Will Science Destroy People’s Beliefs In God?

In the world of atheism, evolution is treated as a cult that opposes the supernatural and in time as their gaps supposedly fall into place, it will destroy the faith of other non-believers into their world-viewpoint of denying the existence of God.  Which is why they believe “science” is a tool that is more than just obtaining knowledge or updating or replacing theories, rather using that knowledge obtained through science as a means for  disproving Christianity.

Physicist Sean Carroll is one of those who believes in just that, in a recent article in yahoo news from Natalie Wolchover who is from live science, Carroll suggests that science will rule out God…

“Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.”

“Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there’s good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.”

Does anyone think the likes of Carroll believe that science and religion are separate? More like Carroll is suggesting that science is at odds with religion. It is what one suggests or interprets as science which determines agreement or disagreement with religion.

Did Carroll explain how science could demonstrate that God doesn’t exist? No.  Does Carroll mean that science could in principle show God does exist or not? No. But what he saying is a common belief among certain intellectuals who are atheists  when people are educated (indoctrinated) in their world-viewpoint, people will side with them.

Issac Newton, one of the greatest scientists of all time (the inventor of calculus and theory about gravity) said this in his writings called, General Scholium to Principia where Newton accepts the cosmological argument to God.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.”

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler . . . .And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect…” 

“It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where.” 

Newton no doubt views God as the architect and creator of the cosmos and of its unfolding, such that the laws of nature are the decrees of God. While seeing those laws as the work of an intelligent being, Carroll attempts to use those same laws as a means to get rid of understanding the cosmos through the work of an intelligent mind, very advanced intelligent mind, beyond all human understanding (not that we don’t understand any of it but continue to learn about it).

Evolutionary science hasn’t even been able to explain the existence of humanity (it remains a puzzle to them) let alone being able to explain away the existence of God.  Even trying to explain a finely turned universe by inventing infinite number of multiple universes combined with the anthropic principle is neither scientific nor an explanation. How the big bang popped out of nothing is another ‘theory’ which is neither scientific nor an explanation, but has caused complexity as the data doesn’t hold to its principles so you have other invented ideas such as “inflation” to try to rescue it, but it too has its own problems with the data causing more complexity.

Will science ultimately destroy people’s beliefs in God so they turn into atheists? No! We are not talking about operational science but rather historical science. We have over 150 years of evolution (along with many new discoveries that overturn its explanations), and the minority still remains with the atheists when it comes to denying the supernatural verses believing in the supernatural!

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Will Science Destroy People’s Beliefs In God?

  1. Oh my oh my …

    Science doesn’t “destroy” anything, it creates knowledge and understanding.
    If that is at odds with whatever people believe, so be it. You can’t blame science for that.

  2. Will science ultimately destroy people’s beliefs in God so they turn into atheists? No! We are not talking about operational science but rather historical science. We have over 150 years of evolution (along with many new discoveries that overturn its explanations), and the minority still remains with the atheists when it comes to denying the supernatural verses believing in the supernatural!

    Michael’s hackings of the philosophical world make Vachel Lindsay’s “Map of the Universe” look uncluttered by comparison.[0]

    Science speaks to the physical world, theology speaks to the divine.[1] Although their domains may overlap to some extent, their perspectives differ.[2]

    The extremist brand of atheism practiced by Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins, et al. is called “scientism.” It goes beyond atheism to embrace a position that human science is capable of providing ultimate explanations of everything in the universe.

    Nothing inherent in science per se implies this claim. Abelard’s principle of explanatory closure[3] is not a claim, it is a boundary beyond which the writ of science does not reach.[4] Scientism’s claims extend beyond this pale, and are thus a philosophical position, rather than a scientific one.

    Besides, scientists trend to have as little knowledge of theology as creationists have of the nature of science. That is to say, none.[5]

    At least 40% of US research scientists are believing Christians.[6] That means they accept evolution, cosmology, and other aspects of science. How would you explain that? Could it be that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong?

    ================

    [0] And most of what he said is factually incorrect.

    [1] As propounded in Augustine’s Liber Naturae, Liber Dei.

    [2] Stephen JayGould’s “separate magisteria” is by now a dead issue in both science and theology. The concept of a “science war” with religion is the product of a single 19thC historian whose research has been shown to be almost entirely made up. See Shapin, . The Scientific Revolution (U. Chicago Press 1996), p. 195.

    [3] That is, that science must explain natural phenomena only in terms of other natural phenomena.

    [4] number of cosmologists believe that there can be no such thing as a “theory of everything.” This humble commenter tends to agree, but not for, e.g., Brian Greene’s reasons. A theory is a model of its subject; a model, by definition, does not include every detail of its subject. (“The map is not the territory,” in Marshall McLuhan’s words.) Therefore, any theory of the entire universe must be coextensive with the universe itself. Cf., however, “holographic” theories, which may imply the contrary.)

    [5] With some very notable exceptions. Catholic priests Francisco Ayala and George Lemaître come to mind. Note that none of these people embrace scientism.

    [6] I have alluded several times to the study in Science on that subject. Briefly, the higher percentage of nonbelievers in science is not caused by their scientific studies. Rather, scientific careers attract a a higher percentage of people who are already skeptics.

  3. Will science ultimately destroy people’s beliefs in God so they turn into atheists? No!

    Some evolutionary researchers hold the opinion that evolution will ultimately provide a scientific explanation of religion. AND that such an explanation will not convert believers into atheists, but rather will lead to a resurgence of religion.

    Care to comment?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s