Why don’t the most intelligent minds believe in God?

Faith & Science Conversation
, , ,
221

Elite scientists and philosophers are probably the two least likely group of professionals to hold a traditional belief in God. Interestingly, they are also the two groups in which logic and reason, evidence and argument are most foundational to their work.

No other profession is close to science as a method for discovering what exists. From the largest and most distant to the nearest and most microscopic, if it exists and is discoverable, it’s a safe bet that science will eventually be the one to discover it.

OTOH, science has nothing whatsoever to say about that which does not exist, be they gods or ghosts or Nessie or the luminiferous aether.

1 Like
226

Hi, Barry - and welcome to the forum! Most of us regulars here are also science enthusiasts who share in your apparent enthusiasm about science. And it is pretty much a mere tautology that science will be the sharpest tool in the box for discovering or refining our knowledge about any physically existing things or phenomena. One of the things that many religions (and especially Christianity) have struggled with is to maintain any posture of humility with regard to our own certitudes or knowledge. But believers have no monopoly on arrogance and triumphalism; any sufficiently large group will be saddled with at least some of their demographic that thinks they’re done learning. And whether it comes from unwarranted religious belief or unwarranted Scientism (the ‘certitude’ that science is the only legitimate tool towards any kind of knowing) - either way the loss of humility is a tragic and unfortunate posture for whatever group represented.

Feel free to share more about yourself if you want. It can be a ‘rough-and-tumble’ forum around here, so a thick skin helps. But as long as people are civil and respectful of each other, religious belief is not a requirement to linger and contribute here.

3 Likes
227

You’re making a stronger claim than science itself can support.

  • Science is an extraordinarily powerful method—but it is methodologically limited to what is empirically measurable. That means it is well-suited to studying physical phenomena, not to adjudicating every kind of existence claim.
  • So when you say: “if it exists and is discoverable, science will discover it”, you’ve quietly assumed that everything that exists is scientifically discoverable. That’s a philosophical position—not a scientific finding—and it’s far from settled. For example: mathematical objects, logical laws, and moral truths are widely treated as real, yet are not discovered by scientific instruments.
  • More importantly, classical theism does not propose God as a physical object within the universe (like Nessie or the aether), but as the ground of the universe’s existence. That places the claim outside the direct scope of empirical science from the outset.
  • Also, your final sentence seems overstated: “science has nothing whatsoever to say about that which does not exist”. In practice, science often has quite a lot to say about such things. It evaluates proposed entities by asking what observable consequences would follow if they were real, and then checks those against the world. That’s precisely how hypotheses get ruled out. Even at the theoretical level, formally defined entities (like Absolute Space and Absolute Time, treated as sets of points or instants) can be analyzed for coherence, explanatory power, and compatibility with observation—whether or not they are ultimately real. So science is not silent about non-existent things; it is often the very discipline that tells us they are non-existent.
  • The real question, then, is not whether science has “found God,” but whether science is even the right tool for that category of question. And that’s a philosophical issue—one that scientists themselves regularly disagree about.
5 Likes
228

if you want to reconcile science and a theological worldview - thats easy. If you want to do that from a point of atheism you will fail as a worldview requires internal coherence and atheism is a worldview like non stamp collecting is a hobby.

If you list Dawkins and NdGT as great scientists you have a problem to begin with trying to explain their “greatness” as being self perceived “BRIGHTS” should ring out a warning.

Take NdGT in his video about stupid design https://youtu.be/4238NN8HMgQ?si=lh9D-xsMxVI_DUyj

It is a clear testimony to is scientific ineptness as anyone with a right mind would recognise his analytical failures based on his pride. His reference to the reproductive organs as recreational organs makes for a lough but reveals the shallowness of his thinking. That he hasn’t any grasp of physiology, nor designing functionality becomes utterly clear when demanding two separate ports for eating and breathing. Admittingly he might still stuff the food still up his nostrils, but the crosslinking of the breathing pipe and the food pipe is ingenious, and if you have learned as a kid not to talk with your mouth full you should not have much of a problem. but then he has trouble with stopping to talk as well :-). You would have thought a biologist like Dawkins or at least someone claiming to understand anatomy like Professor Alice Roberts would understand - but they are blinded by their own brightness. Considering that to their own argument the human body shows the flaws of evolution thus combining the two - why are they not suspicious of the flawed evolution of their brains :slight_smile: ?

Considering the amount of inhaled dust and bacteria the lung is continiously backwashing with the water being acid disinfected and recycled via the digestive tract. If you were not to do that you would not make it long and need to drink a lot more water, let alone run along with a snotty nose all the time but then there are some people that sound very much like snotty nosed teenagers struggling with puberty :slight_smile:

So sorry, the Scientists that subscribe to atheism are not the bright sparks they claim to be, the great scientists were God believing, so not necessary the God that acts like Santa’s big brother giving out presents for prayers

3 Likes
229

Thank you so much for the welcome!

In regard to the substance of your reply, I have a couple of responses. The first has to do with “the certainty of knowledge.” Knowledge that cannot possibly be in error or mistaken, beyond the trivial sort, does not seem to be available to us; therefore whenever I use or read the term “certain” with respect to knowledge claims, I understand it to mean “beyond all reasonable doubt” and NOT “beyond any possible doubt.” It is knowledge confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

My other comment has to do with the notion that “it is pretty much a mere tautology that science will be the sharpest tool in the box for discovering or refining our knowledge about any physically existing things or phenomena.”

I’m pretty much of a non-reductive physicalist. I don’t say that it’s impossible for the non-physical to exist. I say only: What might evidence for the non-physical look like?

Clearly no physical object nor physical process can count as evidence for the non-physical. Too, simply because a physical cause has YET to be discovered for some particular phenomenon or other by no means means that one will never be discovered.

If no evidence of the non-physical has been found, how can it be reasonable to believe that the non-physical exists?

230

“So science is not silent about non-existent things; it is often the very discipline that tells us they are non-existent.”

Please list something that science has proved is nonexistent.

231

Strictly speaking, science usually does not prove nonexistence in a mathematical sense. It does something more appropriate to empirical inquiry: it tests what should be observed if a proposed entity exists, and when those expected effects consistently fail to appear, the hypothesis is rejected.

That is exactly how science treated the luminiferous aether. It was not ignored—it was seriously investigated. Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley designed experiments to detect Earth’s motion through the aether and found no such effect. Meanwhile, theorists like James Clerk Maxwell, Hendrik Lorentz, and George FitzGerald tried to model or preserve the aether, but the evidence continued to fail. Eventually, Albert Einstein showed that the phenomena could be explained without it.

So while science may not “prove nonexistence” in a strict deductive sense, it very often provides the basis for concluding that certain proposed entities are not real.

The deeper issue, though, is that God in classical theism is not proposed as a physical item within nature like aether, phlogiston, or Vulcan. So even if science can disconfirm some kinds of entities, that does not show that God is the same kind of candidate.

3 Likes
232

Just to tighten one point further—this issue isn’t simply about “proving nonexistence.”

Even within physics, the pattern is often that proposed entities are not formally disproven but shown to be unnecessary or unsupported.

For example, James Clerk Maxwell did not rely on Absolute Space in his framework, and Albert Einstein later treated such constructs as superfluous rather than strictly disproven. The same general pattern applies to the aether: it was investigated, failed empirical tests, and was ultimately abandoned because better theories no longer required it.

So the standard scientific move is not “we have proven this does not exist” in a deductive sense, but rather: this hypothesis has no evidential support and is not needed to explain the data.

That reinforces my earlier point—science is not silent about such things. It actively evaluates them and, in many cases, gives us strong reason to reject them.

233

Asserting that no proof for the non-physical exists also ignores the supernatural claims of the real person of Jesus Christ.

1 Like
234

Max, I appreciate the point you’re making—and I don’t disagree that the historical claims about Jesus are relevant in a broader discussion.

But I think the immediate issue with Barry’s claim is more basic than that.

The question on the table is whether science, as a method, is even equipped to rule on all questions of existence. My point has been that science works within a specific domain—empirically measurable phenomena—and does not automatically extend to every kind of claim about reality.

So before we even get to particular cases (like the resurrection or other supernatural claims), the prior question is whether Barry’s assumption is correct:

that if something exists, science would be the method to discover it.

That’s the assumption I’m challenging.

If that assumption doesn’t hold, then appealing to science’s silence (or lack of detection) isn’t sufficient to dismiss non-physical or metaphysical claims in the first place.

6 Likes
235

What compelling evidence convinces you that anything supernatural exists in the first place? If no compelling evidence can be found for the existence of the supernatural, then no reasonable belief that something supernatural exists can be formed.

This is to say neither that the supernatural cannot exist nor even that it does not exist. It says only that without some sort of compelling evidence to support a claim for the existence of the supernatural – for example the claim, “A supernatural God exists” – it is not reasonable to accept such a claim as true.

236

What counts as evidence?

Your formulation seems to assume that only one kind of evidence—empirical, scientifically testable evidence—can justify belief in what exists. But that standard is much narrower than what we actually rely on in other domains.

For example, I am among those who reasonably believe in:

  • mathematical truths,
  • logical laws,
  • moral obligations,
  • the existence of other minds

none of which are established by scientific measurement—yet denying their reality would itself be unreasonable. So the issue isn’t whether there is “compelling evidence” in some absolute sense, but whether there are good reasons appropriate to the kind of claim being made.

In the case of classical theism, the arguments are typically philosophical rather than empirical—arguments about contingency, causation, order, rationality, and so on. You may ultimately find those arguments unpersuasive, but they are not evidence-free, nor are they aiming to function like scientific hypotheses.

So I would frame the question differently: Are there good philosophical reasons to think that reality has a non-physical or transcendent ground?

That’s where the discussion actually lies—not in whether science has detected something “supernatural,” but in whether our broader reasoning about reality points beyond the purely physical.

4 Likes
237

N-rays.

(and aether)

4 Likes
238

As @Terry_Sampson has commented, scientific methods limit scientific research to what can be observed, measured or calculated. We do not currently have scientific methods to study the existence of God or other invisible entities, so these are outside of the current limits of science.
God is not a natural-law-like automaton and does not jump when we order Him to jump, so we do not have means to ‘force’ God into being an ‘experimental animal’ in properly replicated scientific experiments.

We can study what the believers tell or experience but that is a different question.
My experience of Christian believers (including me) is that personal experiences play an important role in maintaining their faith. The personal experiences are not objective evidence but they are subjective confirmation that God is real. Those who demand objective scientific evidence are free to make their demands but God does what He decides, not what humans demand.

3 Likes
239

the odd thing is that science can not prove theories true but only prove them to be wrong. Science is based on the supernatural laws of mathematics and logic which are themselves not subject to scientific measurements but philosophical proof. We can generate evidence that shows the correct predictability of an outcome of an experiment or observed reality under the constraints of the experiment. Its basically Popper and philosophy of science.

2 Likes
240

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I believe only empirical, scientifically testable evidence can justify belief in what exists. That is not my belief. I use what I consider to be a pretty standard, layman’s definition for ‘evidence’, something like: “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”

So with that definition in mind, what is the compelling evidence that shows the existence of the supernatural?

241

Our forum guidelines do specify that…

…since this is a Christian discussion forum, we expect that basic Christian presuppositions like “God is good” and “the Bible is true” will not be constantly challenged by those who do not share those presuppositions. People of all beliefs are welcome to discuss evolutionary creationism here, but this is not the right place for debates on God’s existence or the general merits of the Christian faith.

That said - we’ve been lenient on letting discussions venture to these areas if others here want to give some response (it is related to the thread topic after all). Just be aware that if after sharing your views, others here don’t find them persuasive, we won’t let the forum become an endless arena for re-adjudication of basic Christian principles. So if some want to respond here and absorb your questions into the topic at hand, that’s fine. Meanwhile …

Here is a Biologos article that touches on this question: “Are gaps in scientific knowledge evidence for God?”

Or here is a thread where this is some good discussion if you want to see some of how this has already been kicked around in the forum:

2 Likes
242
  • Nothing that you would accept, I’m sure.
4 Likes
243

The real question is very different: what kind of evidence would you accept as genuinely pointing to the existence of the supernatural? If time travel were scientifically possible and you were able to go back and witness the Resurrection of Jesus (which is by far the best explanation for the events, unless someone is already entrenched in philosophical naturalism), would you accept it as a divine miracle? Or would you conclude, in order to prevent your worldview from collapsing, that he was using extremely advanced technology, perhaps acquired from aliens? Or that he was himself an alien, perhaps a member of another human-like race that evolved somewhere else in the Milky Way, a race that is hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years ahead of us in terms of evolution? Those possibilities are not logically impossible, nor are they entirely absurd.

After all, even the Book of Ezekiel has been interpreted by some as describing encounters with aliens.

Or suppose two people see the apparition of someone whose death they did not yet know about, and later independently verify both the death and the experience. Would you take that as evidence for the existence of the soul? Or would you dismiss it as a coincidence and assume that their brains had produced a highly convincing illusion? Repeatability is obviously difficult in cases like these. And yet there are a great many such reports (so-called crisis apparitions) across countries and cultures.

And if you were to witness a person who seemed capable of knowing the unknowable (for example, personal details or even the inner thoughts of complete strangers) and it later emerged that this person was not acting as herself, but seemed to be under the control of something else, would you regard that as evidence of the supernatural? Or would you instead attribute it to some untapped capacity of the brain, one that gave her abilities beyond what human beings normally possess? Even psychiatrists such as Richard Gallagher Dr. Richard Gallagher, Demonic Possession Expert, Isn't Trying to Convince You and M. Scott Peck have published their own accounts of such cases, claiming that there are actually cases of demonically possessed persons. They have written books about them.

So, setting aside for the moment philosophical arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument, what would you actually count as evidence, without simply reducing it to promissory materialism?*

* John Carew Eccles : “I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a SUPERSTITION…We have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world” (Evolution of the Brain, p. 241)

And from the bilologist Sheldrake at the pages 9 e 10 here https://argos.vu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/the-science-delusion-rupert-sheldrake.pdf : “For more than two hundred years, materialists have promised that science will eventually explain everything in terms of physics and chemistry. Science will prove that living organisms are complex machines, minds are nothing but brain activity and nature is purposeless. Believers are sustained by the faith that scientific discoveries will justify their beliefs. The philosopher of science Karl Popper called this stance ‘promissory materialism’ because it depends on issuing promissory notes for discoveries not yet made. Despite all the achievements of science and technology, materialism is now facing a credibility crunch that was unimaginable in the twentieth century.“

And then in the following page: “ The fundamental proposition of materialism is that matter is the only reality. Therefore consciousness is nothing but brain activity. It is either like a shadow, an ‘epiphenomenon’ that does nothing, or it is just another way of talking about brain activity. However, among contemporary researchers in neuroscience and consciousness studies there is no consensus about the nature of minds”.

3 Likes
244

the point is “indicating”

In laymens terms evidence is that what caused beliefs whilst proof terminates them as it devests us from its burden.
The evidence for the supernatural is the fact that science works. you may confuse the supernatural with the magical or unnatural and in may help you to use the term “metaphysical” instead to separate the confusion with the abnormal.

It is to me perfectly acceptable that some people believe in God based on experiences they can not explain, but I base my belief in God on the fact that I can explain things because I have an analytical mind. If we take for example the process of evolution, unlike those who claim it to be evidence against God as it removes the need to postulate God to explain our existence it is a process that is the strongest evidence for God’s existence. It is after all a process with a purpose and it is anything but random. it is in fact controlled be the word of God, thus evidence that amounts to proof. What it does not proof is what this means towards my own existence or persistence within reality which is where faith comes in to allow me to form a meaningful relationship with reality, other people and eternity. In all of that, the most compelling evidence is love and how it comes into this world and how it persists long past our material existence. It is in death that we learn to understand life.

Happy Easter

1 Like