After listening to a debate on the topic of "Theism vs. Atheism" recently, I was struck by some of the questions and assertions from members of the audience. Several of them were along the lines of "I can't believe in God because of Science." What struck me was that often it wasn't science that was getting in the way, but rather certain misconceptions about science that have become widely believed by nonscientists and have been stated by some scientists.
These myths about science are often brought up as arguments against a belief in God, and they form an artificial barrier to belief in God. I say that they are artificial because many scientists are in fact Theists and have found that science offers no true barriers to such belief. I have found this to be true in my work.
The two myths I want to deal with here are really the same idea in greater and lesser forms: (1) Science has explained everything, and (2) Science can explain everything. The second actually depends on a third sub-myth (3) Everything that is true can be proven. No scientist believes the first myth, so they can can skip right to the second one; many nonscientists do seem to believe the first, so I will deal with it up front. (As described near the end, this essay does not attempt to prove that there is a God, nor does it deal with philosophical science vs. religion issues such as creationism vs. evolutionism; its goal is to elevate the level of discussion so that the real issues can be dealt with.)
Answers & Comments
Answer:
After listening to a debate on the topic of "Theism vs. Atheism" recently, I was struck by some of the questions and assertions from members of the audience. Several of them were along the lines of "I can't believe in God because of Science." What struck me was that often it wasn't science that was getting in the way, but rather certain misconceptions about science that have become widely believed by nonscientists and have been stated by some scientists.
These myths about science are often brought up as arguments against a belief in God, and they form an artificial barrier to belief in God. I say that they are artificial because many scientists are in fact Theists and have found that science offers no true barriers to such belief. I have found this to be true in my work.
The two myths I want to deal with here are really the same idea in greater and lesser forms: (1) Science has explained everything, and (2) Science can explain everything. The second actually depends on a third sub-myth (3) Everything that is true can be proven. No scientist believes the first myth, so they can can skip right to the second one; many nonscientists do seem to believe the first, so I will deal with it up front. (As described near the end, this essay does not attempt to prove that there is a God, nor does it deal with philosophical science vs. religion issues such as creationism vs. evolutionism; its goal is to elevate the level of discussion so that the real issues can be dealt with.)