Science and God
The full list of essayists includes:
On the “Yes” side
- Victor Stenger: Yes. Worse. Science renders belief in God incoherent.
- Steven Pinker: Yes, if by science we include secular reason and knowledge.
- Pervez Hoodbhoy: Not necessarily. You must find a science-compatible God.
- Stuart Kauffman: No, if we redefine God as creativity in the universe.
- Chrisopher Hitchens: No, but it should.
- Michael Shermer: It depends: belief no, God yes.
On the “No” side
- Mary Midgley: Of course not, belief in God is not a scientific question.
- Kenneth Miller: Of course not. Science expands our appreciation of the Divine.
- William D. Phillips: Absolutely not! Belief in God is not a scientific matter.
- Robert Sapolsky: No. Belief offers something that science doesn’t.
- Jerome Groopman: No. Not at all.
- Keith Ward: No.
- Christoph Cardinal Schönborn: No.
I agree with Victor Stenger’s answer and highly recommend his book God: The Failed Hypothesis. It makes a very good case on why science can indeed say something about the existence of God, though we have to carefully define God and set up clear hypotheses that can be tested. If we accept that premise, and Stenger makes a convincing case, we can test God’s existence like any other hypothesis. There is overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis of God’s existence is wrong. After reading Stenger’s book, I feel that any other argument is intellectually dishonest. Maybe I need to read Ken Miller’s answer…
I also like Steven Pinker (PDF) summary sentence at the end of his short but thorough answer:
Science, in the broadest sense, is making belief in God obsolete, and we are the better for it.
Share this post with others:
Ha! Yes! Maybe there is the beginning of a wedge strategy on our side…
I would turn your dismissal of the Templeton Foundation on its head. The foundation made the Faustian bargain. By seeking out the best minds from the secularist camp they undermined their credo (this is particularly true when someone on the No side, like the Great Sapolsky, succeeds in throwing religion in the trash can) . The irreligious have little if any effect on the standing Templeton as a serious enterprise. It does what it does. Now those who value its presence must grapple all the more with science, which is always a good think.