Atheists love to assert that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. I have a couple of thoughts on this. First, how do they come to this conclusion? Generally speaking, this conclusion follows from their definition of science. They define science as the search for naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. If science is defined so as to a priori exclude agent causation as a valid explanation for any natural phenomenon, then it is no surprise that “science” will never yield any evidence for the existence of God. It can’t by definition. To put it in the form an argument, the atheist reasons as follows:
1 Science is the search for naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena
2 God is a supernatural explanation
3 Therefore, God is not a scientific explanation
4 There can be no scientific evidence for a non-scientific explanation
5 Therefore, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God
Why should we accept premise 1 to be true? Why define science in such a way that it only allows for naturalistic causes for natural phenomena? Why not open up one’s explanatory options to include intelligent agency? If the evidence points to a naturalistic cause, fine. But if the evidence points to intelligent agency, why not conclude that some intelligent agency is responsible? The best explanation should not be excluded a priori based on some arbitrary definition of science. If one does not restrict their definition of science to disallow intelligent causation, then the claim that there is no scientific evidence for God ceases to hold water. There is plenty of scientific evidence for the existence of God including the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the fine-tuning of the physical constants for a life-permitting universe.
Secondly, even if there was no scientific evidence for the existence of God, what would that matter? After all, science is equipped to measure the physical, not the immaterial. In the same way we would not expect to be able to see an invisible man if such a being existed, we should not necessarily expect for there to be physical evidence of an immaterial being. The fact of the matter is that science is not the only source of knowledge. Philosophy is another source of knowledge. And unlike science, philosophy is equipped to evaluate metaphysical concepts such as God. So long as there are good philosophical reasons to believe in God, then theism is rationally justified. One need not have scientific evidence for His existence. We can be thankful, however, that we have both philosophical and scientific evidence for the existence of God.
August 13, 2010 at 5:53 am
Doesn’t the athiest argument fall apart at reason number 2? God is only supernatural to us because we don’t have a way to fully understand/comprehend his nature. Just like the stars were of the realm of the supernatural until we had telescopes to see them with and disease was attributed to supernatural forces until we had microscopes to see the germs that caused disease, won’t God be recognized as part of the natural world once there is a way to “see” Him? I guess what I’m saying is God is only a supernatural explanation if He doesn’t exist. If he does exist then he is not supernatural but simply beyond our current understanding. I guess a lot depends on people’s definitions of supernatural.
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 10:18 am
Tim,
Yes, I think it depends on how you are defining “supernatural.” As I understand the term, it refers to anything that transcends the natural world (physicality). On that definition, God is definitely a supernatural being (the human soul would also be supernatural), and would remain so even if there was a way to “see” Him. Of course, I think the empirical data scientists have amassed is allowing us to see God–not directly, but indirectly–and yet I would maintain that God remains fully supernatural. Indeed, if God was not supernatural, He would be natural, which is to say He would be part of creation. It’s difficult to have a Creator God who is indistinguishable from creation.
Jason
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 11:54 am
Good point that philosophy is also important. But even in the realm of science, theoretical physics such a quantum mechanics is finding that what we “see” is not the whole story. Because of the uncertainty principle, it has been postulated by some scientists that we are only able to “see” about 20% of what actually exists. Parallel universes are being hypothesized. Why is it so difficult for people to believe that we really do have “powers and principalities” and a whole spirit world operating among us? I find it quite easy to understand supernatural activity operating for and against us, when there is scientific evidence that we, even in the natural, are not “seeing” everything.
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm
And scientists believe in a lot of things they cannot see, simply because they believe such entitites are necessary to account for the physical effects they are observing: quantum particles, dark matter, dark energy, etc.
Jason
LikeLike
August 14, 2010 at 9:30 am
Jason,
I agree that, in a limited sense, science cannot prove the existence of the supernatural.
However, the supernatural could be proven. For example, if glossolalia were truly speaking other languages, it could be recorded and proved to be actual language. Despite the folk legends within those churches, science shows the contrary.
Another example: if countless dead people were to come back to life (as happened in the NT), science would be able to tell us that there’s no natural explanation for these spontaneous resurrections. (Sure, they’d say “we haven’t YET found an explanation, but still…)
If the fossil record showed that human life appeared suddenly on the Earth 6,000 years ago, science could tell us that it hasn’t YET found an explanation for the sudden appearance of human life 6,000 years ago.
Etc, etc.
The problem is that we don’t see evidence of these miracles. Instead, we see evidence suggesting a lack of miracles.
Arthur
LikeLike
August 15, 2010 at 7:16 am
Here is what science tells us about glossolalia:
Samarin found that glossolalic speech does resemble human language in some respects. The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses to break up the speech into distinct units. Each unit is itself made up of syllables, the syllables being formed from consonants and vowels taken from a language known to the speaker.
* * *
Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface, and so concluded that glossolalia is “only a facade of language”. He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organised, and– most importantly of all– there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts. Humans use language to communicate, but glossolalia does not. Therefore he concluded that glossolalia is not “a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives”.
On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as “meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 11:29 am
Arthur,
Where did language come from?
LikeLike
August 21, 2010 at 7:48 am
So science can give us glimpses of the supernatural but can’t give us clear sight of God.
Arthur, if historical record shows the lack of miracles that doesn’t discount actual miracles. Miracles such as the origin of time, life, intelligence. Where did knowledge come from? Thoughts are not material.
1 Corinthians 13:1 “speak with tongues of men and of angels” I don’t think angelic languages are a known language. Besides even if the sentences used actual words it doesn’t mean many scientists aren’t speaking gibberish… 😉
LikeLike
September 23, 2010 at 6:40 am
The thing is, like many people say, its not for me to disproove that God exists…its for the believer to proove to me that God exists.
Take, for example, what Richard Dawkin’s said If I had an invisible tea-pot at the bottom of my garden, the owness is on me to proove to you that it is there, not for someone to disproove it.
God is analogous to the invisible tea-pot, until we have evidence then people will believe. If he is ‘immaterial’ then surely, by definition, he doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
September 23, 2010 at 11:13 am
Michael Roberts,
I wouldn’t dispute the notion that theists have a burden of proof to demonstrate God’s existence if they are claiming that God exists. And if you’ll peruse through my blog (such as the “theistic arguments” category), you’ll find that I provide such evidence.
I don’t know your personal position on the existence of God, but I should note that if you are an atheist (meaning you deny the existence of God), then you alsohavea burden of proof since this is a knowledge claim. Only the agnostic has no burden of proof, because only the agnostic makes no claim to knowledge.
As for saying that if God is immaterial, by definition he doesn’t exist, what justification do you have for this claim? You are assuming materialism from the start, thus making atheism true by definition. Besides, many atheists believe abstract objects such as numbers and the laws of logic are real, and yet abstract objects are not material.
Jason
LikeLike
September 23, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Hi again!
I’m definately not an athiest as that goes against my scientific principles i.e. that we are never 100% sure, even the theory of evolution has a confidence level of some 99.9% likelihood, but we can never be 100% sure.
Yes, indeed I would class myself as agnostic. Athiests seem to be quite misinformed in regards to cosmological principles, having this understanding has benefited me not to rule out the existence of God. I recently posted an article on this issue:
http://hicexsistoeverto.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/it-begins-with-gravity/
Well if something is not made of things we can observe, then by defining he doesnt exist. Its just a straeman argument, again, what justification do you have that God is not material? None.
Also, just because a certain group believes something to be true (many atheists believe abstract objects such as numbers and the laws of logic are real) it doesnt make it any more true. Numbers are just human constructs which happen to serve a very good importance.
LikeLike
September 23, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Apologies for refering to God as a ‘he’. 😀
Also, typo on “straeman”…it should read ‘strawman’.
LikeLike
September 28, 2010 at 12:49 pm
One small quibble, Jason. You write,
That depends. There is strong and weak agnosticism. A weak agnostic merely says s/he doesn’t know if God exists. A strong agnostic denies metaphysical claims are knowable. From the Skeptic’s Dictionary:
Hence, a “strong” agnostic claims to know the knowledge of God is impossible. The self-refuting nature of that position aside, it is a knowledge claim and, as such, needs to be defended.
LikeLike
September 29, 2010 at 3:29 am
The funniest thing of all, is that science has never claimed that God doesn’t exist. Individual scientists have on opinion of evidence they have analysed. Science doesn’t take a stance on religion.
What is equally more funny to me is when religion tries to impart its man made laws onto science, for example, not allowing the fossils of our common ancestors to be shown at the London Natural History Museum. Trying to hide things from the public is not what science does, it collects the evidence, analyses it and simply lets people decide, NO DOGMA ATTATCHED.
Unlike religion.
LikeLike
October 4, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Scalia,
I would agree 100%. For the sake of simplicity and brevity, however, I did not distinguish between the two. I think most people associate agnosticism with the weaker version, although I must admit that I am encountering more and more strong agnostics.
Jason
LikeLike
May 5, 2016 at 7:19 am
[…] There is no scientific evidence for God? […]
LikeLike