to make religious insights about God relevant to science: the creation of the
universe by God would require that our scientific understanding of nature be amended by introducing
new earth-shattering notions such as "non-physical causality" that are otherwise quite abhorrent to the
"materialist view." But the fact is that nobody needs to speculate about even a "rather minimal view" of
God to arrive at a similarly earth-shattering conclusion. Whatever the extent and depth of the reality
science is able to fathom, it is at least plausible that whatever lies beyond may turn out to be quite
unlike what we think we already know.
In fact, while proof that a theory is false can only be provided by observation and experiment, not by
another theory, it is in the nature of fundamental theoretical discoveries, for example Newton's theory
of gravitation, Darwin's theory of evolution, Einstein's special relativity and general relativity, and, not
least, quantum physics, that they show how false previous scientific theories have been all along.
Certainly the road to scientific knowledge is full of bumps and should invite true humility, but to prove
that an accepted scientific theory is false really is the essence of the scientific process.
While numerous historical figures, from Copernicus to Newton to Darwin to Belgium Abbot Georges
Lema�tre (Big Bang), have demonstrated that the essence of science in no way inevitably eludes
religious people, Keith Ward unfortunately exemplifies where the problem sometimes lies. His fanciful
expectation that God may be relevant to science lacks one critical element: proof that a theory is false
can only be provided by observation, not by another theory, even his improbable "rather minimal view"
of God. That no observation will be forthcoming is revealed by the same Keith Ward: it is an important
"fact" about God, says he, that God's mode of causal influence is most unlikely to be "publicly
observable." Bad luck.
Eugene Bucamp
06/13/2008
No doubt individual scientists may choose to have some kind of religious faith, and scientists and
religious people can be best friends. But William D. Phillips's view that science and religion are not
irreconcilable remains unsupported. His conclusion that belief in God is "not a scientific matter" is not
quite true either. It is true of course that "religious statements are not necessarily falsifiable." But most
believers wouldn't bother with a wholly non-falsifiable notion of God. If we chose, for example, to
strictly limit our definition of God to the dry notion of "supernatural entity," though it would most
probably be non-falsifiable, it would also have no appeal whatsoever to anyone. Nobody would even
bother to discuss the existence or otherwise of some abstract "supernatural entity."
The appeal of religious beliefs invariably is in their having something to do with the very real problems
we face as real human beings in our real lives: death, disease, misery, loneliness, possibly even
boredom. This is true for Christianity, and it is true for all the main religious traditions. Most of them
162
have, indeed, a history of going into the kind of fleshy theological details that are more likely, sooner or
later, to be disproved by science. Religious traditions also tend to claim that they receive their truths
directly from their God. Each religious "truth" disproved by science then becomes evidence that this
claim is ludicrous and pathetic and that therefore the whole lot is a sham. Ultimately, people like
Phillips seem to have little choice but to redefine their faith in such a way that it becomes essentially
irrelevant to real-life issues and therefore irrelevant to other people if not to himself.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Simon T.
06/12/2008
Kenneth Miller contradicts himself in the space of two paragraphs. First he mocks creationists for
believing in a God that is nothing more than a placeholder for human ignorance. He's right, of course.
Creationists think that the complexity of life doesn't have an explanation, so they conclude that God
must be the explanation. But one paragraph later Miller states how he justifies his own belief in God:
he thinks the order and harmony found in the universe don't have an explanation, so he concludes that
God must be the explanation. His God is nothing more than a placeholder for human ignorance.
Our universe's fundamental order may have an explanation, or it may not. If it does have an
explanation, science may one day discover what it is, or it may not. In the second case, rational and
honest human beings will always be forced to reply "We don't know" to that particular question.
Meanwhile, religious human beings will give the same answer they always give: God did it.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Chick
06/12/2008
Eugene Bucamp writes below that "Scientists merely try their luck, experiment, and hope for the best,
and this for as long as it will last." Is this not arbitrary? And how is "hope" theorized?
RE: Kenneth Miller
Eugene Bucamp
06/12/2008
The notion that "science itself employs a kind of faith," as Kenneth Miller contends, does not stand up
to scrutiny. Religious faith is invariably "blind faith": personal, arbitrary, and unverifiable. Science is, on
the contrary, founded on the careful observation of nature and on repeatable experimentation, i.e.,
experimentation that potentially anybody could repeat and that indeed many scientists throughout the
world do repeat. Scientists, and indeed most people for that matter, tend to believe that meticulous
experimentation has to be better than personal, arbitrary, and unverifiable faith.
Would that particular belief itself be to some extent akin to religious faith? No, because every human
being on earth--not just scientists, not just grown-ups, not just non-believers--has an intimate,
everyday acquaintance with experimentation, exactly the reverse of blind faith. This is our long,
shared, and continuous acquaintance with experimentation that tells us that scientific experimentation
is better than blind faith.
It is also untrue that scientists have to have a belief comparable to a religious faith that "the world is
understandable." It is not necessary to believe that the world is understandable to engage in science or
produce good science. The world is in fact more likely not understandable through and through.
Scientists merely try their luck, experiment, and hope for the best, and this for as long as it will last.
Observation and experimentation tell them whether they were right in the first place.
It is also somewhat bizarre and definitely spurious to present the notion that "knowledge is always to
be preferred to ignorance" as "an article of scientific faith" when it is merely a mundane part of our
everyday experience. People seek knowledge not because they have some arbitrary faith that
knowledge is "good" but because it is part of their intimate, shared, and historical experience that it is
preferable to ignorance.
RE: Whole Series
Caitlin St. John
06/12/2008
This an interesting topic, and I look forward to reading the essays.
163
RE: Mary Midgley
Eugene Bucamp
06/12/2008
Raising the issue of how scientific falsifiability can apply to psychology, Mary Midgley describes the
answer of behaviorism--that "scientific psychology must deal exclusively with outside behavior"--as "so
strange that its implications are still not fully understood." She had already noted that we "quite rightly"
use "unprovable assumptions," namely that "other people are conscious beings, not mindless robots"
and that "they have thoughts and feelings more or less like our own." Behaviorists would surely
dismiss these assumptions as unscientific, which would indeed tally with Mary Midgley's qualification
of them as "unprovable."
However, both behaviorists and Mary Midgley would certainly accept that we make these assumptions
mainly on the basis of the "outside behavior" of other people (other people behave like we do,
therefore they must have a conscious mind). What else? It should be noted for example that we can as
easily make the opposite assumption that other people are non-conscious or possibly not even human
beings on the same basis of their behavior, usually when this behavior turns out to be sufficiently
abhorrent, unintelligible, or foreign to us. Why then would the behaviorist method be "so strange" when
it is the one we "quite rightly" use in our everyday life?
RE: Whole Series
Alfred A. Barrios. Ph.D.
06/12/2008
Before we can answer the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" we must first define
our terms. If we define God in supernatural terms and science as a follower of natural laws, and if we
define obsolete as meaning no longer in tune with the present, the answer is obviously yes. However,
there is a natural definition of God that would not result in making God obsolete. Just the opposite, it
would show that science may in fact strengthen belief in God.
In my own work, I have used a definition that would be acceptable to most rational-minded scientists
and religionists. God can be defined as a concept made up of three subconcepts: (1) The lawfulness of
nature; that is, that there are universal laws of nature. (2) That if you follow a particular way or
guidance in life, you will be more likely to achieve optimum peace of mind, fulfillment, and happiness
(heaven) and a minimum of suffering (hell) in life. (3) That through the power of belief you can have
greater control over your destiny.
If one accepts this three-component definition of God, then when you say you believe in God, you are
essentially saying: that you believe in the lawfulness of nature; that there is an ideal way of life that can
lead to optimum peace of mind and happiness; and that through the power of belief you can have
greater control over your destiny.
Ron Strelecki
06/12/2008
Schonborn's "essay" is an excellent example of how the Church uses pseudoscience,
misunderstanding of real science, misunderstanding of ancient science, deception, unreason,
paranoia, and pure fantasy to weave a web of buzzwords into a self-gratifying parody of an argument.
He makes no direct statements or claims.
RE: Whole Series
J. D. Johanson
06/11/2008
The sociological criticisms that have emerged are interesting to consider when thinking about this
topic. Backing your thoughts up psychologically, sociologically, and so forth and allowing free thought
to stand fully upright are essential. Submitting to the story of science, or faith, can be harmful to
intellectual inquiry. Using the mechanisms of science to explain it all is impossible. Likewise, criticism
of God mustn't be confined to preconceived notions of God, but must remain in the realm of free
thought. It is much more likely that God does exist, though my skepticism has not lead me to a
particular religion. It is ok to say "I just don't know." Maybe it cannot be known. Yet that is precisely
why I continue to investigate, searching for flaws in my own and others' logic, and continue searching
for the most likely truth.
164
RE: Whole Series
Dale Campbell
06/11/2008
Thank you for putting these articles together. I'm sure they will be very useful for many people of all
kinds of perspectives!
RE: Whole Series
Lachlan Ward
06/11/2008
To add validity to this discussion, there would need to be an equal number of yes and no responses.
Currently, it is weighted heavily to the no side. Thus the credibility of this discussion is, I'm afraid, very
low.
RE: Whole Series
David Cararo
06/11/2008
Belief in God is mankind's need for certainty. The consciousness with which we experience the
universe is that which we seek. This seeking can never end because to "know" for sure would require
a knower and a known, which is impossible. Mankind's religious beliefs, as a whole, are nothing more
than placing the sought-after unknown's identity on an external concept. It would be like taking your
brain out of your head to look at it, except you need your brain to do the looking. Alan Watts used to
refer to it as biting your teeth with your teeth.
Therefore, my answer is no. Science cannot make belief in God obsolete, because there is always
something more, like trying to find the edge of the universe (the universe being all there is ). Each step
further only lets you see that much further. But this constant search, through science especially, has
brought us everything we have. So "God" bless science and all the tenacious bulldogs in their search
for the unknown.
Bob Keck
06/11/2008
After reading this essay, the only clear fact was that I had read an essay. What am I supposed to do
with this kind of rambling?
RE: Whole Series
John McNew
06/11/2008
Science does not make belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster obsolete. In fact, many scientists support
His religion, Pastafarianism. May we all be touched by His Noodly Appendage. R'Amen.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Nick F
06/11/2008
Miller ultimately does the same thing he criticizes creationists for doing: using the argument of
ignorance for God. For creationists, God is the answer when we can't answer the question of "how."
For Miller, God is the answer when we can't answer the question of "why."
RE: Whole Series
Gilles Liboiron
06/11/2008
Great question to great people. Although the question is fundamental, there seems to be no
fundamental answer to it.
RE: Whole Series
Carl Weisser
06/11/2008
Man is very adept at obtaining knowledge and creating various belief sysytems. Through the ages,
man has constantly struggled inwardly and outwardly in maintaining and balancing both his science
and his beliefs. Beliefs have been necessary to control the overall conduct that "free will" allows.
History shows that belief systems program social behavior. Strong beliefs satisfy the shaky soul.
Consequently, beliefs also tend to hinder man's thirst to truly know from whence he came and where
165
he is going. "Free will" and man's thirst for knowledge have been programmed into man's being by
either a deity or another form of intelligence--surely not by "random chance." Who or what created our
universe may never be knowable.
It has always been easier for man to create a belief system to deal with the unknown and to allow
pastors, prophets, kings, and tyrants to shepherd those beliefs, no matter how wonderful or cruel.
There may be an unknown intelligence out there that neither loves nor cares about us. This thought is
upsetting, since we might be in its petri dish! No wonder it is so easy to believe.
RE: Whole Series
Warren Felt
06/11/2008
Sounds like an interesting project. I will enjoy going through the articles. Thanks
RE: Whole Series
Luis E. Lao
06/11/2008
Excellent potpourri of opinions! Some say yes, others say no! In reality, who cares? People from all
walks of life will continue believing in the sky god, in the Abrahamic god, and whatever god they want
to believe or not. I really do not care as long as they do not impose anything on me. You cannot
change people. If people ever change, they do it by themselves. In a world where everyone thinks
differently, a single belief system will never arise. So the argumentative battle for god will never stop
and will continue till the end of time. My position is that the Abrahamic god is a bad father who could be
prosecuted by Social Services and imprisoned for life!
RE: Kenneth Miller
Kel Skye
06/11/2008
It's with the greatest respect for Ken Miller and his work that I ask this. But if God is wholly
supernatural, how is it possible for us (a product of a natural process) to know anything about him? To
me it seems that if you take God out of the natural realm, you take away any ability to comprehend
him. I'd love to have an answer for this. "Faith" doesn't seem to explain anything at all, other than self-
affirmation of one's beliefs, which is fine. It's just hard to comprehend from a skeptical point of view.
RE: Whole Series
L K Tucker
06/11/2008
I am struck by the level of discussion about this question. It can be argued that a belief in God is a
belief in magic. Why do otherwise skeptical, intelligent people have such beliefs? The answer may be
Subliminal Distraction. It can be shown that SD exposure causes bizarre beliefs, such as belief in the
ability to levitate and walk through solid objects unharmed. The mindset that allows these beliefs can
be compared to a supernatural construct for reality. The forms of worship allow this exposure for some.
Why should anyone have supernatural beliefs? What is the origin of spirituality?
RE: Whole Series
Guitar
06/11/2008
Theism is an exercise in credulity with rationalizations in place of the evidence. It can be thrilling and
fulfilling, but you have to be willing to believe. Science is an exercise in curiosity that seeks
probabilities through a preponderance and convergence of evidence. It can be thrilling and fulfilling,
but you have to be willing to question. Religion is a whole nother animal, institutionalizing hopes,
beliefs, and traditions (faith). It can be thrilling and fulfilling, but you have to be willing to limit your
values.
Yes, science makes belief in god obsolete, but only for as long as you are employing science. Yes,
theism makes science obsolete, but only for as long as you are employing theism. Yes, religion can
accommodate both science and religion, but it will always be evolving.
RE: Whole Series
Ed Graham
06/11/2008
I don't like the way the word "science" is used as an adversarial position. Belief in God is irrelevant. In
166
our "demon-haunted world," religion, like prejudice, has to be carefully taught. With the exception of
very few parents, children are taught that there is magic in the world. Tooth fairy, Disney, astrology,
religion--the list is endless and pervasive.
Once you begin to understand that there is no magic, you notice that movies, TV, almost all human
contact has references to magic. Being raised like this causes even rational scientists to reluctantly
give up on proclaiming to be agnostic. It is becoming easier to be an atheist, because as time goes by
there has been no--none--not even a shred of evidence that anything supernatural exists. There has
never been one instance of magic in our universe. Lots of delusion, no magic.
We have passed the time when a person could say, "Well, there could be a God that made the
universe." We might as well believe that the Earth is a flat disk at the center of the universe and the
stars are painted on the dome above. Is there a God? No. I could open my mind to that thought, if
there were one, only one instance of magic (something that defied a known law of physics) that was
proven and could be replicated. Churches have a reason to teach this delusion--it's what they do.
Timothy Lewthwaite
06/11/2008
Phillips makes a valid point about different sorts of statements. It is similar to what Immanuel Kant
thought--that various branches of knowledge are different spheres entirely.
Chintan Tyagi
06/11/2008
William Phillips's article is precious. I got some great insights, and my position has drastically changed.
I am a rational, scientific man and was trying to answer the question of God's relevance and presence
through logic and rational thought, and failing miserably. His two questions of how and why do I
believe in God are bang on. I personally feel that all scientists are deeply religious, more so the ones
who are trying to disprove gods existence, because in their failure to disprove they get their proof.
Manny Lee
06/11/2008
Phillips writes: "I do believe because . . . ultimately just because I believe." I could just as easily say
the same thing about fairies or the Loch Ness monster. So there, in a nutshell, is the weakest possible
foundation upon which a conviction might be based.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Gregory Peterson
06/10/2008
I felt a thrill of . . . ecstasy reading Sapolsky's essay. At last, somebody I agree with about how science
works. I was beginning to wonder, being an artist, if I had it even somewhat right. One thing artists and
scientists may have in common: knowing the thrill of seeing something that's "right," then sleeping on it
and realizing the next day (or the next year) that maybe it is not quite right. I always tell the Irreducible
Complexity people that complexity is easy; it's simplicity that's really difficult.
Gregory Peterson
06/10/2008
Lots of fun, and much to agree with in Cardinal Schonborn's essay, but "teleological hierarchy" must
be a Catholic understanding; it's not part of my Methodist upbringing. I don't see that hierarchy. I don't
see any hierarchy, except as a human social construct, like "race." What I do see is patterns constantly
interacting with and evolving from other patterns. As a graphics designer, an intelligent designer so to
speak, these are a constant inspiration, but I don't see a teleological hierarchy.
I see the universe as a funhouse, anarchy with some basic rules of physics, and I enjoy it immensely,
though not always. Anarchy can be disconcerting. My job, as a Methodist, is to be a good ancestor, to
try to nudge human constructs toward mercy and justice, even as I can't know perfect justice, to try and
make practicing the Golden Rule a bit easier for my descendants.
167
RE: Whole Series
Gregory Peterson
06/10/2008
Science makes belief in God different from what it was before the modern era, despite what the
religious right claims. For instance, the discovery of the mammalian egg in the early 1800's had a
profound influence on society, yet we seldom talk about it. It's as if we think everyone always somehow
knew that women have eggs.
Before that discovery, people thought that only men created the stuff of life, "the seed." A child was the
sole property of his creator, his father. Conception wasn't a process that started long ago and is
continued with each generation, but a moment, when the individual female's womb accepted the
individual male's sacred "seed," the sole stuff of life. After 1802, if memory serves, it gradually sank in
that women were born with half the stuff of life, her eggs, and later, that the sex of the child was
determined by the father, not the mother's womb condition, as was thought. Therefore, being a woman
wasn't caused by a defective womb. If the Bible was wrong on so basic an issue as who or what
creates life, what else was the Bible wrong about?
RE: Whole Series
Dennis Milner
06/10/2008
If your conception of God is monotheistic, as with the Hebrew God of the Old Testament who created
the universe according to a preconceived plan, this is difficult to reconcile with the findings of science
about the evolution of the universe and of life on Earth. If, however, your conception is a pantheistic
one, that everything is God, then belief in God and science can be reconciled in the aphorism: God
sleeps in the mineral, Dreams in the vegetable, Stirs in the animal, Awakens in Man (attributed,
variously, to the Kabbalah, the Druids, the Sufis, and the 13th-century Persian mystic/poet Rumi).
According to this viewpoint, God is everywhere and everything and evolves through his creation and,
in humanity, becomes conscious of his powers and abilities. This suggests that God (or, if you prefer it,
the energy of creation) started in an unconscious state and has progressively evolved through his
creation. On this basis the findings of science show the natural development and working of God.
RE: Whole Series
Mary
06/10/2008
God made us to have a relationship with Him and with each other. His laws (when obeyed) protect
those relationships, and our violation of His laws damages or destroys those relationships. Religion is
man's attempt to create God in his own image. God, however, has already defined Himself. Science
comfirms Him as the Creator; it proves that there is a Master Designer. We should not confuse God
with religion or truth with science. God and truth don't change. Religion and science are constantly
changing. The only stability they exhibit is when and where they intersect with God and truth.
RE: Whole Series
Rich Schnarr
06/09/2008
The assumption of all the writers seems to be that we humans are fully capable of comprehending the
cosmos. My problem is with this original premise. In many if not most religious scriptures, we are
clearly told that we cannot ever understand it ALL. We are capable of limited understanding. Evidence
of this is pervasive. The law of unintended consequences is the first that comes to mind. Every solution
humans apply to a perceived "problem" results in new problems. We end up like a hamster running on
the wheel. There is insanity at work in our scientific, materialistic culture. We resolve some short-term
issues only to discover the new issues we create. Many of the religious leaders of the ages have
indicated we need to be less concerned with fixing those individual problems and focus more on our
"oneness," or the "now," or whatever you want to call it.
The choice is illustrated in the Genesis story of the Garden. Do you trust in what God is reported to
have said or do you turn to your own human devices? If you choose your own human devices, you
have, in essence, rejected the Creator. Since we in this culture derive our "purpose" from inquiry and
exploration, we find ourselves embracing our own devices. This is rejection of the Creator. It is the
"original sin" described in Genesis.
168
RE: Steven Pinker
Tony
06/09/2008
God is irrelevant unless someone can prove that he/she does exist. Until then, God does not exist and
is irrelevant.
RE: Whole Series
Gelinde Narekine
06/09/2008
Belief in God being made obsolete by science is very much dependent on our perceptions of natural
phenomena and of our understanding of civilization. It would be misleading to say that science makes
belief in God obsolete. Science has given us a deeper understanding of the surrounding cosmic
environment, which also includes the essence of human existence. This has created more questions
than answers. We now know that DNA is the blueprint of life, which requires RNA and enzymes as
precursors, still boiling down to the hen or the egg problem--the super-cycle.
We are also fascinated by the vast universe before us. No matter how much farther we go back on the
prehistoric and/or historic timeline, or drive into the future, we will go on for eternity. We see more
complexities within us and in our surroundings. Science has enabled us to know that the more we
know we know, the less we know. Many things cannot be rectified in test tubes and/or under
microscopes. But many more things are generally accepted based on intuition, creative thinking, and
inspiration.
It is a matter of fact that science squarely complements and enhances our belief in God. Human
beings are physical and cosmic, natural and supernatural, temporal and permanent, dispensable and
indispensable. That is the complexity of our existence. Whether one is a rocket scientist or a primitive
jungle man, both will eventually meet at a common place, acknowledging the infinite complexity of
supernatural things. The Egyptians and the Aztecs knew this, and their great pyramids still fascinate
our science.
RE: Whole Series
Lloyd G. Zellmer
06/08/2008
Some scientists believe a computer with four or more variables could think as the human mind does.
Limitations of binary computing (two variables) are appreciated. Not fully appreciated is the potential of
changing among the six flavors (variables) of quarks simply by being observed. Asking how and why
poses interesting questions. Could this be a clue indirectly suggesting some kind of a natural
computing system existed from the beginning, undetectable? Could it have evolved to be as
comprehensive as easily knowable physical systems? It's possible such a computing system (free to
think and act) is uniquely combined with a physical life form for the first time in humans. Exploring that
possibility offers a new frontier for science. Combining research of the physical brain and the non-
physical nature of the human mind has incredible potential. But current science has no tools to do all
that. In this arena current science could actually be reaching practical limits.
Initially, current science and religion will both have objections. Try to avoid letting the future be trapped
by the past. The ultimate reality of a God, belief or no belief, will not be affected by what we think. Such
a computing system could be a communicating link. Perhaps it has tried to connect with humans
throughout history, but humans are good at misinterpretations to fit what they already think they know.
Anyone who's had an experience that science can't explain knows how real it was. A natural
computing system could explain a lot. Exploring it could open a new level for knowledge,
understanding, and wisdom. Imagine all the possibilities.
RE: Whole Series
michel Herlant
06/08/2008
I appreciate the opportunity to be able review the different positions on this subject. I was raised as a
Catholic, but at age 11 I already questioned the claims made by the priest during the study of the New
Testament. I say that man created God, not the other way around.
D. Westphal
169
06/08/2008
No, science does not make belief in God obsolete. Whatever happened to the agnostic-atheist
distinction? Today, many "scientists" claim to be atheists (there is no God) and not agnostics (there is
not enough evidence to believe in God). While I find the latter position defensible, I find the former
position extremely dishonest for someone who claims to be a scientist.
When I was in college and took philosophy courses from Paul Kurtz (a famous skeptic, agnostic,
secular humanist), he was always clear that he is an agnostic. I respect that position because he
understands that there is not enough evidence for a materialist to take a position on origins. In fact, I
don't recall any intellectual claiming to be an atheist 20 years ago. Atheism was considered a semi-
religious position--a belief held by pagans, occultists, and others holding to various spiritual
philosophies. Why the sudden boldness and irrationality of "atheist" scientists? Is it fear of losing the
receding scientific paradigms like macro-evolution? Since more and more evidence seems to support
the inadequacy of current theories of origins, maybe atheist scientists are reacting out of a fear of
losing the argument.
But there is no argument between scientists and God-believers. At most, scientists should be ignoring
religious belief and focusing on perfecting their own paradigm. "Atheist" scientists like Dawkins are
much too emotional about a subject on which they should care little. Atheism seems to be a fad of
some kind. Science has created nothing and should have nothing to say about ultimate origins. The
agnostic position is the only respectable position for a scientist who does not believe in God.
RE: Whole Series
Scott D Deutsch
06/08/2008
"God" is an invention by man to keep others in line. You can have a perfecly acceptable, socially
relevant life even if you don't go to church, believe in "God," or consider yourself religious.
RE: Whole Series
K. Jagannatahn
06/08/2008
I am a retired professor of neurology and am interested in knowing the way the brain functions in
realizing the presence of a supreme power, call it by any name. I always think that the concept of
"God" came from within our mind, mainly because no explanation or experimental verification can
either prove or disprove it. It is said of the sage Ramana Maharishi, who preached the oneness of God,
that he tried to answer the question "Who am I?" and found it unanswerable. Even as a scientist, it
cannot be explained by virtue of the knowledge that the brain acquires in a lifetime. What can't be
answered will have to be derived by arguments and known experiences, a kind of deduction based on
possibilities. It boils down to the intricacy and density of the network in the brain. The answer is not
complete, but it gives one the thought, until some better explanation is available, that "God" is the
creation of the brain itself.
Clifford J Mikkelson
06/08/2008
I enjoyed Cardinal Schonborn's answer. He went deep into the question and gave an answer that
could satisfy an open-minded scientist as well as a believer in an ultimate God. He didn't try to define
that ultimate God, but he made it clear that we will always seek to know the truth about ourselves and
about life, so God will never be obsolete. If you realize that One consciousness is the ultimate reality
from which everything comes, then you know that the obsolescence of God is a ridiculous notion. We
are part of that consciousness.
RE: Mary Midgley
Jake Kenner
06/07/2008
The only essay in this series that is worth reading is the one by Mary Midgley, since only she
challenges the assumptions upon which the scientific method and all scientifically supported beliefs
are constructed. The other writers have absolutely nothing interesting to say because their
assumptions are based upon a delusion. Only Midgley appears to have read and understood Plato and
the Allegory of the Cave.
170
RE: Whole Series
Eric Stubbs
06/07/2008
Yes, God has been obsolete for over 100 years now.
S. Crawford
06/07/2008
Mr. Phillips has an excellent article. I would urge him to supplement his thinking slightly by looking at
the writings of "creation" scientists. He might appreciate Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe, which
introduces the notion of irreducible complexity and claims that its presence in many biochemical
systems indicates that they must be the result of intelligent design rather than evolutionary processes--
this is a seminal book. Also important is The Privileged Planet, by Gonzalez and Richards, which
claims there is scientific evidence that shows the Earth and life are the products of intelligent design.
The Institute for Creation Research says that "Today, thousands of creation scientists repudiate any
form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. They can now be found
in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are rising rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it
increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is 'science' and creation science is 'religion.'
Such statements today merely reveal the speaker's own liberal social philosophies, not his or her
awareness of scientific facts."
RE: Whole Series
Bob
06/07/2008
It is wonderful to live where one may freely read and discuss these essays without fear of retribution.
Kathleen Schmitt
06/06/2008
Until science has answered every last question, one must still allow for the possibility that what we
don't know holds God. Consider also that God could easily have arranged things so that we could
interpret geology to support evolutionary theory (I emphasize the term "theory"), and he could have
done that in one day or a few thousand years or a few billion years. The way I figure, we will all know
the answer to this question eventually. It doesn't help to get into conflict over it in the meantime.
RE: Michael Shermer
Paul Norman
06/06/2008
Shermer should try to get his facts a little straighter when describing others' beliefs. I doubt that he can
find any Mormons who believe that the Book of Mormon "was dictated in an ancient language onto
gold plates by the angel Moroni." We believe that he was the last of a series of prophets who inscribed
their stories and revelations onto the plates during their mortal lives. Neither would they call the
translating instruments "magic stones."
Mormons do believe that God performs dramatic "miracles" (i.e., He does things that are beyond
current human understanding) from time to time. We also believe that God's miracles commonly come
with a lot less fanfare. They can generally be ignored or dismissed as illusion or delusion, if one
chooses to do so. Not that you could ever capture such things in a laboratory.
If Shermer hopes to persuade us to give up belief in God, he really ought to understand first what we
really do believe. I realize that what we believe may seem as nonsensical to him as what he said we
believe, but it really undermines ones' argument when one gets it wrong in the first place. It kind of
makes me wonder how careful he is in his regular Scientific American column.
RE: Whole Series
Ron Krumpos
06/05/2008
"Does science make belief in God obsolete?" Rephrase the question: "Does science or religion make
belief in ultimate reality obsolete?" The answer to that is no! Most scientists, in any field, seek ultimate
reality but admit that they have not yet found it. If dark matter is 25 percent and dark energy about 70
percent of the critical density of this universe, they may never do so. Religious leaders say God is
171
ultimate reality, yet none of them has seen it. Some of them "felt it." Mystics directly "experience it." It
was real but not sensory. Many particles in quantum mechanics are not sensory.
Neuroscientists and psychiatrists have said God is a construct of the brain or mind to answer
questions of a cause for that which seems to have no cause. What was the uncaused cause for the
theoretical Big Bang? "God" is just one of many names used by religions. The divine essence is
ultimate reality in mysticism. Physics, biology, chemistry, and mathematics have numerous terms for
unseen, underlying realities. What "is" is, believe it or not. Faith accepts it. Belief makes you seek it.
Don't seek? You may never find.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Ogburn
06/05/2008
Science does not make belief in God obsolete. Science is based on observation and comprehension.
God is unseen and incomprehensible. Science has made certain religious beliefs obsolete. All
religions' creation myths have been made obsolete by science. There is still the unknown and
uncertainty in science, so it would be hard to declare God dead or non-existent. Irrational thought will
always be with us and so will the belief in the supernatural. Until human beings can know everything, it
will be hard to convince others that their beliefs are false.
RE: Whole Series
Ayesha Hashmi
06/04/2008
Belief in God is embedded in human consciousness. Even if one explains the evolution of our
consciousness to have belief in God as a security against our loneliness and a desire to have a
fatherhead, God has grown into human consciousness even more. That is why he is so readily
acceptable to the innocent mind. And that is why we rationalists find Him a perplexing, invisible,
"imaginary" friend hard to put to rest. But when we try to prove He is not there, we move against our
grain, with a tremendous effort of logic and rationality. Despite our huge advances, we still know too
little about ourselves and the universe to dismiss Him entirely. God lives in the unexplainable, in
mystery, and until we solve that mystery, which I believe will never be, He cannot be considered
obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Jason Coursey
06/04/2008
How is it possible that the universal constants came to be by pure chance or accident? Surely no
scientist believes that a car, ink pen, or beaker could just spontaneously appear out of nothing. If it
can, please demonstrate. Just because we know how GM or Ford makes automobiles, it doesn't mean
that we don't believe that GM and Ford made them. Certain intellectuals feel that by gaining a better
understanding of how the earth and universe operate, they can eliminate God. Preposterous. Knowing
how something was made still does not mean someone did not make it.
Some evil things have been done in the name of God, but that does not mean that God condoned
them. America is at war now, but that doesn't mean that every American condones the war. Science
has done many harsh things against people. Some years back, children were castrated for not scoring
well on the SAT, and how many people were unwilling test subjects for LSD? Should these and other
atrocities prompt me to write a book called Science Is Not Great or maybe The Science Delusion.
Has science provided proof that there is no God? No, not even close. Is science turning into a faith-
based religion? In many ways, yes. Scientists are making assumptions that they cannot prove. I call
the god of science: Fluke. Almighty Fluke, answer me this: How did you set the constants? The day
that I see a tornado speed through a salvage yard and create a brand new stealth bomber will be the
day that I consider it possible that this vast universe, the earth, and over 6 billion people are the
product of some senseless fluke!
RE: Whole Series
Hernan Echaurren
06/04/2008
More and more, science points to the fact that the universe started at a certain point and is finite. If
logic is part of science, there must be a first cause--call it whatever you want, but God seems
172
appropriate. Then the question is, does this God care for his creation? Given the attributes of God
(almighty, eternal, infinite, omnipotent), why did He create the universe and us? The only logical
reason is because of love, and there cannot be another answer. God does not need a toy or a pet. And
you can only love what is in your own image, in your own nature, and this is us, created in the image of
God and loved by Him, necessarily and logically.
RE: Whole Series
Nathan
06/04/2008
My thanks to the John Templeton Foundation for their contribution to dialogue that is critically
important to all humans. This is a better world thanks in part to the work you have done.
RE: Whole Series
The Revd Dr J Bradshaw
06/04/2008
I am writing my autobiography at age 84. I have studied atheist and Christian existentialism, and found
reconciliation when working with Carl Rogers in Chicago. The essays are fascinating and helpful to
me.
RE: Steven Pinker
Clifford J Mikkelson
06/04/2008
Mr. Pinker defined what he meant by science, but he didn't define what he meant by God. The God of
the Bible isn't the only conception of God, and that is the God he seems to be knocking. The God of
the Tao is another conception, so is the supreme God of the Hindus. So far I'm finding that some of the
comments by the readers, such as Donald Kaple, are more profound than the featured contributors.
Mr. Pinker should address some of the more sublime and majestic conceptions of God rather than
knocking down a straw god.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas K. Johnson
06/03/2008
It is time to abandon religion and usher in the post-religious age. By and large, religions are based on
obsolete concepts and demonstrably false ideas. It is sad to see all the animosity that stems from
arguments over notions that are archaic and arcane. Sunni Muslims kill Shi'ite Muslims, Catholics
disagree with Protestants, and so on--fights over how to worship invisible beings in the sky and how to
reach an imagined paradise after death.
The sooner we get away from religion, the sooner we can begin to apply scientific knowledge and
rational thought to solving the real problems that we face on earth. I refer to the problems of over-
population, scarce resources, the extinction of scores of species each decade, and the multitude of
other threats to the environment. "Go forth and multiply" may have made sense when homo sapiens
were at risk of going extinct. But if we continue to be guided by outdated teachings, we may face a
grim future of fighting endless wars over dwindling resources on a polluted, over-populated planet.
Many religious teachings stand in the way of efforts to achieve zero population growth (ZPG). Given
that the earth is finite, ZPG must be reached eventually. Will we stumble toward ZPG with billions of
people who barely survive (Haiti, Sudan)? Or will we plan for a future with only one billion people, all
living in comfort while sharing sustainable sources of food and energy (Denmark, Sweden)? I would
hope for the latter, in the dawning post-religious age.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Clifford Marsh
06/03/2008
As a chemistry research scientist and educator, I have found that none of my work has made me any
less a believer in God. For me, God is the originator of the physical universe and therefore the origin of
science as such. Whether He created via evolution or "special" creation is neither here nor there. He
gave us minds and brains so that we could study the natural universe in depth and come to sound
conclusions about it.
RE: Whole Series
Menachem Brakefield
173
06/03/2008
How can a person have an opinion about something that can't be comprehended? To declare
something obsolete would mean that something has been brought into existence that can replace it.
Scientists can't explain what can't be seen. Science has the need to explain itself so man can feel
confident that he is in charge and has no responsibility except to himself. If man was to read what was
written 3,500 years ago and look at the present situation, he might want to rethink his opinion. There
were ten events that took place in Egypt, and a group of people were released from slavery. It wasn't
mother nature.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Hannah Sanoel
06/03/2008
Kauffman's observation that "We do not want to return to any form of religion that demands that we
abandon the truth of the real world" resonates with me. I am considered a prodigal in my evangelical
Christian family for becoming convinced of evolution and supporting gay rights, among other things. I
have been told that my metaphorical return home is awaited with open arms, as the father welcomed
back his son in Jesus' parable. It is irksome to me, because I can't pretend I haven't learned and
discovered realities that are not acknowledged in the package of faith with which I was raised.
I finished reading Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" and think it should be required reading in
the evangelical and fundamentalist communities. I am grateful to him for rescuing God from being the
"placeholder of human ignorance." Such a belief system only stifles progress and discovery, and I
want no part of it.
RE: Whole Series
Donald Kaple
06/03/2008
This is wonderful and timely series. All of the authors seem to begin with a "God-assumption" that
logically leads to their conclusions. There is an axiom in philosophy: "Quidquid recipitur secudum
modum recipientis recipitur" (roughly translated: whatever is observed is observed according to the
ability of the observer). Science has a similar principle. Science recognizes that the observer
influences what is observed. A question implies the answer. In the West, the dominant assumption is
that "God" is something apart from us. In the East, many assume "tat tvam assi" (Thou art That),
meaning that the whole universe is one with God. According to this view, we do not exist apart from
God, so we are naturally supernatural.
The very word "definition" (de fini) implies putting limits on our experience of reality. When we assume
we know what God is, we make God a mental object--a human abstraction. We put limits on God.
Science is simply one of many ways we have of inquiring into what ultimately is reality. We know we're
here and how we evolved, but we're really no closer to understanding where we came from or why
we're here or what our end will be like. Can we know that God is without knowing who or what God is?
And who are we? Without us, the universe has no meaning, but we are compelled to create meaning.
A rose is a rose until we give it to someone we love. Is it possible that we are God awakening, as some
Eastern religions believe? Science is one of the books in my Bible. It is simply another way of inquiring
into the Great Mystery.
RE: Whole Series
Stephan Serowy
06/03/2008
Of course it does, and I am shocked to see that so many obviously well educated people are afraid of
admitting it. The scientific approach and the religious approach are diametrically opposed. A
consistent, rational, able mind values evidence and is not satisfied with blind belief in the absence of
any evidence. The one approach is open-minded, whereas the other is in a way closed-mindedly
totalitarian. Even if we neglect the fact that science more and more pushes religion and mysticism
back into the corners of knowledge not yet acquired (the "God of the gaps" concept), we still end up
with the realization that you can't have your cake and eat it. Either you value evidence and think
critically or you are intellectually blind. Sure, there are ways to somehow have it both ways, but it
requires very complicated twisting and bending of the mind. It basically equals Orwellian "doublethink."
So, yes, science does make belief in ANY mystical nonsense ever more obsolete!
174
RE: Whole Series
Temur Z. Kalanov
06/02/2008
My work is devoted to the 21st century's most urgent problem: the theoretical proof of the existence
and uniqueness of God, based on the correct method of knowledge, the unity of formal logic and of
rational dialectics. This proof represents a theoretical model of God: a system of axioms from which
the principle of the existence and uniqueness of God is deduced. The principle runs as follows: God
exists as the Absolute, the Creator, the Governor of the essence (information) and of the phenomenon
(material manifestation of information). The theoretical model of man and the formulation of the
principle of development of mankind (as consequences of the model of God) are proposed as well.
The main conclusion is as follows: the principle of the existence and uniqueness of God represents
absolute scientific truth and, consequently, should be a starting point and a basis of the 21st century's
correct science.
RE: Whole Series
Juan Chamorro
06/02/2008
I find the "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" Big Questions series excellent. I read in
amazement all the essays, and even those I don't agree with, I find interesting, because they let me
see how this Big Question is seen from different points of view. This series has become one of my
favorite sources in order to focus on the faith-science debate. Besides, the series has been very useful
for me to learn where science stands today regarding how the universe came to be. The fact that the
essays are short has proved key to me. The authors are forced to be very succint, and that makes the
essays easy to follow for those with a poor scientific knowledge such as myself. Thank you very much.
RE: Whole Series
Christopher Heward
06/02/2008
Science does not make belief in a god obsolete. The fact that there is no god makes belief in a god
obsolete. Any false belief, whether superstitious, religious, scientific or otherwise, is automatically
obsolete, simply because it is false. The challenge for each of us in life is to distinguish what is true
from what is false. Logic, reason, and the scientific method are quite helpful in this regard. Faith is not.
One can believe anything based upon faith. For faith-based beliefs, no standard of proof is required. In
fact, evidence for faith-based beliefs is strictly prohibited. Otherwise, such beliefs would not be faith-
based. They would be rational.
Still, the rational approach is not perfect. The requirement of evidence for rational beliefs imposes
significant limitations upon what questions can be answered with confidence. The certainty of a
rational proof is contingent upon the quality of the evidence available. In the absence of sufficient
evidence, many intriguing questions are not answerable. For example, the Deist notion of god as "the
prime mover" must remain an open question. There is not enough evidence available to answer this
question logically. On the other hand, the common Judeo-Christian-Muslim notion of "God" as the
omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent creator of the universe is patently and
demonstrably false. Simple logic and reason easily demonstrate the impossibility of any entity
possessing this combination of absolute characteristics. Belief in such a God has been obsolete from
the beginning.
Paul Rizzuto
06/02/2008
Hitchens hopes "the human capacity for wonder neither will nor should be destroyed." Yes, this
wonder is what is responsible for mankind looking into and making scientific discoveries about myriad
things in the cosmos. This wonder is also what is responsible for primitive human belief in gods. Why
does Hitchens want to preserve it? Where there is perfect understanding, there is no room for wonder.
Do you wonder at a cracked toenail growing back to a healthy state? Does an astronomer wonder that
the other planets, even the sun, do not revolve around our Earth? I would submit to Hitchens that he
do a philosophical analysis of the concept and phenomemology of human wonder. In it is the rational
basis for belief in God.
RE: Whole Series
Angela Peel-White
175
06/02/2008
Fascinating reading in general, but I am always aware that at the heart of this question is an issue that
goes beyond word and analysis. How do we aim to comprehend what God could be let alone replace
he/she/it (cursed pronouns!) in a structure of beliefs about the nature of reality that is incomplete. It is
necessary as humans to ask these questions, but I'm not sure it isn't hubris to think we can answer
them too--yet.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Taylor, PhD
06/02/2008
As a historian and philosopher of psychology, I am extremely interested in the question, although the
way it is couched raises a number of crucial issues while leaving aside the most important core of the
discussion. For instance, there is no differentiation made by the different authors between organized
religious denominations and the capacity to experience generic spiritual states of consciousness within
the person, regardless of denominational affiliation. So the discussion seems like it is confined to the
dialog between belief in Christianity and evidence from physics that moots this or that part of the
Christian scheme of salvation.
Second, there is a widespread confusion among the writers about the difference between the methods
of science and the kind of worldview suggested by applying those methods. The methods produce
solid empiricism, but the worldview is a consensual conjecture. Let us call it the rationalists' fantasy. To
subscribe to it under the banner of science, as if ipso facto that made it superior, is bad science. In
fact, belief in the kind of worldview suggested by the products of science has all the characteristics of
religion, though most scientists deny that science for them is a religion.
Third, the way the question is posed makes science seem to be merely Christianity but without a God.
Is this a hidden bias of the Templeton Foundation? The discussion is confined to the beliefs of the
Judeo-Christian tradition, and has nothing substantive to say about spirituality across cultures,
traditions that are non-theistic, such as Buddhism, or human experience in a way that gets beyond
mere rational discussions about belief. It seems a big question only for Christians and their atheistic
counterparts in science, not one of the truly big questions confronting all individuals on the planet
about the mystery of being.
Fourth, the results are stock arguments from distinguished scientists and clerics who believe in this or
that, but who have never actually been transformed by a spiritual experience (or will admit it) or have a
nuanced enough understanding of the history and philosophy of science to remain objective about
their subject matter. They seem determined to keep spirituality, which is beyond mere reason, out of
the discussion and to limit the dialog only to rational arguments, which are interesting as a source of
their underlying assumptions but irrelevant to the deeper intent of the question.
That said, I would reformulate the question to ask: Is science the end all and be all of everything unto
itself or is it only one among many other useful epistemologies within modern culture? Is the purpose
of science to generate more science, or is to verify that the questioner is a bona fide scientist? Is
science a valuable tool, like other tools, including religious beliefs, to understand the mystery of the
person, which should more objectively remain the center of our inquiry about the ultimate nature of
reality?
To rectify many of these problems, the Templeton Foundation might want to consider contributing to
the development of a truly objective science of religions, focused on the phenomenology of spiritual
experience across cultures, instead of its present narrower focus of whether or not physics can prove
or disprove the truths of Christianity.
RE: Whole Series
Scott Macumber
06/02/2008
Science does in fact prove the bible to be true. Everytime that anyone tries to prove the bible wrong,
they end up proving it to be right. I am a ministry founder and an evangelist; I will defend the bible and
all that is in it. Science does not make God obselete. Just because scientists can't prove something in
the bible does not mean it's not true. It is that they can't figure it out, so they say it's false.
176
RE: Whole Series
John Hower
06/01/2008
With such a topic, why are there not any comments from creation scientists, who point out that science
has not proven evolution? The religion that has been disproven is Darwinism, or the position that there
must be natural explanations for all observed phenomena. The fact is that evolution has not been
demonstrated scientifically. To the contrary, science demonstrates easily that evolution has not
happened and could not happen. Natural selection simply shows that out of the existing gene pool
certain characteristics can survive better in a given environment. Birds in a seed-cracking environment
seem to develop thicker beaks, but this just represents selecting from existing alternatives. This says
nothing about making the transition from a fish to a bird. The genes for thick beaks were already there.
Nothing new was evolved.
What about mutations? Mutations can alter the genes--but in the wrong direction. Known mutations
such as Downs syndrome or cystic fibrosis decrease the full functionality of the organism. Mutations
decrease the complexity and functionality of the gene. Hypothetically, a mutation could be better suited
to an environment, but in the real practical world, the opposite happens. It takes an intelligent design to
move from a fish to a hummingbird. Microsoft improves its product not by chance errors but by the
planning of engineers. Science shows that the complexities of life could not have arisen by chance and
without intelligent design, but the religion of Darwinism has such sway over the scientific community
that alternatives cannot be considered.
RE: Whole Series
Frank G
06/01/2008
More and more during my senior years, as I continue to exist, there seems to be a growing effort to
challenge the existence of God. In a world that is forever advancing in technology, improved well-being
and health, prosperity combined with individual independence, it is no surprise that atheism is on the
rise. Who needs God when all is good and comfortable? But nobody is immortal. For those who don't
believe in any form of eternal salvation, I ask, whom do you appeal to once all is not well, when you
are dying in pain and suffering? Take heed and fear not. I will gladly pray for you.
RE: Steven Pinker
Paul Rizzuto
06/01/2008
The only way science could make theism obsolete is by turning man into god, that is, disclosing all
possible knowledge in the universe, thus making humankind perfect. Until then, it is overly optimistic
for an atheist to answer this question affirmatively, perhaps even haughty or prideful. I propose a new
understanding of God: He/She is the sum and source of the cosmic unknown. This really is just a
rephrasing of what an existentialist like Gabriel Marcel would call a "mystery."
RE: Whole Series
Harold Katcher
06/01/2008
There is no test that can prove the existence or non-existence of the God defined by the predominant
religions of the world. If there were an irrefutable test, the problem of God's existence would have
already been solved. What proof would convince? Even should a voice of thunder come from the sky,
telling us that He was the Lord our God, Creator of the universe, how would we know that it was telling
the truth, how would we know it was not a magician's trick, or an alien of a race superior to man, or a
demon?
The existence of God depends on the definition of God. If God is defined as that force in the universe
that is behind its evolution, the answer would be that, "yes, there is a God," and the problem would be
about the nature of that God. It can be shown mathematically (a la Prigogine) that complexity arises
from the laws of nature, but the question remains: why?
The evolution seen in nature would therefore be the most direct manifestation of God, and that is what
should be studied as evidence of His will; actions speak louder than words, especially words from
mere human beings. If there is a God that is fundamentally greater than man, a human being could no
more understand or communicate His thoughts than a dog could be taught the calculus. It is therefore
amazing that priests, mullahs, or rabbis who cannot understand things as simple as general relativity
177
or quantum mechanics nonetheless tell us that they understand God's plan or purpose. Even the Bible
has God say to Man, "My thoughts are not your thoughts." At the most, one can say, "This I believe,
but I may be wrong." With such humility, proper to all human beings, the arrogance of religious
authority would be quelled and the pernicious qualities of religion obviated.
RE: Whole Series
chenbagam
06/01/2008
Jesus said, "Those who know all, but are lacking in themselves, are utterly lacking." Socrates said,
"Know yourself." Modern science asks, "Who are we?" Jesus also said, "Show me the stone that the
builders rejected; that is the keystone." The secret is in what modern science has rejected.
RE: Whole Series
Mali Bahreman
05/31/2008
For me, the belief in God is really the belief in goodness, and science does not make goodness
obsolete. However, if belief in God is belief in the supernatural, science has accomplished more than
religion. I know that religion is not equivalent to belief in God (goodness). One can believe in God and
not in religion. To be fair to religions, they have brought a lot of people to goodness.
RE: Whole Series
Raja Rethinam
05/31/2008
It's interesting to see how two scholars have the same starting point and end up with opposite
conclusions. Both Mary Midgley and Robert Sapolsky talk of the less than 100 percent objectivity or
predictability of physical sciences. But Midgley posits the need for basic trust that includes faith;
Sapolsky insists that ecstasy born of science may be required, but not religion.
To me, it appears that Midgley advances towards the scientific basis of God's existence, when she
hints at the rationality of accepting others' consciousness, starting with the personal experience of
one's own mind. The intelligent behavior of others does point to the unseen intelligence they ought to
have. Similarly, what is revealed in the cosmos necessarily implies the supreme intelligence. This is
not merely a worldview, which one could exchange with just any other in the way Midgley suggests,
but rather a compelling rational foundation toward faith. There are, after all, gradational stages of
reasoning, from physical evidence of material sciences, to personal evidence of one's own
consciousness, to rational deduction of others' consciousness and that of God from what the world
manifests itself to be.
Having said this, Sapolsky is no less reasonable. As things stand right now, the most predictable
outcome can only be offered by science and not by religion. One could hardly dispute him. But then a
psychological outcome merely implies more personal efforts, more patience and longer awaiting. As
for a spiritual outcome, it could very well be that we haven't stepped into its threshold yet. Suppose the
following maxim is true: He who recognizes the rationality of God's power and love will definitely see it
happen. It's obvious we haven't yet cultivated such a vision or put in the relevant training.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Garramone
05/31/2008
The belief in God or religion does not interfere with scientific methodology, provided it does not
contradict scientific findings. Scientific reasoning will not interfere with religious beliefs unless these
beliefs are taken on a concrete, immature level (such as 144-hour Creation or a 6,000-year-old
universe). So science does not make belief in God obsolete unless belief in God has extra baggage.
St. Augustine, a fundamental scholar of the Church, also argued against the literal interpretation of
Genesis and held that the only thing sacrosanct in the Christian religion was the Holy Trinity and
Salvation--not the details of the physical universe or its mechanics.
RE: Whole Series
chenbagam
05/31/2008
Basically, the question is wrong. Without knowing the real meaning of the word God, it is like a fighting
with a shadow. People who participate in religious activities are really employees and not the employer
or the real authority by which the religions were founded. They are simply following the things that
178
were done generation by generation. They have no idea about the real intention of the writers of the
scriptures; it is meaningless to talk with those who have no real knowledge of the scriptures. But the
scriptures are the treasure of what the scientists want to know. So now it is very urgent for the people
who deal in science to research the real meaning of scriptural words. It would be very useful for all.
John W Kennette
05/30/2008
The pursuit of knowledge and understanding is basic to human nature. A keen respect for the
contribution made by science and an interest in what the future may hold make us wonder what
contribution we can make. I would make the case that the task of science and religion is to express the
essence of God.
RE: Whole Series
Artsy Jane
05/30/2008
Belief in God is in the realm of spirituality. Better questions would be: what place for God more than
200 years after the Enlightenment, and does humanism make belief in God obsolete? Why do we still
need that belief after we've created all these other concepts and constructs that help us grasp the
world, cope with life and mortality, and sustain our sense of self, such as psychoanalysis, humanism,
romantic love, the ideal of self-fulfillment, and the pursuit of happiness? It is harder for me to make
these co-exist with belief in God. Science is a whole different realm.
RE: Whole Series
Norm Koehler
05/30/2008
Science doesn't make god obsolete. God is a construct of the human mind. God has been used all
through history as a means to control the masses. The worship of god was controlled by a lazy elite
and foisted onto the more simple people. God has been the downfall of human progress.
RE: Whole Series
Laura Wardrip
05/30/2008
No, I don't think that science dismisses God. God is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful.
Since that is the case, I can surely see how God could be responsible for the workings of the world, the
study of which we call science.
RE: Whole Series
John Anih
05/30/2008
It is not possible for science to drive God to oblivion. Science has done and will continue doing much
to help humanity understand the dynamics of our relationship with God.
RE: Whole Series
D. Zent
05/30/2008
Science can only describe what physically "is" and provide an analysis of the makeup of "is." But
science did not create what "is," and in any case can only observe, from the outside, spiritual
processes. Anything science has to say about where life came from has to be taken on faith, in the
same way religious beliefs are, and no scientist has ever created life from the completely inanimate--
nor ever will, I believe. So my belief in God has every bit as much value as a philosophy as does
science. I can still accept the benefits science offers while not necessarily accepting the atheist
assertion of what that knowledge means.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas McNamara
05/30/2008
As several of the respondents have already pointed out, science cannot, by definition, prove or
disprove the existence of a purely spiritual being. A better way to phrase the question would be: Do
you believe scientific knowledge, which is based on empirical evidence, is compatible with traditional
religious beliefs? This question goes to the heart of the matter because it is traditional religious beliefs,
not abstract knowledge, that motivate most people to behave in ways that have a direct impact on
179
other human beings (for better or for worse).
Traditional religions have motivated some individuals to extraordinary altruism and others to extreme
violence. Human behavior is vastly more consequential in this world we all share than any belief
system. Any thinking person would agree with that statement. Thus, my proposed question can serve
as the basis for a meaningful dialogue across all religions and cultures. Furthermore, this is a question
that scientific knowledge can address effectively.
RE: Whole Series
Joe Galatha
05/30/2008
It has been suggested that Neil Armstrong's first words on the moon were "One small step for (a) man,
one giant leap for mankind." Religion can be said to be indispensable to heal and save the soul of a
man, while being a burden for mankind. Religions give counsel and endorsement to hate and
segregate people for many disparate reasons (despite preachers' and gurus' teachings and pleadings
to the contrary). Yet a person finds solace and healing company, like family, in a church of his
choosing. Until we figure out that we need to be united as humans, and that religion only divides us as
groups of worshippers, religion is destructive to our global and national populations. It still serves to
heal a man, and yet it continues to wound mankind.
RE: Whole Series
Darren Perkins
05/30/2008
Belief in God is waning simply because he is not seen as needed due to the advancement of science.
Our creature comforts are well taken care of by our society, to the point that even the poorest
individuals do not need to worry for the basics of life. Most people who reject God as a possibility do
not do so because they are well versed on scientific matters that explain things to their satisfaction, but
because they wish to follow their own natural hedonistic tendencies rather than submit to a moral and
Holy creator. Thus they decide that God does not exist, or they create one that does not require that
they behave in a moral fashion, except to the extent that they prescribe for themselves. They call
themselves good people but reject the one who will be the judge of that in the end.
RE: Whole Series
Edgar Svendsen
05/30/2008
Science is not so much a body of knowledge as a methodology. As we seek to know reality, that
methodology has been amazingly successful. Belief without data is less successful, and where it is
specific, as in some holy books, often dead wrong. Belief in God seems wrongheaded. We should be
looking for evidence of God, using the methodology that, currently, seems the most efficient one that
man has developed. Belief, per se, is not a reliable guide. God may or may not exist, and belief in Him,
in and of itself, will not illuminate the isssue.
RE: Whole Series
Rubens Turkienicz
05/30/2008
Perhaps all beliefs (in anything, including so-called "science" and a so-called creator "God") are simply
irrelevant. The human mind is certainly all powerful, and we may use it for the benefit of all.
RE: Whole Series
Jurek Zarzycki
05/29/2008
How can we rationally discuss such a topic without first agreeing on a definition of "God"?
RE: Whole Series
Susan Weikel Morrison
05/29/2008
Science studies physical reality. If God is not of that reality, there's nothing science can say about God.
I believe the human mind is capable of interfacing God's reality ("kingdom") and the physical universe.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Nick Saint-Erne
05/29/2008
180
As a scientist, I have found that the more I learn about the mysteries of the Universe, the internal
workings of an organism, or the genetic codes that link all of life, I am more confirmed in my belief in a
Creator who instigated all things through a purposeful design. There is no doubt in my mind that all of
this is not just random activities that occurred through entopic reactions, but rather life, the world, and
everything are a thoughtful result of an omnipotent designer. Too many coincidences occur in nature to
allow the evolutionary process to have arrived at its current state just through random genetic diversity.
RE: Whole Series
Delano Hill
05/29/2008
Interesting but maybe the intellectuals should consider toning down their message so the middle class
could understand their real meaning.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
05/29/2008
In scientific and technological endeavors, God is pretty much obsolete. When only the thoroughly
discredited politicians are invoking his name, we will know the end is near, and when they all stop
doing it, the obsolescence will be complete.
RE: Whole Series
Dan Kanoza
05/29/2008
It is obvious that humans have a strange need to look for something other than logic to allow them to
go through life. Polls indicate that the number of people who don't believe in a god, or gods, is getting
larger as more knowledge of the universe becomes available. A change in thinking is slowly taking
place. It's unfortunate that so many people continue to believe and are willing to kill if you don't agree
with them.
RE: Whole Series
Anthony A. Aiya-Oba
05/29/2008
Science will someday make belief in God (the Stem-Being) inevitable.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Sobotor
05/28/2008
Faith in truth may seem to become more necessary as science sheds increasing light through
understanding. But as we realize the mechanism for how things operate in the physical world we are
able to take increasing comfort in better knowing the miraculous revealed. The reassurance is in the
complexity and how seamless the various and intricate details are woven together, showing the far
from random nature of things. I often wondered about the beauty in unseen detail and events and now
wonder if it is simply an extension of how scientific pursuit is encouraged by a God not afraid of
revelation.
To come to understand the nature of evolution and its dissenting impact on the six literal days of
creation recorded in Genesis is not an insult or blasphemy to a God who endowed part of that creation
with reason and intellect; it is inevitability. A scientist is no more wrong concluding there is no God in
light of his understanding than a Godly man is being convinced that denying current truth is necessary
to affirm his belief in the same God.
I can speak as one who is scientifically ignorant but who possesses a level of reason sufficient to allow
me to safely assume that those more educated, in theses areas of my relative ignorance, know more
than I do about those areas in which they have been convinced by application of this same reasoning
ability. Far from an enemy, they are my proxy, dedicated to advancing a facet of our collective
understanding of the world in ways I will never completely understand. But I have to reason their
understandings are based in some truth as so much of what we have is the result of these truths
applied. Further they are honorably motivated by a burning desire to understand the unknown using
reason and intellect in the same way I would had I the same education, access to information, and
passion for scientific understanding.
I can see how for a scientist it would be frustrating to seemingly have to deny what has been
181
concluded based on study and application and goes against what they know to be true in order to allow
for God. I also recognize the same can be said for an individual who knows, as the result of the
application of knowledge and experience, the reality of a personal God who is not expressible as a
quantifiable being. No denial of truth is needed to embrace either science or God. The simple elegance
of each points to the other.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert
05/28/2008
No, science does not make a belief in God obsolete. What science does is tell us that we must be
more patient than ever before about receiving enlightenment from God. Science strips God down to
the human hope of continually divining reason in the natural world before us. But stripping God down is
fraught with peril and requires continual advances in human patience. It means we must study the
natural and not lose our heads and throw our hands up to God, in the traditional sense, or just
pronounce existence Godless, an absurdity without even reason. We are required to be more
disciplined--moral--than man has ever been and to submit to the process of generation upon
generation of humans studying the natural and paradoxically becoming more and more capable of the
supernatural with each divination of nature's secrets.
RE: Whole Series
Mark
05/28/2008
Science offers no opinion of the obsolescence of a belief in god. The question itself is specious, almost
insulting. Why, if I were God, I'd . . . God is on all sides of every argument and is invoked, rightly, to
support opposing views. God is omniversatile. Anything can be made to seem right. As to the utility of
a belief in God, science knows nothing of it.
RE: Whole Series
Deborah
05/28/2008
This is an excellent series. I have copied it for discussion at the Unitarian church that I attend. Are
there any women scientists that could speak?
RE: Whole Series
James Hamilton
05/28/2008
Thank you for a wonderfully thought-provoking series! I've loved reading the authors' comments in The
Economist and look forward to more. This kind of discussion elevates us all.
RE: Whole Series
Ian Morison
05/28/2008
Has science rendered religion obsolete? Probably not. As other contributors have demonstrated,
scientists of faith still find it possible to see God's hand in science or to view science and religion as
"non-overlapping magisteria." However, it is not just science, and certainly not just cosmology and
evolutionary biology, but the entire ever-expanding body of human knowledge that is challenging
religion.
In the domain of philosophy, for example, epistemologists have exposed the inherent flaws and
inconsistencies in religious propositions, while ethicists have shown that faith is not the best basis for
engaging with complex issues such as rights and responsibilities or liberty and fairness. Biblical
studies have shown how the Gospels were edited long after the event to meet the theological agenda
of the day. Archeology has challenged the veracity of many seminal events of the Judeo-Christian
tradition. Aesthetics helps to explain why we find great art so emotionally potent that it leads us to
believe in the ineffable. Psychology and anthropology, using the new tools of social Darwinism,
provide plausible explanations for our deep-rooted propensity for religious belief.
More fundamentally still, neuroscience and philosophy have combined to undermine our even more
deep-rooted belief in mind/brain and body/spirit dualism. Even the theologically central concept of free
will is now under intellectual attack. The obsolescence of religion is an inevitable consequence of
these and other advances in our understanding of the universe and our humble status within it.
182
RE: Whole Series
Anne Baring
05/28/2008
It may be that the basic problem for both religion and science is the image of God we have inherited
from a distant past. This image may now be in need of renewal. God may be longing for release from
His imprisonment in the strait-jacket of our beliefs, whether religious or scientific. To use a gardening
metaphor, God has become pot-bound, constricted by the anthropomorphic, gender-biased,
paternalistic image that was projected onto Him. As Teilhard de Chardin suggested, it may be that we
need to formulate a new image of God that is related to the phenomenal discoveries science has
recently made about the vast and ever-expanding dimensions of the universe.
Also we need to know more about our own consciousness. Is our physical brain the origin of
consciousness or is it the slowly maturing vehicle of what might be called "cosmic consciousness"? It
may be that our consciousness is still too undeveloped to be able to understand what might lie beyond
the image of God we have formulated. Perhaps we could focus more on the primary aim of the Eastern
religions or what they named "enlightenment"--a state that the mystics of all religious traditions named
"union with the divine."
RE: Whole Series
Jeffrey Johnson
05/27/2008
There is one and only one scientific experiment that can discover the truth about God. It begins like
this: If God exists, he must have some describable nature, character, and set of attributes and
perfections. And if he is real, and describable, then there must be only one correct nature of God
among many competing notions offered by various religions. If the bible is a book containing words
which God inspired, then God himself has left an experiment for anyone to try. You simply have to
"knock." "Ask wisdom." "Prove" him. If you want to know, you ask. However you know how, you just
ask him. If you do, you will come to know. It is the simplest experiment, and I honestly believe it to be
perfectly scientific. Anyone can replicate it. It is guaranteed. If God promised it, he is bound by it, or
else he ceases to be God.
There is only one caveat--if you try the experiment, you must be prepared for the consequences. You
must go into it with the full commitment that if you receive the knowledge of God, you must change
your life. You must recognize that you have only taken the first step in a life-long journey. If you have
no desire to complete the journey, God will not show you the path. For many, pride gets in the way.
There is nothing difficult about finding the truth. God does not intend it to be difficult. The only
impediment for some people is that they do not want to know the truth because they might have to
humble themselves, abandon past beliefs, or change their ways in life. For the skeptical scientists who
wrote some of these columns, it might mean having to rescind many of their conclusions from a life of
scholarly work. God is very real, and I have scientifically proved it for myself. He does not hide the
truth, except from those who do not have the desire to know. His way is the way of happiness and is
worth any and all sacrifices one might make to find him.
RE: Whole Series
Gene
05/27/2008
Blind faith has been with us ever since we became aware of ourselves and started asking the big
questions. Then we started to fear every conceivable event and questions we couldn't understand.
What did we do to solve these fears and questions? We created gods to enable us to cope. These
man-created gods evolved into today's god via the church and its religion. Man even created this god
in man's own image and then turned it around to state in the bible that it was god who created man in
god's own image. This made this man-created god more believable.
In order to ensure their survival, all churches had to find a way to have complete control over their
flocks and to brainwash them so as to not lose their blind faith. Their religion along with their bibles
served this purpose very well: heaven for believers and a fiery hell for non-believers. My door is always
open for a real creator, if there is one. The present god and all its baggage do not fit, as they smell too
much of the essence of arrogant delusional man.
183
RE: Whole Series
Thomas Valan
05/27/2008
God will never be obsolete. He is the main character that explains the story that science has to offer
us. He is our creation . . . we are not His. And as science determines what the story is, when it dives
into the depths of the smallest parts of us, or soars through the vastness of our ever-expanding
heavens, God must grow also, to explain it all. We must re-create Him to give meaning to our new
deeper, more expansive story.
But it's not what has been created, or is being created--including God and what science has
determined--that is important. What's important is that anything is ever created at all. It's not important
where I came from, where I've been, or where I'm going. It's that I am here now, that there is an Earth
to stand on, that the Sun, our star, shines down on all of us everyday, that there are trillions of stars,
that there is anything. This helps me understand what it means that I am.
RE: Whole Series
R. Mirman
05/27/2008
It is not science that makes belief in God obsolete but language. The word is undefined and
undefinable. See the chapter "Does the word God exist?" in my book, Our Almost Impossible
Universe: Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely. Can anyone
disagree with the arguments?
RE: Whole Series
Bill Carman
05/27/2008
God is a creation of man, period.
RE: Whole Series
Joe
05/27/2008
The question is poorly stated. Why does it have to be science (which has nothing to do with religion)
that makes religion obsolete? The more basic question is simply: Is belief in God obsolete?
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert
05/27/2008
After reading through most of the reader responses, I think I see part of the problem. Many scientists
and, of course, atheists try to remove traditional religion as much as possible from their thoughts and
try to proceed by proof, facts, etc. But for all their attempts to remove God, they are left with a residue
of God because they have to believe in at least reason and the possibility of future discovery for the
betterment of man or be branded simple nihilists who believe existence to be absurd. So the scientific
project can be characterized, for all its discounting of God, as a slow, perhaps the slowest, path to
God. We have generations upon generations of the most patient and meticulous men and women
engrossed with the natural, divining the natural, in something of a balanced walk between just throwing
up their hands in a call to the supernatural and pronouncing existence godless, absurd. The more we
have people patient and meticulous without being engrossed with minutiae, the more we have a
humanity which takes the long view and becomes capable of the balanced walk I speak of.
Bob Blinn
05/27/2008
I built my own 15-inch reflector telescope. With this crude instrument, I can visually reduce the
apparent distance to nearby galaxies by a factor of roughly 50. So I can see galaxies a few hundred
million light years distant. I understand the Hubble ultra deep field extends over 10 billion light years. Is
Dr. Stenger telling us that the observable universe is just the tiniest fraction of the entire universe? I
am barely able to deal with the few hundred galaxies I can see. What basis does he have for such an
assertion? Is this a matter of his personal belief or of science?
RE: Whole Series
Jeremy Besch
05/27/2008
184
No, and yes. Science is the means by which we come to a greater understanding of the universe. More
importantly, through science, we should also come to a greater understanding of ourselves. It's in the
understanding of ourselves that I suspect we'll gain a clearer understanding of what "God" truly is. In
doing so, however, the classical interpretation of God becomes less and less viable.
The pursuit of science should be taken as motivation to have more faith in ourselves. Our successes
and failures are a testament to our abilities and potential. Science allows for a keener awareness of
our own intrinsic capacities and thus makes it less necessary to depend on an extrinsic deity or
explanation for answers. This becomes more difficult as our discoveries and new understandings
make it (sometimes frightfully) clear that we are so ignorant of so much. But human greatness equates
to our ability to recognize our ignorance (and in some ways embrace it) and push forward anyway. In
the past, God has served as the explanation. Science lets us say there's a better answer, even if we're
not yet capable of knowing what it is.
In the end, science allows for greater faith in ourselves and less need for faith in other things. It makes
it less uncomfortable for us not to know things and to move forward anyway. Science does not
eliminate God, but it should prompt us to redefine It.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Will Taylor
05/27/2008
In reference to God, Miller writes: "He is the answer to existence, not part of existence itself." If God is
not part of existence, He must exist outside of existence. In order to exist outside of existence, surely
one must not exist. If one does not exist, one is hardly in a position to be the basis of any kind of
sensible belief.
RE: Whole Series
Paula Phillips
05/27/2008
Oh, please. Science is the means by which man describes the universe. It is a useful tool for
measuring and finding answers to certain questions relating to the universe and each person's
personal questions. But science cannot answer, nor does it endeavor to answer, one extremely
important question: why? Why did all this universe thing happen? Why did I happen? For the answer to
this type of question, one must look beyond science.
RE: Whole Series
Allen Williams
05/27/2008
From the Urantia Book: "To the unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His
hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs
are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of
energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational
genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal
oblivion and soul extinction. . . . But such is not man's end and eternal destiny; such a vision is but the
cry of despair uttered by some wandering soul who has become lost in spiritual darkness, and who
bravely struggles on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a material philosophy, blinded by the
confusion and distortion of a complex learning. And all this doom of darkness and all this destiny of
despair are forever dispelled by one brave stretch of faith on the part of the most humble and
unlearned of God's children on earth."
RE: Whole Series
James Mendes
05/27/2008
For a moment, let us remove the notion of God from this question. Instead, let us ask, "Can science
make belief in *anything* obsolete?" The heliocentric model of the solar system is now known to be
fact. However, as when the model was first postulated, there are those who still firmly believe
otherwise. Hence, modern geocentrism as a belief is not obsolete.
Another example involves perhaps a stranger, yet more widespread belief. Science, in the form of
explorers and Earth observation satellites, have found no evidence of communities of elves or flying
reindeer anywhere on the planet. But millions of people still believe an elderly, overweight gentleman
185
in a red suit delivers presents to every home in the world each year. The fact that most of these people
are children does not negate their belief, nor can science ever make it obsolete. Indeed, a
knowledgeable six-year-old, told that this man does not exist, could proceed to kick one of his presents
and declare, "I refute it thus."
Proof or disproof does not prevent belief. Were scientists somehow able to completely refute the
existence of God, I sincerely doubt anything would change for the person of true faith.
RE: Whole Series
Sarah Fenwick
05/27/2008
Science didn't save my cleaning lady's mother-in-law, who died yesterday of cancer. Although she was
deeply grieved, as she washed the coffee mugs on the morning after the funeral, she said that her
mother-in-law had gone on to the real world. We live in the false world, she said.
Hers is an unshakeable belief in a God that goes beyond our man-made systems; systems which she
quite wisely sees as temporary. Although I admire science immensely, I also think that the more we
explain about the nature of the universe, the less we truly understand. Conclusion? No, science does
not make belief in God obsolete. It does make belief in God more challenging, forcing one to think
beyond the material solutions we have all around us.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Corfield
05/27/2008
Looking down the list I note that only the Abrahamic god is discussed. Models such as Buddhism and
Hinduism are not covered. Would it be useful to generalize "God" in this kind of discussion, or do we
presume that if there is a god it's the Abrahamic one? Still, some interesting arguments on both sides. I
think it would be nice to separate religion out into parts--the loving bit and the dogmatic bit. In that
respect, the dogmatic bit is clearly the problem. The loving bit we can keep.
RE: Whole Series
Karen LaBonte
05/26/2008
Interesting question. What's even more interesting is that 12 of the 13 answers are given by men and
one by a woman. Is this because the Templeton Foundation doesn't regard other women as "leading
scientists and scholars"?
RE: Whole Series
Brad Hoffman
05/26/2008
Scientific and religious beliefs cannot coexist under one unified belief. This can be seen on both ends
of the spectrum: from scientific wing-dings who fancy themselves too brilliant and mature to follow the
follies of simple men (which are the creations of religion), to the religious zealots who go so far as to
consider dinosaur bones fake. But I disagree with the argument that science and religion must
counteract each other. People say that God is a creation of man and our investigations of the world
around us prove this so--as if we could only have a God if we were to remain ignorant of the working
world. The truth is that no one knows. No one has measured God or recorded him. Nor can they prove
that there is no supernatural world. It's how we choose to deal with this mystery that makes us who we
are. It's how we perceive the importance of this ultimate question that defines us.
RE: Whole Series
S. Crawford
05/26/2008
It is an ironic twist to consider whether science could make belief in God obsolete; belief in God and
the "revealed" knowledge contained in the Judeo-Christian scriptures has historically been the
textbook of science. The Judeo-Christian belief is that God has revealed himself in history; otherwise,
many commentators to this series would be correct, no one could know God.
The Bible revealed scientific facts millennia before they were discovered by science--scientific
foreknowledge. Just a few examples: (1) The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many
thought the earth was flat, the Bible stated that the earth is spherical. (2) Light can be divided (Job
38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which
186
can be parted and then recombined. (3) The earth floats free in space (Job 26:7), affected only by
gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up
by Atlas, the Bible states that the earth floats in space. (4) Creation is made of particles, indiscernible
to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists
of invisible elements. These are just a few examples.
Robert Hensington
05/26/2008
Mr. Phillips, I congratulate you on being able to admit to yourself that we don't know everything and,
rather than presume so far as to say that there could never be a God, you conclude that you do not
know. Yet you resolve within yourself that there is one, at least at the present time, and find solace in
these facts, whether they be artificial or not. It's all about finding comfort in our everyday lives, and you
have done it without trying to get others, people who may be content such as yourself, to change their
ideas and beliefs, accommodating to yours. Good for you.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Matt King
05/26/2008
I completely agree with Sapolsky's statement that science isn't always the answer we seek. We don't
know everything and definitely will not know everything--there is too much to know. If you look at
science and religion, they work more together then apart. Science is our way of explaining things in
detail that we have experimented and worked on to figure out. Religion is our way of explaining what
we do not know and likely will never know. Also, many times science has proven that what religion
teaches us is true. For example: evolutionary theory states that everything that is living came from a
"soup" that was struck by lightning and started the makings of one-cell organisms. Religion teaches us
that God made man from non-living materials. In my mind, these ideas are the same thing.
RE: Steven Pinker
Matt King
05/26/2008
Right from the beginning I started to disagree with Mr. Pinker's statement. We do not know where the
universe came from--we know its history up to a point but beyond that we have no idea. He states how
religion says the universe is only a couple thousand years old, but we know from science that it's a
couple billion years old. The science part is based on one year being the time it takes the earth to
rotate around our sun. Yet in religious terms, the base of time could be different, say, one year being
how long it took our sun to rotate around the center of the Milky Way. Also he tries to show that we
know what is going on in our minds, when in religion we call this the soul. What we call something in
science has a completely different name in religion. Therefore, what we call the neurosensors and the
human soul could possibly be the same thing, proving that religion was right again.
RE: Steven Pinker
Micah Bair
05/26/2008
I respect Pinker's opinion that science explains a lot, but it has not explained everything yet. Besides,
many of these discoveries are still assumptions of how things work. They don't answer why they
function the way they do. He also picks on morals and neurological advancements, but just because
we can plug wires into an organ and register its electrical impulses doesn't mean we understand it. We
have only begun to map it.
I completely disagree with Pinker's last three paragraphs. Just because there hasn't been an answer
does not mean one doesn't exist. When people didn't know what caused illness, they kept looking for a
reason. Today that reason is found in religion. If there is something that science can't explain, people
will look to a higher power to explain it. Science may be getting closer to making religion obsolete, but
it has not gotten that far yet and it may never will.
RE: Steven Pinker
Michael Wassenaar
05/26/2008
I agree with Pinker's argument against the first-cause argument, intelligent design, and the soul, but
his argument against divine command theory (DCT) represents an outdated philosophical consensus.
DCT has developed in the past 20 years, based on the insight that it matters whether the theory
187
assumes a generic, philosophical god or that of a particular religious tradition such as Christianity,
which includes "loving" among God's attributes. To base moral obligation on the will of a loving God
goes a long way toward solving the circularity problem to which Pinker alludes. For more, check out
Robert Adams's book, Finite and Infinite Goods.
Micah Bair
05/26/2008
I agree with Cardinal Schonborn that science doesn't make belief in God obsolete. Science can
answer some questions, like how or when, but not all of them, like why. Even if it does answer some of
them, it can still cause other questions to arise. Since science can't answer some of the questions, it
causes people to look elsewhere for answers, usually to religion. I also agree with his idea that
because people are dealing with new technology for entertainment and during work, they are forgetting
about religion. They are being drawn away by science. In my own experience, when I can't find an
answer in science I tend to ask a higher power for an explanation. This usually occurs when I have a
"why" question.
RE: Whole Series
Maurice Goulet
05/26/2008
I find discussions about the relationship of God and science quite circular. It is evident from all the
points of view that the position from which authors start is where they end up. It all comes down to
whether you have faith.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Herrold
05/26/2008
Science has not made the belief in God obsolete. I am not an extremely religious person, but I do still
believe in God. I have never really doubted my beliefs in God nor doubted there is a God. In the
science world, scientists try to figure out why things occur and how they occur. Some may be
successful while others may make no contribution. Whichever it is, it should not have anything to do
with making the belief in God obsolete.
I enjoy learning about science and why things happen and what causes them to happen. Our scientific
discoveries would be nowhere without the belief in God or some kind of faith or hope. Still forty percent
of scientists believe in God. Many of them pray and hope that eventually God will help them discover
something or find a reason why something happens. At this point, I don't understand how anyone
could think that science has made the belief in God obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Nigel Blackmore
05/26/2008
God has always been at the frontiers of science. What humans did not understand, were in awe or
fearful of, could be safely attributed to the magical powers of this supreme being--God. The problem
with this as a base for God's existence is that every major scientific development pushes the
boundaries and, therefore, God further away. A new religous approach is needed that welcomes and is
not suspicious of science.
RE: Whole Series
Helen Shanks
05/26/2008
As a church minister with a science background, I feel that the current scientific hypothesis of string
theory requires a greater degree of faith than a faith in God. No matter how much we learn about our
universe, it simply reveals how little we really understand. Science can never prove or disprove the
existence of a God. It is about time it stopped trying.
RE: Whole Series
Shambhu Gupta
05/26/2008
The word "God" is man-made. We have given a name to someone or something which is supposed to
have created us. A father or mother has the right and ability to name a child. The reverse is not true.
As such, even if "God" exists, we have no right to name him or her. "God" will have to precede matter,
188
time, and space. God will have to precede all forms of energy known and understood by man.
Electricity, magnetism, gravity, radioactive energy, and many others are all interconvertible. What was
the original form of energy from which all known forms of energy originated? It is neither possible nor
necessary to know that original form. However, from time to time people will claim that they know what
is unknowable. It is kind of scam that has been going for a long time.
RE: Whole Series
Edward Nugee
05/26/2008
Keith Ward says, rightly in my opinion, "It is not science that renders belief in God obsolete. It is a
strictly materialist interpretation of the world that renders belief in God obsolete, and which science is
taken by some people to support." The materialist interpretation of the world is wrong. There is ample
evidence, for example, attested by tests carried out under rigorous scientific conditions, that telepathy
exists, even though the exercise of telepathic powers of communication cannot be controlled to order.
As Professor H.H. Price, Wykeham Professor of Logic in the University of Oxford for 30 years, wrote:
"We must conclude, I think, that there is no room for telepathy in a materialistic universe. Telepathy is
something which ought not to happen at all if a materialistic theory were true. But it does happen. So
there must be something wrong with the materialistic theory, however numerous and imposing the
normal facts which support it may be."
Some people who claim to be scientists have closed minds on this and similar subjects (poltergeists
are another phenomenon which are well attested but for which there is no materialistic explanation).
Once you get away from the strictly materialist interpretation of the world, the main obstacle to belief in
the existence of God disappears. God, if he exists, is obviously a spiritual being, with no atoms or
molecules in his makeup; but there are many examples of his communicating with human beings, mind
to mind. Sometimes the communication may take an apparently physical form, as in the appearances
of Jesus after his death which are listed by St. Paul or the equally well attested appearance of Jesus to
Bishop Hugh Montefiore in the 1930's which turned him almost instantaneously from a devout Jew,
considering becoming a rabbi, to a convinced Christian.
Science has nothing to say about paranormal phenomena like this, because they cannot, like
materialist scientific experiments, be repeated to order and thus be verified in the way that materialist
theories can (though the experiments with telepathy come near to this); but that does not mean that
they are any the less real.
David
05/26/2008
Cardinal Schonborn argues essentially that "our innermost being" is more than the "quantitative and
reductive description of the workings of their parts." True as it is, I would like to suggest that science
and its methodologies in understanding Nature can be more than merely the quantitative and
reductive. That is why the notion of "intelligence" as an external input or constraint to the reductive can
be so exciting. Even though the "holistic" Nature may not be directly analyzed, the notion of
"intelligence" is quantitative and observational, and hence scientific. Therefore, a truly expanded
(rather than exclusively reductive) science is compatible with belief in God and the understanding of
Nature as well.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Maloney
05/26/2008
Outstanding compilation--a provocative discourse on universal questions.
RE: Whole Series
Sara Barton-Wood
05/26/2008
Belief in God may be absolute in the sense that one either believes, or one does not, in a being
beyond our understanding. But belief is not the same as knowledge, and whatever you believe, you
have to accept that you may be wrong. In science we have theories which are constantly being
updated, revised, sometimes rejected as false. In religion we have stories which are constantly being
reinterpreted, translated, or shown to be untrue. Both are valuable. Ultimately, neither can be shown to
be 100 percent. What, then, can we depend upon? Suggestions please.
189
RE: Whole Series
Rita Barrett
05/26/2008
Einstein changed his mind many times on many subjects. What scientists knows is so minute
compared to what they don't know. What they don't know is more than what they know. Some
scientists say we are the center of the universe. Others say we are not. How will they ever know? What
are the boundaries? How do they calculate? There is no end to this debate. But "the conclusion to the
matter" is found in Ecclesiastes 12:13: "Fear God and keep His Commandments: for this is the whole
duty of man."
RE: Whole Series
Jayesh A Patel
05/26/2008
Looking at your contributers list, the God you refer to is the Judeo/Christian God, and that God is
patently obsolete by current scientific standards. So I turn your gaze to the creator of maths. There is
"another" God, the pagan/Roman/Greek/Hindu God. From a Hindu perspective, the concept of zero is
from "Sanyas" (Sanskrit) to Sifer (Arabic) to Cipher (Latin). This term defines non-existence and is
similar to God. Western thinkers who do not know Hindu Vedas and the Sanskrit language are lost.
The Christian God can be rescued if he is returned to his Hindu roots. Hindu "religion" gave the world
maths and also language (English being of Indo-European origin). This pagan/Hindu God is defined as
free of material association, pure, the absolute truth, of full and perfect knowledge, all-pervading,
without beginning or end, attainable only to those free of contact with the material world through
control of their five senses.
RE: Steven Pinker
Mick Moore
05/26/2008
Those here arguing against the existence of a God ascribe such a childish, literal interpretation of
scripture to those who do believe. So are the atheists so sure of the true nature of what they see? If
they are, then they are not looking hard enough. We, the observers, place our own construct on this
world, but we can only apprehend a fraction of the available data through our senses. The narrow
window of electromagnetic waves that we perceive as visible light is a good example. Think of the
photon that brings us this light; photons have no mass, and matter itself is made up of particles which
act on and react to forces that work from outside our view of a causal space-time universe. We can't
even find a fundamental particle, and we can't create or destroy matter. Quantum entanglement, the
zeno effect, and even some of the processes in evolution are working outside of time and the logical
chain of cause and effect.
Let's get rid of this notion of ethics being an arbitrary set of rules imposed on us by some superior
being. We didn't come up with ethics ourselves either. Symmetry is a fundamental characteristic of the
cosmos on a macro and a micro level; it permeates everything from our perception of beauty to our
ethics. The "scales of justice" give nodding acknowledgement to this. It can be said that the laws that
govern subatomic particles and all of nature and the universe as a whole are ethical laws. When we
can apprehend this reality beyond our everyday perception, we can be said to "see" God.
RE: Michael Shermer
Ron Good
05/26/2008
Michael Shermer is the only one of the critics answering the question with a yes who equivocates by
saying science makes the God concept obsolete but not belief in God. This position seems to allow
one to reject the concept of God but accept belief in God, a rather strange combination. The only way
to make sense of this curious position is to associate belief in God with other irrational, unscientific
habits of mind that continue to characterize much human activity. Believing in things for which there is
no credible evidence does seem to be a common trait among humans and can be considered from an
evolutionary viewpoint to be adaptive in certain ways. David Sloan Wilson's recent book Evolution for
Everyone takes a position that is sympathetic to this view of belief in God. However, a brief look at the
history of religious belief and its consequences forces one to question whether the positive outcomes
of religious belief and practice outweigh the negative.
In my brief account of Scientific and Religious Habits of Mind (Lang, 2005), I compare these
"magesteria" and find religious habits of mind to be incompatible with the habits of mind associated
190
with scientific thought and a sound science education. If religious training could be postponed until
after children develop critical reasoning abilities, the tendency to defer to belief in the supernatural
would be reduced considerably. Once one has developed an understanding of and appreciation for the
beauty of scientific explanations, God-like explanations seem child-like and very unsatisfactory.
However, the need to explain the persistence of religious beliefs is real and should be pursued by all
scientific means available. Considerable progress has been made in the last decade, and I am
confident that in a few more decades we will have a satisfactory scientific explanation to this important
question. I look forward to the day when most people hold "God" beliefs closer to Einstein's than those
of today's TV preachers and the Pope.
RE: Whole Series
Marcus Dixon
05/26/2008
"God," "gods," religion represent a real social scientific principle, and like life itself, they continue to
evolve for the same simple reason: the preservation of life. Knowledge is power; the most powerful
survives by the deterrent of perceived power or the exercise of real power. "God" and "gods" are a
proven social scientific tool for the transfer of perceived power(knowledge). Who ever has the true God
belongs to the most powerful group and therefore possess the greatest likelihood of survival. The
principle also works on an individual level.
RE: Keith Ward
Peter Bond
05/26/2008
If God is not "publicly observable" and follows no rules, it seems to me that belief in Its possible
existence is irrelevant to humanity. To all intents and purposes, we live in a material world--even if
physical science shows complexities that are, in both senses of the word, immaterial--and seem to
have evolved to have a moral instinct that includes for many (but not all) of us a bias towards a sense
of the ineffable. There may well be a God, but belief appears to be irrelevant to the vast majority of
people, and may simply fulfill an emotional need in others. In this sense, science can never make
belief obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Ernest Hess
05/26/2008
Why would a loving God have created the universe knowing the consequences?
RE: Whole Series
Paul Jackson
05/26/2008
When we regard the work of an artist, we can interpret it only in terms of its relevance to ourselves.
This says nothing about the true meaning of the creation and the artist, only about our understanding
and our reaction to it. As I age and learn more, my understanding and beliefs change. The weight of
wisdom lies uneasily upon the soul. I think, therefore, I may change my mind. Nothing remains exactly
the same. The fact that scientific truth and rationality are very recent tools of the intellect, through
which we can perceive the world clearly, means that we are allowed to see the workings of the
universe with greater accuracy. As fashions change, so do beliefs and perceptions of what God may
be.
Our understanding of the true nature of God will inevitably alter as we grow and mature as a race, and
this will challenge many of us. But that is our burden. To survive, we must adapt to the answers we
discover so that we may develop. And so it is with God. You can teach me about atoms or evolution
and prove it to me with experiments and clear argument. I will believe with a mind that has been taught
to see reason. But I can also believe, with both my heart and my mind, in an artist who has created a
great work of growing wonderment.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Dobson
05/26/2008
As a militant atheist, I do not believe in any God. However, I believe in spirituality, the "soul,"
aesthetics, and art forms--those things that are not essential to the survival of the species. Where
these feelings originate or what purpose, if any, they serve, I do not profess to know.
191
RE: Whole Series
Zeev Reuteman
05/26/2008
My grandma used to comment that "when lightning strikes, even atheists pray." With the dire
consequences of the coming crisis, highways will be empty and churches will be filled to the brim.
Peak oil and the second half of the oil era will thwart almost everything science holds dear today.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Norwood
05/26/2008
People in power use science and religion for the same purpose and cannot do without both, which
leads them to strike a careful balance, believing or pretending to believe religion to keep the mass of
people on their side in an internal conflict, and yet promoting science, which is so necessary in any
external conflict. If the powerful ever stood back and allowed the people to choose between science
and religion, religion would win easily, and science would be abandoned. So it is fortunate for those of
us who love science that the powerful need us and protect us, while still turning to religion whenever
they are caught with their hands in the public till.
RE: Whole Series
Haj Pikus
05/26/2008
The question should not be "Does science make belief in god obsolete?," but the precise opposite. In
my opinion, belief in a traditional god potentially makes science obsolete. The logic of the scientific
method, its discoveries and advances, can be accepted incrementally. We get to choose whether to
believe that any particular premise is valid. Is there sufficient proof to support the scientist's
hypothesis?
Belief in god is absolute. Either you subscribe to faith in a being beyond discrete proof or you don't. Of
course, believing in god doesn't restrict one's ability to believe in scientific discovery and advance. It is
curious that many accomplished scientists can, when faced with the ultimate questions, shy away from
the logic they rely upon for their daily lives. When asked about god, otherwise logical people abandon
logic in favor of faith. This discrepancy is a mystery, although some have provided various unsatisfying
explanations.
When taken to the logical extreme, if we are willing to accept the idea of an anthropomorphic god,
watching over us and involved with us to some degree, then why bother with science? Why do we
need the rigor of the scientific method, research, and scientific advance when all will be handled by
god? It doesn't matter what we know or don't know, what we learn or don't learn, our destiny is not in
our hands but in those of god. Our society's preoccupation with a traditional idea of god is in serious
danger of jeopardizing our ability to understand our environment, the human condition really, and to
make advances in knowledge and practice that will help us to live better and provide a better
environment for our descendents and the other inhabitants of our planet.
RE: Whole Series
George M. Freeman
05/26/2008
Of course not! Science makes religion (not belief in God) obsolete. If the validity of religion were tested
by the veracity of its past conclusions on what was once unknown but is now known, it would be
disqualified as a form of human knowledge.
RE: Whole Series
Dr Mike Viccary
05/26/2008
I am amazed at the lack of understanding here, with regard to both the nature of science and the
nature of the scriptures. Science really cannot speak about origins because we do not have access to
times before us. The whole point about the Bible is that it is (as it claims to be) a revelation from God
about all things.
RE: Whole Series
Dr David Green
05/26/2008
Philosophy is not and should not be concerned with proofs of God's existence or non-existence. The
192
most philosophers can claim is the possibility or impossibility of a divine entity. They're not in the
statistical business of probability or non-probability sampling. In short, as string theory posits, there is
still room for a non-physical entity in our heavens and earths.
Chris Hazel
05/25/2008
One problem I find with Victor J. Stenger's essay is that it gives no true reason for why he believes
what he writes. His essay consists of the major scientific discoveries in the world and then blames this
for his belief. Of course, a lot of these things have been seen to be true about our universe. Evolution
and the idea that the universe is constantly moving away from a central point are seen as being true,
but what about the things that we do not see? People can only see so far into the universe and
everything else, if it is even there, is left to be unknown.
Stenger and other scientists make some bold statements about how vast the universe is. They also
say something that blows my mind away: everything in the universe started from nothing. Now I have
heard of the Big Bang theory--that everything in the universe started at a single point, then exploded.
But a single point is a lot different from nothing. A law of science is the conservation of energy and
matter, and now someone is not only saying that this law is untrue but that the entire reason for our
existence is this law being untrue. I don't believe this. I believe that the universe started in one point
and God is responsible for that point.
Chris Hazel
05/25/2008
I completely agree with William D. Phillips; I think that science should only strenghten a person's belief
in God. I too am a religious person, and science has never made me think twice about whether or not
God exists. The purpose of science is to attempt to explain phenomena that occur in our world.
However, there is a catch-22 to science: whenever someone discovers something new or believes
they have found an answer to something, it only opens more questions. I'm sure that science will never
be able to answer everything that occurs in the universe.
I am fascinated with science. I like to learn how our world works, and I would really like to learn how
everything works, but I know that I will not be able to. And these things that I don't know, I leave up to
faith. Even though our society does not believe that God is responsible for everything that occurs in the
natural world, I'm sure that nearly everyone has faith that something is responsible for at least the
existence of our world. It is impossible to explain everything with science, so a belief in God is almost
needed in order to fill all of the holes.
RE: Whole Series
Lawrence Marcus
05/25/2008
I would like to read all of the essays before commenting. I feel I am an atheist, but I am exploring my
beliefs. I have seen and lived a lot--I am 91 years young.
RE: Whole Series
Norb Baumann
05/25/2008
The issue between evolution and creation in the biblical description is a non-issue for me. I am a
strong believer in evolution and a strong non-believer in the six-day version of creation. However,
neither provides an incontestable explanation for the origin of the material universe as we know it.
Whence came the singularity that led to the "big bang"?
RE: Whole Series
Jon Quirk
05/25/2008
Is not the whole point of the debate to concentrate minds on the question posed by A.C. Grayling: what
constitutes a good life? That life, like Cavafy's poem "Ithaka," is about the journey making you rich
rather than the destination being all. The asking of the question is the fundamental issue rather than
the need for an answer.
193
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Soja John Thaikattil
05/25/2008
Professor Kaufmann, to my understanding, "nature as God" or pantheism is perhaps the oldest form of
religion. Scientific pantheism is a sophisticated form of religion, to be sure, but it is still pantheism, and
on the religious grading is a pretty primitive understanding of God, for it brings God down to the level of
how much human beings can understand the universe He created, restricting God to the size of human
empirical knowledge.
RE: Whole Series
Soja John Thaikattil
05/25/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Does understanding the theory of relativity make belief in
Albert Einstein obsolete?
RE: Whole Series
David Henderson
05/25/2008
God has spoken to mankind through the process of progressive revelation. He has chosen his
prophets and messengers from among his children on earth. In the latest dispensation, the Baha'i faith,
God has intimated through his chosen one that science and religion are universally reconcilable. It is
because of God that we have science, not the other way around.
RE: Whole Series
Charles Tripi
05/25/2008
Yes, of course, science is incompatible with the idea of a God, if by science we mean explaining our
environment naturalistically. If you are instead going to explain our world supernaturally, you have
displaced scientific operation. The systems of thought differ, the languages used to describe them are
incompatible.
RE: Whole Series
Michael Everding
05/25/2008
Paul Tillich, the existentialist Christian theologian, provided the insight which grounds my faith: God is
not a being but rather being itself. Statements about God must always be symbolic. Statements about
God are true, as Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell showed mythology to embody truth, because they
symbolize and express the ineffable human condition and will-to-be-more. Science, likewise, is an
embodiment and symbol of God's will and being made manifest. Religious beliefs which literally
contradict scientific facts, then, aren't about science; they are about our inscrutable inner being,
seeking to reach its ground in God.
RE: Whole Series
Charles King
05/25/2008
For me, science makes a belief in God possible. If it were ever possible for man to learn how to travel
in time, we would probably discover that God and man are one and the same, separated forever by an
ever more distant eternity, and that all this arguing has not been useful except to shape our future and
to instruct our present.
My reason for choosing hardware over software as my field of study was that I wanted to see how a
few lines of code on a page could open the sluice gates of a mighty hydro-electric dam and power the
grid of an entire city. Eventually I came to understand the links between written computer code and the
electronics and mechanics of amplifiers and relays. Much later I saw how the stochastics of chance
could create, in a few billion years, the enduring coded abstract structure embedded in the DNA of
living things. I saw that it was just a matter of time in any chaotic situation before structures such as
these appeared and persisted.
A series of events occurs in a way that constitutes an instruction to replicate that series, thereby
creating a structure. A few of these structures also create an additional instruction not simply to
replicate but to multiply in a Fibonacci-type series. If chance can do this in a few billion years of the
existence of matter, it is also bound to create other far more complex organisms in the eternity of time.
194
A parasitic amoeba probably perceives the human body as nothing more than a benign environment.
That we cannot perceive organisms more complex than ourselves is a consequence of our own
limitations. Software is a sequence that can exist anywhere independent of a single physical structure.
To separate the sequence from the structure is a pointless exercise. Conceptually, one cannot exist
without the other. If chaos can create us in a measurable instant, then it can create others more
complex than us. Arguably it must, given eternity, create God.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Sobotor
05/25/2008
The premise of a comment below about heat and cold, light and dark seems a bit flawed. The writer
assumes falsely that cold and dark are scientific terms. But they are merely colloquial expressions.
Interestingly, though we can quantify an absolute zero and absolute darkness, we cannot fully express
their inverse.
Why would God use scientific trickery to hide His presence? If He interacts with His creation in the
material world, His impact on things connected to it through the laws He is credited with having
instituted to govern it would have to be deliberately violated with each interaction. Is this simply God
playing a joke on us, or a mean-spirited attempt to deny those who seek truth through understanding
what He created? The command of "Test me and see, know that I Am God" is a bit hollow if it come
with strings and clauses that contradict the nature of God. But maybe that is the best argument against
Him-- His inconsistency.
RE: Whole Series
Jeff Haley
05/25/2008
Neither yes nor no. This question is the equivalent of "Did you stop beating your wife?" Answering yes
or no concedes there was a time when belief in god was useful (or some other opposite of "obsolete").
No matter how "god" is defined, no such belief has ever been useful. That the Templeton Foundation
would present such a prejudicial question reveals it to be an advocacy organization that has no
genuine interest in intellectual inquiry.
RE: Whole Series
Patrick Watson
05/25/2008
With credit to C.S. Lewis: Omnipotence means power to do everything. And so we are told in Scripture
that "with God all things are possible." It is common enough, in arguments with an unbeliever, to be
told that God, if he existed and were good, would do this or that; and then, if we point out that the
proposed action is impossible, to be met with the response, "But I thought God was supposed to be
able to do anything." This raises the whole question of impossibility.
In ordinary usage, the word impossible generally implies a suppressed clause beginning with the word
unless. Thus, it is impossible for me to see the street unless I go up the top floor, where I shall be high
enough to overlook the intervening building. If I had broken my leg, I should say, "But it is impossible to
go up to the top floor"--meaning that it is impossible unless some friends turn up who will carry me.
Now let us advance to a different plane of impossibility, by saying, "It is, at any rate, impossible to see
the street so long as I remain where I am and the intervening building remains where it is." Someone
might add, "Unless the nature of space, or vision, were different from what it is."
I do not know what the best philosophers and scientist would say to this, but I would reply, "I don't
know whether space and vision could possibly have been of such a nature as you suggest." Now it is
clear that the words could possibly here refer to some absolute kind of possibility which is different
from the relative possibilities and impossibilities we have been considering. I cannot say whether
seeing around corners is, in this new sense, possible or not, because I do not know whether it is self-
contradictory or not. But I know very well that if it is self-contradictory it is absolutely impossible. The
absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility
within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in turn depend upon others. It has
no "unless" clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all
agents.
195
"All agents" here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically
possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him but not nonsense.
This is no limit to His power. If you chose to say that God can give a creature free will and at the same
time withhold free will from it, you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless
combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two
other words "God can." It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out
both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because
nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk about God.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Porter
05/25/2008
The question at issue here must begin with the hypothesis that God does exist and is the creator of all
things. He cannot be rendered obsolete if He does not exist. And the book of Genesis allows for this
obsolescence in stating that man had become as a god when he ate of the fruit of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. The whole creation story in Genesis is merely the story of humankind
moving forward in learning how to harness its environment and, therefore, needing God less. THIS is
the original sin. As humankind progresses scientifically and provides answers to God's wonders, we
are becoming more like Him in our capabilities. Therefore, God is slowly becoming obsolete in our
lives in the matters of maintaining our physical existence. But God can never become obsolete in
matters of moral judgment, as science is, by its nature, pragmatic rather than caring.
RE: Whole Series
John R. (Jack) Smies
05/25/2008
God could use definition(s). Hitchens describes the classical view, which probably reflects a
background from Western European feudalism or a structure of control with a "big" guy in charge. A
definition of God as the highest good seems to me to square with science and allow for creation and
evolution from natural quantum phenomena. Belief should probably be tempered by considering that
what you don't know does not hurt you as much as what you do know that is not true.
RE: Whole Series
Shawn Wooster
05/25/2008
I am not sure that the mantra "form follows function" (see comment below) is applicable to organic
things. This idea was originally meant to describe structural applications in architecture, furniture
design, automobile design, etc. It really doesn't apply to nature. The human brain is a perfect example
of function following form. Our ancient ancestors, 250,000 years ago, probably had brains very similar
to ours, if not exactly like ours. Learned behaviors and the environment forced new functions on our
preexisting neural forms. It turns out that the human body itself is the perfect multi-purpose vessel. I
would argue that room for more function still exists in the human body, making the idea that form
follows function inapplicable.
RE: Whole Series
Shawn Wooster
05/25/2008
One of the readers made a comment about the immaterial existence of the image of a finger in the
mind and used Bertrand Russell as a reference. I am not sure if the immaterial aspects of existence
are best represented by an image in the mind's theater. Though the image is digitized and processed,
the process is still a mechanical one. Thought itself is certainly not an immaterial, fluttering, ethereal
thing. Thought is the result of electro-chemical process. It is purely physical. This doesn't mean that we
can't still believe in God, but we should be careful how we define things.
RE: Whole Series
Pragmatist
05/25/2008
I am in agreement with the commenter who noted that the question is rendered meaningless by the
fact that God is an ambiguous term. If we are talking about "God"--an intelligent being/force that may
have created the material world, then science has no information and nothing to say as of yet. If you
refer to an interventionist being who operates within the physical world but who is immune from its
laws, then science does have a role and thus far finds no factual basis for this belief.
196
RE: Whole Series
Ralph Huntington
05/25/2008
Everyone and everything is god; there's nothing else to be. Form follows function in nature, not the
other way around. Thus consciousness must precede matter, rather than arise out of it.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert
05/25/2008
No, science does not make a belief in God obsolete. In fact, if scientists were truly scientific, truly
willing to examine what people want in life, they would be faced with the fact that people want things
dramatically better than they are, no matter how good things get. People want the miraculous in their
lives. Scientists can trot out all the rational arguments they like for not believing in God, but a belief in
God cannot become obsolete unless science itself provides us with a continual thrust toward the
miraculous. Should science flag in providing us with the miraculous, then people are going to retain a
simple hope in God.
Abraham
05/25/2008
Science should not make belief obsolete. Physics proves that a great mind of some sort started this
universe. For example, at one point, the universe expanded at a speed greater than the speed of light
(not possible in the universe today). Why is it that matter, energy, space, and time interact in a very
fine balance that allows atoms to exist, to bind together, to be affected in state by energy (solid, liquid,
gas, plasma), and bound by gravity in perfect proportions that allow humans to exist?
Gravity could be slightly weaker than it is. If earth had formed at all, it would have flown out of the solar
system long age. Gravity could have been slightly stronger. The earth would have crashed into the
sun. Energy could have a greater or lesser impact on the state of matter. The sun would have
collapsed or exploded long ago. All this could have been. Physics proves that none of the rules that we
understand today were in place in the beginning. Even the speed of light had not been established.
Who decided what the laws of physics would become? Considering the infinite possible arrangement
of rules in our (at one point) "lawless" proto-universe, the chances of our existence are literally infinity
to one. It is not possible for our universe, with its perfect balance of the interactions between space,
time, matter, energy, and gravity, to come into existence out of chaos.
This contradiction is scientific proof of the existence of the great mind that brought order to the chaos,
sort of like a maestro in a symphony. The great mind does not decide exactly where each atom, or
each person will be at any given moment, but it does allow for planets like earth, and species like
humans, to exist.
RE: Whole Series
Rol Read
05/25/2008
People who believe in God seem to start with a belief that is non-negotiable and then do all their
arguing from that premise, which means that their arguments are, logically, fatally flawed from the
outset. This is clear, even with Nobel Prize winners. So it really doesn't matter to those people what
science comes up with, as they have been saying black is white for most of their life, and have
probably been taught to do so since their infancy. In effect, they haven't grown out of that and don't
want to. I mean, what a downer to discover that the prayers you have been relying on are a waste of
time and you are on your own to face everything, including death, when you have had this lovely
comfort system with imaginary friend, parent, bodyguard, and personal wizard in place for so long!
Irving Krakow
05/24/2008
Cardinal Schonborn believes the New Testament was authored or at least inspired by a supernatural
deity. The most important question he must answer is not, Does such a deity exist? Rather, it is, What
credible reasons do you have to justify your belief that a deity provided you with the New Testament?
197
That question is completely independent of whether a deity exists, but it must be answered, or
Christianity is nothing more than mythology. The same point applies to both Judaism and Islam.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Bruce Wayne
05/24/2008
Science, by itself, is a belief. If a person says that "science belief" makes "God belief" obsolete, then
that is just a belief of science--a belief not to believe in God. For people who believe in God, the
answer to the question will be no. And for people who believe in science, the answer will be yes. Well,
debates and essays are for people who love to sell their thought. Science and religion are merely tools
for brainwashing others for the sole purpose of persuading them and controlling their beliefs. As long
as humans live, neither "believing" tool will ever become obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Philip Berns
05/24/2008
Whose "science"? Who knows (scientia)? What is "God"?
RE: Whole Series
Kay Delanoy
05/24/2008
I find the question unreasonable. Belief has nothing to do with science. I don't believe in a god and
think all the god stories are interesting myths, because I was brought up that way. Someone taught to
believe in a god is more likely to. I feel awe when I'm out in an old growth forest. Some people would
say that is God speaking. I just think we are programmed to be impressed with beautiful things. But
science isn't going to make anyone change their beliefs, reasonable or not.
RE: Whole Series
Jane Anne Gleason
05/24/2008
I teach science and religion to preschool through 3rd grade in an Episcopal school. For me there is no
doubt that God exists in our world. How else can we explain electricity, the vast expanse and variety of
life forms, the beauty of nature, and all the other marvels of our world? Does God exist?
Unquestionably yes!
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Gordon Hughes
05/24/2008
Science and religion both fixate on the surface appearances of our universe. Science is satisfied with
predictive math and never searches deeper. It doesn't ask what's before the Big Bang, or what's
beyond our 14-billion-light-year-size universe. Science criticizes religion's primitive books, but such
books can only limit what God is, because they were written by limited space-time humans.
My hypothesis is that, logically, if God exists, God can have no limits. This leads to both science and
religion springing from a deeper truth. In the Republic, Plato called it "the Cave," wherein our existence
is like images projected onto the walls of a cave where everyone lives. Science now calls this
projection string theory or the multiverse, where our 3D space-time is projected from a higher
dimensional reality.
RE: Michael Shermer
Timothy Stone
05/24/2008
I agree with Shermer: It is the act of believing that is most important, not what one believes, whether it
is evolution vs creation or Moses vs Buddha. In any case, if the belief makes one feel secure, all is
well. Believe it! Just don't try to make it sound rational, or you'll be unhappy.
RE: Whole Series
Wm E. Haynes
05/24/2008
Consider the time when the entropy of the universe was at a minimum. At the instant in which the Big
Bang banged, the energy potential of the universe was at its maximum, and the organization of the
universe was total. How can we know this ? Because, if there can be no net entropy decrease within
198
the universe, then the net entropy of the universe had to have been at a minimum at its beginning, and
current theory holds that that was at the initiation of the Big Bang.
We are now in a position to ask: What led up to the Big Bang? Physicists generally decry this as an
inappropriate question, meaning that they don't have the faintest idea how to go about seeking an
answer to it. Yet the answer seems clear: only a living intelligence can produce complex negentropic
conditions.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was
in the beginning with God. All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that
has been made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and
the darkness hasn't overcome it." John 1:1-5
RE: Whole Series
Emeritus Prof. Elemer E Rosinger
05/24/2008
The possible relationship between science and religion is being debated endlessly, and its main
feature appears to be nothing more than a growing cacophony of opinions which do not seem to reach
deep enough. Among some of the more important deficiencies in this regard is the endless issue to
believe or not in God. Belief, as any number of well known examples illustrate, is a rather weak
ontological approach or position. After all, the historical list of most firmly held beliefs, including by
those considered to be most important opinion makers, contains any number of well known ridiculous
items (the Earth is immobile at the center of Creation, the Earth is flat, etc.). No lesser a thinker than
Descartes could argue that the velocity of light is infinite.
Obviously, a far more solid ontological relationship is that furnished by knowledge. And here we mean
knowledge in the more modern scientific sense, that is, supported directly or indirectly by empirical
evidence. Amusingly, from the start of that more modern kind of knowledge, the Church has been far
more aware of the deeper relationship between modern science and God than most scientists seem to
be even nowadays. Indeed, the biggest danger the Church saw in the emergence of modern science
was in the fact that humans would no longer be satisfied with the traditional weak relationship with God
given by mere belief, and instead, they would now rather turn to requesting the stronger possible
relationship based on knowledge. In such a case, the whole approach of the Church, starting with the
Bible, going through theology, and ending in sacraments, rituals, ceremonies, and so on, would of
course become redundant, if not ridiculous.
RE: Steven Pinker
Donald Kaple EdD
05/24/2008
Pinker lost me in his opening paragraph. Physical science, strictly speaking, is a discipline whose
object is limited to observable phenomena. History and philosophy have similar limitations. Science no
more makes God obsolete than religion makes science obsolete. "God" is an ambiguous term. The
late theologian Carl Rahner is reported to have said that God is the mystery in human experience. I
consider myself to be an honest and informed person. The more aware I become, the more I
experience wonder and awe.
RE: Whole Series
Joanne
05/24/2008
As others have more eloquently stated, science and religion/God are not mutually exclusive or
opposed. Science is a means of studying and explaining the natural world that God created. To
answer those like Mamouka L, who readily point to death and destructive forces done in the name of
religion, I remind you that atheistic Communist regimes (e.g., Stalin, Pol Pot, China) have killed,
destroyed, and violated the human rights of millions of people, just in the 20th century alone.
The progress of civilization is usually measured by the advancement of science and technological
achievements. However, when science and technology proceed without ethical restraints, man and
nature suffer. Religion brings us those ethical restraints. Furthermore, the Catholic Church introduced
to the world the scientific method and the higher education system for learning. Religion is not based
upon the utterings of fictional characters. Rather, they are historical characters.
199
RE: Whole Series
Larry Goenka
05/24/2008
Our current understanding is that atoms are made up of about 50 sub-atomic particles, with neutrons
and protons (having up quarks and down quarks) and electrons (with p- and n- shells), to name a few.
And the nucleus is bound by immense nuclear forces. Matter consists of trillions of such (identical)
atoms. I'd love to have someone explain the processes necessary to make ONE atom (assuming that
no other exists). What would be the "starting condition" to have created trillions of such incredibly
complex atoms? Does the Big Bang explain this? If not, it makes a pretty strong case for Intelligent
Design, and the presence of a Creator.
RE: Whole Series
Chris Nicheols
05/24/2008
I would argue on the side not of science or religion but of logic. The God that most people believe in
cannot exist because of the paradoxes of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. If God is all-
powerful, what power do we possess? If we are to possess free will, does God cease to be all-
powerful? If God is ever-present, where do we fit into this reality? At what point do we exist? If God is
all-knowing, what are we doing here? If God knows the details of our lives, are we predestined for
heaven or hell no matter what our course? Why should we bother to pray to an all-knowing God? Why
should we bother to do anything? If we are to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God,
our lives have no apparent value.
The thought I just expressed is a mere extension of God, not a blasphemy. However, if we are to
believe in a god that does not possess these qualities, we are merely slaves to this particular being,
which may not necessarily be the only god in existence. A god without omnipotence, omnipresence,
and omniscience is just another being in the universe. A being that holds ever-lasting torment over
another is an oppressor. So what do you want to believe: God does not exist or enslavement?
RE: Whole Series
Irving Krakow
05/24/2008
In my previous comment I said that it's necessary to deal with distinct questions on an individual basis.
I'll start the process with this question: Can you make just one statement about a supernatural deity
that is known to be true? If so, can you explain how you determined that it was in fact true? If not, why
not?
RE: Whole Series
David Rine
05/24/2008
Nomogenesis is an evolutionary model holding that the direction of evolution operates to some degree
by rules or laws, independently of natural selection. For a long time it was regarded as an outmoded
hypothesis, but recently it has been maintained that it corresponds rather well with observations of
evolution in the fossil record, and that such mechanisms as heterochrony and molecular drive would
produce nomogenetic effects. The relationship between nomogenesis and theistic evolution can be
seen in the above phrase "direction of evolution operates to some degree by rules or laws,
independently of natural selection," wherein one fundamental law is called the Moral Law, which has
been confirmed by genetic science and acknowledged by both those of faith and atheists as being
outside what genetic evolution can derive.
Two examples of acknowledged leaders in the field of evolution who have confirmed this in their
writings are Dr. Francis Collins (head of the international Human Genome project and pioneer in
genetic science) and Dr. Richard Dawkins (eminent philosopher of science). Collins is a believer in
Creator God (and Jesus) while Dawkins is an atheist. Among leading scientists and philosophers of
science, nomogenesis and theistic evolution appear to be on more solid grounds than intelligent
design (ID), which does not affirm that genetic evolution and Creator God are consistent.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Glassock
05/24/2008
Science changes the definition of God from a supernatural, unknowable mystery to the beauty of
200
Nature in all its glory. It reinforces the God of Spinoza and Einstein. Science becomes a quest to know
God, as expressed in Nature.
RE: Whole Series
Ravindra Kumar
05/24/2008
Geoffrey Collins calls my suggestion naive and nonsense. But watching the night sky and concluding
that the earth is rotating is not a sensory perception. It is a scientific conclusion from the observation of
natural phenomena. The biggest giant cannot stand on a platform and lift it too. The eye that can see
the whole world cannot see itself. We are trying to make conclusions about something that is beyond
our sensory equipment. Mind is part of that.
As for Mamouka L's assertion that science has benefited human beings while religion has destroyed
them, may I ask what threatens the extinction of the human race today? Is it science in the form of a
nuclear bomb or religion? And it is we humans who are destroying our environment, not God. It is we
who are killing each other in the name of religion. Not God. Don't equate God with religion.
RE: Whole Series
Gibin Thomas
05/24/2008
Interpretation and not just words in sacred books matter. One Hindu view is that Brahma created the
world in days, but modern Hindus define Brahma's days as billions of human years. The word "days" in
Genesis also can be viewed as eras of various lengths. Our basic need is constant humanistic
progress toward the absolute universal truth or ultimate reality, which is not fully perceived from our
human-level viewpoints.
The word spirituality rings with the idea of the supernatural overcoming of natural laws. Evil
spiritualism is when our infinitely variable human whims and fancies lead us astray, as exemplified by
stories like King Midas's golden touch, which proved to be a curse. The Holy Spirit guides us on the
right path of spirituality as distinct from the path of evil.
RE: Whole Series
Mamouka L
05/24/2008
God does not exist, nor does Mickey Mouse. There is no proof of god, except lies and falsified
evidences. But there are industries of religions that "employ" millions of priests, mullahs, rabbis, lamas,
and others who cling to the dark ages and drag the rest of the world into destruction. Science is the
opposite of religion. It cannot coexist with religion. Science can deliver us from the darkness and
ignorance that the religions have brought to the human race. Science is based on evidence. Religion is
based on the utterings of fictional characters. Science has found cures for malaria, pneumonia,
syphillis, and other diseases. Religion has destroyed billions throughout human history: the Crusades,
the Inquisition, 9/11. It is time for the great minds of the modern era and the leaders of the Western
world to distance themselves from religion and back science as the true activity for the healthy,
peaceful, and successful development of the human race.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert
05/23/2008
No, science does not make a belief in God obsolete. In fact, science is expected to give us, through its
penetration of the secrets of nature, precisely what religions have expected of God: the miraculous. If
science cannot give us the miraculous and instead tells us we should live with something less--or, God
forbid, that we should accept pessimistic assessments of the universe--then science, far from making
God obsolete, will become obsolete before a belief in God. There is decreased belief in God in the
modern world and an emphasis on the natural rather than supernatural precisely because we have
extremely high expectations of the natural--that, through an understanding of the natural, we can
achieve what to ancient man would be supernatural accomplishments. Science has no choice but to
keep making our lives more and more miraculous--in essence bringing us closer to God--or it will fail
before the simple human hope in the miraculous, a religious belief in God.
RE: Whole Series
Geoffrey Collins
05/23/2008
201
In the post below, Ravindra Kumar makes the naive analogy suggesting that, since we cannot
perceive the rotation of the earth, we are taking this assertion on faith and this is no different from
belief in God. This is nonsense. All science is based on repeatable observations described in the
scientific journals. Anyone who watches the night sky can see that the earth is rotating. It is clearly
perceivable. There are no reports of anyone seeing God for the last 2,000 years, and those that exist
in the Bible would not meet any reasonable standards of evidence.
Paley's 19th-century argument for design hinges on the obvious deduction, upon finding a watch, that
it has no mechanism for reproduction. It could not be self-made. By contrast, the components of living
organisms clearly are the result of reproduction with clearly understood mechanisms. The obvious
conclusion when viewing complexity in living organisms is that this arose by a process of evolution.
The evidence for this fact is overwhelming from many sources.
RE: Whole Series
Ravindra Kumar
05/23/2008
I am amazed at some of the views which state that science makes belief in God obsolete. What is
science? It is the result of experiments, observation, contemplation, deductive logic, etc. Yet it is the
human mind that created scientific progress. We all know that the earth is revolving on its axis and at
the same time orbiting the sun at some speed. But can anyone standing, lying, or sitting perceive this
motion? Can any of your senses feel this motion? No--nobody can. But we fully believe that the earth
is rotating and orbiting. We believe even though our senses do not perceive it, because science has
told us so. Yet if our senses and science cannot perceive the existence of God, we doubt His
existence!
Also, let's not just deny the existence of God based on the story of creation in the Bible. There are
other religions and many saints from every religion who have told us how they were able to realize the
divine. It is not possible to realize God by our senses. We need faith and intuition at a level of
consciousness which can only be achieved by an intense desire to know God. To think that we can
know everything by our limited intellect is to live a shallow life.
RE: Whole Series
Gerardo E. Mart�nez-Solanas
05/23/2008
God has many faces that reflect many beliefs. The atheist god is science, and for the skeptic, god is
knowledge. The farther science reaches, the less we realize we know about a theory of everything that
would give an explanation of reality without God. But such a theory would be a theory of God. After all,
believers know that God is everything. Science is a human endeavour in search of proper and rational
explanations of what is known and unknown. It neither interferes with God nor with human believers. It
just corroborates what He has created.
RE: Whole Series
Jack Goldman
05/23/2008
The Universe is impersonal. God is the personal experience of the Universe. No one ever really
understands the Universe. It's almost a trick question. We are all ignorant, flawed sinners and slackers
who will never know it all or stop making mistakes. Science helps us operate outside the eyes with
experiments. God helps us operate behind the eyes, with faith, and to make leaps of faith regarding
happiness, love, compassion, and bliss. Science would be too slow behind the eyes. Faith and science
are complementary opposites, as are God and science, like inhaling and exhaling. Does science make
God obsolete? No. We all have opinions. We all have faith. We all have science. These are all
dimensions of life that add up to the fact that you don't find a miracle, you live one. We are all miracles.
Love is a miracle.
Al
05/23/2008
I am not a scholar, but I am always very interested in the theories of the scholars regarding their
perceptions of God. In Cardinal Schonborn's essay, I found the use of English and scientific language
quite impressive. As far as its getting to the answer to the question, I didn't find one.
202
RE: Whole Series
Martin Kail
05/23/2008
Who lit the fuse on the Big Bang? Can science ever answer questions like "Why was the universe
created?" or "What is the meaning and purpose of our existence?"
RE: Whole Series
Steve Peterson
05/23/2008
Faith is the idea that it is a virtue to try to believe religious things that seem unreasonable. Some say
doubt is even required for faith. If something seems reasonable to believe, it requires no faith, so to
have this virtue means that you have to believe things that you doubt. Obviously, this idea that faith is
a virtue is at odds with science. In the scientific way of thinking, it is simply dishonest to say that you
know something that you don't know. Instead, from a scientific perspective, it is a virtue to hold your
beliefs to the tests of consistency with evidence and rational coherence. What is true today must be
discoverable today. We shouldn't need to consult ancient "magic books" to tell us what is true. Since
today people apply scientific standards for truth in virtually every facet of life (other than theological
questions), it seems clear that science is winning on the "truth" front.
I imagine it won't be long before more people start applying their usual scientific standards of truth to
the claims made by church authorities. It all depends on whether it is socially acceptable to question
religious beliefs in the way we would question one another's beliefs about anything else. The
Templeton Conversation suggests to me that we may be able to start having these sorts of
conversations about irrational religious beliefs. (I sure hope so, since these are the sorts of beliefs that
motivate people to fly airliners into skyscrapers.) If conversations like this one continue to take place,
maybe the next time someone claims that human beings are issued their souls at the moment of
conception, someone else might ask, "How do you know that?" As such conversations start to happen
more and more, gods will become obsolete, because to engage in such a dialogue is to presuppose
that beliefs need to be reasonable rather than based on faith.
RE: Whole Series
Jarrod M.
05/23/2008
I would like to thank all the contributors for their thoughtful answers. With science and knowledge
advancing at a rate unparalleled in our history, this is certainly a relevant question. However, it is also
a very deep and personal question that people can only answer for themselves. For a person to
consider him/herself to have all the answers, beyond a doubt, and to think that all the other billions of
people who have lived before us, share this time with us, and will live after us are stupid and wrong, is
not only itself the essence of ignorance but woefully shallow. Obviously, this is not to discourage
debate. Decisions are made best when all points of view are readily available. I can only advise people
to keep their aggression in check while presenting their opinion. Let's appreciate our diversity, please.
RE: Whole Series
Irving Krakow
05/23/2008
It is a very bad question in two respects. First, it presupposes that the methods of scientific research,
the results of such research, or the philosophical presuppositions of science are relevant to the issue.
But there are good reasons, based on very basic principles of deductive logic, to deny the relevance.
Second, it avoids the absolutely crucial distinction between talking about a deity and talking about a
religion. It's not true that a belief in the existence of a deity is equivalent to believing in a religion. This
sort of dialogue will achieve no understanding of anything unless and until several distinct questions
are addressed individually.
RE: Whole Series
Bill Brouwers
05/23/2008
From my experiences, the languages of science and religion are as different as Russian is from
English. The language of science is evidence. The language of religion is belief. But religious people
believe so many, many different things, past, present, changing, around the world. Not only among the
various religions but also within them. All claiming truth. What is objective truth?
203
I understand the language of science. And from evidence I have come to understand that there was an
Intelligent Designer/Maker who made the universe. I recognize the arguments of those who differ, but
the structure of the atom and the amazing structure of the human body, among many other things,
have caused me to come to the conclusion that there was an Intelligent Designer/Maker involved. Just
as intelligence was necessary to bring about a computer or an automobile.
But what was/is that Intelligent Designer/Maker like? How does one know? From evidence, I have
come to understand the Bible as a message from this Intelligent Designer/Maker of the universe,
saying, "You can't figure Me out, can you? So I will tell you." But there is a great variety of
understandings regarding the Bible. From evidence, I have come to a certain understanding for myself,
respecting the right of anyone else to their different understanding. Let's talk.
RE: Whole Series
Texas Gypsy
05/23/2008
I find the variation in conclusions reached by these men and women of magnificent intellect very
interesting. Those who insist science has replaced theology seem to reach that conclusion based on
the belief that the purpose of theology is to establish how the universe/world/humankind came into
being. They quite naturally believe that science does a better job of investigating that than does
religion. On the other hand, those who see God and science separately tend to see God as a source of
individuality, beauty, and sensation. In other words, they see God not as an answer to the "how"
question of the existence to the universe, but as the response to the "why" question of our own
feelings.
It would appear to me that the two philosophies will not agree, and either they will co-exist or combat
one another. In either event, it is clear that science has not made belief in God obsolete, and will not,
unless or until all feelings and emotions are bled out of humanity. If and when that event occurs, God
will be dead, and as far as I'm concerned, so will we all.
RE: Whole Series
Ryan Lane
05/23/2008
Science says you have five senses to identify and observe the world around you. Using these senses
we cannot see God, but that does not mean He does not exist. According to the rules of empirical,
testable, demonstrable protocol, science says God doesn't exist. All we have is our faith. There is no
definitive evidence.
But let me ask this. Is there such a thing as heat? And is there such a thing as cold? Surely if there is
heat we must have cold? Heat there is, but cold there is not. You can have lots of heat, even more
heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat, or no heat, but we don't have
anything called "cold." We can measure heat in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the
opposite of heat just the absence of it.
Is there such a thing as darkness? Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can
have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have
nothing and it's called darkness. That's the meaning we use to define the word. If darkness were real,
you would be able to make darkness darker.
To try using scientific priciples to "prove" God's existence is flawed to start with, and so your
conclusion must also be flawed if it implies that science can prove God does not exist. You are trying
to view God as something finite, something we can measure. Nor did God create evil. Evil is the result
of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes
when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert
05/23/2008
No, science does not make a belief in God obsolete. In fact, for all the naturalism of science, its
supposed discounting of the supernatural, it strives daily to provide us with exactly . . . the miraculous.
We dream of science having such advances in medicine that death can be conquered or at least
dramatically retarded. We dream of spacecraft to take us to the end of the universe. In fact, modern
204
science has already achieved a great measure of the miraculous measured by the understanding of
ancient man. It seems reasonable to assume that, for all our discounting of God through science and
emphasis on the natural, one day we will achieve what looks like the supernatural to present-day man.
Science does not make a belief in God obsolete--science is just the latest method of reconciling God to
man.
RE: Whole Series
Valerie Mitchell
05/23/2008
All major religions have many subsidiaries or sects within them with their own distinctive beliefs, often
pitting them against one another, even though they are all basing their doctrines on the same ancient
texts. It is human nature to use the knowledge we acquire to reinforce our own personal beliefs and
theories. You can't get any more personal than the belief in a higher power. The statement that
science makes belief in God obsolete only fuels the desire to keep people ignorant. That doesn't
benefit God or science or society. For all time, faith in a greater purpose, meaning, and being has been
more important to people than anything else.
Science proves the mystic qualities of the forces at work around us and within us. It proves how much
there is that we still don't know. Science is applied mathematics. While one cannot prove that any
particular God exists, one can not disprove it either. I believe our founding fathers were quite brilliant in
their decision to separate church and state. Faith and God are personal choices. In a free society,
nothing should infringe on that. I sincerely hope that belief and faith will never be obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Chris Richmond
05/23/2008
This is a general comment on the yes proponents and many of the commentators. It seems like a lot of
people are angry at God and have therefore rejected the possibility of a creator due simply to the pain,
suffering, and injustice in the world. I am sure that it pains God many times more than it pains us to
see these things. What is the explanation? It seems pretty obvious to me that the great scientist set
nature in motion and refuses to interfere, and that s/he granted us free will to do right or wrong, good
or bad. Our planetary mess is the result. It didn't have to be like this, but believe it or not, we are
blessed because of it. How do I know? I've read The Urantia Book. You should too.
RE: Steven Pinker
Chris Richmond
05/22/2008
Isn't Pinker's second to last paragraph a restatement of something known as "The Golden Rule"?
Where does that come from again, I forget? I find this whole argument comical, however. Want to find
God, pray! Unselfishly. God wants to be found, and the truth of the Creator's existence resides within.
The truth never suffers from honest examination, and most of all, as human beings, we should seek to
know the truth. To reject something without evidence to back it up is foolish. It's true that religion has
done little to back up the case for God, and yet belief persists. If one must, reject religion--I did. But
don't throw out the baby with the bath water! Does Pinker's analysis provide any clear evidence that
the observable world negates the possibility of a creator? I think not.
For me, the evidence is all around. I prayed, God answered in a meaningful way for me, and now I
believe. I can't prove to Steven Pinker or to anyone else what is now for me an unshakeable truth. I
just feel it. I hope the same comes to all who read this. Peace upon you!
Dmitrii Manin
05/22/2008
One can continue to be a scientist but cease to be a true believer. Max Planck is a good example. He
claimed to be deeply religious, but at the same time he denied the existence of a personal God, i.e., a
God that is a person. But a non-personal God is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. One has to be
a person to create, love, have desires, plan actions, and so on. A non-person can't be a subject of love
or creation, neither can it have free will. A non-person can't be a God. These are not the only possible
ways to betray either religion or science, but some kind of betrayal is inevitable if one wants to
entertain both, and it is in this sense that science and religion are most importantly in conflict.
205
RE: Whole Series
Patty Koltko
05/22/2008
To better understand both the question and the answers, it's important to begin by differentiating
between science-as-method and science-as-religion. Science-as-method is a way of increasing our
knowledge by developing theories about how the world works, figuring out measurable predictions that
follow from those theories, measuring those characteristics, and then seeing which theory's predictions
are closest to the measurements. It's an extremely useful method, but it can only be applied to theories
where you can figure out an appropriate thing to measure and a way to measure it. These practical
constraints create science's domain of applicability.
Science-as-method becomes science-as-religion when it adopts a belief statement about the nature of
the world. Science-as-religion is based on the belief that any knowledge outside science-as-method's
domain of applicability is either false or meaningless. This of course can't be proved but is a statement
of faith.
Science-as-religion has as a basic belief the impossibility of a god. But this doesn't make God
obsolete. Expanding the question, I understand it to mean, "Since we can imagine the physical world
existing without a god as cause, does this mean that it is silly or naive to believe that a god exists?"
Which is, at its core, a question about current Western culture and what it finds silly or naive. A more
fundamental question is "Does God exist?" To this question, science-as-method has no reply, one way
or another, since the question lies outside its domain, which is why many scientists believe in God and
many don't.
RE: Whole Series
Cliff Bisch
05/22/2008
From the Christian perspective, it has never been a question of religion having value. If one
understands scripture, belief in God has to be a matter of the heart. Science measures, counts, tugs,
and pushes at the encounters of our experiences. Science can chemically alter our perceptions and
behavior. But there is an odd question here. Can science affect what we know in our heart?
Thirty years ago, my heart's perception of God changed . . . in an instant. What I knew to be true was
transformed. How? By what observable mechanism? Maybe scientific cause and effect did take place.
I heard the word of God and my heart was transformed. I was not looking for it, rather I was avoiding it.
It was not part of a church doctrine or ritual. The words changed me. This is true to what was
predicted, where Christ said "you shall hear the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
I am educated, a designer with patents. I work in aerospace quality control. But science never gets at
the root cause, only tries to explain apparent cause and effect. It is impossible to use knowledge and
science to satisfy the needs of the human heart. It cannot be found other than in the wake of its
passing. If God is a spirit, he cannot be found. If he alone addresses our heart, he is meeting the direct
need of man in ways that man cannot find unless he experiences it himself. Once a man really knows
God in his heart, the change is apparent. It does not happen through ritual, church membership, belief
system, or any of man's devices that he might control. It only comes through the abandonment of one's
self to the one that He Is. The assault on the ego is simple. We are not in control.
RE: Whole Series
Tim Naginey
05/22/2008
I would use an analogy to explain my opinion on the matter: all of the universe is like a man lying dead
with a knife in his chest. No one has witnessed his death, but the fact that he is dead is a fact
undisputed by scientists or anyone else. But the cause is not fully "knowable." Could it have been a
chance accident in which the knife fell from a table and impaled him? Or a deliberate murder carried
out by another? All that science can prove is what is available at the moment. Is there another person's
DNA at the scene? Then science can prove only that. No matter how much DNA they find, they can
only reach a probable conclusion, never an absolute one. The uncertainty principle is brought to mind.
We can only know the probability. We are left to ourselves to draw conclusions about the evidence that
science can uncover. I believe in peaceful co-existence.
206
RE: Whole Series
Maureen Newlin
05/22/2008
First, I wish to congratulate the publishers of this site for its commendable intellectual purpose. How
refreshing to read thoughtful and well-reasoned views on such an important topic. I was stimulated by
many of the opinions, and, as a humanistic non-deist, I wish to share my responses to some of them.
Pinker's thought that we don't need a belief in God to explain the nature of the soul or of morality
makes a lot of sense, especially considering that much immorality in the world has stemmed from
religious practices. In the same vein, I disagree with Schonborn's suggestion that to correct our broken
selves, we need "Someone who is the Good of us all." Wouldn't we be better advised to look for that
Good within ourselves and concentrate on our potential for improvement? As Phillips would agree,
such Good includes loving each other. However, he makes a debatable claim that "God loves us and
wants us to love one another." The Bible provides abundant contradictions showing that God loves
only those who obey Him and that believers should punish those who don't.
Despite the problems he finds with religious belief, Hoodbhoy makes the highly ironic assertion that
because we are unsure of why we happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in
search of meaning. Though he indicates that such searching is intellectually inevitable, he hints, on the
other hand, at a wasteful futility in the effort. This search for meaning in the universe certainly
correlates with what Sapolsky says about one rationale for religion being our desire for ecstasy. Much
in his essay hits home; especially penetrating are certain unique phrasings, like "who has the truthier
truth" and "[t]he blood on the hands of religion drips enough to darken the sea." But the idea that our
sense of wonder can be addressed only through religion seems to slight other avenues, such as the
arts, philosophy, and science itself.
Stenger's summary of scientific history is concise and informative in the way it inexorably eliminates
both the relevance and coherence claimed by religion. Perhaps Kauffman is right about the need to
"reinvent the sacred." However, I am more inclined to agree with Hitchens's idea that religion belongs
to the "terrified childhood of our species." Finally, having once been a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist,
I appreciate Groopman's reminder that both sides of the debate need to respond with tolerant respect
to the opposite view. Extremist rantings from either side, as Miller points out, simply disclose the
shallowness of one's argument.
RE: Whole Series
Christopher Gwyn
05/22/2008
For science to be able to make God obsolete, the concept of God has to be limited to questions that
science can answer. If God is limited to being the creator of the universe and other matters that
science can address, then science not only can but should supplant God. If God is defined as "that
which I believe regardless of evidence," then God and science are completely irrelevant to each other
and the question is meaningless.
RE: Whole Series
Krista Keisling
05/22/2008
Science exists because God created a world that makes sense. Science allows us to explore the
wonders that God made. Post-modern people have a hard time accepting that mysteries do exist and
that it is perfectly okay for some things to be unexplainable. This is why some people have a hard time
believing that God exists. However, without God as creator, life has no meaning and no purpose.
Darwin's theory of evolution is just that: a theory. When it is examined closely, faults and shortcomings
can be clearly seen. Evidence was tampered with and falsely reported. Nancy Pearcey writes about
this in her book "Total Truth."
RE: Michael Shermer
Douglas Reid
05/22/2008
I hope readers will read more basic material about how the Book of Mormon came to be, rather than
Shermer's inaccurate description. Joseph Smith did not speak of Moroni or Mormon "dictating" the
book, but rather said they inscribed their writings from AD 300-400 onto metallic plates with the
207
"appearance of gold." When Joseph Smith described "peering into a hat" to see the translated words
he then dictated to a scribe from "seer stones" (clear stones which might be compared to an LCD
screen), surely one can detect the normalcy of needing to block outside light so that he could see the
words more clearly. Similar to the logic of Shermer's analogy about intelligent extra-terrestrial beings,
his use of the term "magic" stones is convenient but is only "magic" because science can't explain it.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Samuel Feldman
05/22/2008
Kenneth Miller got it right. As a scientist and science teacher, I am constantly reminded that science is
about evidence not truth. I remember the back-to-back interviews on Terry Gross's NPR "Fresh Air"
show last year. Richard Dawkins claimed science makes religion unnecessary. Francis Collins said
that science supported his belief in God. It is interesting that both scientists talked about how the great
awe they felt when comtemplating the natural universe convinced them that their conflcting views were
correct. If there is anything that we humans excel at, it is rationalization. Most likely our belief or non-
belief in God has nothing to do with scientific evidence. Rather we form our religious beliefs based on
what "feels" right and then come up with reasons to justify those beliefs.
RE: Whole Series
Ian Lawton
05/22/2008
God and science can certainly co-exist. Science is man's tool to measure and understand God's
creation, and evolution is one of God's tools of creation. I fervently believe in the scientific process but
also try to keep in mind that much of what is scientific truth today was not even imagined 100 years
ago. We are constantly expanding our knowledge, and so science is really more a process of
garnering knowledge than a firm, fixed set of truths.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Dmitrii Manin
05/22/2008
Kenneth Miller states that religion is contradictory and incomplete, but science is incomplete too, which
puts them on common ground. But this is a rather crude sleight of hand. True, science is incomplete,
but it is emphatically not self-contradictory. Nor are there a number of mutually contradicting sciences,
as there are a number of mutually contradicting religions. Any attempt to reconcile religion with science
leads to a betrayal of one or the other or, likely, both.
RE: Michael Shermer
Kay Parker
05/22/2008
As a Mormon, I was disappointed in Shermer's comment about Joseph Smith "burying his face in a
hat." Clearly he knows very little about our faith or, for that matter, about any religion's faith in God. I
believe this shows arrogance. A couple of weeks ago on his show, Bill Moyers quoted a great historian
as saying "Beware the terrible simplifiers."
RE: Whole Series
Robert R. Reynolds
05/22/2008
As a geologist, I find it incredible that anyone could believe in the fairy tales that are replete in our
Bible. Evangelicals are in a state of denial about the age of the earth and the extremely well-tested
theory of evolution. They are using every trick in the book to get creationism introduced into high
school science classes as an alternative theory. I find it alarming that over 50 percent of our population
do not believe in evolution. With our politicians trying to push us into the nonsense of global warming
due to CO2 and the medieval religion of Islam knocking at our gates, any Gods, if present, must have
turned their backs on mankind.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Sakovich
05/22/2008
I still do not see how so many people are sucked into believing that evolution is true. There is the
"missing link" that people are chasing after to show how one species evolved into another. The
problem is that there is no such link. If all life came from one form, would it not make sense that all
lower forms would evolve into the higher form?
208
As for the general question of science and its relation to God, I can honestly say that I have never seen
anything come from science to refute what the Bible states. Man just seems to want to have control
over things, though, and think that we are the standard against which all things are to be judged.
Scientists tend to get too puffed up in their own knowledge and seemingly forget that while, yes, we
might be able to explain how some things work, we cannot explain why everything works together as
well as it does. For the Earth and the other planets to wind up randomly in the positions that they
occupy has the possibility of a billionth of a billionth.
RE: Whole Series
Leah PettePiece
05/22/2008
While science moves us forward every day, opening new venues for exploration, it in no way
diminishes the need for spiritual fulfillment. There are points to ponder on both sides of the question of
God. For my part, I should like to point to certain obvious facts that tell us science does not displace
the need for seeking and attempting to know a "Creator Being," nor does science attempt to disprove
that there is an intelligence in humans and animals that cannot be easily explained away by some
scientific formula or equation.
If we take the road most traveled among human beings for thousands of years, we clearly see that
while mankind has a thirst for knowledge, gaining knowledge does not eliminate the need for
something to worship. Looking back over the Christian/Judaic past, we see noted scientists who were
also devout. When I was younger I had the grand opportunity to live in foreign countries and observe
and learn about religions that were much different from my own. My mother was a Russian Jewish
immigrant to the United States, and she later married a Roman Catholic whose mother was a Gypsy,
so perhaps I come to this discussion from a different place intellectually than some of the folks that I
read here.
I set out in my own life as an adult to be somewhat of an agnostic, but as I grew older that changed.
Instead of being one religion or another I tried out a lot of different things. Science was simply
fascinating to me. I loved genetics and astronomy, but never did that sense of there being a Creator
leave me. Now at 63 I can safely say that religion was all man-made, an aide probably to controlling
the common man, while the fact remains firmly set in my mind that God just is. I believe that we were
given intelligent, seeking minds so that we could make life better, overcome illness, wipe out plagues,
reach for the stars, and seek to understand all that we possibly can about what makes both this planet
and humankind tick.
RE: Whole Series
Andre Ryland
05/22/2008
Many of the responders are still arguing this question from the point of view that this god exists. That a
god exists in actuality we do not know. That science exists we do know. The question for me is who
benefits from this debate. Who benefits if a god exists? Who benefits from science? Whether or not a
god is obsolete should have no bearing on what we scientifically discover. We use science to improve
our lives and our understanding of what is. We use a god to do the same, superfically, and also to
create much more despair.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Swartzwelder
05/22/2008
It's the Darwin thing, isn't it? I believe God created everything--we just don't know how. You see, like
Galileo, Darwin just observed and reported what God did. Arguing about Darwin has alienated
scientists and theologians. Even though the positions are not mutually exclusive, the fighting goes on.
Humans are two things, body and soul. Evolution is about body and Darwin, religion is about God and
soul. Just as Galileo's pope couldn't stop the earth orbiting the sun, neither can we change the fact that
body and soul are one unit until death.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Imperiale
05/22/2008
209
Intriguing. I like best that you represent all points of view, leaving to the reader any injection of bias.
Journalism and academic thought are best presented as neutrally as possible.
RE: Whole Series
Georges E. Melki
05/22/2008
The question is misleading! It should be re-phrased as: "Does science make belief in the God of the
traditional religions obsolete?" To this question, my answer is definitely yes! For how can one believe
in modern science and at the same time believe in what the so-called "sacred books" tell us?
According to the Bible, for instance, the earth would be 6,000 years old and man would have been
created from "dirt" separately from all other animals. I wonder how people in their right minds can
believe in such statements! After all, religion is the only form of "knowledge" inherited from antiquity
which still has widespread belief. Does anybody still take seriously the story of the four elements or of
the seven heavens and the epicycles of Ptolemy? For me, there is no distinction whatsoever between
religion and mythology. Now, if there are people who are comforted by the belief in the "Trinity" or in
the message of Mohammed, they are free to do so, but let them keep their beliefs to themselves.
RE: Whole Series
Douglas Reid
05/22/2008
Thanks for presenting this debate. It appears to me that neither side deals adequately with the
possibilities of God's purposes in the creation of this particular earth nor in other possibilities within the
universe, such as the possibility that it has no beginning nor will it have an end. The debate seems to
ignore the utmost importance of human cognitive choice as an answer for why a "loving God" would
allow humankind to have such destructive power. Why not allow such if one of God's purposes is for
humankind to learn how to use power lovingly wihout imposing constraints or coercions?
Richard Dawkins has argued that resurrection is an issue that needs to be addressed. I agree.
Resurrection to a renewed state of being that will be endless refutes the idea that God cannot possibly
be loving if such a Being allows all of the suffering that we see and have seen in the known history of
the world. The scientific discoveries about DNA seem to me to support rather than refute the possibility
of resurrection.
I didn't notice adequate treatment of the question of why there are such vast differences in human
attainment during the course of known human history, if all of this was a strictly evolutionary process.
For example, why no equivalents to Shakespeare today, if evolution explains all human development?
RE: Steven Pinker
Jean Berko Gleason
05/22/2008
Thumbs up for Steven Pinker on this. The concept of a god may be comforting, just as a belief in life
after death and reincarnation may provide a way to stave off thinking about the inexorability of death,
but observable phenomena can ultimately be explained by science, and spiritual feelings do not prove
the existence of god. Now how about giving up belief in that Language Acquisition Device?
RE: Whole Series
Surinder Pal
05/22/2008
Where human intelligence and knowledge give way in explaining things, the unknown powerful being
called God is temporarily given credit for knowing everything. Where humans succeed in unfolding the
layers of the unknown, the word God is replaced by science. For example, when we did not know how
thunderstorms were formed, we used to say God sent them. Now we can even predict the weather
conditions for a number of days.
RE: Whole Series
George Robertson
05/22/2008
It seems to me that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, because it is outside of
nature or reality, and therefore I would suggest we not consider the subject further. The same,
however, cannot be said of religion. Religion is clearly a human creation, natural and subject to
scientific study. We have at least 10,000 years of religious data. I would suggest that a scientific study
210
of the human societal benefits and detriments of religion would allow an individual to make an
informed decision as to whether to participate in a religion or not.
RE: Whole Series
Michael Rogers
05/22/2008
Science doesn't tell us what can't happen just the probability of what can. This means that anything is
possible but not necessarily probable. For me, this makes the argument simple: what is the empirical
information that can be used to support deism? Despite my wishes, I have never experienced anything
that can't so far be explained by a rational evaluation. If someone would like to perform a supernatural
act to convince me otherwise, I'm available. Supernaturalism is accepted on faith, which is just what a
researcher doesn't want to do.
This says nothing about the validity of some of the tenets of religions. I guess that they were the best
thoughts of that ancient era: don't marry a women who has slept around in that she may carry
something that will make you both very sick; don't eat pork for the same reason. Real physical causes
weren't known then. The supernatural power was included to add weight to the rules in these early life
manuals that otherwise might be ignored. We do need a modern "life manual," but it must be
constructed using the best knowledge available now and somehow made to appeal to the masses.
Dmitrii Manin
05/22/2008
I want to take issue with the position of William D. Phillips. I agree that a person can be a scientist and
a believer at the same time, but I submit that thereby he betrays in subtle ways either science or
religion, and probably both.
To be a true scientist does not mean, of course, to avoid making non-falsifiable statements. The
statement "killing people is bad" is not falsifiable, but it is meaningful, important, and in a sense, true.
However, there is a significant difference between this kind of statement (or other examples Phillips
gives, such as "she sings beautifully"), which are evaluative, and the statement "there is God", which is
ontological, i.e. asserts an objective truth.
A believer may think that this statement is non-falsifiable, but he must think that it is objectively true.
And an objective truth must not contradict other objective truths. For a scientist, who knows a lot of
objective truths about the world and who values consistency in his ontology, this is a powerful
constraint on what kind of God could exist. Consider a simple example: can God violate conservation
of energy? If He can, His existence will be, at least in principle, detectable (by observing non-
conservation of energy). This goes against the comforting idea that God is undetectable. If He can't,
how can he affect anything in the material world? Any intervention in worldly affairs must have a non-
zero balance of energy.
A scientist's internal engine runs on curiosity about the big questions, and for a believer, no question
can be bigger than those about God. I'm not saying that a believer scientist must have ready-made
answers to these questions. What I'm saying is that he must not try to sweep them under the carpet,
otherwise he ceases to be a true scientist (even though he can still be a Nobel laureate, apparently).
Or one can continue to be a scientist but cease to be a true believer.
RE: Whole Series
Dave Peters
05/21/2008
Science is a method of inquiry. You posit competing hypotheses, design experiments to test between
them, and then refute or support one or more hypothesis based on the results of your tests. Science is
useful in helping us understand the physical world. It has no use in answering questions about belief.
The existence of god or gods, depending on your particular religion, is a matter of belief. You believe in
god or you do not. A god is not a physical being. Thus, the scientific method is not a useful tool to
determine if god exists or not. There is no experiment that can support or refute the existence of a
spiritual being. Can you believe in something that you cannot scientifically support or refute?
Absolutely!
211
Neil V. O'Connell
05/21/2008
A key factor that we all must recognize is that the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution
are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others
who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world; everything proceeds along
a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the
conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. Again, though, these represent an insignificant
portion of scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life
evolved entirely without ANY intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic
science. For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation for how the universe and life
came into existence.
Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, Darwin was the first to develop a
plausible model for how evolution could have occurred--natural selection. Darwin once identified
himself as a Christian, but later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God as a result of
some tragedies that took place in his life. Evolution was "invented" by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not
to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an
enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists today likely would not admit that their goal is to give an
alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism. However,
according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.
RE: Whole Series
Shawn
05/21/2008
The blurb on NPR worked. Great series--thank you.
RE: Steven Pinker
Neil V. O'Connell
05/21/2008
There is a perception that creationism is "unscientific." This is partly true, in the sense that creationism
entails certain assumptions that cannot be tested, proven, or falsified. However, naturalism is in
exactly the same predicament, as an untestable, unprovable, non-falsifiable philosophy. The facts
discovered in scientific research are only that: facts. Facts and interpretations are two different things.
The current scientific community rejects, in general, the concepts of creationism, and so they define it
as "unscientific." This is highly ironic, given the scientific community's preference for an interpretive
philosophy, naturalism, that is just as "unscientific" as creationism.
There are many reasons for this tendency towards naturalism in science. Creationism involves the
intervention of a supernatural being, and science is primarily concerned with tangible and physical
things. For this reason, some in the scientific community fear that creationism will lead to a "God of the
gaps" dilemma, where scientific questions are shrugged off by the explanation, "God did it."
Experience has shown that this is not the case. Some of the greatest names in scientific history were
staunch creationists. Their belief in God inspired them to ask, "How did God do it?" Among these
names are Pascal, Maxwell, and Kelvin.
On the other hand, an unreasonable commitment to naturalism can degrade scientific discovery. A
naturalistic framework requires a scientist to ignore results that do not fit the established paradigm.
That is, when new data do not correlate to the naturalistic view, it is assumed to be invalid and
discarded. While there may be many reasons for tension between the scientific community and
creationism, there are plenty of reasons why they should be able to coexist peacefully. There are no
logically valid reasons to reject creationism in favor of naturalism, as the scientific community has
done. Creationism does not inhibit discovery, as evidenced by the titans of science who believed
strongly in it. The derisive attitude spewed at creationists has diminished the number of capable and
willing minds in many fields. Creationism has much to offer science and the scientific community. The
God who made the universe revealed Himself through it (Psalm 19:1); the more we know about His
creation, the more glory He receives!
RE: Whole Series
Mike
05/21/2008
212
No. The word obsolete means that something once useful is no longer useful, generally because of
something that is newer and better. The emphasis here is on something that was once useful. Religion
has never been either correct or useful. Because many think something is useful does not make it so.
Rational thought about god shows that the concept is fundamentally incorrect. Science verifies the
rational thought and refutes blind faith. We must also recognize that science is frequently wrong. Begin
with the most fundamental concepts--the characteristics we assign to this entity we call god. This god
has all knowledge and all power. He knows everything and can do anything. This god created humans
with love. He loves this world and all the people in it. Then look around and try to find the evidence of
these characteristics. Wishful thinking is not sufficient and never has been.
Would that evidence be human beings that behave so incredibly irrationally and treat each other
incredibly badly while fouling our environment? Would that love be manifested in an existence
designed and created such that so many animals must kill other animals in horribly painful ways and
then consume their bodies in order to exist? An all-knowing and all-powerful god had to have created
our earth this way with dedicated intent.
When we kill so many in god's name, why does he not make an appearance and tell us, all at the same
time, what he asks us to do? The concept of revealing himself to one person at a time is a prime
example of our irrational thinking. Before debating if god might now be obsolete, determine if god ever
was a valid concept. Toss out the wishful thinking and present the evidence.
RE: Whole Series
Mike Hennessey
05/21/2008
It seems to me that science cannot and should not try to influence belief in God. The simple reason is
that God is unlikely to allow his creations to poke and prod at him, and if a hypothesis cannot be
tested, it is not science.
RE: Whole Series
Edward Feist
05/21/2008
The question is not whether science makes a belief in religion obsolete, although that may well be a
compelling academic debate. At a practical level, the question should be an examination of how a
belief in God becomes a religious practice that does harm to the world. It would first be necessary to
define harm. If this relatively short mortal existence is simply a test for how eternity will play out, as in
accepting suffering now to earn an eternal reward of song and joy, bring on the pain. But if the test is
more one of living well and taking seriously our stewardship of the home we are given (starting with the
Earth), well then, that is something else, now isn't it?
Then you would also need some focus on the other side. Go beyond the obvious good of helping
people to earn that eternal reward. Would advancing the quality of that much shorter mortal life have
value? Isn't that what science is concerned with? The quality of this mortal life rather than the eternal
one? Create a scorecard. Which religion is doing the most harm to whom? Which have done the least
harm? Which have produced the most scientific progress, which the least? Also ask which areas of
science have done the most harm (as defined within the religious context) and so forth.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Barham
05/21/2008
I think the answer, simply, is yes. Belief in God once served the lofty purpose of keeping the man who
lived in mud every day, farmed the fields his entire life, and slept on straw all night from questioning
"why" . . . instead denigrating him to "when"--which is to say, when would he depart, and what would
lie thereafter, because certainly for most what lay in the now was not very satisfactory. It also strived in
a very vain and harmful attempt to explain the phenomena which no one at this time could have hoped
to understand. In retrospect we should realize it was a valorous but erroneous attempt, as it did not
predict much about the universe of any considerable worth.
Science was, in many ways, the savior of humanity. It came forth and said "What religion did not
provide--food, comfort, order, and progress--we will bring to you, not through magic, but through the
efforts of ourselves as humans." It is with difficulty and strife that the revolutions of thought take place.
213
Just as we abandoned the many ridiculous theories of the past, so too shall we find that religion at
large does little to no good.
As far as one could argue for the moral values in the Bible, I believe Hitchens is very accurate. Not
only is it very very unlikely the God of most religions exists, but we should be extremely grateful he
does not. The things said in the Bible and the Koran are some of the most barbaric, hateful, incendiary
things ever written. And as far as I can see, they're likely the most popular. We have a book in general
circulation, being read by children, in which women are treated like animals, men are brutalized and
their genitals disfigured, and fairy tales and magic are taught, false hope and all.
Science has made religion obsolete, as can be seen by major religions bleeding by the thousands. We
merely have to be patient for its demise.
RE: Whole Series
Pepper Bruce
05/21/2008
In these essays I found very little remembrance of the historic fact that science did not develop in any
culture except the Christianized West. Moreover, most of the classical scientists of the scientific
revolution were Christians. Why did things turn out this way? Sociologist Rodney Stark attempted to
set forth some of the answerers in his book The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom,
Capitalism, and Western Success. While the ancient Greeks and others had reason, it appears that
Christian faith alone provided the mentality necessary for the birth of science. Other cultures
possessed intelligent and creative souls who developed sophisticated technology but no science.
It may be due to the fact that little gods can neither create a universe nor give men the confidence
needed to find order in that universe. Thus, for the Greeks as well as other non-Christian cultures, the
universe would remain a vast mystery incapable of exploration. Likewise, it was faith in the personal
creator God that turned on the light of reason that made science possible. If these things are true, then
what will become of science when the light that gave birth to it is turned off?
RE: Whole Series
Ravi Chandra
05/21/2008
The only truth that I and most human beings have experienced for sure is that "change is the only
constant." Given enough time, everything living and non-living will change. If the word of God is
"forever" and cannot be changed, cannot be adapted, cannot be altered, then it soon starts to become
irrelevant, since it contradicts the only fundamental truth that all of us have experienced. Most people
hope to experience God through their religious practices and scriptures. If part of these scriptures are
proven to be untrue or doubtful, then belief in them, and hence the belief in God, no longer makes any
sense.
RE: Whole Series
Prem Sobel
05/21/2008
Any attempt to explain consciousness in terms of the complexity of physical and biological forms is
doomed to failure. Vedanta and many thousands of years of yogic experience tell us that
Consciousness and Being and Delight are the essential characteristics of Reality, of the Transcendent,
or God. Divine Consciousness is the source, the creatrix of all design.
Take the ribosome, a great example of intelligent design. It is a molecule with 50,000 atoms and is the
digital copying device for DNA. It cannot evolve because it either copies perfectly or does not. Yet it is
part of a process of biological evolution where the software (the DNA) evolves.
Belief in God is good, useful, and helpful, but experience of God is far more valuable, getting to know
and serve and love God, and ultimately to reunite or more accurately to realize one was never
separate from our source. We only had the illusion and belief in separation. This illusion is a direct
consequence of the ignorance at the begining of the creation of this universe (what science calls the
big bang), at which time there was no apparent life or mind, and matter itself had to evolve to fulfill the
table of elements through the evolution of suns and galaxies. Evolution of consciousness is the real
process of evolution.
214
RE: Whole Series
David Brant
05/21/2008
To the contrary, scientific discoveries give us a window into the awesome power and creativity of our
God. Modern science has destoyed evolutionary theory and only affirms the existence of God. If
Darwin were alive today he would refute his own theory. Evolution is now nothing more than a man-
made religion that requires blind faith in order to deny the existence of God. We are without excuse
because of what we see with our own eyes and even more so with every new scientific discovery.
RE: Whole Series
bake
05/21/2008
Science/intelligence does not make a deity/spirituality obsolete, but it sure does make religion
unnecessary.
H. Watkins Ellerson
05/21/2008
As a nonbeliever, I find the question to be irrelevant. Science does not "make" anything, least of all
anything to do with belief in a deity. This question was obviously fashioned by a believer seeking
(successfully) to provoke a discussion about God vs. science.
It also implies that belief in God was at one time necessary but may now be less so. Before he died,
Stephen Jay Gould succeeded in demolishing the fabricated conflict between science and religion. I
believe the conflict to be totally manufactured by religious believers who loathe or fear science, while
science has (or should have) no involvement at all with religion. Science is not a threat to religion
except when religion promotes nonsense (as it so often does) readily disproved by science.
RE: Whole Series
T R Hill
05/21/2008
I notice that Mr. Hitchens eschews the usual capitalization of god, and that's a good start. Nice to be
presented with all these essays--for free and no password or subscription fee required. Thank you!
It is very lonely here in SE Idaho for a 78 y/o atheist! But briefly let me suggest that it doesn't take
science to reject a belief in god or a "supreme being," as some of my friends prefer to say. Common
sense rejects this mysterious thought process of "faith." And it helps to read Hume, Berkely, and
Descarte, as I did 57 years ago.
Finally, please pass on to Fred Hoyle that his cosmos still makes more sense to me than the thinly
supported Big Bang theory with its absurd notion that all evolved from a truly unbelievable
condensation of all matter, as it is described in Scientific American and elsewhere!
RE: Whole Series
05/21/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? No. Belief invokes unquestioned acceptance. But a
symbiosis of science and philosophy based on irrefutable logic revises the foundations of science and
supports the existence of an all-composing and all-pervading cosmic entity like God. Einstein's
equation of E=mc2 points to an entity composing all forms of energy & mass to allow interconversions.
RE: Whole Series
Dan Doerer
05/21/2008
When scientists do anything more than provide false hopes, perhaps I'll take them more seriously. But
for now, I see man's folly, which has put this beautiful planet in peril such as it has never experienced
before. Hubris and its cousin, greed, rule the day, leading to misery for billions. Perhaps the gods of
science should take their eyes off their microscopes and look around them to see what they have
helped create.
RE: Steven Pinker
ddougall
215
05/21/2008
God is not obsolete. Tell me that the Big Bang was not creation. You start with nothing and within a
nanosecond you have everything, with all physics defined. Hmmm . . . sounds like creation to me. I
think that the writers of the Bible have a time issue. They are, of course, geocentric, but this does not
mean that their writing is not universal.
RE: Whole Series
Roger Ho and Clemente Lowe
05/21/2008
We do not believe that science can either prove God does not exist or make belief in God obsolete.
Science gives answers that are probable but not absolute. The works of Professor Stenger or
Professor Dawkins render the existence of God highly improbable but not impossible. It is rickety to
use only low probability to rule out something unknown. Belief in God and His existence has
eschatological significance. You need eternity to prove God's non-existence, but you know He exists if
on one occasion, He appears before you (provided you can prove that He is God).
A lot of us believe in God. We suspect that it is primarily because of our biological properties (e.g.,
instinctive insecurity or uncertainty when facing nature), but science cannot give an absolute answer to
this question. Discussion on God will go on forever, and belief in God will not be obsolete. Whether
God is the Judeo-Christian God is another question, one that seems easier to answer.
RE: Whole Series
Mee
05/20/2008
The force that brings everything together and apart is nature. To understand nature, we take help from
science. Ancient people called it God just to understand "nature's rule."
RE: Whole Series
Dave Grasso
05/20/2008
It depends. If one is using the concept of God as an explanatory hypothesis to account for the origins
of man, how the world began, the creation of the universe/space/time, etc. then, yes, I would say God,
in this context, has long outlived his/her usefulness. If, however, one uses the idea of a Supreme
Being or Ultimate Power as a source of comfort or strength, to give meaning to life, or to help explain
the imponderables of life, then the idea of God will never be obsolete. People will always have a deep-
rooted, almost hard-wired, need to believe in something greater than themselves to give them comfort
in times of trouble, solace in times of grief or stress, and as a way of making sense, to themselves at
least, of things they are psychologically unable to accept.
RE: Whole Series
Arthur Heimbold
05/20/2008
Man believed before "science" was conceived. Man is on a spaceship going nowhere. We, the
voyagers, entertain and educate each other. Given only the ingredients on earth, we slowly attempt to
decipher what is our world and the vastness beyond. Can one even imagine the power of a Creator?
The Creator's existence cannot be proved to be impossible nor can we prove it to be possible. But
whence came thoughts of beauty, of justice, of all the intangible things that are of a power and
magnitude far surpassing what science has brought to our table? Look at your hands, look out the
window, listen to your grandchild. The Creator is here, there, and everywhere. Stand in awe.
RE: Whole Series
Chris Mandel
05/20/2008
The recent unveiling of the conspiracy to blackball scientists who even mention intelligent design is all
the evidence needed to know the answer to this question.
RE: Whole Series
Bill M.
05/20/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Such a silly question. It is amazing that anybody would
think it does. Science is no threat to God. God Created science. Any person who claims to believe in
God and yet fears science has little faith. Science is slowly figuring out how God created the universe
216
and everything in it. God's existence will never be proved, and it will never be disproved.
Scientists who believe that disproving the seven literal days of creation disproves God have no
understanding of theology or the beliefs of the vast majority of creationists. If the Genesis version is
true, one need not look any further than the fourth day when the sun was created. Obviously, a "day" to
God is not 24 hours based on one revolution of the earth.
Evolution helps us understand how life changes over time, but it offers no explanation for the origin of
life or the variety or complexity of life. I was watching maple seeds fall in the wind. They twirled about,
sometimes travelling a hundred yards from the tree. What a marvelous way to propagate the species.
Yet other tree seeds fall staight down below the tree. Some tree seeds are bitter and rarely eaten by
any animal, other tree seeds are delicious and consumed by a wide variety of animals. Is evolution the
explanation for both? Is the maple more evolved than the walnut? Science is fascinating, but it will
never answer all the questions.
RE: Whole Series
DonPaul Olshove
05/20/2008
Interesting question. Let's start with the word "obsolete." An item, physical or mental, is obsolete when
it is no longer in use, has become outdated or unfashionable. It is far from obvious that a belief in God
is no longer in use, is outdated, or has become unfashionable. So the first thing we must do is restate
the question more accurately: "Can science make belief in God obsolete?"
Next, the word "belief." Belief is usually thought of simply as assent to a proposition. In other words, it
is the mental state of a person who holds some concept (thought) to be true, that is, an accurate model
of reality. What exactly is being assented to when a person assents to "belief in God"? We can make a
guess that since the word God is capitalized in this question and the question is posed in English, that
the speaker is referring to the Western monotheistic conception of an ultimate being or supreme truth.
Next, the word science. What most of us think of as "science" consists of the practice of modeling
human experience by way of the scientific method. The conceptual models that result from this activity
and become widely accepted are called "scientific knowledge" or simply "science."
OK, let's restate the question again: "Can the conceptual models developed by the scientific method
make a person no longer use, or consider outdated and unfashionable, those mental states which
express the concept that there exists a supreme being?" Stated this way it becomes very obvious that
the products of science are completely incapable of dictating people's judgements about what they
think are useful or fashionable ideas. The correct answer to the question is a resounding NO. Present-
day science stands a long way from dictating what a person thinks. A person can choose to believe or
not to believe. Everyone's model of reality is uniquely their own.
RE: Whole Series
p. deveau
05/20/2008
Science is as much an abstraction as religion--a theoretical belief. People who have faith can fit
science into religion just as people of science can fit religion into their scientific beliefs. It's strange that
they require a faith in the abstract.
RE: Whole Series
Jayanta Chatterjee
05/20/2008
I don't believe in God, but I do believe in "religion." If someone gets relief, satisfaction, and
courage/desire to do something good for society or humanity by believing in something without hurting
anyone, then I do support such faith/belief.
RE: Whole Series
Lee Perry
05/20/2008
The laws of probability compel the conclusion that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and
Hinduism were premised upon visionary experiences induced by contemplations of the mandala (line
pattern) known to the Hebrews as the "Pargod" or "Bar Goda," known to the Greeks as the
217
"Katapetasma," known to first-century Christians and early Islamics as the "Heavenly Veil," and known
to Goidelic and Brythonic Celts as the "Greille." Thus, science ALWAYS, not just in modern times, has
made belief in the God of the foregoing religions obsolete. They all are based on the mathematical
science of astronomy!
RE: Whole Series
Jim J
05/20/2008
To be able to answer this question, we must first put the subjects into perspective. Science is a method
used to obtain knowledge of the physical world. It works within our capabilities to understand physical
realities as our senses and intelligence permit. As such, it is not an all-powerful element of our
existence--only a tool or method. It is also a method that is extremely limited and flawed, as evidenced
by the amount of knowledge that we are still to attain and the number of theories that are annulled
every day.
On the other hand, God is the creator of all things, including the ability for us to apply science. It is for
this simple fact that science is inadequate to dispute belief in God, as it does not provide us with the
scope necessary to comprehend the Creator of all things. Nevertheless, science and religion must be
in harmony as part of our quest for knowledge--science as part of our physical reality and the Holy
Writings as part of our spiritual reality, with intelligence (in parallel with intuition) as the bridge between
these two realities.
I invite you to study the Bahai writings, which contain an ocean of knowledge regarding science and
religion and our quest for knowledge of our reality. It does not matter how smart we are. Science on its
own is limited in its ability to provide us with a complete view of our reality, thus requiring belief in God
to complete the picture.
RE: Whole Series
Penny
05/20/2008
A very interesting debate. But surely it must have been possible to include more than just one woman?
RE: Whole Series
Steve
05/20/2008
String theory--a new mathematical approach to theoretical physics--postulates multiple dimensions. It
should not be difficult to understand, then, that most people believe there are one or more unknown
physical and/or spiritual dimensions. Belief in God is far from obsolete, but consistent with, even
supported by, known physical laws. Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" postulates that
practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible alternative
is available; to lose faith in the solubility of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist.
I think people of faith understand why scientists cling to established paradigms but have trouble
understanding why there is not enough self-awareness for many to understand this is happening.
It seems to me that atheism, by contrast to faith, is provably false, since it postulates that physical
realities exist without cause and, arrogantly, that a creator does not or cannot, which violates known
laws of physics. I have heard some atheists say that we will one day discover laws that allow for the
creation of matter and energy from nothing. This is absurd to many, but atheistic scientists cling to it
because, apparently, they believe they cannot be scientists and believe in a first cause. Scientists can
remain scientists, committed to describing physical reality, but also understand the limits of this
endeavor and acknowledge that there indeed must have been a first cause.
I often hear atheistic scientists ask, then who created God? Simply put, the assumption is no one. God
is postulated to be outside the physical dimension that we inhabit and seek to describe with science.
Science describes and defines a universe that we find ourselves in but explains nothing of creation. I
commend The Privileged Planet, by Gonzalez and Richards, which claims there is scientific evidence
that shows the Earth and life are the products of intelligent design.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Swartz
05/20/2008
218
I am a registered pharmacist. I have read most of the seminal works of the intelligent design
movement: Behe, Johnson, Dembski, etc. From a chemical standpoint, I find them quite convincing. I
found the movie EXPELLED disturbing--the intolerable things happening to untenured academics.
RE: Whole Series
Amanda Forsyth
05/20/2008
Science is about explaining the physical world, so, yes, there are lots of examples of phenomena
which are now explained by science but which used to be explained as the work of God. It shows
extraordinary arrogance, though, to assume that we must be able to look just to the physical world to
prove or disprove the existence of God, let alone the entirely separate question of belief. Science can
no more make belief in God obsolete than printed books can obviate storytelling.
RE: Whole Series
Kenrick Hackett
05/20/2008
Science is synonymous with knowledge and the means to acquire knowledge. To the extent that
religious men and women have felt their religious beliefs undermined by science, the answer is "yes."
To the extent that such men and women place their faith not so much in tradition but in Ultimate
Reality, the answer is "no." Religion is the vessel of belief and faith, which are not synonymous.
RE: Whole Series
greg
05/20/2008
No. We are a tribal species evolved with beliefs in nonexistent beings or powers to explain what we
have been unable to understand but also with an intelligence suited to study and eventually interpret
circumstances we cannot explain. Problems begin when religion strives to contradict science. This is
generated by the established mindset and false security that religious belief systems provide. Religion
can be allowed, as it has not yet run its course for us as a species, but for it to handicap serious
scientific study (evolution, stem cell research, etc.) reflects poorly on the religious, and forces science
to participate in apples-and-oranges debates.
A belief in God is a personal matter, desired for whatever reason by an individual. It has little to do with
genuine science, and so therefore, no, science does not make belief in God obsolete. Belief in God
has never been relevant, but has existed to soothe guilt, while providing easy and quick explanations
to complex issues--issues that are finally beginning to be understood through scientific study. When
people perceive a conflict, they need to examine themselves, not others, and what they are choosing
not to learn and understand.
RE: Whole Series
Juan Antonio Agostini
05/20/2008
Of course, there's no scientific, verifiable answer to the everlasting question of our origin. At best, we
can only theorize and speculate. Or being overwhelmed by the greatness, beauty and immensity of
Creation, we can do some soul-searching in our inner selves and humbly make space for faith and
eventually for grace.
A starting point could be our common, shared conscience or "belief" in good and evil. Would justice--
which we all advocate as a right for ourselves--and its implications of cause and effect have any
meaning were it not for that common denominator of all epochs and cultures: our intuition not only of
an intelligent order in the universe but of the existence of goodness itself. Let modern theologians, in
open and frank dialogue with non-fundamentalist scientists, take it from there! Amen.
RE: Whole Series
Debbie
05/20/2008
No, but why is it our job to find this alleged God? Why would a being create us and then hide?
RE: Whole Series
squirtapotamus
05/19/2008
219
Before reading the series (we will see how it changes my mind), I say "No, of course not." The reason?
Belief in God was obsolete long before science had any say in the matter.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Bolger
05/19/2008
There seems to be something wrong with attempting to answer such questions without first spending a
bit of time attempting to delineate the meaning of certain concepts. I take it that this is what D.Z.
Phillips spent most of his carreer urging philosophers of religion to do, but seemingly without much
avail. There is a thrust these days to attempt to make religion look like a science, by people such as
Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Clayton, and Murphy, who simply refuse to do the hard philosophical work of
determining what concepts mean. If the scientific theologians mentioned above want to make religion
look like a science, I am content to side with the likes of the so-called "new atheists," but I take it that
the religious concepts these folks discover when they try to to make religion into a pseudo-science is
not what any (or very many) believers ever believed.
RE: Whole Series
Don Reede
05/19/2008
Science is nothing more or less than a yardstick by which to measure physical reality. Science is
quantitative. Religious belief or faith in the existence of God is qualitative; it deals with values and
meanings. The only time that the two may appear to be at odds is when science proves a superstition
to be false. Whence comes all of this science without a master scientist?
RE: Whole Series
Guanshi Edyo
05/19/2008
Yes. Religion is the approach that starts with the answer, and science is the approach that is willing to
consider all answers. When we genuinely ask the question "What is God?," and we seek an answer
that is truthful, we are, in fact, asking a scientific question. It is true that science is embedded in its
social context, and that all truth-seekers carry inescapable biases, but those who take a scientific
approach hope to remove their colored lenses and see the world as it truly is. A scientist is one who
acknowledges that she doesn't know all there is to know, and that there will always be more to learn,
and more to learn about the methods of learning.
Either life is guided or it is not. If a deterministic process originating from a cause in a long-past eon
resulted in the human creative endeavor and the technological progress that we see today, then life is
not guided in the sense understood by religion. As science has marched along, God's ground has
grown smaller. We no longer need a seven-day creation story, or a cosmic egg, or the blood and guts
of the Gods, because we have evolution. We no longer need Thor's hammer, because we have
electricity. We no longer need to be people of the Book, because the people have the means to write a
better book.
The philosophers of our age who have argued that religion and science are compatible seek refuge in
a tiny corner of the map of possible Godly incarnations. The rational thinkers who write here all
acknowledge that if God exists, she must be distant and limited by scientific principles. No serious
scholar will argue for the biblical God of vengeance--they can only muster the will to advocate the
existence of the miniscule God of a non-arbitrary first cause. Why do we cling to this miniscule God?
Why can't we see the ground shrinking before our feet and simply give up?
RE: Whole Series
Rodney
05/19/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? I believe not, because the question is an invalid one.
Whose God is made relevant or irrelevant by science? God is a mental concept based on culture,
nationality, and/or belief. These are in a constant state of change, and therefore belief is in a constant
state of change. We have thousands of years of data to back this statement.
Belief requires no fact, proof, or demonstration of its validity. There is no true mystery in belief, only an
overwhelming fear of uncertainty. Science is committed to discovering the principles behind mystery
and seeks to dispel fear of the unknown by challenging uncertainty. Unfortunately, religion is confused
220
with God. I ask, "Whose God does science make obsolete?" Is it the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist,
Hindu, Jewish, or Native American God? History seems to reveal that the only thing that makes God
obsolete is war and conquest. To the victor goes the spoils. The victor establishes the God to be
served.
In truth, science only dispels ignorance, and unfortunately, many religions require a belief in an
unexamined God. This, in my opinion, is the acme of ignorance, which is the natural enemy of science.
So, to be clear, science does not and cannot make God obsolete. Science only makes ignorance
obsolete. Only those who serve ignorance need be afraid of science.
RE: Whole Series
Kambiz Motamed
05/19/2008
Has science made belief in the tooth fairy obsolete? No. People still tell their children that the tooth
fairy put a nickel under their pillow. Does the tooth fairy exist? Certainly not. No matter how much
scientific progress we make, some of us can and will choose to believe in superstition. Superstition is
irrational but certainly not obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
huesebastian
05/19/2008
Unfortunately no. For many people, evidence and proof mean little. They will go with what they have
been taught or what makes them feel good, irrespective of scientific findings. However, as secular
Europe shows, science makes thoughtful people doubt supernaturalism, and in time we can expect a
shift away from supernatural beliefs to a more rational and meaningful value system.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Foy
05/19/2008
There is a God. How could the universe in all its complexity exist and be formed without some super
power? But evolution shows how the flora and fauna came to be.
RE: Whole Series
Linda
05/19/2008
For anyone who has lived through the death of a child, the answer is absolutely not.
RE: Whole Series
Krishna
05/19/2008
Absolutely not! I believe it is the other way around. Science makes us better appreciate the concept of
a "higher-order" power which most of us refer to as "God." Unlike many, however, it is difficult for me to
give this power a physical manifestation, since this leaves open the question of who "God" looks up to
in the chain of command.
RE: Whole Series
Henry Gould
05/19/2008
Imagine a certain person, a stranger--someone you've never met, never known, never cared for--
inaugurates a massive intellectual project to "explain" you. Would you be inclined to reveal yourself,
your true nature, to this person? I doubt that I, for one, would be so inclined. But then it's possible God
is a little more generous than I am.
RE: Whole Series
John Salchert
05/19/2008
I liked the whole idea of the ad. Keep it up.
RE: Whole Series
Jill Bowden
05/19/2008
Scientists may be the greatest believers of all. They labor from a left-brained perspective to determine
that which does not fulfill the model of faith: the provable, the reasonable, the measurable, what can be
221
seen with the naked eye. They continually shape the possibilities of scientific probability and what is
left, that which cannot be proven, will be God.
There is another model that is perhaps more available to the right-brained: Michelangelo's model for
the creation of a sculpture. In our search for God, each of us must start with a block of marble and
carve away all that is not a part of our vision. What remains is as much of God as we can imagine, as
much as we can bear to see, as much as the spirit can contain.
God is more than we can fathom. Scientists and mathematicians will continue to chip away at the
proofs, identifying that which is not God, but they will never arrive at the whole of God, and they will
never stop trying. They keep reaching for God, which is somewhere at the end of an infinite set of
points that we call reality.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Simerly
05/19/2008
The disagreement discussed in this series of articles is not between science and religion but between
theism and atheism. For those who accept the existence of God, there is no problem; science is simply
the process of discovering the work of a creator God. For them, science and religion fit together
seamlessly. The atheist, however, rejects the existence of God and therefore must construct an
explanation for existence that does not include a cause (i.e., a creator). Due in part to the anthropic
principle, it is becoming more difficult to explain the universe without a creator; it is simply not large
enough or old enough for chance to have been responsible. Therefore, they must stretch their
speculation to a near infinite multiverse, a speculation that is not testable and is more metaphysical
then scientific. It seems that they are simply substituting this multiverse for the God they reject.
RE: Whole Series
Chenbagam
05/19/2008
If we understand the real meaning of the scriptural words, we can understand everything about nature.
An ancient sage said that the scriptures are true, but they have had different meanings, a general
meaning, mainly related to culture, and a special meaning. One is for the general public or social life,
and the other is for those who want to know more details about the true knowledge of life and the
universe.
RE: Whole Series
Jeff
05/19/2008
Science cannot answer why there is something rather than nothing. Science can only study the
something. Only an eternal omnipotent God can create something out of nothing.
RE: Whole Series
Edward Gordon
05/19/2008
Actually, it's the other way around. Faith makes science obsolete. If there has ever been even one
miracle in the entire world, at any point in history, then science has become inadequate to explain the
universe. At that point, science becomes nothing more than a means of technology, just something to
make our physical lives better.
RE: Whole Series
R
05/19/2008
No. The proof of God is that man is capable of love reflected in individual compassion. God is love.
Compassion is not required for survival of the species, yet man cannot live without it. When atheists
are asked if they would donate an organ to their dying loved one at the expense of their own life, the
overwhelming response is yes. This is the proof of God. Atheists are individuals who believe that at the
end of their lives eternal nothingness is a strong possibility, yet they willingly give their lives. Why?
Compassion for loved ones extends beyond the self. This is the expression of God in man. This
observation is Newton's apple. That science has not quantified love is the shortcoming of science.
Where is it established that science is complete?
222
RE: Whole Series
Yves Charles
05/19/2008
Belief in god was never necessary per se. It was and is a convenient way for the common man (99
percent of us) to explain what our feeble mind cannot presently understand. Fortunately, given enough
time, I believe that human society will come to its senses. Societies have become more civilized as
science has become more and more advanced. Barbaric tendencies (e.g., slavery, witch burning,
death for petty offences) are becoming less acceptable. Belief in the supernatural is a handicap of the
mind that humans will eventually overcome.
RE: Whole Series
Joao Manhaes
05/19/2008
It amazes me how often people mention the wonders of the universe and the order of nature to justify
the existence of a god. The say that such well-organized systems could not have just happened by
chance; a designer, an engineer, must be. And that would be god.
By the same token, we never saw a child, which is actually one of the greatest wonders in our lives,
without having parents. Nevertheless, religion readily accepts a being that does not have parents.
What is the logic behind that? The universe is so wonderful that it needs a creator. The creator himself
must be even more amazing. Following this reasoning, he would need a creator, or parents, as well.
And the process should go on forever.
But people accept that an extremely complex and powerful god was always there. Why not accept that
the universe, indeed simpler than god, was always there? I guess the response is that we humans
never actually took charge of our own fate. We need somebody to ask for favors, grace, and
protection. And that is the boring job of god: to have people asking and begging him for stuff through
eternity.
Eric Abrego
05/19/2008
I appreciated the sheer depth of Mr. Phillips's essay. It closely resembles what I believe. I am a
Christian but also a firm believer in science. I do believe that the Chrisitan community cannot abandon
or demonize science because it doesn't fit what our Bibles tell us. But the secular community should
not dismiss Christian belief or those who believe in a higher power because science says this and that.
We can believe in both God and science without conflict, because God has designed this amazing
universe that we and other species inhabit.
I know the cynical and the "realists" would dismiss this as religious rhetoric and a way to comfort the
weak religious community, but many Christian intellectuals like myself believe this. The stars in the sky
were made beautiful by God, the earth revolves around the sun because God designed it that way, we
walk, live, and breath because God has designed us that way. This is what I believe, and I don't want
to be called stupid because of this. We can mix science and religion.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert
05/19/2008
No, I do not believe science makes a belief in God obsolete. And if anyone thinks so, I would like that
person to tell us the consequences for the human race of irrevocable proof of the non-existence of
God. In fact, regardless of whether we have proof of the non-existence of God, we should be asking
ourselves what human society would look like without God.
If we lived in a purely Darwinistic world, or rather a world of evolution as understood so far, we would
not only have to have some sort of political structure which both fosters Darwinistic winners and
consoles the losers, we would have to have some sort of trust in ourselves which goes far beyond
morality today, because we would be expected to ensure that the human race does continue to exist. A
world without God would require something of a totalitarian structure, no matter how much we want
democracy, because we would be forced to accept that we must exist by our own hands (only human
agency) or not exist at all.
223
In fact a world without God would require a political structure which not only makes all belief in God
obsolete, but makes us each as individuals obsolete because we would be forced into having to
continually evolve or be a species static and in danger of perishing. A world without God might be
without Christopher Hitchens's dictator in the sky, but we will be under the dictatorship of our own
consciousness.
Ray McDaniel
05/19/2008
Sir Isaac Newton is considered by many as the greatest scientist who ever lived, and he spent more
time studying the bible than he did on science. He saw science and bible to be closely related.
Hitchens describes Newton as a hater of church doctrine and an enthusiastic alchemist. Hitchens
makes himself look like an enthusiastic God-hater. Another gaff: Newton never believed that the main
clues to the cosmos were to be found in Scripture. Rather, the answers were to be found there. God
created the world. It's as simple as that.
Atheist science violates its own scientific method by banning truth from the realm of possibility before
beginning its search for truth. It hasn't got a clue, just anti-bible theories. Evolution and natural
selection are crackpot ideas. Darwin found 13 species of finches on the Galapagos Islands. He
explained why birds with longer, sharper beaks would survive and birds with shorter beaks would die
out. One hundred fifty years later, people visit the islands and see 13 species of finches that still
inhabit them. Atheists believe Darwin's fantasy that all forms of life came from a one-cell bug that
transformed itself over long periods of time by numerous, successive slight modifications. THAT would
be supernatural, if it were true.
The Big Bang never was observable, and no one has ever proved there was one. They never will,
because there wasn't one. A universe full of nothing but hydrogen and other gas never transformed
itself into galaxies or into a planet with a molten core. In 20 billion years we're going to collide with the
Andromeda Galaxy! How could God be so careless about our safety?
There are sights to see, but blind people can't see them. Many people all around the world have felt
the presence and love of God, but people who are spiritually dead never saw, heard, or felt them.
RE: Whole Series
Jeffrey R Smith
05/19/2008
It is arrogant for scientists to believe that their understanding and intellect are equal or superior to
those things that are far beyond their comprehension, thereby creating a belief that God does not exist.
RE: Whole Series
Gary
05/18/2008
Let's just accept the idea of a god. Call him what you want, and we can ascribe to him the power to
create the universe and all that is in it. We can assume that this world is where god wants us to be.
This reality, as we perceive it, is what he intends for us to experience. This reality, then, cannot be a
cheat or a trick. At least my god doesn't play games with the universe. Then science is the study of
god's handiwork, directly investigating god's own work. It does not rely on the interpretation of ancient
texts written by bronze-age shaman in the pseudo-linguistic codes of religious symbolism. We don't
need to know ancient languages, we don't need to try to understand the life and times and politics of
that era to ensure that we are correctly translating the message. If we can measure, touch, weigh,
calibrate, and see the world, we can understand the mind of god.
So does science make belief in god obsolete? Only for those who do not need to believe in god. But it
also does not invalidate anyone's belief in god. Science and theology are two sides of the same coin.
One overtly seeks to understand god and the other reveals god as a byproduct of its mission to decode
the universe.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Ng
05/18/2008
No, science cannot make God obsolete. Science is for this world only, and it cannot explain the world
224
of God. Humans can create the digital world any way they want, so why can we not understand that
God can create us the same way?
RE: Steven Pinker
Clemens Suen
05/18/2008
Professor Pinker should update his understanding of the six-day creation story in Genesis, which is,
after all, a story. It reveals theological truth, not scientific truth. Today, only the Christian
fundamentalists still believe in the literal explanation of the Bible. Because there are so many God-
believing scientists, you can probably conclude that there is no inherent conflict between believing in a
God and believing in the process of evolution, unless you believe that those scientists are not true
believers in science! Note that mainstream Christianity, such as the Catholic Church, has already
officially stated that there is no conflict between the two. I also found his definition of morality an over-
simplification. Is morality just "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"? Is altruism just based on
some utilitarian motive?
Modern science does strip away many superstitions about our understanding of God. We can consider
this as a matter of "human consciousness evolution." Reason does clarify faith, but reason cannot
make you love people who are different in terms of race, religion, ideas. Nor can reason or science
alone resolve the many hatreds and other problems in the world. We need both science and the belief
in God to make this world a better place for all humankind.
RE: Whole Series
One Who Is Interested in the Topic
05/18/2008
One point that comes up often in this debate is the possibility of miracles. Consider the definition of a
miracle as an exception to natural law. The scientific argument is that since miracles are exceptions to
natural law, they cannot exist. This is the same as the rather circular argument that exceptions cannot
exist because they are exceptions. But IF there is an all-powerful God, how can we limit Him to our
mere logic?
Another oft-expressed sentiment is that an all-powerful and just God would forbid the tragedies taking
place in the world. But religion has already provided an answer to this question. The Christian concept
of free will holds that God did not make us robots programmed to do the right thing (which is obvious)
but gave humanity the choice to do the right thing. Therefore, true goodness may exist but also
malice--evil. Since we are given responsiblity, it is unreasonable to expect God to fulfill the role of
problem-solving magician--something scientists are, at the same time, claiming is incompatible with
reason. Therefore, God would be free to use miracles (exceptions) to get our attention when we stray
from the path of goodness and equally free to allow disasters to urge us to return to that path.
RE: Whole Series
Adam Scott
05/18/2008
In response to Barry Pearson (05/13/2008): The first law of thermodynamics in fact DOES state that
energy, or matter, cannot be created or destroyed. Energy and matter are interchangeable, as shown
in Einstein's theory of relativity and in his equation E=MC2.
RE: Whole Series
L Foretich Jr
05/18/2008
Science is the study of the material world; God is not material--QED. Many people support the claim
that "Science makes belief in God obsolete," but not one person has ever referenced a study to
support their views, because there are none.
John Erickson
05/18/2008
I wish the "intelligent design" people could read this essay by Phillips or, in fact, all of them. Then they
might concentrate on promoting humane values-- kindness, altruism, love--instead of trying to destroy
science and science education!
225
RE: Whole Series
Michael DeMarco
05/18/2008
Nothing wrong with wondering about the possibility of a higher power. Curiosity is the basis of science.
But living your life by a book--and not even one book but a series of poorly translated and poorly
interpreted stories put together to make a book--well, it doesn't seem to be working out too well for the
world so far.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Schaub
05/18/2008
The universal non-visibles, such as awareness, energy, love, purpose, and animate human life, can be
perceived by direct experience. Rational discussions are incapable of these discoveries. The real
question becomes how to synthesize the aspects of science and relgion that lend support to the study
of the non-visible for the sake of individual inner peace and greater knowledge about reality.
RE: Whole Series
Margaret Scott
05/18/2008
I think about these things all the time. Just two days ago I was speaking with an atheist friend about
them. I am very anxious to reach out to all the authors carefully and to get help coming to my own
conclusions.
RE: Whole Series
mel-lo
05/18/2008
Many people seem to think just because we can't see, hear, touch, or smell something that it doesn't
exist. Two hundred years ago we didn't know a lot of things existed that we do now and were
discovered through the application of science. Perhaps in a good number of future years we might
know that God does exist and have the means to prove it. However, since I believe God is "spirit," it
may be extremely difficult. At this point, it is speculation and mainly a matter of faith, something that
cannot be proven by science or any other rational means. We must continue to explore and discover
until we reach conclusive evidence to the contrary or to support our claims.
RE: Whole Series
Jay Smathers
05/18/2008
Gods are superstitions proven false by the application of common sense, so science is not even
required. Is science required to dispel belief in ghosts or witches? The only distinction religion has from
other superstitions is its more aggressive claims to be the source of morality, ultimate good, and/or a
defense against ultimate evil. Thus religion is a more intoxicating and thus more tenacious idea than
your random ghost. Those who see religion as benign or positive in its effects are advocating that
morality and ethics be derived from superstition. It would seem unlikely we can resolve our conflicts
and progress as a species if this continues much longer.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Bramwell
05/18/2008
What utter nonsense: a "God"? My high-school biology students showed more intellectual integrity and
honesty than is evident at this site. Ten years, 100 students a year, grasping that faith is the opposite
of reason, as surely as non-existence is the opposite of existence. The Greeks, 2000+ years ago,
knew that Something cannot come from Nothing . . . not even a God. Such an idea was completely
irrational. Gods to them were amusing super-beings that played out a superb (not truly supernatural)
game, but who had little to do with human life. The Founders of America had a similar view of a
singular God. Their God started material things but did not interfere in day-to-day human life--that was
up to us.
Any sort of super-Being cannot be real if he is outside the Universe, because there can be no
"outside." And then, if he is within the Universe, he is just another being. He is not to be worshiped, he
is not supernatural, even if he made human existence possible. He should simply be thanked, and
then receive a proposal for peaceful cooperation.
226
For a full explanation of why God is the antithesis of science and reason, one that has been out far
longer than the work of Charles Taylor (a deserving recipient of the Templeton Prize, for its symbolic
support of the irrational), see "For the New Intellectual" and other writings by Ayn Rand. Her
arguments are fundamentally rational and unassailable, regardless of the denials of those whose
whimsical desires require that medieval faith subordinate reason.
RE: Whole Series
Blackfish Joe
05/18/2008
God is nature, so what's the problem?
bogi666
05/18/2008
Science doesn't make God obsolete, but it demands a definition of God to make God credible.
RE: Whole Series
Gary
05/18/2008
I find both sides of this argument equally in error. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence
or power of G_d, and thus cannot render religion obsolete. Conversely, science cannot yet or ever
explain everything, leaving the balance to G_d. A religion trumping textual literalism over testable facts
is as blasphemous as a science discounting what cannot be tested is illogical.
Assuming a belief in G_d, science can far better explain the universe that G_d created and the rules
through which he operated than theology. A cosmology and biology that reveal the natural history and
principles of how the universe sprang forth and evolved provide a far greater insight into an awesome
G_d than a notion driven by a mortally limited textualism in which G_d played a joke and abrogated the
natural laws and falsified nearly all observable phenomena.
To force creation science or prayer power into a pseudoscience is the height of blasphemy by
assuming an omniscient translation and interpretation of scripture. To ascribe mortal objectives and
hatreds onto G_d's mind is the very pinnacle of evil. To hate and kill and harm others for no other
reason than because their beliefs differ is to assume G_d's role.
RE: Whole Series
Oh, really?
05/18/2008
Which god now? Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Thor? Or perhaps the one with service pack Y2K concocted
in the laboratory of the impartial, agenda-free Templeton Foundation in order to replace the god
debunked by Epicurus in the 4th century BC, made untenable by Darwin in the 19th century, and now
deemed dubious by 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. (The remaining
7 percent either haven't really thoroughly thought it through or don't want to ruin their chances of
getting a grant from the Templeton Foundation.)
RE: Whole Series
Ugene
05/18/2008
The question should be about belief in the concept of an all-loving, all-forgiving, all-merciful God. That
concept absolutely does not exist as we watch the multitude of human suffering every day on cable
television, most of it from natural disasters heaped upon the innocent. My life as an atheist has been
very good up to now.
RE: Whole Series
Liliane Bilezikian
05/18/2008
I love the thought-provoking essays! I am wondering what percentage have been contributed by
women. There usually seems to be the token one or two, not nearly a true representation of the
population.
RE: Whole Series
Fernando Peregr�n Guti�rrez
227
05/18/2008
Rather than a simple yes or no, let's say that science establishes certain growing limits both to the
belief in god and to what the word god really means, i.e., to the possible definition of god or the
epistemology of theology. The idea of a god will always be very adaptive to the advancement of
knowledge provided by science. If this is not the case, god and religion may need to be considered as
endangered species.
RE: Steven Pinker
Harry
05/18/2008
It seems to me that evolution fits well within the bible. God doesn't say that creation was it, so that any
changes we find are proof that God's statements are incorrect. How narrow and limited our thinking
has become! The bible wasn't written as a group-therapy exercise, but as a personal one for each
individual. Each of us will read it, some of it will make sense, most won't. Am I to believe the whole
work is junk?
Science does nothing but prove how little we really know. Then we run to compare our new findings
with the bible, and we say, "See there, that's not what it says in the bible, so the bible can't be true!"
How about the "spark of life"? When we die, the body is the same as it was one millisecond before, but
something is now missing for life to continue. Can you imagine science solving that one? Where did
the spark go? Nice article.
RE: Whole Series
Shawn Wooster
05/18/2008
Scientists always say that their discipline proves the non-existence of God. Some believers/spiritualists
retort that science and God are two separate realms and cannot be compared, for one deals with faith,
while the other deals with the material world. Some of the faithful believe whole-heartedly in the Bible,
Quran, etc., and also are able to embrace quantum physics and the various mechanisms of evolution.
Is it naive to think the two systems are compatible? It seems to me that both sides are too rigid and are
more heavily influenced by individual personalities and dispositions than reason or faith.
RE: Whole Series
Al Justice
05/18/2008
God is not some abstract deity that can be disproved. God is the totality of life and all that exists and
our awareness of this totality. The commandment "no graven images" applies to our wild imaginings of
a white-headed old man recently giving Charlton Heston a hand up. The importance of the
commandment is to help us not to get lost in the rubble of our own mind. But this mysterious,
unmentionable Yaweh concept is only magnified and glorified as new information is understood.
This concept of God is a superstructure for the huge breadth of awareness, from the grandest to the
smallest. Kepler saw God in his geometry, as I see God in my violin and gardens. This silly silly God.
As soon as you hem him in, paint a relief, watch Ben Hur, and have him figured out, you realize he's
something more--much more.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Garramone
05/18/2008
If an all-powerful, loving God exists, he doesn't care about Burma (they are Buddhist and therefore
heathens!). So maybe he is all-powerful but not loving. Maybe he is mean and petty, just as
fundamentalist Christians say he is ("us" versus "them"). Then we're all shafted. Chris Hitchens, you
are so-o-o right!
RE: Whole Series
Nick Jury
05/18/2008
Have we come so far that we have no questions to answer? How disheartening the state of human
endeavor that we have finally reached the end of our journey and find . . . nothing there.
RE: Whole Series
Anonymous
228
05/18/2008
We must find, as Hoodbhoy says in his essay, a "science-friendly, science-compatible God" because
at this moment science can't explain everything.
RE: Whole Series
David C Anderson
05/18/2008
Somewhere in the New Testament Jesus says, "If you don't believe me when I tell you earthly things,
then how can you do so when I tell you heavenly?" To me, "science" is earthly things; "religion" is
heavenly ones. My personal philosophy is: A man can justify anything except his self-being. What
would it be were man to know all things of the universe, from beginning to end? Would he know
himself? Certainly. Would he be God? Certainly not; God is uncreated. Can God ever be known? Of
course not, of course.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Randal Ackley
05/18/2008
Wonderful discussion. I do believe in intelligent design and that we can observe evidence of God as
creator. DNA is a language of immensely complex information in sequence. The Genesis account of
creation was by spoken word. I propose that this approach, in Sapolsky's terms, gives us more
predictive power and the ability to change an outcome.
Mankind has always found a way to abuse power for selfish means, whether it was religious (the
Pharisees who led the crucification of Christ because he threatened their authority and popularity) or
scientific (the medical society that, at the time of Pasteur, would not believe something so small as a
microbe could kill a man and thwarted his efforts to bring sterilization to surgery). No religion is so
moral as to fully cancel the avarice of man's heart. No science is so compelling as to prevent man from
compromising his own intelligence for the sake of what his heart chooses to deny.
RE: Whole Series
Jay
05/18/2008
Does science make God obsolete? Maybe the correct question is: does science make religion
obsolete? For what is religion but man's attempt at explaining the unknown and giving that explanation
a name, God? Science is peeling back the layers of the natural world, but it has yet to discover the
origin of Love, or explain how we experience premonition, or the near total agreement of the
explanations of the near-death experience.
No, science will not give the answers to man's most vexing question: why are we here, why is one born
into poverty and another into unimagined wealth, yet the former rises to change the world and the
latter squanders his inheritance? Science can probe down to the most minuscule sub-atomic particle
or look out into the universe, where light was first born a billion light years ago. Science is the field of
the intellect. But read any of the works of great poets and mystics, and their words transcend the harsh
numbers and dry dissertations of proofs and math. The poet's song touches the human heart, and the
beat of that eternal rhythm will never be explained, save by the Love of God.
RE: Whole Series
Donald W Walker
05/17/2008
Simply put, the reason religion exists is to explain how nature works. A quick look at early religions
reveals answers to questions about where rainbows come from, the differences in human languages,
and, of course, the most basic of all questions, where did the earth and therefore humans come from.
Religion has evolved over time to cover ethical behaviors and societal rules. It continues to evolve
today. Just look at how many Christian denominations allow for women clergy and the recognition of
homosexual rights. Since science has begun to explain how the universe works, it is time for religion to
die a graceful death.
Ken Wackes
05/17/2008
Neither Hitchens nor anyone else has yet debunked Immanuel Kant. Without an orderly design in the
universe, there is no science. There would be only guesswork within an arbitrary, inconsistent chaos.
229
RE: Whole Series
Luis Villanueva
05/17/2008
God created science in order for the gifted to find the truth about HIM.
RE: Whole Series
Shripathi Kamath
05/17/2008
Of course it does! Or rather, it should. People clinging to a belief in God certainly have no scientific
basis to their belief, and therefore are merely speculating on faith, not reason or evidence. This is most
likely brought on by the inculcation of young minds by religious authorities.
Positing God has not provided a single answer to any question that has remained unanswerable by
science. If and when postulating God actually provides a verifiable answer, one that cannot be
provided by science, a belief in God would become at least useful. Simply claiming to have an answer
is abandoning reason and logic. Those who believe in God after understanding what science has done
are clinically deluded. How else would you phrase it? Under just about any definition of a delusion,
belief in God qualifies as one.
RE: Whole Series
Kate McDaniel
05/17/2008
Science will not render belief in a Spiritual Creative Source obsolete, but it may render many belief
systems we know as religion obsolete. So far, quantum mechanics has validated many "natural laws."
These laws, such as cause and effect, do not depend upon a belief system to exist--they just are.
Everything is ultimately Spirit.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Colleen Anderson
05/17/2008
Kauffman's proposal to "reinvent the sacred" or change our ideas about God into something more
universal and less traditional looks a lot like pantheism.
RE: Whole Series
Theo P Pilligrini
05/17/2008
God is not defined, so everyone has a different answer because everyone has a different question.
RE: Whole Series
Paul
05/17/2008
Science will eventually make belief in God obsolete, if common sense doesn't get there first. As a
Catholic child, I used to ask parents, relatives, parish priests, and anybody who would listen, "Don't the
stories in the Bible all seem exceptionally unlikely?" In the main, the answer I came up against was
that these stories "were made for people of a simpler time, and hence they do not neccesarily need to
be believed word for word now." After getting this answer many times, I made what was for me a
startling observation: as we, as a species, become more intelligent, religion gives up more and more
ground of what used to be considered "truth." Following this pattern, I truly believe we will eventually
reach a plateau in which the idea of a higher power is no longer necessary.
RE: Whole Series
Paul Dinner
05/17/2008
Listening to the positions as podcasts would be great. I'd listen to every one. I'm not prepared to wade
through the text online. So if you decide to do a modern tech version, please email me.
Pedro Ferreira
05/17/2008
Very good comments by the Nobel Prize winner William D. Phillips. I would add that we can "prove"
the existence of God, using the Sufficiency Principle, developed by Leibniz. In simple words, the
universe cannot have the sufficient reason for its own existence. If the universe had the sufficient
230
reason for its existence, the universe would be God. But God cannot be not necessary. And it is clear
that things occur in the universe which might not occur, so the universe itself is not necessary, and
hence an extra sufficient reason for its existence has to exist, and this we call God. In other words,
from nothing comes nothing, so something has to be necessary, and this we call God.
RE: Whole Series
Sami
05/17/2008
The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and all the other religous books were written by human beings and
who knows what their mental state was at the time they were written. Maybe religion is just a man-
made device to give people hope where none really exists.
RE: Whole Series
SAMI
05/17/2008
These are some very interesting observations. I think we are a science experiment by aliens who
passed by here long ago and forgot about us.
RE: Whole Series
Mark Lambert
05/17/2008
One of the most fundamental laws of physics is conservation. This, simply put, says that matter/energy
can neither be created nor destroyed and can only be changed from one form to another. Conservation
implies that the universe is closed. "God" may exist on an "alternate plane," but that "plane" is
permanently isolated from us and us from it. Conservation prohibits miracles and magic--action without
cause. Either stars, computers, cell phones, TV, atomic weapons, etc. work and conservation is
obeyed, or magic and miracles exist. The two are mutually exclusive. The original question is mis-
stated. It should not be "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" but rather "Does science make
FAITH in God obsolete?" To that question (faith, belief without evidence) the answer is unquestionably
"yes." There may be a "god," if you define "god" as what was before the big bang, but that "god" set up
the rules of the universe so that they could never, ever interfere once the universe was "kick started."
RE: Whole Series
Harold Kassel
05/17/2008
It is perhaps rational thinking more than science that makes religion obsolete. The idea that a first
cause, uncaused cause, prime mover, universal mind cares what you eat, about your sex life, and
wants to be worshipped is unreasonable.
RE: Whole Series
Peggy Pulicover
05/17/2008
Thank you for this conversation.
RE: Whole Series
Chuck
05/17/2008
Science is the study of reaction, not initialization, and can never go beyond the limitation of the
observable. Let us assume we may one day prove the "Big Bang" theory. By the inherent nature of
such an event, our inability to look beyond it precludes us from knowing anything about its cause,
whether it is a unique event or a cyclic event. The study of a sculpture provides little information about
the sculptor, and without knowing the pre-sculpted state of the material, all is only theory based upon
supposition.
Joel Hendon
05/17/2008
The astonishing discoveries by brilliant scientists are facts that have been in place since the creation
(yes, creation). Physicists are creating nothing--all they are doing is learning the magnificient details of
our universe, which is totally compatible with science. Only the foolhardy hypotheses are contradictory
to the existence of God. It is only when they attempt to eliminate Him that they find their ideas
thwarted.
231
RE: Whole Series
artmiss
05/17/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? No, because both god and science are concepts that live
by themselves; humans are what "make" them and help them go "forward."
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Peter T. Walling
05/17/2008
When you look at your finger, the image on the retina is digitized to nerve signals. The percept which
soon appears in your perceptual space is NOT a physical finger in physical space. Bertrand Russell
pointed this out more than eighty years ago. There are physical and nonphysical aspects to existence,
physical and nonphysical spaces which are both "real." A scientist with only one eye fixed on the
physical universe will not find God. He must open both eyes to appreciate physical and nonphysical
mysteries.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Habecker
05/17/2008
It requires much more faith to believe that God doesn't exist then to believe that he does. The order of
the planets and the universe and the signs of life all around us point to a creator. Yet non-believers
faithfully believe that a lightning bolt hit a puddle of slime just the right way to create the first life! Or
they believe an intelligent being (of unknown origin) visited and planted the first seeds of life on earth.
Then there's the non-existent (and, in so many instances, fraud-ridden) fossil record of "evolution" that
some blindly trust. Conversely, so many of the events, people, and places cited in the Holy Bible have
been confirmed by archeology and historical record.
Truly open-minded persons need only take an honest, inquiring look into these facts. I think the past
century (as one example) has plenty of evidence (millions of dead from non-believing state-sponsored
war, genocide) of the conduct of those who followed the Humanist faith. So I choose to believe in a
God who knows each of us intimately. He is one who leaves an invitation and doorway open for us to
enter and follow Him. So many of the things right with human existence (compassion, love,
foregiveness, etc.) can be traced back to Him. The displays of these things and others I cited make it
far easier to believe that He exists.
Will
05/17/2008
I whole-heartedly agree with Dr. Phillips. I am a chemist doing cutting-edge research and publishing
papers. I also go to church and believe that Jesus is Lord and that the evidence for God exists. I see it
every day. Am I wrong in being a scientist and believing in God, because science and God cannot
coexist? Absolutely not. My faith does not interfere with my science; however, science increases my
faith.
RE: Whole Series
David Roemer
05/17/2008
Quickly scanning the essays, I see no one who seems to understand that there are two methods of
inquiry: science and existentialism (metaphysics). Examples of existential propositions are (a) human
beings have free will (b) God exists. Of course, there are scholars who deny (a) and (b), but their
reasoning is very poor.
RE: Whole Series
Brian O'Donnell
05/17/2008
The mind emerges from the interaction of brain cells, existing at the same time as the brain but not in
the same physical space. Call it soul if you prefer, but there is no reason to suppose it survives brain
death. The mind can be reduced to electrical signals, but something is lost in the process, which
emerges only on the higher level. You can't deduce the existence of emotions from neuroscience
alone.
Collective intelligence, such as team spirit or national identity, emerges from the interactions of people.
232
If we look beyond ourselves to higher levels of organized knowledge, there emerges the idea of God.
There is no good reason to think that God can exist without humans to believe in Him. Scientific
advances will find more explanations for events which were previously considered divine but will also
discover more things in the universe to wonder at. While science makes belief in God unnecessary, it
won't stop people believing.
RE: Whole Series
Allen Holland
05/17/2008
There is physical evolution AND there is the evolution of our human consciousness. Why would this
happen? Our consciousness has risen over the millennia. There is more freedom and equality in the
world now than ever before, and as the years go by, we strive for more justice, less suffering for our
fellow humans. Collectively we are helping each other more and understanding our connectedness
more and more. There is still misery in the world, but we work more and more together to implement
more and more creative and higher-level solutions.
Love and forgiveness can heal and can change minds, actions, situations, relationships, people, lives,
the world. Why would this be the case? Why would the atomic origin of the big bang and life on Earth
include the power of love?
RE: Whole Series
Gloria Husk
05/17/2008
Why should mankind believe in God? We are followers of our own paths, making decisions that affect
our entire lives with no apparent help from God. We police our own, creating laws and, when those
laws are broken, consequences. Why believe in an entity that is said to be all-powerful and can create
the heavens and earth, yet fails to use his/her powers to intervene when an innocent child is harmed in
ways unimaginable by most human beings? Believers use the argument of blind faith, but followers of
Jim Jones also had blind faith, and we all know how that story ended. The idea of God has outlived its
usefulness as mankind evolves and continues to evolve and gain knowledge of how the universe
works. Science cannot make God obsolete if he never existed in the first place!
RE: Whole Series
Johnnie
05/17/2008
You cannot mix science and God, just as you cannot have two masters. No man can serve two
masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise
the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Since the beginning, man has wanted to elevate himself above God. Man has never wanted to be told
what to do by a higher authority. Man puts faith in man, and it has always let him down. God has never
let man down. I do not need proof, I have faith. And if I were to need proof, all I have to do is look
around and see everything that God has created. All I need to do is to think of the things God has done
in my life and is still doing. God is absolute. Everything else is obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Jim
05/17/2008
Life in its purest form is simply existence. We are rooted in something else that still has not been
explained, since we are still searching for it. Isn't that what science is about? To discover who we are
and where we are going? Will we ever find an end to this? If we do, what then? Is that why we believe
a God exists--to help explain those missing gaps that can't be explained . . . for the moment?
As time passes, man will discover new technologies and venture across the stars, exploring a whole
new set of discoveries, which have yet to be explained or understood. However, since we are not there
yet, man will likely align more with spiritual guidance than science. Mankind is still primitive and has a
lot to learn before getting passed its primitive way of living and thinking. In time, we will overcome
these obstacles.
RE: Whole Series
Alejandro
233
05/17/2008
Absolutely yes!
RE: Whole Series
Sharma
05/17/2008
Science is ever expanding and unraveling the nature of the universe. We are still grains of sand strewn
in the ocean of universal knowledge that exists. Our mental limitations are restricted to the depth of
perception of our five senses. With this tool it is impractical to comprehend the infinite and all
pervading.
What is God? The very first declaration in the Hindu Upanishad is "Isha Vasyam Idam Sarvam"! That
Isha (God, Energy, etc.) is the basis of the universe. When Einstein spoke of E=MC2, he was
connecting that all matter is energy and energy is matter. The Universe is just Energy, which is all-
encompassing.
RE: Whole Series
Marcia
05/17/2008
The supposition of the question is that God is a tangible or knowable entity and not, perhaps, exactly
the sort of unknowable entity that can only make agnostics the ones who have it right in the first place.
I am pretty sure if I were able to be God, I would want to make myself known to my earliest or most
favorite creations--but I just as easily might choose to simply sit and observe without intervention of
any kind.
Science will never disprove God and never can. Until the day when the phrase "science is the how of
creation and God is the doer of creation" can be proven false, the belief will exist and cannot be
obsolete. Only another religious concept can make belief in God obsolete, as the growth of
monotheism made polytheism and pantheism obsolete in so many cultures. In this same way, unless
science becomes a religion unto itself, it can never make a belief in God obsolete. The closest we can
get may be the idea of the area of the brain which, when electrically stimulated, causes people to have
"religious" or "mystical" experiences.
RE: Whole Series
Rev. Jimmie Duran
05/17/2008
Aristotle wrote, "I know, therefore I believe." Years later, Thomas Aquinas wrote, "I believe, therefore I
know."
RE: Whole Series
Phil Harnick
05/17/2008
Never did, probably never will. Belief requires no evidence; in fact, denial of clear evidence only
strengthens belief. To believers, belief is wrapped up inextricably in essential morals, morals that
cannot, to their minds, exist without it. It moves in herds through societies, to reinforce itself. Science is
rooted in evidence. Belief in god exists in the face of evidence.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Seagrove
05/17/2008
Fascinating to hear different sides.
RE: Michael Shermer
Michael Cromar
05/17/2008
It is always fascinating to read so-called "scientists" like Michael Shermer who like to recite what
others believe and can't even get their facts right! I'm a Mormon and his "cute" little summary of what
Mormons believe is wrong (on several counts) and shallow. More importantly, his obvious lack of
curiosity about what Mormons really believe as it pertains to the nature and attributes of God is
astounding for someone who would call himself a scientist. It would seem even a skeptic ought to
know a little more than myth about what he is going to be skeptical about.
234
If Shermer extended his "curious" mind a little, rather than portraying what others believe as some sort
of joke, he might find some commonality between some of the thoughts expressed in his essay and
what Mormons believe about the attributes of and evolution (there's that word again) of God.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Yost
05/17/2008
No, science doesn't do anything. An average person's common sense is what makes belief in any
religion obsolete. I really don't think "obsolete" is the right term. It makes it sound as if there was ever a
time that it was proper to "believe" in, and act on, fairy tales.
RE: Whole Series
Angelia
05/17/2008
No matter what evidence is used, the term "self-fullfilling prophecy" often applies to both sides of the
God issue. I'm looking forward to the day when science and religion walk hand in hand.
RE: Whole Series
Anteo
05/17/2008
As time passes and science progresses, religion will have to invent a smarter and better God. Any
high-school student would have made a smarter and better God than our forefathers did.
RE: Whole Series
Dariel R. Newman
05/17/2008
There is no paradigm seeking to explain the birth and continuing evolution of the cosmos that does not
only allow room for the existence of a Supernatural Intelligence (God) but, at some juncture, even
supports the faith and existence of God. The "limiting points" of most theories concerning cosmological
genesis begin and end with and in God. As the ancient koan asks, "All things return to the One. What
does the One return to?" The limiting questions within scientific disciplines are the very questions that
bear witness to God's existence and continuing agency.
It is with great egocentrism and hubris that some of our greatest minds and thinkers deny the obvious,
because those same minds cannot yet create a model for God's existence. It is as if the line of thought
is that since "we" do not understand, then "god" must not exist. This goes far beyond intellectual elitism
and dangerously approaches the denial of scientific process itself. Science and theology/faith are not
only congruent but also synergistic. How dare either discipline deny the other's ability to inform and
sharpen its understandings, beliefs, and suppositions! If both disciplines and their respective high
priests were to openly discuss and envision together, the result would be two stronger disciplines with
keener understandings of all things as well as the Source of all things.
RE: Whole Series
Barton
05/17/2008
Science has made incredible contributions to improving the human condition with its focus on the
physical world. However, it has totally failed to explain what is next for humans. My personal interest in
God has involved acquiring personal awareness as to the potential of a life hereafter. In this regard, I
will hedge my bets to say my belief is that our Creator intentionally "holds his cards" close to the vest in
terms of revealing Himself to us, so that we will get on with life and use our free will. If we {as
individuals} choose to want to know him, this is possible, but His revelations to us are so entirely
personal that no scientist could "gather data" to validate the God hypothesis.
RE: Whole Series
William Tobias Straney
05/16/2008
Science assumes from the outset that only the empirical, quantitative world exists. The empirical is all
that science is interested in and capable of verifying. It then "proves" that only the empirical world
exists by repeatedly measuring only empirical phenomena, and then pointing out that at no time was
the non-empirical verified. This no more disproves the existence of the non-empirical than practicing
mathematics disproves the existence of poetry.
235
All that is qualitative--rather than quantitative--and all that is metaphysical is, strictly speaking, outside
of the scope of what science can legitimately observe, or all that it has actually tried to observe. And
for those who think that science has really reached outside of the parameters it has set for itself, and
has really tried to look at the non-empirical as such, we need merely point out the elephant in the
room: the non-empirical will not be defined or described by strictly empirical terms, no more than
poetry will be defined by mathematical terms. They're related, but you simply cannot reduce the one to
the other and legitimately wonder why there's no poetry left. It was defined out of reality by the
assumption that math is the only reality.
RE: Whole Series
Doug Duffee
05/16/2008
As a seminary-trained physician, I see science and religion as complementary epistemologies.
Science's way of knowing works well in an empirical environment. However, when questions are
presented that are beyond the ability of empiricism to address, revelation encountered through faith in
God speaks.
RE: Whole Series
Gene Shea
05/16/2008
We can't prove the existence of God, since God is spirit; but we can prove to any reasonble person
that humans have a soul, which is tantamount to proving the existence of God.
RE: Whole Series
Clifford J. Mikkelson
05/16/2008
God is the eternal consciousness within and beyond the material universe. His/Her/its consciousness
has created all the energy and the beings in the universe. We are co-creators within the
consciousness of God. If you believe in your own life, then you believe in God. If you love life, then you
love God. Science is just a way to learn how the universe works.
RE: Whole Series
Adolfo Morales
05/16/2008
In science, time is one of those things on which everything else is based. Science tells us that the
universe was created approximately 13.5 billion years ago (in earth time). I would like to introduce the
mathematical concept of infinity. Infinity is not so much a number as a representation of numbers
unfathomable. What's an unfathomable number, well something like 47 ventillion--63 zeroes!
Time could actually be infinite (or longer than we can comprehend with our earthly brains). Therefore
the thought that we spontaneously combusted into being about 13.5 billion years ago is a far cry.
Einstein theorized, and science believes, that time is relative. What does this mean? Well, basically,
that time is not measured the same in any two separate points within the universe. Based on the
concept of the relativity of time, one can theorize that a God who is not constrained by the bounds of
our Earth could create the universe in six days if those six days were not measured in Earth days but
based on the infinite time line a God would have. Just a scientific thought from a religious nerd!
RE: Whole Series
Leo Plouffe
05/16/2008
Must one be blind to sense and believe in the invisible? Science provides us the sight of the natural
world around us and beyond. What we learn with every new day is how we were blind to so many
wonders the day before. It is the belief that there is still more that lies beyond that drives us as
scientists to discover more. This belief and search for the still invisible is our communal ascent to the
Omega of Theilard-de-Chardin, both a scientist and religious philosopher. Belief in God is what keeps
me seeking God every day in the world of science and every new discovery reminds me of how far I
still am from comprehending the universe and God.
RE: Whole Series
John
05/16/2008
I am a Christian, but (for the sake of argument) if the agnostic and atheist scientists are right, many
236
years from now people will look back and ask, "Why did so many great minds in that era waste so
much time trying to disprove something so trivial when solutions for many of man's problems have now
been discovered to have been right in front of their faces? They could have saved mankind from much
distress and disaster these past hundreds of years if they would have used their time better to find
solutions instead of disproving their disbeliefs."
If God does not exist, then why are you spending so much of your time and energy and thought on
something that does not matter and is not productive? All of my efforts as a Christian are to help
others. If you are right, I'm just wasting my time. If I am right then, well, oops on your part.
RE: Whole Series
Matthew Turney
05/16/2008
Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound? The scientist should ask for the definition of sound: Is
it the generation of the waves or the reception and decoding of those waves that makes them sound?
Ask someone about god: Can god make a rock so large/heavy that he himself can't move it? The
believer should ask, does god want to move the rock or does he want it to stay static? It is not the size
or weight of the stone, but the will of god. If he wants it to move, it will move. If he does not, then it will
not; size has no meaning in the equation.
I do not see how there will ever be scientific evidence to prove that god does not exist. If god is all
powerful, then all things discovered were done so by his will. I don't see the question as being, Should
science replace god? It should be, Will science change our understanding of the concept of god?
Changing your beliefs in the face of scientific evidence is something I believe we should do. A skeptic
should not out of hand reject the idea that god is real, just as a believer should not blindly follow a
doctrine without questioning every day the teachings in the face of technological advances.
RE: Whole Series
Duane Voth
05/16/2008
No, because science has deliberately restricted itself to the study of only those things which are
common to all men. There are truths, exclusively subjective, that can reside within the mind of a single
individual, which are as valid as any agreed-upon, objective, experimentally verified scientific truth. But
subjective truth, by definition, defies peer review and thus it tends to be admonished by those who live
by the rule of peer review. With the awesome and literally staggering accomplishments of objective
truth over the past two hundred years, it is hard to justify time spent working on subjective truth. And
yet character, if not consciousness itself, requires at least a minimal subjective working set.
Science has relegated itself to documenting only that which can be verified via experiment, and thus
recuses itself from verification of subjective truth. The body of science does not reject or deny
subjective truth; it is only the conclusions and often the implications of science which appear to conflict
with our subjective truth.
It is important to define a clear boundary between objective and subjective truth and to recognize when
ideas from one begin to impinge on the other. To lose this boundary is to become lost in a either a
world of indecision, where none of our ideas are our own, or arrogance where none of our ideas are
shared. And yet the war between objective and subjective truth seems to never have been more
pronounced; it is as if we find our selves battling for our very thoughts amidst the flood of information
and opinions which now constitute our daily lives. But what more perfect way to ensure each of us
does not cheat on the Test of Life, than to make the spiritual aspect of life completely and undeniably
subjective.
RE: Whole Series
Troy Camplin, Ph.D.
05/16/2008
Many people are concerned that science is dependent upon a materialist ontology and that
materialism is itself atheistic. But science does not have to be dependent upon materialism. In fact, the
evidence increasingly shows the world isn't so much materialist as informational in nature. Thus, I
subscribe to an informational ontology, which is highly compatible with Christianity. I do not ascribe to
a materialist ontology nor an idealist one, but rather, an ontology of information. In other words, I take
the following from John 1:1 seriously: "the foundation of all things is information" (en arche hn o logos).
237
Admittedly, this is a definition that comes about in light of information theory, but if you truly understand
both what information is and all the meanings of logos, you can see that "information" is a good
translation of "logos." Certainly a far, far better choice than "word," which is such a peripheral meaning
of logos as to be almost completely inaccurate. When we "logos," we communicate information one to
another, process that information, and pass on that information. All things are information at different
levels of complexity. For biological organisms, the vehicle of communication tends to be chemical,
though also photons and sound waves. Humans communicate using more complex information-
carriers, particularly through grammatical, syntactical language.
"The foundation of all things was information, and the information was 1) to the advantage of 2) at,
near, by 3) to, towards, with, with regard to (the word translated as 'with') God, and God was
information." That is the most literal translation of John 1:1 I can render. The universe is founded on
information, and that information becomes more complex over time. Atoms have less complex
information than do chemicals, especially chemical cycles and systems. Biology is a set of highly
complex chemical systems. The human brain is a complex neural system in complex interaction with
other humans through complex social systems. That information is communicated through language,
which itself must be complex in order to communicate most efficiently.
God is the most complex of the universe, and thus has all the information. This is how God is both the
Alpha (the information that gives form at the beginning of the universe) and the Omega (the most
complex, most informed).
RE: Whole Series
Keith Kwiatek
05/16/2008
I find it so interesting that scientists try to define the box that we are allowed to live in at any given
moment. "Yes," scientists say, "there may very well be more outside the box, that explains more
clearly what is in the box, but let us worry about that. You unlearned people just be content to live in
the box we give you."
Scientists very well know there is much more outside the box. They readily admit there are forces of
nature that cannot be accounted for by current science. Hence, they give us things like "string theory"
and quantum mechanics, to explain the unexplainable. I use another approach. I observe the world,
and I see many things that seem very precisely designed, and therefore must have a designer. I then
ask myself, has anyone claimed to be the designer? There seems to be only two choices with any
historical veracity: either the God of the Jews or the God of the Arabs.
So then I ask myself, why doesn't God make Himself more plain? Then I read the story of Jesus, who
claimed to be the God of the Jews and who came to earth to deal with man's sin by becoming the final
sacrifice for sins, so that all who turn to Him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). The
evidence for me was when I sought God with all my heart, and read the Bible, and invited Him into my
life. Something took place. I am not alone anymore. I sense Him near. I hear His voice. I am confident I
know where I am going when I die, and in whom I have believed.
RE: Whole Series
Richard E. Swindell
05/16/2008
The naturalist's new definition of science: matter and energy are all there is, was, or ever will be. If
science is defined by the scientific method, then hypotheses become theories and laws based on
probabilities. Nothing is fact; rather, probability dictates rejecting or accepting the null hypothesis.
It would take about 1,000 base pairs to code for a small protein of 300 amino acids. If the probability of
getting the right order of bases by accident is 1/4 for each base (and it is actually drastically smaller,
since you would have no DNA polymerase to direct the reactions to the right sites on the sugar,
phosphate, and nitrogenous base), that is 1/4 to the 1,000th power, about 10 to the minus 602. The
Sahara desert contains about 10 to the 25 grains of sand. If we paint one red and allow a blind man to
choose, trying to find it, the probability of his finding it twenty-four times in succession without mistakes
would be 10 to the minus 600. Probability shows us that the natural world cannot explain life.
Probability is real science.
238
The first law of thermodynamics, the best-established law of physics, says that energy cannot be
created or destroyed. But the scientists say the universe has an age. Impossible. If it had always
existed, it would have reached equilibrium, heat death, and there could be no energy exchange. What
we see could not be here, according to the best-established laws of physics. Natural law shows that
the supernatural must exist. Redefining science might save the naturalist's day if his axiom didn't fail
the test of real science.
RE: Whole Series
Joseph Decuir
05/16/2008
Thank you for assembling these essays and offering them to the (English-speaking) world.
RE: Whole Series
Joao Manhaes
05/16/2008
Science indeed gives many explanations about life and the universe that contradict all religious
dogmas. However, even before the great advance of science, the concept of God was flawed and
could not be supported without blind faith. Look at the catastrophes just happening in China and
Myanmar; thousands of people, including a great number of innocent children, have faced horror and
death. On the other had, I am here, writing in disbelief of God. How is that? What are the criteria God
uses to choose who is going to live and who is going to die? Who is going to be happy and who is
going to suffer? It is time we adults stop believing in our own Santa Claus.
RE: Whole Series
John
05/16/2008
Try to imagine that the Bible's explanation of the Earth's creation is scientifically correct. First there
was light, then came the separation of earth and water; life began to spring and man was created in
God's image. Is it possible that, just like most stories from the Bible, these are parables or
representations of things, simplified for man to digest at the time and that creation actually took 200
million years? Remember--God works in eternity, another concept science cannot comprehend. Seven
hundred million years to God may seem like 7 days.
I only know that the better science gets, the more we find out how incredibly accurate the writings from
a few inspired writers from 50 AD can be on such topics as the sequence of the Earth's creation,
human psychology, and, oh yeah, that crazy thing called "the meaning of our existence."
RE: Whole Series
Heather Gee
05/16/2008
I've read a comment here based upon the notion that faith cannot prove the existence of God. In a
manner of speaking, this is true. Faith cannot prove the existence of God unless you were to see
firsthand that God was creating the faith within humanity. If you're solely basing the claim on looking at
the acts of faith of the faithful, then it will be impossible to prove the existence of God.
But how/when/where did the natural explanations form? Was there simply the Big Bang or was there
something/someone prior to the Big Bang that made the Big Bang bang? How can anything come into
existence without motivation or origin? Even science cannot create itself--it would be unscientific!
Despite all of these questions, I am still agnostic.
RE: Whole Series
Bernard Johnson
05/16/2008
I find it hard to see how one can argue that scientific knowledge has brought an end to the possibility of
a relationship with the living God. Every scientific study I've ever read about has posed more questions
than it has answered. Scientific knowledge will always continue expanding. The wonders of science
should be humbling to the truly thoughtful person.
As an evangelical Christian, I see two distinct spiritual (psychological, if you prefer) problems: If one's
mind is totally focused on spirituality, it is no wonder that science is ignored, or at least in soft focus.
Some evangelical (and other) Christians who do not appreciate the agnostic scientist's perspective
mistakenly seize on some demonstrably unscientific alternative theory to "combat scientific
239
secularism"--currently, intelligent design. This makes evangelicals appear dangerously naive in the
eyes of scientists and many others. Surely, if Christians want respect from agnostic scientists, it is
mandatory that we appreciate their perspective.
Conversely, if one's mind is totally focused on science, it is no wonder that God is obscured. Agnostic
scientists must find comfort in their sense that their focus on science obscures God. A d�tente must
include a Christian appreciation of the mindset of agnostic scientists and an understanding among
scientists that many Christians have not yet absorbed the intellectual impact of scientific
enlightenment. After all, most Christians are not scientists, and agnostic scientists certainly are not
(yet) Christians.
RE: Whole Series
Larry Klassen
05/16/2008
Scientists declare that there is no such thing as the supernatural and that everything must have a
natural explanation. Having thus limited themselves, they confidently declare that there is no natural
evidence for a supernatural God. Be careful what you decide before you start looking at evidence. The
fool has said in his heart, "there is no God."
RE: Whole Series
Tom Trinko
05/16/2008
Scientists who say there is no God are like a man who has a screwdriver and uses it to hammer in a
nail because it's the only tool he has. What is science? It's the study of the universe. Contrary to what
some may claim, there is no experimentally verified theory--no experiment, no science--that explains
how the universe came to be. "Something from nothing" is a big deus ex machina used by some to say
God doesn't exist. Of course there's less evidence for the universe just popping into place--much less
explaining why there are physical laws which make sense (and don't get me started on why the
universe is so singularly tuned for life as we know it)--than there is for God.
But forget all that. I bet you can't find a single scientist who picked his/her spouse based on a set of
differential equations. A lower-middle-class family in Iowa doesn't send money to help starving children
in India because of evolution. Love and the things that make us human aren't "scientific," unless of
course you argue that we're just will-less machines with nothing to distinguish us from random pools of
decaying vegetation. Science doesn't explain love any more than religion can explain nuclear fusion.
Science explains how the universe works while religion explains why it, and more importantly we, are
here.
Of course, it's important to know what God is supposed to be: all-powerful Creator of everything. When
a scientist says that if some alien race can create life it is no different from God, he shows a great deal
of ignorance. God is a creator; He makes something from nothing. Synthesizing life takes something
and makes something else from it.
Scientists condemn religious people for using their faith to address science but then turn around and
use science, their one-size-fits-all screwdriver, to attack religion. A little introspection might come in
handy here.
RE: Whole Series
Ernest Lowell
05/16/2008
If you could ask the related question, "Does belief in God make science obsolete?," then the
conversation is worth having. Otherwise, you aren't really asking a question to begin with.
RE: Whole Series
Jonathan
05/16/2008
As Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
RE: Whole Series
Michael Goolsby
05/16/2008
I am a Christian. I believe in the holy Trinity. I believe that Jesus died for my sins and the sins of all
240
others. And I know that when I die, because of these things, I will be with God in Heaven. For these
things many of those who have written opinions on this topic would believe me a fool--a deluded man
who refuses to see the great truths that somehow to you disprove and make irrelevant all that I beleive.
What great pride--such hubris to try to be the men that made God irrelevant and obsolete.
The light that science seems to be shining in the lives and minds of so many appears to be darkness
itself. This science that dares to challenge God does not offer anything in the place of God but
nothingness itself. Instead of a life of seeking God to live more according to his wishes, with the
knowledge of redemption and eternity, science only offers a hollow, short, brutal, meaningless
existence with no purpose.
It is shocking how the collective experience of man in relation to God over thousands of years can be
so derided and dismissed by men of intelligence in favor of the canons of science. To say that a
scientist's observations and experiments in the pursuit of a hypothesis, viewing the world through his
own eyes and the "eyes" of his instruments, is so much greater than other observations of other men
because they used a different method is what is truly illogical.
If a man were to go outside and see the sun and say "Look, there is the sun," you would say to him
that it is not what he thinks it is, that it is but a star with all of its various properties and not "the" sun.
Such a comment would perhaps be scientific, but worthless. Science cannot make belief in God
obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Chris Burris
05/16/2008
It is very easy for someone of faith to state that god works in ways that no one can explain and to leave
that as the truth of their faith, but it has no real impact on what is truth and what has been proven. Faith
is not proof; scientific theory is for the most part truth--it is the explanation of the mystery trying to be
solved. The question that everyone needs to ask is, what makes more sense: the natural laws that
make up this universe or some supreme being that with a snap of a finger created everything? Anyone
with common sense knows the answer is nature's explanation, proven over and over again, compared
to faith, which can never be proven.
RE: Whole Series
Rob Finch
05/16/2008
With reference to Scott Schumacher's comment below that "the theory of evolution is not fact,
otherwise it would not be called a theory": he gets lost by confusing a guess with a testable hypothesis.
It is called a theory in much the same way gravity is referred to as a theory. Science deals in many
areas that are "unknown" but does not close itself off to all possibilities. Using just one book as a fount
of all knowledge is both stupid and dangerous.
RE: Whole Series
Tony
05/16/2008
Yes. While I think that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have provided a method for cultures to flourish
and communities to live together, the premise that there is a god is ultimately a false one. The fact that
we are able to understand how humans interact with each other and the natural universe around us
means that we can shed the enforcer and benevolent giver that is God.
RE: Whole Series
Jed Livingstone
05/16/2008
My reply to the question of god's existence is that the issue is not worthy of debate. If you do not
believe in god, then it does not exist; if you do, it does. There is no way to prove either position, so the
opinions of others are irrelevant. We would all be better served devoting this energy to something of
consequence.
RE: Whole Series
Bruce J. Cameron
05/16/2008
Yes.
241
RE: Whole Series
JM Moody
05/16/2008
Science is only one avenue of knowledge that prepares humans for the infinite power of God. The
action of God's will upon us is performed in a dimension that science cannot detect, yet it is the most
powerful force ever known to man. Looking out into the vastness of space and time, it is easy to feel an
emptiness--that there is no one there, looking back. But we must not forget to look within ourselves
and heed the yearning soul that God has given us.
RE: Whole Series
Ray Eakles
05/16/2008
I don't think science has come far enough to discredit the existence of a higher power. I am neither
spiritual nor a believer. If there is a higher power, he is not concerned with one grain of sand on a
beach.
RE: Steven Pinker
Anthony Camele
05/16/2008
Steven Pinker's understanding of religious belief is comparable to a fifteenth-century alchemist's
understanding of science. As for his especially juvenile twisting of "Where did the universe come
from?" to "Where did God come from?," I am sure any number of more subtle thinkers will be happy to
answer that as soon as he answers "Where did one come from?" and its corollary, "Why a first, and not
something prior, whether logically or in time?" As a scientist who works with change, surely Pinker is
aware that there is no change, no time, and hence no before or after until there are at least three
realities: a thing that is different from what it now is or appears to be, and a memory aware of both
stages of the thing.
RE: Whole Series
Tobin Lowell
05/16/2008
Denying the existence of God requires the same level of blind faith as being certain that God must
exist. Neither position can be proved, although Pascal's hypothesis makes an excellent argument. The
fact is that the universe may or may not have been created by a being or beings for their own purpose.
RE: Whole Series
Carol McGrain
05/16/2008
Thank you.
RE: Whole Series
Austin Kelly
05/16/2008
I agree with Dennis Abitz's comment earlier today. I would like to see the scientific community come
from the approach that God is real and working through our lives and then try to disprove such a
position. Just because science has given answers to the mysteries of life doesn't mean that God
wasn't using these methods Himself. In my life, my faith and my passion for science go hand in hand,
each one strengthening the other. To me, denying the hand of God in our everyday lives makes no
sense at all. I think that God meant for science to be a physical tool that helps strengthen our faith.
Faith alone is tough, especially for the scientific and analytical minds, but God has given us scientists a
way of having a faith that is supplemented by knowing the reality and truth of the world around us.
Giles Hawkins
05/16/2008
Dr. Stenger is no doubt a wonderful physicist and astronomer, but he should limit himself to the things
he is trained in! Philosophy is a complicated business. The title of his book makes him look foolish. No
matter how much he makes squinty eyes and looks intent, he still can't prove a negative.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Law
05/16/2008
242
Because neither discipline provides an absolute perfect truth, both are relevant in the current
discussion. Efforts to diminish the importance of either science or religon are simply attempts to assert
control and power over the thinking of others. The spiritual pursuit of God is a mere recognition of the
greater existence within the creation that is our universe. The scientific pursuit of how the universe
functions accounts for a mere understanding of the dynamics of the universe as we understand it at
this point in time. In both cases, one's understanding and knowledge of the inter-related aspects of
universal "truths" provide a basis for continued efforts to understand more. Our knowledge and
understanding grow with each endeavor, scientifically and spiritually. To be complete, one must have
knowledge of both. Thus God is no more obsolete than Einstein and is at least equally as relevant.
RE: Whole Series
Dennis Abitz
05/16/2008
It never ceases to amaze me how scientists can deny the existence of God and yet see his wonders
every day. To believe that everything we see and experience is by chance is ludicrous. The sun rises
and sets every day, the earth continues to rotate around the sun, never getting too close or too far
away. Human life, with all the genetic possibilities and differences in every human being--how can
anyone deny that the "creator GOD" exists? I challenge all the scientists to disprove God's existence
rather than to prove he exists. Let's not be so arrogant that we miss out on the one truth that stays
constant.
RE: Steven Pinker
Mel Nicolai
05/16/2008
I am in general agreement with Dr. Pinker's historical analysis and with his conclusion that "the more
we learn about the world in which we live, the less reason there is to believe in God." So, has what
we've learned so far made God obsolete?
Regarding "obsolete": not an innocent word choice. God might be real, but obsolete, like old software?
Or conversely, God might be a fiction, but an important one. Obsolete for whom? If "science" renders
God obsolete for someone, is it because that someone is a member of a complex and longstanding
scientific community, a community with its own internal agreements, obligations, procedural standards,
etc.? What about people who are not members of the scientific community? What if one's daily life
makes no pragmatic contribution to the scientific community? What about people whose lives are
informed by the scientific community only at the level of uncritical consumers? In such cases (covering
the vast majority of people), is abandoning God for the "production value" of the scientific community
an act of faith?
Opting for better (more scientific) explanations of the world's mysteries necessarily entails a shift of
authority. Replacing God with science means, among other things, relinquishing one's own authority,
unless one is willing and able to become an active, participating member of the scientific community--
an option open to only a small percentage of people. If I believe in God, I have the personal authority
to decide how that belief should be manifested in my life. Having that authority consists of little more
than deciding to have it. If I do not believe in God, it is no easy matter to decide how my life should be
conducted in light of, say, results obtained by CERN's new Large Hadron Collider.
RE: Whole Series
Scott Schumacher
05/16/2008
I beg to differ with Jerry Schleifer's post of yesterday. First off, Webster's is not the final word in
definition. Just because it states that science is "the state or fact of knowing" does not mean that this is
so. When one recognizes that much of science, especially around the edges, is as much "belief-
based" as religion (the theory of evolution is not fact, otherwise it would not be called a theory), one
must admit that we ARE playing on the same ball field, since much of science is also faith-based.
Edwin L Muir
05/16/2008
What is the fruit of Hitchens's synopsis? Despair, hopelessness, confusion, and (perhaps worst of all)
impurity and tormenting fear. Personally, I left that all behind by seeking the truth with ALL my open,
once atheist heart. I heard that still, small voice say, "I am the way and the truth and the life."
243
RE: Whole Series
Warrup
05/16/2008
All around us we find order out of chaos, both macro and micro, on an unimaginable time scale. We
were given/evolved with thinking brains on this tiny speck of creation and now have the luxury of no
longer having to think just to survive but to ponder all the why's and wherefore's. We have curiosity and
a hard-wired need to know, search out, find out, and go to. The more knowledge we get creates only
further mysteries. I feel as if we are a minute part of a great infinite experiment on some unimaginable
time scale. We are here, physically, as a result of umpteen supernovas just to create our elements.
With an infinite universe, we could be one of many experiments doomed to failure. Emotionally, I'm
attracted to Buddhism. Life is a physical experience, to learn and evolve individually with an ultimate
hope of becoming part of the creative Godhead.
RE: Whole Series
Maureen Callahan
05/16/2008
Even if science has made God obsolete, that fact will be overlooked and debated forever. Why? The
answer is money; both sides have made this debate as eternal as God. In this day, it may be the
controversy that keeps both science and God in the news. Can good exist without evil? Can poverty
exist without wealth? I'm not a scientist or a philosopher, but science and God seem to have (excuse
the term) evolved together as parts of us all. Am I wrong?
RE: Whole Series
Joseph A.
05/16/2008
Science and God are entirely compatible and always have been. The sad fact is that people are
motivated against religion in general, and Christianity in particular, for personal and political reasons.
People who argue one side or the other of any religious argument, from the problem of evil to the
existence of the soul, are usually fighting a proxy battle. They hope that, by getting more people to
reject faith in God (or, frankly, accept faith in God), they'll vote the "right" way, think the "right" way, or
be on their team--whether it's a political party, a special interest, or anything else. Debate over God is
more often than not a proxy fight for other issues.
People here are talking about how rational thinking speaks against the existence of God. But rational
thinkers disagree on plenty of topics, even atheists do. In quantum mechanics, some scientists adhere
to Copenhagen, others to MWI, still others to Bohmian mechanics or otherwise--yet they all have
access to the same scientific data. Are all of them being irrational except one? Of course not. So why
the assumption that everyone who believes in God--and what comprises God has been the subject of
debate within every faith, or even subset of faith--is irrational, rather than merely people who see
things different ways? Is saying that "all the people who disagree with me are not just wrong but
deluded" an example of that "free thinking" among atheists I hear so much about?
God is here to stay, and the dialogue likely will continue for nigh unto eternity. The theists will make
plenty of mistakes. The atheists will do the same (you'd think the 20th century would have
demonstrated to them that being an atheist is not an immunization against lunacy, or even close to it).
And few people will ever stop to realize why they're arguing. But enough will do so, thanks to
organizations like Templeton, to make all this effort worthwhile.
RE: Whole Series
dls
05/16/2008
No. Science can't prove that which is not, is not. A belief is anything you want it to be, regardless of
truth. So belief is regardless of science.
RE: Whole Series
John Barnes
05/15/2008
There's a line from a Tom Rush song (The River Song) that has always stuck with me: "The heart has
reasons that reason cannot know." I am told that when Sir Isaac Newton was pushed too hard by a
sycophant to claim superiority over Archimedes for his work on optics, Sir Isaac responded by saying
"If I have seen further than other men, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Sir
244
Isaac's humility should be a caution to all. He, of course, was a natural philospher, not a scientist, and
he also, in a very human way, got lost in alchemy. And yet his work on optics and the wave nature of
light is enormous--and watch what happens when the particle nature of light is discovered in the 20th
century. Any scientist must surely know humility from the 20th century, although many get lost and
starry-eyed staring, without perspective, at our tremendous advances in science.
I remain confident of two things. First, that the power of the human intellect (and the human
cooperative community) will continue to extend the boundaries of human knowledge and technology.
Second, no matter how far that boundary extends, there will always be room beyond for new
discoveries, mystery, and faith. This to me is good news!
RE: Whole Series
Donald McMiken
05/15/2008
Rational thinking makes God obsolete. It is not a massive scientific conspiracy that makes God
obsolete--it is evidence-based rationalism that does the job. No one thinking rationally can believe that
space/time and matter and all the known forces acting on them were created and are micro-controlled
down to the last fallen sparrow by a personified, compassionate being of any kind. Nor can the children
of Darfur.
The only thing that allows scientific minds to believe in God is a massive disconnect between their
professional thinking selves and their brain-washed believing selves that have been cultured since
childhood. I cannot abide such dissonance in my mind, so I reject the infantile beliefs I was taught.
Examples of the misery, death, and destruction wrought by religion today should be sufficient incentive
for any thinking man to question his belief in a 2000-year-old philosophy of the ancient Abrahamic
tribes and their various prophets. If they do not do this then they are not thinking men regardless of
their scientific pursuits.
RE: Whole Series
Pedro Flecha
05/15/2008
Belief is contradictory to knowledge and, therefore, to science.
RE: Whole Series
WeatherJeff
05/15/2008
For every single person on earth there exists one trillion tons of earth. One person represents the
entire biomass of the planet; everyone else gets a trillion tons apiece of crust, mantle, or core. I have
two sons whom I love very much. Tell me how much that love weighs. That, to me, is the difference
between science and God.
RE: Whole Series
SJ
05/15/2008
Very interesting how one of the writers mentions that "an exact balance exists between the positive
energy of matter and the negative energy of gravity. So, no energy was required to produce the
universe. The universe could have come from nothing." If you trace everything back to a source (where
did that come from, and where did that come from, and where did that come from, etc.?), you have no
choice in the end but to acknowledge a Designer. Finding this to be unacceptable, the evolutionist
must turn to the only other option: "everything we can experience via our senses comes from . . . well,
nothing." Not a very scientific deduction, eh?
Kristopher Dylan Andrews
05/15/2008
If invoking the Declaration of Independence is the refuge of someone arguing against the obsoleteness
of belief, then the views on Christianity of the author of said document should be instructive. In his
letters, Jefferson was explicit in his derision of Christianity. If we could take politics out of this
discussion, we would not have much of a discussion left.
RE: Whole Series
Kristopher Dylan Andrews
245
05/15/2008
Does one decide what one believes? This is the core of substantial parts of this conversation. Belief in
God is obsolete because it does us, and by extension everything else, less good than bad. God has
never been a very good explanation for anything, other than the Primum Movum, and science has
certainly made this belief obsolete for all purposes but allowing a non-deterministic and non-causal
beginning to the universe.
If scientific evidence, or even plausible theory, arises to justify a belief in God, then belief in God is
more rational, but even this does not keep it from being obsolete. The whole idea of belief being
obsolete or not presumes the usefulness of belief. The two uses that seem to be argued for the most
is: belief makes us feel good, and belief makes us behave. I can think of innumerable items and
activities that suit those purposes that are far better than pretending that fairy tales are real or trying to
convince ourselves they are.
Belief in a God that does not exist does not give us meaning any more than emperor's clothes covered
his posterior. It just tricks us into feeling like it does. And all of this is when you consider a nonpolitical,
sterilized belief, which is far from the current applications, where death, destruction, exploitation,
brutatility, inequality, and prejudice are pretty much the universal and immediate response to
discovering there is a God and he's on your side.
Most of the responses in this discussion are the kind of apologetic explanations for liberal acceptance
of open-ended variations of religion. They are more political than sincere. I despair that even in the
21st century, as we converse over nuclear-powered, thinking machines networked across the globe,
that people still pretend to be justified for their greed and manipulations by an imaginary friend.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Douglas Presler
05/15/2008
I congratulate Kenneth Miller on knowing a deity that would be unrecognizable to the creationists of
this world, but at the risk of offending him, I ask: so what? You espouse deism. So did Thomas
Jefferson. But there's an ugly fly in your mutual ointment: Christianity is, vide Hitchens's bons mots,
theism, not deism. If it were capable of sustaining deism, the Theosophical Society would, probably
through the aegis of the Liberal Catholic Church, be far and away the world's largest Christian
denomination. And that just isn't so.
People reject God, if reject is the right word, for two wholly intelligible reasons: offered proofs for God's
existence are readily refuted, and the price of adhering to belief simply outweighs the benefits. We can
and should cultivate ways to both secure our own defense against jadedness and step forward with
owning our moral responsibilty without relying on discredited ideas that sustained many a dark age.
RE: Whole Series
Mikhail
05/15/2008
God is the interaction between natural and social systems.
RE: Whole Series
Kevin Barnes
05/15/2008
As I grew up, I learned first about God and then about this extraordinary thing called mathematics. As I
began learning mathematics and various levels of science, I found out that they helped me understand
the universe better, and in turn helped me to understand better the Intelligent Designer that I knew as
God. As I learned more and continue to learn more about mathematics, I also understood more (not
fully) about God.
If you believe in God, science can only strengthen your belief. If you don't believe in God or question
His existence, science will reinforce that belief also. I hear the science/religion argument from both
sides. Since I do go to church, and believe in God, I hear the "Science hates God" argument. But being
a mathematician, I also hear the "If you are intelligent and understand the principles of science, you
shouldn't believe in God because it is illogical." Why do they always have to butt heads?
So, what I have found is this: I am intelligent. I am a mathematician. I still believe in God. I use the
246
power of science and mathematics to reinforce my belief, and it also makes me WANT to seek more
and learn more so that I can better understand this world that was designed so magnificently and
intelligently.
I know that my arguments will not sway some of the great minds that I have been reading in this list. I
also know that they may seem somewhat childish, but please just take this: science and God don't
have to be the antithesis of each other; they can and probably should coexist.
RE: Whole Series
Carl Benjamin
05/15/2008
What if we consider that we are all imbued with some power or division of god or godliness. We feel
love; we have a level of intelligence; in the majority; we care for our and other's existence; we strive to
survive at the highest level. Are we pushing "God" to some elusive cloister in the sky when we should
be looking at ourselves first?
RE: Whole Series
Christina Leatha
05/15/2008
Belief in the intricacies of any religion can certainly be refuted by science. However, as much as
humans can ever possibly know on a scientific level about the universe, the question of God and
meaning will ultimately come to this: why not Nothing? We can discuss and debate ad nauseam all
things within our universe (intelligent design, divinity, miracles, etc.), but when we take the step outside
of ourselves and the space we inhabit (the universe) and take a larger view of our conundrum, it begs
the question: if there is no meaning, no God, why is there not Nothing? Or put another way, why does
matter exist?
It is a simple question, but if one can fully grasp it and its implications, it seems to me that belief in at
least some sort of meaning (albeit unknowable) beyond the physical, observable universe makes
logical sense. It isn't something that can go against science--it is a matter outside of science, since we
can only know the space we inhabit, much like a fish can only know the space inside its bowl.
Consequently, belief in absolutely no type of God or meaning behind existence seems illogical and
myopic. If there is absolutely nothing behind matter's existence, nothing should exist at all.
RE: Whole Series
Charles
05/15/2008
The topic about science making God obsolete suggested to me a solution to the "theory of evolution"
battles. A simple name change, from "evolution" to the more scientifically descriptive "theory of
biological change" would unleash scientific curiosity about how biological change occurs, including the
latest stuff on DNA, genes, and gene expression--this is the science that really matters but it is too
rarely reached in fights over "evolution." How plants and animals change is the real scientific question.
We should respect some people's religious beliefs about "evolution" and stop diverting good science.
They are two different and legitimate subjects, both deserving respect. Science doesn't make God
obsolete when the two worlds are recognized and words that are insulting to either world are not used.
RE: Whole Series
Jerry Schleifer
05/15/2008
Differences of opinion require playing on the same ball field--the boundaries established by rules of
definition. By accepting Webster's definitions, God and science are not likely cohabitants. Faith:
"unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence." Science: "the state or fact of knowing."
The question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" defies rational discussion. Believers
believe that which their brains refute.
RE: Whole Series
Vadis Frone
05/15/2008
Science can make belief in God obsolete, but it will never make God obsolete. It does not seem
possible that an explosion could create order within our solar system with the planets circling the sun.
What about the angle of the earth and the force of gravity? What about the systems within our earth
247
like water from the ocean evaporating and creating clouds which are blown across the land, cooling,
dropping as rain, nourishing the earth on the way back to the sea?
Some people have never read much of the bible for themselves. Even people who do attend church. It
really doesn't matter much what we believe. Our belief will not slow or halt what God is going to do. We
come into this world just for a moment, what can we do? We cannot even decide not to die. No matter
what we think, our ultimate control is very limited.
The media and the population have been sucked into the belief in science vs. reading and
understanding about the true and living God. But nonetheless, even if 100% of people stopped
believing in God because of science, it would not negate God.
RE: Michael Shermer
David Young
05/15/2008
A more "scientific" approach toward religion may actually produce a greater understanding of it.
Michael Shermer's presentation of the "data" regarding Mormon belief is a bit, well, sloppy. Mormon
was the second to the last of a series of prophets that lived in the "Americas" between 400BC-600AD.
He abridged the writings of these prophets into one volume. The book carries his name for that reason.
The Mormon belief is that in 1820, God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appeared to the boy
Joseph Smith as he was inquiring through prayer which of all religions was the right one to join. He
was told not to join any of the churches and that through him they would restore the true and living
Church as it existed at the time of Christ. Part of this restoration was the coming forth of the Book of
Mormon. Joseph was shown where this record was buried by an angel named Moroni. Moroni in his
mortal life was Mormon's son, and the last of these prophets who hid this record before he died
approximately 600AD. Joseph Smith was given the power from God to translate this record through
various means. This translation is what constitutes the Book of Mormon and why members of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints carry the nickname of "Mormons."
Would you present any "scientific" statistics or findings as nonchalantly as you presented Mormon
beliefs as evidence for your argument? What about dismissing, without thorough and proper research,
what is a most remarkable book that would certainly provide some sound answers to the question of
God? The Book of Mormon is as tangible as any "evidences" provided by the scientific method.
RE: Whole Series
Kathryn McKinney
05/15/2008
I wouldn't say that science has no impact on the beliefs of the religious. It certainly has an impact on
my own perceptions, and I consider myself a religious, although non-denominational, Jew.
RE: Whole Series
George Edwards
05/15/2008
Science deals with the comprehensible; belief in God is spiritual and not subject to the logic associated
with the scientific method. If your heart does not grasp an appreciation of the Almighty, then your brain
will easily dismiss any linkage to the hereafter or theology in general.
RE: Whole Series
Neville Zwickey
05/15/2008
Whether belief in god (gods) is obsolete is the wrong question. Better to ask if it is a waste of time. To
this, I concur.
RE: Steven Pinker
Bin Srinidhi
05/15/2008
It is true that the need for God has decreased as a result of science. In economic terms, this "need"
has now become more of a "want." We still want to believe in a comforting and healing God that could
be more effective than counseling. We want to believe in a God who might insure us from a destruction
of order and structure in the universe. Viewed this way, God makes our lives richer and more
248
comfortable. Just as we don't need poetry or art to live but want them to enrich our thoughts and
sensibilities, just as we don't need this debate to live but want it to satisfy and comfort our deeper
curiosity, so also we don't need a belief in God to live our lives but want it all the same to comfort us,
satisfy us and enrich us.
Our wants are fulfilled by diverse products and concepts, customized and branded in different ways.
So also do we have a demand for diverse concepts of God and religions. Just as the producers of one
brand try to increase their market share by catering to the wants of more people, so also do different
"brand" religions try to propagate and improve their market share. Overall, I do not see the belief in
God as becoming obsolete. Rather, it has a strong demand that is being satisfied by a myriad of
religions, cults, and Godheads.
RE: Whole Series
Mohammad Nasser Khan
05/15/2008
Science must have failed if it has so far not found itself agreeing to the existence of God. Whatever
semblance of discipline in the universe we see is entirely due to the will of God. A scientist might gain
the ability to conquer this world and many other worlds beyond this one, and yet it would merely be a
passing phenomenon or else all these notable scientists and philosophers would not be pulling each
others hair in this forum. The mere fact that all these people with incredible knowledge are forced to
debate God demonstrates God's power and will over these mortals.
RE: Whole Series
Wolfgang Somary
05/15/2008
Who are we that believe or disbelieve? Let us first answer that question. If we observe and experience,
we need no missionaries; but if our assertions are based on belief, we do, because we are constantly
busy convincing ourselves.
RE: Whole Series
Anne Ronan
05/14/2008
Will science ever make hunger obsolete? Not without changing the very nature of the human being.
Neither could science ever completely remove the human need for belief systems, unless we all end
up drugged. What science could do is make blind faith in the human constructions of the manifestation
of god--the books and the laws--obsolete with wider education on the origins of those artifacts. They,
not the need for spiritual belief, cause problems and directly contradict science. Why waste time on the
abstract when you can deal with the concrete?
RE: Whole Series
Bob Werme
05/14/2008
Belief in God as a human-writ-large has been rendered obsolete by the advances of modern science
and the knowledge of our universe this science has cataloged. This is the deity who makes things that
humans can barely imagine (but would if we could), who sees things we can't see, knows things we
can't know, lives longer, travels further, jumps higher (don't remember if that's in the catechism)--a self-
projection, a highly exaggerated image of ourselves or, as biblical religion calls it, an idol. There may
be divinity that is not predicated on human categories, and since science and knowledge are human
categories, these cannot render such divinity obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Andrejs Ozolins
05/14/2008
Of course not! When has rationality ever dampened the pursuit of non-rational aims or ideas? Science
has no impact on the beliefs of the religious--except when it is misinterpreted and provokes still more
irrational outbursts of defensiveness or hostility.
RE: Whole Series
Matt Risolia
05/14/2008
Of course science doesn't make belief in God obsolete! It never will. God is taken as a matter of faith.
249
We don't look for or want proof of his existence. Proof would negate the need for faith and undermine
most religions. Science explains God's creation, in my eyes.
RE: Whole Series
Robert J. Dillon
05/14/2008
I agree with many of the comments by both the authors and the public responders. I feel that there are
those who psychologically need to have some outside influence in their decisions. For them, a god is a
way of not accepting that most of the things that happen in life are a matter of personal decisions or
random chance. In these times of conflict and economic turmoil, people turn to religion as an
explanation. If young people in many of these areas felt they had a chance of affecting their futures, I
do not believe they would be so ready to say a god controls all events. As these are all expressions of
personal beliefs, there is no relationship to scientific analysis. We may use science to explain many
things. But when a person uses belief as an explanation, facts have no influence. I hope that the more
events and other mysteries are explained by science, there will be less dependency on belief. There
are those who feel so strongly that they can not affect their lives that they will always be dependent on
some god's determination. We cannot change that, we just have to work to minimize their influence on
others.
RE: Whole Series
Frances Horton
05/14/2008
An unanswered question is never obsolete. There's no evidence to support or deny the existence of
God. Until such time as evidence is uncovered, the question remains open and, therefore, valid.
RE: Steven Pinker
Robert Burkhardt
05/14/2008
Human science is inherently limited by human sensory perception. Although technology has enhanced
our perception of the universe, the phenomena that we cannot naturally perceive must be translated
into data that we can access by our natural human sensory perceptions. Technology has therefore
revealed to us that the creation conceals vast truths about itself which before our species could not
know naturally. If creation is more wonderful and vast than we can know, then it seems that the
Creator of it must be much more so. And since we as humans are self-aware, intelligent, emotional,
moral persons, then the Creator of such human personality must be much more so Himself.
So, to deny the Creator's existence is inherently close-minded and arrogant, in the same way a worm
without eyes would confidently deny that a rose is red. Regardless of the worm's denial and limited
perception of the world above him, roses are still red. We humans know that. So how would a human
explain to a worm that a rose is red? And how would God explain Himself to a human being? Perhaps
a human could do something wonderful and become a worm to explain red roses to all of wormkind?
And perhaps God could become human and explain the Heavenly Father to all mankind?
RE: Steven Pinker
Rob G
05/14/2008
Give me a break. If there were no God, where did science come from? Were we just born with all this
knowledge? No, it had to come from somewhere.
Jane Dean
05/14/2008
Thank you, Dr. Phillips, for helping me to synthesize what used to be a division between my
knowledge of science and my faith. I thought I would never be able to reconcile the two. You and Dr.
Miller have clarified the issues and have "helped me over my blind spot."
RE: Whole Series
Rhonda Miller
05/13/2008
Science estimates that there are at least 50 billion stars in our galaxy and that there are at least
another 50 billion galaxies in the universe with 50 billion stars (suns) in each galaxy. This puts the
minimum amount of stars in the universe at 2.5 x10^18. There are more stars in the universe than
250
there are grains of sand on every beach on earth. Our solar system alone has 8 or 9 planets
(depending who you ask). The thing I find interesting is a question that I have never seen asked or
answered. If you believe that there is a god, how can we humans be any more than ants or microbes to
a god that created the entire universe?
RE: Whole Series
JWC
05/13/2008
Some sophisticated persons are perfectly willing to "believe" in the existence of extra-terrestrial life,
without a shred of evidence to support such a belief other than extrapolations based on Earthly
experience. The search for such evidence continues. Some sophisticated persons are perfectly willing
to "believe" in the existence of God, without a shred of evidence to support such a belief other than
extrapolations based on Earthly experience. The search for such evidence continues. Let us cherish
the search!
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Shipley
05/13/2008
Yes, of course it does. We do not have to pray for rain, fertile fields, healing of illnesses, heirs, or
wisdom from leaders. We can think and do instead. As soon as the vast majority of people begin to
adopt this notion, I can stop having to deal with hallucinations in my daily life.
RE: Whole Series
Mac B James Makheru
05/13/2008
Science cannot make God obsolete. Arrogant pseudo-intellectuals, inflated with their own brilliance,
will never perceive anything greater than themselves. "Science" IS religion. The two subjects have
been set in opposition, but the reality is that they share the same base--observation. The esoteric
"mysteries" of antiquity were developed from the observations of men over extremely long periods of
time. Though we understand magnetism on an atomic level, it does not diminish the magnificence of
the phenomenon. We in arrogance dismiss it as "common" and fail to perceive the Divine Wonder. Our
ancestors looked at magnetism in a different manner. They said Mars went into Venus, and Eros (and
Anteros) were born. Inflated men call our ancestors imaginative and without foundation. They cannot
perceive the ultimate reality-- our ancestors' truth. When Iron (Mars) goes into a Copper (Venus) coil it
produces attraction (Eros) and repulsion (Anteros). They may not have understood magnetism in the
way that we do, but to dismiss their obervations as "foolish" is foolish, though those without eyes can
not see.
I am a biologist, and biologically speaking, "science" has only proven the existence of God. The idea
that all life arose from a single life form is the ultimate conclusion of evolutionary theory. By analogy,
this asserts the presence of god. In the beginning, God was alone and existed completely unto himself,
having all the capacities to produce all that would come later. From an evolutionary perspective, the
first life form was a single-celled Life, that had within it the capacity to produce all the plants and
animals extinct and extant! Others would say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him,
and without Him nothing was made that was made." In this case, the Word is analogous and
homologous to evolution's first cell.
The theory that phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny has been discredited. However, I ask the reader to
remember that even (s)he was once a single-cell complete unto itself, containing within it the capacity
to produce everything else. I speak of the moments after fertilization, and before the waters divided
(first division). One should also notice the larger analogy of experience: the womb is the dark watery
abyss from which the God sprang, from darkness all are born into light. Science and religion are not at
odds; religion's problem is with history!
Ginko8
05/13/2008
No, no more than created matter makes love obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
John A. Abernathy
251
05/13/2008
I feel secure in the knowledge that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.
Simply put, proof one way or the other eliminates the need for faith altogether, and faith is the basis for
all religious belief. If you get out the English language bible and read carefully the words of Jesus, it is
clear that he was, and is, instructing his followers to stop with the religious tripe and get a life, which is
good advice for those myopic thinkers and hypocrites on both sides of this tired argument.
RE: Whole Series
Sophie Amrain
05/13/2008
Belief in God was obsolete even before the emergence of science, in the sense of not being required
for moral choices, world explanations, community-building. Of course, one can use it for all these
things, but it never has been essential for them. Science has changed the balance a little, for people
who wish to understand, i.e., a small minority (which is ok, a love of science is not required to lead a
fulfilled life). Anthropology, ethnology, and archeology have given us an understanding of the evolution
of the God concept in the human species. Physics has given real-world explanations, including the
origin of the universe; chemistry has had things to say about the origin of life; biology has had lots to
say about the evolution of the species; and the neurosciences have contributed greatly to
understanding of our mind and even our propensity for religion. Hey, it is an evolutionary thing!
RE: Whole Series
Linda Delfs
05/13/2008
When I heard of this effort, I knew we had been here before. Read these excerpts from an 1881
speech by Anglican Bishop JB Lightfoot on modern science: "If we are wise we shall endeavour to
understand and to absorb these truths. They are our proper heritage as Christians, for they are
manifestations of the Eternal Word, who is also the head of the Church. . . . Astronomy was thought to
menace Christianity. Before we were born the menace had passed away. . . . Geology next. We are
old enough, many of us, to remember the anxiety and distrust with which its startling announcements
were received. This scare, like the other, has passed away. . . . We admire the providential design
which through myriads of years prepared the earth by successive gradations of animal and vegetable
life. . . . Our theological conceptions have been corrected and enlarged by its teaching, but the work of
the Church of Christ goes on as before. And now,in turn, Biology concentrates the same interests, and
excites the same distrusts. Will not history repeat itself? If the time should come when evolution is
translated from the region of suggestive theory to the region of acknowledged fact, what then? Will it
not carry still further the idea of providential design and order? Will it not reinforce with new and
splendid illustrations the magnificent lesson of modern science--complexity of results traced back to
simplicity of principles--variety of phenomena issuing from unity of order--the gathering up, as it were,
of the threads which connect the universe in the right hand of the One Eternal Word?"
RE: Whole Series
Elizabeth
05/13/2008
People are given science and can run one of two ways with it. They can choose to say the science
proves there is no God or they can use it to prove there is a God. It's all a matter of what they want the
science to say. We aren't going to be able to prove exactly whether God does or does not exist--there
are too many arguments on both sides. It's a matter of faith . . . or a determined lack of it.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Onsted
05/13/2008
Admit it or not, God is only as personally real as any individual wants to pretend him to be. While I
certainly do not deny the existence of a cosmic soul, collective consciousness, over-soul (call it what
you will), it differs vastly from the concept that the ancients called "God," which they created in their
own image. This image of a divine, omniscient, and omnipotent parent figure is one that modern man
must be willing to shed as he takes increasing responsibility for his own lot in life, but that takes
courage and maturity. Just as few children are willing to admit that there is no Santa Claus for fear of
not waking to a pile of gifts on Christmas morning, neither is the spiritually immature person willing to
waken from the childhood dream of pretense by accepting that God is as real to him as Santa is to a
child.
252
Relatively few believers are willing to admit that, just as man is the cause of most of his earthly
problems, so also is he both capable of, and responsible for, addressing those problems rather than
sitting back praying for some heavenly parent to intervene and make everything all better in one fell
swoop. Unless, and until, we are ready to grow-up and assume control and responsibility for our own
lives and fates, we cannot but continue the dream of the magical child who sleeps away his potential
as God-in-transition. Just as every chick was meant to leave the nest in which it hatched, so too was
man intended to spread his wings and provide for his own sustenance.
RE: Whole Series
Richard B. Firestone
05/13/2008
As a scientist who has worked broadly in the areas of chemistry, physics, and biology, I can say with
great confidence that science can tell us everything we want to know about how the world around us
works, but practically nothing about why it works that way. Thus we can rule out the more fantastic
stories in the bible, like creation and immaculate conception. But these are truly stories written about
man by men and have nothing to do with God. God is our window to the why of our existence, and to
the extent that he gives us comfort and moral direction, his existence is justified and cannot become
obsolete. Religion on the other hand may become obsolete when it assigns attributes to God that
violate the laws of science. Faith-healing and rain dances won't work any better than the law of
averages can allow. If God exists, he reveals himself through the beauty and complexity of science
itself. If God doesn't exist, then the universe is a cruel, meaningless, inexplicable joke. We can choose
to believe that God exists without violating any law of science, and this freedom of choice guarantees
that God cannot become obsolete. However, unless God shows himself to us and becomes part of the
physical world, he is only a belief and beyond the purview of science. Of course, if he does show up,
all scientific bets are off.
RE: Whole Series
Frank
05/13/2008
To Jerry Schleifer: you yourself are proof of a universal intelligence or God. If you cannot figure it out,
the problems lies within you not within the question itself.
RE: Whole Series
Chle'
05/13/2008
In 1978 two significant events took place in my life. In September I received my degree as a nuclear
physicist, and in December, I was ordained as a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses. When people learn
that I am a scientist as well as a Witness, they often wonder how I reconcile my scientific knowledge
with my belief in the Bible. Granted, for years I too wondered whether scientific knowledge and belief in
the Bible could go together. Eventually, though, I became fully convinced that the Bible is in harmony
with scientific fact.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Kent Lyon
05/13/2008
"Oh World, thou choosest not the better part. It is not wisdom to be only wise and on the inward vision
close the eyes, But it is wisdom to believe the heart. Colombus found a world and had no chart but one
that faith deciphered in the skies. To trust the soul's invicible surmise was all his science and his only
art. Our knowledge is a torch of smokey pine that lights the pathway but one step ahead, across a void
of mystery and dread. Bid, then, the tender light of faith to shine by which alone the mortal mind is led
unto the thinking of the thought divine." --Santayana
Dr. Kauffman, your wonderful essay made me think of Santayana's poem. Thanks.
RE: Steven Pinker
Grahm Foster
05/13/2008
In response to Steven Pinker's essay: Morality cannot be, in essence, just the interchangeability of
perspectives. For example: If it was decided agreeable to allow lying when pertaining to self-
preservation (survival) within any structure--meaning you lied and resolved it as ok to expect lying from
others within these structures--then you would have a cheapening and breakdown of trust,
relationships, life, etc. This would be a poor direction for society, but it fits underneath the blanket of
253
your statement. If there is a higher moral code, where did it come from and by whom? Certainly not by
the structures and institutions throughout history, because they have always fallen. What is right has
always been unwavering; whether suppressed or destroyed, it remains the same and still known. And
this was not created by people who are better and more important then everyone else in a different
time. It also wasn't created over time; it appears to have always been understood.
In response to Jerry Schleifer's comment below: Emotion has nothing to do with the basis of religious
belief. That makes for a tragic religion, especially since one's emotional state is subject to the mind.
Unfortunately, the term religion has always been bastardized. Not much of what the word stands for
has anything to do with the God of the Bible.
RE: Whole Series
W. Paul Dammann
05/13/2008
As a scientist and believer myself, I find the essays of my fellow believers who are distinguished
academicians to be intriguing in their substance and style. Unfortunately, the formulation of the
question forces them to treat God phenomenologically, rather than as the Heavenly Father that I know
and on whom I have come to rely. There is a mistaken notion that our western society and many who
call themselves scientists have about science. It is that science can tell us more than can be
measured. It just isn't so. Any statement based on measured data which extends beyond the samples
in space or time is an extrapolation. Modern science cannot tell us what happened 200,000 years ago.
It can tell us what the carbon isotope ratios in a piece of fossil bone are today. Any extrapolation into
the past from there is based on faith in today's understandings of biochemistry. The foundations of
science are built on "first principles" that are assumed to apply universally. Faith is applied in the
secular sciences all the time. To suggest that faith in science could somehow make faith in God
obsolete just doesn't hold up under even a cursory analysis.
RE: Whole Series
Barry Pearson
05/13/2008
Adam Scott (05/11/2008) said: "Think of this: if science says that matter cannot be created or
destroyed, then there are really only a few possibilities." Science says no such thing. It DOES say
energy (rather than matter) is conserved, which is a different statement. Victor J. Stenger makes the
case that the total energy of the universe is zero. (He goes into more details in one of his books.)
Harvey Moxness (05/12/2008) said: "I think that non-believers would accomplish the most good by
focusing on the bad results of religion." That says nothing about whether god/Gods exist. Indeed, given
that the God of the Old Testament is probably the most evil creature in human literature, if that God
existed, the universe would probably have lots of devastation and evil in it.
Keith Kwiatek (05/12/2008) asked: "In any case, I always want to ask scientists who claim not to
believe in God what they think will happen after their physical bodies die. Do they really think that they
are simply evolved bio-mechanical machines whose life energy returns to the cosmos?" Plenty of such
scientists have given the answer. Yes, they believe we are evolved bio-mechanical machines. They
don't believe in the concept of a "life energy" separate from the physics and chemistry of the body--no
"elan vital." They (and I) believe that when our brains die, we will never experience anything again. It
won't be unpleasant--we will be back to the state we were in before we were conceived.
Keith Kwiatek (05/12/2008) also said: "This fact is evidenced ..." There is no such evidence! There is
no good reason to believe that the Bible isn't just text written by ignorant people centuries ago without
divine input. It certainly can't be used as evidence for its own truth!
RE: Whole Series
Doug Janelle
05/13/2008
Jerry Schleifer states: "give me that one iota of proof of an omnipotent God and I will gladly and
humbly bend my knee. But the whole premise of faith is that it does not require proof. For believers, no
proof is required; for non-believers, no proof is enough. If the proof he requires was possible, faith itself
would be obsolete. Jesus said to Thomas, "You believe because you have seen me; blessed are those
who have not seen, and yet believe." I am a firm "believer" in science and the value it provides society,
yet I also believe in God. This is not contradictory. To be of a scientific mind, and not to believe in God,
254
limits the glory of the universe. It is a painting with just two colors, or music with only two notes. While
there is some merit to both of those, they are ultimately limited. Allowing ourselves to accept that the
Almighty exists within the universe, and at the same time beyond the universe, places science in
context. It demonstrates the humility of man and gives meaning and value to all the truths that sceince
uncovers. Science without God is a pessimist's view of the universe.
RE: Whole Series
Jerry Schleifer
05/13/2008
Whenever I ask for just one iota of proof of God's existence, invariably the retort is, "Can you prove
God doesn't exist?" How does one prove or disprove a negative? Why bother? Emotion, the basis of
religious belief, is subjective, so it is outside the realm of objective discussion. The question "Does
science make belief in God obsolete?" has no relevance to science or, for that matter, to God.
Negativism refutes both question and answer. Yet, give me that one iota of proof of an omnipotent God
and I will gladly and humbly bend my knee.
RE: Whole Series
Gilbert Cantlin
05/13/2008
When we distinguish between mythology and poetry, between the illiteracy of ancient times and
present knowledge about our universe and ourselves, yes, religion recedes. It may still be used as a
poetry of life, but that poetry can be very incomplete and misleading and diverts attention from the
continually increasing knowledge we gain through time and experience.
RE: Whole Series
Brian Schreiner
05/13/2008
During my freshman-year high school biology class, I learned that, in science, proving a negative is
impossible.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Griffihts
05/13/2008
This debate is well meaning but pointless. No scientific advances can ever obliterate faith or God, as it
will always be possible for religion to do what it has done in the past--back away from any specific
propositions that have proven to be false. We may make some progress on this matter when we are in
a position to do the next generation of brain research that reveals why some need faith and others
don't, but until then we are whistling in the dark.
RE: Whole Series
Sergio Nevel
05/13/2008
As I see it, the fundamental question is, "Is god knowable?" If yes, then how and by whom? If not, then
what we have defined to be god is a creation of man. Rabbi Joseph Albo, in the fifteenth century,
asserted that "If I knew him I would be him." This statement opens or closes the discussion. We either
are god, or we cannot know god. If we cannot know god, the discussion is moot. If we are god, then we
have the power of creation and can invent the universe to our liking, including the invention of a being
that orchestrates the universe.
At our current level of consciousness, we will never know if we created god, if god created us, or if it
was all randomness. Nevertheless, the mind-blowing mysteries of the universe certainly prove our
insufficiency and may provide a glimpse at the unknowable mind of god. I know that I will never know,
but the unfolding questions and answers that adventurers of the physical (scientists) and adventurers
of the soul and spirit (philosophers, mystics) provide will continue to create a worthwhile drama and
meaning for me in my life. This is sufficient.
RE: Whole Series
Rhonda Miller
05/13/2008
The answer to whether god is obsolete is no. Today god is like Santa Claus for adults. If you are a
good boy or girl, you are rewarded with going to heaven or the 72 virgins, and if you are bad you won't
have any presents and you go to hell. Whether or not god is obsolete is actually asking whether man is
255
ready to be moral for the sake of morality and not for some artificially created reward. God will truly be
obsolete when man respects the rest of his environment, because it has the same right to exist as man
does. Science forces man to acknowledge that he is only a part of the universe, not a special entity
destined to exist eternally in one form or another. Much of religion is based upon fear of the wrath of
god, which I interpret to be reactions to the weather or earthquakes and the like.
Does man use god as a crutch? To gather strength when sick? To pray for something in want or need?
If man had to give up these delusions, where would he look to find inspiration? If you are allowed to
give all of the credit to god when something good happens or if you have a special ability that allows
you to excel above others in a given field, what does it mean when you are ordinary or deficient in
some manner? Is god punishing you for being wicked?
Today we know that Hurricane Katrina began as a storm off the coast of Africa that traveled across the
warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean and slammed into the Gulf Coast. But still there are ministers in this
country who say the storm is retribution for the existence of homosexuals in New Orleans. One
hundred or even one thousand years ago this story would be difficult to challenge. But today, because
of science, we can watch a storm form from beginning to end, and yet there are those among us who
believe that our moral behavior controls the weather but not the fact that we are plowing, chopping,
and burning this planet for our pleasure.
We live in a world built upon science, from the airplanes that fly to microprocessors to splitting atoms.
But religious people often deny science when it benefits their viewpoint. Evolution comes to mind. I
believe that science is the bridge that takes humanity from where we were to where we are going.
Science shapes us as we move into the future. As our knowledge grows, we learn that the goodness of
man is not due to some supernatural being but because we are essentially good. God won't be
obsolete until we learn that we each create our own reality and learn to be good for goodness sake.
RE: Whole Series
Joel LaPinta
05/12/2008
The most competent response to the question came from Mary Midgley. I strongly suspect this is
because her primary m�tier is philosophy, and the question is properly understood as a philosophical
question. Statements in science can only have meaning in the context of assumptions about reality in
general. Belief in God is a manifestation within certain cultural traditions of the need for any human
who seeks to justify her actions to make assumptions about reality. Immanuel Kant famously
demonstrated that the assumptions of rationality are by necessity assumptions of morality. But just as
famously, he left out the details. People accumulate a lot of arbitrary assumptions about reality that
contribute to their world view. What is most interesting is how these other assumptions can lead to
conflicts between moral actors.
Perhaps you would consider a follow-up question. I would like to suggest: Is science possible without
moral assumptions about our world? Or perhaps a better choice of words would be: Can human
science exist without human values? Of course, phrasing the question in this way exposes the silliness
of some of the essayists' responses.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Bert
05/12/2008
There is so much wrong with religion and with the very silly ideas it promulgates that Sapolsky's
hanging on by a fingernail isn't worth the effort. Sure, ecstasy--the wow in things--is wonderful, but
religion as a whole stands in the way of authentic ecstasy. When societies went to monothesism, we
lost authentic experience for externalized, dead experience. Maybe the animists were closer to
ecstasy.
RE: Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy
Richard Lewis
05/12/2008
I heartily agree with the point made in Hoodbhoy's very first paragraph: that science has established
that God does not interfere with the working of the physical world. There is a very good theological
reason for this: so that we can be children, not robots, who have the dignity of creating themselves.
256
RE: Whole Series
Donald Knox
05/12/2008
Yes, if by "God" is meant the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god who is more like a super-Oriental Sultan
than anything else. No, if by God is meant the Intelligence behind the Creation. Consider the
enormous improbability of the chance "happening" of a self-reproducing organism and the even more
improbable chance happening of a second self-reproducing organism which feeds on the waste of the
first and who's waste is food for the first.
RE: Whole Series
Eleni Bastea, Ph.D.
05/12/2008
I support your organization's efforts to examine the Big Questions, but I was disappointed to see no
women included in the advertisement that appeared in this week's Economist (May 10-16).
RE: Whole Series
Michael A. Wooten
05/12/2008
Neither of the answers to this question is proven or debunked. To say which is more likely is relative to
the selective evidence of each side's proponents. The creationist theory is naturally more vulnerable to
attack because of its long standing as the ultimate truth. But neither is the theory of natural selection
proven. Both should be criticized and micro-analyzed equally. The data and knowledge that come as a
result should be taken seriously, and we should be open to the possibility that both probably do hold
some weight. The combined knowledge of both could lead to a new theory, prove one or the other, or
prove them to be complimentary. The thirst for knowledge, not the spite to debunk, should be the
motivating factor involved in this discussion and in science.
RE: Whole Series
Nathan Shippee
05/12/2008
Teaching evolution as a dual process is the problem. Evolution is an open-ended process that
proceeds from the simple to the complex until it reaches the highest point of complexity of interacting
parts and fusion takes place, thereby developing a new entity. Evolution is clearly marked by a series
of "jumps" over billions of years, which are now accelerating so that the last "jump" was only 2500
years ago. As a frame of reference, these stages are identified as the fin, the foot, the wing, the thumb,
the mind, and now emerging: the Sensorium Age.
All the stages of life are present today and are visible to the eye. What next? Edgar Mitchell discovered
this on his way back from the moon while viewing the earth. He saw the earth and the vastness of the
universe as more than material--as spiritual. After his return he founded the Institute of Noetic Science
for further exploration. He "jumped" out of his science consciousness and into his noetic
consciousness as he came to realize that the science consciousness that got him to the moon was not
enough.
And so, in the words of Buckminster Fuller, "In order to change something, don't struggle to change the
model. Create a new model and make the old one obsolete." Don't struggle over science, which is
based on proof. Don't struggle over religion, which is based upon faith. Simply reframe the context of
your Big Question about evolution. Accept that evolution is an emerging process, marked by a series
of "jumps." New name: emergent evolution.
RE: Whole Series
Nelson Grimes
05/12/2008
I don't think science makes belief in God obsolete. Science is a methodology not a belief. The scientific
method has been refined over the centuries and is a way of organizing and analyzing the physical
universe. In its simplest form, you make an observation, create a hypothesis, create a test that can be
independantly verified, conduct the test, and analyze the results. Then you state whether the results
supported the hypothesis or not. This has nothing to do with belief in God.
Before addressing belief, we must first agree on the definition of God. If you define God as Aristotle
did, in terms of the teleological argument, then God is the force that acts on other things but is not itself
257
moved. I think the Big Bang would fall under Aristotle's definition. This is a very broad definition and
does not conflict with science. If you use the ontological argument of St. Anselm, then God is the
ordering force in the universe, like a clock maker. But this is also a broad definition and does not
conflict with science, as scientists are continually amazed at the beauty of organization on the
subatomic as well as the galactic level. Even if you use the earliest Christian definition of God, that
"God is Love," which by extension indicates that "To be in love is to have touched the divine," it does
not conflict. Even scientists fall in love, and love is an emotional quality not a physical one. It still does
not conflict with the scientific method.
Problems exist only when one uses a very specific definition like the Christian view that "God is
omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent." Here we have moved away from defining God as a quality to
defining a specific being. People who believe in this definition often see everyday occurences as
"God's will," when science can provide a logical reason. Science can't prove or disprove the existence
of God, but it might make people less feaful when logical explanations are available.
RE: Whole Series
Tracey Martin
05/12/2008
It is absurdity that makes belief in god obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Keith Kwiatek
05/12/2008
Even among those essayists who purport to be Christians who believe in God, their arguments seem
to support the opposite. I see a very poorly selected panel. There is much better representation (e.g.,
Guillermo Gonzalez) of how the science of this world points to a living God. In any case, I always want
to ask scientists who claim not to believe in God what they think will happen after their physical bodies
die. Do they really think that they are simply evolved bio-mechanical machines whose life energy
returns to the cosmos?
Clearly there is more than meets the eye going on with this world. Can a scientist measure the
qualities of love, compassion, and mercy, the very real essence of what it means to be human and
alive? If scientists cannot measure such things, how can they know that they exist? Clearly they do
exist and yet remain unquantifiable to scientists.
If you look at the Old and New Testaments in concert with Jewish history, you see a long dialogue with
a living God--but a God more concerned with the human heart and its flawed nature than with our
knowledge of the physical. This fact is evidenced by this same God taking on human form and
showing us how unquantifiable His love is: He would be beaten and crucified and then suffer in hell so
that we would not have to suffer there. If we would only turn our unquantifiable human hearts toward
Him and cry out.
RE: Whole Series
David Downs
05/12/2008
Eloquent arguments on both sides. What troubles me is that many lay blame on religion for all the
world's ills. The Church did much damage, sadly, and should be held responsible for its crimes, but
what about science? Hasn't science been misused? Hasn't science helped to create everything from
the atomic bomb to biological weapons? The problem has never been religion or science; it is the
bipedal carbon life-form named man. Everything else is just his excuse.
RE: Whole Series
Brian Hastings
05/12/2008
When science attempts to explain the origins of life outside of any intelligent input, it falls short. What is
often missing from the evolutionist propaganda is that it cannot successfully explain how life auto-
generates from nonorganic matter. The complexity of a feather is often glossed over when making the
leap from a reptile's scale. Eons of time are substituted for actual knowledge, and then arguments are
built that stifle debate. If scientists disagree about evolution, which they do, then evolution remains a
theory, and a theory is not a fact. If we accept a theory as fact without a means to test and prove that
theory, we have stopped debate, and it ceases to be science.
258
RE: Whole Series
Nate Morse
05/12/2008
Buyer, beware! Both concepts, science and God, are corruptible. To be successful (helpful) they both
rely on an open-mindedness that is difficult for humans to achieve. Both have authoritative doctrines
that are not always helpful in allowing the truth to be seen or communicated.
RE: Whole Series
Jos� Ignacio Castro
05/12/2008
The correct answer to the question is "of course not." How poor would be my God if its existence
depended on the validity of natural laws! And I refer only to natural laws because, if we are going to
suppose that God doesn�t exist, we also need to suppose that there are only "natural" laws. The
concept "God" can�t be proven to be man-made. All is a matter of faith. In fact, I�m a scientist, a
quantum physicist, and I agree with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. I also agree
with general relativity inasmuch as it deals with "macroscopic" objects. Both theories tells us that
"materiality" is illusory: energy coming from the Higgs interaction, having ponderable properties of
inertia and gravitation.
We should consider the possibility of a God whose thinking (his "logos," his Spirit) could be identified
with the abstract (mathematical) concept of physical energy. Nobody knows what energy "is" (see the
famous Feynman lectures); from our personal experience, we believe we know better what the spirit
"is." If all matter were the dreams of God, his Spirit, nobody could tell that they are so: you need faith to
believe this, but you also cannot reject the idea. So God will be present in human minds until the end
of times.
RE: Whole Series
Rocky Bennett
05/12/2008
There can be no logical way that an intelligent person could ever believe in a God with all of the
scientific evidence pointing to a natural world.
RE: Whole Series
Konrad Kozik
05/12/2008
If we accept the common definition of "natural," there is nothing natural in nature. Everything is
planned--each blow of wind, each stroke of a sea wave. Because everything is governed by science,
by the laws of nature, it is predictable. One can easly imagine an immense "computer," where each
piece of information related to the universe is stored. This fact of how artificial our universe is makes
me belive in an act of creation. Overall, God did quite detailed work; but there is one place where he
took a shortcut: the fact that the final answer to each significant question stops where a wall of infinity
begins. It is a guarantee that no big question concerning God will ever be answered.
God is not obsolete, but the "sacred books" probably are. Those were written using a language,
allegories, etc. that were meant for their contemporaries. Some contain quite clear hints as to how to
reach one's full potential in life, while others give very good intuitive hints as to where to look for at
least partial answers. If you were to create a universe, you would try to make it look "natural" by
allowing for a random sequence. How would you set things up? Would you create a "man" and
"woman"? Or would you start with an atom and, knowing the "rules," wait for it to develop? Darwin,
Wallace, Watson, and Crick prove the point.
RE: Whole Series
Eric McClure
05/12/2008
I don't think science renders God obsolete. I do think science allows for a greater discussion of God for
believers. Science also allows for atheism to exist without the old fears of inquisition. Rational inquiry
can in fact strengthen faith and promote a deeper study of metaphysics. Further, it is silly to assert the
old childish argument that a loving and compassionate God is not compatible with a violent and
suffering universe. Any casual reader of Dante, Virgil, or Kierkegaard can find that answer without
acting petulant. There is nothing rational about presuming human moral considerations for a universal
creator. Read Job.
259
I love science, and I love faith. Both are responsible for the good in man and are equally responsible
for the bad. From the inquisition to Stalin, faith and science have much to answer for without slinging
mud at one another. We have to recognize that there is a human reason behind murder--and you can
see the roots of mass murder when you watch a child play with soldiers.
RE: Whole Series
Harvey Moxness
05/12/2008
A very interesting series, good points on both sides. I think that non-believers would accomplish the
most good by focusing on the bad results of religion. As for proving God exists, this is a job only God
could accomplish, easy for an all-powerful, all-knowing entity. I am awaiting such proof, and until it
appears, I remain a doubter. Sorry, God.
RE: Whole Series
Stan
05/11/2008
A major problem is that only one of two concepts is tolerated by the media, i.e., creationism as
propounded in the Bible or the evolution of species by natural selection as put forth by Darwin. The
more likely and more scientifically supportable concept is "design evolution" with "block" or model
changes by an entity. But this concept does not seem to be tolerable. The question is why.
RE: Whole Series
Frank
05/11/2008
God is the universal intelligence and force that everything is made of. Without it, we would not exist.
The reason many of us do not know or understand God is that we tend to think of God in human and
materialistic terms instead of divine or spiritual terms. Science will never understand God until it
progresses to a spiritual level. In other words, scientists are trying to find roses in the desert.
RE: Whole Series
Rob Fleischer
05/11/2008
Unlikely, but not obsolete. Wishful thinkers can have their happy god pills, but when religion obstructs
or obfuscates scientific inquiry (e.g., creationism, flat earth, Galileo), I object.
RE: Whole Series
Adam Scott
05/11/2008
I don't believe that Christians or scientists are "shooting themselves in the foot" with the "first cause"
argument. Though the question may not prove the existence of God, it certainly does not prove the
existence of a Godless world. Think of this: if science says that matter cannot be created or destroyed,
then there are really only a few possibilities: (1) the world has existed forever and was never created to
begin with; (2) God has always existed and created the world; or (3) both God and the world have
always existed. What this proves to me is not that anyone is shooting themselves in the foot, but that
none of these theories is any more credible or empirical than the other.
RE: Whole Series
David Fahey
05/11/2008
Far too many people see atheism as being anti-God. It is not. It is merely the disbelief in God due to a
lack of evidence. It's really that simple. I am a Taoist and do not believe in a supreme being. To me,
God is a force not a being. It's the force and intelligence and harmony within all of nature, including
ouselves. Is that not enough?
RE: Whole Series
James Brody
05/11/2008
(1) Debates of faith and religion are not only a Darwinian display but a surrender to secularism:
heritable preferences are treated as if erasable. (Templeton plays fair, telling us in advance:
"Supporting science," "education of the gifted," and "civil, elegant prose" and, therefore, accepting
discussion, rule-generation, and top-down responses to challenges that arise from the bottom-up.)
260
Even those inclined to keep God around appear to do so on "progressive" terms!
(2) Darwin challenged top-down beliefs (cathedrals and species are both products of a designer) with
natural selection: cathedrals began with huts and holes, species perhaps with bubbling clusters of
viruses. However, none of these thirteen essayists--not even the great Pinker--consider the adaptive
functions of religiosity, that it provides a "glue" for us in crisis and in settled times, helps us to live in
peace. Irony: scientists may find themselves protected from members of one religion by members of a
different religion.
(3) There are reminders in these essays that religious authorities and their soldiers have killed many of
us. I remind everyone of the tens of millions slaughtered, with no help evident from God or clerics, by
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all in the name of making a better society for those who live afterwards. And
secularists now nourish the next great war by selling fissionables to impulsive, territory-driven thugs.
Hume (or Hobbes) suggested that wars are motivated by gold, territory, and women. Those drives are
still with us, perhaps tempered by prenatal genomic imprinting in different environments, but no
amount of discussion will erase them, and those susceptible to delay, discussion, and negotiation
would be on the sidewalk--gasping, bleeding, or dying--if engaged in a street fight where Rule 1 is to
hit the other guy first and do it while he's talking.
RE: Whole Series
Tim Gorski
05/11/2008
Although I accept the term "atheist," I would hasten to add that I do believe in God in the same way
that I believe in James Bond and John Luc Picard. Since the discovery that the basis of life and living
things does not require a spooky/supernatural "vital essence," there has come to be little or no need
for deities to explain the workings of the universe. But the need for the idea of a deity as superhuman,
as the apotheosis of humanity, as something that we strive for or seek to grow closer to, even if we
never quite attain it, remains. Nothing spooky about it, of course. It is just a part of what Karl Popper
drew our attention to when he wrote of ideas that are unreal and, at the same time, have a real impact,
like scientific theories and other creations of the human imagination. Just because something is
pretend does not mean it has no value. Take a look at what the Disney empire and its competitors
have done with the imaginary!
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Robert Reck
05/11/2008
The answer to your question is probably "yes" if, as many do, one is hypothesizing an
anthropomorphic individual sitting in some Heaven wearing a white robe with a big gold "G" sewn on
the pocket. Most religions have done humanity a great disservice by positing a limited vision of God,
tainted by the limited vision mankind can have of such a Higher Power. One byproduct of these
teachings has been egoistic and dogmatic structures that ultimately propagate war, fear, and distrust
among huge segments of the world's population.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas
05/11/2008
What comes after death? What is the purpose of our existence? Is it possible that we, who are part of
this world, can explain it scientifically, in total, as if we analyzed it from the outside? Don't we only see
what we are able to see? What is beyond nothingness? Don't we all want love, and is it not a
reassuring thought that love exists, maybe even beyond death? What has science to say to these
questions? Are they even allowed in science, or are they dismissed as "unscientific"? Should they not
be passed on to philosophy? Have philosophers not passed them on to religion? Have the
philosophers of the Enlightenment not already answered the question of this debate?
RE: Whole Series
Dave Blau
05/11/2008
It is interesting that words are so minced here. The idea of a god is a worn-out, useless concept that
has caused much of the suffering and conflict in the world. The concept has no relevance to science. If
god acted in the world, that would mean that cause and effect would have to be discarded.
261
Morality has nothing to do with a god concept or with science. There is always the question, Why is
there anything instead of nothing? But a god idea, especially the idea of a compassionate, loving god,
is a complete cop-out. As a number of these commentators mention, how does the idea of a
compassionate god fit with the reality that innocents are destroyed and the violent rewarded?
RE: Whole Series
Alan Steinbronn
05/11/2008
What scientist would deny that Existence is a fact, that Existence exists? What is Existence? Isn't it
everything that exists? Isn't it the source of everything that exists? I find the question "Is there a god?"
to be misleading. The more correct question is "Does Existence exist?" Here you find the
ridiculousness of the ongoing argument over god. Existence has been mistakenly labeled "god."
RE: Whole Series
Barry Pearson
05/11/2008
Alessandro Machi asked (May 3): "What type of real evidence from ages ago could a present-day
scientist accept as proof of a God or a progeny of God?" Imagine a sentence in a religious book similar
to "Light travels from the sun halfway to the Earth in the time that a man can hold his breath." Think
what a difference such a simple and unambiguous statement would have made to current debates
about whether religions are man-made. It would be plausible to claim that science is now providing
evidence for the god of THAT book.
What we have instead is failure, across many centuries, by millions of highly motivated people poring
over every word of the various (contradictory) books to find evidence of divine input that stands up to
scrutiny. We have bizarre attempts at post-hoc interpretations of verses to match already-known
scientific results, but nothing that speaks with clarity. Then the task falls to theologians and apologists
to make excuses for the lack of the sort of evidence that we would demand for the simplest court case.
Surely we can all agree that most gods and religions are man-made, even if we don't identify which
ones are. There are lots of gods, lots of religions, and they contradict one another. We lack evidence
for the existence of any particular god, and we separately lack evidence for the identity of the "one true
religion" (if any) that might act as an authority. We wouldn't need such evidence if religions were
always practiced as hobbies among consenting adults in private. It would then be up to practitioners to
decide what strength of evidence they need. It is when religions "step out of the box" that we should
ask for suitable evidence.
RE: Whole Series
Warwick Wakefield
05/11/2008
If I understand it correctly, science deals with the structure and behavior of physical substance, and
this includes non-solid substances such as light and other energy forms. Science does not concern
itself with consciousness, and it does not possess the tools, either conceptual or practical, to deal with
consciousness. Many scientists are convinced that consciousness can be reduced to material
substance behaving in certains ways, but the empirical evidence for this is non-existent, so this
conviction is no better than any other non-verifiable or non-falsifiable faith. This conviction is deeply
unscientific.
But everyone knows that consciousness is, and unless one is a solipsist, everyone knows that others
also participate in consciousness. Consciousness can be explored, and the exploration of
consciousness can produce astonishing ontological insights. I do not think that it will ever reveal the
existence of a God, a personal God of the type that is pictured in the Jewish, Muslim, or Christian
religions, but I do think that astounding discoveries have been made and are yet to be made. But they
will not have much to do with science.
RE: Whole Series
John
05/11/2008
Since science is hardly qualified to comment on the metaphysical, I don't see how it can render belief
in the metaphysical obsolete. The person who has some explaining to do is the one who doesn't
believe in God, believes only in what he can see or what can be measured, and yet has values that are
262
remarkably similar to one who holds to some faith. Science is cold and logical. It has no "soul," no
ethics.
RE: Whole Series
Eric
05/11/2008
The Apostle Paul writes in Romans that "Humanity supresses the truth in unrighteousness." Belief in
God (or more accurately, the lack of belief in God) is presented as an intellectual question. Yet it is
more profoundly an ethical and moral question. The truth of God is suppressed because of the moral
implications of this belief--that we can no longer live according to our self-desiged and self-defined
moral categories. As the title of C.S. Lewis's "God in the Dock" implies, humanity desires to put God on
trial. But we are not the judge or the jury.
That Christians have failed morally is a testament to the wickedness of man and further proof of our
desperate condition. Atheists and agnostics decry the suffering of innocents as proof of God's non-
existence. Yet a worldview that denies humanity's unique created status as compared to other life
forms should no more mourn the loss of a child to cancer than the death of the bacteria on the sponge
in the kitchen that I just ran through the dishwasher. If the morality and eternality of the human
personality are illusions, then let us be done with it. Nietzsche's "will to power" would be the only
standard. Might and pure power, devoid of conscience, would be the only rule. But then don't cry when
the world goes mad (like Nietzsche did).
As a Christian, I believe, as John writes in Revelation, that there will be a day in the future when God
will right all wrongs and there will be no more tears. Until then, humanity has some hard lessons (and
getting harder) to learn about our own depravity and the grace of God, which is only offered through
Christ Jesus.
RE: Whole Series
Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi
05/11/2008
The parameters of scientific inquiry, discovery, exploration, and investigation do not concern the
concept of God or its existence. For science to challenge God's omnipotence or omniscience is
tantamount to refuting the credo and objective of scientific knowledge.
RE: Whole Series
Recep Budak
05/11/2008
Science makes belief in God more current. If you look over space or wherever you want on the earth,
you can see the magnitude of God. Can you see any fault in Genesis? If you look for a fault in this
universe you are going to come back tired to death. How can we not see the design at the creation?
How can we not see the very high mathematical planning in the microcosmos and macrocosmos? If
we can read the book of the universe, science amplifies belief in God.
RE: Whole Series
David Hillstrom
05/11/2008
Religious beliefs are inconsistent with contemporary scientific knowledge. Either the religious myths
need to be radically revised or they must be abandoned. Yet it is not only religious beliefs that are
anachronistic. Many secular assumptions that affect the organization of political systems are suspect
as well.
RE: Whole Series
Scott Covington
05/11/2008
The question is not "Do you believe in God?"--as if, by your belief, He exists. The question could easily
remain "How did all these miraculous things designed by God evolve in the way He wanted?" Too
many people, on both sides of this wonderful argument, propose to claim exclusivity to the answers.
One does not necessarily preclude the other. Why does proof supporting evolution or the "big bang"
automatically negate the existence of God? Why can't science explain the mysteries of how rather than
the mysteries of who? I'm equally disheartened by the number of Christians who immediately block out
the wonders and strides of science, as if the two cannot coexist. If both sides of the argument could
263
stop making the unproven claims that science precludes faith or that faith has no room for science, we
may just reach a clearer understanding and truth that neither side can fully understand or appreciate.
RE: Whole Series
J A Scott Kelso
05/10/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? The essays tend to line up on one side or the other, just as
one might expect. Why do we find it so difficult to see faith and reason as complementary? Both are
needed for a complete understanding of ourselves and the world we live in. A strong case can be
made that apparently contrary aspects like nature and nurture, mind and body, integration and
segregation, competition and cooperation, individual and collective, part and whole, reductionism and
emergentism--and yes, faith and reason--are mutually related and inextricably connected via a
remarkable unifying dynamic. This deeper truth is grounded in a new principle of how the human brain
works and in the science of coordination dynamics.
Alfred Levinson
05/10/2008
Victor Stenger gave a talk in January in Tucson, AZ on science and God. He argued that science could
explain everything about the universe and that a god was not needed. I told him that if he rejected the
need for a first cause, then he must assume that the universe has always existed in some form. I
challenged him to produce a thought experiment that would test that hypothesis. He was unable to. I
again challenge Professor Stenger to produce a thought experiment that would test his hypothesis.
Bertrand Russell failed a similar test in the 1920s.
RE: Whole Series
Lee Harrison
05/10/2008
I find this question in itself worthy of some discussion. It implies at best that the only thing that matters
about God is whether or not we believe in Him, or at worst, that God is only a man-made construct that
we can form and choose to believe in as we find convenient. If the latter is true, then, no, there
certainly is no need for this man-made God; science is a more convenient system to put your "faith" in.
If the former, then we make the same mistake as the church did in the time of Galileo, putting self-
interest ahead of the truth, whether it be in the placement of the Earth in the universe or the placement
of God in our lives. We should instead be seeking the truth about God to the extent that we are able.
If a true supernatural God exists, His nature and form are independent of whether we believe in Him or
what we think He is like. It has always seemed ludicrous to me to think that we can shape God in our
own minds or think him in and out of existence. Either He is, or He isn't. And if He is, He is likely to be
supernatural and thus beyond the ability of our "natural" science to prove or deny.
But does this make Him impossible because He can't be "proven" in the natural world? No, it doesn't--
no more than it made subatomic particles non-existent several centuries ago because the technology
was not there to discover them. They have always been there, as have all of the great scientific
principles.
If we seek the true God, we must look honestly in the way that good scientists search for truth in the
natural world, not to serve their own interests but to attempt to understand and explain how and why
things are as they are. If there is a true supernatural God, we will only be able to discover him by
evidence He has put before us in the natural world. The fact that this question is even being posed is
an excellent bit of evidence to start with.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Dryja
05/10/2008
Perhaps the expansion of scientific thought means that our conceptions of God need to be
reconsidered. It appears that the various authors have various concepts of God in mind when they
present their ideas. Is God very personally and directly involved in this world or is God the distant and
disinterested first cause? To the degree that science-based empirical rationalism dominates, a
personally involved God becomes increasingly obselete. To the degree that one has a humble
appreciation of how little is understood of the universe, space increases for some form of God.
264
Newton's comment about being like a child at the seashore who does not recogize the large sea
adjacent to him comes to mind. As I write these sentences, I am wiggling my index finger. In terms of
science, I can explain its movement in relation to brain structure, neurons, muscles, ionization waves,
hydrocarbon molecules, and sub-atomic particles. As a conscious person, I still do not understand why
my finger wiggles simply because I think I want it to do so.
RE: Whole Series
David Wilson
05/10/2008
Science has not made a skygod obsolete. Logic and reason have made a skygod unnecessary. A
skygod, an afterlife, and other such nonsense are only of use to persons who cannot cope with the
finality of death. They say to their egomaniacal selves, "I am so important that I cannot possibly come
to an end." Wouldn't it be nice if the whole question were viewed as obsolete? We could finally get on
with the problems at hand, as a free and intelligent species ought to, and make some sensible moves
toward the future without all this childish, desperate, and silly sociological baggage.
RE: Whole Series
Gene C. Sproul
05/10/2008
So far, science has been unwilling (unable) to accept any explanation which involves supernatural
causation. Religion, on the other hand, accepts supernatural causation as the only explanation. A
fundamental fact which all religions (and many secularists) reject is that all thoughts, feelings, beliefs,
etc. are the exclusive product of the physical brain; there is simply no other source.
No brain works perfectly all of the time; but most brains work well enough to permit us to be cognizant
of, and manipulate, physical reality; and many brains work well enough to manipulate others to achieve
the remarkable social/physical existence most of us enjoy. As long as so many seem to need a god(s)
figment both to manipulate social reality and to deal with it emotionally, it appears that a belief in
supernatural causation will certainly not be "obsolete."
RE: Whole Series
David Lusan
05/10/2008
I believe in God. I believe in his principles and am trying to follow them. I do not believe that scientific
knowledge will ever shake that belief, because it is based on my faith. Sometimes I think that scientists
think that faith is some kind of superstitious nonsense that will be replaced eventually by science. It will
never happen, and I am willing to bet my life on this. However, I can see how one can think so. The
church, in general, has not been a good example. On the contrary, today's church is more of a
bureaucracy than a ministry. But, to quote a song, "the lord is not the one to blame."
My faith is very personal, and it is just as powerful as scientific proof. It is based on who I am, not what
I do. It is based on spiritual values, not materialistic ones. Science has provided and will continue to
provide answers to questions. I believe in science, but it can never replace my faith. It can, however,
support and supplement it. In the long run, I do not view science and faith as polar opposites. They are
actually two sides of the same coin. So for me, this debate is sort of pointless.
RE: Whole Series
Sean Henderson
05/10/2008
Not yet. When true scientific solutions for the human condition exist, people will naturally forget about
rationalization (belief in God).
RE: Whole Series
Stan
05/10/2008
The concept of a supreme entity isn't the problem, and that entity can even be referred to as "God."
The problem is that the concept has been hijacked for reasons of favoritism and political usage. The
first debate should be on the concept of one God and whether or not that God has two subordinates,
one for Good and one for Evil, or if chaos reigns. Maybe the conclusion would be that humans don't
have the intellect to conceptualize what is running the universe.
265
RE: Whole Series
Julia S Butler
05/10/2008
Science cannot make God obsolete, because without God, there would be no science (or anything
else). I refer you to Genesis 1:1. The will of man and his ability as a "free agent" are gifts from God.
The systems that make our bodies work were not created by science. Case closed.
RE: Whole Series
Anthony Flint
05/10/2008
The Templeton Foundation is getting ahead of itself. A question to ask first might be "What would
happen if science were to prove that reincarnation was a natural process?"
Jim Soldini
05/10/2008
Christopher Hitchens points out, "Those who dare to claim to be [God's] understudies and votaries and
interpreters must either accept the cruelty and the chaos or disown it." That point is even better made
in Job. After an attitude shift, Job accepted the cruelty and the chaos. The attitude shift concerned
who's will should be done. If God is inferior to me and is my servant, then my will should be done.
When events do not serve my understanding of what's best for me, I can apply adjectives like cruel
and chaotic. If God is supreme, then events are His will, and all I can attempt is to trust and to praise
Him. This is horrific to the humanist because it cuts to the core of the issue: is His Throne His or mine?
Nevertheless, it is reality.
RE: Whole Series
Jim Soldini
05/10/2008
For science to make belief in God obsolete, one must assume that God is a human invention to
explain the unexplainable and that this explaining God is now obsolete. But the assumption is wrong;
humans are a creation of God, and God is the Author of cause and effect.
RE: Whole Series
Charles Forder
05/10/2008
The argument about the existence of God has gone on too long. It is now a waste of good intellectual
time. It is time for thinkers to examine the human situation and try to agree about basic truths about
human beings upon which to build a philosophy of the future--which may find that God is a necessary
component!
RE: Whole Series
Gordon Black
05/10/2008
The answer is "extremely unlikely." God is the life force that pervades the universe, looking for suitable
ambient conditions and raw materials to get started. God has the design for converting inanimate
elements into stuff with a structure, a metabolism, self-replication ability, and adaptive intelligence.
God then takes a back seat and lets the process rip, without having a proto-anything in mind.
This type of debate between "scienceism" and "religionism" is spurious; we should have "truthism,"
where nothing is certain but where every idea, conjecture, hypothesis, and theory can be evaluated
with a probability between 0 and 1. Thus, "the moon is made of green cheese" would be close to 0,
and "the sun is at the center of the solar system" would be close to 1.
Human ego-centricity and its remarkable self-delusion are the barrier to rational inquiry; wrongly
believing the Earth to be stationary at the center of the universe, Ptolemy invented incredible planetary
motions when the truth was intuitively obvious; wrongly believing humans to be super-special, theists
have invented incredible myths when the truth of our (highly advanced) animality is also intuitively
obvious.
Everything in God's world is as it should be, ranging from the undesirable (deadly, poisonous, biting,
stinging, parasitic, genetically malformed anti-social, psychotic organisms from bacteria to humans) to
the desirable (human spirituality with its vast variety of gregarious, altruistic, aesthetic, and creative
266
opportunities). I have had my fair share of both and can clearly see that the terms "good" and "evil" are
nonsense. My suggestion for "truthists" investigating God is to start with water, which is so much more
than the sum of its parts.
RE: Whole Series
Wayne
05/10/2008
Not at all. In fact, it seems that we have met the ghosts and angels--and they are us. Our long belief in
and fascination with the metaphysical aspect of our nature and the new revelations detailing the spirit
world of our birth and life between lives is now being confirmed by science. We are learning through
the aid of both quantum physics and regressive hypnosis that human consciousness is not the
epiphenomenon of neuronal brain interactions but emanates from a transcendent domain (spirit world)
and is the co-creator of all material reality.
Now in making this wild claim, I am neither circumventing science nor denying an ultimate Creator. I
am simply describing our current level of knowledge regarding the non-local and transcendent nature
of the quantum connectedness of primal particles through empirical science and the revelations of
discarnate soul memories of everyday people like you and me through the use of advanced techniques
of hypnotic regression. In other words, our consciousness (intelligent spiritual energy) is a
manifestation of our primary soul and the product of a transcendent reality.
Human testimony from recalled memories (albeit from a discarnate state of being) and empirical
science are now on the same page regarding the existence of the soul (our conscious energy), which
is transcendent and separate from the physical body. The vast majority of scientists are materialists
and, despite the indisputable transcendent nature of quantum objects, still believe we live in a closed
system of reality and could not possibly have any interaction with some other reality/domain. This
would somehow violate the sacredness of our understanding (natural laws) that all things are in a
constant flux between matter (quantifiable materiality) and energy, and that nothing can be added to
and nothing can be taken away from what is already here, thus precluding any exchange with some
other domain of being. But there is a small but growing new cadre of scientists who call themselves
Monistic Idealists (as opposed to Dualistic Materialists). This is a fancy name for those who now
believe that consciousness is the ground of all being rather than that all things are a product of random
molecular conglomerations.
RE: Steven Pinker
Lennart Svensson
05/10/2008
How can you even begin to compare God with science? Science has to have evidence and proof, but
God is based on faith and faith alone. If man could prove God's existence scientifically, faith would
immediately become obsolete. The Bible, being the source of man's Godly wisdom, has been proved
true by archeologists and prophetically. The only way that man can test the remaining spiritual facet is
by faith, and I do believe that enough men have gone before us and tested it sufficiently for us to say "it
works--God does exist." I also find it interesting that our learned friends in the theoretical sciences
readily discount the existence of God, by quoting Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, etc., but those in the
advanced physical sciences have seen the created wonders in detail and generally believe in God. My
view is that the biblical account of creation is accurate if somewhat unfortunately condensed in the first
chapters of Genesis.
Chris Mankins
05/10/2008
In history, almost all of the great minds in science have had the humility to acknowledge a higher
power. It is only relatively recently that it has become such a dogma among scientists to forbid any
dissent about the total rejection of God. Entropy is a law of nature concerning how systems decay and
break down, leading to inevitable disorganization in the universe. Yet it is believable to atheists, who
ridicule believers for their naivete, to accept that accidents in nature lead to increasingly complex and
organized genetic material. The only religious feeling driving the debate about evolution is atheism.
Believers know God can do anything, even evolution, but Darwinists need evolution to be true or else
they have no explanation for their beliefs.
267
RE: Whole Series
Bob Fisher
05/09/2008
For those who have taken the trouble to study the question critically--in depth, with an open mind, and
with sufficient intelligence to understand the arguments--any faith in the supernatural will be dispersed
to the realm of "unlikely." But life has always had a tendency to remove such people from the gene
pool because they are overly curious (or if you like, insufficiently conservative), leaving them as a
minority in a sea of genetically successful conservatives, who don't push the limits or question too
much what they are taught and told. These less-curious conservatives also prefer comfort to truth, and
so they choose to believe what feels best. The quote (from somewhere) is that if religion didn't exist,
people would invent it.
As life proceeds, diversity increases. Religion isn't going to go away, but it will fragment and diversify
into all manner of esoteric beliefs, some having little to do with a conventional God, who is typically a
pseudo-father figure.
RE: Whole Series
Herb Smith
05/09/2008
The question is absurd on its face. Science is an examination of the attributes of God and therefore
presents the face that man is capable of discerning. God is infinite and man is finite, so man cannot
comprehend God exactly.
God needs no proof, but science proves God. Science informs man of the intricacies of nature, the age
and development of the earth, and the probable cause and development of man through evolution, and
it theorizes about many aspects of life we cannot directly discern or explain. But one fact is clear:
science cannot explain why nature is so well organized, so absolutely logical, so magnificantly
intricate, and so patently inexplicable in the final analysis.
God exists because my soul exists, and my soul exists because God breathed the breath of life into
Adam. That breath was the immortal soul, comprised of boundless energy and destined to commune
with God forever, unless of course, the user of that soul prefers Satan. However, God is merciful to
those who seek Him. It is quite simple to "find" God: apologize for sin and be forgiven. Those who are
ambivalent, qualifying their comments by sophistry, have a problem: they don't know God. How can
one who does not know God argue God's non-existence or His possibility? It's illogical! God is real and
science proves his reality every day. Otherwise, why does science exist?
RE: Whole Series
Rick
05/09/2008
Of course it does. Science is the process of using reason, data, and logic to find relationships and
causality for observed phenomena. Religion was an earlier approach based on myth, superstition, and
the desire of those in power to keep people oppressed. Religion is (and should be) on the way to
extinction.
RE: Whole Series
Hsien Hong Lin (Joe)
05/09/2008
No, it does not. Scientific knowledge is one of our weapons to manage the world and the universal,
and scientific development seems to make human beings be like God. But don't forget that evil is also
one authority in control of scientific knowledge. Without a true understanding of God, science makes
belief in God obsolete; with a full experience of God, belief makes science God's gift to men or God's
work for people.
RE: Whole Series
Scott Benjamin
05/09/2008
Regrettably, no, as evinced by the puzzling existence of scientists of faith. Clearly, science often finds
itself incapable of overcoming years of childhood conditioning and cultural influence. Science does,
however, suggest that better (i.e., more rational) explanations exist for the as-yet-unknown, while
providing a rigorous methodology for pursuing those explanations.
268
Interestingly, organized religion has become quite adept at asserting the existence of God through
arguments couched in scientific-sounding rhetoric (witness Cardinal Sch�nborn's liberal use of
scientific and philosophical jargon) and relies increasingly on pointing out the failings of science--for
example, that science cannot instill atoms with "meaning" (which, of course, presupposes a
fundamental requirement for an atom to have meaning). But this is where the paths of science and
religion diverge, and purposefully so. Religion's clear agenda (as manifest in the construct of an all-
knowing deity) is to supply meaning, whatever the cost in terms of rationality. Whatever shortcomings
it may have, science seeks only truth.
RE: Whole Series
Diana Fredrich
05/09/2008
Belief in god--or unicorns or leprechans--doesn't need science to disprove it. It simply has NO basis in
reality, period. Some organizations compare religion with science, and that is a false association, a
way to make religion seem more viable. The comment that you normally hear--that religion must be
"hard-wired" into the human brain--is just wrong. There are many people who lead very meaningful
and satisfying lives without the least need for religion.
Science is not the killer of religion, but critical thinking is. Isn't it obvious that it just so happens that the
things that religion and belief in god address are the very things that humans fear--death, loss of loved
ones, coping with adversity? With all the horrors that occur in the world every day to innocent people,
isn't it obvious that there is no benevolent being concerned with human suffering? As for religion's
answering deep questions of "why we are here," remember that for millions of years, we were not here.
We are here because our planet happens to grow our particular type of life-form. We need to let go of
this diversion of religion--we have too many real problems to address. Many people in this world have
a very sub-standard, low quality of existence. The money, energy, and resources that go toward
religion could go to a much better use.
RE: Whole Series
Todd Bacon
05/09/2008
Thank you for this collection, which represents a diverse spectrum of the relationship between faith
and science.
RE: Whole Series
Karen Hedwig Backman
05/09/2008
It is an unsatisfactory question. How does one define God? Does one use scientific terms? If so, the
question might be useful. But God is not defined by science. Science measures what is real, what is
there. God is a concept of mind. God is not measurable. God cannot be viewed through a telescope or
a microscope. The question is meaningless.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Ryan
05/09/2008
Millie Mukh makes a good point on May 8: "Being a scientist made my faith stronger, as every day I
realize that the deeper we delve, the less we realize we know. . . . What science does is to explore and
unravel what is already existing in nature." This is a good point: real science takes what we see and
investigates it, empirically. But there is fake science. As Colin Patterson (Sr Paleontologist, Brit
Museum Natural Hist) stated, "stories about how one thing came from another are stories easy enough
to tell--but they are not science." It is only when the dogma of story-telling found among some
promoters of Darwinism are mixed in, as if they were true science, that a question about "God vs
science" even surfaces.
RE: Whole Series
David Bross
05/09/2008
I enjoyed reading the postings by Adam Scott and Anne Nocher. Their mature, thoughtful postings
encourage us all and allow us to move forward together, even if we don't agree on everything. Thank
you both.
269
RE: Whole Series
Jasna Gruden
05/09/2008
Forgive me, writing German: Niemand soll Religion obsolet machen! Die bleibt jedem einzelnen
Menschen �berlassen. Man d�rfte niemanden f�r seine Denkweise ver-, ab-, urteilen. Leider, gibt es
psychopathen unter Menschen, die denken, sie h�tten das Recht wegen anderer denkweisen und
religion sogar andere zu executieren. Diese muss man verunm�glichen, nicht den Got beweisen oder
negieren. Wissenschaft soll der Wissens--verbreitung durch plausible argumente dienen,nicht um die
Religion in Gott obsolet zu machen. Wie gesagt: jeder kann glauben nur nicht in Namen des Glaubens
t�ten! Das muss obsolet werden!
RE: Steven Pinker
Chris Mankins
05/09/2008
The dogmatists in this argument are the scientists who step outside the realm of science and make
statements that do not pertain to science. A priest has just as much business arguing with a physicist
about laws of relativity. The scientists denying God are the close-minded ones. Men like Richard
Dawkins are willing to accept zany, bizarre notions of interplanetary beings "programming" DNA, but
they deny God. It's stupid, really, because where did the interplanetary beings come from? Atheists
need science to explain everything, to support their beliefs. Christians do not care how the science
turns out. It is obvious, even to a modest lay person, that our origins and the complexity of the universe
will never suddenly "stop" with one great discovery. The more we know, the more complex the picture,
the smaller the pieces, the more irrational it becomes to think that anything in the origins of life and the
universe occurred by chance.
RE: Whole Series
Duane Harris
05/09/2008
I say "no." Science cannot possibly make belief in God obsolete. Belief in God is based on faith, not
scientific facts. If there is no God, then why is God the greatest belief and occupation of billions of
humans in every generation? Science is limited to the physical realm. Trying to use our earthly science
to prove the existence of God is like using a yard stick to measure the universe.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas
05/08/2008
"Where did the first 'something' come from?" If your answer to this question is God, doesn't it
automatically shift the question to "Where did God come from?" Does a Christian ever get tired of
shooting himself in the foot with the "first cause" argument?
Thomas
05/08/2008
What ordered universe? What intelligent design? We live in a universe filled with collapsing galaxies,
half-formed sun systems, black holes that suck up everything, meteors and comets that crash into
planets--and here we are trapped on this tiny island called earth, which can just barely support life.
Ninety-eight percent of all species that evolve go extinct, the human species will certainly go extinct in
another million years, in 500 million years our galaxy will crash into a neighboring galaxy, ending the
Milky Way and sending the earth into some distant dark corner of the new-formed galaxy.
What design? Where? It's more chaos than design. Who are you kidding?
RE: Whole Series
Adam Scott
05/08/2008
If life is God's creation and science is the study of life, simple logic would indicate that science is really
the study of God's creation. So does science make God obsolete? The answer is very clear.
RE: Whole Series
Anne Nocher
05/08/2008
I want to know why we continue to think that God and science must be mutually exclusive. Science
270
only continues to prove to us how deeply we need mystery and how active mystery is in science. The
broad scope of science and its continual revelations about our world prove to me that God is actively,
eternally at work in our lives. Science and God will continue their marvelous revelations and, I hope,
never truly exclude each other.
RE: Whole Series
Rev. Robin
05/08/2008
The question makes too many assumptions. A more appropriate question might be, "Does science
make religion obsolete?"--although I find interesting similarities between the two.
RE: Whole Series
Russell H. Krauss
05/08/2008
Has no one ever wondered what we will be like in a thousand, ten thousand, a million, even a billion
years from now? Do we really think 500 million years from now, if we haven't eradicated ourselves,
that we'll still be going grocery shopping, pumping gas, living 75 years in our painful bodies? Has no
one ever read Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End"? Is it not likely that we will evolve, by our own
efforts, into spiritual beings, and that many who have come before us have already done so, that we
will join a community of alien intelligences, the whole sum of which is what we intuit as God? In other
words, just as man created the silly biblical god, and the more sophisticated versions afterwards, is it
not likely that if there is a real god, that it is the creation of the lower, biological entities on other worlds
that evolved to our level, or higher?
RE: Steven Pinker
Kirk Cornwell
05/08/2008
Prof. Pinker's admirable credentials fail to mask his inability to differentiate between knowledge and
wisdom. The brain performs many functions to enable and protect the body (and the species), but it is
not the mind. I suggest a simple experiment for locating one's own thoughts--many of us will point to a
spot OVER our heads and be correct. Evolution is real but does nothing to disprove the reality of God,
while "neuroscience" and suspicions of intelligent design only give us an inkling into the complexity of
the creator. Morality, or the lack of it, simply points to the level of one's understanding of cause and
effect. The Buddhist teacher Asanga asked "What is the absence of illusion? It is the knowledge of the
results of actions." Experience can teach us, or we can learn the lessons of others' success and failure
in ethics, psychology, criminal justice, economics, and the science we love so much.
RE: Whole Series
Mr. Raymond Kenneth Petry
05/08/2008
Science and belief are human footsteps out of error proceeding together, though the left foot does not
know what the right foot is doing. To argue whether you can proceed one-foot vs. two-feet is pedantic,
nonsensical talk: Keep your feet from running to the troubled sides, Mr. Believer, Ms. Scientist. A little
belief is as dangerous as a little science. Even if one wins a battle over the other, the telling of the lie
destroys both.
RE: Whole Series
Mitch McGill
05/08/2008
Those who profess atheism as a scientific conviction commit a major transgression in logic. They say
that because astronomy and physics have explained the origin of our universe, and biology and
chemistry the origin of life, we must conclude that God is a myth. This is incorrect. Science drops us off
at agnosticism. It shows us that God is unnecessary, but it cannot (by its very nature!) show us
whether or not a God exists. By definition, physical explanations say nothing about inherently
nonphysical things (including whether or not they exist). Any statement about the supernatural beyond
agnosticism, whether negative or affirmative, requires a blind leap of faith on our part. Atheist or
theist--it is all faith. I say this as a PhD student in cell biology.
RE: Whole Series
Rev. Christopher "Kit" Wilke
05/08/2008
The conflict of science and religion exists where our view of religion and God is too small. In the West,
271
the awesome Hebrew God, beyond any description or definition, was translated through the metaphor
of God as a loving father into a Greek culture quite comfortable with visual representation of God in
human form. The irony and power of calling the infinite and unimaginable "Daddy," which was
shocking for Jews, was lost as God became an image: male, old, and no matter how big, localized in a
place called heaven, a place science cannot find.
However comforting our picture of a grandfatherly God may be, it is idolatry and ultimately destructive
to the ongoing purpose of religion. For religion is and has always been the struggle to organize into
useful patterns in our brain the inexplicable chaos which surrounds, assaults, and exceeds our senses.
God is not a "Heavenly Father" somewhere in space. God is the awesome unknowable that encircles
and engulfs all existence out of which we all struggle to paint, in our evolving bodies and our
deepening minds, a picture useful and reliable enough to increase the likelihood of our survival. From
bacteria to brain, from photosensitive skin to eye, from herd to community, language, culture, and
science, it is all part of the process of organizing the chaos to survive.
For humanoid and human it began with awe and deepened, through the veneration of ancestors
whose concepts and mores helped us organize our own experience for survival. It continued through
the exercise in trust we call faith, the courage to look directly at the awesome unknown rather than
mask it in lies or run from it in terror. Science itself began in the cradle of religion. It is born in grace: a
belief in the usefulness of failure, honest confession, re-examination, and new discovery. God will
continue to exist if our picture of God is large enough to encompass the chaos and intimate enough to
give us the courage to explore.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Reeves
05/08/2008
This question misses an underlying principle--the principle of trust or faith. The question behind "Does
science make belief in God obsolete?" is "Where do you put your trust (faith), in God or in a god?"
Science can be a god or a religion. Conversely, a religion can be a god. God is God no matter what
our wee minds think or come up with. We all have a decision continually to put our trust (faith) in God
or into some idea. The consequences of these decisions are eternal. Which brings up another
question, "How do you know that you are making the right choice in your faith?"
Nan Owolowo
05/08/2008
If natural selection explains the current complexity prevalent in higher organisms, why is it that fossils
of intermediary species have not been discovered? The fact is that to date, and please correct me if
I'm wrong, there has been no conclusive evidence proving that new species, with entirely different
genetic materials, have evolved from older species. Darwinian evolution would have us "believe,"
without concrete evidence, that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms. Natural selection
for adaptive purposes and preservation is logical. But to suggest billions of years from now (if we have
that long) humans will somehow evolve into an entirely different creature is absurd!
Tricia Griffin
05/08/2008
I am interested in Cardinal Schonborn's statement about an "Intelligence behind the universe." This
presumes that there is such a thing as "outside" the Universe and that living in that "outside" is some
all-knowing being who can be located in space-time and who is busy creating all this stuff we see
around us. Here we are, looking for evidence of an "Intelligence behind the universe" through science
and religion, and we haven't succeeded. But what if, all this time, we have been looking right at
it/him/her? What if the Universe itself is sentient, and we are merely elements within it? Are we looking
for God in all the wrong places? Or are we finding God everywhere we look and just can't imagine it
could be so mundane?
Ed Feely
05/08/2008
Where did the first "something" come from? Isn't nothing the opposite of something? Aren't negative
and positive "something"?
272
RE: Whole Series
Darryl Turner
05/08/2008
The art of science will never become strong enough to make belief in God obsolete, because God
himself will not let it do so. Science is His creation just as everything else is. To have belief you must
have unbelief, and science is that unbelief. Science is not bad, but the pride of men leads them to say
"Look what I have found--this is not God." It is pride, the "I" and "me," that causes them to say there is
no God. In my own life, I see things that point me directly to a God, a Creator, a Heavenly Father, and I
will put the proof of this up against any scientist. Why are Christopher Hitchens and Michael Shermer
so bitter?
RE: Whole Series
Johnny
05/08/2008
I saw a comment that said: "I can only hope for the day that science obliterates all of this fairy-tale
mysticism. It's high time the world woke up from its childhood dreams and began to look at things
objectively." What a sad world that would be. I hope to never live in a world without imagination. It
would be very gray and boring. Many of the great scientists and inventors that you study and praise
were deemed to be ignorant dreamers with their heads in the clouds. Yet somehow, in spite of all the
reasoning, logic, and doubting of their world, they were able to take chances and make discoveries.
One spark of genius can lead a person to create a light-bulb, find a cure for a disease, or take flight.
Yes, there are very scientific explanations for how these things were accomplished. Yet all the
objective reasoning in the world does not take the place of inspiration. A perfectly objective scientific
world would have no room for the Michelangelo's or Van Gogh's or a plethora of other artists we
celebrate. You all have valid arguments, but I'm sorry: faith doesn't make me weak, it makes me
complete.
RE: Whole Series
John Lamont
05/08/2008
I think you should rephrase the question to say "Does science make belief in the tooth tairy obsolete?"
By doing this we can eliminate the opinions of people who have a vested emotional interest in
believing whatever they want regardless of its verifiability.
RE: Whole Series
Carlos Mojica
05/08/2008
The Templeton Foundation asks: "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" The question as
formulated is almost too broad. A better question would be: "Does science make the concept of god
obsolete?" The answer to this one is a resounding yes. It is well known that humans have created all
sorts of gods since we dwelled in caves. Before we knew about evaporation and condensation, there
was the god of rain, which people thought could be favorably manipulated in times of drought by
special dances. Before we knew about geologic plate tectonics, we had the god of the volcano, which
lived on some mountain that blew up on seemingly random occasions. Humans have worshipped gods
and goddesses that have dealt with the moon, the sun, the oceans, love and sex-- pretty much
everything. These deities have served as explanations for things humans did not understand, and
have covered the complete span of human concerns, from natural phenomena like the weather to
metaphysical questions about life, our role in the universe, and what happens after we die.
To answer specific questions about measurable phenomena, humans have developed the physical
sciences. However, none of these old gods came to us in revelation or from holy books. We invented
them, and science has shown us that they offer poor explanations for nature; they fulfill no need. Ergo,
we say they do not exist. So, in a very real sense, advances in science have made belief in these gods
obsolete. What remains are gods that deal with metaphysical questions.
How do I derive a moral code of behavior? Why am I here? Why do I have to endure this life full of
suffering? What happens after I die? Many of these questions cannot be answered by hard data and
experimentation. These questions belong to philosophy, logic, common sense. And here is where the
current concepts of god make their grand entrance.
Christian dogma, for example, offers explanations for all these metaphysical questions (and, some
273
argue, for physical ones as well). Jesus offers us an example of a moral code of behavior: we are here
to repent our sins and as a trial to see if we are worthy to go to celestial Heaven; after I die, if I believed
in Jesus, I'll go to Heaven. However, given our natural propensity to create gods whenever confronted
with a difficult problem, I do not think it is a big stretch to conclude that all gods, past and present, are
figments of our imagination. Humans can indeed derive secular moral codes, we can give our lives
meaning without the need for celestial ordainment. Religion indeed is, to paraphrase Spinoza, an
asylum of ignorance.
Tim Bates
05/08/2008
Thank you, Cardinal, for the eloquent explanation for the existence of a Creator in our ordered
universe. Though not a man of science, I subscribe to another great man's statement that "The fool
has said in his heart 'There is no God.'" I believe there is no excuse for the great minds of science not
mining the depths of our natural world. However, the more that is discovered, the more complex and
ordered our natural world appears to be. This leads me to a reasoned faith that God created and gave
order to our world and beyond.
RE: Whole Series
Scott L Costello
05/08/2008
If belief in God is for the purpose of developing new technologies, then science does make the belief in
God mostly if not entirely obsolete. But it seems we have stopped using God to advance technology
and now use God as a way to cope with suffering, deal with death and dying, and find happiness. We
use "the word of God" to help guide us in relationships or other decisions. The question that is
presented here seems to be comparing apples to oranges.
Alan McPeak
05/08/2008
Bravo. No one will ever prove or disprove God. The only defensible position is agnostisism. Of course,
you are free to believe what you will; just please don't try to foist it on everyone else. Deism indeed.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Peter A Smith
05/08/2008
Kenneth Miller wrote: "Why, then, should we declare faith a 'delusion' because belief in God is subject
to exactly the same failings?" We can do so because scientific knowledge requires theories to be
tested and, if found false, discarded. Religion does not allow similar testing, so you are not comparing
like to like. Science cannot disprove God's existence, of course, but it equally cannot disprove the
existence of the tooth fairy and the invisible pink unicorn or any other myth man may dream up.
RE: Whole Series
Lee Murtha
05/08/2008
Yes and no: Beliefs are referenced by, and involved with, a different part of the brain than is critical
thinking and science. (But note that many scientists also form belief systems about their work!) Beliefs
tend to hamper people from thinking critically. Some people are more prone to using the belief areas of
the brain. Perhaps it is due to cultural imprinting in one's early life.
RE: Whole Series
Millie Mukh
05/08/2008
I have a Ph.D in molecular genetics and am a strong believer in God. Being a scientist made my faith
stronger, as every day I realize that the deeper we delve, the less we realize we know. Science still
cannot explain the origin of life, consciousness, and free will, and has no control over nature or death.
What science does is to explore and unravel what is already existing in nature. We scientists struggle
to find a cure for one disease, and thousands more emerge the next second. Can science control or
stop natural disasters, make a human immortal, or explain consciousness? Moreover, as a scientist, I
know that every creation requires energy, so to me a supersoul or superconsciousness is meaningful
when it comes to thinking about the vastness of the universe, which we can hardly fathom.
274
RE: Whole Series
Susan von Borstel
05/08/2008
Wouldn't it be useful to outline these great thoughts so the busy, average person could share their
relevations?
RE: Whole Series
Drew Druncan
05/08/2008
It's the wrong question. Why must science take a beating here? Science, at its core, is the use of
observation and memory, not the opposite of religion. Can it be that the maturation of human beings
makes religion obsolete in an action unrelated to science? Religion is and has always been social
software that acts to help the wild, simple, and fearful among us interact with less violence and chaos.
As we grow, we no longer need an invisible parent figure that we falsely believe will protect us. We
learn to face reality. We can behave appropriately without the threat of an all-seeing judge scoring our
actions. What we still need is philosophy. We need personally held beliefs that remind us to look
beyond ourselves, to keep hope as an intellectual choice, and to accept death as inevitable and
natural. These ideas require no mascot.
RE: Whole Series
J. Edward Moran
05/08/2008
It seems absurd to believe that science in the end can and does prove that God is either obsolete or
non-existent. Science has done a wonderful job at explaining and defining who we are, what we are
made of, and the environment we live in. In fact, I believe that science will continue to do just that in
the future: deliver to us a methodical, logical, and reasonable understanding of who and what we are.
At some point, by looking deeper into matter, there will come a time when science will find an end.
What I mean by this is that, at one time, an atom was thought to be the smallest particle. We know
today that this is not true, and just as today there are theories of ever smaller particles, it seems clear
that science will find them. What is not clear and what is not logical is that there are infinitely smaller
and smaller particles. There will be an end, and it is at this end that the existence of God will seem
clear, as there will need to be an explanation of how this smallest building block of existence was
formed. This does not contradict science but in essence relies on science to find that end which will
become the proof of God.
In this discussion of science and God, I find it interesting to see the discussion sway into a discussion
of religion, as seen in many posts. The discussion of a higher power should not be rooted in a
discussion of religion, as the use of Bible verses and religious beliefs to prove or disprove God is
circular in nature and has no end. One cannot use the Bible to try to disprove the existence of God, as
the one trying to do so does not believe that it is inspired writings. Nor can one use the Bible to prove
there is a God, because the person they are trying to convince does not believe it is inspired writings.
I also find it interesting to note that by using logic, as in science, there must be two sides to any
argument. For those that say, "Show me scientific proof there is a God," I would like to say, "Show me
scientific proof there is no God." My current inability to show you proof there is a God is only matched
by your current inability to show me there is no God. When science can show me that God does not
exist, I will believe it to be so.
RE: Whole Series
Jo Gibbs
05/08/2008
Yes. If the Bible is the word of God, it is fundamentally flawed. But, of course, it is the work of men,
men with ancient beliefs that were fundamentally flawed. It is so hard for us egocentric humans to
wrap our minds around the idea that we are an abberation of natural forces on a speck of matter on the
edge of an average galaxy. We are not the center point, as a Supreme Being might have placed us
had he been making us "in his own image." We had better take care of what we have.
RE: Whole Series
Jean Clelland-Morin
05/08/2008
275
Belief in a god comes from two basic emotions: fear of death and needing answers to the possibly
unanswerable. If a religious belief helps one to cope, that's O.K. with me. I just strenuously object to
the religious who feel they have all the answers and that I must think as they do and follow their rules.
RE: Whole Series
Ron Cooper
05/08/2008
If "God" means the solipsistic notion held by so many believers of an anthropomorphic
creator/controller of the universe, then I find that idea incoherent and certainly obsolete. A belief in a
deity truly consistent with science must be radically different from the rank-and-file monotheist's view,
and most believers would hardly recognize it.
Peter A Smith
05/08/2008
I disagree with Phillips's contention that "a scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a
scientific matter." Everything is a scientific matter. We may not know the answer to a particular
question, but we do know there is an answer. That answer to date has never included divine
intervention, and there is no reason to suppose it will in the future. You are a believer who happens to
work as a scientist. That is not the same thing as a scientist who is religious.
RE: Whole Series
David Bross
05/08/2008
Science doesn't make belief in God obsolete. God is whatever it is that is responsible for the existence
of the universe. Science is the tool we use to learn about the universe. For me, the person who says
science proves there is no God is as misguided as the faithful follower who says science is the enemy
of God. In both cases, they are confusing religion with God.
In any debate, whoever is most successful at defining the terms of the debate often wins. Religion has
done an excellent job of framing the debate so that disagreement with religion is seen as denying the
existence of God. I see things more clearly when I separate God from religion. I believe there is an
intelligence behind the existence of the universe. The fact that there is such order in something as
large as the universe tells me the universe is not a random occurrence.
What our relationship is with that intelligence, I do not know. At this point I don't think God is any more
aware of our existence than we are of individual cells in our bodies. However, I believe that one of the
strongest arguments supporting an active relationship with God is the fact that we have not yet found
evidence of life elsewhere in the universe. Maybe we are something unique. I just don't know. At this
point I think I have a better chance of learning about God by continuing to look and wonder.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Ryan
05/08/2008
Michael Kniffen in his March 7 post below makes a good point about the "universe coming from
nothing." This is something cosmologists accept today that is tantamount to a theological argument.
For they say not only that it "comes from nothing" in a "God said and IT WAS" kinda way but that in
about three minutes it zoomed out faster than light to a distance of over 130 billion light years. That
would be the entire universe moving "faster than the speed of light." How can one NOT believe in God
after that kind of confession from cosmologists?
RE: Whole Series
Frank Hernandez
05/08/2008
As Chapman Cohen observed, "Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a
dose of common sense." Yes, science DOES make belief in God obsolete. The problem is the number
of people who lack belief in science or are not educated enough--they keep the myth of God going.
God is basically an insurance policy, a "just in case" because of man's fear of death and the unknown.
It is the duty of science to unveil these unknowns through research and to bring enlightenment to the
masses.
276
RE: Whole Series
Antonio
05/08/2008
It was obsolete at its conception, before science was even an idea.
RE: Whole Series
Marilyn Melzian
05/08/2008
No, unless one is speaking of the god invented by philosophers and scientists themselves during the
Enlightenment. They rejected all religious teaching about God in the belief that they could know God
by reason alone, and thus conceived of God as first cause or prime mover, which made their god a
part of the universe, supposedly discoverable by reason. At the same time they tended to insert that
god as the cause of things they could not explain (the "god of the gaps" to which Schonborn alludes).
That philosophical move put Western culture on the wrong track altogether, because it led to a
situation in which it is still assumed by many (in this discussion, for example) that the reason for faith in
God is primarily to explain the way the world works. But the centrality of the question of origins only
comes in the modern era, with the rejection of the wider theology of the church.
Contrary to Pinker's argument, belief in God, at least the God of Abraham and Isaac, the God revealed
in Jesus Christ, did not originate as an explanation of origins. In Jewish and Christian scriptures, God
is first encountered as one who saves, and as one who addresses the question, How should we live?
The earliest traditions in the Bible deal with deliverance and accountability, and science has in no way
diminished the relevance of those concerns. It is true that those scriptures speak of God as Creator,
but as a backdrop to the more important issues of our relationship to God in love and obedience and
our relationship to others in love and in service.
Ray Kynion
05/07/2008
I agree with Mr. Hitchens. Being an atheist myself, I can only hope for the day that science obliterates
all of this fairy-tale mysticism. It's high time the world woke up from its childhood dreams and began to
look at things objectively. The so-called scientists that have accepted the Templeton Prize are, in my
opinion, sell-outs--poor scientists in need of a quick buck.
Michael Kniffen
05/07/2008
The universe could have come from nothing? Logical error. Please explain "something coming from
nothing." I thought science meant coherent knowledge. Please help me understand how reality was
nothing at one point, no space or matter, and then at one point in "time" just popped into existence.
Science? You don't really believe there was a time when there was nothing, because you believe there
was chaos, some matter that is eternal. "Extrapolating what we know from modern cosmology back to
the earliest definable moment, we find that the universe began in a state of maximum disorder." OK,
order from disorder--fine. But the question is not how did existence that was in disorder come to be in
order--that is simply change. The question is, Does science make belief in God obsolete? If you wish
to debate how the older matter changed into the universe, that is a different topic. You cannot start with
nothing--absolutely nothing--and explain universes popping into being. Out of nothing nothing comes.
Did someone skip science 101?
Hal Cohen
05/07/2008
Science is about things we can learn and prove and know. Even if the feats of the bible could be
conclusively proven on a scientific basis, I could accept it and still believe in a Supreme Being.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Ryan
05/07/2008
Perhaps it helps to break this down into it's component parts. 1. What is the difference between
Darwinian tenets of faith and actual science? How do the famous junk-science frauds of Darwinism
distinguish it from true sciences, such as mathematics and physics, chemistry, biology, etc.? 2. If
Darwinian evolutionism's untested, untestable stories are excluded from the general term "science,"
277
then does "science" in any way negate faith in God? 3. Are the conclusions of Dawkins, Provine,
Huxley, Darwin AND also many Bible-believing Christians correct when they all agree that Darwinian
doctrines regarding a naturalistic story for the origin of all species today is completely incompatible
with a most-apparent and direct reading of the Bible's statement on origins? In my view regarding
question 3, the Darwinists and the Christians are correct.
RE: Whole Series
Wayne Charles Wood
05/07/2008
The universal intelligence is the adhesive that is bonding the strings together.
RE: Whole Series
Henry Horner
05/07/2008
God is and always has been obsolete. God is a human creation--and did not, as we are expected to
believe, create the human race. Call me an atheist if you wish. I simply cannot accept the utterly
ridiculous premise that a Godly being created the magnificent universe we see through the telescope,
much less the even greater absurdity that, were such a miraculous being to exist, he'd single out
humanity for his special attention.
Common sense would tell a rational person the mindpower to envision and create a universe would
take far more than a simplistic godly being. A power able to visualize every minute detail in quadrillion
stars, non-stellar objects, planets, moonlets, etc. would be a super computer rivalling the physical size
of a red giant star.
Add to that the lunacy of a god telling us we collectively have inerited a portion of original sin, to be
expiated through the rite of baptism, etc., that a newborn infant would suffer eternal damnation were it
to die sans baptism--gimme a break, as John Stossel would say. Sorry friends, but religion is but an
outgrowth of primitive superstition.
I must look at this site and see the other ideas. I found out about this site by accident, and it should be
most interesting to visit from time to time.
RE: Whole Series
Steven Long
05/07/2008
I am curious to know the thoughts of the contributors on the subject of our release from these earthly
bonds. What is "life everlasting"? What do they think they will be doing ? Will their atoms become a
part of some cosmic stream? What do they expect, since no one can really know.
RE: Whole Series
Bob MacNeal
05/07/2008
Science does not make a belief in God obsolete. The intellectual rigor required to have an
understanding of science renders the mythology spawned from the literal interpretation of sacred texts
like the Koran or the bible logically implausible, if not somewhat irrelevant to intelligent discourse. The
more we learn in science, the more there is to learn. Recognizing how things unfold in scientific
discovery, experiencing the sublime presence of complexity and simplicity, and pondering our own
genesis from the most primitive life make us feel small and make some of us sense something larger
than life, something that could be called, for lack of a better term, God. The pursuit of science is in a
sense the incremental pursuit of the ultimate unknown, which to some could be God, but who knows?
RE: Whole Series
Debra Moore
05/07/2008
Everything that science proves helps to prove the existence of God. Science and religion are not
enemies.
RE: Michael Shermer
Joe Heer
05/07/2008
Shermer says: "Any sufficiently advanced Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence would be indistinguishable from
278
God," because "a sufficiently advanced ETI could even create a universe" and if "we did not know the
underlying science and technology, we would call it God."
Several of my favorite scriptures address this very subject: "I am the Lord thy God, I am more
intelligent than . . . all [other intelligences]"; "the Lord [saw] the intelligences that were organized before
the world was";"one among them . . . was like unto God, and he said to those who were with him: We
will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth
whereon these [other intelligences] may dwell." ([] = my editing)
In other words, a sufficiently advanced pre-Terrestrial Intelligence (God) did exactly what Shermer
suggests and created "a universe, stars, planets, and life." The key question is not whether such
advanced intelligences exist--even anti-God activist Richard Dawkins has conceded the possibility--but
how we interact with those intelligences. It is foolish to assume that there are no interactions just
because we can't measure them. Our inability to explain dark matter and energy, the mysteries of
quantum coherence ("spooky actions at a distance"), and even the more concrete experiments on the
measurable medical effects of prayer, clearly demonstrate that there are many interactions in our
universe, including fundamental laws of nature, that we don't really understand at all.
Shermer claims that advancing science makes God "obsolete" because we can get to the point where
we understand the "science and technology" that a God-like being uses to accomplish its purposes. As
a both a highly religious person and a lab-based scientist, I find myself seeking exactly that knowledge
for different reasons: I want to gain the knowledge and understanding that God has so that I can grow
to be like him and participate more fully in the wonderful work of creation that I am a part of. Perhaps
someday I will find the term "God" obsolete, but only because I have replaced it with something more
close and personal, like "Father" or "Friend."
RE: Whole Series
Lisa G. Leming
05/07/2008
In Eastern cultures, the Middle Path is prized above all else, that is, the avoidance of pitfalls of
extremes of either material or spiritual egotism. The proof of God (like love) is subject to each
individual's experience or criteria. In some of the less structured Eastern paths, as well as the higher
and more abstract branches of Islam and Christianity (Sufism, Christian Mysticism, etc.), faith is more
of an open-heartedness and experiencing God as your own Self as well as your environment (other
persons as well as non-human beings). So it is in our best interest (as in the "selfish gene") to treat
others kindly and respectfully when we realize that they have no existence apart from us. All things are
connected, as it were.
This "realization" is the goal of the serious seeker. I Am God or We are God, which is pretty much the
ultimate step in taking complete responsibility for one's own predicament (as well as the world's). In an
ideal world of realized souls, everyone would see the benefit of kindness and compassion to all.
What goes up must come down (or back to you) is a physical and spiritual law, like gravity. This rule or
law can also be found in religions and is a recognized fact of both the natural and the spiritual worlds.
In fact, quantum physics in the last few years has come closer to the ancient metaphysics than
anything else, recognizing the nature of the universe (thought), the flexibility of time/space (time slows
down and speeds up in space), as well as the artificial nature of "matter" and "energy." In short, if you
realize that matter and energy are all made of the same stuff (thought), then you can walk on water.
Richard Dawkins is a biologist but also a fundamentalist in that he does not really look beyond his
particular field (material science, chemical reaction, biology) or even delve deeply into metaphysics or
phenomena, preferring to explore (very superficially) the last few hundred years of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. This is neither a spiritual quest nor a scientific inquiry. Extreme science and
secularism is just as diabolically flawed (pointless vivisection, anti-religious communism, materialism,
capitalism, genetic manipulation, lethal weapons) as the well-documented crimes of organized religion.
Gregory Konakis
05/07/2008
Phillips writes: "A scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a scientific matter." My
279
comment: Statements of faith--the evidence of things unseen and the substance of things hoped for--
exceed the limitations imposed for objective investigation and therefore cannot be scientific matters.
"God loves us and wants us to love one another. I cannot think of anything that could prove that
statement false." Phillips also cannot think of anything that could prove that statement true.
"Some might argue that if I were more explicit about what I mean by God and the other concepts in my
statement, it would become falsifiable. But such an argument misses the point. It is an attempt to turn a
religious statement into a scientific one." No, it is a request that Phillips make his religious statements
credible to nonbelievers.
"There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement." This is true; otherwise there
would be no poetry or religion.
"Non-scientific statements are not worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific. 'She
sings beautifully.' 'He is a good man.' 'I love you.' These are all non-scientific statements that can be of
great value." Phillips is conceding that statements of faith are subjective, equivalent to saying: "She
sings beautifully," etc. And since statements of faith are subjective, they are not within the purview of
scientific investigation and verifiable as objective and universally true. It is true that non-objective
statements can be of great value, but they can also be great injurious errors. "Science is not the only
useful way of looking at life." Science is the only way to objectively understand the universe. Poetry
and religion give the universe the significance or absurdity it intrinsically lacks.
"Many good scientists have concluded from their observations that an intelligent God must have
chosen to create the universe with such beautiful, simple, and life-giving properties. Many other
equally good scientists are nevertheless atheists." Atheists: killjoys, people who are blind to what
theists see: the Creator in His creation.
"Theism and atheism are positions of faith." This is true. The faith of theists consists of the evidence of
things unseen and the substance of things hoped for. The faith of rational thinkers consists of the
evidence of things seen and the substance of things yet to be discovered.
"I believe in God because I can feel God's presence in my life." The presence in Phillips's life is his
own, which he misidentifies and deifies as God.
"A majority of the people I know have no difficulty accepting scientific knowledge and holding to
religious faith." The majority of mankind profess religious faith to reassure themselves they will
continue existing when they are dead.
RE: Whole Series
Lane Haygood
05/07/2008
Anyone who thinks that empirical investigation and theorizing can have any bearing on a metaphysical
proposition is committing a category mistake. Science, loosely defined as the set of doctrines that
proceed according to the scientific method and create testable theories that are confirmed or falsified
by observation and experimentation, can reveal, potentially, all that humans can know about the world
in which we live, the world of experience. But the concept of a supreme, supernatural being is closed
to scientific investigation. It is necessarily metaphysical, belonging to that branch of philosophical
investigation that seeks to understand the nature of reality and man's relation to it.
Metaphysics is by definition a-scientific (not anti-scientific or non-scientific, but belonging to a realm of

inquiry that does not, and cannot, adopt the methods and practices of the sciences). This does not
mean that metaphysical inquiry is free to contradict scientific inquiry, or that the two are mutually
exclusive. Each can and should inform the other, but we should recognize the limitations placed on
human reason to reach truth through either form of inquiry, and what truths belong solely to each
realm.
Thus, if there truly is an answer to the question of divine existence, it is not science but philosophy that
will provide it. I would worry less about proving abstract desiderata such as whether God exists and
concern myself with investigation of the concept of god, what it means and how it changes human
280
society and understanding of the world. The metaphysical status of God is irrelevant next to the
broader question of the historicity and situation of the concept of God within the human psyche.
RE: Whole Series
Anna Grabowski
05/07/2008
For those who understand science, yes, the god idea is obsolete, as in "no longer used" and "no longer
useful." Some may cling to it because of wishful thinking or youthful indoctination. Those religions with
which I'm familiar are silly and distasteful, and they make people behave worse, not better. Life is too
short and beautiful to waste it by worrying about mythical creatures; the reality of the universe is
awesome enough without imaginary friends or rulers. I think that most people would happily let go of
religion if it were not for social reasons. Where I work and live, there is a tyranny of religion (small-town
Tennessee). People have their whole identity based on it. Religion is also a big business, with
prestigious and sometimes lucrative jobs. So even though religion should be obsolete, it probably will
hang on as long as there is ignorance of science. And as long as there are people ignorant of science,
there will be institutions and individuals ready to fill in the gap with superstition, magic, and religion.
RE: Whole Series
BJ
05/07/2008
I don't know what God is, but certainly science is not a refutation of God. In a strange way, it is a
confirmation. In an infinite universe there may be lots of evolved Gods, at least from our perspective.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas Conway
05/07/2008
The answer to the question depends on what God or whose God is the subject. It is certainly a
subjective question, but let's take the God of Abraham as an example. This type of god belongs in the
same realm as Zeus, Thor, and many other gods in mythology.
Gilbert Adams
05/07/2008
Stephen Jay Gould's notion of non-overlapping magisteria is incomplete: the magisteria of science and
belief (intentionally distinguished from religion) are not only non-overlapping, they are also abutting,
like the land surface of an island and the water surface of the sea surrounding it. Science has to do
with what we know, or think we know, by logical observation and analysis. Belief has to do with what
we do not (yet) know, like what happened at the Big Bang, or what we can never know (in the scientific
sense), like how our souls are related to the souls of the departed.
Just as it is a mistake to believe something that is demonstrably false, it is a mistake to posit that just
because we cannot observe and analyze something rationally, it does not exist. The true scientist
recognizes three classifications in this regard: (1) proved (but still open to advances in science, such
as Newtonian gravitation, updated after hundreds of years by Einstein); (2) disproved, such as the
geocentric view of the universe; and (3) not (presently) open to scientific analysis. As science
develops, some matters of belief can be shifted into the magisterium of science, and our beliefs mature
accordingly.
The believer should not try to use scientific method to convince the unbeliever of extra-scientific
theories, and the non-believer should not try to use science to convince the believer that extra-
scientific matters are illusory. They are just not scientific, and for this reason less structured and
usually more difficult to have a dialogue about.
A parable: someone tells me that inside a locked room, inside a locked cabinet, there is a pair of
socks. I may or may not believe that I was told the truth, but I can not prove scientifically to myself or to
someone else that the socks are there. It is just as unscientific to assume they are not as to assume
they are. Unproved is not proved, nor is it disproved. Among those who believe that there is a pair of
socks, a talmudic discussion could take place on the color of the socks. They cannot be observed and
analyzed, but who is to say that the color is meaningless? Some people may base their conduct on
their belief as to the color. Those who see no purpose in such a discussion can opt out of it. But if there
is a pair of socks there, they do have a color; and that color does not depend on anyone's belief. And it
281
can not be totally excluded that the color might make a difference somehow, sometime.
As scientist or as believer, one must have a certain degree of humility: neither geocentricists nor
Newtonians had a monopoly on the truth.
RE: Whole Series
John
05/07/2008
Today we know that each individual continues to evolve during his own life time. There is a similar
relationship in the way mankind keeps evolving and changing this world we live in. I enjoy living in an
age of enlightenment, where clearly it is the heterogeneous weaving together of science and the
achievements of the human spirit that continually increase each person's life time and quality of life the
world over. It might be that God created the sciences to prove that he exists, and it is our best interest
to discover how he did it.
RE: Whole Series
Michael D'Emidio
05/07/2008
Leo (on 5/5) wrote: "I truly feel sorry for atheists." Me too. I guess you would describe me as an atheist.
I understand that science has revealed that man created god--and not the other way round. This
conclusion and its gut-wrenching consequence fit beautifully with an earlier faith-based error:
geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. The realization that the earth revolves around the sun wasn't
blasphemous, although it was taken as such by the religious authorities; it just was. Same here: there
is no god, we just are--maybe not a comforting conclusion but the truth, and the sooner we realize this
the sooner we will be able to perfect our fragile civilization.
Though this is the fact of the matter, you have to feel sorry for us atheists because even after the plain
vanilla truth is so obviously revealed, we are still conscripted to society's faith highway, trying to
survive in the right lane while the myriad believers try to run each other off the road in their attempts to
make supreme--and then politically useful--that which doesn't even exist. We atheists are the innocent
victims (along with millions of others who have perished for being on the other side of men of god)
because of this absurdist nightmare insisted upon by the same authorities who brought you
geocentrism.
We atheists are stuck trying to make a better world with what exists, and we have to compete with
powerful faith-based interests that throw theistic sand in our eyes and then laugh while civilization
flounders (and has floundered for at least 2000 years). Leo, I trust you feel sorry for the poor Athenians
too. Can you imagine their grief at seeing how little we have progressed after their noble adventure?
RE: Whole Series
Charles Bingham
05/07/2008
God is a conclusion without any supporting premises. The history of religion is the same story told
again and again with different names--the same formula.
RE: Whole Series
Scott Arledge
05/07/2008
It is a flawed question from the onset. It is not whether science makes God obsolete but whether the
interpretation of science makes God obsolete. For example: when we look at geological formations
around the world, we find billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water. Some
interpret this evidence as direct support for a recent Biblical flood, while others say it is evidence of
sediment laid down over billions of years. The science is irrefutable that there are billions of dead
things buried globally, and no objections occur at this point. The argument only occurs as the science
is interpreted and models are created. All sides agree on the "science" in view, but they have very
different interpretations. So the question should be restated: "Do modern models, ideas, and
hypotheses as presented and understood by man make God obsolete?"
RE: Whole Series
Andre Ryland
05/07/2008
This just continues the tired argument. The idea that the god of today would become obsolete because
282
of science says that the questioner doesn't understand the reason for god, who exists because of the
power of the Word and its use by the god-users who use it. Take away the power of the Word, and
there will no longer be the excuses used by the users to explain what they cannot. Science is the
seeking and understanding of what is--not of that which is not.
RE: Whole Series
Joe Claxton
05/07/2008
No, it doesn't. Science is the meta-language used by God to educate and develop our awareness of
our unique identity as a species. Art is the subtext of that same meta-language. Learning the ABC's of
creation is only the beginning. God is not dead, just listening.
RE: Whole Series
Robert F. Brown
05/07/2008
Compared to the age of the universe, mankind is in its infancy. We know hardly anything about the
truth. Atheistic scientists are as dogmatic and narrow-minded as was the early church. Intelligent
design could be God creating two things: matter with all its potential and gravity. We're gradually
learning the how of the universe through science, but the why is beyond our ken.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Richardson
05/07/2008
Loved the essays. We are Unitarian Universalist, so this debate is at the heart of our beliefs. The best
seminar I have been to in 25 years as a UU was in Atlanta on science and religion. We had professors
from Emory, Georgia Tech, etc. Thank you so much.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Bob Ryan
05/07/2008
Ken Miller writes, "I am often challenged by those who assume that IF science can demonstrate the
natural origins of our species, which it surely has, then God should be abandoned." IF science can
show (with lab expermients) that all living species could have originated from natural causes alone and
in fact did originate from purely undirected random natural events alone, THEN the "Creator God" of
the Bible is pointless. It would be like saying "The God of NaCl precipitant."
RE: Whole Series
Forrest McCollum
05/07/2008
I don't see the relationship. I am not sure that science can prove everything, but by definition, beliefs
are unproven. Which begs the question, "Does a scientist believe anything?" I think not. I doubt that
(clinically sane) "true believers" truly believe.
RE: Whole Series
Yayati Patel
05/07/2008
If God created the universe, who created God? Or if the "Big Bang" created the universe, what created
the "Big Bang"? Neither side clearly wins. And you're forced to go into crazy, beautiful metaphysics.
I'm sure both sides are humble enough to say they don't have all the answers. Also, what constitutes
proof is different for a scientist and a spiritual person.
The discussion of Science vs. God often fails to look at it from an Eastern perspective. The question,
while being universal, has taken on a different and larger light in the Western/Christian world, and
brings along with it motivations and scars from Western/Christian history and perspectives.
Empirically speaking, there have been many saints, rishi, and other people who have claimed to
experience God. While accounts vary (as do scientific experiments), there is a great commonality. A
true scientist, before saying God does not exist, should conduct the experiment in earnest himself and
follow the experimental procedure/steps as dictated by those who have achieved God or
Enlightenment. And of course there is going to be science behind the universe. There can be no
existence without limits & laws. If I threw a ball and it went anywhere, then that would not be existence.
Laws for existence do not negate God. The travesties of religion also do not negate God. Does free will
283
not itself confound an atheist scientist? For all the reasons that God does not exist, neither should free
will.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Bob Ryan
05/07/2008
Kauffman is correct in his observation that we would need to seriously dumb-down the Bible's God to
get to a marriage between the belief in Darwinism and the belief in some other kind of "god." As he
writes, "The schism between science and religion can be healed, but it will require a slow evolution
from a supernatural, theistic God to a new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the
ceaseless creativity in the natural universe. This healing may also require a transformation of science
to a new scientific worldview with a place for the ceaseless creativity in the universe that we can call
God. We must 'reinvent the sacred,' but it is dangerous: it implies that the sacred is invented. For
billions of believers this is Godless heresy."
But how many of the world's major religions are touting the claim: "we made this stuff up, now give
your life to it"? As much as this might seem to be the case from the point of view of an agnostic or
atheist, that is not how it works in real life. You don't get to maintain your role as a major world religion
with such claims to total fabrication for the sake of "compromise."
Yayati Patel
05/07/2008
It depends on how you define God. We cannot give God the same limitations and biases we give
ourselves. God is omnipresent, omniscient. Whether the "world" is a small village or the universe, the
amount of information it contains is always infinite.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Ryan
05/07/2008
Those who say "yes" are using a definition of religion in agreement with atheist Darwinists such as
Richard Dawkins and with modest-atheist-agnostics like Darwin and Huxley--a definition that fits with
the majority of Bible believing Christians in America. Give credit where credit is due.
All the respondents use a definition for science that appears to assume that the junk-science methods
of Darwinism (Piltdown, Simpson's horse series, Archaeoraptor, Haeckel's "Ontogeny recapitulates
Phylogeny," Nebraska man) are science, when in fact they are merely a belief system with science co-
opted. I prefer to follow the data where they lead--the model used in the lab in physics, biochemistry,
etc. I also prefer the defintion of God found in the Bible. So far, they do not contradict.
RE: Whole Series
John Buchanan
05/07/2008
There is no reason why scientific fact and theory and faith in God cannot and/or should not coexist
within the mind of a free-thinking person. I have seen many reasons to believe, as I do that science
provides insight into the ways of God. Divisiveness and ulterior motives in this very basic matter are
counterproductive to the purpose of the human species. Any observer of the natural world and/or
thinker upon the ways and intent of God should, I think, be able to agree upon the simple concept that
all structures throughout the universe, from the biological to the subatomic and astronomical, appear to
have defined roles. The roles in biology appear to be based on tools supplied to particular species. I
cannot help but see that the role of the relatively weak, slow, defenseless homo sapiens is to use our
one specialty: intellect.
To continue the division into sometimes literally armed camps of "Science vs. Religion" is like the left
and right hands of the same man or the two hemispheres of one person's brain fighting one another. If
you "experts" want to leave a valuable legacy to the future, be the generation that finally lays down its
differences and comes together. You have far more in common than it might be comfortable for many
of you to believe.
RE: Jerome Groopman
Maggie Hahn
05/07/2008
284
Thank you so much for your commentary on science and God. It's very refreshing to see a scientist
explain religious faith with such clarity. I believe that in the end neither scientist nor lay person can
claim to have all the answers. We learn so much every day as we use intelligence to further
technology and knowledge. However, each time we learn something new, that also can bring new
questions to the equation.
As a person of faith, I embrace science fully, since it is my belief that God created everything in the first
place. It is often the "despised" religious beliefs that make our world remotely tolerable to live in. I
gathered from your remarks that, like me, you believe that science does not govern or direct the heart
and make us fit company for each other. For most, it is our inclination toward a more divine direction
that keeps our baser instincts at bay, thereby bringing out our best.
RE: Whole Series
Randy Strom
05/07/2008
If we take it as given that God exists, he either made science or understands it well enough to be the
causative force in creation. If God does not exist, science would have great difficulty proving the
negative, and science has no motivation to prove negatives.
It seems to me that the strong opinions some have that the answer to this question is yes are
premature. The actual origin of the first cell has not been proven to exist spontaneously in the
primordial soup of the earth. The theories about how the cell came to be include extraterrestrial
chance/design (seeding). Some would call this theory a proof of the definition they hold as God (I
would not). In any case, the origin of the first cell and the causative conditions that stimulated the big
bang both beg the questions that have challenged theorists and philosophers down through the ages.
Science would need to mature significantly before a definitive proof could be given for or against God.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Hunter
05/07/2008
The dynamically growing body of scientific knowledge is contrasted with the static, anti-knowledge
viewpoint of theologians. Yes, without question, science has and will continue to show religion for the
illogical backwater that it is. Religion is on the table, dying. And I for one could not be happier. How
many wars and conflicts have their root in religious conflict? Many, including the current problems
between Islam and Christianity. How much bigotry is based in Christianity?
I myself have been an atheist for more then twenty years, and on numerous occasions I have received
nearly violent reactions from Christians when they hear my beliefs. The way they are always trying to
inject their particular religious beliefs into our politics is despicable.Yes, let religion die the death it
deserves. Let science--which can be tested and challenged by newer, better ideas--reign.
RE: Whole Series
Wyse
05/07/2008
Here's a sure prophecy: Within the next 100 years, all you doubters will have met God face to face and
will wish that someone would dip the tip of his finger in water and touch your tongue (Luke 16: 19-24).
RE: Whole Series
Teresa Mitchell
05/07/2008
Science has gradually undermined religion, but in the 21st century a post-theist spirituality will emerge,
supplanting traditional beliefs. A prayerful atheism will sustain humanity.
Mohammed Saleem Awan
05/07/2008
As a physicist, I would suggest that American scientists use God to secure fame in the media. They
never ask themselves a basic question: if there is no God, what brings the sun from West to East? If
you are a dedicated physicist, then read the Holy Quran. You will find that all humans on this earth are
the index of Almighty God. Science is nothing but a tool to create comfort for humanity. It does not
provide morals, ethics, or mental satisfaction. My advice is to ask basic questions and consider the
285
true reality of life/existence versus death. Why it happens? Who is in charge? Answer: the ALMIGHTY
GOD.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Gerdes
05/06/2008
Also I wanted to quickly note that even asking whether science disproves the existence of god is a
poor question to ask. It tends to cause the discussion to devolve into an unhelpful and confusing
semantic argument about what constitutes "proof" (does continued failure to provide evidence for X
constitute a disproof of X?) and what it means for god to exist.
Instead, if we want to have a productive discussion, I think the right question to ask is "What beliefs
about god are justified by our observations of the world, including historical texts, scientific theories,
and the interactions of the two." The advantage of this question is that it simultaneously asks for a
positive account while emphasizing the fact that there can be only one theological theory that is best
supported by the evidence. Lumping together religious faiths as opposed to science misses the vitally
important point that our historical and personal evidence can't support the belief that Christianity and
Judaism or Christianity and Islam are simultaneously true (either the evidence supports the conclusion
that Christ is the son of god or not).
Ultimately, asking if god exists is a fairly useless question. If we are willing to stretch the meaning of
god enough (god is the universe) everyone will agree. What religious people really are interested in is
whether a particular conception of god is valid (rewarding people for being good, for faith, providing life
after death, not rewarding atheists for failing to believe). I tend to think the most productive question to
ask is what beliefs about god does our total evidence support, thereby illuminating the fact that we
must either give up the idea that religious facts are really true like scientific ones or accept the fact that
sufficient justification to accept any one religious belief is sufficient justification to reject contradictory
beliefs.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Gerdes
05/06/2008
The question itself is deeply misleading and (unintentionally no doubt) biased toward provoking a
certain sort of pro-theistic emotional response. Asking whether science has made god obsolete sets
things up so theists feel their core values and feelings are under attack. Rather than asking us to step
back and approach the question of god's existence with our most thoughtful, least biased attitudes, this
question seems to take it for granted that god exists and then implies that non-theists are suggesting
religious worship and adoration are backwards and unimportant. This question is the theological
equivalent of asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife."
Of course, if god exists and has the characteristics stipulated by any of the major world religions, then
religion is the most important thing in the world. In fact, one of the reasons I began to question my faith
in the first place was my puzzlement at how little significance even priests/ministers/etc. placed on
religion. If indeed there is something like the Christian (or Jewish or Islamic) god, theological inquiry
should be more important than scientific study, the conversion (and subsequently higher probability of
salvation for that soul) of one individual should outweigh the benefits of massive public works, and the
study of religious issues should be vastly more important than any other subjects we might approach in
college.
However, people don't treat their belief in the existence of God the way they treat their belief in facts of
chemistry, physics, or even history. What makes discussion between theists and atheists so difficult is
that atheists are interested in questions of objective fact about god while theists tend to focus on the
complex nest of feelings and attitudes they have about religion. This sort of question only serves to
further this confusion. It would be better to ask how you know your religion's beliefs are true while
contradictory religious beliefs of others are false.
RE: Whole Series
Jeff Martens
05/06/2008
If one is honest with oneself, and familiar with Occam's razor, then clearly religion is a mass deception
and does much more harm than good.
286
RE: Whole Series
Rob
05/06/2008
Yes, science does make belief in god obsolete. Science in the form of cosmology can explain where
the universe came from, and science in the form of the modern evolutionary sythesis can tell us how it
is that we humans are prey to religious nonsense. The difficulty in abandoning religious
supernaturalism is facing up to the truth about our existence. However, it is only in facing this truth that
we can really begin to understand that our highest ethical goal must be to make THIS LIFE better for
all life on this planet.
RE: Whole Series
Harry
05/06/2008
Wrong question. Science seeks to address what we "know." Belief is just that: what we believe. We
know NOTHING about God! However, we believe many things about God.
RE: Whole Series
Serg Barron
05/06/2008
Superb!
RE: Whole Series
Tonya Warmbrod
05/06/2008
No, absolutely not! Science and religion must agree. To keep this to the point and for simplicity:
Whether or not we understand, if you have faith, God does understand and God has a plan. We may
have started as amoebas, apes, etc., but if we did, it was all part of God's plan to be where we are
today. Just think of where we could be in another thousand years! My spiritual beliefs are based in the
Baha'i faith, which centers around the belief in one God, one unfolding religion, and one humanity. The
agreement of science and religion is just one of the teachings of the Baha'i faith.
RE: Whole Series
John Read
05/06/2008
My feeling is that science will not displace belief in God. People seem to be emotionaly wired to
believe in the supernatural, as witnessed across nearly all societies throughout history. We seem to
need to believe in these things (I do not, but that does not seem to matter in the larger scheme of
things). Belief in God seems to be what we do once we stop believing in Santa Claus. We are addicted
to believing in the shadow world.
One observation, though, on the topic of evolution (which I do believe in): Would there be a raging
debate if evolution were presented without including humans? If we avoided the study of humans and
focused only on the evolution of other species, would the religious community be up in arms over this
issue? I think not, as this would negate the image most offensive to religionists, that we are somehow
related to apes and monkeys (the imagery is too much for many to take). Take that away (which will
not happen and should not), and I would bet that the study of evolution would have all the emotional
impact of the study of worms.
RE: Whole Series
Sam
05/06/2008
God was created in the image and likeness of man.
RE: Whole Series
AK
05/06/2008
Regarding Steve Vinson's mention (below) of pantheism: both theism and pantheism depend on
ascribing an external (metaphysical) form to the universe. Even though pantheism has the good sense
to recognize that only monism makes sense, it still presumes that something is the case which nothing,
except isolated "intuitions" or added interpretations, tells us might be the case (namely, an all-
encompassing Will). Frankly, I don't think we need to "presume" or "posit" anything outside or over the
universe, not even in order to remain the inspired axiological realists that we are.
287
Ken Dixon
05/06/2008
Hitchens is so angry-sounding. Instead of coming off as an atheist, he sounds angry at the God he
declares doesn't exist. I feel very sorry that he fails to see the divine in creation.
RE: Whole Series
James Huebner
05/06/2008
A better question would be: "Did God create man or did man create God?"
RE: Whole Series
Robert Zantay
05/06/2008
No, it doesn't. There is no scientific explanation for how, after the great extinction of 10,000 years ago
(when the mammoths, cave bears, sabre-toothed tigers, and early man were all wiped out), life came
back, including man. This is the time that the Bible gives for the Adam and Eve creation story. The
Bible does not disagree with evolution; in fact it agrees with the theory. Every creature after it's own
kind. The confusion has been caused by people who don't understand what the Bible says. It is very
specific about God creating the heavens and the Earth and the Earth being without form and void. It is
after this great calamity that the creation story takes place. This is actually the second creation.
RE: Whole Series
Miriam Davey
05/06/2008
It all depends. If the purpose of believing in God is to have ultimate power over others, then the answer
is "yes." If the purpose in believing in God is to serve one's fellow man in a compassionate way, the
answer is "no." Belief in God should be all about faith. No proof of God's existence is necessary; in
fact, it distracts from and interferes with true religion.
Those who require some form of proof that there is God are threatened when mysteries attributed to
God are explained in a factual way, or when public policy is based primarily on reason, fact, and
science, with the role of particular religious doctrine minimal and advisory only. Those believers simply
want to invent their own fact-based world apart from science. They don't want religion. They want
power, and they are jealous of the power of science and reason, so they challenge it by trying to
redefine and merge (and ultimately destroy) both. So for them, the answer must be "yes."
RE: Whole Series
Pete Z.
05/06/2008
Why would it? Science can't deliver what belief in god has brought to humanity. Not many people get
together on their own time, maybe with their family, to purposely practice science in a community.
RE: Whole Series
Joseph
05/06/2008
Everything about the universe suggests there is a God--the great organizer, framer, and executer of
the immensities of space. The very essense of the air we breath, life within man, knowledge we
receive daily, and our very being and attributes are an indication. Anyone who doubts this fundamental
principle doesn't comprehend him- or herself.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Stanley
05/06/2008
Science does not make belief in God obsolete; however, it does require a rethinking of God. The
Jehovah model of God is too small to conform to our observations of the universe and requires too
much tinkering on the part of God to make the universe run. Einstein's model of God, the sum of all
universal law, does not postulate the existence of a "point" deity--a singular divine consciousness--but
comes closest to a definition of God that meets our scientific observations. Yet the God of this model is
not a sentient being. As pointed out, the more we learn, the less room for God remains in the universe,
but room still remains as long as we look inward.
288
RE: Whole Series
Roger
05/06/2008
Perhaps the question should be, "Can science make belief in God irrelevant?" It cannot prove or
disprove anything, but maybe it could be used to investigate the impact of early childhood religious
indoctrination (brainwashing) on a person's belief in God. Children are taught religion (often along with
creationism) from infancy, and they are generally taught evolution starting in middle through high
school. So it may be no surprise that in a recent poll, 25% of Americans thought man was both created
and evolved. And it may be no surprise that nearly two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught
alongside evolution. Science has not made belief in God obsolete, because it cannot prove or disprove
the existence of God. But it could be used to help understand why people so persistently believe in
God.
God is nothing more than an image in the mind, an image that was planted there and nourished from
infancy on. No one can prove that God has materialized in any way, other than in people's minds. If
God's image had not been planted in their minds and nourished over a number of years, it wouldn't
exist. Science has not proved that God's image existed in the mind before birth, but it might be
possible to show that God's image does not exist in the mind at or shortly after birth. I am an atheist,
but I was raised in a Christian family and community and church. Some form of God's image was
planted in my mind and nourished there, but today it materializes only as a black, meaningless void.
Would I rely on that black, meaningless void to solve any of my problems or to save any one or any
place in the world from some perceived disaster? No, I would be more inclined to rely on my senses
and fortunes as they are. People pray to God, and He appears to answer some prayers and ignore
others. Perhaps science could be used to show that God's perceived actions are nothing more than
random occurrences. If science were used effectively, maybe it could be used to make belief in God
obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Lance
05/06/2008
There cannot be one without the other. Science is the divine path to our creator(s).
RE: Whole Series
Fred Senn
05/06/2008
Wonderful use of advertising and the Internet to provoke engagement on big issues. I'd be very
interested to know how it's working, and how you measure success. Thanks.
RE: Whole Series
Brent Welch
05/06/2008
I find it odd that so many answer a question that was never asked. The question nowhere implied
religion. When did religion and God become indissolubly linked? I would argue that God has never
damned, condemned, or harmed; religion has. Religion is a system of belief, an order of worship.
Assuming that all who believe in God worship some angry, spiteful tyrant is foolishness. Why must I be
labeled ignorant simply because my view of life is more inclusive than physical matter? Science can
explain many hows, but few whys--and that's okay. God or the divine is the embodiment of the
collective good inherent in all of humanity, coupled with the beauty and intelligent order of nature and
science. God is Love. While I bask in the beauty and innovation of science, it is the arrogance and
short-sightedness of scientists that's bothersome.
As any artist will tell you, myself included, some see the world in types and shadows, colors and
shapes, visual moods. This is the realm of the spirit or the soul. The aesthetic beauty of art, the
transcendence of music, the brilliance of literature, the raw ecstasy of sensual love; I don't need
science for these. I don't need an experiment (scientific, psychological, or otherwise) to explain kismet,
why I fall in love, nor do I assume most scientists do. I accept the abstract as valid without
completeness, and I prefer it to science. This doesn't make me an enemy of science but rather an
equal partner in the balancing of the human equilibrium.
289
RE: Steven Pinker
Fr. Bill
05/06/2008
Professor Pinker might want to read Jeremy Waldron's God, Locke, and Equality: Christian
Foundations of Locke's Political Thought before trying to make too much of the so-called
"Enlightenment" views that somehow saved us from religion. Religion is always in need of reform
(what isn't?), but the idea that the reforms generally have come from "secular" thought is of dubious
historical merit, particularly in the case of slavery.
RE: Whole Series
Ron Rozman
05/06/2008
The bottom line is that, if history is any indicator, the more we learn about how things work, the less we
chalk up to the gods. Religion is but a leftover from the Age of Magic.
RE: Whole Series
Steve Vinson
05/06/2008
It seems as though this thread takes it for granted that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of an all-
powerful, personal God is the only one worth considering, and it's that god-concept that is the only
"rival" to the materialistic world view. How about debating the question of whether there is no
transcendant "God" in the Judeo-Christina-Islamic sense, but that the physical universe itself may be
divine--something familiar from Stoic philosophy, for example, and ultimately based on pantheistic
ideas that go back to the ancient Egyptians? Why the implicit assumption that only conventional
"monotheism" is "real" religion?
RE: Whole Series
Malcolm Rasala
05/06/2008
Intelligence makes God obsolete. Inasmuch as science uses human intelligence, superstitious
nonsense regarding a God/Gods is simply the deliberate attempt to con people out of money by
charlatans and their weak-brained brothers.
RE: Whole Series
Valerie
05/06/2008
No, it proves the existence of God. God is not a being but a process. The sciences are the study of
how God is manifest. The process is governed by a series of laws (physics, engineering, chemistry,
etc.) such that a carbon atom can form four covalent bonds and so forth. Act upon or break a law, and
the overall process will respond accordingly. Evolution is the God process by which creation exists.
Humans, being mortal, cannot begin to comprehend the full magnitude of the complexity of the
process, which is eternal. Scientists and engineers therefore will never be able to fully test or anticipate
the repercussions of their creations. God does not make mistakes. Humanity has yet to recognize and
accept the science of spirit, though there are disciplines available that do. The spirit sciences will
answer the questions that arise from social problems. Please learn to recognize God for what it really
is.
RE: Steven Pinker
Rory
05/06/2008
Given our ability to "divine" cause and effect--in cosmology, evolution, neuroscience, logical reasons
for a moral code--does it necessarily follow that a God doesn't exist?
RE: Whole Series
AK
05/05/2008
Less present, but not quite obsolete. The temptation for mysticism about our own destiny, coupled with
the possibility of positing arbitrary metaphysical "skyhooks" upon which to hang that mysticism, means
that references to God are unlikely to become obsolete. However, science certainly decreases the
need to refer to God, particularly in explaining the internal workings of nature. The epistemological
silliness of "skyhooks" goes to that.
290
RE: Whole Series
Mitch McGill
05/05/2008
A response to Rick Samuelson: I think I must have deeply misinterpreted your previous comment. I
apologize for that. If you are interested in chemical evolution, I recommend beginning with a paper
called "From Chemistry to Heredity" by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary. The article delves
into the famous idea of the primitive pizza (as opposed to the primitive soup) and extends this into the
evolution of complex biological molecules.
I am a biologist (first biochemist, now more of a general biologist), and I am firmly convinced that
evolution is the means by which mankind has arrived at the present day. My opinion is that evolution
makes God unnecessary. However, I do not believe that it disproves God's existence. In fact, I profess
to be a type of Christian--though not necessarily a type most would recognize. I believe that science is
the most powerful way of thinking humans possess, but I do not believe it is all-powerful. As I said,
there is a point where science ends and other ways of thinking (philosophical, theological, etc.) must
begin.
RE: Whole Series
James F. Williamson
05/05/2008
No, science has nothing to say. The evidence for the reality of God is not scientific. It is the
unspeakable mystery that anything at all exists. Since the universe is real, it follows that God is not
only real, but is both in and beyond all that exists--the Ultimate Reality. The universe is in God and of
God.
God is beyond everything, including human knowledge. And while we know that we are made of the
ashes of stars, we have no definitive idea why we, or anything else, exists. Science has nothing to
contribute to the question since there can be no empirical evidence for or against the supernatural, and
God is not subject to measurement or experiment.
Religious systems are inventions of humanity to attempt to frame the unframeable and to know the
unknowable. Since God is beyond human knowledge, religious claims about the nature of God are
suspect. We can, however, confidently infer one characteristic of God: God's ongoing creativity.
Nothing in the universe is static. Stars, as well as living creatures, are constantly being born. Evolution
continues its march toward ever-increasing fitness for purpose. Human artists create new works of
astonishing beauty and power. As the Ultimate Reality, God must be the creative force driving this
process of becoming, in which we are active participants, and which extends back through time and
space to the beginning.
We do not know why we are here, in a world where neither religion nor science can explain our
predicament, where evil often prospers and good often goes unrewarded. Even in such a world,
however, we may be sure that God is real because of the existence of existence itself, a Mystery
beyond words. We may be confident as well that God's very nature includes ongoing creative action
and that, as a part of the universe, we are participants in God's unbroken chain of becoming.
RE: Whole Series
Josh Platt
05/05/2008
The great advances in science and technology actually present us not so much with an affirmation or
negation of the reality of the divine, but rather a tremendously exciting opening in which a radical re-
imagining of the divine is going to come to pass. We are entering an age in which belief is going to be
more like what art was in the early 20th century in the West. The "God" invoked in this question, and
spoken of by the majority of the respondents, is mostly the all-powerful deity of the Creation, that is to
say, the first creation myth in the book of Genesis, which seems rhetorically more compatible with
scientific reasoning.
Over the next few hundred years, the Western and global relationship with the deity is going to have to
address increasingly the destructive aspect of the divine as well as the creative, and psychologically
we're going to see a move toward seeing the divine as meeting with human beings not through a
special relationship mediated by the super-ego, which will be increasingly dominated by scientific and
291
technological arrangements. Rather, the divine is going to start speaking to us through the agency of
the id. Freud's own personal tribal romance aside, psychoanalytic language is extremely well-suited to
negotiating the new place of religion in a world in which authority is structured around the evolution of
technology rather than the architecture of any Church or belief system. Such language will find a new
life in ecumenical dialogue and theology in the next century.
RE: Whole Series
Jason Bowers
05/05/2008
For everything scientists think they know about the universe, remember that at best they only know 4
percent. Ninety-six percent of the mass and energy in the universe cannot even be accounted for by
scientists. To fill in the gap, they came up with the idea of dark energy and dark matter, which have
never been seen or detected. This is just one example of how God's creation is more marvelous then
we give it credit for. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and
divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are
without excuse." Romans 1:20
RE: Whole Series
Susan Tennant
05/05/2008
Thank you for this discussion. It should be more widely promoted in senior-secondary and
undergraduate education circles around the globe.
RE: Steven Pinker
Tom Hughes-Davies
05/05/2008
If species become wiser as they evolve, it is useful to view God as a lady earthworm might view man:
relatively immortal, invisible, and a product of her imagination. Modifying her natural behavior by hit
and miss over generations will lead to the adoption of many practices that, however inexplicable and
unnatural, increase the chance of survival. Attributing them to Man increases their persistence, so few
earthworm clans will emerge without some form of worship.
For man, the reason to flee fornication, usury, or pork emerged with the recognition of AIDS, boom and
bust, and Taenia solium. But the mechanism that led to their early recognition is none the less valid. Its
other teachings may be as true, though seen as unnatural or contrary to fashion. An hour of prayer or a
day of rest and study may be as vital to survival as honoring one's parents. God may be as real as
Man to the earthworm, or at least as useful as quantum theory.
RE: Whole Series
David E Dillman
05/05/2008
Religion has always claimed quantum leaps of understanding about the universe, its origins, and its
Maker, but dispenses with proofs that point to its own failings, or perhaps more rightly, its
"misunderstandings," while grasping at popular and positive fairy tales and illusions, whether
supported or not by physical evidence. In their essential character, however, the "illuminated" who
have been revered among us have presented understandings of time, energy, and space that are
consistent among themselves, if not yet fully scrutable by us lesser humans. It is the bold church
mouse that slams open the holy books of time and shouts forth its finding, scarcely before he has
learned to read!
Science has taken the approach that all must be provable, and then provable once again. This timid
church mouse carries a small sample of the Binder's glue from the Book, to ascertain that it is truly
glue, and then again to ascertain what sort it is. And lacking any better name for that which was
nameless, named the smallest piece of it a "gluon," as if by naming it, he had created it. And tepidly
again, he seeks a scrap of paper from the Binder's work, to know its character and source, its age and
matter. And back and forth he goes in his quest for incremental truths, while his bolder brother claims
to have the better view from higher in the pulpit. Every step along the way the timid mouse denies
creation of any sort by Anyone except himself.
What sort of pursuit is this "science," except a self-aggrandized scavenger hunt by timid mice? The
Ink! Whereof the ink? And on it goes. The penstrokes gain importance for their depth and breadth and
292
style. Each minute detail becomes a valid pursuit of the timid scientific church mouse who dares travel
only so much farther than its mentor mouse before him. When one brave but timid mouse has reached
the edge of explanation, and leaped from there onto the pulpit itself by way of his winding studied path,
as Einstein did, he frightens his reverend brother mouse who stares at words and knows not how his
quiet brother came to understand them without his divine assistance.
And then, as if in escape from some cosmic checkmate, the concept of the universe is forced to play
upon an even higher plane. Spirituality confronts its unfounded superstitions . . . or not. And Science
confronts its limitations and inconsistencies . . . or not. We are different sorts of mice, it seems.
RE: Whole Series
Fersen
05/05/2008
The notion of science making belief in God obsolete can only be conceived by a mind that positions
science in conflict with religion, and vice versa. Why is it that there needs to be a contradiction
between science and religion in the mind of many persons? Why is it that they have to discard one for
the survival of the other? The source of this conflict lies in the elements that religion and science have
in common. Both rely on faith as their primordial element of discourse. Both place their faith not only
on past and experienced events but also on these events following a given line of implications and
ramifications that extend into the future, which in turn will further reinforce or weaken faith on their
original understanding. In both cases the cognitive process is greatly influenced by personal
experiences (revelation, observation, etc.), as perceived by our senses and filtered internally by our
temperament and inclinations. As to how this process happens exactly and in detail within the human
mind, I wish I could know, yet I very much see God's hand at this.
In any case, this process eventually results a paradigm of reality and a comprehensive system that can
help us explain many of the events that take place around and within us and that ultimately affect our
existence--God's will working in mysterious ways or just natural laws taking place, our sinful nature or
selfish genes controlling us?
The sole practical purpose of this process seems to be to live with as little fear as possible. We keep
craving security, the security of knowing how things work around us, because ultimately knowledge
provides us with elements to thread along our lives without feeling as if floating in a void. This is even
plainer to see when this security is ascribed to a higher intelligence that cares for us.
Ultimately, both science and religion provide us with a structure to our lives and a paradigm of our
existence. As such, there shouldn't be any conflict between them; rather, they should complement
each other. Science opens many paths of knowledge, yet we must always turn to God concerning the
application of such knowledge in a loving manner. As the Paul the apostle said: And if I have prophetic
powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove
mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
RE: Whole Series
Leo
05/05/2008
Science and God will merge just as the rest of the living world will merge, until God is "the all in all" (1
Cor 15:28). Time in God's realm does not exist--thank you, Mr. Einstein, for making that clearer. From
Ecc 1:9: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be
done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Science will help in opening the Bible. I still can't get over the fact that all of the matter in the universe
we know today was the size of a pea. Isn't God awesome. I truly feel sorry for atheists.
RE: Whole Series
Darryl White
05/05/2008
Science does not make belief in God obsolete--it makes God unnecessary. Experience makes God
obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas Nicholas Skarshaug
293
05/05/2008
Science may challenge the small neurotic god, one who wages war with a devil and offers
unconditional love to humanity with only the "slight" condition that if you do not follow a particular
religious dogma you will burn in everlasting hell fire. However, anyone who chooses to recognize a
truly big God--one who is capable of creating a perfect world, the experiential world, and is not
judgmental--should not be threatened by science. Science is a process of turning uncertainty into
certainty and simultaneously exposing the fact that there is more uncertainty than one was previously
aware of. Every new discovery merely demonstrates how God created the experiential world in which
we all live. Humanity has the keys when we choose to discover our true nature as consciously creative
beings born in the image and likeness of God-- but not a biped male god born in our own image and
likeness.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Schwartz
05/05/2008
The problem here is that people confuse Aquinas with Buddha. Aquinas was preoccupied with the
primal cause. Science has made that issue moot. Buddha accepted deities as part of his universe. He
never questioned them. If by God we mean rules and forces that dictate how we should live, as with
Buddha, there is no reason not to accept God. Indeed, God may well be useful in explaining human
ethical behavior.
RE: Whole Series
T. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy
05/05/2008
The raison d'etre of science is to find God. Cause and effect are vital to science. Who created the
universe? Was there a beginning? If there was, what is the beginning of the beginning? If the universe
is ever expanding, as science suggests, it must have started as an atom or some measurable unit. If
that unit, at the beginning of beginning is God, how did the unit replicate? What helped it gestate? If
the universe, as is commonly understood, is time and space, how did these come about? If time and
space are two sides of a triangle, the basic mathematical and composite entity, what is the third side
and angle? What is the dark force or black hole or dark matter that gives content to the triangle? The
world knows only the binaries, but the binaries by themselves do not complete the triad.
It is, therefore, for science to chase God, even if the chase is useless. If man were a creature of the
creator, the creator would be intelligent enough not to leave any tracks or to let evolution, which itself
was designed to reflect nature, trace the creator of nature itself. And if the world is an idea, as Hegel
said, and by extension the universe is a bigger idea, an ideating mind is presupposed. Is an ideating
mind, then, God? Is thought God?
RE: Whole Series
John Douglas Andersen
05/05/2008
I just heard about this on NPR. Last night I read an essay on this exact subject by the Nobel winner
Richard Feynman. He writes to an imaginary panel, and it is perfect for the non-fundamentalist or the
scientist. He basically answers "no" to the question. It's in the last chapter of his book The Pleasure of
Finding Things Out.
RE: Whole Series
Michele
05/05/2008
Any view that looks only at evidence supporting a given theory, ignoring evidence to the contrary or,
worse, manufacturing more theories to explain what other evidence indicates, corrupts science. Too
much of that has been going on, and these efforts to explain away evidence of God or Intelligent
Design are more and more ridiculous. Believers in God don't just believe what their "preachers" tell
them. Let those who have eyes see and those who have ears hear. The evidence of God is before our
eyes and ears--unless we're too biased to see, hear, or acknowledge it.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas
05/05/2008
Religion and God hinge on an ancient logic known as the "first cause" argument, as in "Where did
everything come from?" Science has more or less answered this question, but sadly the answer does
294
not involve any supernatural intelligence called God. It involves complex systems emerging out of
simple beginnings through incremental changes over a period of time.
Religion was our first attempt to explain the universe, but it was a dead end, a blind alley. It's not going
to take us another inch forward. The way forward is the scientific method of collecting data and
creating mathematical models from it.
RE: Whole Series
Dena Leichnitz
05/05/2008
Of course not. In fact, God becomes more evident the more you learn about science. Science can
explain some of the hows, but it cannot explain the whys; for that you need faith, you need God. Most
scientists today hold some kind of religious belief, which makes perfect sense to me. How could you
look at the structure of DNA with all its intricacies and not be astounded by the sheer magnificence of
God? Evolution, the Big Bang theory--none of that makes any sense when critically analyzed. An
explosion could no more create a perfect, ordered world than throwing mud at your wall will make it
neat and clean.
I am not anti-science, but when we raise science up to the level of God and bestow all his powers on it,
we do ourselves a grave disservice. For God quenches our very soul, he touches something
fundamentally ingrained in us that nothing else can ever reach. By allowing science to become
Science and thereby a religion in its own right, we not only downplay God but cut off our greatest
source of knowledge. It is through God's revelation that we have attained the knowledge that has
brought us to where we are today. However, through Man's twisted thirst for power and conquest, we
have corrupted that revelation and used it for evil purposes. Science without God's morality is nothing
but intelligent men creating barbaric acts within the walls of their laboratories (the Holocaust,
embryonic stem-cell research).
Science must be guided by ethics, and where do we get these ethics? We get them from God himself.
Science and God should never be separated, for when you do, you get horrific acts of cruelty. No
amount of scientific knowledge or advancement will ever make God obsolete. For how can the Creator
of science ever be obsolete?
Gregory Konakis
05/05/2008
Phillips writes that "Many people of faith believe science opposes their understanding that the universe
is the loving and purposeful creation of God. Because science denies this fundamental belief, many
people of faith conclude science is mistaken. These very different points of view share a common
conviction: science and religion are irreconcilable enemies."
Science does not oppose or deny the belief of people of faith that the universe is the loving and
purposeful creation of God. Individual scientists oppose and deny these statements of faith. People of
faith want scientists to confirm their statements of faith (such as Intelligent Design), although scientists
have no methodology to verify these assertions. Instead of acknowledging they are mistaken in
expecting what they cannot rationally expect, people of faith believe scientists are mistaken in failing to
confirm their assertions.
RE: Whole Series
Mani Tadayon
05/05/2008
Self-assured fundamentalists and atheists are both saying the same thing: "Everything can be
explained away by clear-cut formulas." I think that there is always more out there than we can hope to
fathom. A horrible spiritual void results from materialism: "Only what I can see and touch is real and
important." What about love? Honor? Colorful birds? Rainbows? Daydreams?
Dogmatic religious beliefs are no less narrow: "Only what my preacher tells me is real and important."
The world is even simpler, more stark for people whose spiritual life begins and ends with a literal
understanding of a specific holy text.
295
There is always more to the world than we can explain away logically. And you can try to define or
name that "more," but in essence it's all just word games.
RE: Whole Series
Perry
05/04/2008
I was born and raised in a Catholic family. Both of my parents have bachelor's degrees in engineering,
yet hold a firm belief in God. When people begin to talk about religion and science in mutually
exclusive terms, it baffles me. In my life, I have had to see both at the same time. To those who were
not socialized as I was, I suggest viewing it like this: We no longer need God or any other supernatural
being/force to describe natural events. In the modern world, religion is a method to understand and
cope with human behavior, which science can shed light on but will never fully explain. For those who
choose Christianity, the ideas put forth by Christ do provide comfort in trying times. God should no
longer explain lightning, but I believe God can explain why it is best to forgive someone for a
transgression or to care for the poor.
RE: Whole Series
Richard
05/04/2008
Religion, yes; God, no. Science deals with sequences, cause and effect (i.e., Hoodbhoy's fluid
mechanics or Sapolsky's "A causes B"). It does not deal with why those sequences exist or why the
parts of those sequences exist. It certainly does not deal with that conscious, massless, causative, and
creative entity labeled God. Darwin titled his opus The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life.
RE: Whole Series
Jake
05/04/2008
God asked no one to pick up a test tube. His purpose was to give man spiritual salvation. His only Son
said, "Feed my sheep." But somehow the men in sheep's clothing have found it honorable to feed
themselves at the sheep's expense. For shame. Science is not the end-all answer to everthing.
RE: Whole Series
Khalid Brickhouse
05/04/2008
The answer is no. The day that science can explain all the mysteries of the universe is the day that I
will truly ponder that question. To think that science can explain all things is nothing more than
arrogance.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas Mandel
05/04/2008
God is a word, and words have the property of isolating this from that. The word God isolates God from
everything else, giving the impression that God is there and everything else is here. But God is an
experience. It is the notion that God is a thing that leads many to disbelieve. And they are right. But if
one eliminates the words, and then asks what is God, the answer is that everything is God. But how
does one say this? One does not say it. One can only know it. So, no, there is no God separate from
everything else.
RE: Whole Series
Alexander Hellemans
05/04/2008
It is clear from the many responses to this discussion that the initial question is flawed. We should first
define what we mean by the term "God." Einstein's God ("God does not play dice") does not point to a
"personal" god; it is a metaphor. He could just as well have said "mother nature." So the initial question
should have been: "Does science make belief in a personal god obsolete?" Here we have to define
"personal": a god that listens to prayers, who intervenes in the destiny of individual people, who has
anthropomorphic character traits, such as love, goodness, jealousy, malice (some people surviving
catastrophes believe that a god has saved them while he/she/it allowed many others to perish).
Einstein's statement, "God does not play dice" was in fact a scientific opinion and not a religious one:
he did not accept that in quantum mechanics certain events are aleatory.
296
RE: Whole Series
Bibbo
05/04/2008
Most people have a poor understanding of what "faith" is, and this blocks them from having any. In a
way, faith is a blind acceptance of facts unproved, but it's not contradictory to reason or scientific proof.
We accept the concept of "infinity," but nobody has ever seen something infinite, and science seems to
suggest it's not possible that anything has an infinite aspect. I think infinity has a god-like characteristic
because it's really not provable or disprovable with the tools our intellect has to work with. How can we
even conceive of the concept of "infinity" unless its a real thing? If it's real, then prove it, the skeptic or
agnostic will say. It's not against reason--it's beyond reason.
This is the realm of discussion of God. Faith is open to all who want to believe in the reality of things
beyond reason. Einstein's theory of relativity, built upon the physics of his day, is an example of what I
mean. The irony of faith is that the block to accepting it is not intellectual but willful. Wanting to believe
even when you are tortured by doubts of being hoodwinked or being an old fool (think Mother Theresa)
is slowly rewarded with an "I just know it's so" and great inner joy and gratitude. I believe most people
deep down have enough of a wish to believe that in the final moments of their lives they take the
plunge and say "I choose to believe."
RE: Jerome Groopman
Bill Haines
05/04/2008
In his great essay, Dr. Groopman writes "God is axiomatic or not." Although God does not intervene in
our daily lives in any way we can easily prove, I think that faith (trust in the historical accuracy of the
account in the Bible) ought to be considered, in part, axiomatic. That is, God wants us to choose Him
based on reasonable evidence and on what is good.
For example, based on the most recent scientific evidence, the most rational observation is that the co-
ordinated complexity of life is probably the result of an intelligent design. (There is random chance
mutation, but it usually represents the loss of information.) Also, the more you study world history, the
more you will find that it corroborates the truth of the Bible. And the ideals taught in the Bible--that we
should love one another, always treat others the way we ourselves would want to be treated--are
obviously good.
RE: Whole Series
Kyle
05/04/2008
What god are we talking about here? Is it the god of the bible, allegedly all-knowing and all-loving, but
meanwhile smiting his creations everytime he gets a chance? Or is it a god that is the creator of all
things, but has no hand in the everyday lives of humans and other living things on earth? God seems
like something that man made to have someting/someone to blame for all of man's faults. Or is that the
devil?
RE: Whole Series
Rabbi Maurice Lamm
05/03/2008
This is a unique method of triggering thought. The whole series is stimulating. Indeed, it will form a
significant portion of my research for a new book I'm writing.
RE: Whole Series
Nicholas LiVolsi
05/03/2008
Science actually has one thing in common with God--a searching mind. So the answer to the question
is no. God Is. It can't be described in words. It just is.
RE: Whole Series
Alessandro Machi
05/03/2008
What type of real evidence from ages ago could a present-day scientist accept as proof of a God or a
progeny of God?
297
RE: Steven Pinker
Purple Girl
05/03/2008
"Faith" still can help to explain the thing science has yet to figure out, if it ever does. From the single-
cell animal to the cosmos, all things are not yet understood but seem miraculous when some
comprehension is obtained. I am an atheist and do not believe in the "old man," but I do think there are
things far greater then us which cause awe and deserve respect--"Mother Nature." We are the only
species on this earth capable of being stewards of it--a gift that demands responsiblity, whether
mandated by a "god" or nature.
RE: Jerome Groopman
Jared P.
05/03/2008
Groopman writes that "Tolerance is actually a tenet of my tradition." Yet the God of the Old Testament
orders the killing of children and the death penalty for a wide variety of "crimes," including blasphemy,
homosexuality, and breaking the Sabbath. It is true that there is "no path to righteousness" in science,
but neither is there one to be found in the pages of scripture. Wherever Groopman imagines atheists
are getting their morality, he is undoubtedly taking his own beliefs about love and kindness from the
same source, since the fundamental message of his holy book is obey--or else.
When he invokes the idea that the ancient Hebrews were strangers in Egypt, he neglects to mention
how God dealt with those He did not like at that time. In the still-celebrated ritual of Passover, God is
celebrated for killing every firstborn child in Egypt. But lo, a miracle!--all the Jewish households were
spared, "passed over."
The metaphysical beliefs of religions, as well as their moral precepts, belong in the Dark Ages.
Acknowledging this fact does not make me, in Groopman's terms, a "fundamentalist."
RE: Whole Series
Linda Saggau
05/03/2008
I believe all of our scientific discoveries are co-created with the assistance of universal source energy
(God, if you will). Many great scientists, philosophers, artists, musicians, and thinkers report
unexplainable epiphanies that propel them to new discoveries and developments. It is likely that these
epiphanies come from this source energy or higher consciousness, which is not currently considered
"reasonable" by science. However, I find it conceivable that a scientist (like Einstein) who received an
"aha!" of this nature would attribute it not to her/himself but perhaps to God or higher consciousness.
A more exciting question is how we individually and collectively define God. For the most part, our
human definitions of God are limiting and bound to the notion of right and wrong. We struggle with
ourselves and one another to define and limit what cannot be defined and limited. Perhaps we could all
get along better if we released the struggle to define God and instead accepted that God, like
everything else in the universe, is energy; and this energy contributes to propelling the expansion of
the entire system.
With the aid of this energy and our own divine heads and hearts, we are empowered to co-create
magnificent discoveries. We are also empowered to use them in the way we see fit. Ultimately, the
choice is ours, to use what we co-create for the greatest harm or to use it consciously for the greatest
good. Perhaps this is where God steps back to see if we make choices that foster the evolution of our
souls and our physical existence or ones that endanger them.
RE: Whole Series
Nick
05/03/2008
I'm not sure this is a fair question, because science changes and God doesn't. Science brought us a
flat earth, a universe that revolves around the earth, and countless studies and papers that were
disproven over time by the new revelations of science. To say that "Science makes belief in God
obsolete" would be fine if science was a settled matter, but it isn't. Even if you were to rephrase the
question, "Does current science make belief in God obsolete?," I would have to say no. The question
is, how complete is our current science? Should the scientific community punch the clock and go home
because all facts are known? If so, we would be trapped on this flat earth without God.
298
Saying that God doesn't exist without exploring the WHOLE of an ever-expanding universe seems
preposterous. "Nope, I looked--God's not here, He doesn't exist." We have greater minds than that--
unless the goal is to disprove God. For the most part, disproving is simply denial surrounded by facts
we summarize as complete and unequivocal. "I've exhausted my abilities. I can't find God, therefore
He isn't." It's not a fair question. How about "Will God ever be found with science?"
RE: Whole Series
C. Hudson
05/03/2008
My thanks to John Templeton for investing in the big questions. This week we were discussing the
recent detection of releases from blackholes and what effect this might have on the big-bang theory.
As almost always happens, one of my students asked "what about religion, where does that fit in?"
Another student this last week shared that he had been wondering what it would be like if all the
hydrogen atoms in our universe started lighting up all at the same time so we could really see and
understand everything. (I wondered if that were perhaps a prophetic possibility.) Over the years many
other students have had similar questions and thoughts. It is amazing what possibilities unfold when
students are allowed to think freely and question their world aside from the constraints of either
science or religion.
RE: Whole Series
Robert L. Oldershaw
05/03/2008
Is it possible that Spinoza, writing in the 1600s, answered the basic questions about god, nature, man,
and their interrelationships, and that we essentially ignore his answers because they make us
uncomfortable?
RE: Whole Series
Jim Corbett
05/03/2008
In my advanced-placement high-school class, I offered that Joseph II, the Austrian monarch who tried
to free the serfs and provide them with land taken from the Church (which owned over 25% of all land
in Austria), was frustrated when the Church used its access to the peasants to put "Jesus glasses" on
them, with the result that they turned against their own best economic interests and opposed the
monarch. Since then, I've been sued by a student who claims that I created a classroom "hostile to
Christians." This is the crux of the problem: rational people cannot bring reason to bear on any
question relating to religion without suffering the slings and arrows of over-sensitive, irrational followers
of God. In that respect, all attempts to bring religion into the public dialogue do little except create
acrimony. If religious people would just go to their "father" in secret, the naturally divisive nature of
religion would be far less damaging to the commonweal.
RE: Whole Series
Well-tempered
05/03/2008
It does if you are referencing the god of the bible.
RE: Whole Series
Harish
05/03/2008
Science is based on physically verifiable facts. God is based on His "isness," which is vast and yet
verifiable only intuitively. The question begs to be redefined with more clarity.
Gregory Konakis
05/02/2008
William D. Phillips writes that "The philosopher and long-time atheist Anthony Flew changed his mind
and decided that he should believe in God." The following excerpts are from Flew's There Is a God:
How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2008). My comments follow each excerpt:
"For over fifty years I have not simply denied the existence of God but also the existence of an afterlife.
I do not think of myself as surviving death. I want to lay to rest all these rumors that have me placing
Pascalian bets." (p.2) Flew is a deist. His God is the mysteries and mechanics of the universe.
299
"I believe this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe
life and reproduction originate in a divine Source." (p.88) "I must stress that my discovery of the Divine
has proceeded on a purely natural level without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been
an exercise in what is traditionally called natural theology. It has no connection with any of the
revealed religions; nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that
may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage
of reason and not of faith." (p.93) Flew's pilgrimage has been from atheism to deism: from darkness to
twilight.
"Einstein renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of
God. He did say, though: 'It is a difficult question whether belief in a personal God should be
contested. Sigmund Freud endorsed this view in his Future of an Illusion. I myself would never engage
in such a task. For such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook of
life, and I wonder whether one can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime
means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.'" (p.100) Einstein didn't want to contest belief in a
personal God because he didn't want to deprive the majority of mankind of their belief in personal
immortality. And he considered belief in a personal God preferable to lacking "any transcendental
outlook of life" because he thought mankind needed illusions to keep them pacified.
RE: Whole Series
Karen
05/02/2008
I have been engaged in a dialogue about this for a long time. I was a neuroscience research assistant
and am now a theologian. I think the discussion is not as urgent for the truly committed biblical
literalist, who has the answer and that's that. It is more urgent for the theologian and scientist who is
engaged with the real world and who reads Michio Kaku and Brian Greene with interest and some
underestanding of the issues raised.
RE: Whole Series
Dmitry Burdein
05/02/2008
The question is so poorly phrased that it becomes completely bogus. It is like asking, does good
reasoning make bad reasoning obsolete? Of course not. Instead, the focus should be on which view is
correct when science and religion contradict each other.
RE: Whole Series
Krikkit
05/02/2008
"Belief," i.e., faith, isn't predicated on what can be measured, so the answer is "No, science does not
make belief in God obsolete." However, if you had asked, "Does science make RELIGION obsolete?"
then you might be getting closer to a resounding "Yes," because religious claims can be disputed with
science and other academic disciplines.
Take, for example, the story of Jesus, his divine origin, his death and miraculous recovery, and his
ascent into heaven. We now know that this was a common epitaph applied to prominent Greek citizens
as a way to honor them. That certainly sheds some doubt on Christian religious claims, though it
doesn't touch on the core of "belief in God" per se.
RE: Whole Series
Glen Reese
05/02/2008
Although we were born into an ancient (possibly infinite) universe composed of at least 100 billion
galaxies, each composed of 100 billion suns, our brains were programmed by our experience within a
tiny fraction of it, and thus the limitations of our "common sense." In such a large (possibly infinite)
universe, even the most improbable events become possible, even the formation of habitable planets,
the spontaneous generation of cellular life, and Clemson University. But to comprehend such
concepts, and those of infinite time and multiple dimensions, is not humanly possible--even though
such concepts may be required to explain the universe.
It's probably inevitable that we turn to the idea of a superintelligent (possibly infinite) Creator to explain
300
the incomprehensible. It's not a good argument for God's existence, but a testament to the limitations
of our imagination.
RE: Whole Series
Kyle Arnone
05/02/2008
Commentary by a social scientist--someone who could unravel the social forces behind the unremitting
drive of history--is conspicuously absent from these debates. How often have you heard someone say,
"it was meant to happen," in reference to destiny--a remnant of the Protestant Reformation, no doubt.
Only the social scientist understands the historical complexity behind these statements. It is a grave
oversight by Templeton not to have included a sociologist or historian.
RE: Whole Series
Lothar Schwabe
05/02/2008
A culture that insists on the absolute supremacy of rationality over the values that only faith can
provide destroys itself. Pure rationality has not prevented our current environment of economic crises
nor has it solved the problems of hunger and war. We have discounted Christian values to our own
peril. It is also not advisable to let the functions of the right side of the brain lead our thinking without
the checks and balances provided by the left side of the brain. We must learn to give equal respect to
the functions that are processed on both sides of the brain. A solution is not found in a confrontation of
reason and faith but in a respectful balance of both. God may still get through to us.
RE: Whole Series
scout29c
05/02/2008
Answer to the question: no, science re-enforces belief in God. Awareness (science) is God's second
greatest gift. Like no other living thing, we know and understand our presence in this universe, and
through scientific investigation, we will come to know and understand more and more.
Life is God's greatest gift. The more science discovers about the universe, the more unique life
becomes. We have looked and listened and yet no other sign of life in any form has yet to be found.
Worst-case scenario: There is no God or higher life form of any kind. We are it. There is no other life in
the universe (remember, this is the worst-case scenario). The coming together of molecules that led to
DNA was astronomically unique and was never replicated anywhere else. If that is the case, then we
are God or will be one day.
We are advancing so fast and space is so vast, we will develop the technology to intercept the Pioneer
spacecrafts long before they reach anywhere near another solar system. We will develop the ability to
live forever. We will develop the ability to travel through time (whatever that is). One day we will be
able to travel back in time to rescue our ancestors from oblivion, and you and I will live forever--which
God has promised to us all if we just have faith.
RE: Whole Series
Dr Mark Barratt
05/02/2008
The question is so vaguely worded (why only one god? which god do you mean? does this god have
any characteristics?) that it has allowed the contributors to define "God" in whatever way suits them,
and then to argue from there. Indeed, some of them have made this very point themselves.
Are we to conclude that faith in "god" is fine, no matter how you define "god"? Does this mean that the
idea of one specific interventionist God whose approval must be sought on pain of eternal torture is
finally off the table, and god is therefore simply whatever anyone wants it to be? Are we supposed to
think that this is a view accepted by the majority of the world's population?
RE: Whole Series
Prof. E E Rosinger
05/02/2008
Belief is a concept with a variegated history. Aristotle and (following him) the Church until a few
centuries ago, believed the Earth to be at rest at the center of Creation. The flatness of the Earth was
also quite firmly believed in for ages, including by any number of sages. Knowledge, as a candidate for
a possibly clearer, firmer, and less corruptible concept than belief, has its own problems, not least
301
those described by what Karl Popper called falsification. We may perhaps try other concepts, or even
whole avenues, in order to address and deal with issues usually in the purview of the concept of belief,
or even that of knowledge.
In this regard, there are four questions that may prompt certain mindful souls along worthy avenues of
enquiry: Do you believe that whatever in Creation which may be relevant to your life is already
accessible to your awareness? If not--which is most likely the case--then do you believe that it may
become accessible during the rest of your life? And if not--which again is most likely the case--then do
you believe that you should nevertheless try some sort of two-way interaction with all that which may
never ever become accessible to your awareness, yet may nevertheless be relevant to your life? And if
yes--which is the minimally wise approach--then how do you intend to get into a two-way interaction
with all those realms about which your only awareness can be that they shall never ever be within your
awareness, no matter how long you may live ?
Note: the word "believe" in these four questions was used with its customary meaning. That, however,
need not preclude the possibility that these question may help one go well beyond whatever the
concept of belief may usually be able to encompass.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Loges
05/02/2008
Science has made obsolete a god like the one in the Bible. However, until science can answer
questions about the infinite nature of time and space and how life started, God of some kind remains
an option.
RE: Whole Series
Shelley
05/01/2008
One of the problems with this debate is that the spiritual dimension is usually portrayed as Judeo-
Christian, whereas the scientific perspective is inevitably assumed to be the European approach
epitomized by "great men of science." Hinduism and Buddhism have no difficulty blending spirit and
science, while many indigenous perspectives embrace a scientific world view very similar to quantum
mechanics. The stark divide between spirituality and science is only possible when the universe is
seen as materialist, and questions of mind and spirit are presumed to hark back to an older naive set
of religious beliefs that materialist science is believed to have transcended.
The answer is, quite frankly, we don't know. Spirituality depends on many things, such as meditation or
prayer, religious epiphanies, lifelong cultural and personal values, etc. Why, within a materialist
European scientific tradition, won't the questions of spirituality go away? In fact, new discoveries in
cosmology and quantum physics seems to suggest that material and spiritual realms cannot be
separated. Creation myths from Genesis to the Big Bang have surprising similarities.
The European scientific tradition is based on a belief that humans (although descended from and
linked to other living organisms) are unique, that life on earth is also unique (as far as we know), and
that the universe can be explained through a mixture of experiential testing, observation, and rational
thought. Religious views (within the Judeo-Christian tradition) depend on a similar set of beliefs. In
fact, there is a very good argument that scientific analysis is derived from religious experience, from
Muslim scientists to Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton.
The incredibly improbable, indeed impossible, chance that we exist at all in this universe is enough to
ground my faith in a consciousness beyond the human and a transcendant spirit that permeates the
Universe. Whether we call this "God" or not is irrelevant.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Bob Huskey
05/01/2008
"Science itself employs a kind of faith." This draws a specious connection to religious faith. The "faith"
of science, if you insist on using that word, is accepting observation and understanding the world
based on it. The faith of religion is accepting there is a deity (creator) that we can't observe and, for far
too many, understanding the world based on what others say that deity said. That is, the whim of other
men.
302
"But God is not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature, the explanation of why
things are. He is the answer to existence, not part of existence itself." This is where it becomes
nonsense. These are undefined, essentially meaningless assertions. Miller seems to be presuming
existence has a "meaning" and god provides that meaning. That existence has "meaning" is a
romantic fallacy. "Meaning" to whom? Isn't it sweet to imagine humans "mean" something in the
universe? Even the question, "what is our meaning in the universe, what is the meaning of life?"
presumes there is a meaning. It is an ill-formed question. A real question might be, Is there "meaning"
in our existence? But that would require defining "meaning," and to whom, which extinguishes the
question's value pretty quickly.
The theist, we're told, "seeks an explanation that is deeper than science can provide, an explanation
that includes science, but then seeks the ultimate reason why the logic of science should work so well.
The hypothesis of God comes not from a rejection of science, but from a penetrating curiosity that asks
why science is even possible, and why the laws of nature exist for us to discover." Here is more of the
same nonsense about "meaning." To use the phrase the "hypothesis of God" to rhetorically wrap god
into science (scientists test hypotheses) while asserting elsewhere that god is outside of science is
shallow rhetoric that demands exposure and explanation.
RE: Whole Series
Glen Reese
05/01/2008
As noted by an earlier poster, the concept of God has always been man-made. (How could it be
otherwise?) And science has gradually eliminated any need for God as an explanation for humankind,
the natural order, and the cosmos that we observe. The data from cosmology, astronomy, nuclear
physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, genetics, etc. support one consistent story of the gradual
buildup of complexity from a Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. No intervening miracles have been
needed; every layer of complexity appears to evolve from the previous one through simple, natural
laws. As this progression has been explicated by science, the justification (and need) for God as a
supernatural meddler into nature has gradually disappeared.
But the understanding of this progressive evolution brings us a new problem, i.e., why did it work so
well? It has been noted by several cosmologists that the universe could not have created us if the
(apparently arbitrary) forces of physics had been ANY different. The complexity we see is the result of
physical laws that are fine-tuned to an incredible degree. It did not (apparently) have to be this way.
Although recent efforts in science have been directed toward an understanding of the source of these
laws (e.g., string theory, quantum cosmology), there appears little hope that any verifiable, scientific
explanation will be forthcoming. We are left to hypothesize about infinite arrays of universes, one of
which we are fortunate to live in. In this situation, it seems equally reasonable to speculate that our
universe was set into motion by a very Intelligent Designer. So science has not yet disproven the God
Hypothesis, although most traditional religions have taken it in the shorts. There is still room for faith, if
you're careful about it.
RE: Whole Series
Russ Otter
05/01/2008
Dear Mohamoud (who posted below),
Please read my book, at least the chapters on theology and religion. It is called Swimming in Cosmic
Soup. I have reviewed your comments about Christopher Hitchens, and I find them very firm and
dedicated to your belief system. I also find Christopher, a gentleman and a scholar, trying to inform the
world about truths that we all have ignored too long. I believe that the core of god or providence, if
actual, would agree with me. A God would make itself secondary to the essentials of goodness toward
all living things in this life, the goodness that you and I and all of us are in communion with. We are
part of this cosmos together and part of each other. Physics, or existence itself, makes this so. You are
welcome to your beliefs, as I am to mine. That is integrity, which is essential to be sincere. But that
does not make either of us right. Only goodness makes us right.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Aja
303
05/01/2008
Impossible. Science is an empirical enterprise that measures quantifiable physical parameters,
whereas belief in God begins as spiritual exercise. These are often presented as parallel worldviews.
This is not so, and I contend that the spiritual worldview takes precedence over and subsumes the
physical. Part of the historical problem in projecting spiritual realities into the physical world has been
the attempt to make the Bible a science text and hence a strict reconstruction of cosmological and
geological history. This could never have been the intention of the Author of the Holy Writ, for one of
the writers declared that through faith (not through science) we understand that the worlds were
framed by God. Being a body of revealed knowledge, the Bible does not contain details on how the
worlds came into being. Finding out these details is the purview of the scientific enterprise.
Some so-called creationists speculate that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, whereas most
scientists assume that the earth is 4.6 billion years old; the former is based on the work of Archbishop
Ussher (ca. 1650). Since the latter is based on scientific measurements, the impression of a conflict is
created. However, this is really a misreading of the evidence. The Genesis account indicates that the
sun and the moon were created on the fourth day. The first three days obviously could not have been
24-hour days. The sun was not there then! Conceivably, the 6 days of creation were counted on a
different frame of reference.
Finally, given the vastness of the universe, it is remarkable that our earth, which is just like a speck of
dust in the universe, is the only place where life exists. Furthermore, a series of fortuitous
circumstances (e.g., the distance of earth from the sun and the presence of a moon that regulates the
inclination of the earth's orbit) combined to make life possible on the earth. Moreover, our universe is
characterized by increasing entropy, and yet life (which requires some self-assembly and self-
organization) evolved contrary to this increase towards randomness in the universe. These are
arguments for the existence of a Creator who is possibly the God we speak of, and our detailed
understanding of the works of the Creator cannot contradict faith in Him.
RE: Whole Series
Chris Roach
05/01/2008
Phrasing the question as "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" seems to focus the discussion
on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, which picture a big bearded "Guy in the Sky" who takes a
direct and constant interest in the affairs of the people who populate this small and insignificant planet
(and sometimes feels the rather human need to meddle). Believers in these traditions have made
rational arguments over the centuries to prove the existence of this God (made in the image of man)
and have promulgated myths of creation and miracles to show that this God takes a personal and
active interest in the affairs of man. Science and rigorously rational thought reveal the hollowness of
these sorts of justifications and engender an urge to dismiss God, since the best of science and
rationality cannot show any proof or even indication of "his" existence. One can believe, but there is no
rational basis for that belief.
The discussion (or at least that part of it that was published in The Atlantic for May) is about belief and
rationality; it leaves out something beyond either--experience, that is, the direct mystical experience of
the Divine. "I experience, therefore I believe." Most, if not all, religions start with the ecstatic religious
experience of a person, an experience universally described as becoming one with the universe,
feeling love for all creatures, and knowing this transcendent love as deriving from a source beyond our
comprehension but encompassing everything. Unfortunately, this person all too often becomes a
prophet and speaks of an experience that is ineffable, demeaning the reality of the experience and
creating a story that will be expanded and misinterpreted by those who follow. Only Lao Tzu resisted
this urge.
The religions of the East, as well as the mystic branches of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, give us
spiritual practices that can lead to a direct experience of God, or the Divine, or whatever word you
choose to represent It. Few can reach the ultimate experience, but many can and have experienced
brief glimpses, enough to KNOW and to provide a spiritual and moral structure that enriches their lives.
Mohamoud
05/01/2008
304
Mr. Hitchens asks if human beings would have believed in God had they known: (a) that our species is
at most 200,000 years old, and very nearly joined the 98.9 percent of all other species on our planet by
becoming extinct, in Africa, 60,000 years ago, when our numbers seemingly fell below 2,000 before we
embarked on our true "exodus" from the savannah; (b) that the universe is expanding away from itself
even more rapidly; (c) that the Andromeda galaxy is on a direct collision course with our own
But what if my religion (Islam) does not contradict the above scientific facts and has continuously
taught similar facts for thousands of years, long before these discoveries were made by modern
science? So the answer is, yes, Mr. Hitchens, because there does exist a group of us who believe in
God even though we are aware of the above facts. And our faith in God did not become obsolete
because science was able to show us the evidence of what we already believed.
The only question that remains, then, is how can we believe in a creator or a designer that is (a) very
laborious, roundabout, tinkering, and incompetent and/or (b) extremely capricious, and callous, and
even cruel. Well, I would not say God moves in mysterious ways because, as Mr. Bizarro Dawkins
points out (in a previous post), this argument of Hitchens really boils down to a rather crude argument
from personal incredulity, and it deserves to be discounted as emotionally charged rubbish.
RE: Whole Series
Michael D'Emidio
05/01/2008
As an attorney, I know the value of a good question. This was a bad question; the response to which
enlightens no one--i.e., the jury of humankind. A vestigial organ may exist and be "obsolete." A better
question, that would yield a useful answer, is: Has the scientific method proven that the concept of
God is man-made? Then the answer is an unequivocal yes. I trust that the fence-sitting scientists in
these essays don't engage in such contra-factual faith-based cognitive dissonance when conducting
experiments. Anyone can "believe" whatever they want, but that doesn't have anything to do with truth
or reality--the ostensible goals of science.
RE: Whole Series
Raymond Dudderar
05/01/2008
This is far more than just "interesting"! It is the defining debate about how humans will progress with
regard to the social contract and morality in general. Religion has failed us miserably in so many ways.
Perhaps reason will succeed--if we give it a chance.
RE: Whole Series
Sterling Cox
05/01/2008
Beyond delightsome, this! Thank you profusely to the Templeton Foundation. I relish this series and
want to suggest live forums too, to whatever extent and wherever possible. The interactive aspect is
the only thing which, in my opinion, can improve the quality.
RE: Whole Series
Joe Kenny
04/30/2008
Interesting debate.
RE: Whole Series
Gunther Steinberg
04/30/2008
Those with a religious bent and belief must argue for the idea that there is a god. Reasoning plus
inductive and deductive thought will always lead to the conclusion that there is no god. God was
invented in ancient times when most people were quite ignorant, and those with knowledge used that
idea to gain control and reenforce some of the rules that they wished to have.
For instance, someone in ancient times seems to have deduced that trichinosis was associated with
the eating of pork. The outlawing of eating pork by a ruler would be circumvented in times of hunger,
but when it became part of the prevalent belief/religion, the prohibition was more closely adhered to
and prevented widespread illness. And so it is with most "religious" tenets. They were precursors of
rules and laws we have today in a civilized society and were enforced for the benefit of the population.
Only later did some religions make other rules primarily related to their own survival and to increase
305
the number of "believers." The Catholic Church is a fine example of this, with its rules against birth
control, regardless of how much misery and hunger this might cause. Outbreeding the other faiths is
more important.
When rational scientific thought is applied to almost any specific "religious" rule or belief, it can be
readily shown to be faulty. Intelligent design is a good example, since its defenders cannot answer
most of the scientific and rational questions posed to them. Perhaps God and religion serve a minor
purpose by reenforcing the rules of modern society. But then many "believers" and church leaders
misuse it for their own purpose and advancement. Some people need blind faith in something to
maintain their sanity in the face of adversity. Others practice a religion because failure to do so would
be "bad for business." For that reason there probably never will be an atheist President of the US. He
would lose all the faithful and blind believers. But do the "born again Christian" Presidents in the US
practice what they profess to believe? Hardly.
RE: Whole Series
Rahmat Aziz
04/30/2008
The idea of god came about because we wanted to feel secure in the knowledge that we exist forever
(fear of death, wanting to be pain-free and well fed). The idea of the existence of god is faith and
cannot be proven by science. At this point, human understanding and knowledge have shown with
reasonable certainty the processes of human existence and that we are part of the universe. Old
religious ideas are very limiting.
RE: Whole Series
Russ Otter
04/30/2008
We are all created agnostic. Only culture or introspection forms god(s). This is not to say there is no
god, but to say we can never know such a thing, for the simple reality that we are finite sentient beings.
Theology clearly defines god as omnipotent, therefore infinite. However, understanding the infinite
realm would circumscribe infinity--and it would no longer be infinite. This is a conundrum, and it
explains the advent of the agnostic, who possesses the only possible truth we will ever actually know.
God is a concept used in various religions to make sense of the fundamental unknowns of existence.
The concept has also been used to control societies and institute power. But God is also a good term,
in its best application. It can mean, in more personal and practical theologies, the exercise of the
Golden Rule, which is the essence of a loving not a wrathful god. It stands irrefutably, indelibly, and
infinitely on its own, without the need for support from culture, religion, or politics. It is agnostic,
theistic, and antitheistic all at the same time, in perfect sympathetic union. The Golden Rule is Ethics
personified, perhaps the god-gene in us all.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Williams
04/30/2008
It seems to me that it depends on the area of investigation. For the age of the universe, yes. For some
ethical questions, no. Will tomorrow's science make today's science obsolete? Does Einstein make
Newton or Galileo obsolete? For some questions, yes; for most questions, no. We should focus on the
usefulness of a theory and not its age. But maybe that was the intent of the original question. Is god
still useful? For me, yes, in some instances.
RE: Whole Series
Steve Maslen
04/30/2008
It seems to me that many of the authors make God into a euphemism for morality or love or the like.
The word has certainly been redefined to a point where it seems meaningless.
RE: Whole Series
Giorgio
04/30/2008
If you believe in God, science helps you to reveal his glory: the Logos who endlessly generates the
creation.
306
RE: Whole Series
Rick Samuelson
04/30/2008
A response to Mitch McGill (see comment below):
It's interesting to have to explain what I meant by writing that "God (if God exists) is and must be,
before anything else, God the Creator of life." The idea comes from two lines of thought. The first is the
question of whether life was created by an intelligent designer. It seems to me that it must have been
because I can't imagine just-plain-chemicals creating life on their own by just undergoing chemical
reactions. If you know biochemistry, you know how incredibly complex the whole DNA-RNA-
ribosomes-protein business is, you know how amazing enzymes are, you know how amazing the
creation and use of ATP are, and you know that most biomolecules are single enantiomers of chiral
compounds. So how could they have selected from a primordial soup of racemic mixtures, etc.? Not
only is life immensely complex, but it's also so specific. To create a system like life takes planning and
intelligent thought. Anyway, people who discuss intelligent design ask whether the designer is God. My
reaction was--of course the designer is God. If an intelligence exists that created life, isn't this what
everyone would call God?
The second line of thought is this: What do I know about God? Nothing except what I can imagine and
(mostly) what other people have said and written about God. God may well be just a concept that
people made up. What did they think this God-concept was? I think mostly two things: (1) God is to be
feared (and therefore worshiped and propitiated) because he is all-powerful and can control your life.
God is the ultimate ruler. He's the boss, the Lord. (2) God is to be thanked, praised, and loved because
he created you and gives you sustenance. God is the ultimate parent. Now that we elect our rulers and
people (not God) make our laws, the first idea is not so powerful, but the second still is. If God exists,
then God must be responsible for creating me and everyone else. God is first of all the Creator.
RE: Whole Series
Gregory Konakis
04/29/2008
The wrong question was asked. The correct question is: Does rational thinking make belief in God
obsolete?
RE: Whole Series
Jacob Dink
04/29/2008
I'd like to politely disagree with the general commendation of this panel. While it's an intriguing
question, I think there is a moderate bias in the answerers towards a religious outlook. Many more
scientists here are on the religious side, which (we know from polls) is not quite an accurate sample.
And there is no non-religious philosopher (like a Dennett).
But I'd like to propose my answer: Yes, belief in theism is very much a scientific question. Theistic
religions makes bold proclamations about the nature of the world, of man, etc. But these sorts of
questions CAN be explored with science. Once one realizes that theism makes such bold claims, one
must examine such pseudo-scientific, as well as non-scientific, claims with a rigorous and science-like
methodology. For instance, the poor/moderate historicity of the gospels, coupled with what we now
know (scientifically) about eyewitness testimony and claims of the paranormal, makes religious
accounts (as evidence for the divine) completely crumble.
Once we shift into deism, we indeed leave the realm of science. But deism is philosophical suicide. We
know that consciousness is complex (see Libet's experiment, for instance-- consciously-willed actions
are spaced out through time and neurons, so there can be no simple quiddity of mind). Yet God, an
omnipotent and conscious creator of the universe, would have to be unimaginably complex, despite
protestations of outdated theologians. (This is a perfect example of science improving and augmenting
philosophy, which can then delve into non-scientific questions.) Either God must be complex, and he
explains nothing, or we must reject our notions of simplicity/complexity/mind. But once we do this,
we've rejected the very notions with which we wish to appeal to a God (so as to explain), and we open
the door for any other equally incomprehensible entity. Instead, we should preserve our knowledge
and understanding and admit: God is obsolete.
307
RE: Whole Series
Richard Hunter
04/29/2008
The title question should read "gods" rather than "God."
RE: Whole Series
Mitch McGill
04/29/2008
In his post, Rick Samuelson wrote that "God (if God exists) is and must be, before anything else, God
the Creator of life." I am curious to know why he thinks this. Perhaps he could enlighten me? I agree
with his estimation of the importance of chemistry in this discussion. My original training was in
biochemistry, and it has quite a lot to offer here. That said, I'm a bit confused by the structure of his
comment: he begins with a statement (that chemistry is relevant to all this), and he follows it with an
explanation (because life is chemical). Then he makes a second statement (quoted above), but he
offers no explanation for it. He takes it for granted.
My opinion is that the various sciences (I dislike the establishmentarian term "science") can amply
show that the existence of a God is not an absolute necessity. But they cannot necessarily show that
He/She/It does not exist. Any attempt to do so is overstepping the bounds of scientific method. There
is a point where science ends and other ways of thinking begin.
RE: Mary Midgley
Jacob Dink
04/29/2008
"Belief in God is not a judgment about physical facts in the world [but] an element [of a] worldview, the
set of assumptions by which we make sense of our world as a whole." Mrs. Midgley has put forward a
vague argument resembling the easily discredited (but at least more rigorous) apologetics of
"presuppositionalism." The idea is that everyone has a worldview--a set of propositions that are taken
on faith. In the apologetics form, this argument then proposes that the Christian God is the only valid
grounds for belief in the most essential premises: inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, etc. Mrs.
Midgley has decided, in an absurd expression of pretentious empirical relativism, that all worldviews
are just about equally valid.
But let's not fall into the trap. Human nature is such that we do indeed have presuppositions--but we
can't just choose them inchoately, unless we lie to ourselves. We have an underlying confidence in the
uniformity of nature (we evolved in such a universe) and thus induction. Similar accounts can be given
for deduction. Now, it's important to note that whatever these bare-bones faith-claims, worldviews, and
presuppositions are, they will be shared by all. Once one adds additional claims (especially if they
could potentially conflict with these bare-bones claims), the even ground, the lax empirical relativism of
Midgley, is obliterated. God is NOT an underlying and essential worldview. It is a proposition about
existence within reality. Such propositions can only be explored with our rationality, and if there is no
reason/evidence for them, they should not be assumed.
Scientism is indeed a plausible problem. But the solution should not be nonsense--the solution lies in
both science and rigorous philosophy.
RE: Whole Series
Steve Miner
04/29/2008
Please continue to invest your funds for purposes such as this. What a wonderful and refreshing
approach to dialogue about the issues we face, as it becomes apparent to even the most postivisitic
among us that the search for immutable laws will, inevitably, lead only to more questions. We are
confronted, then, with a deeply felt void which can never be completely filled by "proof" derived under
man's current paradigmatic limitations.
What if God wasn't just Love but also Life? A new age approaches (some say it is well past due) which
acknowledges what our religous beliefs and texts have always maintained: there is an intricate beauty
and sheer mystery behind the wonderment of all life on Earth which only our spiritual side can fully
appreciate. Our humanly lived experience and felt appreciation for our place in the universe should
again be allowed a return to center stage, given its long exile in the wilderness following the Cartesian
split. Without a return to spiritualism (call it religion if you want), there is little chance the world will be
308
saved from the destructive path which we currently are following.
The process of removing human values from science has left us dangerously subject to the fate of
having a life less than it can and should be. It may well be that our saving grace will be the human
emotions, of which our spiritual experience is such a large and important part. Our native beliefs and,
ultimately, a faith in processes clearly greater than ourselves can save us from great unendurable
hardship and loss.
Keep up the great work! And thank the foundation board, please!
Jacob Dink
04/29/2008
Dr. Phillips is a bit glib in his characterization of science. Falsifiability is indeed an essential
requirement in scientific theories, and (in a sense) the scientific method isn't a method we are
obligated to apply to our lives. But another essential attribute of both science and rational thinking in
general is a commitment to evidence and parsimony. These are similar ideas: we can explain the
world without invisible, undetectable fairies, so we don't believe in them. Fairies are both
unparsimonious and unevidenced.
For some reason, Dr. Phillips doesn't seem to think that this applies to a belief in God. A lack of
evidence, aside from vague numinous feelings (which are more parsimoniously explained by the
relevant psychology), is irrelevant when talking about an important aspect of Dr. Phillips's life. Perhaps
he can claim that the most abstract deistic concept is non-scientific, but he is being dishonest when (a)
he refuses to apply not just science but even rationality and rigorous thinking to his beliefs and (b) he
refuses to acknowledge the eminent falsifiability of the theistic creator that he professes belief in. He
believes that Jesus was resurrected? This is very much a claim that could be falsified--and even if it's
not already, the dearth of evidence should be enough to dissuade him from such a belief. If he were
thinking in a rigorous, scientific, and (above all) rational manner about his life. But apparently he is not.
Such compartmentalization in otherwise intelligent scientists is by no means appalling or unique (and I
wouldn't call it a delusion), but it is a bit frustrating and sad.
Jacob Dink
04/29/2008
"Fast-forward to the present...": I think the Cardinal has demonstrated a respectable grasp of some big
philosophical and scientific concepts, but he draws all the wrong conclusions. Do the intelligibility and
teleology that he describes imply an ontological existence of these things, or just that we evolved in
this world, so of course we can attempt (often successfully) to understand it? Perhaps we interpret
things SO THAT we can understand them and ASCRIBE teleology to things. It's indicative that this
world wasn't made for us (but we in it) that when we get to the smallest scales of quantum mechanics
we can't seem to comprehend things in an orderly or sensible manner, because we didn't evolve with
these capabilities. In what way do we find eleven dimensions intelligible or comprehensible?
There has been a veritable litany of theistic worldviews. The Cardinal has taken the most respectable
and (in hindsight) most prescient and interpreted science so as to fit it. Many religious figures have
attempted to do this: when atoms were king, Newton declared this a demonstration of God's perfection
and rationality. Now non-atoms do the same. So too (for other religious figures) with circular orbits.
And elliptical ones. And now with a (well, not really) "rational" universe.
Which theistic outlook has been fully vindicated? Cherry-picking (from both science and religion) can
indeed be utilized to accommodate your worldview. Perhaps we should avoid this and attempt to be
more intellectually honest. The most honest perspective on science and the order of the universe tells
us (a) we're a speck in a not-so-orderly universe created by the (random) Big Bang and (b) it is
untenable to call our consciousness a simple entity, not a complex emergent phenomenon. Thus, by
trying to attribute to God a (fictional and anthropocentric) order, we explain something non-existent
with something unhelpful.
RE: Whole Series
Dov Michaeli
04/29/2008
309
Thoughtful articles. What is missing is a direct clash of ideas. By that I mean having participants
comment on and critique each other's articles. I would love to read Christopher Hitchens response to
Mary Midgley and vice versa. Without this conversation, we are left with the contributors talking past
each other rather than engaging each other in a battle of ideas. [Please see the debates linked above.
-Editor]
RE: Whole Series
Paul Atmajian, M.D.
04/29/2008
Science cannot make belief in God obsolete. By definition, science deals with matter, which is subject
to physical evaluation, observation, and hypotheses. God is spirit and is greater than man can imagine
and understand. Science can have little or nothing to say about God. God transcends the world we
know and see and time as we know it. God is not testable. Science can strive to understand the
handiwork of God and describe it and use it for man's benefit.
Occasionally, someone educated and typically employed in a branch of the sciences will venture from
their worlds of biology, chemistry, or physics and comment on theology or philosophy. The best and
wisest say "we don't know" quite a lot. Others with a frequently unknown agenda offer a comment on
God "from a position of science." Some even say that a particular scientific theory somehow displaces
God or negates God, or that a concept of God is made up by people, or that God does not exist--as
though man could investigate all extents and dimensions of life in the universe! These folks are
dangerous to truth and as silly as an ant claiming mastery of the Earth.
The downside of the few loud and arrogant "scientists" who opine much out of their realm is that
ignorant folks believe them, echo them, trust them, and follow them. And so a child can be deceived to
believe that science has indeed made belief in God obsolete. Rather than seek to understand what
may be known of God and about God, the deceived soul will cease to allow their spirit to seek God.
Many don't even ask questions such as, who made love? Or why is it that tree blossoms are attractive
and smell pleasant? In short, too few bother to ask any number of questions for which science has no
answer, nor can ever have an answer. Schools can even become places of spiritual and intellectual
oppression. A professor may even deride another's beliefs.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Gene Bammel
04/29/2008
For those of us who have been interested in the science/religion debate for many years, this
conversation is an excellent summary of what has gone on--and a hint about new directions. Excellent
materials!
RE: Whole Series
Kristina
04/29/2008
The premise of this question should immediately prompt another question: as science has progressed,
has belief in god waned? The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the United States, for example, lip
service to what are supposedly Judeo-Christian ethics has led to eight billion dollars a year spent on
abstinence-only education. The materials in these nefarious and pernicious programs claim, among
other things, that abstinence until marriage is the expected standard of human sexual behavior, that
homosexuality is unnatural, and that women should be the gatekeepers of sexuality.
Further tendencies in the name of piety include massive amounts of energy and money expended to
prevent consenting adults from marrying if they happen to be the same gender and to prevent the use
of stem cells to help prolong the lives of the living and ease their sufferings. There is no evidence that
belief in god in this country, anyway, is on the wane, nor any to suggest that this will change anytime
soon.
RE: Whole Series
Terry Cassidy
04/29/2008
The series is thoughtful and challenging, but it makes no demands about belief. A thoughtful exchange
among intelligent and presumably reasonable people about things we cannot know or understand is
comforting . . . but doesn't change the mystery much.
310
RE: Whole Series
Leo Daugherty
04/29/2008
This is a wonderful series--just one more thing we owe to the marvelous Templeton Foundation. I'm
teaching a course this summer at the University of Virginia called "God and Darwin: Friends or Foes?"
We're reading Dawkins, Dennett, Francis Collins, Simon Morris, et al. I'll now add your booklet. Thanks
for including Midgley. She is a hero of mine, though I disagree with her on many things.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Samuelson
04/28/2008
As usual, many physicists and various sorts of biologists are asked to comment, but no chemists. Life
is a complex chemical system, with the most complex chemistry we know of in the entire universe. So
of all scientists, it's chemists who should have the best understanding of what life is and of how it could
have arisen. This is important for your question because God (if God exists) is and must be, before
anything else, God the Creator of life. So the question really is: does science think life was created by
chemical processes happening on their own (unmediated) or by an intelligent designer/God? If it's the
former, science may have made belief in God obsolete. If it's the latter, then biochemistry is the subject
to study for anyone who wants to try to understand God. But for some reason, it's always physicists
and biologists (neither of whom seem to fully understand the chemistry of life) who make
pronouncements on these issues.
RE: Michael Shermer
Farah
04/28/2008
If an ETI designed us and our universe, then who designed the ETI?
RE: Whole Series
Robert Merrill
04/28/2008
Thank you for sponsoring this series. As a recently retired university professor (geology), I've found an
increasing number of students unwilling to think critically about a wide variety of issues and the
number who avoid the sciences disturbing. This seems to parallel a growing anti-science attitude in the
United States. Your series should help somewhat in this matter, but I fear too few people will read it
and fewer yet, including too many of our political "leaders," will understand much of it. While much of
the current controversy revolves around evolution vs. creation, its growth beyond this is what frightens
me.
Science differs from religion because it's not revealed truth--you're supposed to understand it. Unless
U.S. citizens begin to reinvest in education, this country will see its world leadership decline. Thank
you for doing your part to discuss these important issues.
RE: Whole Series
Clifford Stevens
04/28/2008
The existence of God cannot be reached by the empirical sciences because the senses cannot see,
touch, or measure God. The existence of God is reached by a reasoning process that reaches
conclusions in proportion to the facts. The Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas is not only the
greatest synthesis of theistic knowledge but embodies a respect for reason and for the reasoning
process that brought about the birth of science in the first place (his teacher, Albertus Magnus, was the
greatest empirical scientist of his day).
In his writings and his debates, Aquinas always showed the deepest respect for the intellects and
arguments of his opponents, and so those who accept the existence of God as a proven and
demonstrated reality should listen carefully to the arguments and convictions of those who do not, for
in their thinking and objections there is always some grain of truth. This is Thomas Aquinas's
conclusion about God: "There is one first being, possessing the full perfection of all being, who of the
abundance of his perfection bestows being on all that exists, so that he is proved to be, not only the
first of beings, but also the beginning (or origin) of everything else." However, when he asks whether
the existence of God is self-evident, he answers that it is not. He recognized that in facing such an all-
embracing and overpowering reality, we are like bats staring into the sun.
311
Thelonious
04/28/2008
I find it fascinating (and ultimately damning) that Schonborn sees this issue strictly in terms of the
Greek atomists vs. Aristotle--clearly he and the Roman Catholic Church have some catching up to do
philosophically. Can he seriously be arguing that because the universe appears to be intelligible "all
the way down" that therefore there must be a god? Good grief! He ultimately trots out a version of this
old chestnut: "Deep down you're not really happy, are you? One day you'll come around and get right
with god." This is sheer hucksterism.
RE: Whole Series
John Woods
04/28/2008
I congratulate you on making available meaningful discussions on BOTH sides of these questions. Too
often we are restricted to diatribes from one side or the other.
RE: Whole Series
Jessica Wheat Welton
04/28/2008
This is really interesting and refreshing in its scope. I'm so glad I came across it in the NYTimes.
RE: Steven Pinker
Amanda H.
04/28/2008
Steven Pinker is reliably spot-on, echoing my own sentiments with enviable lucidity. Hitchens and
Stenger, too, never fail to be spectacular. How exhausting it must be for the devout of the world to
maintain their pointless compartmentalization. Advances in understanding the world around us should
be furiously celebrated, not guarded against. Who on earth could envy them their ignorance?
Manuel Herrera
04/28/2008
I agree with just about everything Hitchens wrote. What surprises me is the people who don't want to
dismiss god for the reasons he stated. To believe in something so outrageous without any evidence is
believing in nothing less than a made-up story.
RE: Whole Series
Charles Roesch, Ph.D., M.D.
04/28/2008
Of all the millions of scientific experiments conducted, not one has ever documented supernatural
manipulation. There is simply no need to invent a supernatural deity. In any context other than religion,
faith, worship, and magical thinking are considered pathological. Why do we make the exception?
RE: Whole Series
Allen Rauch
04/28/2008
This is a valuable and worthwhile series. It compells us to explore our own beliefs as they pertain to
the complexity of life and the cosmos, their origin, patterns, cycles, and continuity.
RE: Whole Series
Michael Ross
04/28/2008
Two types of written material exist: fact and fiction. Without exception, religions are based on works of
fiction, most of them written thousands of years ago. The Bible and the Koran are no different from
Grimms' fairy tales or Harry Potter's adventures--all works of fiction.
Science is based on verifiable and repeatable experiments or tests. Based on their results, we have
theories and laws that represent reality and allow us to build a functional technological society.
Science is our reality test. The presumption of God does not pass the reality test. No verifiable and
repeatable experiment has ever been devised to test for the existence of God or a creator.
The fact that billions of people believe in something does not make it real. We have only one test for
312
reality, the scientific test, and until such a test can be done, there is no more reason to believe in God
or a creator than there is to believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
RE: Whole Series
Steven Ryave MD
04/28/2008
A total breath of fresh air. I am so pleased to have found your New York Times spread this past
weekend. Thank you.
RE: Whole Series
David Bridgehouse
04/28/2008
Just a note to thank you for the series. It is, I think, beneficial to all and particularly to individuals not
looking for the usual drivel put out in most articles today. As a unitarian, humanist, atheist, I relish the
reflections of your writers.
RE: Michael Shermer
Michael Peter Ross
04/28/2008
Shermer's essay, to my mind, is the one most probably true. I have always thought that the ultimate
purpose of an intelligent species would be to create a universe. The advance of science has shown
that there is no need for a god to explain the existence of the universe. I therefore must conclude that
the only other two possibilities are (1) an ETI or (2) a multiverse space where universes evolve, and
we happen to be in one that sustains life.
Ed Bradburn
04/28/2008
Masterly.
RE: Whole Series
Albert Sanders
04/27/2008
Science does not make belief in God obsolete unless the belief has delusional aspects like the denial
of reality--that is, denying what is known to be true. This could be truth of a common-sense nature like
one's own name or it could be truth that has been determined by scientific methods. Scientific truth is
always subject to revision but at any given time is the closest to reality that we can get. Since science
cannot disprove beliefs but can only determine facts, there is no reason that one cannot respect
scientific methods and hold other beliefs.
I believe, for example, that the USA is the best country in the world. I don't see how science could
determine whether this is true or not, but I do not feel the need for any such proof. I believe it; it is my
faith. If I have faith in the goodness of my country, why shouldn't someone else have faith in the
existence of God? I see no problem in respecting beliefs that do not contradict facts--especially if they
satisfy those who hold them.
RE: Whole Series
Zamboro
04/27/2008
Hitchens is characteristically well spoken, but I wish he'd include a bit more scientific meat in his
writing. Perhaps it's time he went on hiatus and hit the books? All that really separates him from the
best polemicists is a better command of science.
Aaron Martin-Colby
04/27/2008
Nice Aristotle reference. It shows he's done his philosophical reading.
RE: Whole Series
Lamar Hunt
04/27/2008
What do we mean by religion? Do those who say that science does not make religion obsolete really
believe the actual statements of religion (for example, the Christian belief that Mary was a virgin when
313
she gave birth to Jesus)? If they don't because of what we have learned from science, then in what
way has science not made this aspect of religion obsolete?
If we are to reject the literal statements of religion and simply accept a misty understanding of the
notion of God, then I would hardly call this religion, in which case science has still made religion
obsolete. One cannot turn to deism in an effort to show how religion is not obsolete. This
misrepresents the vast majority of those who call themselves religious.
James P. Cornelio
04/27/2008
Christopher Hitchens is the only name most readers will likely recognize here. With a vigor and venom
that brook no subtlety of thought, he can't help attracting hordes of fans. The premise of Hitchens and
his acolytes? Well, if god doesn't realize that my own years on this earth are all that matters, then let's
hate, or at least dismiss, that god, just as we hate (or dismiss) all those others who interfere with our
pleasures.
Leave it to the cleric, Keith Ward, to insert some actual science into this conversation on god and
science. He asks, "How do you picture a probability wave in Hilbert Space?" Actually, what he should
have asked is, "How, exactly, does that probability wave collapse to shape the dark, evanescent reality
that we experience?" Even without asking that particular question, Ward helpfully provides the two
most prevalent answers that physicists have offered: (1) There is an infinite number (or, depending on
whom you believe, 10 to the 100th power) of universes out there. At each quantum juncture since time
began (infinite or 10 to the 100th), the universe splits, so that there really is no collapse. (2) Per von
Neumann, et al., our consciousness causes it. Or as Ward characterizes their theory: consciousness is
an ultimate, irreducible element of reality, the basis of the physical as we know it, not its byproduct.
Hmmm. Before we dismiss god, I think we should really think about how we want to define god.
Personally, Mr. Hitchens, I believe that even you (in all of your quantum/meta-physical glory) are
"more" than whatever infinitesimally small number of years your body will inhabit this earth. And the
sooner you start proselytizing that faith, rather than undermining the mindless faith of those who lust
after a twisted and cartoonish god-father, the better.
Bizarro Dawkins
04/27/2008
I found Hitchen's essay particularly incoherent. He makes the sweeping statement that morality
shudders at the idea of God. I've always been surprised and a little disappointed that some of the
greatest minds in the atheist community attack God's character with the intention of somehow
detracting from the reasonability of His existence. For the sake of argument they assume God's
existence, and then presumptuously claim that His design is faulty, or that His plan for salvation and
redemption reflects a spirit of malevolence and cruelty.
Apparent amidst all of the faulty exegesis and de-contextualization of biblical texts is one glaring
deficiency in this argument: the God of the Bible cannot, by definition, be immoral. In order to attack
God's character, one must first assume His existence (for the sake of argument). However, the God of
the Bible is defined not simply as being perfect in the moral sense; He is defined as the essence of
morality itself. In the Biblical scheme, whatever is moral is whatever is consistent with God's nature. A
god who is not moral cannot be the God of the Bible. Therefore, to say that God is immoral or evil is to
say that a being who is the definition of morality is immoral. Obviously, if one says that God is immoral,
one cannot be addressing the God of the Bible and is merely attacking a deific construct of one's own
imagination.
Hitchen's argument really boils down to a rather crude argument from personal incredulity, and it
deserves to be discounted as emotionally charged rubbish.
RE: Whole Series
Randy Ping
04/27/2008
Of coarse a bunch of ministers and priests are going to say "no"; it's their own self-interest on the line.
But why would you even ask somebody with a religious agenda this very scientific question? The same
314
goes for Hitchens, though, as he is also not a scientist. "God" is humanity's collective imaginary friend,
and it's time to grow up and face the realities of a scientific understanding.
I was once a very religious person too, but I've since found more accurate answers to the actual big
questions. My own scientific understanding (while limited, I admit) gives me a much deeper feeling of
brotherhood with my fellow humans than any religion (and I tried a few) ever possibly could. Religion is
a bogus proposition. It tells us to wait until after we are dead for peace, for justice, for understanding.
Religion tells us lies to feed our vanity: like the lie that man is above nature, that we are more
important than the rest of life on this (or any other) planet. Thanks to Darwin and the theory of
evolution through natural selection, I see all men as my brothers--and all women as my sisters. We are
one race, with no special "chosen people."
It's time to put the old explanations on the trash heap of history where they belong. Only then can we
begin to have a meaningful sense of morality, and extend our compassion and our love to all people.
Only then can we accept real responsibility for what we do and how we do it. I am sick of religion and
its lies, its petty hatreds, and its fearful opposition to the real answers that science offers us.
RE: Whole Series
Marty Stone
04/27/2008
Science and religion are, by definition, concerned with two separate ways of knowing the Universe.
Science teaches one how to think (via the scientific method), while religion teaches one what to think
(via dogma, magical "thinking," and superstition). As long as there are people who are comfortable
with being told what to think--rather than taking the more mature approach of learning to think for
themselves (which is much less comfortable but much more enlightening)--advances in science, per
se, will not displace religious belief, or belief in "god."
RE: Whole Series
John Shuey
04/27/2008
Interestingly, those among the essayists who support the idea of a god of one sort or another
demonstrate rather convincingly how much of a human construct god is. If there really were a god, its
proper definition, role, and the like would lead to a consistency of belief. The lack of such consistency
argues mightily for no god.
Alexander Hellemans
04/27/2008
Dr. Phillips writes that "Many good scientists have concluded from these observations that an
intelligent God must have chosen to create the universe with such beautiful, simple, and life-giving
properties." If we look closer at life on Earth--to me a more important part of the universe than stars or
the beautiful mathematics underlying physics--we see a world where children are born with the HIV
virus, where life for billions of people equals daily suffering, hunger, and disease, where Darwin's
survival of the fittest is a cruel game, where we humans eat other beings that also have
consciousness, where evil ultimately wins, etc. Where is "God's goodness in the world?"
RE: Whole Series
Barry Pearson
04/27/2008
This question demands identification of what sort of God/gods are being discussed and whether
"obsolete" means "non-existent" or "unwanted." Obviously, science doesn't alter whether God/gods
actually exist, it just enables us to draw more-informed conclusions. And other factors determine
whether people want God/gods to exist.
As an explanation for the existence and nature of the universe, the listening/caring/after-life God of
Christianity and Islam was obsolete from the start. (What aspect of the universe did it ever explain?)
There was a plausible case (born of ignorance) for the existence of the sort of god that "lights the blue
touch-paper and stands clear," but science is making even that sort of god obsolescent as an
explanation.
For purposes of wishful-thinking and/or social control, the God of Christianity and Islam is somewhat
315
immune from science itself. (People sometimes need something other than the truth.) This God is
vulnerable to other mystical beliefs, and people who need comforting entities (albeit evidence-free) are
adopting other beliefs, such as crystals and the spirit world. So, while belief in the Abrahamic God
decreases in Europe, belief in those other mystical elements appears to be increasing. They often feed
off scientific terminology, so it could be argued that science is inadvertently supporting them.
RE: Whole Series
D'Arcy
04/27/2008
"Does science make belief in God obsolete?" Yes, indeedy! No need for any such concept. The
philosophers and theologians can argue about the nature of the supposed supernatural, but they're
wasting their time, and mine, in a futile exercise. How many angels danced upon the rich man's head
as he rode the camel through the eye of the needle?
RE: Whole Series
peter beacham
04/27/2008
The effort to make science ascendant is not a debate between religion and science but rather an effort
to elevate the logico-mathematico and linguistic learning styles. This misguided attempt is aimed at
those who use kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and other learning styles. The debate
seeks to invalidate intuition or redefine it as a sort of subconsious logical processsing.
In addition, those in the "science" camp believe that knowledge and eventually wisdom can be attained
through sensory data despite the limitations of sense data. Sense impressions give a false notion of a
universe of separate objects and forces instead of a homogeneous whole.
A corollary of the insistence on observation as the only criteria for knowledge is the insistence on
knowledge being solely a brain function. This notion of a neurological/biochemical basis for knowledge
and indeed consciousness is merely a theory and not a well-researched one at that. There are many
other and better theories of consciousness than a biochemical model. One can easily conceptualize
the brain as a passive screen against which other sources of consciousness display their content
instead of the "science" camp's insistence that the brain is the origin of knowledge.
RE: Whole Series
Koen van Hees
04/27/2008
Intriguing--and silly--question. The answer can be two-fold: "let's find out" (scientific reflex) or "of
course not" (religious reflex). And basically, that's as objectively meaningful as you can get on
questions like this. As far as I am concerned, I don't necessarily care, as long as we don't turn back the
clock. We have learned to take the ill to the doctor and the criminal to the courts. And we have un-
learned to put the out-of-the-ordinary to the fire. This takes away 80% of the traditional use of religion.
Let people enjoy the other 20% as long as that loathsome 80% doesn't come back--ever.
RE: Whole Series
George Bruce
04/27/2008
I do not see the dichotomy in the question, "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" To me a
belief in a deity (or deities) does not require proof of existence; it is a belief that offers spiritual
inspiration and comfort. However, conclusions based on science need to be proven. Psychology might
pose the question, "Did God invent mankind, or did mankind invent God?" That is a question that none
of the thousands of religions in the world should want to ask, as the scientific answer adds nothing to
the benefit of belief.
Cheryl
04/27/2008
I have to agree with Hitch that religion persists because of our limited mammalian brains. We fear
death, most of us bow to authority, we are egotistical, we see patterns in the darkness, and children
are susceptible to early imprinting. So yes science SHOULD show religion and god-worship to be
obsolete, but most of the human race is simply not ready to let it go or are kept ignorant of alternatives
because the status quo profits from encouraging religious compliance. Religion appeals to the child in
us. We want a "Father" to "make it all better" who will shield us from uncomfortable realities if we just
316
follow the rules. Mix perpetual infantilism with claims of divinely inspired reward or punishment and
what better way to justify conquest and silence dissent? No wonder religion is so ubiquitous!
What bothers me about most of the other "no" statements (and amazing what a large proportion there
are of them) is that they seem to ignore the fact that religions are blatantly man-made. Whatever kind
of pantheistic force may or may not exist in cosmological terms, this bears no resemblance whatsoever
to any god of the Bible, the Koran, etc. To equate the two is dishonest and renders the ridiculous
prejudices and rituals inherent in them flawed, rigidly dogmatic, divisive, patriarchal, tribal, irrational,
and egocentric. Hardly divine. Science, with all its wonders, questions, and debates SHOULD make
religious belief seem positively archaic. But somehow it doesn't.
As human beings, we HAVE to get over ourselves. If we don't evolve, we will become extinct. Science
is the only tool we have. Clinging to ancient myths will not protect us from comet impacts, disease, or
climate change. Nor will it give us the ability to leave this planet and find a new home.
RE: Whole Series
jhm
04/27/2008
Science is god. The godhead is the embodiment of all that mankind does not know and the
acknowledgment that acquiring the answers is a daunting challenge.
RE: Whole Series
Brian A. Dufrene
04/27/2008
God and what is represented by such an entity provide us with transcendence, for which we collect,
and with which we value, facts.
RE: Jerome Groopman
A. Paul Camerino
04/27/2008
I chose the article by Jerome Groopman on which to comment because it is the most offensive. He
writes that "a believer looks to religious texts for guidance in what is right and wrong." Who wrote the
religious texts? Is he suggesting that atheists cannot tell right from wrong?
RE: Whole Series
Sri Bimal Mohanty
04/27/2008
Science is all about discovering the interplay of essential qualities which already exist. When the
scientist discovers something, he calls it evidence, or knowledge. When you extend the limitations of
your senses and mind, with or without external aids, you know more. The fact that man goes on finding
more and more proves that man is constantly overcoming the limitations of his faculties. Evidence
merely represents a measure of the boundary of that limitation at that point of time. The process of
extending our limitations is the science of Yoga.
Just because we have known this much at a point of time does not mean that nothing exists beyond
our knowledge boundary. This is borne out of the logic that everything that exists, tangible or
intangible, must have a source from which it flows. The Vedic theory says that nothing can come out of
nothing. Everything preexists in a different state, hidden within its source, and comes out within our
perception under right conditions. Preexistence is within the source or the seed. Nothing evolves or
comes to cognizance out of emptiness. Even you and I preexisted within our source or seed, before
our present state and form.
This source is the concept behind God or Brahman or the Hiranyagarbha or whatever name different
faiths give it. Everything has flowed and shall continue to flow from there. When this truth sinks in,
even great scientific minds develop a sense of respect, wonder, and devotion to that source. The
worshipping of God in His myriad aspects is essentially an acknowledgement of that respect and
devotion and gratitude.
RE: Whole Series
Yeo Swee Quan
04/27/2008
No, science is, in essence, a constant search and betterment of knowledge. Scientific pursuits do not
317
make a belief in God obsolete because they do not seek to disprove that God exists. If science claims
that evolution is true, then it is equally possible that an organism (superior to that which "evolved" into
humans) has "evolved" into God, proving that God exists. God, therefore, must exist. How and when
we find him is a goal that can only be achieved with the advancement of science.
RE: Whole Series
Alex Antonopoulos
04/27/2008
Yes and no, depending on how you look at God. If you view God only as an explanation of how the
world works, then it is possible for science to make belief in God obsolete, since science is used as the
major form of understanding the world around you. However, if you see God as a way of life, or as a
guide that can help you reach a new spiritual state, then I think that God and science become two
concepts that can easily co-exist.
RE: Steven Pinker
Donald Jennings
04/26/2008
Steven Pinker is right! Science does not prove or demonstrate that religion is false--science merely
shows that religion is unnecessary to explain ANYTHING. People who want to believe in God will
continue to do so--it's just that the rest of us don't have to pay any attention.
RE: Steven Pinker
Peter Schaefer
04/23/2008
Steven Pinker is wrong, and science even admits that there is an unknowable aspect to our present
reality. Specifically, the ontology of the universe before the big bang. Science cannot know that reality
because it cannot observe or measure it. Is that pre-bang reality strictly physical or is it, perhaps,
spiritual? Indeed is it spirit (God) itself? Who knows? Could be. Alan Watts said that life is God playing
hide and seek with himself. Is the universe the "hide" part? If so then the pursuit of the spiritual realm is
the "seek" part.
RE: Whole Series
Hani Riad
04/22/2008
Having read these in the Atlantic, I would simply wish to thank the foundation for undertaking this
endeavor. These questions are essential to how we define ourselves.
RE: Whole Series
Mong H Tan, PhD
04/22/2008
No, science does not make belief in God obsolete! Science and religion are like the two sides of a
coin, rationalism and emotionalism. As Albert Einstein once accurately observed, "Science without
religion is lame; religion without science is blind!"
In other words, we cannot live and/or understand ourselves without both rationality and emotion--the
intellectual and the spiritual. In fact, science helps religious practitioners understand their respective
faiths better: with more insight, healthiness, fulfillment, empathy, consciousness, compassion,
conscience, etc.
RE: Whole Series
Susan Udin
04/22/2008
A ratio of 1 woman to 12 men!
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Nancy Powers
04/22/2008
Professor Sapolsky's cynical answer ("no" religion isn't obsolete; it provides ecstasy, and science can't
do that) is a good illustration of why Timothy Salter's comment (that scientists have no authority to
speak on the existence of God) is correct. Sapolsky asserts, without data, that religion is far bloodier
and worse for society than science. A breezy reference to Tourquemada is supposed to convince us.
318
Religion and science are both misused and abused in the interests of political goals, but it does not
follow that either is intrinsically harmful. By Sapolsky's logic, atheism is the "hand of blood" dripping
darkest in the bloody 20th century, since the millions killed by Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were victims of
fanatical atheists. Unlike those ideologies, religious faith is self-correcting. The Christian church, for
example, repeatedly (if at times, belatedly) recognizes where it has failed to live up to God's laws and
seeks to "sin no more."
Religious faith motivated the abolitionist movement, MLK, and most non-governmental efforts to
address poverty, to respond to disasters, and to mediate peace processes. Real faith shows itself in
altruistic pursuit of the common good--not in instances of religion misused for political gain. Any honest
discussion of religion's value to humanity must deal with sincere faith, not aberrations of faith.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Jim Knapton
04/22/2008
Belief is a failing. It is an inherited human weakness. It does not allow differing viewpoints to hatch in
the mind and take their young place alongside that which is believed. Thus denied other viewpoints,
the mind becomes blinkered, and its reasoning abilities become impaired because faith-believing does
not tolerate inquiry.
When the belief system is passed on to others over generations, it has the uncanny ability to grow into
a religion. Then, not only does the individual mind suffer the loss of free thought, so too does the
growing religious community lose its ability to question even the most obvious anomalies. Future
generations come to know nothing but their parents religious beliefs as a paradigm, since it is now
codified as written text. Few throw off the shackles of their imprinting, so the belief perpetuates itself
over the centuries.
RE: Whole Series
Timothy Salter
04/22/2008
An honest scientist would admit that God cannot be made obsolete by any amount of scientific
progress. Belief in God rests on assumptions that are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. So, if God
cannot be scientifically investigated, what weight can be given to scientists' speculation on the
subject? Simply proving that primitive believers had an imperfect view of science does not make God
obsolete. Neither does hypothesizing that, since man "needs" a God to explain the universe (more
speculation), God becomes obsolete when some corner of reality is elucidated by science. Scientists
should stick to science.
As a geologist I take a very distant view of mankind and its activities. Science is still a new toy, and we
are still having fun playing with it. Let's wait a few thousand years to see what science has really said.
During the many years that I was an atheist, I was often struck by the similarity between science and
religion. Now that I am a believer, I see nothing in science to make me disbelieve religion or vice
versa. The conflict, in my opinion, is an unsavory hobby for scientists and a living for fundamentalists.
Somewhere between is reality.
RE: Whole Series
David Fagelson
04/22/2008
To continue to foster a belief in a "human" deity is not only ludicrous, but it borders on arrogant
blasphemy. The universe is such a complex entity that to try and ascribe human intelligence or
attributes to it is nonsense. If by God one means that there may be a force that exists and promulgates
itself, then there might be some validity. However, we are so anthropomorphic that we have limited this
universal force to human form and given it all the workings of our own egoism.
RE: Whole Series
Mac Curless
04/22/2008
The question should be rephrased: Must scientific research be consistent with belief in God?
RE: Whole Series
William Cherry
319
04/22/2008
Do you think God would make a fine instrument such as the brain and then give it nothing to do?
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Liechty
04/22/2008
Belief in God wells up deep from within us as a reflection of our human need for meaning, purpose,
and value. Religion and science conflict mainly when religious stories are taken out of symbolic
context and understood as literal descriptions. Scientific education provides a great service in helping
us recognize the proper sphere to which religious narratives belong. This strengthens, not weakens,
faith in God.
Modern religion comes into (hopefully creative) conflict with science not in cosmology or physics, but
rather in relation to human technologies, such as genetics and reproduction, and in relation to social
questions, such as how a society may best allocate its resources and conserve its living environment.
Religion does indeed conflict with scientific investigation if and when science assumes the ability to
pursue its agenda while bracketing out larger religiously-based perspectives on human meaning,
purpose, and values.
RE: Mary Midgley
John Farrington
04/22/2008
Why not more women and also why not a wider range of religions/beliefs represented. That said, Mary
Midgely seems quite capable of holding her own!
320
321
w015
322
323

Templeton Foundation Series - Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Templeton Foundation Series - Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

http://www.templeton.

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

w001 Steven Pinker

Does science make belief in

Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family

Professor in the departmentof psychology at Harvard University. He is the author of seven

Does science make belief in

Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, O.P., is

Does science make belief in

Does science make belief in

Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy is chairman

of the departmentof physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan, and is the

Does science make belief in

Does science make belief in

Robert Sapolsky is John A. and Cynthia

Does science make belief in

Christopher Hitchens is the author of

God IsNotGreatand the editor of The PortableAtheist

Does science make belief in

Keith Ward is a Fellow of the British

Does science make belief in

Victor J. Stenger is emeritus professor of

physics and astronomy, University of Hawaii, adjunct professor of philosophy, University of

Does science make belief in

Jerome Groopman is the Recanati

Professor of Medicine at Harvard and author of How DoctorsThink.

Does science make belief in

Does science make belief in

Kenneth R. Miller is a professor of

Does science make belief in

Stuart Kauffman is the director of the

Institutefor Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary and an external

Comments by readers of the Templeton series :

RE: Whole Series

Imagine where we would be in matters of scientific understanding if we dogmatically stated that we

Metaphysics is by definition a-scientific (not anti-scientific or non-scientific, but belonging to a realm of

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen