http://www.templeton.

org/belief/

a Templeton conversation

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

This is the third in a series of conversations among leading scientists and

scholars about the "Big Questions."

Articles by :
w001 Steven Pinker
w002 Christoph Cardinal Schonborn
w003 William D. Phillips
w004 Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy
w005 Mary Midgley
w006 Robert Sapolsky
w007 Christopher Hitchens
w008 Keith Ward
w009 Victor J. Stenger
w010 Jerome Groopman
w011 Michael Shermer
w012 Kenneth R. Miller
w013 Stuart Kauffman
w014 Comments by readers of the Templeton series

Table des matières

Steven Pinker...............................................................................................3
Christoph Cardinal Schönborn......................................................................5
William D. Phillips.........................................................................................8
Pervez AmiraliHoodbhoy............................................................................11

1
Mary Midgley..............................................................................................14
Robert Sapolsky.........................................................................................17
Christopher Hitchens..................................................................................20
Keith Ward.................................................................................................23
Victor J. Stenger.........................................................................................26
Jerome Groopman, M.D..............................................................................29
Michael Shermer........................................................................................31
Kenneth Miller............................................................................................34
Stuart Kauffman.........................................................................................37
Comments by readers of the Templeton series :.......................................39

W001

Does science make

belief in God obsolete?

Steven Pinker

Yes, if by...

2
“science” we mean the entire enterprise of secular reason and
knowledge (including history and philosophy), not just people with
test tubes and white lab coats.
Traditionally, a belief in God was attractive because it promised to
explain the deepest puzzles about origins. Where did the world come
from? What is the basis of life? How can the mind arise from the
body? Why should anyone be moral?
Yet over the millennia, there has been an inexorable trend: the
deeper we probe these questions, and the more we learn about the
world in which we live, the less reason there is to believe in God.
Start with the origin of the world. Today no honest and informed
person can maintain that the universe came into being a few
thousand years ago and assumed its current form in six days (to say
nothing of absurdities like day and night existing before the sun was
created). Nor is there a more abstract role for God to play as the
ultimate first cause. This trick simply replaces the puzzle of “Where
did the universe come from?” with the equivalent puzzle “Where did
God come from?”
What about the fantastic diversity of life, and its ubiquitous signs of
design? At one time it was understandable to appeal to a divine
designer to explain it all. No longer. Charles Darwin and Alfred
Russel Wallace showed how the complexity of life could arise from
the physical process of natural selection among replicators, and then
Watson and Crick showed how replication itself could be understood
in physical terms. Not withstanding creationist propaganda, the
evidence for evolution is overwhelming, including our DNA, the fossil
record, the distribution of life on earth, and our own anatomy and
physiology (such as the goose bumps that try to fluff up long-
vanished fur).
For many people the human soul feels like a divine spark within us.
But neuroscience has shown that our intelligence and emotions
consist of intricate patterns of activity in the trillions of connections
in our brain. True, scholars disagree on how to explain the existence
of inner experience—some say it’s a pseudo-problem, others believe
it’s just an open scientific problem, while still others think that it
shows a limitation of human cognition (like our inability to visualize
four-dimensional space-time). But even here, relabeling the problem
with the word “soul” adds nothing to our understanding.
People used to think that biology could not explain why we have a
conscience. But the human moral sense can be studied like any
other mental faculty, such as thirst, color vision, or fear of heights.
Evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience are showing

3
how our moral intuitions work, why they evolved, and how they are
implemented within the brain.
This leaves morality itself—the benchmarks that allow us to criticize
and improve our moral intuitions. It is true that science in the narrow
sense cannot show what is right or wrong. But neither can appeals to
God. It’s not just that the traditional Judeo-Christian God endorsed
genocide, slavery, rape, and the death penalty for trivial insults. It’s
that morality cannot be grounded in divine decree, not even in
principle. Why did God deem some acts moral and others immoral? If
he had no reason but divine whim, why should we take his
commandments seriously? If he did have reasons, then why not
appeal to those reasons directly?
Those reasons are not to be found in empirical science, but they are
to be found in the nature of rationality as it is exercised by any
intelligent social species. The essence of morality is the
interchangeability of perspectives: the fact that as soon as I appeal
to you to treat me in a certain way (to help me when I am in need, or
not to hurt me for no reason), I have to be willing to apply the same
standards to how I treat you, if I want you to take me seriously. That
is the only policy that is logically consistent and leaves both of us
better off. And God plays no role in it.
For all these reasons, it’s no coincidence that Western democracies
have experienced three sweeping trends during the past few
centuries: barbaric practices (such as slavery, sadistic criminal
punishment, and the mistreatment of children) have decreased
significantly; scientific and scholarly understanding has increased
exponentially; and belief in God has waned. Science, in the broadest
sense, is making belief in God obsolete, and we are the better for it.

Steven Pinker is the Johnstone

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Family Professor in the department of psychology at Harvard University.

He is the author of seven books, including The Language Instinct, How the
Mind Works, The Blank Slate, and most recently, The Stuff of Thought:
Language as a Window into Human Nature.

W002

4
Does science make
belief in God obsolete?
Christoph Cardinal Schönborn

No, and yes.

No, as a matter of reason and truth. The knowledge we have gained
through modern science makes belief in an Intelligence behind the
cosmos more reasonable than ever.
Yes, as a matter of mood, sensibility, and sentiment. Not science
itself but a reductive “scientific mentality” that often accompanies it,
along with the power, control, comfort, and convenience provided by
modern technology, has helped to push the concept of God into the
hazy twilight of agnosticism.
Superficially it may seem that the advances of science have made
God obsolete by providing natural explanations for phenomenon that
were once thought to be the result of direct divine activity—the so
called “God of the gaps.” But this advance has been the completion
of a program of purification from superstition begun thousands of
years ago by Athens and Jerusalem, by a handful of Greek sages,
and by the people of Israel, who “de-divinized” Nature to a degree
unparalleled in the ancient world. Summarizing an established
tradition 750 years ago, St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the wise
governor ordinarily governs by delegation to competent
subordinates. In the case of Nature, God’s ordinary providence
governs by means of the regularities (“laws”) built into the natures
of created things.
This theistic outlook has been fully vindicated. As the ancient Greek
materialists recognized long ago, if we wish to explain the observed
world in terms of Matter without reference to Mind, then it must be
explained by things material, ultimate, and very simple all at the
same time—by indivisible, notional “atoms” and a chance “swerve”
to set them in random motion. If the things of everyday experience
are mere aggregates of these “atoms,” and if the cosmos is infinitely

5
old and infinitely large, then chance can do the rest. To be the
complete explanation of material reality, these “atoms,” and
whatever natural regularities they exhibit, must be so simple that
their existence as inexplicable “brute facts” is plausible.
Fast-forward to the present: Modern science has shown that Nature
is ordered, complex, mathematically tractable, and intelligible “all
the way down,” as far as our instruments and techniques can
discern. Instead of notional “atoms,” we have discovered the
extraordinarily complex, beautiful, and mathematical “particle zoo”
of the Standard Model of physics, hovering on the border of
existence and intelligibility (as Aristotle predicted long ago with his
doctrine of prime matter). And order, complexity, and intelligibility
exists “all the way up” as well. We see a teleological hierarchy and
chain of emergence that continues all the way from quantized
physics, to stable chemistry, to the nearly miraculous properties of
carbon and biochemistry, providing the material basis for the
emergence of life. Beyond this astounding order and intelligibility,
we now know of the precise fine-tuning of the physical laws and
constants that make possible a life-supporting universe.In short, the
Nature we know from modern science embodies and reflects
immaterial properties and a depth of intelligibility far beyond the
wildest imaginings of the Greek philosophers. To view all these
extremely complex, elegant, and intelligible laws, entities,
properties, and relations in the evolution of the universe as “brute
facts” in need of no further explanation is, in the words of the great
John Paul II, “an abdication of human intelligence.”
But the modern mood is entirely a different matter. In terms of
modern sensibilities, the intellectual culture of the West is
dominated by a scientific mentality that seeks to explain qualitative
and holistic realities by quantitative and reductive descriptions of the
workings of their parts. Though the scientific program that gives rise
to this mentality has been quite successful in explaining the material
basis for holistic realities, and in allowing us to manipulate natural
things to our advantage, it fails to grasp the reality of natural things
themselves. The unlimited application of the “scientific mentality” is
scientism, the philosophical claim that the scientific method and
scientific explanations can grasp all of reality. For many, scientism is
accompanied by agnosticism or atheism.
In terms of popular sentiment, however, scientism has not carried
the day. Most people still intuitively cling to the notion that at least
human nature and human experience are not reducible to what is
scientifically knowable. But with no rational alternative to scientism,
most people live in a “soft,” non-rational, and relativistic world of

6
feelings, opinions, and personal values. The increase in leisure and
health brought about by our mastery over Nature has not resulted,
as the ancient sages supposed, in an increase in wisdom and the
contemplation of the good, the true, and the beautiful. Instead, our
technology-based leisure is more likely to result in quiet hedonism,
consumerism, and mind-numbing mass entertainment. While many
still claim belief in God, the course of their lives reflects de facto
agnosticism in which the “God hypothesis” is far from everyday
experiences and priorities.
In all our scientistic “knowledge” of the inner workings of things, and
our technology-based comforts and distractions, there seems to be
no place for the still, small voice of God. In that practical and
existential sense, science and technology seem to have pushed
belief in God toward obsolescence.
Or have they?
In our innermost being, we moderns remain unsatisfied. Sooner or
later we face an existential crisis, and recognize in our lives
something broken, disordered, in need of redemption. The fact that
we can recognize disorder, brokenness, and sin means that they
occur within a larger framework of order, beauty, and goodness, or
else in principle we could not recognize them as such. Yet
brokenness and disorder are painfully present, and the human soul
by its nature seeks something more, a deeper happiness, a lasting
good. Consideration of the order and beauty in nature can lead us to
a Something, the “god of the philosophers,” but consideration of our
incompleteness leads us beyond, in search of a Someone who is the
Good of us all.
Science will never make that quest obsolete.

Christoph Cardinal Schönborn,

_____________________________________________________________________________________

O.P., is a Dominican friar, the Archbishop of Vienna, Austria, a Member of

the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for
Education of the Roman Catholic Church, and was lead editor of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church.

7
w003

Does science make

belief in God obsolete?
William D. Phillips

Absolutely not!
Now that we have scientific explanations for the natural phenomena
that mystified our ancestors, many scientists and non-scientists
believe that we no longer need to appeal to a supernatural God for
explanations of anything, thereby making God obsolete. As for
people of faith, many of them believe that science, by offering such
explanations, opposes their understanding that the universe is the
loving and purposeful creation of God. Because science denies this
fundamental belief, they conclude that science is mistaken. These
very different points of view share a common conviction: that
science and religion are irreconcilable enemies. They are not.
I am a physicist. I do mainstream research; I publish in peer-
reviewed journals; I present my research at professional meetings; I
train students and postdoctoral researchers; I try to learn from
nature how nature works. In other words, I am an ordinary scientist. I
am also a person of religious faith. I attend church; I sing in the
gospel choir; I go to Sunday school; I pray regularly; I try to“do

8
justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with my God.” In other words, I
am an ordinary person of faith. To many people, this makes me a
contradiction—a serious scientist who seriously believes in God. But
to many more people, I am someone just like them. While most of
the media’s attention goes to the strident atheists who claim that
religion is foolish superstition, and to the equally clamorous religious
creationists who deny the clear evidence for cosmic and biological
evolution, a majority of the people I know have no difficulty
accepting scientific knowledge and holding to religious faith.
As an experimental physicist, I require hard evidence, reproducible
experiments, and rigorous logic to support any scientific hypothesis.
How can such a person base belief on faith? In fact there are two
questions: “How can I believe in God?” and “Why do I believe in
God?”
On the first question: a scientist can believe in God because such
belief is not a scientific matter. Scientific statements must be
“falsifiable.” That is, there must be some outcome that at least in
principle could show that the statement is false. I might say,
“Einstein’s theory of relativity correctly describes the behavior of
visible objects in our solar system.” So far, extremely careful
measurements have failed to prove that statement false, but they
could (and some people have invested careers in trying to see if they
will). By contrast, religious statements are not necessarily falsifiable.
I might say, “God loves us and wants us to love one another.” I
cannot think of anything that could prove that statement false. Some
might argue that if I were more explicit about what I mean by God
and the other concepts in my statement, it would become falsifiable.
But such an argument misses the point. It is an attempt to turn a
religious statement into a scientific one. There is no requirement
that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific
statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not
scientific. “She sings beautifully.” “He is a good man.” “I love you.”
These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value.
Science is not the only useful way of looking at life.
What about the second question: why do I believe in God? As a
physicist, I look at nature from a particular perspective. I see an
orderly, beautiful universe in which nearly all physical phenomena
can be understood from a few simple mathematical equations. I see
a universe that, had it been constructed slightly differently, would
never have given birth to stars and planets, let alone bacteria and
people. And there is no good scientific reason for why the universe
should not have been different. Many good scientists have concluded
from these observations that an intelligent God must have chosen to

9
create the universe with such beautiful, simple, and life-giving
properties. Many other equally good scientists are nevertheless
atheists. Both conclusions are positions of faith. Recently, the
philosopher and long-time atheist Anthony Flew changed his mind
and decided that, based on such evidence, he should believe in God.
I find these arguments suggestive and supportive of belief in God,
but not conclusive. I believe in God because I can feel God’s
presence in my life, because I can see the evidence of God’s
goodness in the world, because I believe in Love and because I
believe that God is Love.
Does this belief make me a better person or a better physicist than
others? Hardly. I know plenty of atheists who are both better people
and better scientists than I. I do think that this belief makes me
better than I would be if I did not believe. Am I free of doubts about
God? Hardly. Questions about the presence of evil in the world, the
suffering of innocent children, the variety of religious thought, and
other imponderables often leave me wondering if I have it right, and
always leave me conscious of my ignorance. Nevertheless, I do
believe, more because of science than in spite of it, but ultimately
just because I believe. As the author of Hebrews put it: “faith is the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

William D. Phillips, a Nobel

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Laureate in physics, is a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the

University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology.

10
w004

Does science make

belief in God obsolete?
Pervez AmiraliHoodbhoy

Not necessarily.
But you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God. First,
try the pantheon of available Creators. Inspect thoroughly. If none
fits the bill, invent one.
The God of your choice must be a stickler for divine principles.
Science does not take kindly to a deity who, if piqued or euphoric,
sets aside seismological or cosmological principles and causes the
moon to shiver, the earth to split asunder, or the universe to
suddenly reverse its expansion. This God must, among other things,
be stoically indifferent to supplications for changing local
meteorological conditions, the task having already been assigned to
the discipline of fluid dynamics. Therefore, indigenous peoples, even
if they dance with great energy around totem poles, shall not cause
even a drop of rain to fall on parched soil. Your rule-abiding and

11
science-respecting God equally well dispenses with tearful Christians
singing the Book of Job, pious Hindus feverishly reciting the havan
yajna, or earnest Muslims performing the salat-i-istisqa as they face
the Holy Ka’aba. The equations of fluid flow, not the number of
earnest supplicants or quality of their prayers, determine weather
outcomes. This is slightly unfortunate because one could imagine
joining the faithful of all religions in a huge simultaneous global
prayer that wipes away the pernicious effects of anthropogenic
global climate change.
Your chosen God cannot entertain private petitions for good health
and longevity, prevent an air crash, or send woe upon demand to the
enemy. Mindful of microbiology and physiology, She cannot cure
leprosy by dipping the afflicted in rivers or have humans remain in
unscathed condition after being devoured by a huge fish. Faster-
than-light travel is also out of the question, even for prophets and
special messengers. Instead, She must run the world lawfully and
unto the letter, closely following the Book of Nature.
A scientific Creator should certainly know an awful lot of science. To
differentiate between the countless universes offered by superstring
theory is a headache. Fine-tuning chemistry to generate complex
proteins, and then initiating a cascade of mutations that turn
microbe to man, is also no trivial matter. But bear in mind that there
are definite limits to divine knowledge: God can know only the
knowable. Omniscience and science do not go well with each other.
The difficulty with omniscience—even with regard to a particle as
humble as the electron—has been recognized as an issue since the
1920s. Subatomic particles show a vexing, subtle elusiveness that
defeats even the most sophisticated effort to measure certain of
their properties. Unpredictability is intrinsic to quantum mechanics,
the branch of physics which all particles are empirically seen to
obey. This discovery so disturbed Albert Einstein that he rejected
quantum mechanics, pronouncing that God could not “play dice with
the universe.” But it turned out that Einstein’s objections were
flawed—uncertainty is deeply fundamental. Thus, any science-
abiding deity we choose may be incompletely informed on at least
some aspects of nature.
Is one being excessively audacious, perhaps impertinent, in setting
down terms of reference for a Divine entity? Not really. Humans
have always chosen their objects of worship. Smarter humans go for
smarter Gods. Anthropomorphic representations—such as a God with
octopus arms—are a bit out of fashion today but were enormously
popular just a few centuries ago. As well, some people might object
to binding God and human to the same rules of logic, or perhaps

12
even sharing the same space-time manifold. But if we drop this
essential demand then little shall remain. Reason and evidence
would lose meaning and be replaced by tradition, authority, and
revelation. It would then be wrong for us to have 2 + 2 = 5, but okay
for God. Centuries of human progress would come to naught.
Let’s face it: the day of the Sky God is long gone. In the Age of
Science, religion has been downsized, and the medieval God of
classical religions has lost repute and territory. Today people pay lip
service to trusting that God but they still swallow antibiotics when
sick. Muslim-run airlines start a plane journey with prayers but ask
passengers to buckle-up anyway, and most suspect that people who
appear to rise miraculously from the dead were probably not quite
dead to begin with. These days if you hear a voice telling you to
sacrifice your only son, you would probably report it to the
authorities instead of taking the poor lad up a mountain. The old
trust is disappearing.
Nevertheless, there remains the tantalizing prospect of a divine
power somewhere “out there” who runs a mysterious, but
scrupulously miracle-free, universe. In this universe, God may
choose to act in ingenious ways that seem miraculous. Yet these
“miracles” need not violate physical laws. Extraordinary, but
legitimate, interventions in the physical world permit quantum
tunneling through cosmic worm holes or certain symmetries to snap
spontaneously. It would be perfectly fair for a science-savvy God to
use nonlinear dynamics so that tiny fluctuations quickly build up to
earthshaking results—the famous “butterfly effect” of deterministic
chaos theory.
Nietzsche and the theothanatologists were plain wrong—God is
neither dead nor about to die. Even as the divine habitat shrinks
before the aggressive encroachment of science, the quantum foam
of space-time creates spare universes aplenty, offering space both
for a science-friendly God as well as for self-described “deeply
religious non-believers” like Einstein. Many eminent practitioners of
science have successfully persuaded themselves that there is no
logical contradiction between faith and belief by finding a suitable
God, or by clothing a traditional God appropriately. Unsure of why
they happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever
in search of meaning.

Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy is

_____________________________________________________________________________________

chairman of the department of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in

13
Islamabad, Pakistan, and is the author of Islam and Science: Religious
Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality.

w005

Does science make

belief in God obsolete?
Mary Midgley

Of course not.
Belief—or disbelief—in God is not a scientific opinion, a judgment
about physical facts in the world. It is an element in something larger
and more puzzling—our wider worldview, the set of background
assumptions by which we make sense of our world as a whole.

14
We seldom notice these assumptions, but we often use them in
resolving our inner conflicts. As life goes on, we shape them
gradually into patterns by which to relate the things we find most
important. And occasionally, when something goes badly wrong, we
realize that we must somehow think differently about our whole
lives. Doing this is not an irrational substitute for formal proof. It is
the groundwork without which new thought is impossible. This is
clear if we consider for a moment a few unprovable assumptions we
quite rightly use at this level:
Other people are conscious beings, not mindless robots.
They have thoughts and feelings more or less like our own.
Most of what they tell us is true.
The physical world itself will, on the whole, go on acting pretty much
as it has done so far (the “regularity of nature”).
We trust the world around us, and its relation to ourselves. That trust
—that faith—is not irrational; it is, in fact, the foundation of our
rationality. If we really did start to doubt other people’s
consciousness and truthfulness or the regularity of nature, we would
lose not just our science but our sanity. We could not act at all.
Worldviews, then, are foundational for human life and underlie every
culture. On the points I just mentioned, they mostly agree. But on
other points, they differ because they emphasize different aspects of
the human experience. What is now seen as a universal cold war
between science and religion is, I think, really a more local clash
between a particular scientistic worldview, much favored recently in
the West, and most other people’s worldviews at most other times.
Of course, those other views differ hugely among themselves. Some
center on Godhead; some, such as Buddhism and Taoism, don’t use
that idea at all. But what they all do is to set human life in a context.
They don’t see our species as sealed in a private box that contains
everything of value, but as playing its part in a much wider theatre
of spiritual activity—activity that gives meaning to our own.
Scientism by contrast (following suggestions from the
Enlightenment), cuts that context off altogether and looks for the
meaning of life in Science itself. It is this claim to a monopoly of
meaning, rather than any special scientific doctrine, that makes
science and religion look like competitors today.
Science does have its own worldview that includes guiding
presuppositions about the nature of the world. The founders of
modern science expressed these very plainly for their time. Cosmic
order (they said) flows wholly from God, so science redounds to his

15
glory. When, however, God went out of fashion, new prophets—
Comte, Marx, Freud, and the rest—crafted new and different
background pictures, which were all supposed to be scientific. But
these eventually became so confusing that Karl Popper exiled them
all. Science was then deemed to consist only of falsifiable
statements about the physical world. This is extremely neat, but
what then happens to psychology?
Behaviorism gave this question an answer that was widely accepted
for much of the last century, but one so strange that its implications
are still not fully understood. Scientific psychology must (they said)
deal exclusively with outside behavior. Consciousness, if it exists at
all, is something trivial, unintelligible and ineffective. They thus
rejected the first two assumptions that we have identified as being
basic for human thought—the consciousness and inner similarity of
other people. They did not notice that losing these assumptions
would land us in an alien world and that it would actually undermine
our other two foundation stones as well. If we really did not believe
that others think and feel as we do, we could surely not understand
what they said. And if we were thus deprived of all communication,
how could we ever form the notion of an objective, reliable world?
In fact, it finally became clear that the behaviorists’ starvation diet
cannot support intellectual life, so the taboo on mentioning
consciousness in scientific circles has been lifted. Unfortunately,
however, the visions by which people consoled themselves in their
time of starvation—Jacques Monod’s dream of a cosmic casino run
by natural selection and Richard Dawkins’s drama of domination by
selfish genes—are still with us, causing confusion. But our main
trouble now is perhaps our ambivalent response to the idea of
visions as such. We are still inclined to suspect that any talk except
literal truths about the physical world is anti-scientific.
Scientism thus emerged not as the conclusion of scientific argument
but as a chosen element in a worldview—a vision that attracted
people by its contrast with what went before—which is, of course,
how people very often do make such decisions, even ones that they
afterwards call scientific. We ought, I suggest, to pay a lot more
attention to these crises and take more trouble to make sure that
our worldviews make sense.

Mary Midgley is a philosopher with a special interest in ethics, human

nature, and science, and is the author of Evolution as a Religion and Science as Salvation.

16
w006

Does science make

belief in God obsolete?
Robert Sapolsky

17
No.
Despite the fact that I’m an atheist, I recognize that belief offers
something that science does not.
Science isn’t remotely about a scientist announcing truths or The
Truth. It’s about stating things with a certain degree of certainty. A
scientist will say, “In this experiment, I observed that A causes B; it
didn’t happen every single time, and my statistical analyses show
that I can be X percent certain that this A/B connection didn’t
happen by chance.” The convention in most scientific papers is that
you don’t report something until you’re more than 95 percent
certain. It is impossible with statistics to state something with 100
percent certainty.
Now, I’m not trying to be a postmodernist gibbering about how
science is a purely subjective process and there are no objective
truths. There are truths, and scientific knowledge produces
temporary points of solid ground in pursuit of them. An observation
must have predictive power and be capable of independent
replication by others. And scientists must be willing to abandon
supposed knowledge when a completely different explanation arises
—“Hey, this is an orangutan jawbone stained dark, so Piltdown Man
really isn’t our grandfather.” Far more often, scientists are asked to
modify their knowledge: “Remember when you said that A doesn’t
cause B every single time? It turns out that A causes B only when C
is happening.” This increases the subtlety and nuance of science. As
a surprising example, it turns out that the most iconic “fact” in the
life sciences is only a temporary foothold: DNA doesn’t always form a
double helix, and those exceptions are mighty interesting.
So it doesn’t even make a whole lot of sense to frame a
science/religion fight as who has the truthier truth. But you can state
it as, “Which approach gives you more predictive power and ability
to change an outcome?” When stated this way, science wins hands
down. There’s no question that when faced with, say, a sick child, it’s
better to prescribe antibiotics than to invoke some ceremonial goat
innards or to employ a fetish gee-gaw. Even in a country as throttled
by religion as our own, the courts have consistently ruled that a
parent cannot deny medical care to a sick child and instead
substitute attempts at religious cures. That’s not why belief resists
obsolescence.
The next logical arena in the culture wars is the issue of whether
religion or science is better for society. On this front, there’s no
question which approach has produced more historical (and

18
contemporary) harm. Sure, science has come up with Lysenkoism,
eugenics, lobotomies, and the people who methodically tested new
uses for Zyklon B. But that doesn’t even begin to nudge the scale
from its one-sided tilt. And the argument that the likes of
Torquemada are aberrations of religiosity is nonsense; they are the
only logical consequences of some facets of religiosity. The blood on
the hands of religion drips enough to darken the sea.
It might be argued that religious belief remains relevant because of
the comfort it can provide. But this one doesn’t do much for me.
Solace is not benign when reality proves the solace to have been
misplaced, nor are beliefs that reduce anxiety when the belief
system is so often what generated the anxiety in the first place.
So why is belief still relevant? To this I’d offer a very a-scientific
answer. It is for the ecstasy. I’m not talking about glossolalic frothing
in the aisles, nor other excesses that most religions neither generate
nor value. I mean those instances where you’re suffused with
gratitude for life and experience and the chance to do good, where
every neuron is flooded with the momentness of feeling the breeze
on its cellular cheek. A scientist or a consumer of science may feel
ecstatic about a finding—that it will cure a disease, save a species,
or is just stunningly beautiful—but science, as an explanatory
system, is not very good at producing ecstasy. For starters, there are
good arguments to be made for why science shouldn’t do ecstasy.
One reason is that scientific progress so often constitutes minutiae
that lurch you two steps back for every three steps forward. It is also
because of the content—the gratitude part of ecstasy is particularly
hard if you spend your time studying, say, childhood cancer, or the
biology of violence, or causes of extinction. By contrast, the potential
for ecstasy is deeply intertwined with religiosity, where the mere
possibility of belief and faith in the absence of proof is where it can
be an ecstatic, moving truth.
This may seem an unfair tilting of the debate against science. After
all, you wouldn’t write an essay trashing the profession of
commodities broker because it doesn’t produce ecstasy. But building
your life’s explanations around science isn’t a profession. It is, at its
core, an emotional contract, an agreement to only derive comfort
from rationality.
Science is the best explanatory system that we have, and religiosity
as an alternative has a spectacular potential for harm that
permeates and distorts every domain of decision-making and
attribution in our world. But just because science can explain so
many unknowns doesn’t mean that it can explain everything, or that
it can vanquish the unknowable. That is why religious belief is not

19
obsolete. The world would not be a better place without ecstasy, but
it would be one if there wasn’t religion. But don’t expect science to
fill the hole that would be left behind, or to convince you that there is
none.

Robert Sapolsky is John A. and

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Cynthia Fry Gunn Professor of Biological Sciences and professor of

neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University. He is the
author of Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, The Trouble with Testosterone,
and A Primate’s Memoir.

w007

Does science make

20
belief in God obsolete?
Christopher Hitchens

No, but it should.

Until about 1832, when it first seems to have become established as
a noun and a concept, the term “scientist” had no really
independent meaning. “Science” meant “knowledge” in much the
same way as “physic” meant medicine, and those who conducted
experiments or organized field expeditions or managed laboratories
were known as “natural philosophers.” To these gentlemen (for they
were mainly gentlemen) the belief in a divine presence or inspiration
was often merely assumed to be a part of the natural order, in rather
the same way as it was assumed—or actually insisted upon—that a
teacher at Cambridge University swear an oath to be an ordained
Christian minister. For Sir Isaac Newton—an enthusiastic alchemist, a
despiser of the doctrine of the Trinity, and a fanatical anti-Papist—
the main clues to the cosmos were to be found in Scripture. Joseph
Priestley, discoverer of oxygen, was a devout Unitarian as well as a
believer in the phlogiston theory. Alfred Russel Wallace, to whom we
owe much of what we know about evolution and natural selection,
delighted in nothing more than a session of ectoplasmic or spiritual
communion with the departed.
And thus it could be argued—though if I were a believer in god I
would not myself attempt to argue it—that a commitment to science
by no means contradicts a belief in the supernatural. The best known
statement of this opinion in our own time comes from the late
Stephen Jay Gould, who tactfully proposed that the worlds of science
and religion commanded “non-overlapping magisteria.” How true is
this on a second look, or even on a first glance? Would we have
adopted monotheism in the first place if we had known:
That our species is at most 200,000 years old, and very nearly joined
the 98.9 percent of all other species on our planet by becoming
extinct, in Africa, 60,000 years ago, when our numbers seemingly
fell below 2,000 before we embarked on our true “exodus” from the
savannah?
That the universe, originally discovered by Edwin Hubble to be

21
expanding away from itself in a flash of red light, is now known to be
expanding away from itself even more rapidly, so that soon even the
evidence of the original “big bang” will be unobservable?
That the Andromeda galaxy is on a direct collision course with our
own, the ominous but beautiful premonition of which can already be
seen with a naked eye in the night sky?
These are very recent examples, post-Darwinian and post-
Einsteinian, and they make pathetic nonsense of any idea that our
presence on this planet, let alone in this of so many billion galaxies,
is part of a plan. Which design, or designer, made so sure that
absolutely nothing (see above) will come out of our fragile current
“something”? What plan, or planner, determined that millions of
humans would die without even a grave marker, for our first 200,000
years of struggling and desperate existence, and that there would
only then at last be a “revelation” to save us, about 3,000 years ago,
but disclosed only to gaping peasants in remote and violent and
illiterate areas of the Middle East?
To say that there is little “scientific” evidence for the last proposition
is to invite a laugh. There is no evidence for it, period. And if by
some strenuous and improbable revelation there was to be any
evidence, it would only argue that the creator or designer of all
things was either (a) very laborious, roundabout, tinkering, and
incompetent and/or (b) extremely capricious and callous, and even
cruel. It will not do to say, in reply to this, that the lord moves in
mysterious ways. Those who dare to claim to be his understudies
and votaries and interpreters must either accept the cruelty and the
chaos or disown it: they cannot pick and choose between the warmly
benign and the frigidly indifferent. Nor can the religious claim to be
in possession of secret sources of information that are denied to the
rest of us. That claim was, once, the prerogative of the Pope and the
witch doctor, but now it’s gone. This is as much as to say that reason
and logic reject god, which (without being conclusive) would be a
fairly close approach to a scientific rebuttal. It would also be quite
near to saying something that lies just outside the scope of this
essay, which is that morality shudders at the idea of god, as well.
Religion, remember, is theism not deism. Faith cannot rest itself on
the argument that there might or might not be a prime mover. Faith
must believe in answered prayers, divinely ordained morality,
heavenly warrant for circumcision, the occurrence of miracles or
what you will. Physics and chemistry and biology and paleontology
and archeology have, at a minimum, given us explanations for what
used to be mysterious, and furnished us with hypotheses that are at
least as good as, or very much better than, the ones offered by any

22
believers in other and inexplicable dimensions.
Does this mean that the inexplicable or superstitious has become
“obsolete”? I myself would wish to say no, if only because I believe
that the human capacity for wonder neither will nor should be
destroyed or superseded. But the original problem with religion is
that it is our first, and our worst, attempt at explanation. It is how we
came up with answers before we had any evidence. It belongs to the
terrified childhood of our species, before we knew about germs or
could account for earthquakes. It belongs to our childhood, too, in
the less charming sense of demanding a tyrannical authority: a
protective parent who demands compulsory love even as he exacts
a tithe of fear. This unalterable and eternal despot is the origin of
totalitarianism, and represents the first cringing human attempt to
refer all difficult questions to the smoking and forbidding altar of a
Big Brother. This of course is why one desires that science and
humanism would make faith obsolete, even as one sadly realizes
that as long as we remain insecure primates we shall remain very
fearful of breaking the chain.

Christopher Hitchens is the

_____________________________________________________________________________________

author of God Is Not Great and the editor of The Portable Atheist.

23
w008

Does science make

belief in God obsolete?
Keith Ward

No.
Far from making belief in God obsolete, some interpretations of
modern science provide positive reinforcement for belief in God.
The methodology of the natural sciences requires the formulation of
fruitful questions about the nature of the world that can be answered
by careful and repeatable observations. The use of controlled
experiments aids the construction of illuminating schemes of
classification or of causal hypotheses that explain why things are as
they are. The development of mathematical techniques for
describing and predicting observable regularities is usually an
important part of a scientific approach to the world.
There are many different sorts of natural science, from the patient
observations of botany and ethology to the more theory-laden
hypotheses of quantum cosmology. What is their relation to belief in
God? The answer depends on how one defines God. I shall adopt the
rather minimal view that God is a non-physical being of
consciousness and intelligence or wisdom, who creates the universe
for the sake of distinctive values that the universe generates.
If there is such a God, it follows that a non-physical conscious
intelligence is possible—so a materialist view that all existent things
must be physical, or must have location in space-time and must be
subject to the causal laws of such a space-time, must be false. It
follows that the nature of the universe must be compatible with
being the product of intelligent creation, and must contain states
that are of distinctive value and that could not otherwise exist. And it
follows that there is a form of non-physical causality—the whole

24
physical universe only exists because it is the effect of such
causality. So some facts about the universe (minimally, the fact that
the universe exists as it does) must be such that they cannot be
completely explained by physical causal laws alone.
All these claims are subject to dispute. Such disputes are as old as
recorded human thought. But has the spectacular advance of the
natural sciences added anything significant to them? Some writers
have supposed that science rules out any non-physical beings or
forms of causality. Auguste Comte propagated the nineteenth
century idea of a progress of humanity through three states of
thought—religious, metaphysical, and positive or scientific. The final
stage supersedes the others. Thus science renders belief in God
obsolete.
But quantum physicists have decisively rejected Comte’s
philosophical proposal that human sense-observations provide the
ultimate truth about objective reality. They more nearly vindicate
Kant’s alternative proposal that our senses only reveal reality as it
appears to us. Reality in itself is quite different, and is accessible
only through mathematical descriptions that are increasingly
removed from observation or pictorial imagination (how do you
picture a probability-wave in Hilbert space?).
It is almost commonplace in physics to speak of many space-times,
or of this space-time as a 10-or 11-dimensional reality that dissolves
into topological foam below the Planck length. This is a long way
from the sensationalism of Hume and Comte, and from the older
materialism that insists on locating every possible being within this
space-time. Some modern physicists routinely speak of realities
beyond space-time (e.g., quantum fluctuations in a vacuum from
which this space-time originates). And some physicists, such as
Henry Stapp, Eugene Wigner, and John von Neumann, speak of
consciousness as an ultimate and irreducible element of reality, the
basis of the physical as we know it, not its unanticipated by-product.
It is simply untrue that modern physics rules out the possibility of
non-physical entities. And it is untrue that science has established a
set of inflexible laws so tightly constraining and universally
dominating that they exclude the possibility of other forms, including
perhaps non-physical forms, of causal influence that we may not be
able to measure or predict. It is more accurate to say that
fundamental laws of nature are seen by many physicists as
approximations to an open, holistic and flexible reality, as we
encounter it in relatively isolated and controlled conditions.
An important fact about God is that if God is a non-physical entity

25
causally influencing the cosmos in non-physical ways, God’s mode of
causal influence is most unlikely to be law-governed, measurable,
predictable, or publicly observable. To the extent that the sciences
describe regular, measurable, predictable, controllable, and
repeatable behavior, acts of God will be outside the scientific remit.
But that does not mean they cannot occur.
Even opponents of intelligent creation (not “intelligent design,”
which in America has come to designate a view that specific
scientific evidences of design can be found) often concede that the
amazingly fine-tuned laws and constants of nature that lead to the
existence of intelligent life look as if they are designed to do so. The
appearance, they say, is deceptive. But it could be true, as Steven
Weinberg has suggested, that intelligent life-forms like us could only
exist in a cosmos with the fundamental constants this cosmos has,
that intelligent life is somehow prefigured in the basic laws of the
universe, and that the universe “knew we were coming,” as Freeman
Dyson has put it. If so, then the hypothesis of intelligent creation is a
good one because it makes the existence of intelligent life vastly
more probable than the hypothesis that such life is a product of blind
processes that may easily have been otherwise.
But this is not a scientific hypothesis. It posits no observationally
confirmable entities, and produces no specific predictions. It is a
philosophical hypothesis about the most adequate overall
interpretation of a very wide set of data, including scientific data, but
also including non-scientific data from history, personal experience,
and morality. And that is the fundamental point. It is not science that
renders belief in God obsolete. It is a strictly materialist
interpretation of the world that renders belief in God obsolete, and
which science is taken by some people to support. But science is
more ambiguous than that, and modern scientific belief in the
intelligibility and mathematical beauty of nature, and in the
ultimately “veiled” nature of objective reality, can reasonably be
taken as suggestive of an underlying cosmic intelligence. To that
extent, science may make a certain sort of belief in God highly
plausible.

Keith Ward is a Fellow of the

_____________________________________________________________________________________

British Academy, an ordained priest in the Church of England, a Canon of

Christ Church, Oxford, and the author of The Big Questions in Science and
Religion, Pascal’s Fire: Scientific Faith and Religious Understanding, Is
Religion Dangerous?, and Re-Thinking Christianity.

26
w009

Does science make

belief in God obsolete?
Victor J. Stenger

Yes.
Once upon a time there were a number of strong scientific
arguments for the existence of God. One of the oldest and most
prevalent is the argument from design. Most people look at the
complexity of the world and cannot conceive of how it could have
come about except by the action of a being or force of great power
and intelligence.
The design argument received perhaps its most brilliant exposition in
the work of the Anglican archdeacon William Paley. In his Natural
Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity
Collected from the Appearance of Nature, first published in 1802,
Paley wrote about finding both a stone and a watch while crossing a

27
heath. Though the stone would be regarded as a simple part of
nature, no one would question that the watch is an artifact, designed
for the purpose of telling time. Paley then proposed that objects of
nature, such as the human eye, give every indication of being similar
contrivances.
When Charles Darwin entered Cambridge in 1827 he was assigned to
the same rooms in Christ’s College occupied by William Paley
seventy years earlier. By that time the syllabus included the study of
Paley’s works and Darwin was deeply impressed. He remarked that
Paley’s work, “gave me as much delight as did Euclid.”
Yet Darwin ultimately discovered the answer to Paley and showed
how complex systems can evolve naturally from simpler ones
without design or plan. The mechanism he proposed in 1859 in The
Origin of Species (inferred independently by Alfred Russel Wallace)
was natural selection, by which organisms accumulate changes that
enable them to survive and have progeny that maintain those
features.
But, as Darwin recognized, a serious objection to evolution existed
based on the known physics of the time. Calculations by the great
physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) estimated ages for the sun
that were far too short for natural selection to operate.
However, at the time, nuclear energy was unknown. When this new
form of energy was discovered early in the twentieth century,
physicists estimated that the energy released by nuclear reactions
would allow the sun and other stars to last billions of years as stable
energy sources.
Prior to the twentieth century, the simple fact that the universe
contains matter also provided strong evidence for a creation. At the
time it was believed that matter was conserved, and so the matter of
the universe had to come from somewhere. In 1905 Einstein showed
that matter could be created from energy. But where did that energy
come from?
This remained unanswered for almost another century until accurate
observations with telescopes determined that an exact balance
exists between the positive energy of matter and the negative
energy of gravity. So, no energy was required to produce the
universe. The universe could have come from nothing.
Independent scientific support for a creation was also provided by a
basic principle of physics called the second law of thermodynamics,
which asserts that the total disorder or entropy of the universe must
increase with time. The universe is growing more disorderly with
time. Since it now has order, it would seem to follow that at some

28
point in the past, even greater order must have been imparted from
the outside.
But in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble reported that the galaxies
were moving away from one another at speeds approximately
proportional to their distance, indicating that the universe was
expanding. This provided the earliest evidence for the Big Bang. An
expanding universe could have started with low entropy and still
have formed localized order consistent with the second law.
Extrapolating what we know from modern cosmology back to the
earliest definable moment, we find that the universe began in a
state of maximum disorder. It contained the maximum entropy for
the tiny region of space, equivalent to zero information. Thus, even if
the universe were created, it retains no memory of that creation or
of the intentions of any possible creator. The only creator that seems
possible is the one Einstein abhorred—the God who plays dice with
the universe.
Now, such a God could still exist and play a role in the universe once
the universe exploded out of chaos. We no longer have total
disorder; but disorder still dominates the universe. Most of the
matter of the universe moves around randomly. Only 0.1 percent,
the part contained in visible parts of galaxies, has any significant
structure.
If he is to have any control over events so that some ultimate plan is
realized, God has to poke his finger into the works amidst all this
chaos. Yet there is no evidence that God pokes his finger in
anyplace. The universe and life look to science just as they should
look if they were not created or designed. And humanity, occupying
a tiny speck of dust in a vast cosmos for a tiny fraction of the life of
that cosmos, hardly looks special.
The universe visible to us contains a hundred billion galaxies, each
with a hundred billion stars. But by far the greatest portion of the
universe that expanded exponentially from the original chaos, at
least fifty orders of magnitude more, lies far beyond our horizon. The
universe we see with our most powerful telescopes is but a grain of
sand in the Sahara. Yet we are supposed to think that a supreme
being exists who follows the path of every particle, while listening to
every human thought and guiding his favorite football teams to
victory. Science has not only made belief in God obsolete. It has
made it incoherent.

Victor J. Stenger is emeritus

_____________________________________________________________________________________

professor of physics and astronomy, University of Hawaii, adjunct

29
professor of philosophy, University of Colorado, and the author of seven
books including God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God
Does Not Exist.

w010

Does science make

belief in God obsolete?
Jerome Groopman, M.D.

No, not at all.

As a physician and researcher, I employ science to decipher human

30
biology and treat disease. As a person of faith, I look to my religious
tradition for the touchstones of a moral life. Neither science nor faith
need contradict the other; in fact, if one appreciates the essence of
each, they can enrich each other in a person’s life.
So, the question of obsolescence is miscast, because science and
faith should exist in separate realms. Science uses logic and
experimental methods to measure and describe the material world.
It yields knowledge about the workings of molecules and machines,
mitosis and momentum. Science has no moral valence. It is neutral.
DNA technology can craft a cure for a cancer or produce a weapon of
bioterrorism. It is only a person’s application of science that takes on
a moral dimension.
In that light, an atheist creates his or her own moral precepts in the
absence of God. A believer looks to religious texts for guidance in
what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong, for both, do not
come from physics or chemistry or biology. Science does not instruct
how to treat one’s neighbor as oneself, how to clothe the naked and
feed the hungry, why it is wrong to murder, steal, bear false witness,
honor one’s father and mother, and perhaps most difficult of all,
subsume envy and covetousness. There are no Ten Commandments
in thermodynamics or molecular biology, no path to righteousness
and charity and love in Euclidean geometry or atomic physics. The
truths of mathematics, biology, chemistry, and physics are different
from the truths we seek in human behavior and human choices. The
truths of science can be measured and experimentally verified; the
truths of a moral life are matters of belief—whether you are an
atheist or a religious person. Religion should view science as a way
to improve the world; science should see religion not as a threat but
as a deeply felt path taken by some.
So why are we bombarded with polemics from extremists on both
sides of this issue? Why is the question of obsolescence asked about
God, who is not material and therefore doesn’t “age”?
The clash comes from the two extremes. Fundamentalist religious
believers in the United States want to change the Constitution so
that it includes injunctions about sex and prayer from the Bible. In
the Middle East and in parts of Asia, their counterparts, the
Wahhabis, press for sharia, Islamic law, to prevail over a liberal
society. Atheists have their own fundamentalists who characterize
people of faith as naïve, infantile, and neurotic in their rituals, too
irrational to live by the light of pure logic. The polemics of believers
show an ignorance of science, what it offers to improve life, and the
polemics of fundamentalist atheists ignore the wisdom found in
religious texts. Both seem threatened by diversity and wish to erase

31
any doubt under a blanket of blind belief.
There is another way, a “third way” of articulating the benefits of
science and faith. On this middle ground, a person can hold two
different sensibilities, two different types of thought, feeling, and
action. Yes, there are times when a scientist like myself who believes
in God is filled with doubt. But that should be expected. As the
esteemed Protestant theologian Paul Tillich once observed, the basis
of true faith is such doubt. Similarly, atheists should sometimes
doubt their negation of God, because it is not a matter of proof but
of subjective belief on their part.
In my own tradition, the rabbi, philosopher, and physician
Maimonides, also known as the Rambam, embodied an apparent
cognitive dissonance. He was a scholar of the Bible and Talmud
while, at the same time, a scholar of scientific medical practice. He
was a person of faith who rejected magic and sorcery as nonsense.
He viewed the natural world as governed by laws familiar to us
through physics and chemistry. But he also contended that each of
us makes a personal decision about whether or not to believe in God.
There is no need for mental gymnastics to generate a proof of God’s
existence; it is a futile exercise. God is axiomatic or not. Faith is not
deduced but felt. Religion, at its best, becomes a vehicle to arrive at
the good—the good for oneself, the good for others and for the
world.
Tolerance is actually a tenet of my tradition. The Hebrew Bible
asserts more than thirty times that we should respect the stranger
and treat him with dignity, because we were strangers in the land of
Egypt. The stranger represents “the Other”—what is foreign and
different and at times threatening to our beliefs. There is no need to
conquer or erase differences in culture or perspective. The same
tolerance should be found among atheists. They should not belittle
or ridicule as fools those who struggle to find meaning in life, to
confront mystery, based on a belief in the Divine. Science does not
threaten faith, and faith need not reject science. Neither will ever be
obsolete.

Jerome Groopman is the

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Recanati Professor of Medicine at Harvard and author of How Doctors

Think.

w011

32
Does science make
belief in God obsolete?
Michael Shermer

It depends.
The answer turns on whether one emphasizes belief or God. Science
does not make belief in God obsolete, but it may make obsolete the
reality of God, depending on how far we are able to push the
science.
On the question of belief in God, the answer is clearly no. Surveys
conducted in 1916 and again in 1997 found that 40 percent of
American scientists said they believe in God, so obviously the
practice of science does not make belief in God obsolete for this
sizable group. Neither does it for the hundreds of millions of
practicing Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and members of other faiths
who both believe in God and fully embrace science. Even on one of
the most contentious issues in all of science—evolution—a 2005 Pew
Research Center poll found that 68 percent of Protestants and 69
percent of Catholics accept the theory.
Of course, reality does not bend to the psychology of belief. Millions
of people believe in astrology, ghosts, angels, ESP, and all manner of
paranormal phenomena, but that does not make them real.
Mormons believe that their sacred text was dictated in an ancient
language onto gold plates by the angel Moroni, buried and
subsequently dug up near Palmyra, New York by Joseph Smith, who
then translated them by burying his face in a hat containing magic
stones. Scientologists believe that eons ago a galactic warlord
named Xenu brought alien beings from another solar system to
Earth, placed them in select volcanoes around the world, and then
vaporized them with hydrogen bombs, scattering to the winds their
souls (called thetans, in the jargon of Scientology), which attach
themselves to people today, leading to drug and alcohol abuse,
addiction, depression, and other psychological and social ailments
that only Scientology can cure. Clearly the veracity of a proposition

33
is independent of the number of people who believe it.
On the matter of God’s existence, the answer to the question slides
toward a yes, depending on how far we extend the sphere of science
into the space of theology. If we apply the methods of science to
understanding all of nature, where would God be and how would we
detect Him or His actions? That’s the rub. God is described by most
Western religions as omniscient and omnipotent, the creator of all
things visible and invisible, an Intelligent Designer capable of
constructing the universe, Earth, life, and us. If scientists go in
search of such a being—as Intelligent Design (ID) creationists claim
to be doing—how could we possibly distinguish an omnipotent and
omniscient God from an extremely powerful and really smart Extra-
Terrestrial Intelligence (ETI)? I call this problem Shermer’s Last Law
(pace Arthur C. Clarke): any sufficiently advanced Extra-Terrestrial
Intelligence would be indistinguishable from God.
Here is how the problem breaks down. Biological evolution is
glacially slow compared to cultural evolution. Because of this, and
the fact that the cosmos is very big and the space between the stars
is vast, the probability of making contact with an ETI that is
technologically equal to or only slightly more advanced than us is
virtually nil. If we ever do encounter the representatives of an ETI,
they will be so far ahead of us technologically that they will appear
as gods to us. Consider something as relatively simple as DNA. We
can already engineer genes after only 50 years of genetic science.
An ETI that was, say, only 50,000 years ahead of us would surely be
able to construct entire genomes, cells, multi-cellular life, and
complex ecosystems. The design of life is, after all, just a technical
problem in molecular manipulation. To our bronze-age ancestors
who created the great monotheistic religions, the ability to create life
was God-like. To our not-so-distant descendents, or to an ETI we
might encounter, the ability to create life will be simply a matter of
technological skill.
By pursuing a course of scientific inquiry to its natural extension of
examining the nature of God, what we will find, if we find anything, is
an alien being capable of engineering cells, complex organisms,
planets, stars, galaxies, and perhaps even universes. If today we can
engineer genes, clone mammals, and manipulate stem cells with
science and technologies developed in only the last half century,
think of what an ETI could do with 100,000 years of equivalent
powers of progress in science and technology. For an ETI who is a
million years more advanced than we are, engineering the creation
of planets and stars may be entirely possible. And if universes are
created out of collapsing black holes—which some cosmologists

34
think is probable—it is not inconceivable that a sufficiently advanced
ETI could even create a universe.
What would we call an intelligent being capable of engineering a
universe, stars, planets, and life? If we knew the underlying science
and technology used to do the engineering, we would call it Extra-
Terrestrial Intelligence; if we did not know the underlying science
and technology, we would call it God.
Science traffics in the natural, not the supernatural. The only God
that science could discover would be a natural being, an entity that
exists in space and time and is constrained by the laws of nature. A
supernatural God would be so wholly Other that no science could
know Him.
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Belief, no. God, yes.

_____________________________________________________________________________________Michael Shermer is the

publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com), a monthly columnist for Scientific
American (www.michaelshermer.com), a professor at Claremont Graduate University, and
the author of How We Believe, Why Darwin Matters, and The Mind of the Market.

35
w012

Does science make

belief in God obsolete?
Kenneth Miller

Of course not.
Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God. Rather, it
gives us a window on a dynamic and creative universe that expands
our appreciation of the Divine in ways that could not have been
imagined in ages past.
As an outspoken defender of evolution, I am often challenged by
those who assume that if science can demonstrate the natural
origins of our species, which it surely has, then God should be
abandoned. But the Deity they reject so easily is not the one I know.
To be threatened by science, God would have to be nothing more
than a placeholder for human ignorance. This is the God of the
creationists, of the “intelligent design” movement, of those who seek
their God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet
understand becomes their best—indeed their only—evidence for
faith. As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly
depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of
knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it also
suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I
suggest that if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere
else—in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.

36
And what a light that is. Science places us in an extraordinary
universe, a place where stars and even galaxies continue to be born,
where matter itself comes alive, evolves, and rises to each new
challenge of its richly changing environment. We live in a world
literally bursting with creative evolutionary potential, and it is quite
reasonable to ask why that is so. To a person of faith, the answer to
that question is God.
The English poet Matthew Arnold, at the dawn of the modern era,
once lamented that all he could hear of the “Sea of Faith” was its
“melancholy, long, withdrawing roar.” To some, that melancholy roar
is a sound to be savored because faith is a delusion, an obstacle, a
stumbling block on the road to progress and enlightenment. It is the
antithesis of science.
In this view, God is an explanation for the weak, a way out for those
who cannot face the terrible realities revealed by science. The
courageous, the bold, the “brights” are those who face that reality
and accept it without the comforting crutch of faith by declaring God
to be obsolete.
But science itself employs a kind of faith, a faith all scientists share,
whether they are religious in the conventional sense or not. Science
is built upon a faith that the world is understandable, and that there
is a logic to reality that the human mind can explore and
comprehend. It also holds, as an article of scientific faith, that such
exploration is worth the trouble, because knowledge is always to be
preferred to ignorance.
The categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is
natural, and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and
test. By making God an ordinary part of the natural world, and failing
to find Him there, they conclude that He does not exist. But God is
not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature, the
explanation of why things are. He is the answer to existence, not
part of existence itself.
There is great naiveté in the assumption that our presence in the
universe is self-explanatory, and does not require an answer. Many
who reject God imply that reasons for the existence of an orderly
natural world are not to be sought. The laws of nature exist simply
because they are, or because we find ourselves in one of countless
“multiverses” in which ours happens to be hospitable to life. No need
to ask why this should be so, or inquire as to the mechanism that
generates so many worlds. The curiosity of the theist who embraces
science is greater, not less, because he seeks an explanation that is
deeper than science can provide, an explanation that includes

37
science, but then seeks the ultimate reason why the logic of science
should work so well. The hypothesis of God comes not from a
rejection of science, but from a penetrating curiosity that asks why
science is even possible, and why the laws of nature exist for us to
discover.
It is true, of course, that organized religions do not point to a single,
coherent view of the nature of God. But to reject God because of the
admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion
would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent
contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity. Science, all
of science, is necessarily incomplete—this is, in fact, the reason why
so many of us find science to be such an invigorating and fulfilling
calling. Why, then, should we be surprised that religion is incomplete
and contradictory as well? We do not abandon science because our
human efforts to approach the great truths of nature are
occasionally hampered by error, greed, dishonesty, and even fraud.
Why then should we declare faith a “delusion” because belief in God
is subject to exactly the same failings?
Albert Einstein once wrote that “the eternal mystery of the world is
its comprehensibility.” Today, even as science moves ahead, that
mystery remains. Is there a genuine place for faith in the world of
science? Indeed there is. Far from standing in conflict with it, the
hypothesis of God validates not only our faith in science, but our
sheer delight at the gifts of knowledge, love, and life.

Kenneth R. Miller is a professor

_____________________________________________________________________________________

of biology at Brown University and the author of Finding Darwin’s God: A

Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution and of
Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.

38
w013

Does science make

belief in God obsolete?
Stuart Kauffman

No, but only if...

we continue to develop new notions of God, such as a fully natural
God that is the creativity in the cosmos.
Humans have been worshipping gods for thousands of years. Our
sense of God in the Western world has evolved from Abraham’s
jealous God Yahweh to the God of love of the New Testament.
Science and faith have split modern societies just as some form of
global civilization is emerging. One result is a retreat into religious
fundamentalisms, often bitterly hostile. The schism between science
and religion can be healed, but it will require a slow evolution from a
supernatural, theistic God to a new sense of a fully natural God as
our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural
universe. This healing may also require a transformation of science
to a new scientific worldview with a place for the ceaseless creativity

39
in the universe that we can call God.
We must “reinvent the sacred,” but it is dangerous: it implies that
the sacred is invented. For billions of believers this is Godless
heresy. Yet how many gods have we worshiped down the eons? It is
we who have told our gods what is sacred, not they who have told
us. This does not mean that what we deem sacred is not sacred. It
means something wonderful: what we deem sacred is our own
choice. At this stage in the evolution of humanity, are we ready to
take responsibility for what we will claim as sacred, including all of
life and the planet? If so, we must also avoid a dangerous moral
hegemony and find ways to allow our sense of the sacred to evolve
wisely as well. Reinventing the sacred is also likely to anger many
who, like myself, do not believe in a supernatural God. For many of
us, the very words “God” and “sacred” have become profoundly
suspect. We think of Galileo forced to recant his heliocentric views
by the Inquisition. We do not want to return to any form of religion
that demands that we abandon the truth of the real world. We think
of the millions killed in the name of God. We often ignore the solace,
union with God, and the orientation for living that religion brings.
I believe that reinventing the sacred is a global cultural imperative. A
global race is under way, between the retreat into fundamentalisms
and the construction of a safe, shared space for our spirituality that
might also ease those fundamentalist fears.
The new scientific worldview is just beginning to become visible. It
goes beyond the reductionism of Descartes, Galileo, and Laplace in
which all that occurs in the universe is ultimately to be described by
physical law. In its place, this new scientific vision includes the
emergence of life, and with life, of agency, meaning, value, doing,
hence of “ought” and ultimately our moral reasoning. The rudiments
of morality are already seen in the higher primates. Evolution,
despite the fears of some faithful, is the first source of morality.
While no law of physics is broken, the emergence of all this in the
natural evolution of the biosphere cannot be deduced by physics
alone.
What we think of as natural law may not suffice to explain nature.
We now know, for example, that evolution includes Darwinian pre-
adaptations—unused features of organisms that may become useful
in a different environment and thus emerge as novel functionalities,
such as our middle ear bones, which arose from the jaw bones of an
early fish. Could we prestate all the possible Darwinian
preadaptations even for humans, let alone predict them? It would
seem unlikely. And if not, the evolution of the biosphere, the
economy, and civilization are partially beyond natural law.

40
If this view holds, then we will undergo a major transformation in our
understanding of science. Partially beyond law, we are in a co-
constructing, ceaselessly creative universe whose detailed unfolding
cannot be predicted. Therefore, we truly cannot know all that will
happen. In that case, reason, the highest virtue of our beloved
Enlightenment, is an insufficient guide to living our lives. We must
reunite reason with our entire humanity. And in the face of what can
only be called Mystery, we need a means to orient our lives. That we
do, in reality, live in the face of an unknown is one root of humanity’s
age old need for a supernatural God.
Yet our Abrahamic God is too narrow a stage for our full human
spirituality. In the Old Testament, this God created the world and all
its creatures for the benefit of humanity. How self-serving and
limiting a vision of God. How much vaster are our lives understood
as part of the unfolding of the entire universe? We are invited to
awe, gratitude, and stewardship. This planet and this life are God’s
work, not ours. If God is the creativity in the universe, we are not
made in God’s image. We too are God. We can now choose to
assume responsibility for ourselves and our world, to the best of our
limited wisdom, together with our most powerful symbol: God, as the
creativity in the natural universe.

Stuart Kauffman is the director

_____________________________________________________________________________________

of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of

Calgary and an external professor at the Santa Fe Institute. His most
recent book is Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason,
and Religion.

w014

Comments by readers of the Templeton series :

RE: Whole Series
Dr. Roger O. Walter
07/29/2010
Have just finished "Does moral action depend on reasoning?" and was inspired and elevated
by what the authors had to say aboout this subject. Being a scientist and an agnostic, I am
looking foward to receiving this booklet. We need organizations like yours. Many thanks.
RE: Whole Series

41
V. Abraham Kurien
07/25/2010
The question itself is obsolete! Scientific search and religious quest are not
polar opposites, of which the latter is obsolete because the success of the
former is self-evident. The question assumes incorrectly that science is
capable of demonstrating that the idea of God, from which belief in God
arises, can be disproved by logic or scientific methodology. Acceptance of
scientific theories as provable and the assertion therefore that they
represent universal laws do not mandate that declaration of belief in God
is invalid because it does not provide universal utility.

They are two very different approaches to epistemology. Science is the

objective knowledge of the differntiated Reality that exists in time and
space, the universe in which human beings live and which they can study
through a specific consensually validated methodology. Undifferentiated
Reality, often called God, that some human beings claim exists beyond
time and space, and who is claimed to have created differentiated Reality,
human beings experience as an internal belief based on self-awareness
that can provide validation that human life has meaning and purpose.
Science, by the limits it places on its own methodology (providing
"objective' proof") cannot address whether God (Undifferentiated Reality)
exists or not. In spite of its great technological achievements and the
sophistication of its mathematical equations, science can only deal with
differentiated Reality that human beings can comprehend. The claim that
Undifferentiated Reality exists as distinct from the different Realities of the
world is a postulate that arises from the internal experience of mankind.

There can be no external "objective" proof. Undifferentiated Reality as the

origin of infinite possibilities of existence cannot be an axiom of science.
On the other hand, denial of the existence of Undifferentiated Reality and
the assertion that belief in God is a delusion are not scientific proofs for
the nonexistence of God!
RE: Whole Series
Peter
07/25/2010
Time and again I see the question of gods discussed by christians in this
type of forum as a philosophical problem without adequately defining what
is meant by "god" and skirting the issue of where they are really coming
from--a belief in the biblical god. The first step for these believers is to
provide evidence for their particular notion of god, validate the bible,
quran, whatever. Ignoring their true beliefs (based in their scriptures) and
talking more like philosophers gets them off the hook and lends them
credibility where none is due. There is no credible version of history
(informed by sciences such as archeaology) which supports biblical
creation or the supernatural events described in their bible. So why are we
having these discussions? If the discussions must take place, let's be
honest, as others have pointed out, and define the kind of god we are

42
talking about, otherwise we talking past each other.
RE: Whole Series
DTG
06/23/2010
Brian Lockett: "Many Catholics preach Jesus, but Jesus preached many
things they deny, like keeping the Ten Commandments, including the
sabbath (which the Catholic church has candidly admitted to refuting and
ignoring)."

You are writing nonsense. You evidently have no clue about Catholicism.
What I would be curious to know is, what pushes you to writing such
ridiculous statements?
RE: Jerome Groopman
ted strom
06/17/2010
If only it were true, as you say, that these two magisteria did not overlap,
except when easily identified extremists launch vitriol onto the clearly
marked field. It ain't so. Rational inquiry collides with dogma regularly
because it is fundamentally inconsistent with faith. It is not only extremists
who are threatened when rational inquiry suggests that morals evolve in
response to changes in the environment, and that they survive when they
contribute to a tribe's survival. And it's not only those loudmouthed
atheists who are threatened when religious groups sanctify single cells as
human life, cutting off a decade of potential stem cell research advances
as they did under Bush. To claim, as you do, that science is value neutral
leaves no place for the subject of research ethics--or for the passionate
attachment most scientists feel to honesty. Their enterprise would fail if
they didn't feel it--and has, in places like 1930's Russia, when that passion
was literally murdered. Trying to wish away the conflict of religion and
science will work about as well as the Missouri compromise, which was just
as well intentioned.
RE: Whole Series
John Williamson
05/27/2010
Both the Big Bang theory and the religious "God Creator" theories require
that there be something existing before the Universe, either an extreme
"dense nucleus" mass in Big Bang theory or a "God." To argue these
theories is to argue in essence that there was something before there was
something. It is irrational to say that either a "God" or a "dense nucleus"
existed before a Universe existed for a "God" or "dense nucleus" to exist
in! It makes a lot more sense (think Occam's razor) to simply accept that
there has always been a Universe. We know through the theory of the
conservation of energy that energy can't be destroyed, but can only
change form. So "God" or a "dense nucleus" could not have existed in a
non-Universe void of energy.
RE: Whole Series

43
Brian Lockett
05/17/2010
I say, define "science" and define "God." The goal of science is simply one
thing--to know. To know how things work. To know how we exist, at least
at a material level. To know how to better use things to make our lives
better. Science itself does not condemn the logical possibility of a "God."

And as for "God," who said that anyone here on Earth got the definition for
such a "God" correct? Some people don't even live up to their own
recognized definition of "God." Many Catholics preach Jesus, but Jesus
preached many things they deny, like keeping the Ten Commandments,
including the sabbath (which the Catholic church has candidly admitted to
refuting and ignoring). And the Bible is the only "religious" book that tells
that we need a new universe, as this "God" repeatedly speaks of creating
a new heavens and a new earth, even as own his chosen home--because
this universe is ruined with entropy and dying, and apparently, that wasn't
part of the plan.

As far as I'm concerned, if "God" exists, then he is clearly a strictly logical

being--a scientist, even! Who says that "God" can't wear a lab coat? But
what if human nature is hindering both science AND any possible
understanding of a "God"? Human nature is plagued with crude
assumptions. Let us not throw away logical possibilities on the basis of
personal dislikes. Science is not prejudiced against a "God" necessarily--
people are.
RE: Whole Series
Kyle Wallace
05/17/2010
Why is the necessary first step in discussions such as these almost always
ignored? Namely, how are people using the word "God"? (I didn't say
"meaning" of, think Wittgenstein--look for the use). It is presupposed that
the subject of the conversation is clearly understood and agreed upon by
discussants. There was activity regarding this question "way back when"
by a group of analytic philosophers doing "God talk." Seems to have been
of no avail. Flew did some work trying to communicate to (the general
public) how this question must first be dealt with. Evidently it's more fun to
argue whether a "something-I-know-not-what" exists--and what
supposedly follows--is rendered obsolete by science. Hitchens at times
seems to be aware of the import of these "problems." Who else in this
discussion is?
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Opacic
05/16/2010
Randomness and cosmic law governance cannot exist together. Either the
laws of cause and effect apply, or they do not. Apparent randomness can
exist only in local isolated systems with unknown cause to its (uninitiated)
observers. "Partial" chaos in the Universe would mean the following:

44
watermelon is sweet now, but the next moment, who knows, might be
salty or bitter; a bear could give birth to lamb or rabbit. All is in ever
increasing chaos, indeed! The consequence of an "orderly-disorderly"
Universe will be: no valid experience, no learning, and no evolution--
meaning NO LIFE. No surprise that "mainstream" science could not come
up with narratives better than Big Bang and "Inflation of Space." For
astrophysicists it seems to be taboo to talk about time BEFORE "Big bang."

Creationists believe in the Universe which is miraculously designed by

God. Contrary to them, neo-Darwinists believe in randomness and
mutations. Certainly, mutations are necessary but not sufficient to lead
evolution. According to Cosmic Science, the Universe is constructed with
purpose that leads to the perfection, and creation takes place in gradual
evolution not through the miracle. It is obvious that matter is governed by
the Consciousness and not vice versa. Material science stubbornly refuses
the existence of a transcendent/invisible cause that lies outside of matter.
Clearly, the SOLUTIONS of Big Questions of Life are not in job description
of materialistic science and associated thought.
RE: Whole Series
Peter
05/15/2010
Wow, if Mr Opacic had read the views of the scientists on this site he
would clearly see there is no monolithic "official science" position on the
so-called "creator" but a diversity of opinions. Science, to me, is a method
of trying to undertand the world which involves reasoning and evidence
and when done well welcomes critisism as a correcting mechanism. On the
other hand self correction and evidence are for the most part lacking in
much of the "spiritual talk" whether institutionalized old school religion or
new age stuff. Always peculiar to me when one tries to employ reasoning
to argue against reason.... But getting back to the question. Yes, science
based reasoning (archaeology, etc.) which informs the study of history has
already done enough to dispense with the God of Abraham (and of the
Templeton Foundation). But if you're playing a shell game and defining
god as simply the creator of the universe, with no other known attributes,
well that's another tougher question, which really isn't religious (as we
know religion) in nature... So what is meant by "God" in the question?
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Opacic
05/14/2010
Both religion and material science are indispensable transitory phases in
the process of human consciousness evolution and will be obsolete,
gradually replaced by the True Cosmic Science. The Universe is a highly
organized, sparkling ocean of Life or consciousness. It is clear that well
funded official science monstrously confuses the created and the Creator.
Idea and planning are always before a house building. The "I" is behind the
ability to create and the created. Religion will last and have its remarkable
role as moral corrective in the mentality of the many, where still blind

45
belief prevails over wish for logic and universally valid explanation. The
answers on Big Questions of Life, which are SPIRITUAL in nature, cannot
come and will not come either from material science or religion but from
the True Cosmic Science, which is based on intuitive consciousness or
cosmic logic.
RE: Whole Series
Krishna G Misra
05/14/2010
Thanks, for this question. What is a science? Very simply, it is a network of
cause and effect cycles. It is also called System because of its cyclic
movement of cause and effect. Also called Laws of Nature by study of the
actions of reaction from a point of view where it is considered unchanging.
Any system, for example, physical system (physics), economic system
(economics), solar system or anything with suffix of 'system' is knowledge
of certain cause and effect. Systems or sciences exist whether or not we
know it. Laws of Nature existed even before Newton and Einstein and
Archimedes. They only discovered the Laws. Sciences or Systems were
discovered more and more because these helped to predict future (based
on cause and effects) and make use of it to reduce effort in work (by
machines and other ways).

People with wisdom have thought System or sciences, but they looked for
ConScience, which is popularly called the God. This is very simple. Each
effect has a cause, and that cause is an effect of yet another cause.
Finally, there is a Root Cause which is the terminal of the whole world,
which is System (cause and effect) Generated. Root cause which has no
cause and is self generated is the God, or Conscience or Free Will. This is
nothing but the Root Cause of All System (called Sciences, or cause and
effect). Saints and philosopers try to go from branches to the Root, and
therefore they have pure knowledge but very small. More they know, less
they know (because of high purity). Finally, this purest knowledge or Root
Cause of Universe is the God. I hope this answers the question. It is so
very well defined by Sri Krishna in the Bhagwat Giita.
RE: Whole Series
David
05/08/2010
I agree with Kierkegaard, who said that man's basic condition is one of
anxiety. Human beings are, on the one hand, obviously animals, but, on
the other hand, transcendent beings conscious of themselves as animals.
This causes anxiety. Religion is still in play because it addresses
fundamentally this human condition. Religion is not in the first instance an
attempt to explain the physical world. It is a means by which humans
situate themselves in the world. The atheist scientists don't seem to
understand that, when people do religion, they are not doing science
badly--they are doing something altogether different.

The other thing is that science takes place only within a given paradigm. It

46
is not correct to state that scientists deal with "facts" or "reality." Their
facts and reality can only be evaluated by the paradigm they are working
in, which is itself not true or false. The paradigm can and often does
change, making what was once thought of as "true" change. So it is more
apt to talk of scientific knowledge as useful rather than true. There is no
conflict between science and religion, properly understood.
RE: Whole Series
daniel
04/07/2010
Yes.
RE: Whole Series
Peter
03/25/2010
I agree very much with Marjorie--what a waste. And again, for believers in
the Christian god like Gordan, they must start by validating the Bible as a
historically accurate document first, and only after that is done, talk about
the motives of the Christian god and quote scripture as if it has meaning.
That hasn't been done, otherwise it would be apparent in non-religious
history texts. If, on the other hand, we're going to talk about god as the
prime mover, an intelligence behind the universe, then we're talking about
a concept that's disconnected from Earthly religions and more in the realm
of philosophy.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Appleby
03/25/2010
Thank you. I saw this in the Financial Times a couple of years back and am
just getting around to studying it.
RE: Whole Series
Jim S
03/25/2010
The whole god concept exists because the religious can make god
anything they wish, since there are no rational limits, as science has,
which is defined by reality. God can be anything one wants it to be. But
ultimately science and religion come together pre-big bang, since this is
unknowable.
RE: Whole Series
Jason McGrady
03/21/2010
Science has explained many things that were formerly attributed to the
hand of God, such as weather patterns, mental illness, etc. In instances
where religion makes specific, falsifiable claims about our world, science
can render these beliefs obsolete. By extension, science can render God
obsolete only if God depends necessarily on some falsifiable claim. Is it
safe to say that science has changed the way many view or understand
God?

47
Believers feel adequately safe to reject notions of fairies, ghosts, and
leprechauns under the confidence that they can disprove specific effects
of their existence. Has anyone ever found a pot of gold under a rainbow?
Certainly, one can reasonably take a position of non-belief in most things
until solid evidence of their existence is shown. In this light, the burden of
proof does rest on those who make the claim. Otherwise, we would find
ourselves trying to falsify an infinite number of possibilities. It is
impractical and unreasonable.

While organized religions can fall by the wayside, the nebulous concept of
God will remain--God the first cause, God who made our natural laws, God
as energy. This kind of God will not be made obsolete. Any attempt to do
so is simply unfruitful and a waste of time, as proponents will make ad hoc
modifications to their premise ad lib.

Beliefs systems such as Christianity, Islam, etc. are vulnerable to

obsolescence, but an ambiguous, undefined belief in God seems
invulnerable to science. The more defined the God, the more vulnerable.
For many, an indeterminate God is too impotent for their liking, so they
cling to unjustified tenets and dogma. For others, the nebulous God gives
them just the right amount of latitude in choice with a sprinkle of meaning.
Still for some, like me, the false dichotomy of belief leads one to reject the
notion and observe patiently, actively, and thoughtfully while human
knowledge advances and ignorance fades. The null hypothesis is the
default position until evidence arrives.
RE: Whole Series
Gordon Tatro
03/06/2010
Dear Marj, Why did you waste your time spouting off about a God who you
do not believe in? Who's wasting time here? You say "There is no way to
know if God exists." But there is too much design for chance to be the
operative force. The default condition should be Zip, Zero, Nothing
Naught-ta; but it is not. You are here, you do exist, and you will graduate
life through death and you will come out of these limited four dimensions
to exist in dimensionality of up to ten; like it or not, believe it or not you
have an eternal spirit. God does not make junk. We turned what He
created into junk by estranging our relationship with Him.

You say that "he hasn't wasted a minute in letting us know what he
wants." You need to read the Bible--do Romans. We are to seek Him and
be changed into His Image (like we were created). We are to Love (Life is
all about relationship, even gravity is relationship). Need I mention Jesus:
or is He just going to send you into another bout of frustration? You cannot
put God in your Box so that you can dissect Him at your leisure. God can't
waste a minute; He does not have time as a limitation--He created Time
and Space, Matter, Energy, and seeded it all with information and

48
relational ability. God "resides" outside of that which He created and is not
restricted by that which He created--like an author is not restricted by his
own plot. You have a spirit; it allows you to express abstract qualities such
as love, integrity, honesty, courage, friendship etc.
RE: Whole Series
Marjorie Holden
02/25/2010
What a waste of time for outstanding scientists. There is no way to know if
God exists, and even if he does, it is obvious that he hasn't wasted a
minute in letting us know what he wants. As any scientist must admit, the
Bible, the Koran, and other so-called sacred texts are thousand of years
old. The originals went missing centuries ago. The tranlators cannot be
interrogated; and the line between observation and gloss, if it ever
existed, has disappeared.

We are obviously totally on our own on this planet, and instead of worrying
about the preferences of an inscrutable God, the best and brightest should
be applying themselves to the widespread physical, economic, and
psychological miseries of the human race. Belief in a personal Deity who is
actually listening and will respond is similar to believing that our parents
who care will always be there to take care of us. Grow up.

If God were as described in the traditional literature, why doesn't he show

his face in Times Square where we can tape him? Why doesn't he tell the
creationists to shut up, and why doesn't he tell scientists that all their
work will go for nought if we don't figure out how to live with each other?
In short, why did he manifest himself in the Middle East for a few years
well before the media could preserve his every word, and why does he
refuse to give contemporary seekers even five valid verifiable minutes?
Faith in the unseen, undocumented, and unresponsive suggests some kind
of mental deficit. If God gave you a brain, recognize that he is too busy
watching sparrows fall to pay any mind your problems.
RE: Whole Series
Peter
01/11/2010
MikeEM makes a good point, and it appears close to my position, which is
to first resolve the historical questions pertaining to the validity of the
books which are central to the belief systems of the religious participants.
What do professional historians say about the origins of these books and
the nature of some of the main characters such as Jesus? If the general
consensus of these professionals is that these texts are basically a mash-
up of the writings of ordinary people who relied on heresay and their own
imagination, then where does that leave one? Where does it leave Ken
Miller, for instance, and his Catholicism? What would Mr. Miller, an
intelligent and respected scientist, say on the issue of "faith" if he
seriously looked at the historical underpinnings of Christianity and found it
wanting? It seems that we would have to turn from religion when

49
discussing the nature of some ultimate creator to the realm of reason
(even if speculative), and discuss morality outside of the framework of the
church. If the Bible is shown to have no historical standing, then the god of
the Bible must evaporate, at least in terms of an informed, educated
argument on the subject of first cause.
RE: Whole Series
MikeEM
12/15/2009
Shouldn't the question be: Does science make the belief in the Bible or
Koran obsolete? God is not a well defined term. Everybody has a different
idea of what God is. To some, the Bible or Koran is the literal unerring
word of God. These people believe that the universe was created in 6 days
and that Jonah lived for 3 days in the belly of a big fish. One cannot
believe in science and the literal interpretation of the holy books. For that
to work, one would have to believe that when God created the Universe
6,000 years ago, He planted evidence to prove that the universe was
indeed much older, orders of magnitude older. Was this an intentional
deception or lie by God? Many others believe that the holy books are
inspired by Him but are not literal truths. This God is more compatible with
science.

We can make some headway with your original question only if we define
what we mean by God. If I define God as the creator of the known
Universe and all of the physical laws that govern it, then science is the
study of God's creation. The holy books which are among the greatest
works of art inspired by God are still the creations of men. While it is true
the holy books contain good morals which we should keep, they contain
laws that are clearly antiquated and some frankly immoral by today's
standards. Morals and justice do not come out of the holy books perfect
since we choose what is and what is not moral out of these books. We
have just and good laws that are never mentioned in the holy books.
Morals and just laws are acquired the same way as scientific truths, by
examining and testing them.

I cannot believe in a God that created a universe and then wrote a book to
conflict with it. I can believe in a God that created the Universe and the
laws that govern it. And if there is a God, then there can be no shorter
path to God than to study His creation. Science does not make God
obsolete, but it has made the literalist interpretation of the Holy Books
obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Edward Goodrich
12/14/2009
My Unitarianism is looking for a discussion of theology vs. science. Your
pick. Gordon Hill (see comment below) seems close.
RE: Jerome Groopman

50
gordon hill
11/28/2009
When Jerome Groopman wrote, "Why believe? I have no rational answer"
in his debate with Michael Shermer, he may have touched the epicenter of
the controversy. What is God? God is a word used to identify with the
unknown which--as we move into the unknown--must change, but will
remain with humanity forever, provided there are things unknowable.
RE: Whole Series
gordon hill
11/28/2009
For me, the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" begs
the question. Where is Socrates when we need him? The answer to the
question depends on one's definition of two terms: science and god. No
one holds firmly to their original understanding of these two. Too many
scientists hold theism to an unchanging standard while allowing their
scientific views to change with new evidence. Too often the religious
misrepresent science through their reliance on opinion.

Me? I believe in an original cause and transcendent continuation of this

causation. I was taught to call this God and now refer to it as the Source
because "god" is too often defined with a rigidity that disallows the
incorporation of unfolding scientific knowledge and premises to be
employed in updating my belief in the Source. After all, every culture
(those I know) has a creation story that changes with new knowledge. The
book of Genesis describes a flat earth. What happened to the flat earth
society? Some creationists I know claim Darwin's Origin of Species
attributes the creation of life to natural selection, which it does not.
RE: Whole Series
Nathan Heflick
11/27/2009
The answer for me is no. There are some things that science can't touch.
But that doesn't mean science can't illuminate the effects of these beliefs,
or explore why people have them.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
11/16/2009
The existence of science entails the existence of God. To explain
something scientifically means to explain how it came to be. Therefore,
something that has always been cannot be explained scientifically. But
"has always been" has two relevant meanings: 1. "has always been"
temporally and 2. "has always been as the source of being for what is here
now."

For purposes of scientific explanation, however, "has always been

temporally" depends for its coherence--literally--on "has always been as
the source of being for what is here now." Otherwise, temporal succession

51
would comprise ontologically discrete elements with respect to being, and
there can be no scientific explanation of how the discrete temporal
elements came to be. But neither can what has always been be explained
scientifically. Therefore, either there is no scientific explanation, or there is
being that has always been as a source of being for what is here now.
There is scientific explanation. Therefore, there is a scientifically
inexplicable source of being for what is here now, which everyone
understands to be God.

When Augustine introduced this line of reasoning, which I adapted for this
big question, he used the phrase "anything which exists but [did not come
into being] cannot have anything in it which was not there before." What is
always "there before" cannot enter into time, and is thus eternal. This
argument basically sets up the last three "books" of the Confessions, in
which the relationship of Eternity to the world is used to interpret what it
means for God to "create."
RE: Whole Series
Rick Badman
11/13/2009
God is the most powerful source of energy in all the dimensions of the
universe. He is a transdimensional being. He supposedly created the
universe, but I have suspicions he shifted the universe we know from
another dimension. It is impossible for the universe to have been only the
size of an atom before the "Big Bang" because that would violate Newton's
law of objects being in motion tending to stay in motion unless they are
acted upon by another object or force, since everything in the universe at
the beginning would have to expand many times beyond the speed of
light. A Creator God capable of shifting this universe into this dimension
makes more sense to me.

If miracles were just violations of nature, as is often the case, they

shouldn't exist. Everything that happens should be orderly and
predictable. But when a person on their deathbed is suddenly healed and
the person had nothing to do with it, either that is a violation of the known
rules of biology and logic or a miracle of God. When an atheist turns from
not believing in the existence of God to defending him, it isn't a form of
mental illness. It is the discovery that God is real.

Man is not the highest form of animal as a result of evolution. If that were
the case, this world would really be brutal, since animals can do almost
anything they want to do because they don't have the restraints of
morality. There are no animal judges condeming predators to death for
killing other animals and even their own kind. Humans do that. Animals
don't willingly die for those they don't see. People do. Even the name God
would make no sense if we were just the highest form of animal. God
created us.
RE: Whole Series

52
scrosby
10/28/2009
Rationalism is the only way. Evidence is our only reference. The cosmos is
a dark and cold place. If the light comes, I'll look at it, but until then I'm on
my own.
RE: Whole Series
Edlyne Mercharles
09/24/2009
Are there any good science-based arguments for God?
RE: Whole Series
John Hartman
09/17/2009
First of all, I have felt the presence of God. It is a very powerful and
convincing emotion. Skeptics might claim that this is just a construct of
the mind, but I say that to be able to feel such an emotion at all (or any of
the emotions for that matter), there must have been some sort of a
rational force that created the world. I cannot imagine a God creating the
world and then having nothing to do with it--either observing or interacting
with it.

God doesn't have eyes, so he can't "see" the world directly. I think he sees
the world through *our* senses and consciousnesses. God helps us
achieve what we wish for. A long time ago, I would've made the argument
that there is physics, everything obeys physics (including the atoms in our
brains), and that's that. What I didn't realize is that physics is just a model,
a *man-made* model of the universe. For macroscopic, slow-moving
objects, Newtonian physics is "good enough," but it is fallacious to
extrapolate this success to other realms (like a nervous system). I believe
that a predictable universe is a gift from God. It allows us to engineer, and
gives us comfort (how spooky would it be if things were to move around
without any apparent cause).

I do believe in heaven and hell. I do not believe they are physical places
(either in this universe or outside of it), but rather more of an emotion. If
you're good, you feel eternal bliss. If not, you don't. If you believe in a
benevolent God that created the universe, and you believe in hell, then of
course there is free will. How unfair would it be if people were "destined"
to go there.

Does the universe have a purpose? When you die (assuming you are
good), you feel eternal bliss. Nothing can take this away, no matter what
happens in the future. It is my belief that the purpose of the universe is to
send as many people (and animals) to "heaven" as is possible.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Matt Scott
08/17/2009

53
Kauffman has it right and appears to be the best representative of the
institute's cause here. It's rare to find people who understand why he is
right. Your organization impresses me. In any case, the fact is, God is all
about intelligence and creativity, the science of mind. Bioinformatics is a
great combination of clues to start to understand this properly. Physics
and AI is also a good combination. I think AI is the prime science, because
it gets to the core of what intelligence actually is, regardless of the
implementation. If your guys are up with me, then you are kickin ass, and
it looks like some of your guys might be a ways ahead of me. I am really
impressed. Congrats on the quality of minds you have gathered. Perhaps
one day I can connect with your organization meaningfully.
RE: Steven Pinker
Scarlet
05/30/2009
My apologies to Dr. Pinker, whom I find to be rational and open-minded in
his essay save for this one instance: "I have to be willing to apply the
same standards to how I treat you, if I want you to take me seriously. That
is the only policy that is logically consistent and leaves both of us better
off."

It is completely illogical. Humans only drag one another down. When the
unprovoked attacker smiles and apologizes, perhaps he is just waiting for
your back to be turned. Path of least resistance. By removing him from
this and any further situations, you make yourself and several more
potential victims "better off". Likewise, by taking the lives of others, he
makes himself "better off"; he is doing something that brings him
pleasure. There is no "better off" for both parties in most real situations
because the difference from one human perspective to the next is so
absurd.

So we attempt to inflict upon one another this sad balance through

compromise. As this idea grows and spreads, humanity becomes stagnant.
We fake our smiles and hide our nature just like we're "supposed" to. It
really doesn't matter at this point if there is or ever will be a god; we've
certainly lost the potential as a race to achieve what might be considered
godhood, and we've left ourselves too limited in perception to ever
discover a being that could be truly labeled as a "god."

The human condition is nothing but a simple game, a series of interactive

programs with mock successes and failures, all carefully constructed to
stimulate the right chemicals in our brains at the right times. Science has
given us such great things as medicine we cannot have unless we are
allowed to, technology we cannot afford, and plenty of other roundabout
ways of suffering. What use is knowledge if it cannot be properly applied?
All these words we cling to, my own included, are nothing but a joke; the
voice of a dead race yearning for a life it can never have. I desperately
wish to be proven wrong, though.

54
RE: Whole Series
Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim
05/28/2009
Science, a non-deviating and intelligent system, demands a source for 1)
its existence; and 2) its design. Just as the presence of a chair demands
the existence of a carpenter, science, a far more complex reality, all the
more so demands the existence of a Designer. Furthermore, and more
startling, must be the absence in any science of a "will." Yet, all sciences
complement each other. Vegetation complements the specific needs and
functions of the digestive system in animate beings. Atmospheric
conditions cater precisely to the needs of Earth's environment. And all
organs in a body which cannot survive or function alone work together to
sustain each other and the body as a whole.

We witness the will of an Orchestrator not located "within" the individual

functions of any natural system. Natural systems do not overstep their
sphere of function, so as to also create or control other systems, or to
make them all harmonious. For example, the digestive system has limited
functions, none of which relate to precipitation. The laws that repeatedly
cause all flying birds to grow wings suited for flight are unrelated to laws
that govern the properties of air, making flight a reality. And the laws
governing vegetation are unrelated to the laws governing digestion: yet,
vegetation is perfectly in line with the needs of animate beings.

These numerous, independent, natural systems are limited in their

functions, never deviate, and possess no "intent." So if these systems
have no intent or will to work together, what is it that guides such extreme
and perfect harmony? This harmony points to something external to the
natural world . . . an Orchestrator: a Creator Who willed all sciences into
existence, Who sustains all sciences, and Who designed all sciences to be
harmonious. Science makes the conviction in God mandatory.
RE: Whole Series
mike stern
05/19/2009
God exists. The proof that god exists is that through conscious beings the
universe has generated self-awareness. The laws of physics are fine-tuned
for life and zeroed in on an uncannily bio-friendly form as the universe
fine-tuned itself to bring about life and consciousness. In the first split
second of the big bang, the universe "knew" about the emergence of life
billions of years later. Life has its evolution programmed into its cells.
Biology determines the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are
expressible mathematically. God is the creativity in the universe. He
answers no prayers and does no miracles.
RE: Steven Pinker
ruby
05/11/2009
Yes, science does make god obsolete, but this should not be so. Science is

55
not the only belief in how the world was made.
RE: Whole Series
john jacob lyons
05/06/2009
Any scientific explanation of belief will appeal, in the first instance, to the
conscious, rational mind. How might the conscious, rational mind of an
open-minded, questing agnostic react to its first exposure to the scientific
explanation of belief? Would it contribute anything meaningful at all to
his/her thoughts about the reality or otherwise of a god? Our agnostic
reasons that a good basis for personal belief would be either positive
empirical evidence or positive, allbeit subjective, personal experience.

Bearing in mind the lack of any scientifically acceptable empirical

evidence for the reality of any god, and the fact that only a relatively
modest proportion of believers have had a confirmatory personal
experience, he reasons that the scientific explanation that he has just
been given could well explain the very high proportion of adults (80%?)
worldwide who would claim to believe in the existence of a higher power.
Furthermore, the diversity of the deities cited by the thousands of
different, and contradictory, religions around the world would also be
consistent with this scientific explanation.

I think it is highly likely that the consilience of the scientific explanation of

belief together with the points I have made above are indeed relevant to
our questing, open-minded agnostic. It explains the high level of belief, in
many cases in the absence of either empirical or personal evidence, and
the diversity of the gods proposed by the multi-various religions, sects,
and cults around the world. At the rational, conscious level it would appear
that the scientific explanation is indeed relevant to the issue.

What about the unconscious, intuitive level of cognition? The complete

scientific explanation of belief includes explanation of the fact that such
belief brings meaning, beauty, inspiration, a sense of calm and inner
peace and other wonderful feelings to many believers. However, our
unconscious and conscious levels of cognition do not operate
independently and, once the strength of belief is weakened at the
conscious level, it is likely to have a negative impact on the benefits of
belief that I have referred to. In some ways sadly, when doubt creeps in at
a conscious level, it may well erode faith at all levels. Realization of self-
delusion has always played a large part in apostasy. I conclude that
explaining belief will tend to explain away belief.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Joseph S. Johnson
05/03/2009
David Hockey (4/30) questions my views (4/17). Exposition can be found at
www.ctr4process.org/. Click on: Interact, Discussion Board, Forum, Process
and Science, "Query: Whitehead vs. New Process Physics" and

56
"Abstraction Theory of Process and Physics." Discussion welcome.
RE: Whole Series
David
05/02/2009
I don't think that science makes belief in God obsolete. We will simply
never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. However, I think
science (and history) DO make religion obsolete. It is simply an arrogent
and psychological flaw to believe that God endorses a specific group's
particular beliefs (and traditions) over others.

That a universal creator would share his divine secret among one group
(or actually a select group, which preaches to the rest of the group) and
allow the rest of the world to be fooled by "false" or "lesser" religions is
utterly ridiculous.
RE: Steven Pinker
Dr. Gert Traupe
05/01/2009
Sorry, terrible simplifications! First: What about the trends over the
millennia? Does Pinker try to design a law or regularity of historical
development? Pinker seems to have a bias of cultural theory: that the
belief in God is associated with superstition and cruelty. One can verify
this tendency in the end of his essay, where he cites the coincidence
between humanity and science within western society, on the one hand,
and superstition and cruelty, on the other. What about the destructive
tendencies within the western societies, manifesting in World War II,
genocide, and so on?

Pinker should first give a definition of what kind of phenomena he would

attribute to what he calls "God." I'm not speaking of the psychological
phenomena: inner experience, mind, emotions. We can leave them out of
consideration, because they are phenomena of a human being. But the
other questions about the beginning and the genesis of the cosmos are
more fruitful.

The belief in God can accept the paradigm of evolution and is not at all
strictly connected to the Intelligent-Design-Nonsense. There remains the
fact that the Big Bang and the fine-tuning of cosmic constants cannot be
explained by a cosmic lottery or random chance. The probility is too small
(p < 1/10^200). The quanta fluctuations at the beginning are attributed
by Vilenkin to a spirit, a "spiritus rector" (that's my term), that one can
denote as "God." Some cosmologists seriously reflect about the possibility
of multiple gods, fitting universes. If Pinker does not know, he should look
more into the magazines of modern physics.
RE: Whole Series
David Hockey
04/30/2009

57
I'm sorry, I do not understand Joseph S. Johnson's thesis (04/17). I thought
that reciprocity developed as a conflict-resolution technique. But could I
address all presenters now? Yes, of course, a God may have existed (and
may still exist) before our universe, and its space and time, began. And
this God may have set the conditions that led to this universe's (and life's)
existence. But we are unlikely to ever "scientifically" prove or disprove
this. And, as most say these days, Gods do not intervene in human (or the
universe's) affairs.

So why do we need a "God"? For many reasons, as we all know. The

principal reason being to provide a purpose for us to seek. Doing this
allows us to solve moral problems "rationally" and makes our lives seem
"meaningful." Whether this purpose is to reach Heaven, Paradise, a better
reincarnation, or whatever, matters not. However, I suggest we adopt a
purpose similar to de Chardin's Omega Point. It is more appropriate to our
modern conditions than seeking our God's "objectives." See
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Purpose/_Conclusion_To_Part_Three to
continue these thoughts.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Tom Sarbeck
04/26/2009
No, but it promises so hard a look at the evidence that believers will find it
a waste of time to offer it.
RE: Whole Series
Connor Toohill
04/20/2009
I wholeheartedly enjoyed the well-thought-out essays and the spirited
debates that followed. While I myself am a believer, I felt like the majority
of the writers gave excellent reasoning for their opinions, whether I agreed
with them or not. The one exception was Christopher Hitchens, who (in his
debate with Kenneth Miller) came off as simply mean-spirited. I applaud
the John Templeton Foundation for sponsoring such an excellent program.
RE: Steven Pinker
Xavier March
04/19/2009
Regarding your paper, please take a look at another perspective:
http://the-philosophy-of-science.blogspot.com/
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Joseph S. Johnson
04/17/2009
David Hockey (04/12) seems to imply that natural law is adequate to
explain all the complexity of the universe, including moral reasoning. But
natural law is entirely objective, while, as Kauffman points out, the
complexities transcend the reductionism of Descartes, etc. What
reductionism describes is the hierarchic structure of natural order which
includes but transcends natural law, in that biology reduces to chemistry

58
that reduces to physics. But natural order is an actual hierarchic structure
that includes but does not end with physics, or even with objectivity, but
transcends the objective into the subjective realm of aesthetics at the
transition point of symmetry. Symmetry constrains each of the emergent
forces with the particulars of conservation law, and reduces into the higher
abstracts of aesthetics and beyond, qualities for which the subjective
faculties of the dominant species (the integral creative agent of the cosmic
process imperative) are uniquely evolved to perceive. This evolved faculty
and related emotions, plus the stress of various historical crises, have
given us a most remarkable and relevant insight, if largely ignored today,
into an essential symmetry for species survival. It is called the Golden
Rule--our subjective conservation law. Kauffman is right.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
David Hockey
04/12/2009
Stuart Kaufmann writes that if we could not "prestate" all "preadaptions,"
then they are "partially beyond natural law." This is an incorrect
conclusion. We cannot prestate all preadaptions because the complexity of
the universe (and of life) is too large for us to handle.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
03/12/2009
From C.S. Peirce's point of view, science confirms the God hypothesis. If
we entertain the idea that an analogue of mind is suggested by the
universe, the only way to test the hypothesis is to investigate the world in
a way that sees to what extent it does conform to human understanding.
Thus, the ongoing march of science is the basis for belief in God.

But Peirce was careful to separate the reality of God from an

understanding of God that supposes God's "[reacting] with other like
things in the environment," which he called "fetishism" ("A Neglected
Argument for the Reality of God"). If so, neither can the kind of
understanding science provides undermine Peirce's God hypothesis.

Peirce begins with a simple analogy that suggests the reality of God; the
operation of science confirms it in the only possible way; and yet the
analogy cannot be critiqued by science without implying "fetishism." This
fine little conundrum deserves a name: how about "Peirce's Pretty Pickle"?
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
03/07/2009
I just came across an article by the founder of pragmatism, C.S. Peirce,
titled "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." Its content is
tremendously relevant to this conversation. Peirce thought that "many of
the [scientists] of [his] generation" believed in the reality of God, without
knowing it. Why? Because "the discoveries of science, [with] their enabling

59
us to predict what will be the course of nature, is proof conclusive that . . .
we can catch a fragment of [God's] thought."

Peirce's view follows from his claim that a universal feature of our
scientific understanding is "its provision for later stages in earlier ones"
and from his view that the statement in quotes entails an analogue of
mind, and therefore God. In Peirce's view, science is the confirmation of
the God hypothesis. Since a famed philosopher of science and the founder
of America's only native philosophy framed a view of the relationship of
science and God that turns your "Big Question" upside down, I thought
you'd like to know about it.

It's an idea that brings to mind Paul Davies's "The Mind of God" and
Einstein's famous statement to the effect that the most incomprehensible
thing about the universe is its comprehensibility. So the idea's been
around, but Peirce was correct in calling it a neglected argument. It
deserves better. Maybe someone at your foundation should assign an
investigation of Peirce's view to a real scholar. My guess is that people of
good will on all sides could applaud it.
RE: Whole Series
Mary Morse
03/05/2009
Are there no women in the world who can comment on these big
questions?
RE: Steven Pinker
Theodore Ferdinand
02/18/2009
How can you explain scientifically (1) the creation of life on earth, (2) self-
consciousness and free will in humans, (3) an ethic of brotherly love and
forgiveness of flaws, and (4) mankind's unique ability to design a
democratic civilization and to remake itself via DNA? No other animal can
or has done any of these.
RE: Whole Series
James Perry
02/18/2009
Brilliant idea and a great contribution to general thought. Thanks.
RE: Whole Series
Sriram Raghuraman
02/10/2009
I think some of the authors make very good distinctions between science
and faith as belonging to entirely different realms and therefore not duty
bound to be reconcilable or irreconcilable. However they (conveniently)
forget to mention that as soon as god is a creature of belief, it is no better
or worse than any other belief. However the position and acclaim that
religious beliefs hold in society are in stark contrast to their "worthiness." I
think there could have been some deeper insights into the idea of a god

60
that/who has no connections with religion of any sort. I think we will find
that god is pretty uninteresting once you drop the storybook.
RE: Whole Series
Byron Rogers
01/30/2009
Studies seem to confirm that religious belief has social benefits. The real
question is whether this is any more than a desirable placebo effect. The
capacity to believe which confers these benefits is the real issue. Maybe
those who exhibit this capacity have what is called "grace," but what can
overcome a skeptical turn of mind, something we otherwise try to cultivate
as democratic citizens? The very essence of religion seems to be the
opposite of "evidence-based," which we also otherwise try to cultivate to
enhance our actions. Perhaps that is the nub of the "belief" dilemma.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Paxson
01/22/2009
In response to Mr. Sapolsky's essay: atheists do not believe that atheism
alone will rid the world of Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos. There will always be
cruel and wicked people. A commitment to humanism is certainly a better
cure for fascism and totalitarianism than atheism is. Atheism, however,
ensures that tyrants will never be able to justify their tyranny with the
divine. Thus, while not eliminating tyranny, atheism deprives tyrants of
one of their most effective tools.

Moreover, while I agree that religion is blind without science, the belief
that science is lame without religion completely misses the point. Science
is lame without morality to inform its appropriate use and direction, but
morality and religion are very different things. We all know atheists who
act morally, and religious people who do not. Sapolsky's conflation of
morality and religiosity is all too common, and all too unnecessary.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
01/15/2009
Few educated people would choose scripture over science as a means of
understanding the origin of the universe and its features. By that measure,
science clearly makes belief in God obsolete. On an emotional level, things
are less clear. Nature does inspire awe, and an understanding of science
helps further those emotions. But it does not tie the awe to a sense of
devotion to something greater than oneself the way belief in God does.
That leaves a huge void for religion to fill when we consider the crucial
aspects of human life that outstrip any factual understanding of the world
that science can--even in principle--offer. Hopes, fears, desires, hunches,
metaphysical speculations, etc. go beyond the known facts and yet serve
to motivate us. Moral sensibilities, emotional commitments, and
competing cultural values add further layers of complexity that no
understanding of the "facts" that science might give us can encompass. In

61
William James' words (conclusion to The Varieties of Religious Experience)
"our overbeliefs are the most interesting and important things about us."

In comments exchanged here with Eugene Bucamp, I had assumed it

would be obvious that, historically and factually, belief in God provides an
authoritative center by which the diverse points of view--the hopes, fears,
desires, morals, etc.--that are not subject to science can be ordered. Thus,
my point is extremely simple, and can be conceived by imagining a simple
Venn diagram. Science cannot rule in the crucial sphere of human
understanding where "overbeliefs" play a major role in human life. That
sphere has traditionally been the sphere of religion. Now Bucamp might
think that science can eliminate all overbeliefs in some hypothetical future
omniscience. In that case, it will certainly make belief in God obsolete. But
I think that overbelief is based on a confusion. I believe that human beings
will always face existential questions that science cannot answer, leaving
the door open for religious beliefs of all kinds--including Bucamp's seeming
faith in science.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
01/12/2009
Let's go back to Tracy Witham's example (12/19) of the young person
wondering whether "she should become a teacher to use her life to help
others or become an actor to fulfill a personal passion," an example given,
as he put it (01/10), to illustrate that "existential questions are not
answered by science but can be answered by religion."

Witham may call this an existential question (I call this a moral question),
but my point remains that Witham still has to show that belief in God
helps. In my view, God does not exist, and values are formed in the
crucible of our personal, social, and political relationships, through time,
and so-called religious values are no exception. Like Witham put it,
"human beings can decide what their lives are about." To claim that
religion helps is to claim that it helps people find an appropriate response
to moral problems. But how could we assess whether this is the case? As
Witham contends, this is not a scientific issue, so presumably there is no
way to do that. So we cannot assess Witham's claim, which is therefore
gratuitous.

From a rational perspective, moral problems cannot be the object of any

short-cut methodology. Science can help us guess to some extent what
the near future will be, but it will never tell us all the consequences for all
time of our actions now. This is the reason why we remain free. We are
free because there is no rational methodology to tell us what our actions
should be. Let me repeat that animals, small and large, as well as pre-
historic man, including Australopithicus, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthal,
and Homo sapiens have all thrived for eons without the support of the Ten
Commandments. Witham may think religion or a belief in God can help,

62
but he still needs to substantiate his claim, whereas we already know how
science helps. Nobody really needs religion or a belief in God, but we are
all free to soothe our anxieties as best we can.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Steve Mardigian
01/12/2009
Unless Robert Sapolsky thinks that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all religious
men, I would point out that the seas run red from the blood of science in
the 20th century. Religion did not develop and drop the bomb on Japan.
Greed is at the center of man's barbarism; the transformation of man's
behavior mirrored by the reflection of a loving, caring, forgiving Creator is
the cure. Science is lame without religion, and religion is blind without
science. This is a wonderful website for open minds and free willers.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
01/10/2009
Eugene Bucamp (01/05/09) comments that he fails "to identify any
substantive point" in the examples I gave to illustrate that existential
questions are not answered by science but can be answered by religion
(12/19/08). But then how could he, since he does not know what an
existential question is? For Bucamp: Jean Paul Sarte's famous slogan,
"existence precedes essence," is the usual shorthand way of defining
existentialism. From it we are to grasp that--in contrast to other kinds of
beings--human beings can decide what their lives are about.

Careers, moral frameworks, marriage, children, and, yes, belief in God are
all subject to choices via values and assumptions that science cannot
determine for us. Religion informs value systems and so helps answer
existential questions in ways that science cannot. In a discussion about
whether science makes belief in God obsolete, that is a very "substantive"
point. I take this to be an instance of Mary Midgley's view that the
question of God "is an element in something larger and more puzzling"
than science considered apart from wider questions of human existence.

On a separate point I think that p (01/07/09) made a great suggestion:

"let's clarify where to begin the discussion of God." How about starting
with two separate definitions that would give us a real subject matter that
everyone can subscribe to: 1. objectively, God is whatever explains the
existence of the universe (or would explain it if human beings understood
it), and 2. subjectively, God is whatever contributes most fundamentally to
one's value systems. In both cases, "God" attains agreed upon "existence"
via semantics, albeit semantics that retain core aspects of the traditional
meaning of "God," and yet real referents are also given. It might be a way
to start p's "flowchart."
RE: Whole Series
p

63
01/07/2009
What really needs to be done is to advance the whole "God" discussion.
For example, it seems to me that the question is largely rhetorical, and
many of the essayists said so in their opening statements. It is not about
belief or if there is a God, but whether, if there is a God, you can prove it
or not. It seems things like these could be organized on a flowchart of
sorts--that is, let's clarify where to begin the discussion of God by
discarding or explaining away the standard errors in logic.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
01/05/2009
Concerning Ya'akov's considerations about a Supreme Creator (12/17), the
idea that human beings could rationally derive from their experience of
reality the notion of a necessary creator of reality is quite literally absurd.
Going one step further to claim some actual knowledge of the particulars
of this putative creator is also intellectually fraudulent. Aristotle, no doubt
a brilliant mind, was only guilty of the literally absurd. Thomas Aquinas,
also a brilliant mind, chose to go the extra mile and commit the
intellectual fraud, which the Catholic Church is still enthusiastically
endorsing.

I fail to identify any substantive point in Tracy Witham's comment (12/19)

or indeed in any of his previous comments. Animals, small and large, as
well as pre-historic man, including Australopithicus, Homo erectus, Homo
neanderthal, and Homo sapiens have all thrived for eons without the
support of the Ten Commandments. Witham may think religion or a belief
in God can help, but he still needs to substantiate this strange notion,
whereas we already know how science can help. Nobody really needs
religion or a belief in God.

Regarding Peter Thoss's comment (01/03), if spirituality requires hard

work and time, then the busy man can be forgiven for giving it a pass.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Thoss
01/03/2009
When I came to Canada from Germany, I had to learn English. When I go
to deal with spiritual matters, I have to learn spiritual (symbolic) language.
Therein lies the problem. It takes effort to learn a language. Understanding
comes slowly, like the dawn of a day. All we have to do is wake up to it.
RE: Whole Series
Betsy Whitfill
01/03/2009
The scientists of today, the evolutionists, are undoubtedly correct in their
analysis of man's development from the animal kingdom. We owe our
physical bodies to the animal kingdom. That, however, does not make us
animals. Darwin, and those who correctly followed his thought, describes

64
only the outer, physical development of man, largely ignoring that we are
all engaged in the development of consciousness. The human body has all
but reached its completeness: there remains little further to be achieved.
From the standpoint of consciousness, however, man has scarcely taken
the first steps towards a flowering which will prove that man is indeed
divine, a soul in incarnation. One day, the fact of the soul will be proved by
science and so become generally accepted, and the old dichotomy will be
healed.
RE: Whole Series
Amanpreet Singh
01/03/2009
I'm a believer, and I want to listen to all points of views and decide for
myself. Truth exists, whether it has been proved or not. Thanks for sharing
your points of views.
RE: Whole Series
p
12/31/2008
The problem is that any discussion about God is somehow defining God,
which leaves open any argument, no matter how sophisticated, to
criticism or another new interpretation. It is therefore more desirable to
define your own God, since all these fine-tuning God discussions are
mainly some kind of academic psychology for our current philosophies of
God or the universe. But if God is everything, then we must be in some
small way a part of God. Despite the flaws in 12-step literature, "higher
power" seems a more accurate description. A lot of the words that are
used are wrong, like "supernatural." You could say there is no such thing
as supernatural. It's all real. Even the word God, as used in some of these
discussions, is only a placeholder of some kind for some unknown, like a
zero in mathematics. Wherever it says "God," it should just say "insert
word here." Often you come up with some interesting insights.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
12/19/2008
In considering Eugene Bucamp's comments of 12/16, I am led to the view
that science (and research more generally) cannot answer an existential
question. Two examples: 1. A young person wonders whether her life
would be more productive of good if she became a teacher or an MD. In
this case, a battery of tests and multiple research projects would be
telling. Consequently, the question is instrumental; it asks how to achieve
a goal, and science can help. 2. A young person wonders whether she
should become a teacher to use her life to help others or become an actor
to fulfill a personal passion. In this case, the question is existential
because it asks what her life is to be about. It involves a choice between
two values competing for primacy in her life, and science must wait till the
choice is made to be of service.

65
It is obvious that the Ten Commandments, for instance, seek to tie a
person's sense of what life is about to love of God and God's law, or as
rendered in the New Testament, love of God and "neighbor," which is seen
as fulfilling the law. Now one can clearly and truly speak of one's
foundational value system as one's "God." This is apparent even in the
atheistic writings of Sartre, for instance.

In that case, "God" remains relevant even for atheists, at least to the
extent that they live according to well-formed value systems, systems that
can be informed but not determined by science. Science cannot make
"God" obsolete in this sense. In fact, "God" remains the most relevant
question a person can ask, in this particular meaning of the term. Since
the Foundation's Big Question HERE concerns God's continued relevance,
not existence, this view carries the day.
RE: Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy
Ya'akov
12/17/2008
Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy has presented a very thoughtful, clear, and
convincing essay for science and belief in the existence of God(s). The first
priority for any theist is to develop a Supreme Creator(s) that is consistent
with all the derived principles and theories of scientific knowledge. A
deistic God(s) that fine-tuned the universe as a "scientific experiment" or
an "architectural project" would be entirely possible, since space and time
had a finite beginning in the past. Historically, many prominent
freethinkers from the Enlightenment (Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Voltaire)
were deists and a number of ancient Greek philosophers (Socrates, Plato,
and Aristotle) held beliefs in a "prime-mover" or "first cause."

Perhaps the greatest objection to a deistic God(s) would be the question,

why they would go to all the effort in designing a universe, without further
intervention? My response would be as follows: an engineer or scientist
who can manufacture a system that can run autonomously is more
ingenious that an engineer or scientist who develops a system which
requires constant twiddling and adjustment. Such a God(s) would only
require philosophers and scientists to discover the fingerprints of creation
in the order and complexity of the natural world. Therefore, there is no
need for "holy books" as a "divine revelation." It is axiomatic that the
Bible, Qur'an, and the Veddas have no authorship from God(s); they are
marred with inconsistencies (one verse contradicts the other), and a
fundamentalist interpretation of the scriptures is incompatible with
scientific knowledge.

Only a deistic worldview based upon reason, freethought, and skepticism

of religious dogmas would be credible to the scientific fraternity. To quote
the great philosopher Thomas Paine, "science is the true theology." If that
is the case, then there is a new philosophy that can adequately supplant
traditional theism and the rising tide of atheism.

66
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
12/16/2008
Tracy Witham (09/19) claims that religious faith helps answer existential
questions that science cannot. This is not true. There are in fact two very
different kinds of existential questions, at least as I know of them: the
metaphysical ones and the ones arising from some form of psychological
misery. Metaphysical questions exist in two varieties, those that are
trivially absurd and those which we don't quite understand, let alone try to
answer, and are likely absurd too. Both sorts we can ignore here unless
someone gives an example worthy of consideration.

The second sort of existential questions, those that arise from some form
of psychological misery, e.g., a medical condition, inadaptability to social
intercourse, a serious conflict with somebody else, etc., most likely would
not arise if not for the underlying misery. Hence, they would disapear if
scientific progress could remedy the underlying condition. Though we are
trying, it is true that we are not very good at it yet, but we can also note
that science already remedies many cases of physical distress, something
no religion does, which are also cause for psychological misery and hence
a source of existential questions. Hence, science demonstrably does what
Tracy Witham says it could not.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
12/15/2008
It is axiomatic that religious beliefs are universal, contrary to Eugene
Bucamp's assertions that they're incidental, because religions are found
among indigenous tribes of Australia, North and South America as well as
the Greeks, Phoenicians, Arabs, and Egyptians of the Mediterranean. In
addition, conceptions of Gods are metaphysical questions, and there will
always be degrees of variation between what one or another theologian
accepts. However, there is a commonality among theists, with respect to
the fact that they consider God or Gods to be omnipotent, omniscient,
omnipresent and to be the Creators of the natural world.

Bucamp does not take into account that there is a wide spectrum of beliefs
amongst atheists as well. Why would atheists divide themselves into
weak/implicit atheists and strong/explicit atheists if they are all a
homogenous group of disbelievers? His article would also benefit if he
carefully examined the history of state atheism and the totalitarian
communist regimes of the USSR, Albania, etc., which all suppressed free
thought and used military and public propaganda to indoctrinate the
minds of entire populations.

To state that nature is only evidence of itself is begging the question; it

assumes the conclusion before attempting to prove it. The existence of
God or Gods is falsifiable on rational and empirical grounds, something

67
which no atheists to date have successfully achieved. To assert that it is
impossible to assess other realities apart from each other is merely an
argument from incredulity and ignorance. The principle of falsification was
developed by Karl R. Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Imre Lakatos, who assert
that scientists work within a conceptual paradigm that strongly influences
the way in which they see data. To disprove the hypothesis that God or
Gods created the universe would require the same system of reasoning to
disprove Bucamp's "Gloxburg" hypothesis--inductive and deductive
reasoning, a priori and a posterior reasoning.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
12/15/2008
In September I jumped into a thread of comments here that turned a bit
nasty. I think that you will find my reactions to that experience to be
interesting. See the last five posts at: metaponderance.blogspot.com.
Thanks for hosting this discussion.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
12/15/2008
Contrary to Ya'akov's claims (12/13), belief in God is not universal but
incidental. Only our ability to believe from evidence is very nearly
universal, and usually it is not about God. It would also be impossible to
retrieve what most people would believe if insulated from religious
propaganda, including that coming through parents. Religion is an
undeniable cultural and historical phenomenon, but there is no reason to
see it as universal. If belief in God were universal, why would anybody
need a priest and, hence, a religion? Who would need a Holy Book? And
why so many incompatible religious views? Notions of God are clearly
arbitrary, and religious teachings clearly depend on their non-universal
historical and cultural contexts.

We have also no idea what most believers would see as convincing

empirical evidence for God. We have in fact little idea what it is exactly
that believers believe because religious practice does not tell us that.
Whatever people believe is locked within the privacy of their minds, which
presumably is inaccessible to Ya'akov. The evidence we have is that
different people believe different things. Indeed, we had to pass specific
legislation to protect freedom of thought against totalitarian religions
claiming some universal principle.

Nature is only evidence of itself. The claim that nature, or some aspect of
it, is evidence for God is vacuous. I could claim that nature is evidence of
the Gloxburg and how would Ya'akov disprove my claim? And yet, he does
the same thing with God. Ya'akov misunderstands the principle of
falsification. As to the notion of teleology, to test its validity we would
need to compare our reality to alternative realities, and this is a logical
impossibility. Reality is what it is, and the notion of teleology is vacuous.

68
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
12/13/2008
The existence of God or Gods is a metaphysical and ontological question
that has profound implications for science, education, and philosophy. The
question of purpose and meaning to the universe and humanity has
historically inspired the establishment of many important institutions:
universities, grammar schools, libraries, seminaries, and royal academies.
For millennia, philosophers have constructed various arguments to
demonstrate the existence of God or Gods, based on deductive and
inductive reasoning within the paradigms of acquired scientific knowledge.
It is axiomatic that belief in the existence of God or Gods is universal,
since many cultures, from Western and Eastern to pre-literate societies,
have held various creationist beliefs in the origins of the universe.

In response to these claims, there have always been materialistic atheists

who disbelieved and denied the existence of Gods altogether and believed
that the only elements that are proven to exist is matter. In response to
Eugene Bucamp's comment (12/08), the crux of the issue is that every
field of science supports the worldview that the universe, as far as nature
can reveal, is a dynamic system of trillions of particles of energy and
matter, constituting the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each
containing countless numbers of stars, planets, moons, and quasars, that
are all governed by the laws of physics and chemistry that are expressed
as mathematical postulates.

For a theist, this is the most convincing empirical evidence for the
existence of a Supreme Being(s) that endowed the universe with teleology
and guided the natural processes of matter and energy through a
purposeful, directive process. If Eugene Bucamp or any other atheist can
subject this claim to direct disproof and falsification, every theist would
accept this worldview as justified true belief.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
12/08/2008
On Ya'akov's comment (12/06), my view that it is rational to ignore
possibilities on the basis of an overwhelming lack of evidence does not
need to be established, because it is simple common sense, shared by
nearly all human beings, even most of those who pretend otherwise. While
it has been proved wrong in specific instances--by scientific enquiry in the
most important of cases, like cosmology since Newton, quantum physics,
and special relativity, not to mention medical discoveries--it is not possible
to prove that the principle is generally absurd or usually wrong, which is
also why people stick to it. Of course, the world will be extremely
interested if you ever succeed in proving the contrary.

Common sense, for all we know, is based on our shared experience of

69
reality. This includes, as we now believe since Charles Darwin, experience
accumulated by life in DNA since its beginning on earth something like 4
billion years ago. People prefer to ignore remote possibilities simply
because there are too many of them. We simply don't have enough
brainpower and time in a day to take account of all the remote
possibilities, for example, of our life being endangered. Instead, we take
measures against the small number of the most likely threats: we lock our
door, look left and right when crossing the street, but we don't look up at
the sky to see if there is a meteorite coming at us or some hideous
gremlin with a three-horn hat intent on chewing on our brain. We don't
need to prove anything; it is common sense.

When ordinary people and scientists decide that it is time to prove that a
particular common sense view is mistaken, this is nearly always because
there is new evidence that the common sense view is mistaken. They then
conceive of some new theory and go looking for more evidence to confirm
the theory. I don't see anything remotely resembling this situation
regarding the issue of God.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
12/06/2008
The purpose of this essay is to respond to Eugene Bucamp's assertion
(12/05) that it is rational to ignore the remote possibility of the existence
of God or Gods based on an overwhelming lack of evidence. To establish
this premise, he would be required to demonstrate to a very high degree
of certainty and knowledge that the entirety of energy, matter, space, and
time, governed by the laws of physics and chemistry, dispersed over the
billions of galaxies within the observable universe, is not empirically
verifiable evidence to demonstrate the existence of God or Gods. In
addition, he would be required to falsify all possible proofs for the
existence of God or Gods, since he is establishing the metaphysical belief
that they do not exist, which is just as much an assertion as stating that
they do exist. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence."

Also, it is very condescending to proclaim that the arguments theologians

have proposed for the existence of God or Gods are stupid. Is Bucamp
aware that these arguments were proposed by Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas,
Anselm, Descartes, Kant, etc., who are widely respected as the greatest
philosophers of Western civilization? Is he privy to the fact that many
empiricists, rationalists and freethinkers of the Renaissance and
Enlightenment were deists or theists? In addition, Bucamp has a vague
concept of the term "proof." In philosophy, a formal proof or derivation is a
finite sequence of sentences, each of which is an axiom or follows from the
preceding sentences in the sequence by a rule of inference.
RE: Whole Series
Andrei Romanov

70
12/06/2008
Notions of faith and religion are metaphoric. As with all uncertain
concepts, this problem is unsolvable, thought there are several paradigms
under which to consider it.

In a rational paradigm, belief is acceptance of probable and hypothetical

judgements as absolute. Its subject coincides with a subject of science.
Belief (as hypothesis) is a source of scientific axioms. God is identified with
a methodological principle of world rationality. But, as has been shown by
Kant, scientific theology cannot cognize transcendental ideas and achieve
doubtless assertion of God's being. In an empirical paradigm, religious
statements are asserted as sense data. Empiricism excludes the
transcendental. It does not assert and does not deny the existence of God;
it reveals the social and psychological bases of belief in God. In the
theology of experience, religion is individual and is also deprived of
scientific character.

In a pragmatic paradigm, the God image is a hypothesis, bringing benefits,

satisfaction; belief is a result of agreement. Under an authoritative
paradigm, the person avoids stress and finds feelings of support by
obeying God as an authority (Fromm). In an aprioristic paradigm, the God
image is intentional, determined by transcendental (mental) structures,
and is deprived of objectivity. In the psychoanalytic paradigm, religion is
identified with the neuroses of all persuasive conditions (produced by
frustrated needs). God is identified with the all-mighty father for the
helpless, infantile person. In an axiological paradigm, God is a symbol of
ultimate values. Any wordly phenomenon is potentially sacral. In a
paradigm of the irrational and absurd, God is cognized not by reason but
by adoration.

Belief in an all-powerful God is determined not by rational arguments but

by irrational interests of ultimate concern, produced by experiences of
absolute dependence and fear. Theological pretensions of scientific
character are a form of inferiority complex. Beyond ultimate concern,
science does not determine either belief in God or its elimination. The
most "scientific" belief is irrational. Science does not make belief in God
obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
12/05/2008
On Ya'akov's comment (12/02), atheism is, very simply, a belief that God
doesn't exist, based on our shared experience of reality. Only a minority of
atheists irrationally insist they know there is no God. The position of most
atheists is that while we can't know for sure, it is nonetheless extremely
likely, based on the overwhelming lack of evidence, that there is no god.
So God is a possibility but so remote that it is more rational to ignore it. If
Ya'akov is unable to find this view of atheism in his encyclopaedias, he can

71
drop them at the nearest refuse dump.

Proof is often misunderstood as meaning necessarily a logical proof. No, a

proof is any kind of proof. There is indeed no proof of any sort for God, but
it is sufficient that there is a lack of evidence, because it is then rational
not to believe in God. I believe a logical proof could not prove God because
I believe a logical proof cannot prove the reality of anything, except of
reality itself, as a whole, which is trivial enough. Effective proofs of the
reality of things have to be founded on our common experience of reality. I
would call them rational proofs, including all scientific proofs.

Obviously, I couldn't review all alleged logical proofs for God, but the ones
I know about are very stupid, including that of serious theologians. But the
point is that logical proofs for God, like all logical proofs for the reality of
things, are necessarily inconclusive and I don't have to falsify any of them.
Also, it is not just God that could not be disproved by a rational or even a
scientific proof. It is generally all things that we have no idea what they
are: You need to know what you are looking for. If you know a property of
God that we could find evidence of, please tell us.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
12/02/2008
It has taken Eugene Bucamp (11/26) more than five months to respond to
my last post on this question. My answer: first, the term atheism, as
defined by the The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy and The Routledge
Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, is the "metaphysical belief that affirms the
non-existence of God or Gods" or "disbelief and denial of the existence of
God or Gods." Bucamp assumes that atheism is a rational position since
there is no evidence for the existence of God or Gods. This presupposes
that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the arguments
theologians have proposed (cosmological, teleological, etc.) for the
existence of God or Gods. How would Bucamp know that there is no proof
for the existence of God or Gods unless he has tried all possible proofs and
falsified them? What precisely would count as proofs since it is a
mathematical term? Perhaps he means valid arguments with true
premises and the justified conclusion "God or Gods exist."

He also establishes the premise that you can't prove the non-existence of
an entity like God(s). There are in fact two means in which to demonstrate
that God or Gods do not exist. The first is through a priori reasoning, i.e.,
define the concept of "God" or "Gods" and if there are any logical
inconsistencies with the definition, then you have proven that they do not
exist. The second means to prove the non-existence of God or Gods is
through a posteriori reasoning. To confirm that God or Gods do not exist,
you would need to explore every geometrical dimension of space and time
across each solar system and galaxy within the universe. Many atheists
would retort that they need not prove the non-existence of God or Gods

72
and that the burden of proof is only upon the theists to demonstrate the
existence of God or Gods. But atheism is just as much an assertion as
theism. Therefore, the burden of proof falls equally on both sides, and a
fairer debate question would be "Do God or Gods exist?" or "Are there any
Gods?"

Bucamp also stated that it is hubris to assume everything is natural. Since

this belief already presupposes that the supernatural does not exist, he is
already begging the question. In philosophy the terms "natural" and
"supernatural" are difficult to define precisely and the demarcation
between the two concepts leads to a lot of disagreement. However, a
materialistic atheist would state that matter and energy are natural and
anything beyond the physical constants and laws governing matter and
energy is supernatural. By this definition, ghosts and gods are
supernatural since they are deemed beyond the physical realms of nature.
On the other hand, Bucamp's definition of natural as the "quality of
everything that exists" is only justified by that meaning only. I could argue
that the quality of everything that exists is defined as the universe. The
term universe means the entirety of all existence, whether it arose by
natural processes involving only matter or through supernatural
intervention by a God or Gods.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/26/2008
Betty (10/25) says that, in the 1960's, the Holy Bible was read to her
fellow students and that most "turned out very well" and "became
productive people in society"! Believers who regard this sort of claim as
good reason to believe in God should know that they definitely help give
God and belief in God a bad name. Obviously, even if most young people
who read Peter Pan stories later "turned out very well," that still wouldn't
make Peter Pan real, yes?

Or does she simply mean that people who are not read the Bible inevitably
don't "turn out very well" and that this is reason enough to read the Bible
whether God exists or not? Or that it does prove God?! Finally, would she
know among those who were read the Holy Bible in Germany in the 1920's
and 30's how many turned out "productive members" of the Nazi Party
later in life? Or simply how many at that time would quote the Holy Bible
on Judas to justify their anti-Semitism?
RE: Kenneth Miller
Baffour Boahen
11/26/2008
Miller makes a lot of sense. God is the one that created us and this whole
universe. God then gave us science to continue the legacy that he started
for us. Without God there is no science. "He is the answer to existence, not
part of existence itself." Miller is on the money with that one.

73
RE: Whole Series
Shekhar Hardikar
11/25/2008
It is not about God or science; it is about our perception and change in
perception that changes the way we look at things as our awareness
increases. We all know that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but for our
daily convenience and for the purposes of the calendar, we say that the
Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

It is our belief and tendency to classify information in certain categories.

Our mind observes and records and behaves according to these patterns.
These patterns actually define or defend our beliefs. It is not about
language or maths or about technology; it is about our ability to recognise
and create new patterns. These patterns are dependent on the lenses that
we have, and then comes the million dollar question, what lenses do we
use to see a frame of reference? And the debate goes on . . .
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/25/2008
Ya'akov says (06/26) that atheism is unsubstantiated. I agree, but the
point is vacuous: How would you prove that something does not exist? You
can't. We can show when there is no money in our wallets, but we are
unable to prove that there is no God, or a Gloksburg for that matter,
anywhere in our universe, in nature, or better still in "reality." I cannot
prove that a Gloksburg does not exist, and nobody can, but who cares that
our common disbelief in the Gloksburg cannot be substantiated?

Atheism is a word, and it means "to not believe in a god." Somebody

cannot claim "to know" that God doesn't exist, as indeed some but not
many atheists do (and indeed there is no "atheist Pope"). However, it is
definitely reasonable "to not believe in God" when it is the case that we
don't have any good reason to believe in it, since there is no evidence for
it. Ya'akov probably doesn't believe in the Gloksburg but could not
substantiate that a Gloksburg does not exist. In fact, we don't know what a
Gloksburg is. Which is the point: we don't know what a God would be.
Ya'akov's notion that the claim that all things are natural is "hubris" is
equally pointless. How do you define "unnatural"? If ghosts existed, ghosts
would be natural. Or how would you prove that something is not natural?
Say you meet God: How do you prove he is not natural?

It is therefore misleading to say that it is "beyond our present science" to

claim that the natural world has emerged from within itself. If you define
"natural" as the quality of everything that exists, you don't need science to
prove anything because logic is enough. The naturalist claim seems to be
that the cause of "reality" (call it "nature" if you want) is not something
"like a spirit" (in the sense of "like our mind"). This claim is beyond current
scientific knowledge, but it could conceivably be substantiated one day

74
because all you need to know is the nature of our mind, and we are
getting close to do that.
RE: Whole Series
Ian Haggis
11/24/2008
I am finding these essays fascinating. Please send me a copy of the whole
series, for myself and for my friends.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/24/2008
Many comments below are testimony to the difficulty, and indeed in my
view impossibility, of having any kind of rational conversation whenever
God is the starting point. Contributions by those professing a belief in
some kind of spiritual realm also confirm the scattergun arbitrariness of
spiritual beliefs. What is also clearly demonstrated, to come back to the
question of obsolescence, is that if there is something that might indeed
never become obsolescent, it is not a belief in God but the undeniable
freedom of the human mind to lose itself in the infinite possibilities of a
Mickey Mouse fantasia world. God is just one arbitrary speck in that
limitless dimension.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Hampton
11/23/2008
Answering the question from a predominantly western point of view
extends the error that science and spirituality are separate and distinct.
References to classical Greek thinking as ancient and authoritative,
without consideration of advanced civilizations that pre-date western
thinking, contribute to the Phenomenal Fallacy, in which the field of
relativity is viewed as the causal level, rather than as the gross level of
effects and phenomenal manifestations reflective of the subtle causal
plane.
RE: Whole Series
Don Kaple
11/21/2008
I define religion as the human response to the mystery of existence. God,
for me, is that mystery. In algebraic terms, God is the big X, and both
religion and science are solving for X. Scientists are theologians of the
21st century. So the God I believe in is not obsolete. It goes without
saying, some images of God are indeed obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
11/14/2008
Contrary to what Brent Orrell (10/16) seems to suggest, the point of the
argument about the crimes committed in the name of religion is definitely
not to decide who the bad guy was. The point is simply that belief in God

75
is no guarantee or even a good predictor of morality; that you can be a
Pope and a murderer; that belief in the absolute, as introduced to mankind
by Abrahamic religions, breeds totalitarianism.

Philip Wesel's assertion (11/05) that science rests upon "pure belief" is
vacuous and disingenuous. Science is solidly founded on nothing less than
our collective and continuing experience of reality. To call that "pure
belief" is a renunciation of rational thought and a sad denial of our
humanity. "Pure belief" cannot produce the vast amount of knowledge
about the universe and nature that we now enjoy.
RE: Whole Series
Abdul
11/11/2008
Science is in its infancy yet. Thousands of years, many schools of thought,
but they have not come up with the right or the true explanation of God,
life, death, and almost everything that exists. So I say keep on looking. I
believe that you should keep in mind that this complixity of existence
cannot be of natural selection or chance. There has got to be a higher,
more intelligent power. Our own existence should have more meaning
than what we are doing. God does not need me or all of us. God needs our
worship. Let us all look for the truth out of our own limitations for the sake
of humanity and peace. I'm a Muslim. I truly believe in the freedom of
thought for all. We have to be careful not to step on others in our quest for
the good.
RE: Whole Series
Jerry H. Milam
11/06/2008
Just wishing I could wake up and understand.
RE: Whole Series
Philip Wesel
11/05/2008
The best answer regarding God's potential obsolescence is a combination
of yes and no. By definition, "obsolescence is an object's attribute of losing
value because the outside world has changed." In economic terms,
"Obsolescence is a source of price depreciation." To me, the deeper
question is not whether science makes belief in God obsolete. It is the
question, "Does all science rest on rational thought?" and I think the
answer to this is "no."

The foundation of much of science initially rests upon pure belief, which
we subsequently work to either prove or disprove. Even here perhaps God
is at work in encouraging us to question the nature of all things, to dig
deeper and to uncover some truths while discarding others. I'm not ready
to put God on mankind's dustbin of truth because both rationally and
irrationally, I think that God's existence deserves more compelling proofs.

76
But science could make belief unnecessary and hence obsolete if it could
solve problems which cause us to believe less deeply in God. Problems like
poverty, energy, scarcity, and generosity could be solved. Are these things
that science has the power to alter and overcome? If so, then I think some
people will have less need for God in their lives. On the other hand, some
people will see solutions as proof that God continues to exist and has
relevance to both scientist and lay person alike. At a very basic level,
some of us still need belief in God to guide us. As long as someone needs
something and finds it useful, by definition it isn't obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Hurly
10/30/2008
Of course it does. Thinking scientifically means that you question
assumptions and that you ask questions and you try to rationally justify
the acceptance of ideas, and that's the antithesis of religious thinking. If
you apply scientific reasoning to religion, it crumbles. There is simply no
evidence for any of their claims.

Of course, some people avoid that problem by simply never thinking

scientifically about their beliefs. That's an easy out, because most beliefs
aren't the product of rational thought anyway. Does scientific thinking
imply atheism? No, I don't think so. It's the lack of evidence of theistic and
superstitious claims that scientific thinking demands that implies atheism.

An interesting study done in the Journal of Religion and Society was titled
"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular
Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" and seems to
imply the correctness of my answer: "The absence of exceptions to the
negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance
of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any
developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis
that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement
with evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By
removing the need for a creator, evolutionary science made belief
optional."
RE: William D. Phillips
Stanley Rowden
10/27/2008
UK senior person, with a special interest in this subject.
RE: Whole Series
L. Zellmer
10/25/2008
Expanding on a key point in Angela Lloyd's 10/13/08 comment: In addition
to unexplainable healing, too many beyond-science-encounters occur to
be ignored. Anyone, after having such an experience, has no doubt about
its reality. There are no words, pictures, or science to fully convey its

77
reality to another person. That specific event can't be repeated. Even if it
only happens once in a lifetime, it is so real, so powerful, it can change a
life and give new meaning to everything. It seems such clues would entice
science to check it out. Anyone hoping to intelligently discuss this without
such an experience will have little to offer on the subject. How can they
even assume to know anything about it?

Occasionally such experiences happen without any previous belief. Often

belief has become the first step in turning an individual's life into an
incredible new adventure. Sometimes this leads to a beyond-science-
experience. Beyond coincidence, the evidence suggests something like an
unknown reality does exist. Religion as modified by humans, while related,
is a different subject. It seems a scientific thinker, a true researcher, would
be eager to explore all the possibilies. If existing scientific tools can't find
any access keys unlocking understanding, perhaps the tools are the
problem. Possibly obsolete?

The term God, as typically understood, on one extreme is too small and on
the other almost toxic. Words become useless. Discussions, especially
between those extremes, can't be expected to prove anything. This is a
new frontier to be explored. Everyone needs more respect for each other
and the experiences they have had. When and if that's possible, working
together to overcome obstacles to understanding, hopefully some
progress can be made.

Related comments on this site: Ya'akov, Prichard, Zellmer, Barbara, Ruth

(which can be found using the "find" tool).
RE: Whole Series
Richard A. Cormier
10/25/2008
God is Santa Claus for grownups. What does that have to do with science?
We can believe in almost anything and still be scientists, mathematicians,
artists, or basket-weavers. If we know one thing, it is that the human mind
is quite adept at holding a myriad of conflicting ideas within itself and
devising ways of justifying them all.
RE: William D. Phillips
Betty
10/25/2008
Yes, it does . . . when educators advocate that dinosaurs walked the earth,
which you know in truth was no such thing. Proof: the Holy Bible,
specifically the Book of Genesis, states as true fact that man was created
in God's own image. Nowhere does it say anything about apes. When
mankind chooses to believe falsehoods as true creation facts, then we as a
generation are lying to our children. I went to school in the 1960's, and a
chapter from the Holy Bible was read to my junior high school homeroom
class every morning. Guess what? Most of the students from that class and
most of the other homeroom classes of other students turned out very well

78
and went on to college or the work force and became productive people in
society. Today our children are not taught the true Christian values which
our founding fathers had established during formation of the constitution.
RE: Whole Series
Donald Kaple
10/24/2008
I made a comment on June 3, 2008 and am now revisiting this website. I'm
amazed at the interest generated by the question of whether science
makes God obsolete. I'd like to recommend Raimon Panikkar and John
Hought. No doubt God is a human projection, but this needs to be
examined further. Panikkar suggests that humans are a God projection.
Interesting!
RE: Whole Series
Darryl Roberts
10/22/2008
Your essays are inspirational!!
RE: Whole Series
J Whitson
10/17/2008
In order to make God "obsolete," one must replace him/her with
something better. Since God is not materially manifest, one must perceive
his/her existence through belief; therefore, in order to replace God, one
must obtain a better belief. Though whole communities and nations may
hold a common belief, believing is fundamentally the prediliction of an
individual, used to provide him/her with the perception of order and
control over the apprehension of an existance with an unknown conclusion
in a seemingly disorderly and uncontrolled universe.

Considering this, an individual may find more comfort, order, and control
in the tenets of science, while another might not, finding greater comfort
in one or more deities or, in the coin-of-the day, "greed is good." So, of
course not: belief is entirely subjective. If people find comfort and
happiness in their beliefs, then those are the true and correct beliefs for
them. A "universally true belief" or the "only true belief" is an oxymoron.
The disagreements among my learned colleagues on this dais rests my
case.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Robert Hargett
10/17/2008
As an agnostic/skeptic, Mr. Hitchens makes the most sense to me.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Brent Orrell
10/16/2008
I have to take issue with Robert Sapolsky on the issue of whose hands
have more blood on them. The religious wars of human history as well as

79
the Inquisition and other domestic purges of non-believers can't hold a
candle to the losses caused by secular ideologies like fascism and, even
more so, communism. The rivers of Asia and Europe run red with the
innocents slaughtered following these false Gods. Religious wars, having
occured so much earlier in our industrial development, simply didn't have
the tools for mass killing that modern ideologies have deployed in trying to
bring their malign heavens to earth. I don't disagree that religion can act
similarly as an impetus to murder, but it hasn't even come close to the
scale of harm caused by atheistic philosophies.
RE: Whole Series
David
10/14/2008
The question is a subjective one. By this I mean that "God" as I understand
Him and the concept of God reside completely within the mind. It may be
that outside of the physical universe He also exists, but that is
unknowable. It is really a metaphysical question, one not amenable to
rational examination. Just trying to explain it, I go around in circles of
reasoning. I believe that without man or another creature capable of
higher reasoning, maybe a dolphin, the God I understand would not exist.
He is because I believe He is. But He is more than that because as I live
the "good" life, it becomes more difficult to separate "God" and "me."

The idea in transactional analysis, a type of psychotherapy, is that there is

the parent, the adult, and the child. Or in the vernacular of the
psychotherapist, the superego, the ego, and the id. God would be the
father and mother of the very young child. As the child grew and began to
solve problems, the adult, the problem solver would grow. And the id, the
child, would make all this business worth while. Without the superego, it
would be very difficult for the ego to nurture the id. Without God and some
promise of permanence, however ephemeral, life would be very chaotic.
God is that still, small voice that speaks to us as we lay upon our bed,
waiting for sleep.

The historical evidence for God is, I believe, based entirely on human
interactions with the physical environment and other human beings, and
as such becomes a historical and sociological study, bringing us back full
circle to the individual's inner life. And so the question really remains
unanswered.
RE: Whole Series
Angela Lloyd
10/13/2008
Not at all. People who already believe in God are not impressed by the
marvels of science. No matter how science evolves, it could never explain
how a person suffering from cancer could be cured (healed) after doctors
did everything scientifically and humanly possible. God will prove himself
to be the master scientist. Through the wonders of science, humans
impress themselves by duplicating what God has already done. So does

80
Satan. Just keep living, and we will all see how BIG God is and how
wonderfully we are created because of Him.
RE: Whole Series
Purple Neon Lights
09/30/2008
I ran into this while reading "East of Eden" by John Steinbeck: "Adam said,
'Let me tell you. The proofs that God does not exist are very strong, but in
lots of people they are not as strong as the feeling that He does.'" As
mentioned in an earlier post, I suppose that the instrument for detecting
God is human awareness. God can't be detected with physical instruments
measuring the ping-pong balls of pulsating matter. An instrument that
interfaces with the metaphysical is needed. Otherwise it's like trying to
detect a smell with a microphone. Using a metaphysical microphone
wisely still requires skillful application of the principles of scientific
method.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
09/24/2008
Walter W. Lee (09/22) theorizes that the basis for human values is the
survivability of the species. I agree, but I would add to that the
survivability of the culture. The ongoing discussion on this page is
testimony to that. This forum has become one of many battlegrounds
where the God culture and the science culture struggle for supremacy. The
survival of science is not in doubt. At this point I think the culture of God
just wants to coexist.
RE: Whole Series
Walter W. Lee
09/22/2008
Regarding John Cozijn's comment of (09/19): I submit a scientific theory:
the inescapable basis for human values is the survivability of the species.
RE: Whole Series
John Cozijn
09/21/2008
Tracy Witham upbraids me for insulting people "I don't understand" and
insinuates I haven't done my "homework," etc. Well, let us not waste time
feigning outrage at the polemical tactics of those with whom we disagree
lest we be accused of that worst of New Testament sins: hypocrisy. My
starting point, as per my first post in this thread, is that the God discussed
here has virtually nothing in common with the religious beliefs and
practices of actual believers, including "educated, intelligent people." To
take Tillich as an example, his entire "method of correlation" requires the
acceptance of Christian revelation as a fact. To quote: "The Christian
message provides the answers to the questions implied in human
existence. These answers are contained in the revelatory events on which
Christianity is based ..."

81
However, the historicity of these "events" is itself entirely based on the
implausible and contradictory narratives contained in the extended press
release we now call the New Testament (and its rather troubled
relationship to a diverse set of ancient Jewish texts we know as the Old
Testament). Now if the test of historicity fails, so does Tillich's entire
project. This is an empirical question, and it seems to me that in these
"highbrow" discussions people go to great lengths to disguise their
necessary adherence to dogmas of talking snakes, virgin births, assorted
miracles, bodily resurrections, and other Iron Age nonsense. Instead we
are treated to meaningless abstractions such as "God is Love" or vacuous
philosophising that purposefully disguises its preposterous premises. I
actually have no problem with Deism (since it implies no empirical claims
at all), but I do object to this kind of high-minded theism which
deliberately obscures its relationship to the myths fervently held by the
real people--educated or not--who populate the pews and prayer mats of
this muddled world.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
09/19/2008
John Cozijn's (09/19) words show that he feels free to demean and insult
people he doesn't understand. The pity is that he asked a good question:
"What makes anyone think that religion has anything to offer?" It deserves
a good response. But he quickly--between insults--asserts that "The entire
history of the Church would seem eloquent testimony that religion
provides no special insight into moral problems or any other dilemmas."
That's a big claim. Then he must have really done his homework!

Since I have great respect for Paul Tillich's theology, perhaps he will
disabuse me of the view that Tillich's use of ultimate concern and false
ultimacy successfully re-interprets religious faith for educated, intelligent
people, and that it offers the key to solving humanity's central moral
dilemma. Or perhaps, since I originally brought up the problem of
existential crisis, he would rather explain why existential estrangement
isn't a good modern re-interpretation of the concept of sin, one that both
secular and religious persons can learn from and respect. Perhaps he
spent more time in philosophy. How about a critique of Kant's assertion
that the only unqualified good is a good will and its relationship to the
central theme of his Religion Within the Bounds of Reason Alone--followed,
of course, by an explanation of why Kant or any neo-Kantian religious
thinker is such a rube that she or he deserves only ridicule?

So, can Mr. Conijn give us an expert abstract of any of these concepts and
explain why they deserve his mocking? His big claim implies that he can.
My suspicion is that his "argument" has much in common with the straw
man it attacks.
RE: Whole Series
John Cozijn

82
09/19/2008
Values and ethics are not derivable from science--that would indeed be
the worst kind of scientism. But what makes anyone think that religion has
anything to contribute? Fall of man via a trick played by a talking snake,
followed by a blood sacrifice that "saves" humanity from this Original Sin?
Puh--lease!

Why is a prelate more qualified to offer "moral guidance" than a plumber?

The entire history of the Church would seem eloquent testimony that
religion provides no special insight into moral problems or any other
human dilemmas. And given that science has effectively overthrown its
entire ontology, the pronouncements religion does make on such
questions are invariably wrapped up in layers of obfuscating mumbo-
jumbo.

This of course is the fundamental problem with Steve Gould's position of

"non-overlapping magisteria," or NOMA, which just hands over the entire
sphere of morality to "religion." The reality is that the world does not need
men in dresses to pontificate or evangelical conmen to command others
"how to live." Religion in the 21st century is surplus to requirements. We
are on our own, so let's just grow up and start taking responsibility for our
ethical and personal choices based on the best information about the
world we can get (which is where science comes in).
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
09/19/2008
Jack King (09/17) concedes that science cannot address the existential
doubt in Marcel's play (see my 9/15 comment). Perhaps it will help to
make the underlying argument explicit: If faith provides a framework for
answering existential questions and science cannot, then science cannot
supersede religion. The core of the great religions expressly provide that
framework (the Shema, the Eightfold Path, The Great Commandments,
etc.).

The Marcel plot was a specific example to illustrate how it can be that a
person must choose a meaning in response to a situation that cannot be
better understood "scientifically," and where faith provides the only helpful
way out. Then I pointed out that the facts of natural history are also beset
with opportunity for existential doubt, and that more facts are not likely to
change the need for faith--and just think of faith here as "belief where
doubt is possible," to use William James's definition--in making up one's
mind.

Last, I used the naturalistic fallacy to point out that the understanding of
the world that science gives us cannot be turned into the moral and value
systems that people use to make decisions. My conclusion follows: science
cannot supersede religion. In reply to Mr. King's counterpoints, "science"

83
does not "apply" itself; human beings working as scientists do. Science
does not accomplish the greater good. People decide to use science to do
good.

To drive the point home that science is contingent on the non-scientific

value systems of its practitioners, I ask, will science still contribute to the
greater good if a scientist gives atomic bomb technology to terrorists? Is
that a terrible thought? Yes. Is that judgment scientific? No. Would the
terrorist share it? No. Could the scientist be a terrorist? Yes. Mr. King
should consider whether "science" has become his "god." If so, my faith
says he can upgrade for free.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
09/17/2008
Tracy Withan (09/15) makes a number of pronouncements and offers two
challenges (actually, three questions). He asks if there is any reason to
think that the self-doubt afflicting the character in Marcel's story can be
addressed by a complete scientific account of his mental states and
personal history. No, but perhaps it could be explained that way and
therapy could issue from there. Perhaps a Dr. Phil could be of more help
than a frozen prophet.

Then he asks, "Second, is a grand unified evolutionary narrative likely to

clarify how problems concerning the correct ordering of values and morals
in human life is to be done (as though the naturalistic fallacy will someday
be overwhelmed by the logic of science)?" Well, while observation of the
naturalistic fallacy is observed in scientific research, it is not observed by
all who utilize the fruits of that research, so indirectly, science can play a
vital part. The research may reveal which values provide the greatest
happiness for the greatest number, and secular administrators could foster
those values. much as many do now. The system could be adaptive and
enact modifications over time rather than view the original values as
absolute. This would be far better in an adaptively evolving world than a
one-size-fits-all-forever kind of value system.

Withan also speaks of ontological mystery as if it were something other

than identity crisis and of teleology as something science has abandoned
altogether. He's obviously ignoring applied science, but even pure science,
while it doesn't expain nature in terms of purposes, does investigate for a
purpose: that of understanding the natural world. In that area, religionists
do not experiment and discover, but only speculate and pontificate.

Thirdly, Mr. Withan asks, "Is science about to make itself obsolete
(because it's about to enter the moral sphere)?" Not at all. Even in its
standard amoral method, it will always have the capacity to provide new
tools for those who labor for positive adaptive change, and it has already
done more to relieve human suffering than religion ever did.

84
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
09/16/2008
Tracy Withan (09/15) claims to know that "in an existential crisis, science
has nothing relevant to offer." But the claim is unfounded. Withan should
know that we are as yet short on science whenever the mind is concerned
and that more of it would help, not less of it. No doubt one cannot wait for
science when experiencing an existential crisis, yet, when science is not
available, the next best thing is rationality, not a belief in God. Rationality
may also be in short supply when going through an existential crisis, but
this also only emphasizes the need for it.

Withan also made a suggestion on the difficulty of finding the "correct

ordering of values and morals in human life." I doubt that many scientists
would insist that the theory of evolution could be a basis for any particular
ordering, let alone that it should be. But equally, isn't it true that during
the First World War, soldiers on both sides of the front line believed God
was on their side? Somebody must have been wrong. Contrary to what
many believers, like Withan, seem to think, it does not make any sense to
confine the "correct ordering of values and morals in human life" to the
small community of true believers. A fundamental rethink is long overdue.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Withan
09/15/2008
Not everyone thinks that the idea of a coming scientific hegemony is even
coherent, let alone likely. Two challenges: First, consider the plot of
Marcel's "L' Homme de Dieu"(further compressed from his summary in The
Mystery of Being, Vol. I, p. 153--the 1949 Gifford Lectures). A young man
overcomes enervating self-doubt after discovering that his wife has had an
affair when he finds the strength to forgive her. Years later the man with
whom the wife had an affair returns. He is dying and asks to meet the
couple's child, who was born out of the affair. The husband grants a visit.
But the wife sees the grant as "a professional gesture" (the husband is a
pastor), which precludes "real, human love." She "infects her husband with
her doubts," and he returns to his enervating self-doubt. Is there any
reason to think that the man's self-doubt can be addressed by a complete
scientific account of his mental states and personal history? In fact, in an
existential crisis, science has nothing relevant to offer.

Second, is a grand unified evolutionary narrative likely to clarify how

problems concerning the correct ordering of values and morals in human
life is to be done (as though the naturalistic fallacy will someday be
overwhelmed by the logic of science)? How thoughtful of my Viking and
Saxon forebears to have clubbed and slashed their way to victory with
biological imperatives of such moral clarity! Marcel was right. Faith, not
science, operates within the sphere of ontological mystery that forms the
background to human existence. Science is said to have left that sphere

85
when Aristotle's teleology lost favor, and it flourished as a result. Now
science is thought to be on the verge of re-entering that sphere. And so I
ask, is science about to make itself obsolete?
RE: Whole Series
John Cozijn
09/13/2008
Well, it would appear that God is indeed dead--at least the God that people
actually worship, as distinct from the desiccated philosophical entities
discussed by the "believers" here. Take the Catholics Schonborn and
Miller. Where is the God of the magic cracker, the God who took the
"virgin" Mary physically into heaven, the God who has confided to the
current Pope that it is still a "sin" to use a condom even for HIV-discordant
married couples, the God who would listen to my prayer, if I were ever of a
mind to say one?

Never mind the God of the ever-shrinking gaps. The corresponding gap
between the abstract, philosophical entity discussed here and the actual
beliefs and practices of the religiously inclined has yawned into an
unbridgeable chasm. There are indeed many mysteries to be plumbed
about the nature of existence, but the one thing we can say with some
certainty is that science has so far proved to be the only mode of cognition
that has any track record at all in decoding such mysteries.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Victor Phelemba
09/12/2008
Cardinal Schonborn closes with a comment that should be repeated:
"consideration of our incompleteness leads us beyond, in search of a
Someone who is the Good of us all. Science will never make that quest
obsolete." If I could add my humble two cents: it seems that the more we
learn as humans, the larger the question becomes and the larger our
responsibility to offer future generations a chance to answer the very
same. It may not simply be a matter of "is science making a belief in
religion obsolete," but a matter of how can we use what we are learning to
better commune with ourselves, each other, and God.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Michell
09/12/2008
The arguments in the "God debate" annoy me intensely, because, as
Leendert Huisman points out, they are arguing about a huge unknown. I
feel I want to shout "What do you mean by GOD!?" I personally haven't the
remotest idea of what this word is supposed to mean. It's a real joker of a
word, changing its meaning all the time depending on context and
individual background. Having read Karen Armstrong's brilliant "History of
God" and other accessible works of this kind, my confusion has grown
worse. The word "God" just does not work as a concept; it's simply a
paradox par excellence, and if you use it as a metaphor or symbol, it

86
becomes as vague as mist. In fact, in the contemporary postmodern
context, it has turned into its opposite, spreading destructive confusion,
which is the meaning behind the word "diabolical." By all means, let
religious folk continue to use it, at least they (think they) know what they
are talking about. The rest of us are wise to avoid it altogether.
RE: Whole Series
Steven Katz
09/11/2008
I am not sure. I thought the answer was yes until recent days, but now I
have become more equivocal.
RE: Whole Series
Leendert Huisman
09/09/2008
Interesting as these answers to the Templeton question are, they suffer
from the same problem as all discussions on the existence of God: nothing
even resembling a definition is given of the entity, called God, whose
existence is in dispute. Consequently, some deny this existence, some
affirm it, and no one knows if the opponents are even talking about the
same thing. The Templeton Foundation would do everyone interested in
these questions an enormous favor if they would pose the question: "what
do we mean by God?" and continue guiding the discussions until
something resembling a consensus emerges.

The foundation should also consider that this is not even the most
important question to be asked. One can always define God so vaguely
that the question regarding His existence becomes meaningless. Of much
greater importance is the question whether this God, assuming He exists,
wants something from us and how we would know what that is. Believers
say yes to the first question and find the answer to the second one in their
favorite interpretation of their favored sacred texts. Christians have their
texts, Mormons theirs, Muslims theirs, and so forth and so on, and they
teach different things. Can believers, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.
come to an agreement on what God wants? Or can they at least come to
an agreement on how interested individuals like myself would know about
God's desires?
RE: Whole Series
Wesley
09/09/2008
There are many questions that we cannot answer. My definition of God is
an intelligent being who exists outside of time and outside of space. The
Big Bang and evolution are highly irrational if they are done on their own.
When you add something like God, the whole thing becomes a lot easier to
explain. To be truly open-minded, one has to consider that God may exist,
so don't throw the concept away just yet.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King

87
09/09/2008
Purple Neon Lights (09/07/08), for purposes of this discussion, has defined
God for us. He says God is the final or ultimate cause from which all else
springs. Well, first of all, causes are not final but previous to the outcome
they bring about. I'm sure PNL knows this, so perhaps he's referring to the
finality of his conclusion about what God is. That conclusion is by no
means final or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Secondly, if all else springs from God, then God is responsible for cancer
and parasites, torture and genocide, suffering and pain, injustice and
terror, and everything else that is hideous and bad. He is not worthy of
worship nor adoration nor any kind of respect other than the respect one
would give a rattlesnake or a callous despot, and those who cringe before
him are putting the continuance of their own miserable existence before
any acceptable definition of honor or justice.

PNL also says that love, loyalty, addition, and beauty are entities because
they are palpable, and human awareness is the instrument by which we
detect them. Space being limited, let's look at love, a feeling induced by
hormonal changes in the brain. The neurons, enzymes, receptors, and
electrochemical signals that produce the feeling we call love are entities,
but the feeling itself is a movement, just as a pendulum is an entity and its
swing is a movement. Movements are not entities. Every particle in the
universe is moving in relation to all other particles all the time in a
ceaseless dance of perpetual change. Motion is occurring in our brains and
bodies all the time and often results in conscious feelings that arise from
algorithms encoded in our genes or behavioral responses imposed by
culture. None of this movement can be properly classified as entity.

Love, for the most part, is wonderful and good, but sometimes not. How
many stalkers and abusive spouses are motivated by desire to control or
possess the object of their love? How much crime has been committed for
love of money? How many suicide bombers have wreaked death and
destruction for love of God?
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
09/08/2008
George S. Nischik's argument (06/18) is as follows: transcendence implies
God, and denying transcendence would imply our own non-existence,
which we cannot do. Ergo, God exists. The view that transcendence
implies God does not mean anything so I will simply ignore it.
Transcendental means "what is beyond the natural world." We can
translate Nischik's argument thus: "If you accept that there is a realm
beyond the natural world, then God is a necessity. If not, then God never
was but then 'you' never were either."

Nischik's main assumption here is that our mind is self-evidently beyond

88
the natural world and, since you cannot possibly deny your own mind, you
have to accept the "transcendental" and God with it. In a nutshell, Nischik
says that our mental experience as conscious being implies God. Nobody
has ever explained why this should be, and Nischik does not either. The
reality is that there is no reason whatsoever to believe this to be true.

If by "mind" we mean our cognitive capabilities, perception, memory,

reasoning, language, etc., the neurosciences have very convincingly
shown that it is all natural. Plus, each of us has compelling evidence of it in
other humans but also in nature at large: in animals, from apes and cows
to insects, worms and spiders, and in machines, although they still only
very partially emulate our range of cognitive capabilities.

Now the subjective experience we have of our own consciousness is

entirely private: none of us has any evidence at all that other humans
experience it. Beyond our private experience, the only evidence is indirect:
others have the same cognitive capabilities as we do, so we assume they
experience consciousness the way we do. However, since cognitive
capabilities are themselves all natural, we have to presume that
consciousness is also natural.
RE: Whole Series
Rik Delaet
09/08/2008
God? Define! Then ask again.
RE: Whole Series
Purple Neon Lights
09/07/2008
First off, God has to be defined. All this talk of God, and seldom if ever is it
defined. I'll define God for the purposes of these discussions as being the
final or ultimate cause, from which all else springs. Hypotheses: (1)
Metaphysical entities exist and are palpable (examples are: love, loyalty,
addition, beauty). (2) Metaphysical entities are detectable with the
instrument of human awareness. God is the ultimate metaphysical entity.
The existence of metaphysical entities can be substantiated by groups of
trained observers applying scientific method, just as, say, heliocentrism of
the solar system is verifiable by trained astronomers.

(3) Metaphysical entities very frequently, but not necessarily, have

physical correlates. For example, consider one who is experiencing the
feeling of beauty, triggered by looking at a rose. The rose is the correlate
but not the metaphysical entity of beauty. The metaphysical entity of
beauty is palpable and discernible without the rose or another physical
correlate. Beauty in the abstract exists, and human awareness is the
device necessary to "pick it up."

Where a lot of people get hung up is thinking that scientific method is

usable only if one uses physical instruments to detect physical entities.

89
But there is nothing barring using the human awareness as an instrument
for objective detection of metaphysical entities. Groups of individuals well-
trained in scientific method can have very significant agreement about the
existence of otherwise non-physical, or metaphysical, entities.

Take the concept of addition. Or beauty. Or loyalty. Or love. There is a vast

consensus throughout history that these metaphysical entities exist. By
what basis could one reasonably hypothesize that these entities do not
exist? Some will say they are "merely" a construct of the mind. If that is
so, is the existence of a distant star "merely" the construct of a telescope?
Is the existence of bacteria "merely" the construct of a microscope? Not
so.
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Jack
09/04/2008
Bill (09/02) says that truth is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to
metaphysics. Actually, that's not necessarily true for truth, but rather for
perception, opinion, and belief. The truth is more elusive and requires a
more exhaustive search and closer examination of all that's relevant to
the question.

Perceptions, opinions, and beliefs can come in conflict with other

perceptions, opinions, and beliefs, but definitive truths about the nature of
reality (which can sometimes be conceived in metaphysical terms) cannot
be in conflict. If they are, then at least one of them is incomplete or is only
an approximation of truth. In nature, paradox abounds, and in language,
ambiguity abounds. This often confuses the observer or hampers the
speaker or writer who attempts to convey a "truth" to others.

Deductively, the existence of God cannot be proven because the premises

from which the conclusion would have to be drawn would have to be
sound, and the logic leading to the conclusion sound as well. No sound
premises that would lead to such a conclusion have been found. However,
the nonexistence of God can be proven inductively, and Victor J. Stenger
appears to have done that fairly well in his essay.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
09/04/2008
Margaret (09/03) says that science asks how and religion asks why. I
agree, up to a point. To ask how is to ask for the mechanics of an event or
phenomenon, and to ask why is to ask for reasons. Since mechanics are
found in all of nature, and science is the study of nature, how is certainly a
question that scientists ask.

Reasons, however, are found only in minds, and minds are relatively
recently evolved features of nature, but part of nature nonetheless. The
social sciences (psychology, economics, etc.) examine the reasons people

90
act and behave the way they do, so reasons as well as mindless
mechanics are within the domain of science. Reasons wouldn't exist if
brains hadn't evolved to produce them. So mechanics (the hows, not the
whys) are ultimately at the root of all that is and all that can ever be.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
09/04/2008
Bill says (09/02) that a negative can be proven in mathematics. This is of
course totally beside the point. Nature is not made of mathematical
objects, and therefore no mathematical proof can be used as evidence
about reality. Observation is always required to validate the mathematical
models of nature that are proposed by scientists. Not the other way round.
Once a model is validated by precise observations, it can be used for
practical purposes until somebody comes up with a better model, if ever.

The doctor who knew about "decreasing the amount of infection by

washing hands" had acquired his personal conviction by observing the
evidence available in nature, not by reading the Bible or by writing
equations. Other doctors "who thought it nonsense and would not
investigate"--i.e., would not look at the evidence--have been proved wrong
by the repeated observation that washing hands decreases the amount of
infection, not by metaphysics.

It is also noteworthy that Bill seems to be advocating relativism in truth:

"Truth is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to metaphysics." In a
nutshell, we can believe what we like! No doubt you are free to put
together any metaphysical claim you want since you cannot be proven
wrong! But this sounds like a pretty vacuous activity. A metaphysical claim
is not at all the same thing as truth. Truth is always a potential. We can
only believe in the truth of the statements we make; we're never sure.
Hence, don't expect others to take seriously any of your beliefs unless you
can properly justify them! And I don't know of any proper method for
justifying metaphysical claims. You may believe things, but if you don't
have any evidence, expect your beliefs to remain pretty much irrelevant to
real life or, worse, to be detrimental to you and others.
RE: Whole Series
Margaret
09/03/2008
Science does not make belief in God obsolete. Science and religion
address different fields. Science asks the question "how?" and religion
asks the question "why?" It is only when some versions of religion attempt
to dictate what should be questions of science, e.g., the age of the earth
and whether or not the earth circles the sun, that they make themselves
look ridiculous. Science does not concern itself with "why?" The Baha'i
religion, to which I belong, says that science and religion should be in
harmony

91
RE: Whole Series
Bill
09/02/2008
Oh, pish tush. Saying proof is on one side and not the other is like saying a
negative cannot be proven. Mathematically it can. Was the burden of proof
on the doctor who knew about decreasing the amount of infection by
washing hands? The other doctors thought it nonsense and would not
investigate. The truth is neither a positive based in belief or a position of
unbelief that can be proven. But to claim the default position is incorrect.
Truth is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to metaphysics.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
08/31/2008
Theodore Lundy (08/29) has written a piece with which I largly agree,
especially his conclusion. We're pretty much on the same page. The part I
disagree with is the separate reality business. There is only one reality but
many perceptions of that reality. All those perceptions are incomplete, and
many are erroneous. They are produced by brains which are physical
objects mechanistacally creating those perceptions from a very small
portion of the data that is out there to be gathered by the senses. We
can't gather it all, and it would be beyond the computational power of a
single brain to process it all. We rely on a network of other minds to help
make sense of it, and in doing so we expose ourselves to false
interpretations.

So if everything is physical and mechanistic, where does this spiritual

nonsense come from? No one has ever found a spirit outside their
imagination. There is no objective evidence for the existence of spirits or
souls or supranatural entities. The problem, I think, is that we take
conceptual shortcuts to conclusions. We utilize the abstract to arrive at
conclusions quickly, and we begin to think of time and space and freedom
and justice and beauty as real tangible entities when they are only
abstractions, constructs, or conventions created and adopted by networks
of minds to process information more quickly, to facilitate communication,
and to make perceptions more meaningful in human terms.

The real problem is that meaning arrived at in such a speedy and

convenient fashion is often so far from a true representation of reality as
to be utter nonsense. So Theodore is right. Those who put their necks on
the track for a physical god are going to eventually get run over by the
oncoming train of physical reality. And mercifully, when their last flicker of
awareness fades to black, they'll never know whether they went to
heaven.
RE: Whole Series
Jamie
08/30/2008
Certain humans are starting to see patterns in the world around them in

92
the form of coincidences--Deepak Chopra, James Redfield, etc. Now, you
may think these people are crazy and suffering from a delusion, but the
same message is repeated time and again. That is, coincidences contain
meaning, and some of that meaning comes from the person experiencing
it. It is true I have not put forth a full theory due to lack of space (Eugene
08/29), but here is a simplified explanation.

All highly intelligent beings express themselves symbolically with

coincidences. God does it (see Jamie 08/20), and humans do it individually
and in groups, unconsciously. The earthquakes example I referred to in my
08/27 response was indeed short on detail, but there is a message being
relayed, coming from the group consciousness. Each of the earthquakes in
the filter can be seen as part of a message, but there is not enough space
here to explain it fully. Individuals express themselves using coincidence
as well. Jack King (08/29) says he sees coincidences everywhere but
cannot see any meaning in them. Another interesting point he makes is
that people not versed in physics and math cannot comprehend Einstein's
theory. Don't you think the same thing can apply to other areas of life,
such as understanding what coincidences are?

If you do not have the training or knowledge, then they are

incomprehensible and usually ignored. Theodore Lundy (08/29) talks about
separate realities, but it is not necessary to separate God and science, as
one expresses the other. To see it, you must understand about
coincidences and this will come from experiencing them in your own
reality over time. A suggestion: next time a coincidence occurs in your life,
try to break it down symbolically and see if there is a reference to your
own thoughts or feelings.
RE: Whole Series
Theodore Lundy
08/29/2008
Having read the articles and many of the comments, I can see an
overarching theme. It is described directly by Jerome Groopman in his
essay and by the commenters Nischik and Bucamp among others. It is the
only theme, in my view, which allows belief in both science and God. This
is the principle of separate realities.

We all exist in a dual reality. Each human being interacts with the universe
around him based on his personal perception. It is safe to say that no two
humans perceive exactly the same things. Yet our perceptions of the
actual must be sufficiently consistent that we don't, for instance, run into
one another on the highway. We settle comfortably into the paradigm
which holds that our perceptions are the same as what is physically there.
It is difficult to pull these two realities apart and see them as actually
being separate and occasionally very different.

This question pitting science against God is precisely a case of this

93
difference. Perhaps this is the epitome of such distinctions. Science is
purely about the physical characteristics of reality. Religion and, at its
heart, God are equally clearly a matter of internal, spiritual, subjective,
and personal reality. The answer to this series's question therefore is NO!
No because both exist in separate realities.

There is one hold-out against this nice clean answer. It is that devoutly
religious persons insist that God is a physical reality. If the believer
projects his God into the realm of physical entities, then there is a conflict
in which science shall prevail. The scientific method has demonstrated,
beyond reasonable doubt, that it is a reliable method for understanding
physical phenomena. It has done so and advanced human knowledge
greatly without encountering a physical God anywhere. In this conflict, I
see the believer defiantly putting his mind on the track of scientific
advancement and ignoring the oncoming train of knowledge.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
08/29/2008
Jamie (08/27) sees a correlation between the timing of deadly earthquakes
and the timing of wars (even cold ones). He challenges us to put aside our
belief systems and look at what's really out there. But when I look at
what's really out there I can either attribute what I see to God's mysterious
ways or some other supranatural activity (which is not looking into it at
all), or I can look for a natural expanation, or I can simply look at it as
coincidence. But to look at earthquakes as a cause of war or vice-versa is
like looking for guidance in planetary alignments, tea leaves, or goat
entrails. One can find random coincidence everywhere, but that seldom if
ever leads to anything useful.

Jamie also uses the word rational to describe Newton's ideas but not to
describe Einstein's. But Einstein, after evaluating the Michelson-Morley
experiment, came up with his theory of relativity, which he said was the
way it had to be. His rationality, based on observed data and utilizing
higher levels of mathematics, was entirely logical and entirely rational,
though admittedly incomprehinsible even today to those not versed in
physics and math.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/29/2008
Jamie (08/27) still doesn't make sense. Open mind? The "idea of keeping
an "open mind" is, with rationality, at the foundation of science. While
scientists defend their own theories, other scientists usually have enough
of an open mind to do the hatchet job. Some specific "extra piece of
information" could conceivably make belief in God rational; rational people
would then believe in God. So? The fact is that today we don't have any
such information and no reason to think it will ever materialize, which is
indeed why belief in God is irrational.

94
There is grave confusion in Jamie's argument. That certain past scientific
theories have been proven wrong by scientists coming afterward is no
indication at all as to which particular theory today will turn out later to be
correct or wrong. Nobody at the time of Newton suggested anything like
the theory proposed later by Einstein. The reason is that if you look for
answers merely by blind guessing through zillions of potential theories, all
equally unlikely because there is no evidence at all for any of them, the
likelihood of finding the correct answer is one over many zillions, or very
nearly impossible.

Einstein was in a very different position because by then there was plenty
of evidence that effectively limited the number of candidate theories. A
few people, Henri Poincarr� in particular, had already made suggestions
much like Einstein's Special Relativity. While he needed much more than
just "a little more information," he didn't have nearly as much to guess as
is often said. Rather, his special merit was that he put aside the long-
established views about space and time and took the available evidence at
face value. True, one zany theory could one day prove correct, yet there is
no good example of that in our history and this is because the odds of
zany theories are truly awful.

Regarding earthquakes, Jamie obviously doesn't have any rational theory

to begin with. Short of that, it just looks silly.
RE: Whole Series
Jamie
08/27/2008
Eugene Bucamp didn't get my earlier point, which was a general
observation about scientific history. There have been many instances in
which scientists think they have the answers to a problem, and yet a little
more information proves them incorrect. I was attempting to use the
scientific method to promote the idea of keeping an open mind. Eugene's
discussion of the real choice being between rationality and irrationality
does make sense, but this is an area where people cannot agree. Who
gets to choose what is rational? Something that is irrational, like the belief
in God, can become rational with a little extra piece of information. It is
the same as before. Newton's ideas were quite rational, yet most people
who study Einstein come out confounded. I was asked if there are very
precise observations of God, and my answer to this is that the
observations of God are not necessarily in the precise parts, but the
overall whole.

I will give an example using earthquakes with a casualty rate of 25,000 or

more. Between 1932 and 2004 inclusive, four out of 12 earthquakes
occurred on December 26, using universal time where available (or
possibly Dec 25). The chances of this occurring are on the order of a
million to one. Looking at the last 100 years using the same filter, you will

95
find earthquakes falling on very interesting years. At the start of WWII in
1939, two occurred. The Soviet Union has two on the list, with one in 1948
and another in 1988, being the approximate boundaries of the Cold War.
Earthquakes occurred in 1990 and 2003 in the Middle East, the same
years Gulf Wars I and II started. You may also include the Iran earthquake
in 1978, the same year the revolution started. And so on. Here is the
challenge: Put your belief systems aside for a moment, whether they are
scientific or religious, and see what is really there. It may not be anything
like you have previously imagined.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/27/2008
Humanity has proven its capacity to change radically the conditions of life
on this planet. Science has only recently revealed the amazing scope of
our fundamental options. Yet, for too many human beings today these
conditions are still determined by war, poverty, disease, insecurity,
economic exploitation, and lack of education and prospects, not to
mention distrust and hatred. A truly moral society would not leave so
many people outside.

Moving towards a more moral society presupposes the willingness to

compromise with as many as possible of the six billion people living on this
planet. Because each person is also a unique being, and uniquely
awkward, compromise is only possible on the basis of a rational dialogue
among people recognized as possessing equal rights. While there may be
some progress in this direction, too little is done and there is a
considerable amount still to be done. It is time that religious people realize
at last that founding their priorities on irrational beliefs is a fundamental
obstruction to this necessary dialogue. The real choice is not science or
religion, but rationality or irrationality.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
08/26/2008
Bill (08/24) says that all the evidence might point against the existence of
God, but Darwin's theory does not provide a scientific underpinning to
disbelief. In my view, it's not that all the evidence points against the
existence of God, but that none of the evidence points toward the
existence of God. The most persuasive argument for the existence of God
has always been the argument from design, but Darwinian theory has
shown us that design can be accomplished by mindless natural forces. We
don't need a scientific underpinning to our disbelief. Our disbelief in
supernatural explanations is the underpinning for our belief in natural
explanations, the only explanations that affirm the intelligibility of our
universe and point us toward a methodology for better prediction and
control.
RE: Whole Series

96
Eugene Bucamp
08/26/2008
Jamie (08/25) didn't get my point about "likelihood." There is nothing
remotely similar between a guess of the likelihood of God and Einstein's
formula for time dilation. According to Einstein, the local time of a traveller
(e.g., his watch) appears "dilated" (slow) to an observer if they are moving
relatively to each other (this is reciprocal). This depends on the speed and
only becomes substantial at a fraction of the speed of light (300,000
km/s). Einstein's General Relativity also says that time is dilated in the
vicinity of massive objects. All this was confirmed by various observations.
No probability here.

The point is that the notion of likelihood does not make sense once you
have the answer. Before General Relativity, the likelihood that any specific
theory contradicting Newton was right would have indeed been something
less than 0.000000001%. But Einstein's theory did not and could not come
to confirm any such theory because nobody ever suggested any theory
similar to Einstein's before Einstein did. Moreover, all theories against
Netwon were also proven wrong by Einstein. So, a likelihood guess of
0.000000001% at the time would have been very good. Again, before
Einstein, the likelihood of the general claim "Newton is wrong" would have
been much more likely (and true) but vacuous because not specific
enough. Newton's theory was the best guess.

Then, well after Newton but crucially before Einstein, scientists discovered
a small discrepancy between Newton's predictions and the observations
on Mercury's orbit. At this point, anybody could safely guess that Newton
was wrong, but only Einstein explained why and how and therefore not
only Newton but all theories imagined during this period by other
scientists were proved wrong in the end. The crucial point? Einstein's
theories were only accepted after they proved consistent with very precise
observations. This is what rationality means. Do you have any very precise
observations of God?
RE: Whole Series
Jamie
08/25/2008
I find it interesting to see a figure for the likelihood of God existing as
0.000000001% (comment by Eugene Bucamp, 08/22). Anyone with an
interest in scientific history may be aware of a figure just like this causing
a huge change in our understanding of the universe. The historical events I
am referring to are the Michelson-Morley experiment (1880s), which
proved the speed of light was constant, and the discovery of Special
Relativity (1905) by Einstein.

These two events essentially proved that Newton's Laws of Motion, which
had reigned supreme for centuries, were only approximations. Einstein
came up with a formula for time dilation which included a figure just like

97
that quoted for the existence of God. And not just time but distances as
well. Our understanding of space and time are now counter-initiative
because of these tiny numbers that pop up in relativity calculations.

This evolutionary jump in understanding of the physical laws shows that a

small unaccounted-for thing, like the speed of light being constant, can
have a dramatic effect on our understanding of the universe. Newton's
laws ruled for two centuries, only to be supplanted by a vastly different
and more complex set of laws which describes virtually the same result.
Until life and consciousness are completely understood, don't rule out
different ways of viewing the world we live in. It makes scientific sense!
RE: Whole Series
Bill
08/24/2008
All the evidence might point against the existence of God. This depends on
your position. All the arguments against His existence may be excellent.
One thing I have learned: just because the evidence leads in a certain
direction does not make it so. Scientists and non-theists are capable of
their own irrational beliefs. Darwin's theory (and I understand the meaning
of theory as opposed to the vulgar meaning) can be used to prove things
scientifically but does not provide a philosophical underpinning to
disbelief.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham
08/24/2008
William James wrote an especially apt comment on this topic more than
110 years ago: "[Our] moral, aesthetic, and practical wants form too dense
a stubble to be mown by any scientific Occam's razor that has yet been
forged. The knights of the razor will never form among us more than a
sect; but when I see their fraternity increasing in numbers, and, what is
worse, when I see their negations acquiring almost as much prestige and
authority as their affirmations legitimately claim over the minds of the
docile public, I feel as if the influences working in the direction of our
mental barbarization were beginning to be rather strong" ("Reflex Action
and Theism" in The Will to Believe).

James's advice? "Burst the bonds" of both "a narrow ecclesiastical

tradition" and "a narrow scientific tradition . . . which would pretend to
leave out of account those forms of being . . . to which . . . our active and
emotional tendencies are our only avenues of approach." Only when
science need no longer be reductionistic to lay claim to a comprehensive
authority in human affairs will its doctrinaire supporters be more than an
anti-religious sect. Those of us who are religiously broad-minded will cheer
for any possible progress toward a scientific "beatific vision" or
"omniscience."

And so I wonder, won't a broad-minded scientific approach want to fully

98
appreciate the best that religion offers? Or should the approach be that
religion has spawned narrow-minded bigotry, so science is justified in
doing the same? Here's a challenge. Can anyone confound the best of
what religion offers from a scientific standpoint without assuming a
reductive faith in science that has nothing more to offer than that it
opposes the worst of what religion has wrought, thereby making its point
of view irrelevant to broad-minded people?
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/22/2008
If I am not mistaken, Andy Ray (06/28) put a brave figure on the likelihood
of God: 0.1%. This may sound pessimistic to some, but this is not even
close to a more rational guess. First, in the case of an incoherent or
inarticulate notion of God, the question of the likelihood of the existence
God is obviously meaningless. An example of this is God as "the entity that
created reality." This is meaningless because reality is the totality of what
exists, and therefore the view that "God exists and God created reality"
necessarily implies that God created itself, a proposition that nobody
rational can pretend to understand. Unfortunately, "God created reality" is
also what most believers have in mind. Then, if part of your notion of God
is meaningless, its other characteristics, say kindness and what not,
become meaningless too.

In the case of less prevalent but more rational notions of God, such as for
example "the intelligent life form that caused mankind to appear on
earth," the likelihood of its existence may conceivably be evaluated. My
personal optimistic guess, in the absence of any positive indication, would
be something like much less than 0.000000001%, i.e., it is not a total
impossibility but still a very unlikely possibility. Coming to the more usual
notions of God, say the Christian or Muslim one, and leaving aside for the
sake of argument the vexed issue of whether God created reality or not,
they are so specific, counterintuitive, and gratuitous that we should guess
the likelihood of these kinds of Gods as less than 1 over the number of
informational states our brain could possibly have, say less than one in
many zillion times. The rationale for this figure (if you want to know) is
simply that the Christian or the Muslim God is merely one idea among
zillions and zillions of zany ideas we can make up in our minds (cartoon
characters may provide a crude reference for that), and each of these
zany ideas is just as likely as the next one.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/21/2008
William Kincaid (08/15) put to us the rhetorical conditional "if there were
no God, there could be no logical morality." This is flimsy logic. First, why
would it be that "there could be no logical morality"? There is neither
evidence nor rationale for that. Second, we might not have any kind of
"logical morality" even if there were a god. Who knows? Third, we might

99
have a god and a different "logical morality." We can imagine a god
commanding to man: thou shall kill the innocent. Why not? This grim
scenario is no more unlikely than the Good News scenario.

Fourth, the likely situation is that God does not exist, and yet most of us
are all very fond of morality. Go figure. Fifth, despite their claim they get
their morality from a divine source, Christian people have enthusiastically
demonstrated they are no better or worse than the average. What is the
value of your claim about whence came your "logical morality" then?
Kincaid logically concludes that without God we would be "going in
circles." The reality is that without science, it is humanity itself that would
go in circles and that the least we can say is that religion does help.
RE: Whole Series
C. Kent Ruth
08/20/2008
Where current science is at a loss, religion attempts prayer. Perhaps
there's common ground for research. Consider accounts of an individual
mentally encountering foreknowledge of an event, who shares this
information with others, then later the event happens and is witnessed to
have the same details as originally described. This refers only to an event
where it could not have been influenced by anyone involved, or any
possibility of earlier information and is not connected by any previous
condition that might have served as a clue to such an event happening.

Researchers not trapped by word-games or rehashing conventional

thinking find this to be exciting. Is it a clue (by current definition) of a
supernatural reality? Is it an extension of what some might call God? Is
there a reality beyond current scientific understanding? Science is at a
loss how to approach this type of research. Religion attempts prayer; and
under special conditions there appears to have been some success with
this approach.

Science is finding within the smallest foundations of physical reality

(quarks, six variables, leptons, etc.) conditions that resemble sophisticated
computer-type activities. On this level, in the most basic sense, memory,
identification, interaction, or even communication is performed. From this
everything we know grows. This process and its starting point might be
called the source of everything that is.

If all the complexity of the physical reality we recognize can evolve from
such basic elements, what would prevent an equally complex thinking
function from starting to perform, evolve, and extend its sophistication in a
similar manner? Could a thinking reality actually exist? Imagine this as a
new frontier. Become a sincere researcher. Report your results. This may
sound like a joke, but it is not. It could be an interesting experiment.
Privately meditate to the very depth of your being in an attempt to
connect specifically with the source of everything that is.

100
RE: Whole Series
Istv�n Tat�r
08/20/2008
Average people do not know and do not understand the modern sciences
of physics and biology, so they will never come nearer to the fundamental
discoveries of our modern time. Belief is a weapon against the uncertainty,
sufferings, horrors, and reasonlessness of existence and death. Religious
belief remains for mankind an asylum, and the church has the obligation
to strengthen the moral force of men. On the other hand, very intelligent
people do not need the "existence" of God; they can live without this
assumption, as Kant, Laplace, Voltaire, and Spinoza could live. I do not
believe in God. However, I do not think that my personal character is
worse than that of a believer. Social sensitiveness has nothing to do with
God.

In spite of my atheist conviction, I would support the Christian church in

educating people to moral behavior, to respect the opinions of other
people. Of course, those who like to cope with the most modern science
and know well the controversional and long story of the development of
science--Giordano Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Planck, Einstein,
Bohr, Heisenberg--may come to the conclusion that symbols of the Bible
are valid today. I would never try to kill the normal belief of anybody who
never heard the name of Kant, Schopenhauer, Hume, or Russell, still less
who never read anything by Schr�dinger, Einstein, or Bohr. This is my
opinion on religion and science.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/20/2008
Owen Dykema's claim (07/24) that "science makes some unsupported
assumptions" is misleading and unsupported. Scientific assumptions are
minimal. Take Newton's concept of gravitational force. Our experience
tells us that any modification in the movement of massive objects requires
the application of a force. Newton's novel assumption was that all massive
bodies--the sun, the moon, the earth, ordinary objects, or our own bodies
are subjected to a force he called the gravitational force and that it was
caused by a property intrinsic to objects: its mass (or quantity of matter).
The evidence for this was the movement of the moon in the sky and the
weight of objects on the earth, causing them to fall, causing us to
experience the weight of our body, and the effort required to keep a heavy
object above ground. This, however, would not prove that the gravitational
force is caused by mass. Yet, it is the simplest assumption you can make
about its nature.

Newton also proposed an explanation of inertia. He posited that the force

required to effect a particular modification in the movement of a massive
object was exactly proportional to its mass: massive objects required
bigger forces to achieve the same change in their movements (this can be

101
measured). By combining these two ideas on gravitation and inertia,
Newton was able to explain Galileo's observation that all bodies fall at the
same speed if they are sufficiently heavy and small for the resistance of
the air to be negligible. An object in free fall is subjected to its weight (the
gravitational force) and to its own inertia, with the result that only the
mass of the earth remains a factor (because the inertial and gravitational
effects of the mass of the object compensate each other). The mass of the
object is not a factor in its free fall, and therefore all objects, heavy and
light, fall at the same speed. Obviously, Newton's theory works well
enough to send people and very expensive probes out into the solar
system. So what exactly does Mr. Dykema mean by "unsupported
assumptions"?
RE: Whole Series
Jamie
08/20/2008
Big questions are always interesting, but what about the big answers? The
heart of this conversation comes down to a single issue, which is whether
there is enough evidence to support the existence of a God or an
Intelligent Universe. For some, the evidence is obvious, and for others it is
not. My comments on 08/13 regarding the known forces provided some
answers to this issue, but I know ideas must be expressed in different
ways to get the desired results.

Force 1 (gravity) is about objects compressing and expanding. Force 2

(electromagnetism) is about objects attracting and repelling. Force 3
(strong nuclear) is about objects confined and being free. Force 4 (weak
nuclear) is about objects being destroyed and created. This may not be
the answer you are looking for, but here is another question to ponder.
What is the probability that the forces known to science express this
bizarre pattern?
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/19/2008
William Lee (08/18) says that it is not possible to "disprove the existence
of someone/thing that so transcends our finite capabilities." I don't know of
anybody who wants to prove God does not exist. What for? To most
people, it is amply sufficient that the possibility of God should be very
nearly zero. The probability of being injured or even killed just by going
out is many orders of times more than the likelihood of God, and most
people still go out for the flimsiest of justifications.

Further, people who have no reason to believe in God see themselves as

part of nature, so obviously not as "the greatest thing that exists." People
who have no reason to believe in God simply comply with the best
evidence there is, while those who believe in one of the many gods that
have been invented over the millennia are sinners who make up stories
out of thin air. Mr. Lee also indulges in tautologies. He says: "You may

102
believe that God doesn't exist, but that will not change the reality of it." In
the absence of any indication that God exists, his statement is completely
meaningless.

John Bowman (08/14) says that the consistency of the laws of nature
requires an "intelligent creator." Requires? No, it does not. We have no
indication that it does; there is no reason why it should. We don't know
why the laws of nature are consistent. The notion of natural law merely
describes the fact that our repeated measurements of certain natural
phenomena remain consistent over time. However, this may be a
particular case rather than the general case. We simply don't know; there
may be another universe or another part of our own universe where this is
not the case. Why pretend to know something you don't?
RE: Whole Series
William Lee
08/18/2008
It is such a joke to think you can disprove the existence of someone/thing
that so transcends our finite capabilites. In science and logic it is
impossible to prove a negative. This is such a display of ego--to think that
we are the greatest things to exist! You may believe that God doesn't
exist, but that will not change the reality of it.
RE: Whole Series
Jack Zylman
08/18/2008
The purpose of the universe is found and created in the relationships
within it--this is relativity. There is no "outside" around the universe. The
heavily Platonic "Gospel of John" gave us the idea that belief has power,
there to save and now to create reality. Reality itself makes belief absurd.
Indeed, the common term "the existence of God" is wrong--God IS, rather
than exists. To exist is to have limits and place, as in the German term
"dasein." Being is "sein" and is wholly different--spiritual and not bound by
borders. So science has nothing to do with belief. It deals with existence.
And, wonderfully, science can be put to the task of searching out the ways
in which we can provide the optimal conditions for God to operate--not to
cause God to operate but to open the way for the highest likelihood of
God's acts taking place.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/18/2008
Re: Rob Sweitzer's comment (08/16), the "astronomical improbability of us
happening" does not have to be a "cosmic fluke" or some sort of "design."
The solutions currently considered by scientists are all based on the idea
of the likelihood of our universe and therefore of mankind. Remember that
the improbability of mankind as a natural phenomenon has been the main
prop of our long held creation-by-act-of-god belief (long before the notion
became properly part of Christian propaganda) until Charles Darwin

103
offered in the 19th century a rational theory, since essentially confirmed.
Recall that Darwin didn't know about genes when he wrote "The origin of
the species"; as it turned out, genes provide the basic mechanism that
makes evolution possible.

William Kincaid (08/15) reproaches the absurdity of a philosophy club

wondering if they really existed. Yet, he does something just as absurd.
"Remember," he says, that "God treats us all as intelligent creatures,
made in his image." How could a god that does not even exist create us,
let alone in his image? He also promotes the "going in circles" he
reproaches to others.

Richard H. Spiess (08/12) indulges in disingenuousness by asking "why

non-believers in God get so involved in proving their beliefs." This is
obvious to all non-believers: religion has demonstrated its totalitarian
potential in the past, religious people still insist on brainwashing their
children, and religion still adversely affects non-believers in their daily
lives. Those are all very rational motivations.

Gerry Aboyme (08/09) believes that "the beauty and power of science
seem to reflect the glory of God." He does not seem to know his fellow
Christians too well. The reality is that most still indulge in the notion that
Darwin's theory of evolution is flawed in some "mysterious" way.
RE: Whole Series
Corey Mondello
08/18/2008
Neither "science" nor a belief in a "god" can be proven or disproven by the
laws of science. Neither is an absolute; both are just theories. As an
atheist, I believe with 100% of my reasoning that there is no god like the
one we hear and read about throughout the history of humankind. I do
believe, though, that we are not alone and there are many dimensions or
levels that human animals will never understand. In matters involving
education and the law, science should trump any belief in a "god." One
does not need to believe in a "god" to have common sense when creating
and supporting rules and laws.
RE: Whole Series
Dan McKinsey
08/17/2008
I'm disappointed that Bill Phillips and Kenneth Miller both commit the "god
of the gaps" fallacy. This is even after Miller specifically rejects this fallacy
when coming from creationists. Phillips invokes the fine-tuning of
fundamental constants to lend credibility to the existence of God.
Likewise, Miller invokes God to explain our presence in the universe, and
invokes God to explain why the world is repeatable and understandable.

It is not unlikely that science will find further arguments to explain the
relationships between the fundamental constants or why there is

104
something instead of nothing. The question of why the laws of nature are
repeatable is likewise an open question in science and philosophy. To
assume that none of these questions will be answered is a shaky
foundation on which to base one's faith. It is similar to the pre-Darwinist
conviction that the diversity of life held proof that God must exist. Now we
have the Big Bang version of the same argument. Does this fallacy really
have to be repeated every time that current science doesn't yet have an
explanation for something? And how convenient that the explanation
found by the true believers is, inevitably, their own particular religion,
surrendering to ignorance and calling it God.

Linked to this questionable intellectual leap is the attitude that if we can't

prove either that "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" then we should treat
the two propositions as equally likely. This is like treating the two
statements "an invisible, intangible elf lives in my coffee cup" and "there
is no elf in my coffee cup" as equally likely. Religious people don't believe
in elves in their coffee cups. But they do believe in God, because of their
upbringing and because of psychological weakness. Similarly, Phillips and
Miller cling to God as an explanation for the things we don't yet
understand. Someday our descendants will look at human history and
marvel at how long we clung to our primitive religions.
RE: Whole Series
Rob Sweitzer
08/16/2008
I think it has to begin with what a person's definition of "god" is. The
wonder of science helps to demonstrate how magnificent this entire
universe is (the one we are currently inhabiting); that the laws of physics
apply from this planet all the way to the edge of the cosmos is significant.
Ultimately, however, it will come back to the F word, "faith." You will have
to choose to believe that the absolute rarity of us, the astronomical
improbability of us happening, the transmogrification of matter into
consciousness are either a cosmic fluke or . . . (another bad word among
empiricists) design.
RE: Whole Series
George Genung
08/16/2008
Science does not make belief in a deity obselete. It does offer liberation
from the restriction of ancient theologies that were formed to provide
answers to what was then unanswerable. Science gives rise to the
freedom brought forth by doubt, relishing in the unknown, not fearing
what is yet to be understood. Could there be a deity? Of course, but
without verified evidence the most reasoned position is to hold such
existence in doubt. Rather than a negative position, this allows a person to
continue the search for meaning with an open mind.
RE: Whole Series
bipolar2

105
08/15/2008
Science is the arbiter of which statements about the world are given the
always provisional metalinguistic accolade of "true." Such statements are
methodologically fit according to the relevant testing procedures within
science itself. This is the meaning of the scientific revolution: who certifies
empirical knowledge, who shall decide which statements are true,and by
what criteria?

Neither ethical fitness as in Heraclitus and his Stoic followers, nor

theological fitness as in Plato and his Christian followers stands as a viable
principle for assessing the truth of an empirical statement. Whenever so-
called sacred writings make claims about the natural world, they are
subject to exactly the same forces of potential refutation as any other
empirical claim. There is no "executive privilege" for God.
RE: Whole Series
Irving Krakow
08/15/2008
The concept of a deity must be separated from the concept of a religion
before this discussion can make any real progress. For example, both Plato
and Aristotle examined the notion of a deity independently of any specific
religion. If you want to discuss a deity in connection with Judaism,
Christianity, or Islam, you must deal with the question whether it is a
known fact, not a matter of unjustified belief, that a deity authored the Old
Testament, the New Testament, or the Koran. If no justification exists for
that belief, then the notion of a deity must be discussed without reference
to any aspect of any of those religions.

The relation between the concept of a deity and physical science has
absolutely nothing to do with any of the religions mentioned unless and
until it can be shown a deity authored at least one holy book. My most
general comment on all the discussions I've read is this: they all reveal
either ignorance of the underlying logical issues, or an inability to deal
with those issues, or both.
RE: Whole Series
William Kincaid
08/15/2008
A better question is: Does disbelief in God make people obsolete? I
remember in high school an extracurricular philosophy club with members
who argued interminably over whether "we really exist" or "anything really
exists." I found them fascinating not because of their intelligence, but
because of their excitement over their intelligence, coupled with the
absurdity of their conversations. This list of essays on both sides of the
equation fascinates me equally. Folks with their intellectuality on display
can say some of the funniest things, like Victor Stenger's, "So, no energy
was required to produce the universe." But even the "Nos" and "Not
necessarilys" are rather humorous, as if serious contemplation on whether
"science" has made "God" obsolete even requires an answer. The question

106
itself reduces God to a "concept" invented by early (read: ignorant) man to
fill an emotional or rational need. Whoever answers the question
acknowledges the premise.

Long story short, if you insist on considering the hypothesis that God may
not exist, and assuming you are grounded enough to recognize that you in
fact do exist, don't forget that if there were no God, there could be no
logical morality, no purpose or meaning in life, and nothing whatsoever to
"live for" except for pleasure. The miserable attempts in these essays to
either evoke "appreciation of nature" on the part of unbelievers or to
"divide scientism from theism" on the part of quasi-believers are nothing
more than subliminal cries for help.

Remember, God treats us all as intelligent creatures, made in his image.

Everything we can know about God every functional human mind can also
know. You aren't that much smarter than anyone else. But if you skip the
basic lessons of life, the "God 101" class, the rest of your life will be spent
going in circles, asking questions like "Is the mind real?" and "Are there
mirror universes out there?" There are answers to real questions. Find the
real question.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Reid
08/14/2008
The first question to the believer should be "What is God and how do you
visualize this entity?" It is truly frightening to hear the unexamined childish
simplicity of many people's responses, a sort of early Sunday school image
of an old man with a beard. If you don't have a rational conception of God,
I can't see how you could believe in, much less worship, such an entity.
RE: Whole Series
Rob Hale
08/14/2008
Re: Sue Mitchell's comment (08/14) asking someone to define "God."
When asked, God's answer has been, "I AM."
RE: Whole Series
Rob Hale
08/14/2008
Science without reference to empirical data is a bunch of silliness. Miracles
abound, and they are particularly pointed in their meaning. If you don't
see them, you aren't looking (or you don't want to see). Of course God
exists. Perhaps more to the point, how long will you exist?
RE: Whole Series
Richard H. Mock
08/14/2008
Thank you for the booklet. I have shared it with friends.
RE: Whole Series

107
Eugene Bucamp
08/14/2008
Wilburn L. Moore (08/08) finds Patty Koltko's comment (05/22) the "most
cogent" comment in favor of a religiously motivated no answer. He also
wonders why nobody cares to respond. Please! Have a look at my rebuttal
(06/12) of Kenneth Miller's claim that "science itself employs a kind of
faith." I believe it works well enough for Koltko's comment, for example
when she says that "science-as-religion has as a basic belief the
impossibility of a god."

Let's repeat here the main point in my rebuttal: Religious faith is invariably
personal, arbitrary, and unverifiable. Science is based on the careful
observation of nature and on repeatable experimentation. Accordingly,
why should anyone rational give any credit to personal, arbitrary, and
unverifiable claims about nature? Needless to say, the most cogent of
comments doesn't say. Contrary to Koltko's suggestion, scientists don't
usually believe in the impossibility of God. Koltko herself does not even
say how many scientists she thinks do; for all we know, maybe none at all.
As for me, I think the true answer is zero. Now, that no scientist should
believe in the impossibility of God would not imply at all that God is likely.
My personal estimate is that God is less than one in many zillion times
likely; too little to waste one's wits in prayers. But again, terribly unlikely
does not mean impossible. God is terribly unlikely because there is simply
absolutely no reason to believe it exists.

Of course, it is easier for Koltko to imply fraudulently that scientists

believe in the impossibility of God than for her to provide any reason why
they should not believe that God is terribly unlikely. Equally painful is
Koltko calling her religious beliefs "knowledge." The use of the word
"knowledge" to brand what are in fact wild speculations that are most
probably entirely false is in keeping with the usual mind-numbing Christian
routine. The "most cogent" comment is only a tedious repeat of religious
propaganda.
RE: Whole Series
John Bowman
08/14/2008
I am amazed that any scientist would reject the idea of an intelligent
creator. I am a mechanical engineer who graduated from Drexel Institute
of Technology in the late sixties. As I studied the natural laws during my
college years, I was amazed at their consistency and their repeatibility. In
order for laws to be present, they need a developer and a maintainer. In
other words, a Creator who constantly keeps them going in a precise and
consistent manner. Otherwise, gravity would fail and in the next instant, it
would work perfectly and later, it would work somewhere in between.

Order is everywhere. And it is wonderfully fine tuned with such precision

that man has yet to discover the dimensions of it. Even within humanity,

108
the Bible states that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. The Universe
is too amazing for it not to be made by an incredible Creator who cares for
it even when it is poisoned by the effects of sin and death.
RE: Whole Series
Sue Mitchell
08/14/2008
Please pardon the ignorance of a "newbie," but could someone first define
"God"? Thanking you in anticipation.
RE: Whole Series
David Brandon
08/14/2008
I enjoyed reading these essays, but I would have liked to see the net
spread much wider, to include thinkers whose background was in Moslem,
Buddhist, Indian, and Asian philosophy. I also found the intellectual
standard rather uneven: some of your contributors would surely wish to
revise their comments in the light of other contributions and published
comments.
RE: Whole Series
Jamie
08/13/2008
The way I see it, a smart God would use science to communicate. The
evidence can be seen by looking at the basic forces in the simplest way.
Gravity is compression and expansion; electromagnetism is attraction and
repulsion; the strong nuclear force is freedom and confinement; etc.
Quantum theory has a whole bunch of these pairs, like velocity and
position. It really should come as no surprise to physicists that the two
branches of science used to describe our physical reality, relativity and
quantum physics, use completely opposite building blocks. Relativity is
based on a continuum and quantum physics discrete elements. And don't
forget Male and Female in evolved life!

So what is going on? We find coincidences in science communicating

primitive ideas like attraction and repulsion. Yet to understand the simple,
first you must understand the complex. This concept leads to a larger
topic related to the way coincidences communicate other things. Once you
start to see coincidences in your own life, the question posed here
becomes obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Richard H. Spiess
08/12/2008
It is difficult for me to understand why non-believers in God get so
involved in proving their beliefs. If, as they say, there is no God, what are
they afraid of? Certainly, if their beliefs are true, God will not strike them
dead. Could it be that they are really like the soldier in the foxhole--that is,
no atheists?

109
RE: Whole Series
D. Williams
08/10/2008
Wow! I may spend the rest of my life trying to understand all I have seen
here. Looks to me like one is the reason for the other. Yes?
RE: Whole Series
C.M. Ramakrishna
08/10/2008
Absolutely yes. Belief is essentially speculative or assumptive. It may not
be factual at all. So, yes, we can believe in anything we like, including
God. But it does not make it a fact unless it is proved to be so. We need to
examine the origin of (the concept of) God. The existence of God can be
disproved by reductio ad absurdum. So, yes, science does make belief in
God obsolete. Absolutely.
RE: Whole Series
Rob
08/09/2008
The Egyptians considered all they knew and all they did not know to sum
up everything. It amazes me how much some people (like these
professors) trust in current knowledge. If someone tells me the population
of China is 1 billion, I naturally believe it, but I cannot verify it. With the
rate at which theories are created and proven false and revised and
proven false again and then later learned to be true after all, it just seems
ignorant to throw so much emotion into them and their veracity.

To say your best effort at logic strongly implies there is no god seems
rational, but to scream and yell and get angry shows bias. I believe that
the reason why atheists often feel deeply committed to their position and
have faith in atheism is because their life is full of what they consider sin
from their own perspective. Why would it bother you if all adults still
believed in Santa? Why would it bother you if common culture believed Al
Gore invented the internet? Why would it bother you if your culture
thought Britney Spears was better than Beethoven? If you want to stop
religious fanatics from killing one another, convince them not to kill, don't
destroy their faith. You are solving the wrong problem!

Whether there is a god or not, belief in consequences after death has

proven to be essential for humans to create a cooperative society. I think
it is wanton ignorance to think humans can get along in the future with
atheism and corporate ethics as a moral compass. Why do so many
cultures have punishment or reward for the next life? Denying this for an
evolutionist is arrogant, to think man can be stronger than his genes. All
our genes are from those who survived at least to the age of reproduction
when heretics were killed. Our DNA makes us believers; we need to do
some genetic engineering or selective breeding to make a human species
that can accept and will want to accept atheism, plus a willingness to be
kind and cooperative without fear of hell.

110
RE: Whole Series
Joseph R Peer
08/09/2008
I think this question is irrelevant, like comparing a rock to an orange.
Science is based on fact, and religion is a belief system based on faith.
Religion is like a quantum phenonoma. You either have knowledge or faith,
so trying to apply science or factual knowledge to religion would invalidate
it. I think science and religion should exist on their own, until such time as
we can understand the divine science that God utilized to create us, a
science that is beyond our imagination, at which time religion will no
longer be religion.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Best
08/09/2008
Until "God" is defined (and that will never happen), the question is
meaningless. But that fact hasn't dissuaded anyone from the fray. The
entire argument is an example of the fallacy of equivocation and will
remain so as long as there is no agreement on the nature of God. It's a
nonsense argument.
RE: Whole Series
Gerry Aboyme
08/09/2008
Just a casual observation after having read all the contributors' comments
is the difference in tone between those of faith and those whose faith rests
somewhere else. The difference being that those of faith have a sense of a
hope that has a far stronger anticipation of an ever increasing harmony in
the world. The others seem to fall into a pit of distortions where "the blood
on the hands of religion drips enough to darken the sea," as Sapolsky
says. One even sarcastically mocks otherss comments and to paraphrase:
"you can cherry pick the type of God you want to explain away conflicts
between God and science." I doubt Mr. Hoodbhoy previously read the
thoughful and lucid comments of Phillips, Schonborn, Miller, Groopman,
Midgely, Kauffman, and Ward before he wrote his dismissive comments.
Resignation and bitterness seem to describe this crowd as well.

Fortunately for many, faith seems to be a spring of living water rising out
of our souls towards the anticipated fulfillment of the promise from God for
a better tomorrow. Now is that a crutch as some "brights" might say? A
deep and personal faith in God brings much happiness and peace,
especially when it's because of suffering not despite it. From a reality far
stronger than the material, God can create for us refreshing lemonade out
of bitter lemons if our mind is right and our heart is willing, and with a
more dynamic and fairer perspective. The beauty and power of science
seem to reflect the glory of God, as Midgely says.

I don't abandon my faith if I take antibiotics for my infection. Rather by

faith I have hope that the antibiotics will cure me. There's a reality out

111
there that's bigger than us, and most of the contributors understand that.
The application of a proper balance of both good science and good religion
will help mankind in its journey with God to its divinization--where human
attributes of mercy, peace, and love will make us to be the human beings
we were designed to be.
RE: Whole Series
Wilburn L. Moore
08/08/2008
The affirmative-side commentators, like Jack King and Eugene Bucamp,
have been very diligent about responding to the comments of the
negatives in this debate. Sometimes they even provide same-day service.
But the most cogent of the materials on the negative side, the comment of
Patty Koltko on 5/22, sits ignored more than two months after its posting. I
don't want to annoy or upset you guys, but you are running out of time. If I
don't read a plausible rebuttal soon, I am going to file Ms. Koltko's posting
with my other unassailable truths of life.
RE: Mary Midgley
Robert
08/08/2008
Alleging, as Mary Midgley does, that all who accept the theory of evolution
are as dogmatic as those who believe in other religions is stereotyping as
well as wrong. The points she asserts as things we all believe in are
founded on evidence. If one gets picky about it, then of course we can't be
absolutely sure of them. That does not put them in the same realm as
faith in a supernatural, magic-wielding superbeing. This not intended to be
an argument against god's existence, only against her reasoning. The
crafty way in which religion is usually defined makes it impossible to
falsify, much like an invisible tea pot in space. But saying that religion
cannot become obsolete simply because it underlies many peoples moral
or ethical structure is too broad a claim. One could always put it the other
way: religious tenets could have come from already present social norms.
When the first religions were created thousands of years ago, these rules
were attributed to god as a way for the priests to impose order. I don't
think science makes god obsolete--not because it's something people can't
live without, but rather something they won't live without.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Park
08/07/2008
The question is a red herring. The question should be about authority.
Does science have authority over the way we do things or does religion?
There is a great deal of emotional investment in the belief in God. The first
thing I'd like to do is take God out of the question and ask "does science
make belief obsolete?" Belief is exercised when and where the science is
unknown or has perhaps provided a new belief and "hopefully" a more
accurate one.

112
The easy mistake to make here is an expression of faith in science; it's
empirical evidence we have faith in. After all, seeing is believing. But with
that in mind, good data coupled with good reasoning can lead to insights
beyond the apparent. Science does not just provide you with a belief but
with a good reason to believe it and through repeatedly demonstrating it.
Many things are demonstrated so well and are so well understood that
they in fact elucidate the truth.

Where the purpose of science is to elucidate the truth, the belief in God,
through religion, has been used to provide communal cohesion, political
control, continuity of knowledge. However, as we have become more
enlightened, these cultural duties have been divested away into
specialized sectors of society like governments, businesses, universities,
etc. to a point that religion seems to be becoming vestigial.
RE: Whole Series
Albert Kelly
08/07/2008
What a ridiculous question! Inanity is never obsolete, since it stems from
the never-ending font of human fear and ignorance. Science does its best
to determine the facts of nature based on logic and experiment, so it
should not be related to or weighed in any manner against a belief system
which is antithetical to that process.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Lansky
08/07/2008
The whole debate is rather silly. The onus of proof is on those who say
there is a God. Which God? There are thousands of religions and
thousands of "Gods." They can't all be correct. Which one is right, making
all others wrong?
RE: Whole Series
Epicurean
08/06/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Shermer says it depends on
whether we emphasize belief or God. Belief, no. God, yes. I say no to both.
Sapolsky gives the best answer to the belief question. No, because
religious belief offers something that science does not (always): ecstasy.
Let me explain. Skeptics may find it dysfunctional to be ecstatic with
something unreal. Nonetheless, ecstasy is subjective. How can you argue
against what makes me feel ecstatic? Truth is religious belief is ecstasy for
many people. And ecstasy cannot be obsolete.

Hoodbhoy gives the best answer to the God question. Not necessarily,
because we can invent a science-friendly God. Let me expound on that. To
the extent that he exists in the human mind, God is resistant to scientific
falsification. No matter how far we push science, we can always reinvent a
God that is superior to or at least compatible with science. God can always

113
outclass science because the latter is constrained by reality while the
former is constrained only by our imagination. And human imagination
cannot be obsolete. Science need not disprove the reality of God, because
it is self-evident. It is extrasensory claims that need positive proof.
RE: William D. Phillips
Brandon
08/06/2008
William Phillips says that making statements like "I love you" or "She sings
beautifully" has nothing to do with science, but science could prove that
the fact you make a response at all has nothing to do with "god"
whatsoever. It has to do with your environment, the way you were raised,
and if you were born in a literate society. Religion had nothing to do with
the first humanoid primates, who probably saw everything as "gods" that
scared them. Phillips's whole justication is that he has "faith" in "god" and
that is why science absolutely doesn't make belief in God obsolete! That is
an easy creationist answer! As for science and its proof, although there is
not exact evidence to denounce "god," there is not exact evidence that
"god" does exist. Phillips's "absolutely not!" should change to "almost
certainly not."
RE: Kenneth Miller
William A Barrett
08/06/2008
I admire Ken Miller for his stunning testimony at the Dover trial and for his
recent book. However, I think he misses a critical point about religion,
which is that ALL of us, religious or not, are trying to figure out how to
manage our lives. The central problem is that, whether we are scientific or
not, predicting the consequences of our life decisions is terribly uncertain
and will always be so. For the religious, prayer, meditation, and a "boring"
church service may help us in that process, whether or not we accept all
or any of the biblical truths.

I am an avowed atheist, yet I love listening to the very religious Brahms

Requiem or the choral works of Bach. There are depths of experience and
motivation in these great works that seem to transcend the more
mundane studies in quantum mechanics. And, let's face it--95% of the
public wouldn't be able to explain evolution or much basic science enough
to explore their future. Who are they to fall back on? I'm for enlightened
priests and ministers who can guide people away from fundamentalist
views and into humanistic ones, consoling and aiding when needed, using
biblical text if necessary to make their point.
RE: Whole Series
ipu4me
08/06/2008
You're kidding, right? Science doesn't make god obsolete, lack of ANY
evidence does. Also, the choice of the word "obsolete" is ridiculous. There
will always be a group of idiots who choose to live in a world of self-

114
delusion, irrationality and without reason. It's amazing how these cowards
and superstitious nuts all give credence to this invisible sky pixie
superstitious nonsense. Thanks to Prof. Stenger for bringing us all back to
reality.
RE: Whole Series
Terry M
08/06/2008
Define God, then get back to me.
RE: Whole Series
Owen Darrell
08/05/2008
No, because of three beliefs which I would like to share. I believe that man
made God the Three in One and the Virgin Mary, and that mankind has
greatly benefited ever since. I believe that the Pearly Gates, with Saint
Peter as guardian, and heaven and hell, are all concepts of man. Where
there is intellect with life and death, there will always be creation. I believe
that all that is said, sung, and prayed in church and outside is consistent
with these beliefs.
RE: Michael Shermer
epicurean
08/04/2008
Shermer's Last Law says that "any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial
intelligence would be indistinguishable from God." Shermer goes on to
"prove" this premise and then concludes that science has made (the
reality of) God obsolete. I agree with the premise but disagree with the
conclusion. What science has made obsolete is not God per se but a
supernatural one. Science in fact allows for a natural god which is
indistinguishable from a supernatural god. The line that divides the natural
from the supernatural is merely our (lack of) knowledge of science.

I would follow Einstein's intuitive leap and conclude that what is

indistinguishable is essentially one and the same. The difference is simply
a figment of our imagination or a stubbornly persistent illusion. Besides, if
super-intelligent ETs can create universes, these universes may have
physical laws quite different from our own universe. This would make
these gods supernatural from our point of view. Of course plausibility is by
no means proof. We are in the realm of scientific speculation.
RE: Whole Series
Prof. Rati Ram Sharma
08/03/2008
Further to my comments of 21 May & 7 July, I would develop the concept
of God scientifically. Einstein's equation E=mc2 compellingly suggests a
"basic substance" to compose all forms of energy E & mass m, otherwise E
& m cannot interconvert. The total basic substance (mass-energy) of the
Cosmos is eternally conserved as an eternal cosmic body, the Megovum
(mega= extremely big, ovum= egg) as it gives rise to all, including the

115
Universe. The basic substance is all-composing and all-pervading, that is,
it composes and pervades all particles, things and beings. Megovum is
also the all-intelligence Megamind, managing the Cosmos justly with
inviolable basic laws. Megamind is omnipotent & omniscient and not
illegally kind or cruel but just and only just. Man has limited free will,
limited intelligence, and limited freedom for action. The human behaviors,
moral values, and social scenario obtaining at any time are man-made.

Religions are many because they are based on the preaching of their
founder(s) and holy books. Dharm refers to the unpolluted basic nature,
properties or behavior. To burn is the dharm and not a religion of fire.
Universal dharm of man comprises truth, non-violence, non-stealing, non-
lust, non-anger, non-greed, non-accumulation, altruism, contentment,
forbearance, devotion to God, etc. Meditation helps always.
RE: Steven Pinker
Gerry Aboyme
08/02/2008
I can agree with Mr. Pinker's view of improving human behavior through
history, and I thank God for it! When it comes to ultimate humanity, which
displays great attributes of love, peace, happiness, humility,
perseverance, a well-guided sense of right and wrong, generosity, and
faithfulness to the idea of justice and peace not for a privileged few but for
all, the bible is arguably clear in pointing it out through Jesus Christ, who
demonstrates these attributes in spades.

Mr. Pinker asserts that man at some point in time began to improve his
behavior because of himself. Wow! If man created the universe, then I can
believe that it's possible he arbitrarily imposed his will upon himself and
collectively improved society. If man is truly the king and a messiah for
himself, he does not need God! He deserves all the adoration and praise
that his collective nature as a society can muster for himself. Indeed, as it
were, his God is himself--a divinization of his former barbaric being.

I believe, however, that God is there to lead and strengthen our path to
those things that encourage us to not only take care of ourselves and our
families but also to help raise the well-being of the entire world, both poor
and rich. The mechanics of the natural laws that we discover that govern
the absolutely beautiful physical existence of our universe are so sublime
that it would be the height of ignorance and arrogance or just simply
misunderstanding to attribute it either to the fortuitous luck of man or to
his amazing abilities. If this were the case, how sadly limited and shallow
is our human existence.
RE: Whole Series
Micheal Hankins
08/01/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? When science discovers
something new, we are finding out how God made it. In an infinite time

116
line and infinite space, the ability for a god or an infinite number of gods to
be real can exist. We should accept the infinite possibilities. I look at what
science has shown us. Life is here on earth because of where our planet is
in the Milky Way galaxy, where there is less violent activity. We are in
need of a moon to survive. We need water. I am sure all of us could go on
and on listing the things that needed to be just right for us to stand and
ask the question, is there a god?

Every time I see this question I want to yell. How can you not see that
everything science has ever reviled has given more and more proof that
something great has had to happen for all of us? Call this god or a random
happening in an infinite world of time and space. We are either the
luckiest elements in the universe or something had a hand in our ability to
live.

Science is God. It is the greatest path of worship. I ask science to show me

the great works of God. I ask religion to show me the great love of man. I
continue to see people using science to disprove God. I see others using
religion to disprove love. Fighting the idea of evolution is like telling God
that he didn't create evolution. Fighting abortion is like telling someone
that you do not love them because of their actions. Great minds, I call you
to keep things simple. Look at the big picture. Look at the possibilities of
the impossible. We may not need god, but science is not why. We need to
love. Until every person on this Earth can love each other, science will not
replace god. Love will make God obsolete, not science.
RE: Whole Series
John Courtney
08/01/2008
I have only recently become aware of the John Templeton Foundation but,
like many others, have been asking myself the same kind of questions
Templeton was interested in for some time. For example, where does the
split between science and religion come from? Galileo believed in God
while proposing that the earth was not the center of the universe. The use
and abuse of power is behind a lot of the split. The Catholic Church was
not very understanding of Galileo's approach and abused their power.
Currently, there are many atheistic scientists who would like to silence
religionists, especially within scientific circles, such as publications, once
and for all. Equally, some fundamentalist Christians would like to silence
scientists who promote an evolutionary understanding of the development
of all living creatures.

The wish to have power and influence extends to what we know and what
we can know. Is it possible that there are some things that are beyond our
understanding, given sufficient time and endeavor? Perhaps the scientific
atheist would hope to say "No," while a religionist may be happy to say
"Yes." I have read that some propose that the universe began with a Big
Bang, that it inflated, that the ripples in the cosmic background radiation

117
are evidence for the seeds of galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets
that coelesced from primordial matter, that eventually the earth cooled
down enough for the kind of chemistry to occur that gave rise to the first
amino acids and ultimately life itself (including me and you).

As a Christian, I have no problem in considering such propositions. But do I

believe in them? Well, no, I do not. I would not as an act of faith defend
them with my life. Although I studied maths and physics beyond
undergraduate level and have worked as a scientist for nearly 30 years, I
do not understand, for example, what electromagnetic radiation is. I do
not believe that anyone else does either. I read Professor Richard
Dawkins's book, The Selfish Gene, and found only a mish-mash of
hypotheses, many of them plausible, but not a robust theory that proves
anything. Science has a long way to go to answer all the questions, big
and small. In the meantime, science has no answer for the vast proportion
of the world's population living in poverty. Religion, on the other hand,
does--if only the religious would knuckle down and do the business! Love
your neighbor.
RE: Whole Series
T. Ruth Goader
08/01/2008
Consider this line of reasoning. It suggests science and religion benefit
each other throughout history. While both have strayed from progress
toward greater knowledge at times, they have often challenged each other
to greater understanding. The worst digressions occurred for the longest
periods when one side believed their knowledge was absolute and they
had the power to enforce it.

Christianity commands each individual, in a comprehensive way, to seek

true and pure knowledge, understanding and wisdom. It cautions that
gaining everything without love will amount to nothing, potentially
disaster. Science seeks a theory about unknowns and then challenges it to
the point of proof. That proof has to be in terms understandable within
currently measurable means.

Sometimes the proof process takes generations, even new science. During
that process, absolute dedication and commitment are required. The
investigation must be carried on to completion, even if it's eventually
proven wrong or only partially right. Once the challenge is accepted, there
is no room for discouragement. Every new step offers important
information, even if negative. To notice unexpected possibilities, each step
must be approached with a sense of discovery, open-mindedness. This
process is exciting. In spite of science and religion, Copernicus, following
his basic Christian command, rediscovered heliocentrism. Allowing oneself
to be trapped by a currently held theory without final proof is not fair to
the theory or to ultimate truth and understanding.

118
Today a lot of energy is spent in the process of getting funding. Beyond
that, arguing between unproven theories is a waste of time. All energy
must be dedicated and open-minded enough to explore every possibility in
order to find the missing pieces. Until then, complete open-mindedness is
necessary. Once science has a reliable proof, religion has always accepted
it. Why? If proven true, it moves us closer to ultimate understanding and
wisdom.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
08/01/2008
Andre Ruan (07/29) says that science has a faith position because there is
no way of reproducing the experimental conditions that obtained at the
big bang. This argument is a brazen show of ignorance. According to Ruan,
only experiments could provide evidence about the past. Thus, the most
significant events of the past would be off-limit: the Big Bang itself but
also nearly the whole of evolution of life on earth not to mention history.
Ruan's twisted logic is evidence that the religiously minded would soon get
us back to obscurantist times. Ruan in effect shows that he does not
understand how observation is used in science.

Contrary to what Ruan implies, a theory does not have to be validated by

experiment but by post-prediction observation. This can feature
experiments when necessary and possible, but we sometimes can and
often have to do without it. Why post-prediction observation? Well, it is
relatively easy given human craftiness to tweak a theoretical model to fit
past observations (they did so a lot prior to Kepler to explain the
movement of planets). It is therefore absolutely essential that post-
prediction observations confirm predictions of the theory. Post-prediction
observations are simply observations made after a prediction has been
made public.

What Ruan does not understand is that post-prediction observations may

be and are often about events that occurred in a distant past. This is
definitely true for the Big Bang but more generally for events that
occurred so far away from us that we can only observe now information
generated millions or even billions years ago (more than 13 billion years
for the Big Bang). The good news, notwithstanding Ruan's apparent
ignorance of them, is that models of the Big Bang have been validated this
way. This occurred most publicly through observations by the Hubble and
other telescopes in orbit around the earth.
A scientist may need to be confident that his model is correct before it
could be validated, but science itself does not do that. The Big Bang is now
regarded as the best theory we have. It still needs more observations but
the point is that we are able to make them.
RE: Whole Series
C. Ken Ruth
07/31/2008

119
There is evidence something real is going on beyond what science is able
to understand. The word God as commonly used has too much baggage;
this encourages a lot of irrelevant discussion. Some encounters with
"whatever it is" can be determined by evidence to be real; conditions can
be duplicated. Current methods are not adequate for testing; it's a new
opportunity for science. To help visualize the challenge consider the
following scenario.

To a man blind from birth, how would you describe color? How could the
same inner appreciation of a sighted person be engendered in his mind?
How could anyone expect him to intelligently think or talk about color and
all of its potentials? If he wanted to know as much as possible about color,
would it be possible to describe color by comparing with sound? How
realistic could that comparison be? If there was a technique others had
used to give them the ability to see the world, including color, do you think
he would be eager to follow that procedure? How hard would it be to
convince him to be brave enough to do the procedure? Would it be
different if he were a young person? Would it be different, near the end of
life, if he had always wondered how color would actually appear to him?

Because of personal experience sighted people know that color does exist
and has amazing value; would they be eager to encourage him to attempt
the procedure? If he were someone you loved would you want him to be
able to enjoy seeing? What if there were some risk in the procedure? What
if there were absolutely no risk in the procedure? What if, as is common in
the medical field, the procedure was more successful for people who
believed they would actually see a world of color? What if he believed it
was all some kind of a trick? Before attempting the procedure, what if he
demanded proof that color existed? Would he simply have to trust you? If
he did not have the science to satisfactorily prove to him that color
existed, would that make color obsolete?
RE: Whole Series
big jack
07/31/2008
No one has knowledge beyond the moment. Not one person knows that he
or she will get up in the morning. The alarm clock has sounded many
times for those who did not awake to answer it. We who believe in God live
in hope, and hope that is seen is not hope. Christian doctrine teaches me
to believe and not prove. The fool has said in his heart that there is no
God. That was written long before my 84 years came to be.
RE: Whole Series
Mike Wickerham
07/31/2008
Science has provided us with many things, things used for both good and
bad. We could make an extensive list of these things and rate the merits
of each. But with all of our accumulated knowledge, science has not
brought us peace, justice, or an increase in life expectancy that generally

120
matters very much. Until science brings us these things, there is still room
for Hope.

If one looks at the condition of the world, with famine and war and
injustices all around and death everywhere, where is science? Why has it
let us down so badly? It seems that those that believe not in God are the
first to blame Him for our condition, or reason that if God existed He would
not let the conditions be such. Rather odd logic.

I consider myself to be a rational person. Yet I remain hopeful in the

existence of God, a position which some see as irrational. If it makes one
feel better, just consider my position a hedge. If you are really that certain
that God doesn't exist and believe that science is all we need, then more
power to you. Until someone proves God doesn't exist, I think I'll continue
to be hopeful that He does.
RE: Whole Series
Mahendra
07/31/2008
I think there is no difference between human and god. Humans created
god just to have a support, so that when we get failure we can blame god
and when we fight with a huge problem we can believe that some power
will help. I think we are such a powerful organism that we don't need any
kind of god. God has been created by poor people to console them.
RE: William D. Phillips
Arthur O. Roberts
07/30/2008
To use my Quaker lingo, "Friend Phillips speaks my mind!" As a
philosopher I appreciate how this scientist and others such as
Polkinghorne, Gingerich, and Collins have bridged that false chasm
between scientific inquiry and theistic faith. As a Christian I find my
experience and worship of God to be personally fulfilling, intellectually
coherent, and ethically foundational.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/30/2008
Bill (07/29) shares with us the irony that some of these scientists who are
criticizing religion are working for universities started as seminaries and so
many of the positive aspects of our society were started by Christians,
including hospitals and schools. Still, he missed the greater irony that a
great many scientists were Christians themselves: the worst offenders
have to be Charles Darwin, who ended up agnostic but started out as
Christian; Isaac Newton, who didn't like Popes but was a Christian
nonetheless; Ren� Descartes, self-professed Christian and the author of
the tour de force of explaining how to be a free rational thinker to a faculty
of dogmatic theologians; Nicolas Copernicus, who was a Christian cleric
but rediscovered the idea of heliocentrism.

121
Yet, Bill is again missing the point of the argument. The point made by
non-believers is that Christian clerics are at best no better than everybody
else and therefore that they should stop pretending that they are by
claiming they have a moral authority because they speak in the name of
God. If religious people were serious about morality, they would regard
Popes (and other religious leaders) as morally responsible for the crimes
committed under their watch and sometimes at their instigation
(irrespective of whether they may also be legally responsible). I don't see
how one can be a Catholic knowing that the Catholic Church and the Pope
himself did next to nothing to prevent priests already identified as
paedophile from approaching children, and this for a very long time.

Non-believers definitely do not reject moral values sui generis, but they
believe that moral values can only be assumed after a rational and
democratic deliberation. The Christian argument that God is the source of
morality is unacceptable to non-believers precisely because they don't
believe in God. It is a totalitarian argument because it makes any rational
argument impossible (including between believers themselves). But again,
nobody thinks religious people are serious about morality.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/30/2008
Dave (07/26) seems to believe that belief in God answers the question of
why when science does not. The contrary is true. To the question of why,
science gives us the simple, beautiful, and fundamental answer that
human beings are a part of nature. This also gives the best clue we will
ever have: solutions to problems can only be found if we understand how
nature works. Only science can explain how nature works, and by doing so
it also explains why things are and why they are as they are, including
human beings.

But belief in God does not answer the question of why except as a naive
fairy tale. It is an irrational belief that promotes ignorance and a
fundamental irrationality towards the practical decisions we have to make
in life. How could belief in God answer the question of why when we are
told that He works in mysterious ways? If God created us, why do that?
And why is it that God exists in the first place? And if God is good, as we
are sometimes told, why is it that there is so much suffering? Why do we
have to suffer countless ailments and diseases? Is this because God is
good but also sadistic?

Why did the God you believe in give us a gallbladder? Why did He put
marrow inside our bones? Why is it that so many babies are born with
debilitating abnormalities even when their parents look fine? Do you know
why, Dave? No you don't. Science does.
RE: Whole Series

122
Dave Pullin
07/30/2008
The word "obsolete" has several nuances of meaning, one of which is "no
longer useful." One answer to the question "Does science make belief in
God no longer useful" is "No, because belief in God never was useful."
From the point of view of understanding anything, the "God hypothesis"
never made any contribution. It never explained anything but merely
replaced the unexplained with a different unexplained.

Another nuance is "no longer in use." "God" is most certainly still "in use."
It is used as a tool of power, a tool to justify arbitrary and self-serving
actions, and to co-op support for it. Another is "inferior to a successor." It
is curious that, in the US, the successor to God (in the sense that it is used,
not useful) is not science but marketing, propaganda, or the slogan
"Freedom and Democracy" when used to describe "Oppression and
Autocracy" in a way that mirrors, almost exactly, the way "God" is used to
support the same arbitrary and self-serving exercise of power.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Bill
07/29/2008
I think the argument that religion has been bloody is fairly simplistic. The
first question would be . . . which religion? Are we really trying to say that
it doesn't matter which religion it is? I do not think that makes any sense.
To be more "scientific" you would have to be more specific and you would
also have to look for control groups. That is: where are all the non-violent
and wonderful non-religious people during that same time period? There is
ample research noting that Christians have had a wonderful impact on
society. See some of the research of Jonathan Haidt, for example, as well
as the recent book, "Who Really Cares."

It is ironic that some of these scientists who are criticizing religion are
working for universities started as seminaries. But then, so many of the
positive aspects of our society were started by Christians, including
hospitals and schools. I have no axe to grind as far as other religions or
science. However, I am aware of the underlying beliefs of Christianity. The
idea that is has been a "bloody religion" is ridiculous. It is also interesting
to note that in the 20th century, the huge blood baths in Russia, Germany,
Cambodia, etc. were not associated with religion. Christianity is
epitomized in the person of Jesus Christ. It is very difficult to see how the
teaching of "turn the other cheek" is detrimental to society.

Christians are obviously not perfect. However, to blame a faith in Christ for
the immoral actions of some of his so-called followers is about as scientific
as saying, "There are a lot of fat people at Weight Watchers. I guess it
must be a lousy program." I am sure Weight Watchers is great if you follow
the program. People who actually follow the teachings of Jesus are not the
ones who are killing people.

123
RE: Whole Series
Rob Meredith
07/29/2008
I find it interesting that 10 of the 13 scholars on the panel wrote on behalf
of the negative in some form or another. Several used limiting/qualifying
language, however. Only two stated categorically a yes. I think the
majority has it right. Religion and science and not irreconcilable.
RE: Whole Series
Adrien Wild
07/29/2008
Mathematicians believe in numbers. Some may be constructivist, some
may be idealist, some may be foundationalist, but they all have to get
along with their cardinal concepts. Likewise, religious people may be of
different minds about God(s), but they make their whole theistic worldview
work for them. Behaving as a believer is a way of life, just as behaving as
an academic researcher is a way of life.

My point is that theists and atheists alike are just humans with brains, and
their "ideas" are embedded in the linguistic habits of the communities of
which they are part. So the only sense in which science makes belief in
God obsolete is that atheistic scientists are nowadays more actively
competing for new adherents to their preferred metaphysical story, while
various religions are under increased assault for their all-too obvious
faults. No one takes much time to criticize equally the tyranny of western
atheist logocentric materialist technologism that is just as dangerous as
any other loose ideological leviathan.
RE: Michael Shermer
Jason Wooden
07/29/2008
I find it ironic that one of the religions that Michael Shermer disses (the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka "Mormons") is the only one
I know of which professes a belief in God who has all the characteristics of
Shermer's "ETI." Take this excerpt from Mormon scripture for example:
Moses 1:33-39(God instructing Moses): "And worlds without number have I
created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I
created them, which is mine Only Begotten. . . . But only an account of this
earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are
many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there
are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all
things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them."

Shermer correctly states: "Science traffics in the natural, not the

supernatural. The only God that science could discover would be a natural
being, an entity that exists in space and time and is constrained by the
laws of nature. A supernatural God would be so wholly Other that no
science could know Him." Yet isn't the purpose of science to close the gap
between the natural and supernatural? Eventually, we all have the

124
potential of becoming ETI's ourselves and to come to know God in the
process.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/29/2008
Dan Hamm (07/28) says a disbelief in God is a belief because you have to
"believe" that matter in some way, shape, or form has always existed, and
that is against everything that we observe in science. What about
providing serious justification for this? As far as I know, science does not
provide any clue about whether matter always existed (or not). I don't
even think "always" means anything talking about a universe that started
in a Big Bang.

There is such a thing as being agnostic, and one can be a believer on

certain matters and an agnostic on others. Believers don't understand that
disbelief is not a belief at all. You believe something because it is likely in
your opinion that something is the case. You disbelieve it not because it is
likely in your opinion that something is not the case but because you have
no indication that it is the case.
RE: Whole Series
Emmanuel Ande Ivorgba
07/29/2008
For a long time, many people have held the mistaken idea that science is
anti-God. It appears then that belief in the power of science at once
eliminates the existence of God. This has been proved to be wrong, for
science and religion, which deals with belief in God, are not enemies but
symbiotic disciplines. History has shown very clearly that the great
scientists in world history have strong faith and believe in God.
RE: Whole Series
Andre Ruan
07/29/2008
The question boils down to one of faith based on available evidence. The
evolutionary approach to science has adopted but not declared its faith
position. It is an act of faith and a not particularly scientific one, as it rules
out one possibility from the outset--the existence of God. There is no way
of reproducing the experimental conditions that obtained at the presumed
big bang, so evolutionary science also has a specific faith position and
agenda.

There is ample evidence of a specific creation, namely, the detail of the

eye, the anthropic principle, the fact that there are no missing links
between species and no evidence of on-going evolution that is observable
today. There are also competing and contradictory evolutionary theories,
such as the big bang, steady state, and punctuated equilibrium, the
implications of which never seem to be explored by evolutionary
scientists.

125
RE: Whole Series
Rob MacKay
07/28/2008
God may well exist--I have no evidence either way. The very well educated
people on this page can't provide a concrete answer either. Simple belief
in God is not proof of God's existence, lack of evidence of Gods existence
is also not proof of the lack of a god.

I do know that I have spent my entire life, like many before me, trying to
find something extra-human in our world, and all things I have found are
either simply of man's making or beyond our current capacity to
understand--which is not proof of god's power but proof of our ignorance.

For Gilbert Garcia (07/28): This is going to be an exercise in futility. I fail to

understand why seemingly intelligent people such as listed here cannot
figure out the age-old question of does the god of the Koran or the bible
exist--obviously not. How can any one book or person be right about
religion? They cannot be because the measurement medium (humans) is
not well tuned enough to discern reality.
RE: Whole Series
Dan Hamm
07/28/2008
No. The belief in God is outside the realm of science and should be kept
there. After all, even a disbelief in God is a belief because you have to
"believe" that matter in some way, shape, or form has always existed, and
that is against everything that we observe in science. Matter can neither
be created nor destroyed, so a disbelief in God is just a belief that matter
has always existed and gave rise to what is around us.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/28/2008
Owen Dykema (07/24) seems to make science and religion equally
responsible for any incompatibility between the two. Dykema's implication
that science makes some unsupported assumptions betrays a profound
misunderstanding of science. No, science does not make unsupported
assumptions. Some scientists probably do but the question is about
science, not about what some scientists do.

Scientific theories are entirely validated by observation, including, when

necessary, specific experiments. The degree of validity of a scientific
theory is therefore always qualified by the extent to which observation
agrees with the theory's predictions. Obviously, validity cannot be
absolutely guaranteed. This is not specific to science but to the way that
we, as human beings, relate to nature (specifically, it is the long debated
issue of induction).

It would be futile to argue, for example, that Einstein's Special Relativity

126
makes unsupported assumptions. SR cannot be said to be certain (no
more than Newton's theory of gravitation was), but it has been shown to
be very precisely in agreement with a wide range of observations. Rather
than proving that SR is wrong, although this is still a possibility, the more
likely evolution for the future would be that SR be recast within a more
general theory.

Further, the conditions of validity of the hypotheses that it is necessary to

make in each specific case are first that of the principle itself (of making
hypotheses) and second whether the specific hypotheses themselves are
justified or not in each particular case. Concerning the principle itself,
there is enough literature on the subject, from David Hume to Karl Popper
and Henri Poincar�, to require requalification of any claim that science
makes unsupported assumptions. Concerning specific scientific
hypotheses, the way they are arrived at is probably a story specific to
each theory, but I doubt very much if there is any example of hypotheses
made that would ressemble something like an unsupported assumption
because the basic strategy is that of having the smallest assumption
possible to begin with.
RE: Whole Series
Melanie S.
07/28/2008
I find it problematic that of 13 essayists, only one is a woman and one is of
color. Surely the diverse opinions of a bunch of white men is not nearly as
interesting as a piece with a much more inclusive body of writers and
thinkers would have been.
RE: Whole Series
Gilbert Garcia
07/28/2008
This is going to be an exercise in futility. I fail to understand why
seemingly intelligent people such as listed here cannot figure out the age-
old question of who we are, what is our purpose here, and where we are
going! Mind you, this is not an ego thing on my part. But the following is
based on facts, not my opinion. The truth of the matter is that we are all
supposed to be spiritually minded. This is just another way of saying we
are God-conscious all the time during our existence and doing what he
commands all the time, just as his son Jesus Christ was faithful when he
did his grand sacrifice for all of us by his God and father's command. But
being a true believer doesn't pay very well, and there is not much glory in
it. But there is fame and glory in being an atheist. Look in the Bible, you
will find the truth there!
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Arnold J. Meagher
07/27/2008
I find the entire discussion invigorating, although some of it is beyond my
comprehension. The last essay in the series by Stuart Kauffman gave me

127
the most satisfying answer to the question posed: Does science make
belief in God obsolete? Yes and no. Yes, science makes our belief in the
Gods of the Holy Books of Tipitaka and Diamond Sutra (Sacred Books of
Buddhism), the Old and New Testaments (the Bible), the Quran, the Book
of Mormon, etc. obsolete. Each Holy Book (or set of Holy Books) has its
own distinct belief system giving us multiple images of the sacred and of
God. The Holy Books often present a dogma of exclusive salvation, which
leads to intolerance. And this intolerance at one time or another has been
expressed in torture, war, death, and murder of those who do not believe,
and this is justified in the name of defeating evil, saving souls, and
"eliminating the weeds from the wheatfields" (the New Testament). This is
no better than primitive cultures that sacrificed human beings to their
deities.

All of the Holy Books are recent entries on the stage of human history--all
within the past 5,000 years. Yet humans have been on the planet for at
least a few million years. Why would the Divine have waited until relatively
recent times to reveal his word? Were the people of ancient times not
important to the Divine? If the Divine planned to communicate with
humans, surely it could have been done with more clarity to the entire
human audience? Furthermore, why would the Divine have stopped
communicating with his children, as some contend, with the end of the
Bible at the end of the 2nd century or with the end of the Quran in the
14th century? Anyway, why would the Divine think it fitting to intervene in
human history with revelations that have been largely failures, for the
majority of humans do not accept the revelations, and sadly, the
"revelations" have only served not to unite humans but to set one group
against another? Maybe the Divine made no revelation and that would
mean that all the various religions are but human attempts at various
times and in different parts of the world to understand and explain the
divine. That would help us understand the multiplicity of religions and let
the Divine off the hook for causing such confusion with multiple
revelations that don't agree with one another.

As for the future, we know that many facts and principles that we now
accept will be replaced by ones that are superior, not just a little better
understanding, but whole new ways of looking at things. What we now
believe about the natural world will someday be completely revised with
the advent of new discoveries, improved analytical tools, and more refined
measurements. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the world of
medicine. Science is constantly in a discovery mode and never makes its
answers final. Religious faith would do well to emulate science.

Is it too much to ask religions to build on the accumulated insights of the

planet's great religious leaders and reach for greater understanding, not
dogmatic pronouncements that only attempt to stop further inquiry and
understanding and set people apart into opposing camps. It is not helpful
to say that God's revelation stopped with the Book of Revelations some

128
two thousand years ago, or that Allah's revelation stopped with the Quran
some fourteen hundred years ago. That is to say that God and Allah not
only started very late in the day communicating with humans (over a
million years too late) but stopped communicating with humans in one
belief system 2000 years ago and in another belief system 1400 years
ago. So all that humans can do through history in matters of religion is
rehash old news over and over!

Imagine where we would be in matters of scientific understanding if we

dogmatically stated that we reached the pinnacle of scientific
understanding back in the second century with the thinking of the Greek
mathematician, geographer and astronomer, Claudius Ptolemy (83-161
CE) or with the geocentric solar and lunar theories of the 14th-century
Arab Muslim astronomer, mathematician and engineer, Ibn ash-Shatir
(1304-1375 CE), with no further growth possible in scientific knowledge!
That would be to permanently condemn our scientific thinking to a twilight
zone.
RE: Whole Series
John R Moffett
07/27/2008
The human mind created the notion of a "God," and human reason can
dispel that notion just as easily.
RE: Whole Series
James
07/26/2008
I get frustrated every time this argument comes up because. It's an
argument of apples and oranges. It can be neither proven nor disproven,
and here's why. The concept of God is so totally abstract and absolute that
the human mind is simply unable to comprehend it. Thus, we get
definitions from any number of religious faiths or organizations on what
God and the nature of God might be to them, and we get individual
interpretations as well. The truth is, none of us has the slightest clue and
we probably never will.

As to the apples and oranges of the argument, science deals with

substantive information that can be seen in black and white and can be
proven or disproven. On the other hand, belief in God is a matter of faith,
not science, and God can be neither be proven or disproven. Thus it
becomes a matter of personal, moral conscience and belief to define God
and the nature of God in a way that works for us or, alternatively, we
simply reject the whole concept.

I personally believe in that which we call God because (1) I exist and I sure
didn't create myself. I don't know if anything else exists, for it may be an
illusion of relative, material existence. But I am aware of myself, so I know
I exist. (2) Being human, I need an explanation for all the who, what, why,
where, and when's that abound, and what we call God is the only available

129
answer for it all. That doesn't mean I throw myself blindly into anyone
else's declaration of what constitutes God or the accompanying theology
that ultimately goes with it. What I've come up with, so far, is the
culmination of a lifetime of contemplating the subject and rejecting some
answers and accepting others--for now. Perhaps I'll never find the final
answer, but I'll keep trying nonetheless.
RE: Whole Series
Dave
07/26/2008
No, the purpose of belief in God is not related to the function of science.
Science itself in no way covers or even begins to address the core nature
of relationship with God, which is both intellectual (in the sense of
answering the core question "why?") and experiential in giving us the
answer (it begins with "L"). We might better ascend to a form of question
that better serves us, such as "Why would we see this question as even
relevant? What god are we worshipping by even asking this, given a
working definition here of 'god' as 'that which we believe has the power to
give and sustain life.'"

What about science gives any sense of THAT capacity? Isn't it just the
desire for ego to have some sense of control, so joyfully absent in true
communion, that would motivate such worship of "false gods." I love
science--the order it explores and reveals, the ever more brilliant
mysterious integrity of life itself. It is not science that is the issue but the
belief that somehow by having "control" over thought and science that the
scientist understands the "why" of life any more. Humility is the issue, not
the "value of science." It has none, unless it serves Love, which is God. So
long as we keep the horse before the cart, we will be OK. If not, things get
very messy! God is not a construct of religion but Love itself. Does science
replace that? No.
RE: Whole Series
Carl Martin
07/25/2008
This is logic: if God exists, He continues to exist whether or not we believe.
Religion and science strive toward some version of truth. If the universe
was created, then science studies the products of creation. The domain of
science is that of physical continuity. The domain of creation is one of
discontinuity--for example, the emotional state of resentment is one of
commensurability with some past hurt, and forgiveness is an act of
creation breaking with the continuity that binds the emotion to its source.

Occam's razor is not infallible, but it would seem to tell us that physical
existence came from some source and not from nothingness. That source
may be outside the realm of scientific inquiry, but it would seem important
to science and not obsolete. Such a source would seem superior to
physical law in much the same way that true forgiveness is superior to
resentment.

130
Does belief in God make science obsolete? I think neither one can be
obsolete if we strive to understand the whole. The beauty of physical
reality and the elegance of the mechanics of creation are both valuable to
our growth toward Truth.
RE: Whole Series
Germano Paiva
07/24/2008
Science does not make the concept of God obsolete, but it makes it
impossible to believe in the Holy Bible.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Collazo
07/24/2008
I find it hard to believe that this many people can miss the overall point of
the question that badly. Of course science makes the concept of god
obsolete. The concept was created by humans long before they had even
a rudimentary understanding of the world around them. God was invented
as an answer to questions that were as yet beyond their limited scope of
understanding.

You can backfill history all you want to try and justify religion's usefulness,
but in the end it really is nothing more than superstition and fairy tales.
That a professional scientist cannot recognize the intellectual dishonesty
of belief in god is a testament to the special treatment faith is accorded in
today's society. If you make a truth claim about any other subject, you will
be confronted and in all probability ridiculed if it has nothing to support it.
Only with religion is the mechanism of logic and evidence ignored in the
pursuit of political correctness. Even within the religious discussion the
subject is biased and illogical. If one were to claim faith in an ancient
religion that is no longer popular (Greek or Norse mythology), it is not
afforded the same respect. As if Christianity is more believable than those
faiths!

It is time for us as a species to evolve past our need for these dangerous
superstitions and have a greater respect for truth, or we may find that our
"faith" is what will be the end of us all!
RE: Whole Series
Owen Dykema
07/24/2008
If you look closely, science and religion appear incompatible only when
science makes some unsupported assumptions, religion sticks by some
uncertain interpretation of the word, or both.
RE: Whole Series
David Mandeville
07/24/2008
I found this debate quite by accident, and I have enjoyed this back and

131
forth. It was, with one small exception, well done. The exception was Mr.
Hitchens. His argument seemed based on some deep resentment of
religion. In my thinking, ALL religion is political and totally separate from
spiritual experience. Though a spiritual experience can come to a
"religious" person, I don't believe that religion promotes spiritual
revelations. Rather, it provides for a communal thought process. Either
God is or God is not. The choice is ours and that, I believe, is my purpose
in this creation. To decide if I have the willingness to look at the world and
the universe around me and be awed by it or upset that so many things
are outside of my liking.

Mr. Hoodbhoy could only accept a God that was, well, like Mr. Hoodbhoy.
Just a shade of a patronizingly edgy ego. But none the less all was very
intresting. I believe there is God. He did not write the Bible for everybody
but for those who wish to increase the wisdom and understanding that is
required to enjoy a conscious contact with God. His name is I AM. Jesus
said that God is a spirit. I do not belong to a religion, but I consider myself
a Christian because I understand what Jesus was trying to do for me and
the spiritual price He paid for me to be able to grow in this wisdom and
understanding. I first had to be humble enough to understand that God
cannot and will not be mocked by my sense of importance.

I think therefore I am. I think of God and His creation. I don't think of how
old it is or could be. I leave that to those that think of such things. Then I
read what they say, and I make my decisions concerning their value to my
spiritual growth. Since I think of God, I believe that makes me of God.
Simple and convoluted, but it is my proof. "The mind of man has many
plans, but the purpose of the Lord is established" (Prov. 19:21). You have
all helped me better understand my purpose today and to all I thank you.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/23/2008
David Heintz (07/21) notes briefly that "it is the paradox of consciousness
that forces a belief in a soul." Whatever subjective experience we have,
we subsequently don't remember it or we remember it as a conscious
experience, even when at the time we seemed totally unconscious to
other people, for example if asleep and dreaming. The rather logical
"paradox," therefore, is that consciousness does not seem capable of
experiencing states of unconsciousness.

There is little doubt that belief in God has at least in part developed
historically (and possibly to a lesser extent pre-historically) on this
"paradox." It also seems reasonable to assume that science will, now
sooner rather than later, explain consciousness, with possible
technological applications that will convince the non-scientifically minded
of the pedestrian nature of our mind. If we do that, there will truly be no
compulsion in religion.

132
RE: Whole Series
Erik Fest
07/23/2008
Man's greatest burden is that he hasn't yet evolved enough to grasp a
concept of God so that it leaves room for outside the box thinking rather
than fairytales for career preachers who warn us to fear life and Sunday
school scholars who would have us fear death. Faith in science must
answer to logic, reason, common sense, and what can be proven within
the honest realm of evidential fact. Given the physical makeup of a
ubiquitous universe of cyclical patterns in time and space and the infinite
atomic satellites therein, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

God must be something that simply always was, is not a vain wrathful
creator, and is as interconnected as the wires that link us all to the
communications age. We must first and foremost define what God is. If we
can do no better than bring to light man's image or an aloof personage
who acts like more of a mortal than divine spectator of our big blue planet,
then we are just tilting at proverbial windmills.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/22/2008
Regarding the meaning of life, I have to agree with Bucamp (07/22). There
is no absolute or objective or intrinsic meaning to life. Meaning refers to
the feelings or ideas associated with whatever provoked them, even ideas
themselves. There is no meaning outside the conscious mind of the
observer. There is only a stark reality, the many facets of which may or
not be acknowledged or properly interpreted. If an author dies before his
manuscript is read, the text has no meaning until someone reads it, and
even then the meaning it generates in the mind of the reader may not be
the meaning the author intended to convey. Meaning exists only in the
brain, and the meanings of life are as many and varied as the conclusions
drawn by all those countless nervous systems.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/22/2008
The notion of "fine-tuning" of cosmological constants as used by
Schwartzbaum (07/01) (see also Cardinal Sch�nborn's contribution and
Owen Gingerich's contribution to the previous Templeton question on
whether the universe has a purpose) requires a higher level of reality
within which the universe could be "fine-tuned." This in turn would imply
the possibility of other universes with a different "tuning," with or without
life. If our universe is alone then, irrespective of this apparent "fine-
tuning," it is what it is, i.e., it is certain, and its putative "improbability" is
nonsense.

Further, cosmological constants may not be the same throughout our

universe (irrespective of whether other universes also exist). Each

133
constant may have a different local value in different regions of the
universe. With most other regions having different constants from our
own, they would probably not feature the elementary particles we know
(electrons, neutrons, and protons), atoms as we know them and life as we
know it. However, some of these regions could feature something different
at the microscopic level yet featuring macroscopic properties very similar
to what we know here, possibly somewhat like life itself. This scenario is
very, very unlikely to be ever fully substantiated, but it is currently being
investigated by a few cosmologists (see Bruno Guiderdoni's contribution to
the question of the purpose of the universe).

This shows the putative improbability of "fine-tuning" as nonsense. In a

universe with many different regions having their own local values for
cosmological constants, the probability of these constants having values
necessary for life as we know it would be a non-issue. In each region
where some kind of life would exist, "people" would notice that their local
constants have the proper value for them to exist. In other regions, local
constants would be improper for life to exist, but no one would be there to
notice. So, no "fine-tuning improbability," only certain ignorance and
ideology.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/22/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum (07/16) claims that Intelligent Design is an alternative
to Darwin because "all the characteristics of design are present." The truth
is, there are no such "characteristics of design." Design is a very general
notion, universally understood as what people do in order to obtain a
particular result. Design is only characterized by intentionality, not by any
characteristic in its outcome. In the case of the universe, none of us
obviously was there at the time to report any intention in the creation of
the universe. All we have to test our theories is the universe as we can
observe it now, and there is no indication of design because we could not
possibly say it has been "intentional." Intelligent Design is no alternative
to Darwin.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/22/2008
David Heintz (07/21) suggests that "It is death, more than any other
factor, that gives life its meaning." I guess I understand the idea, but I
believe it eludes the question of the possibility of some sort of intrinsic
meaning to life. The question of meaning is similar here to the question of
"purpose"--as in the other Templeton Big Question, "Does the universe
have a purpose?"--or the question of "the aim of life" (see comment from
Carl H. van Zijll de Jong, 07/15). However, things and events simply don't
have a meaning of their own.

Any notion of meaning and purpose can only be arrived at as a collective

134
and social construct. We have to "give" a meaning or a purpose to things
and events in the course of our interactions and exchanges, and we may
indeed even disagree about it. The meaning that you give to certain things
may completely elude me, and vice versa, but our basic needs as living
organisms impose a commonality of meaning to certain things and events.
A work of art may mean different things to different people, including
nothing at all, but food and birth mean life to (nearly) all of us.

Ultimately, meaning is the mental connection we choose to make between

various things and events, and because life itself is the biggest event in
our lives, we have to use it as the ultimate meaning for other things. Of
course, we also make a mental connection between our own individual life
and the rest of humanity and possibly life "in general," but that's the most
we can make of it. The question of the meaning of our universe is thus
rather trivial: without our universe we wouldn't have a life, full stop. The
rest is gobbledygook (meaningless).
RE: Whole Series
Rev. Dr. Apollos Yuan
07/21/2008
It is interesting to see that among the participating scholars, the closer
they are to "hard sciences" in their personal expertise, the stronger their
support for the scientific link to the existence of God. The more we know
about the amazing unity among diversity in the laws of the universe, the
less likely they come by themselves and the more likely a designer exists.
This is simple logic. Any denial would take more faith than simple
acceptance of theism.
RE: Whole Series
Evelio Ranurez
07/21/2008
To respond intelligently to the question requires, first of all, that one be a
scientist or have a basic knowledge of science and also a deep knowledge
of God. As one who lacks scientific knowledge, I would have to rely on my
senses; that is, as I look around and behold the incredible works of nature
or closely observe a human being, I cannot believe that such are the
products of accident, evolution, or the result of any science. My inner
conscience dictates that it had to be created by some supreme knowledge
which is given an identity as God, Jehovah. Else, how does one explain that
aborigines, cavemen, our ancestors all over the world believed in a
supernatural being? This, before there was any knowledge of any science!
RE: Whole Series
David Heintz
07/21/2008
This great question must be broken down. Why must the Creator be less
stunningly beautiful than the creation? Is it only ego that wants God to be
an entity, a mirroring personality? Can't we imagine that an order and an
energy inherent in the laws of physics spawned DNA and the potential of a

135
living intelligence, and that THAT generative force is more powerful,
fascinating, and sacred than our puny idea of The Father?

Does death rob life of purpose and meaning? The most fearful mystery
demands an elaborate explanation. If we ever realize that purpose and
meaning are inherent in the living of life, it's probably too late to live by
the understanding. It is death, more than any other factor, that gives life
its meaning; but fear prevents us from seeing it. In the distinct possibility
there is NO afterlife, the great irony in a belief that promises one is that
those who lived their lives in this belief will not know their error. Not even
an "oops" at the end.

Why must meaning be defined from without? All the "words of God," were
written, edited, and translated by men, each with their own political
agenda, in ages of ignorance and fear. To shrink from searching for
personal meaning is a sign of intellectual, if not moral cowardice. How is it
that God is the only ethical authority? Again, this belief masks a deeper
truth: nature and consciousness demand in parallel the rigorous use of
logic and the acceptance of paradox, and a simple nod to human
interdependence.

Do we have immortal souls? Do we live on only as an anonymous form of

energy without a personality? Or do we simply end? I think it is the
paradox of consciousness that forces a belief in a soul. Simply because we
cannot imagine ourselves not existing in recognizable form, we have to
construct a belief that trivializes life on this plane, and belies again our
lack of imagination.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/21/2008
Rev. Ray Lane (07/21) says repeatability is essential to science and not
possible if all is evolving. I disagree. The laws of nature, upon which all
science is based, do not evolve. But patterns and configurations of matter
and energy in both the living and nonliving world do change over time,
and that gradual process is called evolution whether it applies to a solar
system, an ecosystem, or a living organism.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/21/2008
Wayne Wohler (07/19) says we bring physical reality into being when we
observe physical objects. This is a common mistake referred to in
philosophy and theology as idealism and as applied to quantum mechanics
was ridiculed by Erwin Schrodinger in his thought experiment regarding
the dead-and-alive cat. It is ludicrous to think the cat is in a state of being
both dead and alive until the moment we actually open the box to see if
it's dead or alive.

136
Since quantum particles such as electrons and photons are too small to
seen, the only way to "observe" one is to conduct an experiment in which
one particle is impacted by another. We don't see the collision, but we do
observe the results, and this is how we gather data. The reality that's
created by the collision is the direct result of the collision and is not
caused by observing the results afterwards.

Consciousness is created by activity in the brain, and it's ridiculous to

declare that consciouseness creates anything other than an inner
awareness of a world outside itself that was already real enough to impact
the senses. Everything we know or think we know about the world came to
us as sense data and was processed, often badly, by our brains to create
our thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors.
RE: Whole Series
James H. Schulman
07/21/2008
"Does science make belief in God obsolete?," proposed as one of the
Foundation's "Big Questions," has been seriously and vigorously addressed
by a panel of invited scholars, who have treated the Question as quite
meaningful or even profound. It is the purpose of this note to point out
that the Question makes no sense when one considers the essential
characteristics of the three constituents of the Question--science, God, and
belief.

It is a cardinal principle of science that a meaningful concept must be

testable, directly or indirectly. But the generally assumed attributes of
God--an incorporeal, omnipotent Being, who has always existed, who has
created the universe and its inhabitants, and who can hear their prayers--
preclude any possibility of testing. Because of these attributes, science
can say nothing about either God's existence or non-existence, nor can it
confirm, modify, or "make obsolete" belief or disbelief. The same would be
true for any concept, religious or secular, that consisted of untestable
elements. The mistaken attempt to couple the scientific requirement of
testability with the untestable attributes of God thus makes complete
nonsense of the "Question."

Disregarding the illogic of the "Question," the panel gave a wide spectrum
of answers, from "yes" to "no" and several gradations in between. Their
essays reflected not only their knowledge of science but also included
arguments from history, religion, and philosophy. The extreme variety and
subjectivity of the responses vividly illustrate that science is only one
factor, and not the dominant one, that influences belief. Some
respondents apparently had needs leading to what Kierkegaard called "the
leap to faith"; others found the leap too great, and became agnostics or
atheists. Thus, just as the Question is nonsense in principle, it does not
shed any light on belief in practice.

137
Despite missing the mark by attempting to deal with a Deity, the posing of
this "Big Question" by the Templeton Foundation is an implicit
acknowledgment that science has a legitimate input into religious
questions. It should be noted that this contradicts the views of more than
one Templeton Prize Laureate who argue that science and religion occupy
two "non-overlapping magisteria." Since the time of Galileo it seems to
have become increasingly clear that there is only one "magisterium." Its
essence is the only "Big Question."
RE: Whole Series
Kristine Madera
07/21/2008
No, science makes God evident. What science makes obsolete is the belief
in religious dogma, which is too often confused with belief in God.
RE: Whole Series
Rev. Ray Lane
07/21/2008
Your series of "Big Questions" is great! Obviously, it encourages deep
thinking. The contrasting views and references to philosophers through
the ages that are quoted by both official and unofficial respondents bring
to mind the gnostics that the Apostle Paul and the beloved disciple John
confronted 2000 years ago. The questions are still difficult to frame, and
the answers are only marginally expanded by vastly increased amounts of
information. During my years in Los Alamos, I was told that there was only
one atheist in town. Repeatability is essential to science and not possible if
all is evolving.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/21/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum (07/18) claims that "similarities between human and
chimpanzee DNA" is "highly misleading." The reality is that it is only a
small item of the entire evidence in favor of evolution. Scientists have
shown that species are more or less related according to the amount of
similarities found in their DNA so that the many species that still exist
today can be organized in a genetic tree according to their genetic
similarity. It is a fact that those species that are genetically similar and
therefore close on the genetic tree also tend to look more similar (humans
and apes), display more similar organs (brain, limbs), body organization
and structures (the vertebrate body plan), behavior (predatory strategies),
and organ functionalities (breathing). Even the dolphin, which despite a
very different aspect, seems a relative to us because of its behavior and
intelligence, is genetically and anatomically much closer to us than any
fish is. Apes are closer to us than monkeys are. Monkeys are closer to us
than lemuroids and other mammals. All mammals are closer to us than
fish, insects, or spiders. The goes all across the entire tree of life. What is
it that is "highly misleading" in that?
RE: Whole Series

138
Eugene Bucamp
07/21/2008
Contrary to what Eric Schwartzbaum says (07/16), intelligent design is no
alternative to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, like all
scientific efforts, tries to make the least possible assumptions about what
we don't know yet in nature. Intelligent design does the reverse: it makes
the maximal assumption. In this case, the assumption is the stupendously
maximal one that there has been some entity that designed the universe
so that "natural" processes would lead at some point to Homo sapiens.

Maximal assumptions are by way of consequence the most improbable of

all, and intelligent design is happy to root for the most improbable
explanation without any serious justification for that, except ideology.
Science makes use of the fact that simple causes can produce complex or
complicated effects, and to explain complex or complicated phenomena is
simply to try to uncover simple mechanisms that could produce them. On
the contrary, intelligent design wants absurdly to justify the existence of
something complex or complicated (Homo sapiens) by something even
more complex and complicated (some universe-designing entity).
Intelligent design is not science, it is absurdity.
RE: Whole Series
David Longino
07/20/2008
Science is God's method of achieving his goal. It is the tool to complete his
work. This question is like asking if the nail gun will put the carpenter out
of work. Some day there will be peace on earth whether we help it or not.
Those who can imagine what that will be like are the ones called to bring it
into existance. Those who work against it must feel God's wrath. You
cannot go against nature because going against nature is part of nature
too.
RE: Whole Series
Lee Burker
07/20/2008
Pierre de Chardin, SJ, theologian and paleontologist, has been my
"authority" on this, and I wish to hear the continued dialogue.
RE: Whole Series
Mike Ingoldsby
07/19/2008
I don't understand why creationism and Darwinism cannot stand side by
side. To argue that creationism is "science" only makes those of us who
believe in God look like fools.
RE: Whole Series
Stuart G. Poss
07/19/2008
No, science only makes belief in God less relevant to explanations
concerning the natural world. There remain and always will remain

139
questions that fall outside the realm of science. However, as the use of
logic and reason as applied to an understanding of the natural world
advances, less remains to be explained. For scientists, this implies that
they must remain focused on expanding knowledge, particularly at the
boundaries of imagination and concerning the core of what it is to be
human. For the religious, this expansion of science means that men may
better focus their efforts regarding the spiritual and ultimate questions
toward things that really matter to humanity and how answers to such
questions may help men to live with one another so that differing concepts
of God are not irreconcilable.
RE: Steven Pinker
Wayne Wohler
07/19/2008
The ultimate science of quantum physics is discovering and proving the
true non-physical origins and nature of our so-called material reality.
Steven Pinker's reductionism fails miserably in the light of just one
principle: non-locality. We now know that we, as self-referential beings of
intelligent energy of an even higher creative consciousness (God, if you
will), literally bring physical reality into being when we observe (that is,
measure) quantum objects. This involves a domain of interconnectedness
that transcends the immanent space-time domain of reality, where things
are seen as independent and separate.

Mr. Crick wasted the last 15 years or so of his life searching for
consciousness in the brain. Consciousness is the creator of the brain, for it
is the ground of all being. Our physical bodies, including the brain, are
simply the receiver, like a radio or television, of a transcendent
consciousness, which in turn creates the physical reality that science tries
to understand and master. Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of the
brain or mind but literally created those structures that are required to
receive and actualize it by observing or collapsing the wave function of
possibility into what we call material reality.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Arthur S. Jensen
07/18/2008
The Big Bang proves that God exists! A proper addition we would make to
the Bible today would be chapter zero of Genesis: In the beginning, God
created the laws of logic, mathematics, and physics. Then He said, "Let
there be Light," and there appeared one enormous photon containing all
the energy and mass-energy of the universe. It immediately began to
expand and divide into the plasma of the Big Bang, the cosmic
background radiation. The true miracle of creation is that fewer than thirty
laws of nature suffice to determine the course of the universe since its
beginning. Though it is highly doubtful that an infinitely wise Creator
would ever have had need to suspend any of these laws, the statistical
nature of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Uncertainty
Principle provides means for the Creator to influence our lives without

140
violating any law, by affecting our thoughts and perceptions.

All religious people, not just those who believe in the Torah and the other
books of the Bible, should rejoice that Drs. George Gamow, Alpher, Bethe,
Herman, Penzias, and Dicke, along with the many astronomical
measurements made by the wonderful telescopes, spanning many octaves
of the electromagnetic spectrum, have shown by actual measurement that
the universe has not been forever, but did, indeed, have a specific, finite
beginning we now call the Big Bang. This is well established and the age of
the universe has now been measured accurately to be 13.7 billion years!
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/18/2008
Response to Bucamp (07/18): Eugene again confirms my assertion that
evolution is basically an argument from ignorance by admitting that no
direct empirical evidence exists to confirm macroevolution. The evidence
is circumstantial and only works when viewed through the lens of
evolutionary theory, which is assumed to have awesome creative power to
generate information and intelligence from random processes. One has
simply shifted the sense of awe from an intelligent creator to the
unexplained creative magic of evolution.

With respect to the required evidence for evolution, two things come to
mind: (1) The ability to demonstrate significant morphological changes in
the lab via use of large bacterial populations. Scientists clearly consider
such a demonstration important since much time and money is being
spent on these experiments. The fact that this result has not been
achieved does not bolster confidence in the theory. (2) The development
of a plausible step-by-step molecular mechanism confirmed by an
unbiased computer simulation. No such models or simulations exist.

Regarding evidence for common descent, I am not ruling out a teleogical

form of evolution. However, I believe a more reasonable assumption is
that commonality of genetic structure is explained by the fact that all life
has emerged from the same intelligence, and successful genetic strategies
are reused. Reuse is the goal of any good engineer. As for similarities
between human and chimpanzee DNA, this statement is highly misleading.
Genome mapping has shown 68,000 places where chimp and human DNA
are misaligned because the corresponding place is missing in the other
species. A comparison of 231 genes revealed 47 places in which the
produced amino acids differed significantly. Massive differences exist
between the brain cells of human and chimps. Genetic differences
between chimps and humans result largely from different uses of the
same gene. Hence the assertion of 95% similarity becomes almost
irrelevant.
RE: Whole Series
Tracy Witham

141
07/18/2008
The crucial question for this "big question" has been missed. Faith can be
seen as the culmination of the self-transcendence implied in all learning,
beginning at the point where the natural growth of conceptual
understanding ends. For faith begins by conceiving of one's situation in
the broadest possible way and then choosing the most productive way
forward--as determined by projecting human values into the conceptual
void. Kant's antinomies and William James's "subtle edge of things . . .
where thought expire[s]" are the most explicit examples of this view, but
the banter in this forum can be taken as a tacit example.

If so, the crucial question for addressing the big question of "God's"
continued relevance has been missed: How can theism make a positive,
productive contribution to human progress, if religious faith begins at the
point where the natural growth of conceptual understanding has been
reached? At least two important consequences follow: (1) "God" (or
religious faith) must answer questions that science cannot and (2) some
account of how that is so must be forthcoming, or faith in God becomes, in
fact, a "leap" into a conceptual void.

In that sense I can agree with Aldo Matteucci's assessment below (07/17).
But religious faith cannot be dismissed on that basis. For Matteucci's view
only follows if one takes religion to offer views outmoded by science. But
clear thinking tells us that Matteucci's view is confounded by the fact that
informed faith resides at "the subtle edge where . . . thought expire[s]."
The challenge for a person of faith is to make that meaningful.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/18/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum (07/16) says "there is no evidence (none!) which
demonstrates that random mutation can result in the large-scale
morphological changes required by Darwinian evolution." What kind of
evidence do you need? Obviously, no scientist will run an experiment
where a fish species evolves into a new mammal species. "Large-scale
morphological changes" took ages to occur. Our own species has only
been around probably less than 100,000 years, but it took more than 2
million years for Homo sapiens to evolve out of (possibly)
Australopithecus, a chimpanzee-like hominid able to make simple flint
stone tools; and 200 million years were necessary for hominids to evolve
out of the first mammalians!

You might think bacteria evolved faster, but they have existed in very
large populations that only occur in natural settings and yet it took them
many hundreds of millions of years to produce the first plants and animals,
and there is absolutely no comparison between the populations you can
test in a lab, however big your cesspool, and the total bacteria population
that existed say in the swamps of southern Europe. Not only the sizes of

142
the populations are not commensurate but the variety of the
environmental conditions to which bacteria have been subjected is also
much larger in the open environment of the wild, conditions that would be
difficult to reproduce.

There is, however, evidence for common descent in different species, and
thus for Darwinian evolution, in the similarity of gene sequences we can
find in all species that exist today. Thus, while our genetic material has
about 3,200,000,000 basic pairs of molecules (adenine-thymine or
guanine-cytosine pairs), 95% of it is identical to that of the chimpanzee
(meaning we have a common ancestor species) while 5% is identical in all
mammal species, which include whales!
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/18/2008
Response to Bucamp (07/17): Eugene again misses the point. The
argument is not about complexity per se but about the lack of empirical
evidence and detailed analytical models to support the Darwinian
mechanisms which allegedly produce that complexity. No one assumes
that complexity in and of itself implies design--this is a specious argument.
Rather, intelligent design is a logical alternative when all the
characteristics of design are present and the laws of physics do not
provide a non-intelligent mechanism to explain the observed
phenomenon. Thus, the argument for evolution is an argument from
ignorance since it invokes unknown material mechanisms or known
mechanisms that act in unknown ways (assuming random mutation in
concert with natural selection provides no insight into the details of the
process). This renders evolutionary theory immune to falsification in actual
practice because there will always be an infinite number of unknown
material mechanisms, i.e., evolution must be true since it can't be proven
to be impossible.
RE: Whole Series
Aldo Matteucci
07/17/2008
The straightforward way to assess the value of religion would be to review
it as a real, existing historical phenomenon. The long trail of murder,
mayhem, intolerance, its failure to address core human problems like
slavery and discrimination of women should suffice to question its value.
Ever since Zeus was supposed to be fulminating against evil-doers,
religion has claimed impassable boundaries for "the sacred." These
boundaries have shrunk and shrunk like shagreen under the corrosive acid
of ordinary science (note Cardinal Sch�nborn's "delegation of
competence" approach to find wiggle room for God's vanishing act).
Geocentrism is now forgotten. Creationism is discredited. The Garden of
Eden (and God's zapping of the "soul" into the emergent human ape) looks
increasingly dicey, now that we can study the trail of human migration
across the continents. Life may well exist on Mars or in inter-stellar space.

143
The current boundary would seem to be the brain: what emerges hardly
justifies the pretension of an interface between a "soul" and a chaotically
emergent brain. Expect more of the same in the future.

For 2,000 years, Western thinking has been under the spell of
reductionism, essentialism, and idealism. Religion has happily piggy-
backed on metaphysics, claiming God to be "first cause," the "cause
without a cause." Call it teleology; intelligent design is its vulgar form.
Most of the essays that defend religion here are based on this mechanistic
worldview. Adam Smith was the first to describe a "self-organizing"
complex system, the market. He used the image of the "invisible hand" to
describe outcome, not causality; for in such a system there is no causal
chain, just a causal network. Function had replaced purpose. Darwin
extended this novel view to evolution. Ever since then, we recognize such
complex emergent systems everywhere. All of life may be viewed in this
way. Now the paradigm is nearing fulfilment: the essence has been
grasped and formulated scientifically in chaos theory.

Such systems are adaptive, not teleological or mechanistic. They are

creative yet without design or purpose. No direction can be ascertained,
they are inherently unpredictable. This scientific discovery should put paid
to reductionism, essentialism, and the "first" or "final" cause. Life just does
not work that way. The ultimate battle between science and religion has
been joined. No longer is science querying this or that religious myth.
Science is questioning teleology altogether. How long will this battle last?
A generation at least, until the reductionist and essentialist worldview has
been flushed through.
RE: Whole Series
Szabolcs Tornai
07/17/2008
Only wrong answers can be given to a wrong question! The above "big"
question is wrong because it takes for granted that the concept of god is
clearly defined, which is absolutely false. Thus the whole discucussion
makes no sense! A right question is: how would you define the concept of
god? (If it can be defined at all, for it seems to be a grand misnomer, a
jolly joker, a monumental product of wishful thinking.)
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/17/2008
The argument of complexity used by Eric Schwartzbaum (07/01) subsumes
various arguments to provide a rationale for believing in a creator God.
This point is constantly re-hashed (see for example K. Ward and C.
Sch�nborn's contributions or the case of William Paley reported in Victor J.
Stenger's contribution). The re-hashing of the Genesis myth into the
theory of Intelligent Design is yet another example. The argument of
complexity is certainly a rational one because complexity is a reality that
we can all witness and science investigates. It is of course a very old

144
motivation for believing in God, perhaps the main one. When we find a
complex or complicated object, we presume that it is not a natural one
and that a human being made it. Most of the time our guess is justified,
but this is only because we obviously live close to each other.

The most complex thing we know of is life itself and mankind, but we don't
usually presume that a human being created life because that would be
poor logic. A theory where aliens would be the creators of life on earth
would be similarly problematic; hence the temptation for some to explain
complexity by a creator God and to justify one's belief in God by the
argument of complexity. Clerics and most Christian scholars have long
insisted that it is impossible that simple natural processes could ever
produce the complexity apparent in life and in mankind. However, people
today no longer have the excuse of the general ignorance that
characterized humanity in the past. The theory of evolution and genetic
science now explain why complexity emerges naturally from simplicity.
Biological processes are effectively extremely complex and a full
description of them cannot be expected any time soon. However, the
current situation is truly that of millions of specific facts that support
genetic science and the theory of evolution. In this context, it is truly
childish and somewhat pathetic to insist like Sch�nborn and many others
do that a creator God is still a necessary explanation.
RE: Whole Series
Alan Greener
07/17/2008
Would you hire an all-powerful being that has mankind as the crowning
achievement on his resume?
RE: Jerome Groopman
Neel
07/17/2008
Richard Dawkins, in his The God Delusion, explains the evolutionary roots
of modern morality. Science does not give us morality but explains it as
genetic. Slavery, bigotry, egotism, rape, intolerance, and genocide are
part of the moral make-up of the Bible (here I assume your references to
morality are sourced biblically). We are moral in spite of religion, not
because of it.
RE: William D. Phillips
Neel
07/17/2008
Faith in Abraham's God is what is being challenged. An abstract god (only
a force of creation) allows for faith, but surely science challenges the
existence of a God as defined by the Bible. Genesis, Noah, virgin births--
surely these are decimated by science?
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/16/2008

145
Response to Eugene Bucamp (07/16): There is no evidence (none!) which
demonstrates that random mutation can result in the large-scale
morphological changes required by Darwinian evolution. Studies of large
bacterial populations, which provide the closest simulation to historical
evolutionary processes (large number of trials, simulating the large
number of organisms required for evolutionary theory to work) show only
minor molecular changes due to random mutation. Speciation has never
been demonstrated even though significant "intelligent design" has been
injected into such experiments. And, as stated previously, the probabilities
associated with the required number of beneficial mutations to cause even
a single macro-evolutionary change is formidable (not to mention the
millions of such changes required to result in the diversity of life on this
planet).

So, in my opinion, the standard version of evolution does not even pass
the threshold of being a scientific theory. It is conjecture based on fertile
scientific imagination, circular logic which uses a hypothesis to prove a
hypothesis and lacking in a single, agreed upon step-by-step model to
verify its assumptions (at the molecular level). The theory seems to fail
empirically, probabilistically, and logically. We can argue this point
endlessly without resolution. In the end we will both look at the facts as we
perceive them and decide which scenario is more likely.

With respect to the probabilities of other universes, you have clearly

missed my point. I was responding to the ambiguity of a statement from
another blogger; you quoted me out of context. It may be true that
anything, including other universes, is possible. However, this is a
metaphysical statement based on an unprovable assumption about reality,
so adds nothing to the discussion. My point is simply that probability
provides a useful tool to evaluate the reasonableness of a theory. It seems
to me that belief in Darwinian evolution requires more faith than virtually
any other alternative.
RE: Whole Series
Texasguy01
07/16/2008
Can you please be a bit more specific on the "God"? God who? There are
many to choose from. An abstract "God" makes fair comparisons difficult.
It assumes a blandly universal god like a Unitarian diety. You should
identify which "God." My personal favorite is Jesus and Jehovah. All of
these lost academics debating dry and dead religion is mildly amusing and
quite boring actually. Maybe they should visit a real Pentecostal church
and learn the meaning of the fire of God, watch a real exorcism, and see a
healing. I suppose that would contradict their nicely put together theories.
How about miracles I have seen in church from a "God" that does not
exist? How about an honest accounting and analysis? All I ask for is an
open mind--something Christians rarely get.
RE: Whole Series

146
Eugene Bucamp
07/16/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum (07/01) says that "vast amounts of information are
embedded in organic life (the genetic code), which makes life unlikely, at
least based on the current understanding of the laws of chemistry and
physics." This is simply not the case. The very simple mechanism of
random mutation of the DNA contained in the reproductive cells in living
organisms with selection of those organisms that just happen to be the
more adapted to the environment is a scientific explanation of why "vast
amounts of information" came to be "embedded in organic life."

Second, Schwartzbaum should make up his mind about the "probabilities

associated with the emergence of the universe": First he says (06/25) "It's
easily shown that the probabilities associated with the emergence of the
universe as we know it are vanishingly small" and then (07/01) "with
respect to the probabilities of the emergence of other universes, such a
concept is meaningless since there is no evidence for other universes, and
thus we can't discuss the probabilities." You can't hold both views: the
idea of "probabilities associated with the emergence of the universe"
implies the possibility of "other universes."
RE: Whole Series
Chris
07/16/2008
Religion, dealt a body blow by the incredible explanatory power of modern
science, will go down for the count when modern medicine begins to
dramatically extend human life. One only has to attend a funeral to realize
that religion's fundamental purpose, religion's hold on the human psyche,
comes from the promises of the faith and the comfort it provides as we
face the death of others and our own certain demise.

But as the 21st century rolls along, our scientific understanding is starting
to deeply penetrate the workings of our bodies and, to a lesser degree, the
workings of our minds. Once life expectancy starts to extend dramatically,
the urgent psychological need to believe in an afterlife will diminish. Until
science dramatically affects human aging, no explanatory power or
modern marvel will substantially affect religion. After science dramatically
affects human aging, religion will truly be obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Nadia
07/16/2008
If we believe throughout our thinking, what are we able to believe in? Do
we believe in the Mind? What is the source of God?
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/16/2008
Dan Tanno (06/30) made an interesting point by suggesting removing all

147
the nonsense from religion to keep only moral aspects. I have a connected
but less optimistic point: if religious people were really serious about moral
issues, they would refrain from publicly making the offensive claim that
God is the only source of morality, a God that other people don't even
believe in. The fact that they keep harping about it only shows the
shallowness of their moral understanding.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/16/2008
George Madden (06/28) believes that he can only leave open the question
of whether God exists or not. Obviously, Madden drifted from the initial
question to the narrower one of "Can science prove that God does not
exist?" Still, elements of the notion of God that science could not possibly
prove (or disprove) are those which are entirely abstract and hence
entirely non-sensical, such as the notion that God created reality
(including himself).

To take one example of a more realistic element: the Catholic catechism

teaches that "God is everywhere." Obviously, this could mean something
real, but if it was the case there would come with that a real possibility of
proving it true or false. Conversely, once you start with the premise that
there is no possibility of proving it true or false, you also have to accept
that any notion of God that contains "God is everywhere" is simply non-
sensical, i.e., that this particular kind of God simply could not possibly
exist.
RE: Whole Series
Manuel S. Louren�o
07/16/2008
I agree with W. McKim (07/13) that the whole question revolves around
adequate definitions. It is useful to start with Pascal's distinction of the two
concepts of God, one the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the other
the God of the philosophers. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a
subjective experience and as such impervious to any science. The God of
the philosophers has a claim to generality that makes it accessible to
reason and in principle to science.

The God of the philosophers can be described as the belief in the

existence of the Actual as opposed to the Potential Infinite. Can such a
claim be verified? Not in the natural or in the formal sciences. We can of
course question wheather it would be desirable to turn God into a fact of
science. I think it wouldn't be, and that is the reason why the pursuit of
God will never become obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
David L. Moody
07/16/2008
Science has yet to discover the "Origin Of Things" from which all things

148
eventually evolved. Was there ever a time when there was no-thing.? If
mankind could prove that there was a mind behind the existence of the
universe, that mind would certainly give him the ultimate reason for his
being. Science tells us we are a piece of meat destined to die and
evaporate from existence. The stories in the Bible give meaning and
purpose to this life and describe the possible attainment of eternal life. It
says there is a mind behind all existence, and that is a mind of pure,
unconditional, magnificent love. I'm betting on the mathematical
probability that the stories are the inspired word and will of that mind.
RE: Whole Series
Amilius
07/16/2008
As science clearly reveals with ever increasing awareness, there is a
Graciously Organized Design to the events that make these conversations
possible. It all has to do with grace, the awareness that choice generates
benefit for purposes of appreciation. Science reveals the series of choices
being appreciated in a gracious universe.

The curious thing about a gracious universe is that it allows us the benefit
of our choices, gracious and ungracious alike. Gracious choices generate
benevolence for sharing. Ungracious choices generate instructive
consequence that remind one that a more gracious choice was missed in
the choosing. Both benevolence and instructive consequence might be
graciously appreciated or not. That is the challenge of free will: waking up
to the law of grace.

Religions would serve their purposes better if their leaders would observe
that their sacred texts are histories of the science of gracious and
ungracious choices. Missing that, religions miss the purpose of life's
appreciation as evidenced by the consequences of ungracious yet religious
choices. We are all One. The evidence is all about us.
RE: Whole Series
AST
07/15/2008
This is a really stupid question. Why not ask whether science has make the
concepts of truth and belief obsolete? The only response can be
equivocation, as Pinker's and Schoenborn's answers illustrate. What do we
mean by "belief," "God" or "obsolete" anyway? What proof do we have
that anything really exists?
RE: Whole Series
C. Ken Ruth
07/15/2008
Re: previous comments by Ya'akov, Prichard, Zellmer, Barbara, C.K. Ruth.
Just as humans evolved, what some have considered connecting with
something called God could have begun to evolve from the beginning. As
others have mentioned, using the types of variables we find in quarks, six

149
flavors that change when observed, could have evolved non-human
memory, communication, even collaboration. That process is similar to
using two variables to build computers. It's widely believed if we had four
variables we could make a computer approaching the abilities of our brain.
Our brain evolved. Why not some of the same processes in some other
natural physical context?

Atoms have those types of abilities. Something akin to those abilities

allows them to form everything in the physical world. Each atom knows
what to do under certain circumstances; it's as simple as three atoms
getting together to make water. Why? Who knows? It's just natural. The
thinking process could also be an integral natural part of the overall
physical evolutionary process. It could be the most important part. It
almost seems a thinking system would have been easier to evolve than
the entire physical world, particularly humans.

Everything in nature may have memory and communication abilities. In

the beginning they could have been very primitive. There could be a level
of thinking occurring all around us. It could be like radio waves, but
without a receiver on the correct frequency, it's presence would be
unknowable. Humans are the first life form that has freedom to think and
act independently, at least that's what we assume. Perhaps our brain is
the receiver.

Rehashing old debates with outdated religious and scientific thinking is a

dead end. Think about how to move beyond that. It may require working
together, sharing and exploring every avenue of experience that has been
encountered in many places though all of history.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/15/2008
Ben Jones (07/14) claims that "brotherhood" and "human rights" came
"from religion." This is simply not the case. No doubt many individuals who
contributed to the recognition of human rights have been religious people,
and why not since nearly everybody was in the past. However, many
instances of abuse of human rights were either encouraged by religious
organizations or even perpetrated by them: systematic torture, systematic
slavery, war, killing, sexual abuse, forced conversion and many more.
What was God doing when the very church of Jesus and the infallible Pope
himself were responsible for the murder of thousands of "heretics," most
often for no good reason at all?

Things have improved on earth to the extent that people have taken
action rather than leaving it to God or to the Church. Human rights
principles and democracy came against the politics of the Church. John
Paul II himself criticized democracy by implying that "the will of the
people" should be subjected to the will of God (see "Evangelium vitae"):

150
What kind of democracy is it that requires people to believe in God?
RE: Whole Series
Carl H. van Zijll de Jong
07/15/2008
Any conclusion one uses as the basis/justification of one's life pursuit
should be founded on the question "What is the aim of life?" Knowing "the
aim of life" will give meaning to everything we encounter and pursue. The
answer to the question whether "science makes belief in God obsolete"
will then be easily and correctly answered. But we need to define the term
"God." Who are we referring to? When "God" is a supernatural being whom
we understand only through revelation, we fall short in every aspect. The
answer to the question is no, because God is the source of science.
RE: Whole Series
James Ward
07/14/2008
What belief in God cannot accomplish is to enter into the theoretical and
research work of science directly. This is why Intelligent Design is
sophistry. At no point in the formulation of a researchable scientific
problem, or in the methodology required to answer it--which will differ in
various scientific disciplines--is there a point where the responsible
scientist can "plug in" God in the research process. At no point is the
scientist warranted in saying, "Well, God has to be the reason why" some
physical process is the way it is.

Where God belongs is at the level of such questions as "Why is there a

physical universe at all?" Even at this level, the skeptical view that there is
no reasaon why there should be such an explanation--that the universe
simply is--cannot be refuted by the religious believer. The invoking of God
for questions of ethical living and the like, once again, cannot be shown to
be necessary. There are certainly ways of thinking about the principles of
practical reason, including ethics (Aristotle, for instance), that don't
require God.
RE: Whole Series
Ben Jones
07/14/2008
The question I have with regard to vvolution is: at what point does
intelligence enter the equation? Humans are not content to sit around
waiting for evolution to randomly occur. They selectively breed. They
develop technologies to give themselves advantage over nature. What is
the difference between our brute ancestors of a few thousand years ago
(or even a few decades ago, for that matter) and our sophisticated society
of today? We have education and cooperation on a vast scale that is
unthinkable without abstract concepts like brotherhood and human rights,
which came from religion.

Look at the Ten Commandments. They are all about justice, fairness, self

151
control. The God that gives these commandments begins essentially by
saying that nobody is above the Law (thou shalt have no other gods before
me). That means that even kings, presidents, popes, and prophets are
subject to these laws. Empires rise and fall, but these laws stand. The fact
that unscrupulous individuals and groups try to bend these laws to their
own purposes does not make them any less true. Atheists rail about the
Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, the Holocaust as if these were the
products of religion. No, these atrocities are violations of the laws of God.
Jesus Christ reserved his greatest condemnation for hypocrites, those who
do not practice what they preach. Would we be better off if people didn't
believe in this invisible God who commands justice, fairness, and
cooperation? I don't think so.
RE: Whole Series
A. Hamid
07/14/2008
I am in the middle of reading the whole series. Excellent essays indeed--I
am feeling fortunate to have read them. It would be perfectly furnished
and more universal and "colorful" if some more contributors are invited to
share their views. Preferably they should come from the following
background: scientists of oriental origins, philosophers of
Islamic/Buddhism/Hinduism or other oriental belief. I am looking forward to
having some more views from the other side of the world.
RE: Whole Series
William McKim
07/13/2008
Much can be lost in a discussion like this by not clearly defining terms, so I
will attempt in this small space to present definitions that I believe most
will agree with. Science: a method that can be used to further knowledge
about Nature. The best description has been provided by Karl Popper, who
maintained that a theory was scientific only if it was possible to
demonstrate by experiment or observation that it was false. The only
reason the scientific method can work is the presumption that mature is
lawful, otherwise it would not be possible to make meaningful predictions.
The fact that Science has been so successful is testimony to the lawfulness
of Nature.

Religion: most religions presume the existence of a God, so the definition

of God is crucial. In all such religions, God has one common attribute: God
is "supernatural, i.e., God does not obey the laws of nature. It is important
to Western religions that God be omnipotent, i.e., be able to dabble in all
matters. Therefore, if we are looking for evidence for the existence of God,
we must look for events that do not follow laws and cannot be predicted.

It is possible that science and religion could co-exist happily. Science could
study a lawful nature, and religion could restrict itself to the study of the
supernatural, but this has not happened. Religion has always found it
necessary to impose "supernatural" beliefs on its followers, such as we see

152
in the creationist/evolution debate. In such confrontations, religion
inevitably loses, although it may take some considerable time.

The crucial question is whether anything "supernatural" can happen in the

universe. Are all things determined by laws? In point of fact, we do not
really know the answer to this question, but as science proceeds, we are
discovering that more and more phenomena are lawful. Science is slowly
conscribing the domain of religion and, in fact, making it "obsolete."
RE: Whole Series
Thomas
07/13/2008
Terminology and understanding are important when addressing a
question. This question should be stated more clearly. First, does
"obsolete" mean that science makes God outdated or that science
replaces belief in God? Second, people can observe and test only aspects
of reality, while still forced into believing something without observation or
proof. We all (after all) believe a great deal of things that are not
scientifically tested or testable, so the question is comparing two
divergent realities, belief and observation and testing. It is not feasible for
everyone to test every observation in our lives. Third, do we have to
assume with this question that God means Christian God? Though it is not
stated, it seems implied.

I know the spirit of the question is, technically, atheistic science vs.
Christianity. The answers all seem philosophical and not scientific. The
question seems biased toward the Christian God concept. How about
instead: Can science be used to methodically disprove the existence of the
God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, thus making that concept
obsolete? Or: Can science be used to prove that belief in God is good or
bad for the believer? Or: If belief in God is good for the believer, could
science ever replace it? It is, after all, not a belief but a system of checking
reality.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Jon
07/13/2008
Having read Hitchens's book God is Not Great, I am led to believe that he
does not understand the true nature of science. It is in large measure
culturally and historically determined. Nor has he got religion right. It too
is historically and culturally conditioned. Hitchens is making the reverse
mistake that the Church made in condemning Galileo's work.
RE: Whole Series
Michael Masuch
07/13/2008
Answer to the question: Yes, increasingly so, as science progresses.
Religious beliefs are based on superstitious interpretations of nature, and
science does away with such interpretations. Two simple examples: in

153
Roman times, a thunderstorm with lightning would bring everything (and
in particular the political process) to a halt, as it was interpreted as a sign
from Jupiter. The existence of life (creatures) was attributed to godly
powers until Darwinian evolutionary theory provided a scientific
explanation.
RE: Steven Pinker
Bob Cvetkovic
07/13/2008
The sweep of science encompasses the inquisitive 2-year-old attempting
to make sense of his world, hypothesizing and rationalizing his
experiences, and the physicist/mathematician concluding not everything is
knowable. Both are still in awe of the perceived unknown and unknowable.
Belief in God is the experiental act in the daily experiment of life.
RE: Whole Series
Jim Caputo
07/13/2008
Thanks for exploring the "Big Questions." We'll never know who got it
right, or will we?
RE: Whole Series
Isaac Segal
07/13/2008
Does science make belief in god obsolete? One would hope--but not in my
lifetime.
RE: Steven Pinker
Tracy Witham
07/13/2008
Steven Pinker argues that "the more we learn about the world . . . the less
reason there is to believe in God." But his arguments illustrate the
opposite. To be brief, consider just the first two. #1: "God . . . [playing the
role of] ultimate first cause . . . replaces the puzzle of . . . [the universe's
origin with that of God's]." But what about aseity? Is he unaware of the
role of eternal Being in, say, the theology of Thomas Aquinas and Paul
Tillich? Ignoring a vast expanse of scholarship undermines Pinker's
argument at this juncture.

#2: He claims that "it was [once] understandable to appeal to [God]. . . to

explain . . . [the fantastic diversity of life]." Again, Pinker ignores a vast
area of scholarship in order to fit "the facts" to his thesis: Pick up any
current philosophy of religion text and you will find that the teleological
argument nows focuses on the fine-tuning of the cosmos--not Paley's and
others' outmoded gems. Again, one wonders why Pinker would ignore the
informed arguments of those who disagree with him. And similar points
could be made in reply to Pinker's other "examples."

I want to be charitable in two ways. First, by surmising a positive

motivation on Pinker's part. This is pure guesswork, but perhaps he shares

154
the view of one of my intellectual heros (and the most famous of Harvard
psychologists) William James: that the vast areas Pinker ignored suffer
from "the ontological wonder sickness." But if so, it is Pinker's pragmatic or
positivistic assumptions that require exposition.

The second charitable concession: What Pinker did, we all do; that is, we
all operate from positions of faith. In that vein, I propose addressing this
"big question" from a more productive angle: Can religion credibly answer
Pilate's question, "What is truth?," in a way that science cannot? Since all
of the major religions originate in pre-scientific times, that is the real
question concerning the continued relevance of "God."
RE: Whole Series
C.K. Ruth
07/13/2008
Regarding comments by Prichard (07/11) and Zellmer (06/08): Unscientific
experiences are beyond the limits of current science. Could unscientific
experiences make current science obsolete? They could, if science doesn't
continue to progress. Unscientific experiences offer a clue that there is
something beyond what we are able to understand with current science.
Historically, some have called those experiences God-like, often to
describe something beyond their understanding. Throughout history,
many have written about personal experiences in terms that were
understandable at the time. Because the antiquated descriptions or
science of that time have limitations, that doesn't automatically limit the
truth of the experience.

Important: Aristotle's ideas had support, like science does today. His
proofs held that the Earth was the center of our universe. For hundreds of
years, almost everyone ignored beliefs that the sun was the center.

The only access to the realm of unscientific experience that has evidenced
any real success has been by directing efforts of sincere communicative
thoughts to that something beyond, which I call "the source of all that is."
Some might define that as part of the comprehensive evolutionary
process. All that is includes, by definition, thinking. Did thinking occur for
the first time in humans? Why did it occur, prepackaged, with such
unlimited potential and then exist for so long while its effective use often
remains so shallow?

Proof of "the source of all that is" might be as understandable to us as the

formulas of a modern mathematical proof would be to a caveman. The
experience itself is the only observable proof, just like in any science.
Except in this case the experimental experience occurs directly within the
human mind rather than on a lab table by way of secondary natural
extension devices of the mind, like eyes, observing other devices made by
humans. Without appropriate testing how can we believe that one is more
direct, reliable, or obsolete than the other?

155
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Arlie Anderson
07/13/2008
I see them as two things that deal with unknown things. One tries to find
out how and the other gives credit to who.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Sunman
07/13/2008
A.C. Grayling, in New Scientist (July 12), has written a polemic against
religion, damning the Templeton Foundation, and appears to be claiming
that religion would destroy science. I'm a scientist and have been for sixty
years. I am also a committed Christian and can see no controversy
between my Christianity and my ability to investigate the universe and all
that in it lies. The Bible is, I know, a set of allegorical stories, inherited
from older religions. This does not in any way prevent the allegories from
being true descriptions of incomprehensible events. Grayling and his ilk
may blather about the accuracy or purity of science, but none of them can
answer the big question of "where did it all come from--us, the universe,
music, art, beauty etc?"

And science never created the beauty which religion does every moment
of every day. Furthermore, to some people, science becomes dogma and
must be defended even at the cost of blood: doesn't that sound a bit like
fundamentalist religions (which, I agree, are a cancer)? The renaissance
was stimulated by a young and vibrant Islam. It would not have happened
without it. Religion and science are just two fingers on the same hand,
both trying to find the ultimate answers and both, for the most part,
realizing that they are never going to understand everything.
RE: Whole Series
Xavier Haurie
07/13/2008
What a non-question. I don't know if/what/who/why I believe, but I sure
know that this question makes no sense whatsoever.
RE: Whole Series
Barbara
07/12/2008
It would have been a good idea to include Gerald Schroeder. He is an MIT-
trained scientist who has worked in both physics and biology, and has
emerged in recent years as one of the most popular and accessible
apostles for the melding of science and religion. He first reconciled science
and faith as different perspectives on a single whole in The Science of
God. In The Hidden Face of God, Schroeder takes a bold step forward, to
show that science, properly understood, provides positive reasons for
faith.
RE: Whole Series
Bruno Curfs

156
07/12/2008
If science can find the truth, belief in God will become obsolete. But it is a
big if. Note that "faith" is not identical to "belief in God." Even Jesus taught
that with the faith of a mustard seed, you can accomplish things, but
"God" is not mentioned! (Mat 17:14-21, Luk 17:6-10) On the other hand, if
there would be any other way--that is, a personal, direct way of knowing
God--science would become obsolete and faith would instead take its
place. This is a much smaller if. Actually, all great spiritual teachers
through the ages have taught that it is possible. However, to reach a state
of direct knowledge of God comes at a price. You will surely die. All the
questions humanity has asked will vanish into the void, and the truth
becomes alive within you, replacing whatever is holding it back right now.
RE: Whole Series
Wes
07/12/2008
As temporal beings, our lives are fundamentally immersed in a temporal
world. The only factual knowledge we can attain is fundamentally and
inextricably bound to the "real world." Through the ages, many claims of
truth have been made, but until the advent of science and the scientific
method, those claims were baseless. Religious beliefs, by their very
nature, are grounded in the "supernatural" realm--of which there is
absolutely no real-world legitimacy and thus no real claim to the truth.
Limited to living in the real world as we are, it would be illegitimate to
base our beliefs on anything other than real-world truths.

A quote from Richard Dawkins essentially sums it up: "Science shares with
religion the claim that it answers deep questions about our origins, the
nature of life, and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific
beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths
are not and do not." If we are to advance as a species, we must continue
to shed our archaic past and beliefs. The only real way of doing that is to
base our lives and beliefs upon our interaction with real-world facts and
events, not upon unprovable ideas and beliefs.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Susan P
07/12/2008
It is my wish that someday humanity starts to wake up and believe that
there is no one (or thing) that looks down on us from above as we have
been "coerced" into believing. Since most persons need proof of certain
things before they can attest to them or feel something about them, why
is it okay for persons to believe in a super being without proof that this
god exists. Not one iota has there been in proof of God, not one. Science,
however, shows us more proof than anything that we are what we are,
that humans were in existence long before the thought of God crossed
their small minds. If God was so great as so many people think, why did
God not create more habitable planets for more people to worship him? I
read "God is Not Great." from which I learned how science and knowledge

157
prevail over belief. Thank you, Mr. Hitchens, for your fine work.
RE: Whole Series
Dolores Lear
07/12/2008
Should "life" be substituted for the word God in the question? With our
high-tech knowledge for colonizing a planet and making a fetus in the lab
without the sex act, life could be eternal. We today make all types of
"regeneration" miracles with our science, including immaculate
reproduction of a fetus. Life should be the God for humans, not some spirit
"being." With all our nuclear bombs, what good have mis-bred humans
done for God's planet and their brothers and sisters in life?
RE: Whole Series
The First Domino
07/12/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? No. God makes belief in
science obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Phil Prichard
07/11/2008
This certainly is a great group of thinkers, but as is so often the case,
many of the same sorts of arguments and ideas are thrown back and forth.
Egos seem to be more of the issue, as points of view are set forth
seemingly expecting others to immediately change their differing opinions.
So far, science can only go so far. Our methods of understanding this
universe will improve, and current articles and commentaries discuss
whether discoveries need the scientific method. I think our definition of
science will be altered.

In any event, reality shows more about spirituality and God than does
pontificating from organized religious doctrines, even with slight personal
alterations. Mass communication has made it clear that it's not just a few
individuals who have unscientific experiences, such as dreams which come
true, ESP, feelings of despair before news reaches us of the death of a
loved one, visions or visitations from the departed, observing ghosts, etc. I
guess the intellectually conservative Big Time Thinking Club doesn't have
room for reality as experienced by hundreds of millions of residents of
Earth.
RE: Whole Series
Geoff Lloyd
07/11/2008
Great debate. I've often wondered what a lunar astronaut would have
thought about this when looking back from the surface of the moon at the
distant Earth. Would he have felt the presence of God there with him or
would he have seen it in the face of the small blue globe out there in the
dark? The potential scale of God in space and time really seems to
supercede our comprehension. While we make all the right noises about a

158
universal God, I expect in the bleakness of space, God is embedded in
home and safety. Does that make Gaia a candidate?

I expect with further excursions into space and the eventual encounter
with non-Earth life, it will be clear that we are creations of our very unique
planetary conditions. And when we meet those aliens, whose God and
which creation myth supercede? Our anxious, tribal Gods, hovering over
us, seem simplistic and dangerous as they justify all manner of bad
behavior in the "name of . . ." If there is a God, it's beyond our capacity for
knowing in any case. "Presume not God to scan, the proper study of
mankind is Man." --Alexander Pope
RE: Whole Series
Conn
07/11/2008
What a stupid question. Science doesn't really relate to God. Common
sense makes belief in God obsolete.
RE: Steven Pinker
Jayesh A. Patel
07/11/2008
When Steven Pinker talks of the universe coming into being in six days, he
is obviously referring to Judeo-Christian religion. But who created the
notion of seven days in a week? For that he has to look to ancient Hindu
rishis (saints). It arose from the pagan worship of the five visible planets,
the moon, and Sun. Funny. Science still uses days of the week to operate
and has not yet come up with a modern answer. If the rest of Pinker's
arguments are this hollow, they won't hold. He has to study Sanskrit and
Vedas to find out if God exists and where he is. The answer is not in
science.
RE: Whole Series
William D. Cox
07/11/2008
Why the big brouhaha between creationism and evolution? They appear to
me to be two sides of the same coin, with evolution being the mechanism
in the process of creation. The issue won't be resolved with a mishmash of
doctrines and religiosity and all the -isms rolled into one. Organized
religions are man-made attempts at controlling their practitioners. There is
no religion higher than truth. Any dogma that cannot stand the closest
scrutiny in the clear, cold light of day is suspect. Foolish man has created
God in his own image.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/11/2008
William R. Clough (06/28) claimed to know what "the vast majority of
Christians" think: more than a billion people scattered in more than 150
countries and almost as many cultures and traditions, usually completely
different from each other, and divided between dozens if not hundreds of

159
Christian denominations. Clough does not even know what his closest kin
think in the privacy of their minds.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
07/11/2008
Michael Dooley (06/26) claimed that it is a "matter of simple logic" that
"Science is made for discovering natural processes" and that it ignores, in
"its very premises," supernatural explanations. However, the question is
not whether science disproves God but the import of science on any belief
in God. Crucially in this respect, science is making it more difficult to
believe in God on a rational basis by exposing the flaws within the various
specific beliefs associated with a belief in God. Faith in itself is not a
compelling subject, and we are only talking about it because religion can
have profound political implications. And we wouldn't be trying to have a
rational debate about it if it remained a private activity. The logic is not
simple but political.

Religious dogma, however, can only be maintained over time if there is a

rational defense against schism, "heresy," and ideological drift. The
Catholic Church is the archetype of this in that very early in its long history
it tried to deliver a rational re-interpretation of its core beliefs consistent
with the Bible. It is a rational re-interpretation because it is arrived at
essentially through a unique protocol-based collective reflection. Because
they do not have any comparable process, other religions are usually more
prone to schism, heresy, and ideological drift. Their beliefs evolve more
rapidly and haphazardly, easily following outstanding individual thinkers or
the vagaries of local sects and prominent individuals. If people keep trying
today to have a rational argument about faith, this is largely because the
Catholic Church developed as a rational body. The irony, of course, is that
science today makes rational re-interpretation of the scriptures so much
more difficult. There is no simple logic.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Grahame Blackwell
07/11/2008
An oldie but a goodie: God and a molecular biologist are sitting together
discussing the nature of life. The biologist says, "Actually, God, we don't
need you anymore. We know all about life now--how it's made, how it
ticks. I'm afraid you're obsolete." "Ok," says God, totally unfazed. "Show
me how you go about making life." "No problem," says the scientist, and
he reaches down and scoops up a handful of earth and starts to work on it.
"Oh no, no--not so fast," says God, raising His hand. "Make your own dirt!"
RE: Whole Series
Tushar Sharma
07/11/2008
A lot of old civilizations like the Indian are built on structures of religious
beliefs which are interesting and vast in philosophical breadth. They

160
cannot even be simply explained via a single god. How does science deal
with the source of all these beliefs? I think all of them cannot be wrong. If
there is even a small amount of truth in them, science still has to cover a
lot of ground to fill those "god gaps."

It's heartening that people no longer believe that there is a person sitting
on the moon or that ancient musicians commanded the rains. The ancient
texts are replete with examples of different species of men--half
human/half monkey, forest dwellers, and others--who maybe got lost
somewhere in the stride of time. I hope that science builds the universal
bridge for the evolution of mankind and that we ourselves do not end as a
second-grade universal species.
RE: Whole Series
Gene Broughten
07/11/2008
Thank you, Atlantic Monthly, for having these in your magazine.
RE: Whole Series
Todd Weitzel
07/10/2008
Science is nothing but a gift of God on how things operate. He has the
ultimate truth in His hands. However, we leave our beliefs to Charles
Darwin, nothing but a man who hasn't proven anything. How does natural
selection explain love and hate? How does it explain emotions? How does
natural selection explain a husband and wife during a plane crash in water
who sacrifice their lives for their handicapped daughter? It doesn't. Within
every man is the truth, God tells us that.

My main argument is with the Christians who believe in evolution (as far
as man evolving from other primates). Evolution is based on death and
rebirth until it comes out "right." However, there is no such thing as death
until man sinned. Nothing (animal or plant) died until man sinned.
Therefore, how can we have evolved through apes?

As far as the other scientists: you have done so much for us and you are
truly gifted with your work and knowledge. Please don't dismiss the One
we came from. It didn't come by chance. If science has the goal of telling
us there is no God, then I will become a serial killer because, hey, no
consequences, no afterlife. Remember that Darwinism drove men like
Hitler, Stalin, Marx, Pol Pot, etc.
RE: Whole Series
Alex Dimitrov
07/10/2008
Sometimes I wonder about these scientists. If you take the scientific
method seriously, belief in anything (and God, specifically) is obsolete: you
form a hypothesis and go and test it. Or rather, you entertain many beliefs
but ardently try to dispose of them by testing against observations. Some

161
of the contributors here also answered a different question: whether God
is obsolete, not belief in God, as stated. As the saying goes, you can take a
horse to water but you can't make it drink.

I don't know how a scientist can believe in God and do science at the same
time (and the majority of us don't), but I can understand how people not
trained in the scientific method can believe whatever they like. These days
we also understand better the biological foundations of such beliefs (see
E.O. Wilson's "On Human Nature"). The point is that the origin of beliefs is
also a scientific hypothesis that will ultimately be tested. When we
understand why we as humans do some things and not others, we will
know ourselves better and maybe we will not have a need of Big Brother in
the sky to keep an eye on us.
RE: Whole Series
Mohammad Azhar Aziz
07/10/2008
No, rather it reinforces the belief in the oneness of God. While studying
biology at the molecular level, I was struck by a beautiful pattern of
relatedness that was indicative of oneness of its creator. Such patterns are
visible at the molecular as well as celestial level. Science cannot be
understood completely without having the concept of god. Science in itself
has not been able to satiate the appetite to know about the surroundings.
Science can only give us a binocular to see the wonderful creation of God.
RE: Whole Series
Michael JR Jose
07/10/2008
It all depends what you mean by "science" and "God." For me, science is
how things work or, in a word, "mechanism." And God is the personal
creator (or super-personal for the theologians) of all things seen and
unseen. So the answer is no. God made the mechanisms, we study the
parts and workings. Insisting that science is the entire "enterprise of
secular reason and knowledge" (as Steven Pinker does) merely cheats as
it sweeps no-god or anti-god assumptions into the definitions to be used in
the purported debate. Science does not explain reason itself, or morality.
Facts and mechanisms do not explain metaphysical entities.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Ron Surels
07/10/2008
A lot of science has itself become a "religion." To reject that the universe
has no "first-cause" Creator is utter foolishness! It is like saying about a
building that it had no creator, that it just assembled itself. Scientists were
not there when the universe came into being, so their theories about it are
just that--"theory." And that is a belief system. All too many worship at the
shrine of science-ism, prefering the ramblings of men rather than what
God says in His Word. Want to know true science? Read the Bible! And
then look about---and wonder. Science merely discovers what God has

162
already created. But the main reason so many try to rationalize God out of
existence is that they do not want to be accountable to God. And so, in
their arrogant pride, man goes on in his folly (Colossians 2:8).
RE: Whole Series
Paul Kurts
07/10/2008
No, and yes. What was before science and the "elements" that went into
what triggered the BIG BANG? Big Bang, science, and evolution are not the
place to start. If we are talking about a god who has been created in the
minds of man, then science has definitely overtaken this puny god in
relevance. But if we are talking about the God who has always existed and
brought into being the entire cosmos and created humans to live inside
His life through the incarnation of His son, then and emphatic no resounds
in those honest with the obvious design and complexity of all of the
cosmos.
RE: Whole Series
Nuno Nunes
07/10/2008
A belief in God is not essential to science or life. Many people, including
myself, have no use for a belief in God. In that sense, God can become
obsolete. But on the other hand, many people find such a belief very
useful, even central to their lives.

Science can provide an alternative worldview to that of religion, a

worldview in which there is no need to conceive the idea of a God--a
worldview which discourages the introduction of ideas based on faith. In
that sense, science provides the means for God to be made obsolete. It
doesn't itself do so. In the end, that is a personal decision and, in some
sense, a matter of imagination. Many people find it too hard to imagine a
world without God. Many people find life too complex to imagine it
originating and evolving without an external "design."

Science doesn't make a belief in God obsolete, but it allows people to

make a belief in God obsolete. Strawberries are not essential to a
balanced diet. They could easily become obsolete. Still, some people find
them very tasty!
RE: Whole Series
Mustafa Ali Kahn
07/10/2008
Yes, science does make god obsolete. The more we know about things, the
smaller is the purview of god. We need god for things which we cannot
explain. Once we know about them, we don't need god.
RE: Whole Series
Christopher Zajac
07/09/2008
The progress of civilization is facilitated by asking the right questions and

163
answering them. The wrong questions do not take us one millimeter
farther. The question here is formulated as if science and God were
excluding each other. They are not. If God exists, science in the hands of
humans is God's tool. If there is no God, science is still science. The basic
question that would help us is this: If God exists, is he the creator of the
laws of the universe or is he subject to these laws?

We know that the existence of other universes is possible. What we do not

know is if those other universes have the same laws. We do not know if
God's power (in case he exists) extends to other universes either. Whether
somebody believes in God or not, science is answering a lot of questions.
It may even prove or disprove the existence of God in the future.

Since Einstein, physicists have been working on a "final theory," as if once

they discover it they will be able to know the past and predict the future.
That is a fallacy for which apparently the greatest minds fall. If we have
learned anything from the past it is this: there is no end to science. The
more we know, the wider are our horizons and the more is to be
discovered. Maybe that is how God makes fools of all of those who think
that they know it all?
RE: Whole Series
Peter Drew
07/09/2008
When I was a young boy, my mother gave me the single most precious
pearl of wisdom one person can give to another: the more we learn, the
more we learn there is to learn. Science has brought us so far and
accomplished both atrocities and miracles. But with all the things that we
have learned, and all the disciplines we have developed to understand our
universe, the same thought runs thru my head: there is still as much again
unknown to us, waiting for us to figure it out. How much exists in this
universe that we do not even know we don't know about?

I believe that science reveals to us exactly how majestic God's plan is and
how much wonder he has in store for us, if only we have the fortitude and
courage to explore it fully. Science won't answer all the questions. It does
very well with how, what, where, when, and who. But it has the most
terrible difficulty answering why. Faith gives us that why. God will never be
obsolete so long as we keep asking why. Let science answer what and
how.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Dr. Grahame Blackwell
07/09/2008
Hitchens writes of biblical revelation that it was "disclosed only to gaping
peasants in remote and violent and illiterate areas of the Middle East." The
Bible was set latterly in the Roman Empire and before that largely in
Persia, Babylon and Egypt, the cradle of civilization, source of the origins
of both literacy and numeracy. Saul of Tarsus, Moses, Abraham, Joseph,

164
Nehemiah, the Wise Men who visited the infant Jesus, even Pontius Pilate's
wife--all highly articulate people of considerable standing and influence.
Where exactly are all these gaping peasants?

In his debate with Kenneth Miller, Hitchens writes that the "apparitions" of
religion "ought at least once in human history to have shown themselves
to people who were able to read and write, who were not terrified of
demons and ghosts, and who possessed the ability to test evidence in the
crucible of experiment. It hasn't happened yet." Francis of Assisi, son of a
rich merchant, had no difficulty with reading and writing, appears to have
been afraid of nothing, time and time again tested the evidence for God
through the very practical life-long experiment of his own calling.
RE: Whole Series
Craig Nim
07/08/2008
It is for no small reason that Our Blessed Lord stated "Amen I say to you,
unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter
into the kingdom of heaven." If that is the basis for salvation, that we cry
out unto God like children for our needs, then how can Almighty Science�
in its pomposity believe it can find God? Did not Jesus upbraid the
arrogance of the Sanhedrim and Pharisees? Did He not allow Himself to be
led like a meek lamb unto the slaughter as did all the early martyrs if they
were in a state of grace? Was not Christ's example of meekness the
absolute inverse of that of the Sanhedrim and Pharisees? Arrogance and
condemnation of all things religious (save that of Islam, of course, in this
liberal environment of modern leftist America) is *not* the path by which
the Lord tells us the truth is to be found.
RE: Steven Pinker
Pau Cortes Font de Rubinat
07/08/2008
Richard Hudon states (07/06) that Steven Pinker is "deeply ignorant of the
contribution of Christianity to the advancement of science throughout the
ages, Galileo and others included." I wonder who is the deeply ignorant
one. The history of Christianity is one of persecuting any deviations from
the accepted doctrines. Whereas Aristarcus, in the 3rd century BC, already
proposed a heliocentric theory and the Vedic Sanscrits mention this theory
as early as the the 7th century B.C., the church persecutes anybody that
does not agree with the dogma of the earth being the center of the
universe until the 16th century.

Mr Hudon does not seem aware that Galileo abstained from publicly
supporting the views of Copernicus because of his fear of being ridiculed
by the Christian authorities. Until Galileo's time, it was considered
anathema to look for anwers in nature. All the answers were to be found in
Aristotle's writings, no matter how ridiculous some of his writings were.
The church clings to its dogmas until it becomes absolutely impractical.

165
RE: Steven Pinker
Joe Lang
07/08/2008
It is impossible to make belief in God obsolete. I am not attempting to pass
judgment on whether or not belief in God is morally justifiable, given all
the evil done in the name of religion. I am also not attempting to advance
atheism as a more rational approach to the world today, given the amount
of good that has come from those who profess no belief at all. I am simply
pointing out that the fundamental question regarding the debate is, within
the scientific approach, a logical non-sequitur.

From the scientific point of view, one must always allow for the possibility
of an unproven theorem, under one, and only one, restriction. The
theorem advanced must fit with that which we already know about the
world. As long as one's personal belief in God makes room for the
evidence seen in the world around us that testifies to what has happened
in the past, that belief is not inconsistent with science. Many who profess a
belief in an omnipotent God will, in their next breath, deny this belief by
saying that "God would not do that." How do they know?

In addition, how do scientists know what came before the Big Bang? What
began the singularity that led to the universe as we see it today? One
theory that a person could advance, lacking any evidence to the contrary,
would be God, and it would not necessarily controvert anything that we
know to be scentifically correct. As a scientifically minded agnostic, I must
admit to at least the possibility of the existence of God and, therefore, to a
foundation for those who express a belief in such, as long as it fits with
what we know to be true. Advances in science do not make belief in God
obsolete, even though my personal opinion is that given what we have
discovered to date, the origin of the universe is much more likely to be
natural than divine.
RE: Whole Series
Pau Cortes Font de Rubinat
07/08/2008
There is absolutely nothing logical about our being here or about some
kind of supreme being to excuse and justify our doings and experiences.
When you look at any event in the world, the conditions have to have been
very finely tuned to produce the results. Different tuning, different results,
but this does not mean planning of any kind. If you need to view evolution
as a miracle, you will view it that way. It does not matter what your logical
processes are: you will choose your premises to get your desired results.
Evolution has been rather sloppy, developing species that become
unviable and the need to survive by eating other beings. If I were that
smart and omnipotent, I would figure it out differently, although I do not
know why I would bother doing anything at all. Perhaps out of boredom
with my own eternity? Rather senseless, all of it.
RE: William D. Phillips

166
Craig Nim
07/08/2008
Mr. Phillips complains of "Questions about the presence of evil in the
world, the suffering of innocent children, the variety of religious thought."
Let's take it from the top. Evil exists because God demands fidelity, and
when Satan was the highest form of angel, he rebelled. Hence, how can
God take faith for granted? He can't and we must prove ourselves, so He
provides fire and water; we choose. Sin must be atoned for, hence
suffering, most poignantly found in suffering innocent children. If sin/evil
exists, suffering atones, hence Christ, the Son of God, on the Cross.

Variety of religious thought? Satan is a master of divide and conquer--it's

that simple. It is why Christ complained in Luke, "But yet the Son of man,
when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" Pray the Rosary
for 54 days (27 in petition, 27 in thanksgiving) if you really want proof. The
Catholic Church has the answer and is the only one with all the
sacraments necessary for salvation.
RE: Whole Series
rgrigsby
07/07/2008
Anti-Darwinists are missing the point. I believe that one of God's greatest
miracles was evolution. Parting the Red Sea, sending numerous plagues,
etc. are merely cheap parlor tricks compared to this miracle. And, as for
science making God obsolete, I think the opposite is true. If I understand
the current notion of the Big Bang correctly, the initial conditions of the
Big Bang were so finely tuned that miniscule variations in the composition
of its forces would result in a universe uninhabitable by mankind. Maybe
we should broaden our definition of God: Yaweh may be improbable, but
isn't it logical for some design in our being here (metaphysically, not
scientifically, speaking)?
RE: Whole Series
Mamdouh Fayek
07/07/2008
I am not really surprised to hear people defending their faiths and the
existence of God. After all, almost 90% of the entire world population
needs a God. Just imagine what the Neanderthal, for example, thought
when he had to deal with crazy matters like predators, diseases, and
death, let alone earthquakes, volcanoes, thunderstorms, tornados, etc. He
obviously picked up the weirdest looking rock and placed it in an altar-like
niche and started pleading and worshipping it. I am afraid that, even
though in a much more sophisticated way, believers today are doing the
same thing.
RE: William D. Phillips
Pau Cortes
07/07/2008
Science has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is a matter of psychological

167
insecurity and emotional need. How can William Phillips affirm "that the
universe is the loving and purposeful creation of God"? I am glad I am not
one of his students. Someone who sees a purpose in creation and love in
nature--despite the strong feeding on the weak and all the rest that you
have heard a thousand times--cannot have a very clear awareness of his
surroundings.
RE: Steven Pinker
Jack King
07/07/2008
Richard Hudon says Pinker used the old trick of judging yesteryear's
behavior using the standards of our time. Richard is obviously a moral
relativist if he believes it is wrong to do that. There's hardly a religion on
the planet that would agree with him. The universal doctrine is that God
and his moral dictates are absolute and not relative to culture or historical
circumstances.

Richard also has not studied biology, or he would know that evolutionists
do not claim that one species evolves directly into another, but that
generally one population of a species adapts to a different environment or
lifestyle and becomes a new species gradually as it continues along a
different path.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Robert E. Begley, Jr.
07/07/2008
The one thing science proves daily is that God has a very unique sense of
humor.
RE: Whole Series
Prof. Rati Ram Sharma
07/07/2008
In continuation of my 21 May comments, I would like to paraphrase the big
question as: "Can cogent scientific logic establish the existence of God?"
And the answer is: Yes, as I have already done.
RE: Steven Pinker
Richard Hudon
07/06/2008
Pinker's wailing about Darwin, Wallace, Watson, and Crick being the great
de-bunkers of any reason to believe in God is tantamount to asserting that
he is deeply ignorant of the contribution of Christianity to the
advancement of science throughout the ages, Galileo and others included.
Contrary to Pinker, I firmly hold the evidence for evolution underwhelming.
Yes, there can indeed be some evolution within a species, as
demonstrated in centuries past by Christian monks working with selective
crossbreeding of plant life, but for one species to evolve into another has
been thoroughly debunked by much scientific research. His statement that
"It's not just that [God] endorsed genocide, slavery, rape, and the death
penalty for trivial insults" is fallacious and an insult to scientific

168
investigation. Pinker is using the old trick of judging yesteryear's behavior
using the standards of our time. At the time of those behaviors, the people
involved were totally ignorant of the higher moral expectations of today.

Also, how can he forget that it was Christianity that brought about the end
of slavery? Wilberforce, remember him? Since when has the traditional
Judeo-Christian God endorsed anything? He is the one saying that God was
endorsing this or that reprehensible behavior, but that is not what
enlightened Christians assert or have asserted throughout the ages. It is
man who has said that God endorsed this or that behavior. Men or a group
of men or a society may say that God endorses this or that, but that
assertion is a false, misleading, and demeaning statement of God's true
being. And God plays no role in it.
RE: Whole Series
David Collier
07/06/2008
I know a Ph.D. who tells me he is attempting to establish the existence of
God scientifically. He assumes that method is valid in this area: it is
absolutely not. He further assumes that God will play that game, but he
has not questioned his assumptions. I leave him to his own devices; he
would not believe my experience (it is a gift of Grace, actually, mediated
by the Holy Ghost, known as the kundalini in Hinduism).

The problem is that this knowledge is purely experiential and thus is not
transmissible to others through any form of intellectual discourse. What
tends to happen is that the recipient of such an experience (who will have
worked for it, it should be remembered) is instantly disbelieved by others,
and his or her experience rationalised away by them in the ways described
by Sigmund and Anna Freud. Jealousy may play a part in this response,
but the ego is, by definition, threatened by self-realization in self or indeed
in others.
RE: Whole Series
Jim Koltveit
07/06/2008
Science sees what God has put together. The possibility that life as we
know it was created by chance is so astronomically remote that God, the
Creator, must exist.
RE: Whole Series
Greg Miller
07/06/2008
Of course it does, if you are referring to the Christian/Judeo/Muslim God.
The religious have stated that God is the sole purveyor of truth--truths like
the demon theory of disease and the sin theory of harsh weather. Religion
is based on fear and superstition, always has been and always will be.
Science makes God obsolete for explanation of anything other than what
happens after you die. God is obsolete for everthing but assuaging our

169
fear of mortality. Using God as an "explanation" for anything else is simple
willful ignorance. Get over your fear and you will get over your God.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Odom
07/06/2008
I seriously have my doubts about the Christ event. I am not sure about the
God thing. I don't think that people who have made a way of life with their
various religions will ever be affected by any scientific findings. They will
just adjust their approach and say that God created the world that way.
The Big Bang theory is just one of those examples. There are 5% of the
people who have an open mind that science may influence their thinking
so long as they are able to understand the scientific theory.
RE: Whole Series
Stan H. Perkins
07/06/2008
Thank you for sending me the booklet put together by your Foundation
and Michael Shermer. Very well done, both form and content.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/05/2008
I agree with Paul Kositzka (07/05) that if there's a god it's Spinoza's God,
nature herself, a god who set out the immutable laws of nature in the
beginning, or perhaps I would reword it say the set of nature's laws is god.
But Paul also says that god gave us free will and we alone will have to
account for our lives. That contradicts what he said earlier. If the laws of
nature are immutable, then everything, including human behavior, has to
proceed in accordance with those laws, and all activity, including mental
activity, is deterministic not free.

Our accountability is only to the inevitable consequences of our actions

while we are alive, whether they are fair or not. We can do what we want
but not choose what it is we want. Our individual wants are imposed by
heredity, experience, and circumstance. There's nothing in Spinoza's
philosophy about rewards and punishments after death because in a
deterministic world human behavior is never moral or immoral; it's simply
inevitable. So the only just consequence would be to let the dead have
their oblivion. No holding anyone to account or further manipulation by
gods required.
RE: Whole Series
Tony Walton
07/05/2008
It depends on what is meant by "God." A desperate touchstone of fearful
and guilty humankind, desperate to assert the universal centrality of our
pitiful yet grandiloquent species? The Biblical creation myth is revealed, by
Big Bang cosmology and sub-atomic exploration, to be every bit as false
and primitive as any other. A quest that we are, perhaps, only coming to

170
the end of beginning, at both the cutting edge of physics and the problem
of mind, to say nothing of that of soul and/or spirit? It is, however, a
mistake not only to believe that science has all the answers. As Tony Benn
has written, "all the great religions taught us how to live our lives."

But unwise theologians and their faithful followers fail to acknowledge that
their doctrines do not provide the only moral counterweight to scientific
materialism and its rather chilling messages for humanity's ghastly
intimations of insignificance. Having been raised a Christian, I have been
morally shaped and underpinned by the earthly teachings of Jesus of
Nazareth and the profound yet simple and very straightforward wisdom of
his injunction that we love one another, and treat each other--regardless
of race, creed, sect, neighborhood, or allegiance--as we would ourselves
be treated. Were we able to implement that code of conduct unequivocally
throughout our dealings with each other, the trouble that humanity has
visited upon itself would vanish overnight.
The trouble that we have visited upon our home is another matter altogether, and one that
offers the opportunity for a concerted effort between scientific materialism and spiritual
morality if we are to make any headway, and fast, in rising to the enormous challenge. Love is
at the heart of the matter: love and reverence. The God referred to in this question is a real and
perhaps insuperable obstacle, a major part of the problem.
RE: Steven Pinker
Paul Kositzka
07/05/2008
God and science are not in conflict. God, in the pantheistic sense
expressed by Spinoza, is nature and nature is God. That gives a little gas
to a lot of people, mostly those who have invested heavily in a belief in
God as a human-like creature. The more that science uncovers the
wonders of the universe, the more obvious it is that there was intelligent
design. Unfortunately, for many religions, the seven days as set out in
Genesis are literal and cannot be deviated from in any way. I prefer to
believe that God can create the earth as he sees fit, certainly not limited
to a seven-day marathon.

Once the laws were put in place, the system is allowed to work, always
subject to the immutable laws as set out in the beginning. Such a God
would have no interest in micro-managing the everyday affairs of
individuals. He gave us free will to sort out our lives. In the end, we alone
will have to account for our lives. How has science affected that law?
RE: Whole Series
Tom
07/05/2008
First, we have to distinguish between God and religion. Religion is a
combination of custom, philosophy, history, and mythology all rolled into
one package. Religion is a man-made device that was created for the
rulers to more easily control the common man, and religion was also

171
created to give comfort to people by explaining the mystery of our
existence. Science doesn't completely destroy religion, but it definitely
destroys the mythological aspects of religion. The customs and
philosophies of religion are still valid, so long as religious dogma is taken
metaphorically and not literally.

One example of this is the Jewish belief that the world is only 8,000 years
old (don't quote me on the exact number, I don't tend to remember
useless information very well). Many Christians and Muslims also believe
that the world is that young because of the bible story of the creation.
Well, science has proven that the world is much older, and it is obvious to
any intelligent person that the creation myth in the bible should not be
taken literally. However, even though the story is only a myth, its value is
not diminished. There are still many wonderful lessons to be learned from
it.

As for the concept of God, science cannot and never will be able to prove
or disprove God. If God exists, he is the first cause. He is the power that
set everything into motion. All science can do is trace the hand of God and
discover the mechanism by which his universe functions. I have followed
scientific progress my whole life, and for every question science answers,
five new questions arise. There will always be awesome mystery in the
universe, so the idea of God will always stay with us.

Does God exist? No one knows, and one can't prove or disprove God. It
comes down to faith. An atheist has faith that God does not exist. A
spiritual man has faith that he does. It's a choice. I choose purpose and
hope over random coincidence. Therefore, I choose to believe in God
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Graves
07/05/2008
It depends on how we define God. If by God we mean some crotchety
white-bearded spirit who grants wishes to his cowering, fearful
worshippers, then perhaps so. Science, after all, is in the business of
updating fairytales. But if by God we mean some mysterious and vast
unity of Creation--a unity felt by mystics for millenia and finally confirmed
by science in the 20th century-- then clearly, no. A God as a Unity that
encompasses yet transcends the self, that defies material law through its
bizarre nonlocal reach, that transcends our ability to analyze--this God IS
science, is it not? This God picks up where science may no longer tread.

The question might be better put: Does science make religion obsolete?
Because this is where the collision really occurs, in the realm of competing
belief systems. Mythology vs. history, scripture vs. discovery, creed vs.
theory. Eventually science and religion will essentially merge, if we should
last that long. They will be recognized as complementary rather than
contradictory perspectives. The one reveals the murkiness that is inside

172
while the other explores the external objectively.

Is the Garden of Eden really at odds with the theory of evolution? Of

course not. Evolution examines the evidence of our journey while Eden
tells us what it was like to evolve into human beings. To evolve into self-
reflection is a difficult, painful journey. It undoubetdly felt very much like
being cast from the Garden, from the unconscious (and since idealized)
womb of Creation. Did God actually invent death for our transgression? Or
is the awareness of death that emerges with self-reflection curse enough?

Even science and religion can co-exist when they acknowledge the
perspectives from which each arises. God is EVERYTHING; how can
everything possibly be obsolete? Whether you think of it in spiritual or
material terms, everything is everything. The Unity of All That Is is beyond
argument.
RE: Whole Series
Jerry
07/05/2008
Interesting comments by Dr. John Martin below (07/04). I have to say that
the God described, that is, a God that assures "that nature should obey
rational, comprehensible laws and law-like regularities," is not the God
most people believe in. The God most people believe in is one who has the
will, power, and tendency to interfere in the workings of the universe,
through acts of creation, reward, or retribution. That God, through His
potential for arbitrary and capricious action, certainly overturns our
expectations "that nature should obey rational, comprehensible laws and
law-like regularities." In fact, that God threatens the very nature of human
knowledge, since our understanding can change not through better data,
but through seemingly random violations of the orderly laws Dr. Martin's
God apparently enforces.

One might note that we observe a universe that seems to "obey rational,
comprehensible laws and law-like regularities," and this is the true
expression of the nature of God. I would say, why complicate our
understanding of the universe with this anthropomorphic universal
constant? What purpose does God really serve in the universe if his only
role is to assure the orderly workings of natural laws?
RE: Whole Series
Maureen Duffy
07/05/2008
I don't understand why the two concepts have to be exclusive. Obviously,
it comes down to beliefs, and how much they can differ, that drives this
debate. But I believe that everything comes from God, so to me science
comes from God. God and evolution can exist together. Has no one ever
considered this? Why is it all or nothing? To me, science is simply our
human way of studying and explaining the universe around us in tangible,
measurable ways. Even if we can scientifically prove that things came

173
about in some way, why does this have to prove that God does not exist?
On the contrary, it should confirm His existence even more. The
wonderfully complex and fascinating processes that sustain life, our
environment, etc, are evidence of God/the higher power that created
them.

When I read the bible, some things may be interpreted literally, some
things symbolically. "In the beginning," for example, everything is created
in "seven days." What we consider to be seven days could be millions of
years from God's perspective, if God exists in eternity. How can you
measure eternity? You can't. I believe in God, and my wish for all, even
those who do not believe in God, is this: "Live by the spirit . . . love, joy,
peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-
control" (Galatians 5:22).

Why do some of those who don't believe in God try so fervently to

disprove His existence? I am sorry their hearts have been burdened in
some way that they refuse to have faith. Take love. When someone dies,
does love die? No, love for someone remains in your heart, forever. Love is
the bridge between life and death, and God is love (wow, that's original--
not), but that's my point. You don't have to be a scholar to know that.
RE: Whole Series
Bib Massey
07/04/2008
It's popular to think men and women are inferior to their creator. But that
clearly describes an inferior creator! Supernatural miracles, which ignore
the nature that God, according to Moses, said was very good, confound
natural understanding and negate natural reason, which is the greatest
skill of mankind.
RE: Whole Series
Jeff Carpenter
07/04/2008
The human mind has always been inquiring and certainty-loving. Those
characteristics are driven by evolutionary pressures. To survive, one needs
to observe one's world and to make decisions. Survival is a practical
venture and, like all such ventures, requires making decisions at crucial
points with whatever information and resources are available, however
suboptimal that availability may be. That explains why humans "got
religion." What is surprising is how persistent such wildly outmoded
thinking is in the face of compelling modern knowledge.

Those who don't see the obvious fact that anything like a conventional
notion of God has been thoroughly superseded by our scientific
achievements seem to suffer from one or more of the following five
ailments: (1) "what does it all mean?" (a question that has not been, and
perhaps cannot be, answered by science, except perhaps with the sad but
likely-accurate "nothing" -- but more importantly a question, like all

174
questions, that cannot be answered by wishful thinking!); (2) the old "you
can't know God doesn't exist" (which is technically true but exhibits a lack
of common sense that is akin to purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge from a
stranger for the second time, or opting to travel over a bridge designed by
untrained believers instead on one designed by engineers); (3) an inability
to separate the discrete issue of the existence of God from social and
cultural influences (and pressure); (4) an understandable reluctance to
recognize that one has invested so deeply in something that turns out to
clearly not even exist; or (5) hyperreligious tendencies, which in my view
is the only legitimate reason to still believe in God in the 21st century.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/04/2008
Thank you, Eric Schwartzbaum (07/04) for offering me the last word,
athough you're certainly welcome to continue. You say that it's not true
that Shannon's theorem only applies to communication theory because it's
also used in biology. Yes, but have you investigated how it is used in a
biological system? A single nucleotide in a gene is acknowledged to be a
"bit" of information. These bits of DNA are strung together to form a chain
of digital instructions that are communicated via RNA to the ribosomes
that synthesize proteins. So it's still digital communication. But this
discussion is about belief in God. You said in an earlier post that only God
could have created the big bang. How do you know that? Couldn't it have
been natural circumstances?
RE: Whole Series
Ran Sivron
07/04/2008
I, for one, don't know, but I am working on it. The questions answered here
so far are very limited. What is the god that may or may not exist? Is it the
metaphysical white-beard god of a fundamentalist; the omniscient,
omnipotent, and benevolent god of medieval theologians; the principle
that good begets good, common to many religions; the Spinoza god that is
in the self-consistent fundamental laws of nature; the "god of creativity" of
Schopenhauer and to a certain degree Nietzsche; the recognition that the
self can never fathom the whole or even one other conscious being, of
Descartes and, to a certain degree, of quantum physicists?

We may use "science" (as defined by Pinker, for example) to counter a

subset of these questions. The white-beard god is dead, of course, but we
are not even close to posing a question most of us are comfortable with
from the others, so how can we claim that we know what the question is?
However, trying to answer even one of these questions proved beneficial
in the past. There are more to go. So why not continue and be aware of
our limitations?
RE: Whole Series
Dr. John D. Martin

175
07/04/2008
The very phrasing of the question gets it exactly wrong. The proper
question is, Does science depend for its existence on the foundation of
rational theism? The answer is an emphatic affirmative. Only those who
are intellectually commmitted to the existence of a rational, law-giving
Creator who is prior to and beyond nature have any rational expectation
that nature should obey rational, comprehensible laws and law-like
regularities. Not most, not some but all of the most important, influential
scientists of all time (Faraday, Maxwell, Linnaeus, Mendel, Boyle, Maxwell,
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, etc.) were committed to some kind of theism,
which provided the basis for their intellectual conviction that truths
concerning, and laws governing, physical reality were objectively real and
discoverable.
RE: Whole Series
David
07/04/2008
This argument is couched in extreme terms by most of the participants.
You either believe that man descended because mud was struck by
lightning or because God placed man on Earth 5,000 years ago and he/she
rode dinosaurs to work. God is real; I feel His presence constantly, witness
His power in answered prayers, see Him transform lives, and feel His
unfathomable love every time I look upon my children.

I don't need science to tell me anything. Whatever the discovery du jour

may be, all it does is explain how God created the universe and all that
exists within it. This is exactly where science and faith should be forever
separated. My wife is a scientist and is constantly awed by the majesty of
His creation, the intricacies of His design, and the ways He made
everything interdependent.
RE: Whole Series
Allan
07/04/2008
What I find most incredible pertaining to the human mind is that a lack of
knowledge never stops it from forming and having an opinion (or, in other
words, a faith or belief). I can fully understand the lay person suffering
from perceptional knowledge, but when I see or hear a scientist suffering
from the same syndrome, it really does blow my own mind.

In order for me to understand what spiritual enlightenment was, what it

does and how it worked (if it worked), I had to put it to the test, something
that many scientists--atheist, agnostic and theist--don't believe they have
to do. They think they know the answer already. This of course is not
surprising; I thought I knew the answer too, before I started to become
enlightened. The closest thing to which I could relate a path of spiritual
enlightenment was going to a psychiatrist or a psychologist and having
every single barrier removed. As I became more enlightened, especially
removing some big barriers, I could literally feel a sensation stemming

176
from my brain and down my spinal cord. I believe this was a modification
to the hard wiring of my brain, some synapses closing and new ones
opening, or it could be greater ones replacing the old ones.

What does all this have to do with science making God obsolete? Well,
anybody can make anything obsolete when they live in denial. What all
paths of enlightenment have in common is that they came from spiritual
teachers who said they came from God or a God-like figure. From my own
perspective, after following the path of enlightenment as left by Lord
Jesus, it really does give a new understanding to the words, "Unless you
change and become like this child." Enlightenment simply means purifying
the mind.
RE: Whole Series
De Quency
07/04/2008
No matter how much science can probe and explain, it can never justify or
explain one thing: the order in which our lives, this earth, this universe has
been created. The sun appears every day in our sky, bringing light and
energy to a world 93 million miles away. This did not occur just because of
some explosion or chance of the dice. It was God--His calculation, His
force, His love.
RE: Whole Series
Jagan Nathan
07/04/2008
The belief in the existence of "god" is as old as human civilization and is
the result of man wanting to know more and more as he learns through
science. What used to be unexplainable was considered as beyond him
and was given the name "god" to indicate his limitation. Through the
centuries, such limitations were conquered, and his knowledge expanded.
It is a matter of convenience at present to keep the concept of god, since
there is ever so much information that man needs to know thru science.
Science is helping to keep the concept of god alive since man has to go a
long way before the final verdict is pronounced.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/04/2008
Response to Jack King (07/03): Jack, we clearly are not understanding one
another. You did in fact state that Shannon's Theorem was restricted to
communication theory. Your quote: "Yes, but that only applies to encoded
messages such as the one you are now reading." This is not true, since
information theory, based on Shannon, is used extensively in the biological
sciences. Here is a quote from a researcher, Dr. Thomas Schneider at the
National Cancer Institute:

"Claude Shannon founded information theory in the 1940s. The theory has
long been known to be closely related to thermodynamics and physics

177
through the similarity of Shannon's uncertainty measure to the entropy
function. Recent work using information theory to understand molecular
biology has unearthed a curious fact: Shannon's channel capacity theorem
only applies to living organisms and their products, such as
communications channels and molecular machines that make choices
from several possibilities. Information theory is therefore a theory about
biology, and Shannon was a biologist."

I think any further discussion on the subject will be unfruitful, but feel free
to provide a rebuttal and you will have the last word.
RE: Whole Series
E. Curry
07/03/2008
I'm no scientist or theologian, but I would like to point out an observation I
have noted through religious writings. In the the Bible, God is called a
"consuming fire," "the light of the world," "the alpha and omega," "having
no beginning or end." In science, the only thing that remotely fits those
definitions is pure energy. It cannot be created or destroyed, it can take on
any form, and Einstein hinted at the fact that all matter (as well as anti-
matter we later discovered ) is made of energy. So if there is a God, He
can be defined as intelligent energy. This would also fit the "omnipresent,
omnipotent" definitions. We have learned that the so-called emptiness in
space is really not empty at all but filled with energy. So if all that we have
studied holds true, we have been literally looking at the face of God. With
every scientific experiment, every quark or gluon, every electron
accelerator, we have been proving His Existence. Here is a theory for
everyone.
RE: Whole Series
E. Curry
07/03/2008
In my life's experience I have found that the truth is always found
somewhere in the middle. It is common knowledge , amongst those who
have had any education at all, that the KJV of the Bible is flawed, as are
the writings of other holy books. It is also known that there are things that
science can't answer right now, and some things science may never be
able to answer, such as how to reanimate dead tissue. Not just reanimate
the tissue but have it have the same characteristics it had before it died,
such as personality or soul, in the case of a human being.

I find it humorous, to say the least, that we are finite creatures in a rather
insignificant planet that is less than a speck of dust in a galaxy amongst
countless galxies, in a universe amongst countless universes, and yet we
have the arrogance to state, with such absolute certainty, that there is or
is not a God. All this arrogance from creatures of whom the strongest only
exist a bit longer than 100 years. We go to universities to learn one thing
and one thing only. We learn how ignorant we really are and how much
knowledge these is out there that we will never grasp, unless there is a

178
God who quietly and patiently leads us from discovery to discovery.

I doubt He/She is anything like us, if indeed He/She does exist. He gave us
a part of himself (he for brevity) that makes us most like him: the desire to
know truth and the desire to grow. Most of all, He would have us learn to
love and forgive. All of the science, theology, mathematics, wealth, and
education means nothing at our time of death. Whatever we believe when
we die, one truth reigns supreme. We will all learn the truth on that day.
So does science make belief in God obsolete? Ask the survivors of a
natural disaster or those who mourn the death of a loved one. Or those
facing terminal disease. No. If anything science can fill the gaps that
religion leaves open.
RE: Whole Series
Kevin Zelhart
07/03/2008
My answer would have to be no. Some in science believe that discovered
fact and logic invalidate a belief in God. There are those on the opposite
side who believe that God's works are beyond man's ability to
comprehend. If one looks to knowledge as an asymptotic curve with time
being the horizontal axis and the level of knowledge the vertical axis, man,
as a species, is very close to the beginning of the curve, low on the y axis.
God would be near the end of the x axis and so high on the y axis that, to
us, the knowledge would be infinite. Could such a being posses the
knowledge and ability to manipulate matter and energy in ways that to us
would be unexplainable and miraculous? Certainly.

I used to anger my physics professors when, after their statement of the

speed of light being the limit of velocity, I would always chime in, "by the
laws of physics as we know them." We, however, do not know all the laws.
Often this argument of science vs. religion tends to confine God to the
world that we know. Though when operating in our dimensions, God must
obey the laws of physics of this dimension, if he operates exterior to our
dimension, can different laws apply that may affect outcomes in our own
dimension?

Religious belief, ideally, also serves as a moral benchmark that is

relatively stable. When I look at man's attempts to replace religion with
other constructs, I cannot say that I see any that are appealing. All have
the same basic failing. That failing is that they rely on man as the ultimate
judge. I would rather put my faith in a God I believe perfect than in man
who I know to be imperfect.
RE: Whole Series
ahansen
07/03/2008
I am agog. Having read your advert in the Atlantic Monthly, I wonder how
you can aspire to a credible dialectic without including either a spiritualist
(which I am not) or a female (which I am) in your discussion of the

179
"relevance" of a "God." It seems to me that hierarchy is inherent in the
biology of the human brain, hence the commonality of all of humanity's
social structures throughout its existence and its seeming need for a
higher authority in all things humanly knowable.

Moreover, one either "believes" in infinity/god as a concept or in infinity

plus one (or infinity plus infinity) or one doesn't care about it because the
very concept of an Absolute is absurd. Those of us who have given birth
know that some "god" has nothing to do with it. In either case, your God is
a relative concept, a fact that has apparently eluded your commentators.
Just because you can conceive of it doesn't mean it exists. And just
because you can't conceive of it doesn't mean it does not.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/03/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum says I redefined Shannon's law when what I actually
did was to repeat Eric's own interpretation of it and go with that.
Shannon's law is actually about the speed limit of digital communication
and not about the complexity of information in general, so the examples I
used in my post were examples of digital information, which is always
symbolic, one symbol representing parts or multiples or combinations of
others, sometimes layer upon layer in a variety of languages, machine or
human, until an intelligible message is available to a recipient that/who is
capable of extracting meaning in accordance with his own knowledge or
just mindlessly following the encoded instructions in the message as a
computer does.

I did not, as Eric said, use evolution to prove evolution. I used the
principles inherent in Darwinian systems to show that intelligence evolves.
Humans are more intelligent than their distant ancestors and have more
sophisticated coding systems, and therefore are more capable of encoding
or decoding a complex message. Of course, a creationist will not see it
that way.

Eric finds probability theory useful in refuting evolution. I wonder if he's

aware of the Law of Large Numbers: the more trials there are, the more
probable it becomes that something improbable will happen. The world
has been here an awfully long time, and there have been countless trials,
so why do random mutation and natural selection seem so incapable of
producing life as we know it?
RE: Whole Series
Erik R.
07/03/2008
Forget Genesis and the whole creation story. Do I believe it? I argue all the
time about it. I have questioned it from my childhood. Things can get lost
in translation. The world is not 4 to 7 thousand years old! But what I don't
question is the spirit of God. Not a chemically induced feeling, not a

180
chemical produced by my brain to make me feel a certain way, but the
Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost). It is the most powerfull thing I have ever
experienced. Nothing compares. I can sit in my room and start talking to
God and something incredible washes over me. I experience a feeling of
utter peace--all the world's weight is lifted off my shoulders, and it is
almost like my body as a whole is transported to a place of peace. Do I
believe in God? Yes! Did he create everything? I believe he did. How? I
think science explains that. How much more beautiful it is that he let
things become what they are in such a complex manner.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/03/2008
Response to Jack King (07/02): Jack, you've just redefined Shannon's law.
Shannon makes generalizations about information probability without
defining the source of the information. You're free to do that, of course,
and I'm free to not take such an assertion seriously. With respect to your
other statements, you are again employing circular logic to prove your
point--using the theory of evolution to prove evolution. Darwinian
evolution is assumed to be true, and you then filter the data per that
assumption to show that it is true.

I'm trying to take a more deductive approach here based on first

principles. So here is a question: What law of physics or thermodynamics
makes information-bearing complexity more likely than randomness? Note
that inorganic complexity (crystal structure, for example) may be highly
complex but carries very little information (generally no more than a few
bits). Shannon's law predicts a reasonable probability for such
phenomena. If you say that the likelihood of life from non-life and
Darwinian evolution is not relevant to the discussion, I would then ask you
to define another area of science where probability is not used as one
basis for testing the truth of a theory.

In the world of engineering and physics (where I work), probability and

statistics are one of the backbones of any analysis. The likelihood of an
event (failure of a component or system, for example) is paramount to
making design and programmatic decisions. That is the real world. Certain
areas of science are apparently immune from this process and can
conjecture the most fanciful scenarios without experiment or detailed
step-by-step modeling that includes probabilistic factors. Sorry, but I'm not
that gullible.
RE: Whole Series
David
07/03/2008
Of course not, since science does not have all the answers. Something
existed before the big bang--something went bang. What is that essential
energy that existed before time and space if not "God"?

181
RE: Whole Series
Tom
07/03/2008
Science absolutely makes the idea of "God" obsolete. No doubt belief in
god will continue for a long time, but that belief has never been based on
anything even remotely provable, just fear and superstition, so science
does not even need to address belief, it has far more relevant things to
tackle. The notion of god may never be 100% proved or disproved, but we
can get close. We can already say that the chances of a god existing are
incredibly unlikely, and all the scientific data we have says so. Science
effectively removes god from the equation even when it is not dealing with
the subject directly. Modern science does not set out to prove or disprove
god; the erosion of god is just one marvelous outcome. Scientists who
cling to the idea of god realize that if they let that idea go, they will be
admitting that their view on things was tinged with irrationality, and that is
a hard admission to make in the scientific community, but a necessary
one.
RE: Whole Series
Abdulla
07/03/2008
If you ask scientists in any age, they would propably say they have all the
answers. If they had lived longer, they would have seen many of their
theories (the world is flat, etc.) proved by SCIENCE to be wrong. Scientists
talk as if they can prove their theories are right, but that doesn't mean you
get the whole picture. Science doesn't deny the existence of God but
proves it. Sometimes people fail to see beyond the horizon, talking about
technical skills and biological processes as the initiators or life, while they
are just tools. It is hard to put aside human boundaries when thinking of
the supernatural, but God doesn't need to have fingers to poke in the
world. God governs by will, while giving humans freedom of will to seek
whatever path they want.
RE: Whole Series
Jack king
07/02/2008
Elaine (7/2) says God gave us free will, but free will is by definition a will
not influenced by any constraints. Such a will would operate in a random
fashion and would be totally irrational. We need constraints to organize
and give purpose to our actions. God doesn't give us free will. Nature
constrains our will, and that's a good thing.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
07/02/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum (7/1) says the assumption that simplicity leads to
complexity is unfounded, that the more information imbedded in a
message, the less likely it is to occur in the absence of intelligence. Yes,
but that only applies to encoded messages such as the one you are now

182
reading or the lines of code in your computer that make its appearance on
your monitor possible, because, generally speaking, intelligence is
required to create a coded message (and to derive meaning from it as
well). As intelligence and the analytical tools it creates become more
evolved and sophisticated, the information it generates becomes more
complex. I say "generally speaking" because there is an exception: the
evolution of intelligence requires a Darwinian system in which the traits
most capable of dealing with forces disruptive to life are favored.
Intelligence is one such trait.

So on the one hand we have mindless, indifferent Darwinian forces

creating higher intelligence as an adaptive trait, and on the other we have
higher intelligence creating more complex infomation as a result. Keep in
mind that the simple, mindless, indifferent forces came first. Simplicity
leads to complexity.
RE: Whole Series
Gabriel J. Rodriguez
07/02/2008
The topic is very interesting, but in order to debate deeply and clearly, we
first have to address the following questions: What do we mean when we
talk about God and belief in God? What do we mean when we talk about
science? If there is a God, are we able to prove his existence? Are we able
to deny it?

I know a lot of smart scientists and religious people who remember what
Socrates said: "I only know that I don't know anything." Those who
recognize that that they do not know search for the answers. Those who
think they know the answers do not look for them. What keeps science
and faith in movement is the search for the truth. Science answers
questions about how the world works. Religion tries to answer different
questions, about why the world works and the meaning of our existence.
For me, the answer is no, science does not make belief in God obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Anthony Faber
07/02/2008
Science absolutely does not make belief in God obsolete. In truth, science
has to verify the existence of God. The essential question is how can a
knowledgable, learned, clear-headed scientist not believe in God? Is it a
matter of the elect or the non-elect? Christians believe that God came to
earth, incarnate. And we believe He not only told us of an elect, but we
believe the matter of "election" by God does not interfere in any way with
our own free will or, in other words, our own "self-election."

Of course, there are many brilliant scientists who are atheists. So the real
question that demands exploring is what self-governing and self-issuing
quality, if not intellectual limitation, is the limitation to believing in God? I
think that answer is more compelling and complex than any

183
physical/chemical inquiry that would presumably lead to clues to the
existence of a creator.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Ian Tizard
07/02/2008
If you are asking whether science alone makes belief in god obsolete, the
answer is clearly no. Belief in the supernatural as exemplified by a belief in
a supreme being and, defined as faith, is intrinsically irrational. Science
cannot do away with something that does not exist in the first place. Don't
blame science for irrational beliefs.
RE: Whole Series
Sarah Pottinger
07/02/2008
God is evident in all of science, in something as simple, for instance, as
the four units of D.N.A. that can combine to produce something as
complicated as a human being. It's a miracle that it all works, and to me
that is the mark of God
RE: Whole Series
Elaine
07/02/2008
Absolutely, positively no! God is the reason we are able to have science.
The free will He gave us enables us to explore all possiibilites. Those who
choose God as creator are right. God bless
RE: Whole Series
Hernan Tasies
07/02/2008
In practical terms, we are much more dependent on science for our
survival. Humans are bound by self-preservation, despite the thunderous
monotheistic roars. We have yet to imagine science at its most advanced
stage, and assuming that science will eventually be able to disprove God
is at the center of the discussion. God may eventually be disproved, but
there is an underlying instinct for faith. Science perhaps will be unable to
disprove faith, thus we return to the principal of faith without God.

Can science, faith, and God co-exist? Not in harmony, not when one
disproves the other. Science doesn't need an anti-monotheistic agenda to
disprove God. By the very nature of the process, science can only disprove
God through proof. Eventually, monotheism will have to evolve. It has
evolved, unfortunately, at a much slower pace than science. As people
further witness the benefits of scientific advancement, they will eventually
embrace science over God. Most of them will simply say, "thank God for
science."
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Kost
07/02/2008

184
If anything, science seeks to understand what God truly is and what God
has set forth in the intricate and delicate balance of the universe. I believe
in a trilogy of infinites: time, space and energy. I also believe that the Big
Bang was not a first and certainly won't be the last. The so-called black
holes will eventually devour all matter including themselves and at some
point in the future form the great singularity again. And around and
around it goes. Forever. Infinitely.

For the most part, the antiquated view of God in our own vain image is
totally irrelavent to reasoned and logical thinking. There is no "big man" in
the sky judging people on their moral merits during their stay on earth and
within the confines of humanity. It was never God who helped us discover
moral and ethical behavior. It was men and women who did that. To me,
God IS science. God makes every thought, wonder, and moment of
amazing discovery possible. God is the energy that makes everything
possible. God is infinity. God is, above all else, love.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
07/01/2008
In response to Jack King (6/26): Thanks for your respectful response to my
apparently controversial statements (other have been less benevolent). I'd
like to try to respond to your questions. First, it needs to be clear that your
statements are philosophical/metaphysical in nature and are devoid of
knowledge in the scientific sense, i.e., not based in evidence and not
subject to the scientific method. You start with an unfounded assumption
that simplicity must lead to complexity, apparently because this universe
is complex. There is no law of nature that says complexity is inevitable or
even probable. In fact, the opposite is true since there is an inverse
relationship between information and probability (Shannon's law), i.e., the
more information embedded in a message, the less likely it is to occur in
the absence of intelligence. This reality is employed, for example, in
archaeology, forensics, and the SETI program, in which assumptions need
to be made about whether evidence points to an intelligent agent. Vast
amounts of information are embedded in organic life (the genetic code),
which makes life unlikely, at least based on the current understanding of
the laws of chemistry and physics.

With respect to the probabilities of the emergence of other universes, such

a concept is meaningless since there is no evidence for other universes,
and thus we can't discuss the probabilities. It's kind of like saying, if
unicorns exist, what's the probability that they will eat grass? However,
one can speak mathematically about the probability of the world as we
know it. Consider fine-tuning of the universe. This is not just a
metaphysical principle. One can do a simple mathematical analysis of the
likelihood for the conditions required for complex life on earth to exist.
There are about 20 factors which need to be present, and one can make
reasonable estimates regarding the probability of any one of them. The

185
likelihood of all existing simultaneously is then the product of those
probabilities. This is a very, very small number.

Or consider the probabilities associated with the assembly of complex

molecules, like proteins, via random processes. This is also a relatively
simple analysis, and the likelihood of even a simple 20-amino-acid protein
with biological function developing is vanishingly small. This does not
address the more difficult problem of the development of a self-replicating
molecule (DNA, RNA) from strictly chemical processes. Science does not
have even a single coherent, agreed-upon theory regarding the origin of
life, much less the evidence to support it. Since life from non-life is
necessarily the first step in evolution, I'm not sure how one can say that
evolution is probable or even possible; it is beyond scientific reasoning and
evidence. Evolutionary scenarios are just-so stories without a single
detailed, step-by-step model of even the simplest macro-evolutionary
transition. Perhaps the future will resolve these problems, but I wouldn't
put my money on it.
RE: Whole Series
Ken Valkenburg
07/01/2008
Science and religion are two totally separate things. Science is the realm
of discovery; it is about gathering data and trying to interpret what that
data means. Religion in and of itself can be separated into a wide vareity
of subjects, denominations, belief systems, etc.

There are two reasons I think religion should be separate from science.
First, religion is almost totally faith-based, and most of the historical things
religious people believe in happened way too long ago to really be proven
scientifically. Second, there could be religious bias in science. If a religious
person believes something a certain way, that may get in the way of
accurately and soundly interpreting their data.

There are endless good things that come out of both science and religion. I
firmly believe that both are NEEDED in our world. Science provides so
much knowledge, with which we can do so much good, and with which we
can figure out how this world works. Religion should provide us with a set
of morals and ethical standards to live by. It also provides a great sense of
love, peace and security to billions of people in the world.

All this being said, I am a strong Christian, and I am an avid scientist. I will
have a biotechnology degree next spring. I find it very easy to be both a
Christian and a scientist, without compromising on either end.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Ernest Anemone
07/01/2008
Science is our belief in God, whether we admit to it or not. By observing
the mechanics of nature and attempting to reduce complexities to

186
singularities, we are seeking to commune with God in newer and better
ways. Many people may say this is incorrect; they may say, "science has
consistently debunked miracles and disproved divine intervention of all
kinds. Science exists to disprove God."

Well, these people are correct insofar as science has dispelled our
primitive notions of God as a supernatural theistic being; however, as
Stuart Kaufmann suggests, this does not mean that the concept of God or
a belief in God becomes irrelevant. Religion (at least according to the
etymology of the word) is the study of what connects us--to one another,
to the universe, to the divine. It is not only a natural companion to science,
but it lies at the very heart of science. I sincerely hope Kauffman's ideas
signal a new era of colloboration between scholars in both fields--one in
which both sides must evolve for the benefit of the other.
RE: Whole Series
Just Asking
06/30/2008
Science taught in publicly-funded schools and in publicly-funded museums
says without any uncertainty that a higher power absolutely does not and
absolutely cannot exist. How can scientists be so certain? Because they
are the self-appointed high-priest authorities of our day who believe they
are privy to information the rest of us Neanderthals just can't seem to
wrap our inferior minds around. Just as certain religious beliefs in the past
have been pushed on the people by certain authorities, scientists of today
don't even seem to realize they are doing the same.

So what's the average explanation from a "scientist" on how life started?

From lightning hitting a puddle of mud or possibly on the back of a magic
crystal. This is another theory which is gaining popularity amongst the
elite minds of our time. Don't get me wrong. I do believe in evolution, but
to somehow apply the theory of evolution without coming up with a better
original cause than mud or crystals is bound to sprout some questions
from inquisitive minds. So how do scientists of today explain the trillions of
stars and possibly trillions of planets and everything in between, including
the laws of chemistry, biology, physics, etc.? Well, our best and brightest
scientists tell us that it was a big ball of ammonia which started on fire and
exploded, or what I like to call the "big ass bang." Are we really to accept
this as our new, enlightened beliefs?
RE: Whole Series
Dan Tanno
06/30/2008
Although I think this series of discussions is extremely meaningful and
interesting, I also think that there is a lot of unnecessary discussion in the
world about science and religion. In order to minimize this unnecessary
discussion, I think the notion of religion should be separated into two
parts. The first part is about "being good." You should be good, not harm
other people but help them, etc. This part of religion should remain. The

187
second part will be all the superstitious nonsense, about how God created
the earth and humans, about Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc. This part of
religion can be discarded.

Atheists should accept the first part as meaningful and correct. (They
probably do already.) Believers in religion should accept that the second
part is wrong and that science is correct. (They probably already do inside
their heads, but it is difficult to openly admit this, since it may sound like
they are denying religion as a whole, which they are not.) This
compromise will shut out most of the unnecessary discussion about
religion, make atheists act in a better way, and relieve believers in religion
from the burden of having to make illogical arguments about how the
earth and humans came about.
RE: Whole Series
John
06/30/2008
The question, as worded, infers that in the absence of science, belief in
God is not obsolete and therefore has value. The presence of science may
provide greater value, rendering belief in God obsolete, or so we are asked
to consider. Framing the issue this way seems about as meaningful as
asking, "Which has more value, a toaster-oven or love?"
RE: Whole Series
Dave
06/30/2008
Isn't the real issue prophesy and revelation? The notion that ancient men
(whether the Hebrew prophets, Paul of Tarsus, Mohammad, or, more
recently, Joseph Smith) received direct communications from the creator
of the universe, upon which we all should base our morality and
worldview, seems obsolete. Belief in a god (whatever one means by that
term) may not be obsolete, but surely prophesy and revelation are.
RE: Steven Pinker
Richard M. Harrison
06/30/2008
I was surprised that no one mentioned that the Hebrew word translated as
"day" in Genesis should be translated as "a period of time for which there
is a defined beginning and ending." The days in Genesis could be millions
of years as we know them today and would not need to be equal in length.
It is difficult to believe that God would make the universe in 144 hours and
then have mankind develop the knowledge and intellect to measure the
age of fossils and distances to the distant galaxies. Could God design the
universe to make it appear old and distant? Yes, but why would a loving
god do that? To test our faith? I think not
RE: Kenneth Miller
Ron Powell
06/30/2008
Miller writes that faith "includes science, but then seeks the ultimate

188
reason why the logic of science should work so well." I find this one of the
more bizarre claims articulated on this subject. Does this mean that Miller,
as a Catholic, believes in transubstantiation? If so, I am stunned, since
even as a ten-year-old altar boy I found that to be an absurd claim, a
"miracle" that reminded me of both cannibalism and black magic.
RE: Whole Series
Anil K Rajvanshi
06/30/2008
The biggest tragedy of such debates is compartmentalization. Human
thought, imagination, and reflection are part of a continuum. Hence God,
science, and the things in the universe are part of this continuum.
RE: Whole Series
Taylor Hart
06/29/2008
This will be an interesting discussion. Obviously there will be no resolution
because of it, but with such a wide spectrum of thinkers, it should provide
for some excellent debate and great stimulation for future philosophical
pursuits!
RE: Whole Series
Smith
06/29/2008
Thank you for introducing the careful thoughts of eight intelligent men in
the June 2008 issue of Scientific American. It's quite disconcerting to find,
at your website, that a woman's thoughts have also been presented.
RE: Whole Series
Andy Ray
06/28/2008
I find the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" an
obsolete question. All it does is encourage a rehashing of personal
opinions and philosophies on the notion of "belief" in God. The debate
should shift to a question which is somewhat less obsolete: "Does God
exist?" Or perhaps for the less philosophically inclined: "With the rapid
progress in science, technology, and the gathering of knowledge over the
past couple of decades, do you feel we are closer to discovering whether
there is a god or are we further away? " For me the answer is clear
(99.9%) and should be clear to any critically thinking person.
RE: Whole Series
Frank Loomer
06/28/2008
We seem to be accumulating a wide variety of views by individuals, mostly
male, with no sense of resolution, not even agreement on what constitutes
rules of evidence or validation. One might reasonably think that if God did
indeed exist, he might simply speak up for himself (gender TBA) and
address us all in a way that we could commonly understand. This, I think,
was Jeremiah's radical vision when he looked for God to directly

189
communicate and do away with the need for priests and teachers to
convey his directives by proxy.

As a matter of historical record, that simply has not happened. And that, I
suggest, says a great deal about the nature of our problem. In the absence
of a sharable communication in which we can all participate, the
alternative possibility must be seriously considered. We may have just
"made him up." This isn't a way of resolving why we did it or the inherent
mystery of our existence, the world and universe in which we seem
inextricably enmeshed. But it suggests for me that approaches which are
public and sharable and which can lead to consensus on a practical
working level are far more likely to provide the best overall result.

Is it my imagination that so many of the participants here are male? Why

not more women? Suggestions?
RE: Whole Series
George Madden
06/28/2008
It seems to me that we humans can quantify what we know. We have an
aggregate sum of affirmable information developed by both practical and
scientific methods. But I don't know how it would be possible to grasp the
scope of what is unknown to us. We can, however, be certain that there
are unknowns (at least as long as there is a future). I strongly favor the
view that more is unknown than known. If that view is reasonable, I cannot
definitively assert that God, however defined or described, does not exist.
I can only leave the question open.
RE: Whole Series
William R. Clough
06/28/2008
Perhaps the problem arises from how the whole discussion is framed. It
seems to me that it is eccentric, just a half bubble off plumb. Most of the
contributors write as if the purpose of God was to explain things; as if God
did it" explained anything. The statement "God did it" can be a
conversation-stopper when used by literalists or otherwise defensive
persons who wish to pursue a question no further. But for the vast majority
of Christians, "God did it" means two things: one, that whatever we're
talking about is wonderful, thrilling, important, and meaningful; and two,
that whatever we're talking about is understandable, accessible to
observation and reason.

It seems to me that belief in God generally provides people with a way to

express things we know but cannot fully justify on the basis of the facts
(human observation and rationalization), such as: the conviction that life
has meaning, hope, the feeling that the universe is (quite literally)
wonderful, and, when faced with something painful in life, that there's
Someone to appeal to.

190
That's why science can never make belief in God obsolete. Science is the
result of the emotionally tinged conviction that the universe makes sense;
atheism is the result of the emotionally tinged conviction that some people
make stupid statements and need to be corrected; belief in God is the
result of the emotionally tinged conviction that the universe is wonderful
and intelligible and that some hope is justified.
RE: Steven Pinker
J. Robert Brock Hacker
06/28/2008
Pinker offers a fine set of generalizations and bald assertions, but he has a
few questions to answer. How does he explain ex nihilo fit? If anything at
all exists today, there can never have been a time when no thing existed,
thus some eternal "it" must be. If one considers this iron law of logic a
"trick," what other rules of knowledge may be manipulated? How can
science conclude anything if its observations and measurements cannot
be trusted? What of the immutable laws of mathematics? Does the
scientific method permit 2 plus 2 equalling 5 if it fits one's hypothesis?

As for "morality itself," if there is no ultimate moral authority, ethics does

not exist at all, and morality is no more than preference. Why is Pinker's
idea of right and wrong more valid than, say, Stalin's? The moral relativist
needs to remember that not that long ago slavery was "moral." Further if
"it" is God, he must be sovereign, and who may bring a charge against one
who is above law?

If, indeed, there must be an eternal "it" that possesses the power of being
and of creation--and of annihilation--and if "it" decrees what is right and
wrong, it seems only rational for man to seek to know "it" rather than
mockingly denying "its" reality. Of course if one can accept that once
there was nothing, what's the point?
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/28/2008
Though belief in God is useless in scientific investigation of the natural
world and in applied technology as well, it still has its uses and will never
become universally obsolete. Those uses, of course, are political. Even
people who claim to support democracy over authoritarian rule will declare
their nation and their selves to be under God, a supposed entity who is not
to be questioned or disobeyed.
RE: Whole Series
George Ricker
06/28/2008
I think the question would be more honestly framed and might yield more
interesting results if it asked "Does science make belief in a god
obsolete?" By talking about "God" as though there were some commonly
agreed definition of the term, such questions inevitably lead to garbled

191
answers. It's just too easy to fudge the results.

In my view, the first requirement for any valid discussion of "God" is a

clear, concise, and non-contradictory definition of the term and what it
means. Why not ask, "Is there a conception of god that is compatible with
science and why do you think so?" Clearly science does not render the
belief in a god obsolete. A god can mean anything from a desert sky god
to the "ineffable essence of an otherwise inexpressible reality." The
possibilities for defining gods are as limitless as human imagination. All of
which says a lot about human imagination and nothing at all about the
reality of gods.
RE: Whole Series
RJ Evans
06/28/2008
The claim that a God can exist in an infinite scope is an impossibility. If
one embraces the scientific concept of infinity (no beginning or end), then
positing a God destroys the scientific concept of infinity. One cannot say a
line is infinite if a point/quantity is assigned to the line as "the beginning"
or, in this case, a God.

Let us keep in mind that philosophy gave birth to science and religion. One
(science) embraced inquiry, observation, test, and falsifiability. The other
(religion) embraced rhetoric, assumption, and myth. These two children of
philosophy can no longer co-exist. Science has matured and continues to
do so. Religion flounders in ignorance and an archaic uneducated past.
RE: Whole Series
Jim Pharo
06/28/2008
Easy question. We now have several thousands of years of experience
attributing to supernatural causes natural phenomena we do not
understand. Every time a natural cause is uncovered, we manage to move
the goal posts and conclude that the latest revelation proves nothing. To
me, thousands of years of constantly pulling back the curtain on "God"
only to find rationality is enough to conclude that the idea of God is simply
terribly unlikely.

And I think the truth is that this is something we all know, deep down, to
be true. We wish it were otherwise and sometimes spend a great deal of
time and energy trying to convince ourselves otherwise. But I think if most
people were quite honest, they'd have to admit their doubts outweigh any
hope of "faith" they might have.

I'm always struck by Christians who profess a belief in the afterlife, yet feel
the sting of loss when someone they love dies. I think those Christians
know perfectly well what death is and its real-world consequences. Getting
past one's wishful thinking is a sign of personal maturity. I applaud
everyone who has done so, and wish more would "come out" and say what

192
they know to be the truth.
RE: Whole Series
Pana
06/28/2008
God is not a coherent concept to begin with. Religions don't even know or
agree on what a god is--it's vague. At least with a unicorn, you could make
a real unicorn through genetics by giving a horse a horn. But the concept
of god is really what older peoples called the natural world. They were
expressing a feeling that everything was connected and, in awe, called the
natural world god.

The word god exists in our language, but we don't even know what we
mean when we say it. No one has ever seen or measured such a thing or
would even begin to know if one has the sense perceptions to know it. Is
god a manlike entity with a white beard sitting "outside" the universe or in
a parallel reality? No one can conceive of or even know what "outside the
universe" means. God is not a coherent concept. It's like talking about "the
evil greenies." If I don't coherently show you what a greeny is, how are you
going to know one when you see one?
RE: Whole Series
Miles Lawrence
06/27/2008
Science does not make belief in God obsolete. The existence of humans
proves that God does not exist.
RE: Whole Series
Claude Hosch
06/27/2008
Science can't have it both ways. It proves organic matter cannot come
from inorganic matter and then suggests, without any proof, that it did.
Science can only reach conclusions on finite matters. Since infinity has no
end, science can't reach a conclusion. Otherwise, scientists would
approximate the extent of the universe. If evolution is the origin of life,
why do species become extinct rather than continue to evolve? I submit
that science is restricted by its own rules.

As for the mind, science can't find anything in the brain it can call the
mind. Can it be that the relationship between the right and left brain is the
mind? The two sides converse--a relationship. Man can ask himself a
question and give himself the answer he is seeking. Relationships are as
important in life as facts, objects, and tests. They make the whole greater
than the sum of its parts, yet the relationships exist because of the sum of
parts.
RE: Whole Series
John Pallyn
06/27/2008
First, science is not a belief system. It is a tool that facilitates human

193
understanding of the universe. It has no agenda, mythology, or
predispositions. Second, God is myth. God does not belong in the same
discussion as the search for truth. It is an individual mythology wholly
dependent on faith, in the complete absence of empirical evidence.
Nothing can be done with faith but provide true believers with meaning for
their existence. I find the capacity for faith to be a terrible waste of the
creative capacity of the human species. It is our incredible capability for
imagination that has been our strength and weakness.

In the context of myth and faith, anything that can be imagined can be
believed. In science, imagination is used to expand the knowledge base
when our inventions have been thoroughly and empirically tested. Faith
won't start your car in the morning or move mountains. The use of science
does make God obsolete, but our predisposition for imagination keeps God
in the collective consciousness. We will never ascend as a species until we
have a clear delineation between truth and truth imagined.
RE: Mary Midgley
Manfred Baumgart
06/27/2008
Mary Midgley has it. Both Christians and scientists have taken themselves
much too seriously. When I look at images of God and at science, I only
can say: I know that I know nothing.
RE: Whole Series
Michael Dooley
06/26/2008
This is a very curious series. At times it is less about religion/science than
it is about philosophical atheism and belief. I wish that some of the
commenters could get beyond the functionalist error of stating that human
beings believe in God so that some existential need on their part is met.
Merely because we see a connection between one and the other does not
mean one was the "mother of invention" for the other.

Still, it seems a simple matter of logic. Science is "made" for discovering

natural processes and motion in the physical world. In it very premises, it
ignores supernatural explanations because that is not what it is about.
Science doesn't ask supernatural questions. What is embedded in one's
assumptions can scarcely be expected not to be reflected in one's
conclusions.

The supernatural, on the other hand, is simply that: matters beyond the
natural world. Scientific pronouncements concerning theological questions
are as vapid as what has been done by religious figures in commenting on
science. Asking "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" is a little like
asking cooking to explain the complexities of baseball. Is belief in God
obsolete? Maybe, but it is not by science that the question will be
answered.

194
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/26/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum says that our universe in intractibly complex and
further states that the probabilities of such a universe emerging are
vanishingly small. Yes, but ANY complex universe that emerges from
simpler origins will be vastly more complex after its unfolding. Of all the
possible universes that could emerge from any simpler state, what makes
the probabilities of this one any smaller than the probabilites of any other
similarly complex universe that one (even a god) could imagine? What
makes this one so special?

Eric says that design is a more plausible explanation. But design proceeds
from purpose, and no purpose has been found for our universe, and I
doubt seriously if anyone could find one that comports with reality. He
says there is not a single scientific discovery that points away from God. I
would say that anyone who bothers to list the desires and attributes of his
god will find all kinds of scientific discoveries that belie that description.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/26/2008
David Young asks if anybody sincerely wants to know. Of course they do;
some of us possess a rage to know, and to increase our knowledge we
investigate the only world that is available to investigate: the natural
world. It is those who believe in a supernatural world who don't want to
know. They have been promised forgiveness and everlasting life and
punishment for those who don't believe as they do, and they won't
surrender any of that for fear that even a smidgeon of doubt will take it all
away. Superstition does terrible things to the human mind.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
06/26/2008
To Jack King: As an agnostic, I would state that your position is no more
intellectually tenable than the other possible positions (theism or deism),
and I've also assessed the evidence that has been revealed from quantum
mechanics to cosmology. What is the evidence that you believe proves
there is no God? As an empiricist, skeptic, and rationalist, I base my
position consistently within the framework of the scientific method--
conclusions are not drawn until all the evidence is ascertainable and
verifiable. On the other hand, you have precluded a serious potential
answer (Creator Deity), which prejudices your position towards atheism.

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. This principle

does not apply only to theists or deists making supernatural claims. It falls
equally upon the atheists. Carl Sagan wrote the following concerning the
question of atheism, God, and science: "An atheist is someone who is
certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence

195
against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence.
Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate
causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than
we do now to be sure that no such God exists."

To assume that ALL which exists in the natural world has emerged from
within itself is beyond our present science. Really, there isn't much I can
say on that comment other than, what can be asserted without evidence,
can be dismissed without evidence. There is far more unknown than what
is known about the universe and any scientist will state that for the record.
There are plenty of questions on the frontier of research without
explanations, and to claim that all things have naturalistic explanations is
to expose one's intellectual hubris.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/26/2008
Schwartzbaum (06/25) does not seem to understand the theory of
evolution. Species are subject to evolution because they live in interaction
with each other and with an environment, and because living organisms
are all subject to genetic mutation. Each new offspring thus may have a
different genetic make-up from its parents. From time to time, mutations
provide an advantage to the new organism compared to the species from
which it originates. This makes it more likely that the mutated organism
will survive, reproduce, and lead to a new species. The "human mind" is
simply a genetic possibility that has been preserved because it gives the
human species a clear evolutionary advantage. This helps explain why
humans are still around and so successful.

That the "human mind" is a possibility in nature is evidenced by scientific

observations. Current research in neurobiology correlates brain activity in
real time to aspects of the experience the subject has of his own mind. In
animals, the size and organization of the brain is correlated to the abilities
of the species. In paleoanthropology, although brain organization is not
available from fossil bones, the size of the brain in humanoids is still
broadly correlated to their abilities. Each successful mutation provides a
stepping-stone for future mutations. The brain of Homo Sapiens was made
possible by the brain of ancestor species, possibly one of the Homo
Erectus species and Australopithecus. The brain of the first humanoids was
made possible by the brain of mammalian species ancestor to humanoids.

Paleoanthropology cannot possibly repeat in a lab billion of years of

evolution on earth from the first bacterium to the first human, but fossil
evidence available today is simply compelling. Schwartzbaum does not
seem to understand that if the theory of evolution had been fanciful it
would have been easily discarded long ago--for example, if no fossils had
been found of species possibly ancestor to Homo Sapiens.
RE: Whole Series

196
Eugene Bucamp
06/26/2008
Eric Schwartzbaum (06/25) is a good example of where a religious agenda
can lead. While he seems superficially to accept science as the rational
way to investigate our universe, his dogmatic preconception that God has
created the universe leads him nonetheless to jettison rationality. This is
made clear when he choses to argue on the basis of the "probabilities
associated with the emergence of the universe." The truth is, no one
knows what these probabilities are, and this is because we don't know
what the conditions of "the emergence of the universe" were. We in fact
don't know if the constants of nature could have been in any way different
from what they are.

This is a very basic mistake, but it is not surprising that all religious minds
seem intent to make it again and again. Only those religious minds who
prefer to maintain that God is beyond any rational understanding are
immune, but this is the same as saying that God is an entirely
meaningless concept. Further, and notwithstanding Schwartzbaum's
muddled claim, the hypothesis of "multiple universes," though a rational
one, is not science and is unlikely to be presented as science by scientists,
at least yet. It is a pre-scientific hypothesis, and we will have to see if it
can ever be substantiated.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/26/2008
Rick Chan Frey (06/25/2008) sees the notion that "matter was created in a
big bang" as problematic because "matter, energy, and universal
constraints don't tend to come into being on their own." In a scientific
perspective, this is of course a reasonable issue. However, while it is
reasonable to assume that there is possibly a cause to the creation of our
universe, and certainly cosmologists do, it is truly absurd to argue that
reality itself necessarily has a cause, as indeed Thomas Aquinas believed
and as, following him, the whole Catholic Church still maintains. Thus, the
Catholic doctrine is fundamentally absurd, giving the lie to the claim of
John Paul II and Benedict XIV that Christianity is rational at heart. It is not
the job of science to make God obsolete, but scientific knowledge and a
rationalist perspective certainly do.
RE: Whole Series
Sazib Bhuiyan
06/25/2008
Faith stands on desire and disregards evidence and rationality, therefore,
no amount of evidence and reasoning will eliminate faith in any belief.
Billions of people believe self-contradictory and mutually contradictory
religions which don't stand on evidence but dogma. It is impossible to
prove the non-existence of the non-existent. You can't prove that
omnipotent, omniscient, and omniversal aliens don't exist, but just
because you can't prove it doesn't mean that they do exist.

197
I find one hypocrisy very revealing. Those who claim to be saved and
going to heaven keep clinging on to this life despite all its struggles and
suffering. Why not commit suicide and go to heaven? That would be the
logical thing to do. And I won't even start on the hypocritical failure to love
your neighbors and enemies.
RE: Whole Series
David Young
06/25/2008
"But in his motion like an angel sings,/Still quiring to the young-eyed
cherubims./Such harmony is in immortal souls;/But, whilst this muddy
vesture of decay/Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it." --The
Merchant of Venice, act V, scene 1

Thank you for this enlightening forum. I will be honest. I am left more with
a question than resolution. My question is this, "Does anybody sincerely
want to know?" Most ideas presented seem to be delivered from the cozy
confines of whatever conventionalized and hardened groove has been
accepted by each individual. It is apparent that it would frighten most of
us to let ourselves wander out of our comfy foxholes of protected opinion.
Once we have been frozen in the mold, the thought of having to get out
and move around in the open is a terrifying proposition.

Does anybody really want to know? I think that is the first question. That
takes courage. Courage that few great scientists "disciples" have shown.
This debate will really never lead any of us anywhere until there is a
realization, or perhaps acceptance that none of us really know much of
anything.

There is that "Mormon" book, though. Where did it come from? Wait!
Before you answer it from your established groove of opinion, what about
an honest examination of it? Is Joseph Smith's story of where it came from
true or not? A simple question. Whatever answer you come up with, Joseph
Smith was one of the most remarkable humans to have ever graced the
stage. This volume has no equal, in terms of a single human producing
such a work. A worthy "scientific" thesis as well as an honest seeker of the
ultimate "truth." It is my humble belief that the origins of the Book of
Mormon give real answers to this question of God and science . . . or
produce the right questions. Or perhaps we just "cannot hear it." Would
any of us really give up everything, including our comfy confines, to really
know?
RE: Whole Series
Eric Schwartzbaum
06/25/2008
On the contrary, science confirms God's existence for several reasons.
First, science confirms an intractably complex universe undergirded by
exquisite mathematical laws. It's easily shown that the probabilities

198
associated with the emergence of the universe as we know it are
vanishingly small. The latest scientific ruse to deal with this problem is the
invocation of multiple universes to make our universe inevitable. However,
such a theory is inherently unscientific (not supported by data and
unfalsifiable) and violates a basic tenet of science, which states that the
simplest explanation is usually the most probable (Occam's razor). The
multiple universe theory involves infinite complexity, the antithesis of the
simplicity principle.

The fact that science exists and that the human mind is capable of
understanding and explaing the universe also points to an intelligent
creator who designed the human mind. There is no scientific evidence
which even suggests that the human mind is the product of evolutionary
forces. Design is a more plausible explanation unless you start with the
bias of materialism, which is an exercise in circular logic (evolution must
be true, regardless of its improbability since it's the only solution that
coincides with the unproven assumptioon of materialism).

There is not a single scientific discovery which points away from God. All
point toward His existence (assuming a nondogmatic interpretation of the
Book of Genesis). Hence, the association of atheism and science is
unwarranted, not evidentially based, and inherently unscientific. It
involves a logical leap of faith that says more about the subjectivity of the
scientist than the nature of the universe and the existence of God.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Chan Frey
06/25/2008
What a great series. Thank you so much for putting it together and
gathering this group of authors. For me the critical question is similar to
the debate between Stephen Pinker and William Phillips as to the origin of
the universe, yet I see both answers as problematic.

Though Pinker proposes explanations for a finely tuned universe, one still
has to explain how multiple universes came into being or why a unifying
deep physical principle exists in the first place. Pinker argues that
questions about where the universe came from are equivalent to where
did God come from, but part of the idea of God as an explanation is to
address to a certain degree the extra-naturalness of matter coming into
being. Arguing that matter has always existed or was created in a big
bang is problematic in that matter, energy, and universal constraints don't
tend to come into being on their own. There is nothing about them that
suggests they could.

On the other hand, a significant part of the idea of a divine being is that it
is capable of existing outside of nature and of the act of creation. Though
one could argue that both require a pre-existing power to create, it seems
a logical paradox to have a pre-existing set of conditions under which

199
existence can come into being.

My main problem with Phillips is that if one were to look at the history of
reasons why humans believe in God, it is littered with examples that
turned out not to be true. As Pinker argues, from Earth as the center of the
universe to God creating man in His image, each of these we know now
isn't true. If I had to bet on Phillips having discovered the ultimate reason
that truly proves God's existence or this being one more situation where
science will eventually come up with an explanation, the odds, as Pinker
points out, greatly favor science.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Eugene Bucamp
06/25/2008
To Christoph Sch�nborn, the knowledge gained through modern science
"makes belief in an Intelligence behind the cosmos more reasonable than
ever." This is truly extravagant. There is no scientific justification for
Sch�nborn's claim, and yet he says "we" see a "teleological" hierarchy in
nature from quantized physics to chemistry, biology, and the human
species. Science does not see any teleological hierarchy in nature; only
the religious do and a few philosophers like Kant and Hegel.

Teleology is the doctrine that nature could not have possibly produced
complex biological organisms all by itself. To the religious mind, if natural
mechanisms have produced the human species, this is because God made
the human species the purpose of these mechanisms. They only work
because they are somehow "driven" by God's purpose or have been
designed by God to achieve this purpose.

Sadly, teleology is truly fanciful. It appeared in Christian thinking at a time

when science was still unable to describe properly the natural mechanisms
that make possible Darwinistic evolution from basic forms of life to
complex organisms and to the human species. Today, rather than
brutishly claim that no natural mechanisms could have produced the
human species on their own, people like Sch�nborn simply claim that
they "see" a teleological hierarchy in nature.

Sch�nborn says his view is "more reasonable than ever," but it is poor
reasoning, justified only by an analogy. Teleology is modelled on our
natural assumption that anything in our environment that looks complex
or complicated is likely made by a human being. However, analogy itself is
pre-rational thinking, and to make the extravagant claim of an
"Intelligence behind the cosmos" based on mere analogy is definitely not
very reasonable. By hugging the minimally rational, Cardinal Sch�nborn
does us the favor of giving the exact measure of Pope Benedict XVI's claim
in his Regensburg lecture (2006) that Christianity is rationalist.
RE: Whole Series
dg

200
06/25/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Even if it was the year 2517
and we had starships travelling to distant solar systems, humans would
believe in some kind of god. Belief gives meaning to life, and people don't
like ambiguity. People have difficulty accepting the real world. They'll
continue to believe in gods or make them just to avoid having to face
reality.

Belief in gods is a personal choice. The stories of gods and their heroes are
what helps us define who we are. Gods are human inventions. We'll have
them around in one form or another. After all, we're story-telling apes who
are the byproduct of 3.6 billion years of evolution. We can't just chuck
generations of superstition overnight.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Jack King
06/24/2008
Cardinal Schonborn says, "To view all these extremely complex, elegant,
and intelligible laws, entities, properties, and relations in the evolution of
the universe as 'brute facts' in need of no further explanation is, in the
words of the great John Paul II, 'an abdication of intelligence.'" Backing up
to his original use of the words "brute facts," I couldn't tell if they were his
own or a translation of words expressed by ancient Greek philosophers.

Does a rebuttal of ancient Greek philosophy discredit today's scientists? Of

course not. The "abdication of intelligence" was not accomplished by
today's scientists, who continue to investigate and refine current
knowledge with string theory, supercolliders, and a host of other methods
and instruments. The abdication is by those who have abandoned it all to
a supernatural entity.
RE: Whole Series
Patrick
06/24/2008
This whole enterprise is a little bit absurd. Saying that "belief in God" can
become "obsolete" implies that there is a purpose to believing in God. But
ask anyone: what is the purpose of believing in God? No matter how you
try to slice it, the ultimate answer is that there can't really be a purpose.
Either you believe or you don't. In large part, it's an emotional decision
informed by one's upbringing and natural dispositions. I'd venture to
suggest we don't even control whether or not we believe in God. I certainly
don't control it. Most people believe as their parents do. Many evidence-
based thinkers believe; many conspiracy theory wackos do not.

In fact the only sensible way to reply to this question is to ask another
question: "what kind of God are you talking about?" If you believe in an
unfalsifiable god, science clearly can't do anything to undermine that
belief. Why debate it? If you think you have a purpose for believing in a
God, and if that purpose involves explaining where life and lightning and

201
the Grand Canyon come from, then, yes, science will make belief in that
God obsolete--but only with regard to that particular purpose.

And if by "god" you simply mean the universe or the totality of existence,
as many religions do . . . well, how can observing the universe make your
belief that the universe exists obsolete? See what I mean? The answer
depends on the answerer's definition of god, or the answerer's ideas about
god's supposed "purpose." But almost every answer is ultimately
meaningless. No minds will be changed by this. Nonetheless, it was all
fantastic reading. Very nice.
RE: Whole Series
Jack king
06/24/2008
Ya'akov asks (6/23) if I've observed everything that exists over the
entirety of all time across the universe to KNOW for certain that there isn't
anything which doesn't require a naturalistic explanation. Of course I
haven't, but I've observed as much as any theist, and my belief is based
on evidence while the theist's view is based on intuition at best.

It's funny that in support of his argument he would quote Carl Sagan,
author of The Demon-Haunted World. Carl identified the extraordinary
claim as the one that posits a supernatural entity. Ya'akov paraphrases me
as saying the nanoparticles that comprise the physical matter of the
universe are innate and immutable. What I said was that the PROPERTIES
of said particles are innate and immutable. The particles themselves are
not. Electrons, for example, come and go. We can create them out of
mechanical energy by cranking the handle on a generator, and we can
convert them to other forms of energy once they are created. But while
they exist as electrons, their properties do not change.

I would add that the natural forces that move the constituents of the
universe are in the constituents themselves: Gravity is a feature of mass,
which in turn is a feature of matter. Electromagnetic forces are a feature
of charge, which is a feature of particles. The strong nuclear force is a
feature of quarks, etc. Ya'akov asks me if I believe that all that exists in
the natural world is an emergent outcome of itself. The answer is yes.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Cyrus
06/24/2008
Science demands that we accept the universe as it is, not as we would like
it to be. It would be nice if the universe were completely controlled by
supernatural aliens who cared deeply about our little problems, who
responded to our prayers, and who whisked us away to another universe
when we died, but that doesn't make it true, and our acceptance of that
sad fact is what underpins science (and adulthood). The humility of
science is incompatible with the arrogant self-importance of faith.

202
RE: Whole Series
G Terrell
06/24/2008
Even if you do no not believe that humans climbed down out of trees and
became bipedal, evidence suggests that humans were smart enough to
get out of the rain. Caves and primitive structures became a new way to
deal with the elements of weather. At some point the increasingly abstract
thinking humans began to ponder their existence and with some powers of
reason, driven by fear and ignorance of the many unknowns, developed
explanations for things using their limited experience and a unique human
ability . . . imagination. To comfort our fears and to control our savage
urges, the early people created Gods. Most of these Gods were in animal
or human form so that we could identify with them. These divine and
powerful entities provided reasons/comfort and rules that guided the
morality and structure for humans.

Our powerful new science has now created a point or a crossroads in our
ancient social religious and moral structures. Do you go left, the no path,
do you go right, the yes path, or do you go down the middle path? I for
one, have chosen the no path based on what I have observed of the
history of our existence. When we are confronted with fear and the
unknown, we fall back on the comforting God for a quick and easy way
out! Stand up morally, face the unknown, stare fear in the face but do not
lean on fantasy and far-fetched creations in your weakness.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/24/2008
Could Milt Johnston (06/24/2008) describe how a society could work where
citizens would have the fundamental right not to be subjected to other
people's beliefs, not least that of our own parents? How could we make
this society come about? What would be the political system of it?
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/24/2008
A view often expressed here is that science could not make God obsolete
because belief in God is in the nature of the human mind. Scientists have
shown that specific brain structures are associated with certain "mystical"
experiences such as feeling united with one's environment. However, to
investigate a brain structure associated with a belief in God, we would
have to define "God," and one trait of religiosity is in the diversity of what
people believe: Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't have the same god;
monotheistic religions are not universal, nor have they always existed;
religions splinter; the Christian god is not the same for the Vatican,
Lambeth Palace, and countless Christian denominations. Catholicism was
made against "heresies," showing that "heretics" believed in a different
God.

203
However, belief is ultimately a personal and completely subjective
experience. I don't know of anything completely subjective we can define
properly. Compare to color perception: color is a subjective experience,
but it is also objective since we are able to look at one real flower and
agree to call its color "yellow." This does not imply that the subjective
experiences people have of "yellow" are identical, but it works because we
are can look at real things in our environment and define colors
accordingly. This could not work with "God" because there is no God out
there. Thus, it is not possible to define properly a notion of God that would
be "in the nature of the human mind" to recognize.

This explains why certain views of God are easier to communicate:

anthropomorphic ones (Zeus, the God of the Ancient Testament), real
things in our environment (trees, clouds, the Sun), real people (Jesus),
general notions and feelings (good god, i.e., God, and bad god, i.e., Satan),
etc. It is only to the extent that it is defined by a real thing that a view of
God can be understood at all. Belief in God is not natural. It is cultural.
RE: Whole Series
Milt Johnston
06/24/2008
Let's put this in the simplest mathematical terms. A creator is a sufficient
but not a necessary condition for the existence of the universe. If people
would just leave it at that and leave each other alone to believe as one
wishes, all of us could pursue more important matters.
RE: Whole Series
Ya'akov
06/23/2008
Jack King (06/20/2008) says "Everthing that exists and happens is a result
of natural forces acting on the constituents of the universe." My response,
as an agnostic, would be to pose the question that naturally follows: Have
you observed everything that exists over the entirety of all time across the
universe to KNOW for certain that there isn't anything which doesn't
require a materialistic explanation? Where is the factual evidence that
conclusively confirms your point? Are you decreeing by fiat that the
totality of the constituents of the physical universe--existence, potential,
energy, matter, space, time, laws, and constants--is an emergent outcome
of itself?

If a deist or a theist came along and stated that all this existence,
complexity, and emergent order is the design of a Creator Deity, you
would instantly dismiss it, even though they have deployed a theoretically
plausible argument based on a similar logic and reasoning. I believe it was
Carl Sagan who stated that extroadinary claims require extroadinary
evidence. All you have postulated is that the nanoparticles that comprise
the physical matter of the universe are innate and immutable. If that is the
case, then you are concluding that they have always existed, which only
leaves us heading toward infinite regression. This doesn't provide anything

204
that can be factually known, and an unknown is not an explanation. Your
argument could be constructed as the argument from personal incredulity,
that is, we do not know how the universe came into existence, but I
believe it came out of emergent order within itself.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Bucamp
06/23/2008
Curtis Raskin's suggestion (06/21/2008) that religion and science make
similarly unsupported claims about the creation of the universe is
misguided. On the one hand, the claim that God created the universe is
dogmatic because it is inherent to the notion of an "almighty" God. On the
other hand, any scientific notion of the creation of the universe still is at
the moment merely a matter of conjecture. Different scientists offer
different theories, and most scientists would accept that only one may not
be wrong. It is even a possibility that the origin of the universe could not
be scientifically investigated. Unlike in "almighty God" religions, there is
nothing in science per se that requires that the universe should be a
"creation." Science simply tries to find the best interpretation of what we
are able to observe of the universe. As of today, scientific observations are
"only" able to largely confirm the general scenario of the Big Bang, outside
however the vexing question of the "first instant in time." It also remains a
possibility that there never was such a "first instant."
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/23/2008
Let's be honest with ourselves. We all know that human society cannot
thrive without sanctions against killing, stealing, cheating, and lying. And
we know that people who accept these sanctions as good and proper will
often, for their own reasons, try to get around them and will often
succeed. Enforcement mechanisms of one kind or another have always
been necessary and the threat/promise of sanctions to be imposed after
death have been employed with dubious success for thousands of years.
Some of the bloodiest tyrants in history have justified their barbarity on
religious grounds. The gods of men and the edicts they supposedly issue
are malleable. One culture's evil is another's virtue.

But thanks to scientific progress, we are now growing up, and many of us
are searching for truth in the heretofore unexplored recesses of the
natural world, the only place that truth can be confirmed by testing. To
converse with God is like having sex by oneself. It relaxes some tension,
but it's not real intercourse. The dialogue is always one short of a quorum.
An appreciable percentage of clerics around the world routinely violate the
very rules they impose upon their congregations, and they speak to
educated adults as if they were children. It's high time we fired them and
sent them out in search of honest jobs. It's time we declared God obsolete.
RE: Whole Series

205
Eugene Bucamp
06/23/2008
Leonid Perlovsky commented (06/20/2008) that "Eugene Bucamp judges
God and natural order." He asked: "where are his criteria for judgment?
Did he invent them himself? Are they obvious?" My comment was indeed a
judgment but not on "God and natural order." Not on "God" because God
does not exist and not on "natural order" because natural order does not
lend itself to moral judgment. It was simply, and quite obviously, a
judgement on Kenneth R. Miller and on his view.

My rather uncontroversial claim was that "any notion of harmony that

includes genocide as a necessary or even a possible evil can only be
meaningless to most people." Since natural order does include genocide,
my point was also that Miller's premise that "natural order is harmonious"
was equally "meaningless to most people." Perlovsky, by not saying what
he himself saw as the "meaning" of a harmonious natural order that
includes genocide, only confirmed my point that it is indeed "meaningless
to most people."
RE: Whole Series
Stutz
06/23/2008
For me, the whole issue is best summarized in the Groopman vs. Schumer
debate. Essentially, the active God of the Bible is, if we are being clear-
headed, obviously ancient mythology, prima facie. A deist God who
created the universe and disappeared seems unlikely and unsatisfying;
after all, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence. A God-as-philosophical-concept who lies outside of space and
time, and thus outside of comprehensibility, is an unintelligible concept.
Such a God would be indistinguishable from nothingness.

Therefore, it's pretty simple to be an atheist with regard to the Biblical God
who speaks to humans and performs miracles. Nobody could ever confirm
the existence of the deist or philosophical-concept God. So as far as claims
of knowledge, we must be technically agnostic about such a being. As far
as belief, I see little reason to believe in an unknowable and
inconsequential being, so in practice we can be atheistic about him as
well. The only thing left to debate is whether belief in a myth is good for us
or not, but I suspect that most of us, once we admit to ourselves that
something is a myth, would be reluctant to live our lives according to its
precepts.
RE: Whole Series
VIG Menon
06/23/2008
Science, in essence, is studying and interpreting the impersonal, absolute
energy which can modify itself in various stages of its physical, organic,
social, and spiritual evolution. That absolute sentient "energy" is God,
whose manifestations we find in various laws and rules governing logic,

206
aesthetics, and ethics. The deeper the science goes, the deeper the
veneration for that absolute consciousness of which we are all part. Amen!
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/22/2008
Leonid Porlovsky asks below if I want all people to be alike, like electrons.
No, but people could not exist unless electrons and other kinds of
microparticles maintained immutable sets of properties over time. Natural
forces cannot evolve systems that work unless the components of those
sytems, whether electrons or something else, can be relied upon to
maintain their properties and continue to play their special role in the
system. Without order at the bottom, there can be no order at the top. If
there is a god, he is composed of particles of a constancy that existed
before he/she/it came together, and that's not the way people think about
God.
RE: Whole Series
John Hanks
06/21/2008
Science has found religion in the upper right temporal lobe of the brain. All
the theology and traditions are just scenic props. No need to murder
anyone anymore.
RE: Whole Series
Curtis Raskin, MD, PhD
06/21/2008
The question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" is intellectually
inept. The question presupposes that only those who believe in organized
religion can believe in the concept of "God." These are not equivalent
concepts, and they must be separated in order to have an intellectually
and philosophically productive discussion. Part of why so many people
believe in religion is that they would like to believe in the concept of God. I
have no problem with this.

But religion, on the level of the individual, varies according to the vagaries
of personality and environment. Individuals pick and choose those aspects
of religion they will obey and those they will not. No two religions are
exactly the same, and even within a particular religion there are typically
numerous variants and sects. The only common theme is that religion
attempts to define God. But each religion defines and describes God in its
own way, claims that its explanation is the absolute and immutable truth,
and refuses to be challenged by deductive reasoning or empirical
evidence. Followers are encouraged to disregard inconsistencies and
inaccuracies in religious teachings as a matter of faith.

Therefore, the question that should have been asked is "Does science
make belief in religion obsolete?" Science tries to explain how the universe
behaves. However, I am unaware of any credible scientific theory that

207
explains how the universe came to be. I am not referring to whether the
universe was created in a Big Bang after two branes collided, but I am
asking where did the branes themselves come from, and what set them in
motion?

God is an equally mysterious concept. How did God come to be? To

suggest that God and/or the universe always existed and that there was
no beginning still evades the question. On this very fundamental level,
there is no reason why one can't believe in both God and science, as at
present there is no intellectually satisfying concept that can explain how
either God or the universe came to be.

Keeping in mind that the concepts of religion and God are not irreducibly
linked, we currently have no way of proving or disproving the existence of
God. We are also unable to explain scientifically how time, space, energy,
and matter came to be. Therefore, there is no intellectual prohibition
against believing in both science and God. On the other hand, science, via
the intellectual reasoning it engenders, makes believing in any particular
religion highly problematic.
RE: Whole Series
Luis Cruz
06/21/2008
Does science make God obsolete? No, it only makes religion obsolete as it
has been practiced in the Judeo-Christian traditions. Two thousand years
ago, one of many spiritual genius's incarnated on earth and described a
"doorway" to our spiritual inheritance. He described a way to conduct our
lives to be closer to the Divine and to benefit ourselves and our reality. But
for the last 2000 years, we have been celebrating the doorway, and very
few people have actually ventured to walk thru it. That is, we can describe
every brick and seam of that door, but what actually happens if you live by
those rules, not just talk about them or give them token use?

Spiritual teachings are a user's manual for existence, not a bludgeon to

beat true believers into line. Orthodox religion is obsolete and is harming
the planet's spiritual progression. Science is just beginning to detect the
outer edges of God's universe, while religion makes God's universe small,
vindictive, and glib. It's time for mainstream religion to address the 21st
century's needs, and truly live by the teachings.
RE: Whole Series
Omar Fletcher
06/21/2008
I think science proves that God exists. I see people constantly trying to
separate the two, but everything seems to point to the theory that the
entity that created this planet has a scientific mind. If we have evolved so
much in a few million years, imagine a race, a person, a spirit that has
been around for a few billions. The possibility is endless. The complexity of
how lifeforms interact on this planet proves to me it was well thought out.

208
One thing is evident: no civil or social progress has ever been made
without the presence of religion or worship of some kind. The belief in God
have stimulated us to do extraordinary things, whether it was trying to
find God or trying to prove he does not exist. The concept of God keeps us
moving in the right direction.
RE: Whole Series
Jonathan London
06/21/2008
It is so clear that the Templeton Foundation is an organization committed
to the idea that the answer is no. This website is a clear example.
RE: Whole Series
Leonid Perlovsky
06/20/2008
Eugene Bucamp, in his comments below, judges God and natural order.
But where are his criteria for judgment? Did he invent them himself? Are
they obvious? We know today of rights and wrongs after tens of thousands
of years of moral and religious thinking.

As for Jack King's comment, does he want all people to be the same, like
all electrons? Theology does not call for a tyrant, nor does science call for
democracy, with people being the same as all electrons.

And to Purple Neon Lights: your back IS to the wall, the same as everyone
else's. Or do you think you are an eternal being? And you are right: God is
seldom defined. But you can read my previous comment.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Eugene Bucamp
06/20/2008
Kenneth R. Miller, in the debate with Christopher Hitchens, noted that the
"natural order is harmonious" and that the real issue is "the source of that
harmony," which he thinks is God. Miller's first mistake is to use the word
"harmony." Obviously, in a religious belief system where the natural order
is said to be the creation of God, religious propaganda has to pretend that
the creation of God is harmonious. This looks like a sick joke. The reality of
natural order is that most living creatures have to eat each other if they
are to survive and humanity has to face famine, disease, death, war,
genocide, and possible annihilation. Any notion of "harmony" that includes
genocide as a necessary or even a possible evil can only be meaningless
to most people.

Miller's second mistake is in not questioning his premise that there should
be a source for what he thinks is "harmony." In fact, the natural order is
only an order, which implies only some regularity and stability. Human
beings can observe this regularity and stability in elementary particles,
atoms and molecules, in the solar system and our galaxy, in the whole of

209
the known cosmos and in all animal species, in us, in our memory and our
understanding. However, there is no necessity to it. If biological processes
were not regular and stable, animal species could not exist; if our universe
was such that atoms were not regular and stable, there would be no
atoms, only incidental groups of elementary particles that would disband
immediately.

In those conditions, human beings could not possibly exist. Without human
beings, there would be no genocide, and the natural order would arguably
be more harmonious. However, without human beings, none of us would
be here to report that the universe does exist, with more "harmony," but
also without us. Unfortunately, therefore, Miller himself would not be here
to realize his mistake.
RE: Whole Series
David Lowell Stacy
06/20/2008
Science has its areas of belief as well. For example, string or membrane
theory is now much like where special and general relativity were when
first proposed by Einstein; they cannot be rigorously tested. There are
areas of overlap between science and faith. We know from experiments
with light and diffraction gratings that we coexist with at least one other
universe we cannot see. Does that mean it does not exist? Likewise, life
forms, angels, and a God could exist in dimensions we cannot see or
experience. There is no proof for the existence of God, although I believe
you can see indirect evidence for God's effect on people.

I have not had a problem with belief in God and science. I believe Genesis
is actually the account of man's evolution. The creation of the universe
and evolution are still going on 13.7 billion years after the big bang. As
primates evolved to the point of self-awareness, they then had the
knowledge of good and evil and were responsible for their actions. Adam
and Even were types of the first intelligent, self-aware humans. Since we
know good from evil, we will make mistakes and thus sin. We are not born
with sin, as so many wrongly claim. When we get to a certain age or
evolve to the point of awareness, then we have to take responsibility for
our actions.

As Carl Sagan correctly pointed out, the cost to man for the brain evolving
to a larger size and becoming more complicated was pain in childbirth. I
believe having the spirit of God in us allows us to be even more aware of
the spiritual world, which we see "through a mirror dimly," as St. Paul said.
The man Jesus was the intersection of an infinite God with this finite world.
That is how He could be both God and man.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/20/2008
The universe does have an organizing principle, but it's democratic not

210
authoritarian. Everthing that exists and happens is a result of natural
forces acting on the constituents of the universe--nanoparticles. The
properties of the forces and the properties of the particles are innate and
immutable. One electon has the same inherent properties as every other
electron. Control is from the bottom up. All of creation is a natural
emergent outcome of these interactions--natural forces acting on particles
and aggregations of particles. There is no authoritarian tyrant directing the
activity of the universe from above. It all happens from the bottom up in
accordance with the laws of nature and the properties of her steadfast
constituents.
RE: Whole Series
Purple Neon Lights
06/19/2008
Common sense and established scientific knowledge shows us that
everything obvious and "agreed upon" is part of a greater system, often
appearing quite different from the component parts. Our planets, for
example, are part of the quite different-appearing organizing system of
the solar system. Our bodily organs are part of the quite different-
appearing human body. Our cells are part of the quite different-appearing
organizing system of each organ. People organize themselves into
spontaneously-emerging gestalt entities of villages and cities. Atoms
organize themselves into elements. Molecules join together to form
various substances.

Clearly, if your back was to the wall, and you had to pick a hypothesis
about whether there is or isn't a larger mind or some sort of organizing
system that our individual intelligences are subsumed by, you'd have to
pick the hypothesis that there IS a larger intelligence or deliberate
organizing system subsuming our individual minds. How could you not
hypothesize that? Precedents observed in nature would compel you to
make that hypothesis.

So, to address the question, "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"
My response is to say that science points strongly to the likelihood that
there is an intelligence greater than our human minds, and probably
unexpectedly different from our minds. One could rephrase the question
thus: "Does science make the HYPOTHESIS that God exists obsolete?" I
would say that established scientific observation supports the notion of a
larger organizing intelligence, loosely called "God." One big problem with
discussions of God is that God is seldom operationally defined. It is pretty
amazing that this lack of a clear definition occurs among the scientifically
minded--that should be step one.
RE: Whole Series
Leonid Perlovsky
06/19/2008
The foundations of all religions are in emotions of the religiously sublime.
These seemingly mysterious feelings, which everyone feels, even if rarely,

211
without noticing them consciously, even if without being able to name
them properly, today can be explained scientifically, and soon we will be
able to measure them in a psychological lab.

Neuroimaging experiments have proved that perception proceeds from

vague to crisp, from unconscious to conscious. Higher cognitive models
are vague and less conscious. The highest model of meaning and
purposiveness is vague and unconscious, so that many people doubt that
their life has meaning. Everyone has an ineffable feeling of partaking in
the infinite, while at the same time knowing that our material existence is
finite. This contradiction cannot be resolved. For this reason, models of
purpose and meaning cannot be made crisp and conscious. They will
forever remain vague and partly unconscious. Whereas the beautiful
relates to cognition, the sublime is related to the improvement of the
models of behavior realizing the highest meaning in our life.

Beautiful and sublime are not finite. The improvement of complex models
is related to choices from an infinite number of possibilities. Beauty and
spiritual sublimity are at once objective and subjective. They really exist
as mechanisms in our minds; cultures and individuals cannot survive
without these abilities. Still, they cannot be described by any finite
algorithm or sets of rules.

Models of one's purposiveness do not belong to oneself. They are outside

of personal consciousness. We do not consciously rule over these models--
they rule over us. They have the property of agency, agency bigger than
ourselves. If one does not use scientific jargon, our consciousness
perceives it as something that exists outside us and rules over us. For
millennia, people used the word God.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
06/19/2008
The atheist position is more tenable because it doesn't contradict itself or
build its case on mutually exclusive or unsubstantiated permises. There is
no supernatural world to examine, so the theist must base his belief on
nothing more than his own wishes and chauvinistic sense of justice.
RE: Whole Series
mike shaw
06/19/2008
"God cannot be explained, He cannot be argued about, He cannot be
theorized, nor can He be discussed and understood. God can only be lived.
. . . To understand the infinite, eternal reality is not the goal of
individualized beings in the illusion of creation, because the reality can
never be understood; it is to be realized by conscious experience.
Therefore, the goal is to realize the reality and attain the 'I am God' state
in human form." --Meher Baba

212
RE: Whole Series
Purple Neon Lights
06/19/2008
Atheism is not tenable. The atheist is saying he or she has examined every
possible place or way that God be found and has not found God. They've
lifted every rock, looked behind every picture. No doubt about it--God
doesn't exist. They've done the research. This is absurd, of course. What
makes atheism even more untenable in most cases is that the atheist
rarely has laid out a working definition of the God he or she is certain
doesn't exist. How can it be said that something doesn't exist if one
doesn't have a clear description of the non-existent thing of which one
speaks?
RE: Whole Series
Kira Hutchens
06/19/2008
Science neither proves nor denies god as the creator of the universe. Until
we can say what created mass, matter, space, and time, we cannot give
an answer to the question presented in this forum. To assume the
existence of a certain god does not give an honest depiction of the
information humanity has obtained of our origins. It is important that we
continue research to solve these questions before we mandate that others
live under some entity that may or may not exist. We may never know the
answer, but we do know that we exist and that it will not last forever.
RE: Steven Pinker
Allan King
06/19/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Yes, Steven Pinker answers, "if
by science we mean the whole enterprise of secular reason and knowledge
(including history and philosophy), not just people with test tubes and
white lab coats." But by the "whole enterprise of secular reason and
knowledge" does Pinker mean the whole enterprise of "worldly" reason
and knowledge, or does he just mean that reason and knowledge which he
and perhaps his peers see as secular? How can any supposed scientist of
any disposition even claim to be a scientist when he formulates a
conclusion knowingly admitting that he has purposefully and intentionally
left out worldly knowledge--that is, knowledge of spirituality. Pinker should
open his mind, body, and soul to Lord Jesus and a whole new world of
psychology will open to him. Though if Lord Jesus doesn't suit him, he
might try Buddha instead. Buddha does the same job but takes twice or
three times as long.
RE: William D. Phillips
Kyle Deloske
06/18/2008
Yes, as William Phillips says, god cannot be proved false. But neither can
the flying spaghetti monster. Does that make him a believer in it? As for
the complex, fragile balance of the universe and the extreme coincidence

213
that the conditions were perfect for life, I ask Phillips this: if conditions
were different, would life be different and the new conditions under which
life appeared be considered strangly perfect to that new life? Was this
question answered by the deep sea vents? This is like an atheist finding
religion after winning the lottery. The mystery of creation did not change,
but good fortune is never assumed to be the result of coincidence.

My problem with the belief in god has always been that it is belief without
reason. If this being transcends time, there is no reason he cannot take a
couple minutes to stop by my house. Don't tell me he avoids me to test
my faith. Why must I be tested and why is faith so great? People had a lot
of faith in Hitler. People had faith in the church leaders who led them to
war in the crusades. Aztecs had faith in their bloodthirsty religious leaders.
No good came of any of this. A lot of bad things come from belief without
reason. Stop contributing to it, I beg you. As a respected mind, William
Phillips should not inspire people to accept unfounded beliefs.
RE: Whole Series
Bill Atkins
06/18/2008
The answer to the question is "no." Science is the search for an
understanding of God. End of story. Why bother scholars and other
important people with a question to which a child inherently knows the
answer?
RE: Whole Series
Mali
06/18/2008
Science is testimony of God's creations, many of which man tries to
plagiarize.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Berry
06/18/2008
Wonderful series. Science also makes assumptions, postulating a single
universe only to come upon the multiverse, and the creationist makes
assumptions too that go full circle away from science. I like to refer to the
Immaculate Assumption--the same mistakes that are repeated over and
over in lieu of letting knowledge beget knowledge. We are all body-bound
time slaves in this life, and to assume that it's simply over at death is
something like the old single universe theory. What of God . . . or god? For
those who have lived a very full life and are not ready to hang about being
bored, it's probably time to move on. There will be something else, and
why not simply let that "something else" be a god or a God or a Goddess
or Jello Pudding of another realm?
RE: Whole Series
Elys Rand
06/18/2008
Yes, science does make belief in God obsolete, or at least obviates the

214
need to create an imaginary God to explain away the Unknowns. There will
always be those few who will continue to have a psychological need to
delude themselves into seeing things that are not there in order to fill a
weakness or shortcoming within themselves. There will be those who are
comfortable being told what to say and what to think by other mere
mortals. They will claim to have seen a god that no one else can see and
that by all rights cannot exist and insist that you believe in what that
"prophet" says or else you die at the hands of other similarly deluded
mere humans.

People throughout the hundreds of thousands of years since our ancestors

achieved sentience on the African continent have invented all sorts of
deities to explain away the Unknown things that scared them, and to
soothe their own egos because the universe is indifferent to them, as with
all animals. There is no real evidence that even one of those claimed
deities has ever been truly seen by its followers or shown to actually exist,
not one. Science has successfully explained away a critical mass of the
classic Unknowns that caused people to have a need to create their own
brand of imaginary god. Now we know, and it is no longer Unknown.
RE: Whole Series
Rob Freeman
06/18/2008
How can people can be so unbelievably ignorant and think for one second
that there is evidence, any evidence at all, ever, found against evolution?
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Eugene Bucamp
06/18/2008
Stuart Kauffman, making the case for redefining God as "creativity in the
natural universe," is not creative at all. Creativity could be defined as an
occurrence where entropy does not increase, as expected on average, but
actually decreases locally. This is when the unexpected occurs--hence the
idea of "creativity." It is just such occurrences that have been seized upon
by various clergymen as proof of Divine intervention in the universe.
Darwinian evolution is probably the most spectacular instance of this,
particularly in its most creative outcome, Homo sapiens sapiens.
Crucially, we just happen to be Homo sapiens himself, and we have a long
history of creative design. We can see a pattern emerging here: we come
to define what "creativity" is, based on our own example both as
industrious creatures and our existence as a seemingly unique example of
the "most creative outcome" in the universe. And then, hey presto, we
contrive this notion of a creative entity that should be "intelligent" and
"spiritual," that is to say, more or less what we think we are, but crucially
an entity that could have created the most spectacular and unexpected
events that have ever occurred: the creation of mankind and the universe.
So, yes, God is really the god of creativity because it provides a ready
explanation for the unexpected.
As Anglican archdeacon William Paley had noticed (see Victor J. Stenger's

215
contribution), when a human being comes across something that looks like
an artifact, his impulse is to assume that there is a creator and designer of
it: any artifact would have been naturally understood as an indication that
another group of humans were in the vicinity. Now, and unlike Paley in
1802, we are able to understand how "creativity" comes about in nature
and how natural it is. Who could still need a God of creativity?
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Eugene Bucamp
06/18/2008
Stuart Kauffman is misguided if he really believes that "religious
fundamentalisms" resulted from a split "between science and faith." As
other contributors have noted, there is of course no split: "40 percent of
American scientists believe in God" and "68 percent of Protestants and 69
percent of Catholics" accept the theory of evolution (see Michael
Shermer's contribution). The main religions are also generally
accommodating of science.

Fundamentalists have always existed. Protestantism, for example, at least

in its initial thrust, was clearly a fundamentalist impulse, with its
requirement that believers should seek the word of God directly from the
Bible rather than take the words of a clergy for it. Fundamentalism is often
a psychological condition, where order and dogma look attractive while
democracy, liberalism, individualism, and relativism look somehow
nauseating. Clearly, this condition is not specific to religious people.
RE: Whole Series
George S. Nischik
06/18/2008
In browsing through these comments, I am struck by the nebulous nature
of "God concepts" that are argued either for or against. No wonder there is
so much confusion. Maybe we should try more defining before we do so
much pontificating. Please allow me to try. I think that this discussion
should begin by answering the following questions. Is knowledge
transcendental? Does science acknowledge a transcendental domain? A
yes or no answer to these questions has interesting and profound
implications for our discussion. If you acknowledge a transcendental
domain, "God" is a very real necessity and can never be obsolete. But if
you deny the possibility of the transcendental, obviously "God" never was.
The problem with that position is that "you" never were either.
RE: Whole Series
Alan Joyner
06/18/2008
Thank you for addressing what has bothered me since the age of 13 or 14,
namely the self-centered idea of an omniscient being who traces the flight
of each sparrow yet visits us with bone cancer. What we now know about
the size and age of the universe should obviously preclude the existence
of such a creature. Thanks again for a most interesting exploration of all

216
sides of the issue.
RE: Whole Series
Marc Menard
06/18/2008
Interestingly, the word science has its root in the Latin "sciente," knowing
or knowledge. Consequently, science is the sum total of all knowledge
revealed to man up to this point. (Compare science of, say, 1920 to that of
the present.) According to Judeo-Christian belief, God is all-knowing and
not confined to time restraints. When considered in its cosmological
fullness, faith renders science no more than a human conceit, an attempt
at self-inflation no different from Satan's role in the Garden of Eden story.
What we know is minuscule compared to what we can know. And belief
posits God as knowing so much more--often proven by miraculous
personal experiences quite provable by scientific data. Such used to be,
then one meets God, and such no longer exists. The dynamics speak for
themselves.
RE: Whole Series
Trevor
06/18/2008
Caitlin, the problem with your premise is that you claim that there's
evidence against evolution. That's simply not true. And life happens by
chance all of the time. In fact, life is incredibly resilient, stout, and
stubborn. You'll also find that science did not throw down the first
gauntlet. This was done by religion when scientific advancements were
seen as a threat to the church. It's been a battle ever since. Finally, the
complex machine that is the human form comes with many, many flaws. I
can't begin to list my ailments, most of which have nothing to do with my
own doing. Nor is complexity an argument for design. In my opinion, a
belief in God can exist outside of religion. It's religion that should suffer in
the face of science.
RE: Whole Series
Jonathan
06/18/2008
Dear Caitlin, you should read Dawkins's "The God Delusion" in order to see
just how wrong some of your ideas are. Dawkins is an eminent biologist
who has continuously campaigned against ignorance of the sort you are
preaching. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, and all serious
biologists, whether religious or not, treat it as physicists treat the theory of
gravity, that is, as fact. Furthermore, Darwin's theory of natural selection
is the complete opposite of chance.
RE: Whole Series
Caitlin
06/17/2008
No! It's obvious that there are many many people who still believe in God,
so it's not obsolete now, nor should it ever be. Christianity, for one,
actually goes hand in hand with science, not against it. You'd be surprised

217
how much evidence there is against evolution! Science and its discoveries
are not the opposite of God, but rather the evidence of Him. Scientists
ought to know that life, in all its complexity, cannot have happened by
chance. Just study DNA, or even an amoeba. Now think about it. Chance? I
think not. People need to stop warring against religion because they
believe it contradicts science. Maybe you should read "The Case for A
Creator" By Lee Strobel. Evolutionists--and the media--only tell you what
they want you to hear. The reason all life forms seem so similar to each
other--apes and humans, for example--is because of a common designer,
not a common ancestor. If you design a complex machine and it works,
would you not design your other machines to be similar?
RE: Whole Series
Lloyd Zellmer
06/17/2008
Does science have any limitations? It would be interesting to have a blog
limited to people who believe they have had an experience that can't be
explained by science. They may be more open to seeking explanations
than most previous commentators on both sides of this subject. I don't
simply mean a feeling. It needs to have been an actual set of observable
conditions that actually happened. The event needs to be real and
verifiable enough to have been for them a proof as valid as a scientific
experimental observation. After that event happened, how would anyone
expect them to make it happen again since they probably didn't make it
happen in the first place? Maybe that scientific requirement misses
something. It prevents us from going beyond what we currently think we
know.

Science can't know or test or measure what I think. But thinking is

nonetheless real. Most great discoveries came from thinking, some
sincerely claim from beyond thinking. A thinking-reality would certainly be
available to whatever is beyond what we understand to be God. Tapping
into the thinking-reality might be the connector, the missing link, the next
step for scientific exploration.

If that's possible, and it certainly is, it doesn't seem logical for our
discussions using thinking to form the words to argue that something like
a thinking-reality doesn't exist. That's not very scientific. Words are
primitive, but that's the best we have. Words may help us organize ideas,
but cleverly organized words are not the best device to test scientific
proofs or God. When science can probe the thinking-reality, then we might
be in a better position to imagine and share questions about God.
RE: Whole Series
Village
06/17/2008
If you have faith in God, then God created evolution and science and
picked the year 2000 to reveal the secrets of DNA. If you don't believe,
then he didn't. I'd like to see a person who has had a near-death

218
experience who doesn't have faith.
RE: Michael Shermer
Tra Bass
06/17/2008
I am always amazed at how Mr. Shermer can analyze a circumstance
without making judgements about the arguments. This is a sign of true
writing brilliance. Once again, he has amazed me in his answer by
distinguishing between "belief" and "God," neither of which can be proven
or disproven with the science that we currently know. It is a spirited
debate that can only end when we find out for ourselves the truth,
whatever that may be.
RE: Whole Series
Patricia
06/17/2008
Part of the issue lies in the role that faith in God, or religion, plays in the
lives and psyches of people, a role that science has now come to take up
in the collective Western understanding. But science is not completely
successful in satisfying the human mind or in answering the fullness of the
truth. Whether there is a surpreme intelligence/consciousness with a
sense of purpose may or not be provable or even relevant, but the need to
have that being and the natural inclination to seek out that being still
plays a role in human history as it continues to unfold. Science has not yet
made that concept obsolete. I believe in God, and I also believe in the
rigors of science and its ability to bring humanity closer to knowledge,
even to moral consciousness by forcing us to ask ourselves questions. If
the premise of God doesn't support or withstand questioning, it is fair to
call God obsolete in the face of science.

But the attitude of many believers, which shuns the investigation of faith,
should not be used against God, no more than the inability of science to
prove all things knowable should be used against its ability to expand
knowledge. God may not be fallible, and the knowledge science seeks may
be absolute, but our understanding of both is abbreviated at best. If one
day there is a merger between what we know in science and the purpose
of faith, perhaps all that we would achieve is to prove that God and
science are actually the same thing and that our understanding of both
requires revision.
RE: Whole Series
John Stanich
06/17/2008
Good stuff to teach teens how to be critical thinkers.
RE: Whole Series
Vitaly Sorokin
06/17/2008
To answer the question of whether science makes belief in God obsolete
one needs to know what God is. Obviously, science has made belief in the

219
Judeo-Christian-Islamic God obsolete or at the very least discredited. You
have to heavily "interpret" the "Holy books" in order not to look downright
ridiculous, and if the "word of God" needs so much editing and revisions,
either the author is not very good or those who wrote it down badly
misunderstood or simply lied. In either case, current religions must be
abandoned or reconciled with what we know.
RE: Whole Series
Baba
06/17/2008
Science and God are the same thing. Like time and space, science and
God are ways of slicing and dicing creation to make it understandable.
Each of us is responsible for creation. If we see ourselves as separate, we
are still seeing ourselves as the thoughts we produce and not as the
underlaying wholeness.
RE: Whole Series
Craig Duckett
06/17/2008
Religion, like science, is dependent upon language for its transmission, but
science, unlike religion, is still experimentally viable in the absence of
language. This means that the scientific method is still functional in a
world without words, but religion is not. Religions depend solely on words
(God, heaven, hell, soul, life after death, angels, devils) and cannot exist
without them. A simple test for reality is whether the "it" in question be
experienced without resorting to language. If it can, it is "real." If it cannot,
it is nothing more than an abstract, artificial, cultural construct.
RE: Jerome Groopman
Eugene Bucamp
06/17/2008
Jerome Groopman claims that only the "extremes" and the
"fundamentalist religious believers" are the problem. The reality that
should be obvious to him, as it is to everybody else, is that many religious
people and certainly most religious leaders would love to impose on
everybody what they regard as the absolute truths of their faith. Not only
would they love to do that, but many are effectively organized to achieve
this goal.

Groopman also offers as uncontroversial the view of a Protestant

theologian that "the basis of true faith is doubt." Never mind the self-
indulgence. Never mind that some religious people would probably beg to
differ, not least fundamentalists, but how are non-believers to understand
this convenient notion? Is it a hint that "true faith" is rational? Or should
this be regarded as a tenet of one's faith, which might then lead to
interesting logical difficulties? Is it some new species of objective fact that
only most people fail to notice? If none of that, should we not regard it as
just another piece of self-indulgence?

220
The oft repeated piece of religious propaganda that "negation of God" is a
"belief" is only silly. Atheists, Groopman says, "should sometimes doubt
their negation of God." Why? Not believing in nonsense is a "belief"?
Would Groopman say that his not believing in the Gloxburg is a "belief"?
Should he doubt his "negation" of the Gloxburg? What is a Gloxburg, do
you ask? Precisely.
I shall not "belittle or ridicule as fools those who struggle to find meaning
in life." Come to think of it, I struggle to find meaning in life too. And who
is he then to even implicitly imply that "belief in the Divine" is the only
way to do that? Religious faith is by definition totalitarian, and it is
therefore only healthy that the unfaithful should belittle and ridicule.
Believers who can't take the flak should think of keeping their faith
private.
RE: Steven Pinker
Samuel Pachuau
06/17/2008
How can anyone know his purpose in this world? We do not create
ourselves. We must simply go to the creator who created us. Science may
puzzle us in our belief, even about the existence of God, but to me,
science is a means by which I integrate with my savior amd realize that
out of all the things He has made and created on this earth and in the
entire universe, He also created me and knows me by my name. That's the
greatest privilege I can achieve on this earth. Religion without science is
lame, and science without religion is destructive.
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Garland McClendon
06/17/2008
Victor Stenger writes that "even if the universe were created, it retains no
memory of that creation or of the intentions of any possible creator." I
know of no mechanism, Artificial Intelligence (AI) computer system,
device, or Boeing 737 airplane that could possibly retain any memory of
its creation or the intentions of its creator (designer), or any information
except maybe the AI computer system case, which could remember
information only if so programmed by its designer. Yet, without intelligent
design and information, none of these things could exist. The above
statement by Stenger makes absolutely no philosophical or logical sense.

I propose to Stenger, as George Gamow proposed, that the cause behind

the hot big-bang beginning was initiated by a very high-order-intelligent
being who fine-tuned the force constants of nature, which was required to
control a just-right-universe development for the existence of an
intelligent observer on a just-right placed planet revolving around a star--a
mathematical engineering task beyond human comprehension. I simply
can see no other explanation. I do not have the faith to believe Stenger's
answer to the topic question. To answer the question with an absolute yes,
as Stenger does, implies that he is a man of great faith in his philosophy
and beliefs.

221
Being human brings us to the point that allows us to make decisions based
on our faith and beliefs. An intellectual about 1900 years ago by the name
of Saul of Tarsus made the statement, "Work out your own salvation
(philosophy and beliefs) with fear and trembling." This requires a lot of
sound decision making based on reality and faith, that, in the end, brings
contentment and peace-of-mind with no questions, anxiety, or an ax to
grind concerning your philosophy and beliefs. You know that you know and
will have to answer to no one except to yourself and/or God.
RE: Jerome Groopman
Eugene Bucamp
06/17/2008
Jerome Groopman pleads with us that "science and faith" should exist in
"separate realms." This plea is misguided. There is no other possibility
than for each of us to experience reality as "separate realms": one is our
disconnected subjective lives, the other is our interconnected objective
lives. In our subjective lives, precisely because they are not
interconnected, each of us is free to believe whatever he wants to. In our
objective lives, however, because they are interconnected, each of us has
to share living space with other human beings and we have to make a
choice as to the best way to live together. According to this, faith, as a
subjective activity, seems hardly a problem, but religion, as an objective
reality, definitely is.

Human beings certainly don't need religion to turn nasty to each other but,
as history has shown, religion can easily be turned into the instrument of
choice that various people will use to bludgeon others. Today, political life
in most if not all democratic countries reveals how religion continues to try
to exert, and indeed exerts, an undue influence within the political process
and within society. If separateness of "science and faith" is not an issue,
separateness of religion and public life is. Jerome Groopman should
therefore try to plea with the Pope and other religious leaders that religion
and public life should be kept separate.
RE: Whole Series
Cavanha
06/17/2008
It's not a matter of yes, no, or perhaps. Possible, probable, and proved are
the three steps for a tentative understanding.
RE: Steven Pinker
Greg Robinson
06/17/2008
First off, Steven Pinker attacks the strawman of a 6,000-year-old Earth.
There is a minority of Christians who maintain that the Bible is to be read
as a science text or a newspaper, but Christian scholars from St. Augustine
to C.S. Lewis and now N.T. Wright maintain nothing of the sort. In addition,
neither Wright nor Lewis has found evolution contrary to a proper reading

222
of the Bible. Francis Collins, the leader of the Human Genome Project, is
an evangelical Christian and has no trouble with DNA, evolution, or the
Bible.

Pinker then claims that if one is to say that God created the universe, it
leaves open the question of where did God come from. Why is it that we
can accept theories from science that speak of other spatial dimensions as
well as other time dimensions? What does another time dimension look
like? Many physicists would agree that time is essentially an illusion of
sorts. Why then is it so hard to accept the idea of a god who exists outside
of our dimension of time?

Pinker then makes the claim that Western democracies have brought
about the decrease in slavery, sadistic criminal punishment, and the
mistreatment of children. I would suggest that Judeo-Christian culture
spawned Western democracies in the first place and that it was largely
Christians like Wilberforce who were responsible for bringing an end to
those barbaric practices within those democracies. I would go further and
say that the Christian community is still at the forefront of trying to bring
an end to the barbarism that still exists in parts of the world today.

I'd like to make the humble suggestion that if Pinker is going to critique
the Christian faith, he should start by understanding what orthodox
Christianity actually teaches instead of attacking the position of a poorly
informed minority. Theology has nothing to say about science, and science
has nothing to say about theology.
RE: Whole Series
Mark Pasternak
06/17/2008
Science is the study of what is knowable, so it can't make the concept of
an abstract, unknowable God obsolete. It can contradict untenable claims
about God, which should be healthy for those who choose to hold religious
beliefs. Unfortunatley, many believers are unaffected by science or
reason.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
James Ogilvie
06/16/2008
Christianity has always been a faith-based religion. Faith is its very
essence. As a scientist, I could never find the answers in the laboratory
that Christ posed. The reverse is also true. Having someone criticize
Christianity because it cannot be verified by the scientific process only
makes a Christian respond with, "Yes, we are well aware of that."
RE: Whole Series
Mary Ulrich
06/16/2008
Scientific knowledge should make belief in God obsolete, if by God we

223
mean an invisible guy in the sky who created everything. Such gods were
invented by early humans to explain how the land and all living things in
their corner of the world came to be. They also imagined powerful gods to
explain heavenly bodies and frightening natural phenomena. Thanks to
scientific knowledge, we now know what causes these catastrophes, and
so we no longer worship angry mountain-fire gods, or thunder gods, or the
sun, moon, and planets. We also know that fertility does not depend on a
goddess.

Now that science has also discovered how life evolved, including human
life, no one should believe in a god sculpting a clay statue and making it
instantaneously come to life, or in a talking snake and magic fruit. Though
many have given up belief in these types of literal biblical stories and the
anthropomorphic god, they still cling to a personal god or a universal
creator, and still refer to it as he. What started out as a tribal or local god
was first promoted to god of the world, and then to creator and ruler of the
whole universe.

The human moral sense also does not come from a god. As the more
advanced life forms evolved, so did empathy and a sense of justice. We
see evidence of this development in social animals such as wolves,
chimpanzees, and elephants. Early humans quickly learned that they
would not have a peaceful or prosperous tribe if people were robbing and
killing each other. The Golden Rule predates Christianity by many
centuries and is found in the social code of indigenous cultures throughout
the world. Long before a child is old enough to be told "There is a God and
these are his rules," he has an innate sense of justice, and instinctively
rebels when he has been treated unfairly.

There is a difference between man's sense of justice and the laws

supposedly handed down from a god to a tyrannical earthly
representative. God's laws are often oppressive, as seen in the theocracy
described in the Old Testament and in the Taliban: ridiculous prohibitions
against harmless or normal behavior, cruel punishments, wasteful
sacrifices of time and resources, hierarchies and caste systems that
oppress large segments of the population. In contrast, laws established by
enlightened humans who tap their own evolved judgment usually forbid
tyranny and demand equality and justice, as demonstrated in our Bill of
Rights.

For tyrants and the unscrupulous, "God commanded it" is a convenient

excuse to oppress others. For the compassionate, God is defined as love
and gives vindication and hope of reward, if not in this life, then in the
next. For the weak, he is a powerful ally. For the guilty he is justification
and salvation. As demonstrated by the variety of concepts of god given on
this site, he is a human invention, and can be whatever you want him to
be.

224
RE: Whole Series
Steve Chaput
06/16/2008
I greatly appreciate the essays you have made available. I also wish to
thank those individuals who took the time to address the question in such
a thoughtful fashion. As a skeptic myself, I still found it interesting to read
the thoughts of those writers with whom I disagree. It never hurts to have
one's beliefs questioned.
RE: Steven Pinker
Harold L. Lane Jr.
06/16/2008
My comments are not meant to be a way of creating a God to fit a
negative argument. They are meant to be a view of God explaining a
simplicity of faith in an impossibly complex universe. Why would I enjoy a
God who does not revel in the amazing outcomes of his creation? Why
would I enjoy a God who orchestrates at a moment's notice what will
occur? I would argue that God is fascinated by what occurs in the universe
and proud to be an observer of His own handiwork. Am I arguing for a
"mechanistic" view of God and creation? He created, set in motion, and
now simply enjoys? Absolutely. Is science not a "mechanistic" thing in the
sense of cause and outcome? Are these not the same processes? I believe
in science and religion. I believe, as a friend so eloquently stated, that
there were dinosaurs and that God decided to let them occur.
RE: Whole Series
John
06/16/2008
I'm surprised that Richard Dawkins has not submitted an essay given the
amount of material he has written on atheism and religiosity.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Bill Newnam
06/16/2008
As a humble student and great admirer of Dr. Sapolsky's course with the
Teaching Company, I must say I'm surprised and disappointed in his
response equating ecstasy with belief in god, which he finds unaffected by
science. 0ne would think that his deep knowledge of what is now known of
brain function would lead to him to have an inkling into the mental
processes of atheists, including himself, that lead them to ecstatic feelings
without conflating them with God. Otherwise, he provides a marvelous
overview of the scientific process that stands quite apart from the abrupt
shift he makes to favor "religiosity, where the mere possibility of belief and
faith in the absence of proof is where it can be an ecstatic, moving truth."

Quite frankly, I'm always astounded when brilliant scientists persist in

going along with or hanging onto the God concept, or something like it, as
in some way explanatory of those mysteries of nature that science has not
yet unraveled or perhaps never will. Why is it not permissible just to say

225
that we do not know? The majority of scientists are atheists and, by
definition, the response for them should be similar to Laplace's reply to
Napoleon's query as to where God was in his scheme of things: "Sire, I
have no need of that hypothesis."

For the majority, belief in God or in similar phantasmagoria will probably

never become obsolete--or surely not until every remaining unknown will
be known and elucidated by science. The latter is an unlikely prospect or
certainly a far distant one. Even then the "normal" brain, cognitively
evolved as it is (see Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained"), would probably
continue to see what isn't there. But for scientists that won't do. As Sam
Harris has said, "we are in the truth business."
RE: Keith Ward
Eugene Bucamp
06/16/2008
To Keith Ward, the laws and constants of nature "look" as if they had been
"designed" to "lead to the existence of intelligent life" and "it could be
true" that "intelligent life is somehow prefigured in the basic laws of the
universe." This argument stems from scientists becoming aware that had
these laws and constants been ever so slightly different from what they
are, the galaxies, life, and humans could not possibly exist. In a rationalist
outlook, the existence of something requires the laws and constants of
nature to be such that this something become a naturally occurring event.
Hence, laws and constants of nature should be such that stars, planets, life
and Homo sapiens are all natural events. As is indeed the case.

Keith Ward seems to concede that much, and his is no longer the
traditional Christian argument that "Man" is so improbable that his
existence requires an "act of God." He seems instead to concede that Man
is entirely natural while also suggesting that the laws and constants of
nature are so improbable that they require an act of God. It is noteworthy
that religious minds today have to look at what science says before
making their trademark claims.

In fact, however, science does not say that the laws and constants of
nature are in any way "improbable." They are what they are and had they
been ever so slightly different, then the stars, the planets, life, and Homo
sapiens would not have been possible, and there is nothing strange in this.
Further, science also says that if an event is to be regarded at all as
improbable, it is necessary that an alternative event could be regarded as
possible so that the occurrence of the alternative event could possibly be
regarded as more probable. Otherwise, the one possible event is simply
necessary. Here, we would have to show that nature could have had
different laws and constants. Absent this, the claim that the laws and
constants of nature are improbable is vacuous.
RE: Whole Series
P.V. Maiya

226
06/16/2008
To me, God is the one who is making the universe work. Until someone,
maybe a scientist or a philospher, finds his identity, I just salute the one
unknown. Maybe it is a force or energy that is not graspable within our
current knowledge. It is experientially felt and recognized more in crisis
than in "normal" times.
RE: Whole Series
Betty Ellis
06/16/2008
We don't need a "God" to explain things anymore. The whole debate is a
bad joke.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Woo
06/16/2008
The term "God" can have a different meaning for different people. I am
assuming that it refers to the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Belief in this God has a history going back thousands of years, has played
a significant role in the lives of people in the past, and is still definitely
having a major influence in the lives of many people today, considering
that about three billion people, half of the world's population, are keeping
faith with this God. In fact, going by the increase in numbers alone,
especially for Muslims, belief in God appears to be on the upswing rather
than on the decline. Although science has a relatively shorter history,
science has contributed much more to humanity in the last few hundred
years than all the religions put together in the last 3,000 years. But does
science make belief in God obsolete? In terms of the evidence we have
just provided, the answer is no. Will it happen in the future? Not likely.
Religion, we need to remember, is an area that is totally different from
science, hence has nothing to do with science, notwithstanding the
argument that both can co-exist, exclusively or independently of each.

Should belief in God take a dip or become obsolete, it would probably be

the result of people coming to realize that their beliefs have produced no
real benefit for their lives, apart from benefits that are no different from
taking a placebo, or are just psychological. But we cannot discount that
some people in the wake of scientific advancement have given up their
belief in God; so to these people God has in a sense become obsolete. I
am one of those who have terminated their belief in God as a result of
becoming more aware of the God they have been worshipping--ironically,
by picking up the Bible and reading it critically.

No one can be serious in continuing their God-belief or God-worship after

reading the Bible, the so-called scriptural writings inspired by God. The
stories of the Bible portray God as a barbaric, capricious, covenant-crazy,
cruel, despotic, egoistic, freakish, hypocritical, insane, intolerant,
malevolent, racist, revengeful, genocidal maniac. Going by the Bible, God
can be said to be very dependent on human assistance to execute his

227
wishes or plans. To claim that he is all-loving is to be totally ignorant of
biblical accounts of his cruelty, intolerance, racism, and murderous
instinct, or to be dishonest or irrational. It it is truly amazing tha
treasonable or rational people can continue their worship of this God. But
if people prefer to let faith, rather than reason, rule their lives, what can
we say?
RE: Mary Midgley
Eugene Bucamp
06/16/2008
I disagree with Mary Midgley's view that belief in God cannot be made
obsolete because it is not a "scientific opinion," only an element in
personal "worldviews." Her view would be nearly correct if the god in
question was some undefined supernatural entity. The question, however,
was about "God." God with a capital "G" usually stands for the many,
multifarious but very specific and concrete views of God, essentially
Abrahamic traditions. The God of the question could not be some
undefined supernatural entity because this is not the kind of God people
say they believe in. God very nearly always comes with down-to-earth
beliefs: the earth has to be at the center of the universe because Man is at
the center of God's Creation; God's own son lived in Nazareth 2,000 years
ago and bled on a wooden cross; Lazarus came back from the dead.
Without such graphic details, a "belief in God" would make little sense to
most people and would become uninteresting.

Though the hypothesis of some undefined supernatural entity may be

regarded as non-falsifiable by definition, each additional down-to-earth
belief potentially makes for a suitably falsifiable statement. As it turned
out, the earth revolves around the sun and is not at the center of the
universe: Galileo was right and the Pope was wrong. Equally, homo
sapiens Sapiens, "Man", wasn't created in a few days less than 6000 years
ago, but more than 100,000 years ago as the accidental product of billions
of years of Darwinian evolution.

Apparently, only falsifiable beliefs have any "spiritual" value for those who
hold them. We want our gods to come with resurrections, poltergeists, and
miraculous relics, but each scientific discovery makes our complicated
religious narratives less and less probable. Yes, Gods won't be proven
false, simply uninteresting, which is a very good definition of what
obsoleteness is.
RE: Whole Series
izAriver
06/16/2008
I don't need science to make it obsolete. To become obsolete, it had to
actually exist in the first place.
RE: William D. Phillips
Paul Dash

228
06/15/2008
Phillips argues that as a scientist he can believe in God because religious
statements are non-falsifiable, and since some allegedly non-falsifiable
statements ("she sings beautifully") are meaningful, religious statements
are meaningful too. But the second argument is clearly a non-sequitur. Not
all non-falsifiable statements are meaningful ("the tweedlebug forgot to
interrogate the galumphnot"), and arguably religious statements like "God
loves man" fall into the meaningless category. What does it mean for a
non-physical postulated entity like "God" to love? At least in people one
can measure various correlates of love, like brain activity in certain areas.
And it seems to me that Phillips betrays his scientific background by being
willing to accept such meaningless or non-verifiable statements "on faith."

He also uses the anthropomorphic argument: God must have created the
parameters of physics or else we wouldn't exist. But in the multiverse
hypothesis, there may in fact be myriad universes where those
parameters are different, and life cannot exist in them. Of course it is a
truism to say that life exists only where it can exist. Finally, addressing the
question of why he believes in God, it all boils down to because it makes
him feel better. What a ridiculous argument. It makes me feel better to
imagine that my investments are going to make me a multimillionaire, but
if I start spending the money now I will run into trouble quickly! Drugs of
abuse make people feel better too; hardly a good argument to take them.
All in all, an extremely unconvincing essay.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Ronald Markham
06/15/2008
I am curious. When Christopher Hitchens disciplines his own children for
their own good, do they call him "incompetent and/or extremely capricious
and callous, and even cruel," as he says of God? Would Hitchens still love
them if they did?
RE: Whole Series
Ronald Markham
06/15/2008
As an older and senior scientist, it is interesting to see these younger
scientists retracing my exact thoughts through the years. Some scientists
see a painting and doubt a painter ever existed. If they can prove that
dyes occur naturally, they conclude that the painting did as well. Some
scientists create a simple enzyme or protein in a natural way and conclude
all organic organisms were created this way as well. Many scientists
overlook the unexplained, yet no less important, intermediate steps. That
is the definition of faith--faith that God does not exist.

A true scientist knows that the more we understand about the universe,
the more we realize we do not know. As we begin to understand more
about the universe, we see how awesome God is. Gaining a better
understanding of his work does not make Him any less real. I believe that

229
these young scientists will eventually come to the same conclusion I did.
Einstein said it best: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the
illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are
able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Both science and God
require faith. Both have theories that will be proven or disproven after we
die.
RE: Whole Series
Charles T. Rowe, M.D.
06/15/2008
Science, by definition, is knowledge gained from fact and experience. Its
theories deal with the natural world, are objective, testable, and can
always be changed. Faith, by definition, is certitude not based on fact. It is
an individual's subjective opinion, and it is resistant to being changed by
facts.

Many study the supernatural as well as the natural world, and for them,
God is not obsolete. Rather science and God coexist. But there are two
types of coexistence to consider. First is the personal decision each makes
regarding belief or non-belief in God. The second type involves how those
who believe in a God coexist with those who do not. Ethics is the study of
ideal behavior. The problem with the coexistence of the subjective
concepts of God and the objective thought structure of science arises
because we humans must determine the basis for ethical behavior. Is
humanity to base this decision on subjective faith or the objective facts of
science? If there is no universally accepted basis for ethics, as Bertrand
Russell pointed out, significant ethical differences will be decided using
propaganda and/or force, as in religious wars.

There is one fact with which humanity as a whole agrees: there is nothing
more important than the continuation and well-being of our children and
grandchildren and our grandchildren's grandchildren. Even those who
have no personal descendants do not want humanity's existence to cease
with their deaths. This concept is known as perpetuation of the species.
Our descendants' survival will be an objective determination, strictly a
function of how things work in the natural world. Hence, ethical behavior
must fundamentally be determined by science rather than the
supernatural personal opinions of faith. If we get our priorities correct,
then indeed God can coexist with science.
RE: Steven Pinker
Scott Chadderdon
06/14/2008
I have read the Bible from cover to cover, and nowhere in the Bible does it
say that the universe has been here a few thousand years. It's obvious to
anyone looking up at the night sky that the earth and stars have been
around for billions of years. Nor does the Bible say how long a creative day
was; maybe it was a billion years. It also does not say that there was day
and night before he created our star the sun. It simply states that he set

230
into motion the division of light and dark here on the earth. It could simply
mean that the sun was already here and he started the earth rotating on
its axis to accomplish this. Please be more open-minded and careful when
reading God's word.
RE: Steven Pinker
Carl Golden
06/14/2008
I agree that scientific positivism makes faith in a deity unnecessary.
However, it does not make faith in a creative source or ground unfounded,
such as faith in the Buddhist idea of the Dharmakaya or the Vedantist
notion of Satchitananda. So I find it curious and suspect that positivists
tend to argue against the existence of God as it is understood biblically as
if the biblical notion of god were the only understanding of the divine. Isn't
this something of a strawman? The theology of biblically-based religious
fundamentalism, or any form of religious fundamentalism, is mythic in
nature and, therefore, pre-rational. So there is never going to be any
common ground for a real discussion.

The science and God discussion needs to extract itself from the mere
mythic construct and more robustly engage the rational and trans-rational
forms of religious and spiritual experiences. Buddhism, for instance, is
compatible with most, if not all, of the scientific worldview, but it would
significantly challenge the scientific conclusion of materialism. As the pre-
rational forms of religion have had much to learn from science and modern
positivism, so too does the entrenched rationalism of positivism have
much to learn from the trans-rational mystical philosophical and religious
traditions. In fact, science and the mystical traditions would work very well
together once common ground were established for joint inquiry and
dialogue.
RE: Steven Pinker
Carl Weisser
06/14/2008
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam begin with Abraham. What kind of rational
entity asks a father to slay his son? This entity allows violence to continue
on an even grander scale to this very day. Genocide, mass starvation, and
Islamic children trained to be suicide bombers discredit the entity whom
billions worship. These atrocities occur even with free will subjugated to
these religions. This is the dark side. These religions do bring out the
better qualities of humanity, which still outweigh the dark side.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
James North
06/14/2008
I tend to agree with Mr. Hitchens. We as a species have been able to
achieve a level of humanity to the point where we are able to increase our
number and not destroy ourselves completely. Fear of reprisal (here on
earth and/or eternal hell after death) and promised eternal happiness

231
(here on earth and/or in heaven) were used by religion in our earliest
times to achieve this. Science will never make an esoteric belief obsolete,
but it can make the actions and reactions taken on behalf of that belief
obsolete. That is what we as a species should be working toward.
RE: Whole Series
William Roth
06/14/2008
God in the sense of any biblical God, yes. God in the sense of a greater
universe that we have yet to truly understand and identify, no. Religiously
minded people (organized religion) inappropriately blend these two very
different topics, ultimately retreating to the "chicken and egg" argument
of "universe and god" and abandoning objective reasoning.

The Bible contains too many inaccuracies about our universe to ever be
viewed by a truly objective person to be a deity-inspired text (take the age
of existence). Once a fundamentally important part of a story (that is
deemed infallible and authoritative) is proven to be incorrect, the
credibility of the balance is lost and can no longer be viewed as infallible,
absolute, or authorative. Thus, the Bible as a literal work and,
consequently, the biblical God have been proven false. So, yes, science
has killed the concept of the biblical God. But in reality, this God never
existed, so killed is not the right word, but rather the curtain was pulled
back and the wizard is indeed a mirage. The unthinking majority has yet to
admit it to themselves because of a lack of critical study or aptitude, fear
of societal/family pressure, or not understanding how to fill the void left by
this acknowledgement.

However, god as a concept may still be proven by science. The universe is

a paradoxical mix of chaos and order, and we would be remiss to say there
is not something greater than ourselves. But to throw proverbial rocks at
one another as to what this god wants from us is not only myopic but
represents a dividing force among us and a danger to our species and our
world.
RE: Whole Series
Cecil Eiland
06/13/2008
Here we go again: trying to mix oil and water.
RE: Keith Ward
Eugene Bucamp
06/13/2008
Keith Ward tries hard to make religious insights about God relevant to
science: the creation of the universe by God would require that our
scientific understanding of nature be amended by introducing new earth-
shattering notions such as "non-physical causality" that are otherwise
quite abhorrent to the "materialist view." But the fact is that nobody needs
to speculate about even a "rather minimal view" of God to arrive at a

232
similarly earth-shattering conclusion. Whatever the extent and depth of
the reality science is able to fathom, it is at least plausible that whatever
lies beyond may turn out to be quite unlike what we think we already
know.

In fact, while proof that a theory is false can only be provided by

observation and experiment, not by another theory, it is in the nature of
fundamental theoretical discoveries, for example Newton's theory of
gravitation, Darwin's theory of evolution, Einstein's special relativity and
general relativity, and, not least, quantum physics, that they show how
false previous scientific theories have been all along. Certainly the road to
scientific knowledge is full of bumps and should invite true humility, but to
prove that an accepted scientific theory is false really is the essence of the
scientific process.

While numerous historical figures, from Copernicus to Newton to Darwin to

Belgium Abbot Georges Lema�tre (Big Bang), have demonstrated that the
essence of science in no way inevitably eludes religious people, Keith
Ward unfortunately exemplifies where the problem sometimes lies. His
fanciful expectation that God may be relevant to science lacks one critical
element: proof that a theory is false can only be provided by observation,
not by another theory, even his improbable "rather minimal view" of God.
That no observation will be forthcoming is revealed by the same Keith
Ward: it is an important "fact" about God, says he, that God's mode of
causal influence is most unlikely to be "publicly observable." Bad luck.
RE: William D. Phillips
Eugene Bucamp
06/13/2008
No doubt individual scientists may choose to have some kind of religious
faith, and scientists and religious people can be best friends. But William
D. Phillips's view that science and religion are not irreconcilable remains
unsupported. His conclusion that belief in God is "not a scientific matter" is
not quite true either. It is true of course that "religious statements are not
necessarily falsifiable." But most believers wouldn't bother with a wholly
non-falsifiable notion of God. If we chose, for example, to strictly limit our
definition of God to the dry notion of "supernatural entity," though it would
most probably be non-falsifiable, it would also have no appeal whatsoever
to anyone. Nobody would even bother to discuss the existence or
otherwise of some abstract "supernatural entity."

The appeal of religious beliefs invariably is in their having something to do

with the very real problems we face as real human beings in our real lives:
death, disease, misery, loneliness, possibly even boredom. This is true for
Christianity, and it is true for all the main religious traditions. Most of them
have, indeed, a history of going into the kind of fleshy theological details
that are more likely, sooner or later, to be disproved by science. Religious
traditions also tend to claim that they receive their truths directly from

233
their God. Each religious "truth" disproved by science then becomes
evidence that this claim is ludicrous and pathetic and that therefore the
whole lot is a sham. Ultimately, people like Phillips seem to have little
choice but to redefine their faith in such a way that it becomes essentially
irrelevant to real-life issues and therefore irrelevant to other people if not
to himself.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Simon T.
06/12/2008
Kenneth Miller contradicts himself in the space of two paragraphs. First he
mocks creationists for believing in a God that is nothing more than a
placeholder for human ignorance. He's right, of course. Creationists think
that the complexity of life doesn't have an explanation, so they conclude
that God must be the explanation. But one paragraph later Miller states
how he justifies his own belief in God: he thinks the order and harmony
found in the universe don't have an explanation, so he concludes that God
must be the explanation. His God is nothing more than a placeholder for
human ignorance.

Our universe's fundamental order may have an explanation, or it may not.

If it does have an explanation, science may one day discover what it is, or
it may not. In the second case, rational and honest human beings will
always be forced to reply "We don't know" to that particular question.
Meanwhile, religious human beings will give the same answer they always
give: God did it.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Chick
06/12/2008
Eugene Bucamp writes below that "Scientists merely try their luck,
experiment, and hope for the best, and this for as long as it will last." Is
this not arbitrary? And how is "hope" theorized?
RE: Kenneth Miller
Eugene Bucamp
06/12/2008
The notion that "science itself employs a kind of faith," as Kenneth Miller
contends, does not stand up to scrutiny. Religious faith is invariably "blind
faith": personal, arbitrary, and unverifiable. Science is, on the contrary,
founded on the careful observation of nature and on repeatable
experimentation, i.e., experimentation that potentially anybody could
repeat and that indeed many scientists throughout the world do repeat.
Scientists, and indeed most people for that matter, tend to believe that
meticulous experimentation has to be better than personal, arbitrary, and
unverifiable faith.

Would that particular belief itself be to some extent akin to religious faith?
No, because every human being on earth--not just scientists, not just

234
grown-ups, not just non-believers--has an intimate, everyday acquaintance
with experimentation, exactly the reverse of blind faith. This is our long,
shared, and continuous acquaintance with experimentation that tells us
that scientific experimentation is better than blind faith.

It is also untrue that scientists have to have a belief comparable to a

religious faith that "the world is understandable." It is not necessary to
believe that the world is understandable to engage in science or produce
good science. The world is in fact more likely not understandable through
and through. Scientists merely try their luck, experiment, and hope for the
best, and this for as long as it will last. Observation and experimentation
tell them whether they were right in the first place.

It is also somewhat bizarre and definitely spurious to present the notion

that "knowledge is always to be preferred to ignorance" as "an article of
scientific faith" when it is merely a mundane part of our everyday
experience. People seek knowledge not because they have some arbitrary
faith that knowledge is "good" but because it is part of their intimate,
shared, and historical experience that it is preferable to ignorance.
RE: Whole Series
Caitlin St. John
06/12/2008
This an interesting topic, and I look forward to reading the essays.
RE: Mary Midgley
Eugene Bucamp
06/12/2008
Raising the issue of how scientific falsifiability can apply to psychology,
Mary Midgley describes the answer of behaviorism--that "scientific
psychology must deal exclusively with outside behavior"--as "so strange
that its implications are still not fully understood." She had already noted
that we "quite rightly" use "unprovable assumptions," namely that "other
people are conscious beings, not mindless robots" and that "they have
thoughts and feelings more or less like our own." Behaviorists would surely
dismiss these assumptions as unscientific, which would indeed tally with
Mary Midgley's qualification of them as "unprovable."

However, both behaviorists and Mary Midgley would certainly accept that
we make these assumptions mainly on the basis of the "outside behavior"
of other people (other people behave like we do, therefore they must have
a conscious mind). What else? It should be noted for example that we can
as easily make the opposite assumption that other people are non-
conscious or possibly not even human beings on the same basis of their
behavior, usually when this behavior turns out to be sufficiently abhorrent,
unintelligible, or foreign to us. Why then would the behaviorist method be
"so strange" when it is the one we "quite rightly" use in our everyday life?
RE: Whole Series

235
Alfred A. Barrios. Ph.D.
06/12/2008
Before we can answer the question "Does science make belief in God
obsolete?" we must first define our terms. If we define God in supernatural
terms and science as a follower of natural laws, and if we define obsolete
as meaning no longer in tune with the present, the answer is obviously
yes. However, there is a natural definition of God that would not result in
making God obsolete. Just the opposite, it would show that science may in
fact strengthen belief in God.

In my own work, I have used a definition that would be acceptable to most

rational-minded scientists and religionists. God can be defined as a
concept made up of three subconcepts: (1) The lawfulness of nature; that
is, that there are universal laws of nature. (2) That if you follow a
particular way or guidance in life, you will be more likely to achieve
optimum peace of mind, fulfillment, and happiness (heaven) and a
minimum of suffering (hell) in life. (3) That through the power of belief you
can have greater control over your destiny.

If one accepts this three-component definition of God, then when you say
you believe in God, you are essentially saying: that you believe in the
lawfulness of nature; that there is an ideal way of life that can lead to
optimum peace of mind and happiness; and that through the power of
belief you can have greater control over your destiny.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Ron Strelecki
06/12/2008
Schonborn's "essay" is an excellent example of how the Church uses
pseudoscience, misunderstanding of real science, misunderstanding of
ancient science, deception, unreason, paranoia, and pure fantasy to
weave a web of buzzwords into a self-gratifying parody of an argument.
He makes no direct statements or claims.
RE: Whole Series
J. D. Johanson
06/11/2008
The sociological criticisms that have emerged are interesting to consider
when thinking about this topic. Backing your thoughts up psychologically,
sociologically, and so forth and allowing free thought to stand fully upright
are essential. Submitting to the story of science, or faith, can be harmful
to intellectual inquiry. Using the mechanisms of science to explain it all is
impossible. Likewise, criticism of God mustn't be confined to preconceived
notions of God, but must remain in the realm of free thought. It is much
more likely that God does exist, though my skepticism has not lead me to
a particular religion. It is ok to say "I just don't know." Maybe it cannot be
known. Yet that is precisely why I continue to investigate, searching for
flaws in my own and others' logic, and continue searching for the most
likely truth.

236
RE: Whole Series
Dale Campbell
06/11/2008
Thank you for putting these articles together. I'm sure they will be very
useful for many people of all kinds of perspectives!
RE: Whole Series
Lachlan Ward
06/11/2008
To add validity to this discussion, there would need to be an equal number
of yes and no responses. Currently, it is weighted heavily to the no side.
Thus the credibility of this discussion is, I'm afraid, very low.
RE: Whole Series
David Cararo
06/11/2008
Belief in God is mankind's need for certainty. The consciousness with
which we experience the universe is that which we seek. This seeking can
never end because to "know" for sure would require a knower and a
known, which is impossible. Mankind's religious beliefs, as a whole, are
nothing more than placing the sought-after unknown's identity on an
external concept. It would be like taking your brain out of your head to
look at it, except you need your brain to do the looking. Alan Watts used to
refer to it as biting your teeth with your teeth.

Therefore, my answer is no. Science cannot make belief in God obsolete,

because there is always something more, like trying to find the edge of the
universe (the universe being all there is ). Each step further only lets you
see that much further. But this constant search, through science
especially, has brought us everything we have. So "God" bless science and
all the tenacious bulldogs in their search for the unknown.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Bob Keck
06/11/2008
After reading this essay, the only clear fact was that I had read an essay.
What am I supposed to do with this kind of rambling?
RE: Whole Series
John McNew
06/11/2008
Science does not make belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster obsolete. In
fact, many scientists support His religion, Pastafarianism. May we all be
touched by His Noodly Appendage. R'Amen.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Nick F
06/11/2008
Miller ultimately does the same thing he criticizes creationists for doing:
using the argument of ignorance for God. For creationists, God is the

237
answer when we can't answer the question of "how." For Miller, God is the
answer when we can't answer the question of "why."
RE: Whole Series
Gilles Liboiron
06/11/2008
Great question to great people. Although the question is fundamental,
there seems to be no fundamental answer to it.
RE: Whole Series
Carl Weisser
06/11/2008
Man is very adept at obtaining knowledge and creating various belief
sysytems. Through the ages, man has constantly struggled inwardly and
outwardly in maintaining and balancing both his science and his beliefs.
Beliefs have been necessary to control the overall conduct that "free will"
allows. History shows that belief systems program social behavior. Strong
beliefs satisfy the shaky soul. Consequently, beliefs also tend to hinder
man's thirst to truly know from whence he came and where he is going.
"Free will" and man's thirst for knowledge have been programmed into
man's being by either a deity or another form of intelligence--surely not by
"random chance." Who or what created our universe may never be
knowable.

It has always been easier for man to create a belief system to deal with
the unknown and to allow pastors, prophets, kings, and tyrants to
shepherd those beliefs, no matter how wonderful or cruel. There may be
an unknown intelligence out there that neither loves nor cares about us.
This thought is upsetting, since we might be in its petri dish! No wonder it
is so easy to believe.
RE: Whole Series
Warren Felt
06/11/2008
Sounds like an interesting project. I will enjoy going through the articles.
Thanks
RE: Whole Series
Luis E. Lao
06/11/2008
Excellent potpourri of opinions! Some say yes, others say no! In reality,
who cares? People from all walks of life will continue believing in the sky
god, in the Abrahamic god, and whatever god they want to believe or not.
I really do not care as long as they do not impose anything on me. You
cannot change people. If people ever change, they do it by themselves. In
a world where everyone thinks differently, a single belief system will never
arise. So the argumentative battle for god will never stop and will continue
till the end of time. My position is that the Abrahamic god is a bad father
who could be prosecuted by Social Services and imprisoned for life!

238
RE: Kenneth Miller
Kel Skye
06/11/2008
It's with the greatest respect for Ken Miller and his work that I ask this. But
if God is wholly supernatural, how is it possible for us (a product of a
natural process) to know anything about him? To me it seems that if you
take God out of the natural realm, you take away any ability to
comprehend him. I'd love to have an answer for this. "Faith" doesn't seem
to explain anything at all, other than self-affirmation of one's beliefs, which
is fine. It's just hard to comprehend from a skeptical point of view.
RE: Whole Series
L K Tucker
06/11/2008
I am struck by the level of discussion about this question. It can be argued
that a belief in God is a belief in magic. Why do otherwise skeptical,
intelligent people have such beliefs? The answer may be Subliminal
Distraction. It can be shown that SD exposure causes bizarre beliefs, such
as belief in the ability to levitate and walk through solid objects unharmed.
The mindset that allows these beliefs can be compared to a supernatural
construct for reality. The forms of worship allow this exposure for some.
Why should anyone have supernatural beliefs? What is the origin of
spirituality?
RE: Whole Series
Guitar
06/11/2008
Theism is an exercise in credulity with rationalizations in place of the
evidence. It can be thrilling and fulfilling, but you have to be willing to
believe. Science is an exercise in curiosity that seeks probabilities through
a preponderance and convergence of evidence. It can be thrilling and
fulfilling, but you have to be willing to question. Religion is a whole nother
animal, institutionalizing hopes, beliefs, and traditions (faith). It can be
thrilling and fulfilling, but you have to be willing to limit your values.

Yes, science makes belief in god obsolete, but only for as long as you are
employing science. Yes, theism makes science obsolete, but only for as
long as you are employing theism. Yes, religion can accommodate both
science and religion, but it will always be evolving.
RE: Whole Series
Ed Graham
06/11/2008
I don't like the way the word "science" is used as an adversarial position.
Belief in God is irrelevant. In our "demon-haunted world," religion, like
prejudice, has to be carefully taught. With the exception of very few
parents, children are taught that there is magic in the world. Tooth fairy,
Disney, astrology, religion--the list is endless and pervasive.

239
Once you begin to understand that there is no magic, you notice that
movies, TV, almost all human contact has references to magic. Being
raised like this causes even rational scientists to reluctantly give up on
proclaiming to be agnostic. It is becoming easier to be an atheist, because
as time goes by there has been no--none--not even a shred of evidence
that anything supernatural exists. There has never been one instance of
magic in our universe. Lots of delusion, no magic.

We have passed the time when a person could say, "Well, there could be a
God that made the universe." We might as well believe that the Earth is a
flat disk at the center of the universe and the stars are painted on the
dome above. Is there a God? No. I could open my mind to that thought, if
there were one, only one instance of magic (something that defied a
known law of physics) that was proven and could be replicated. Churches
have a reason to teach this delusion--it's what they do.
RE: William D. Phillips
Timothy Lewthwaite
06/11/2008
Phillips makes a valid point about different sorts of statements. It is similar
to what Immanuel Kant thought--that various branches of knowledge are
different spheres entirely.
RE: William D. Phillips
Chintan Tyagi
06/11/2008
William Phillips's article is precious. I got some great insights, and my
position has drastically changed. I am a rational, scientific man and was
trying to answer the question of God's relevance and presence through
logic and rational thought, and failing miserably. His two questions of how
and why do I believe in God are bang on. I personally feel that all scientists
are deeply religious, more so the ones who are trying to disprove gods
existence, because in their failure to disprove they get their proof.
RE: William D. Phillips
Manny Lee
06/11/2008
Phillips writes: "I do believe because . . . ultimately just because I believe."
I could just as easily say the same thing about fairies or the Loch Ness
monster. So there, in a nutshell, is the weakest possible foundation upon
which a conviction might be based.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Gregory Peterson
06/10/2008
I felt a thrill of . . . ecstasy reading Sapolsky's essay. At last, somebody I
agree with about how science works. I was beginning to wonder, being an
artist, if I had it even somewhat right. One thing artists and scientists may
have in common: knowing the thrill of seeing something that's "right,"
then sleeping on it and realizing the next day (or the next year) that

240
maybe it is not quite right. I always tell the Irreducible Complexity people
that complexity is easy; it's simplicity that's really difficult.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Gregory Peterson
06/10/2008
Lots of fun, and much to agree with in Cardinal Schonborn's essay, but
"teleological hierarchy" must be a Catholic understanding; it's not part of
my Methodist upbringing. I don't see that hierarchy. I don't see any
hierarchy, except as a human social construct, like "race." What I do see is
patterns constantly interacting with and evolving from other patterns. As a
graphics designer, an intelligent designer so to speak, these are a
constant inspiration, but I don't see a teleological hierarchy.

I see the universe as a funhouse, anarchy with some basic rules of physics,
and I enjoy it immensely, though not always. Anarchy can be
disconcerting. My job, as a Methodist, is to be a good ancestor, to try to
nudge human constructs toward mercy and justice, even as I can't know
perfect justice, to try and make practicing the Golden Rule a bit easier for
my descendants.
RE: Whole Series
Gregory Peterson
06/10/2008
Science makes belief in God different from what it was before the modern
era, despite what the religious right claims. For instance, the discovery of
the mammalian egg in the early 1800's had a profound influence on
society, yet we seldom talk about it. It's as if we think everyone always
somehow knew that women have eggs.

Before that discovery, people thought that only men created the stuff of
life, "the seed." A child was the sole property of his creator, his father.
Conception wasn't a process that started long ago and is continued with
each generation, but a moment, when the individual female's womb
accepted the individual male's sacred "seed," the sole stuff of life. After
1802, if memory serves, it gradually sank in that women were born with
half the stuff of life, her eggs, and later, that the sex of the child was
determined by the father, not the mother's womb condition, as was
thought. Therefore, being a woman wasn't caused by a defective womb. If
the Bible was wrong on so basic an issue as who or what creates life, what
else was the Bible wrong about?
RE: Whole Series
Dennis Milner
06/10/2008
If your conception of God is monotheistic, as with the Hebrew God of the
Old Testament who created the universe according to a preconceived
plan, this is difficult to reconcile with the findings of science about the
evolution of the universe and of life on Earth. If, however, your conception

241
is a pantheistic one, that everything is God, then belief in God and science
can be reconciled in the aphorism: God sleeps in the mineral, Dreams in
the vegetable, Stirs in the animal, Awakens in Man (attributed, variously,
to the Kabbalah, the Druids, the Sufis, and the 13th-century Persian
mystic/poet Rumi). According to this viewpoint, God is everywhere and
everything and evolves through his creation and, in humanity, becomes
conscious of his powers and abilities. This suggests that God (or, if you
prefer it, the energy of creation) started in an unconscious state and has
progressively evolved through his creation. On this basis the findings of
science show the natural development and working of God.
RE: Whole Series
Mary
06/10/2008
God made us to have a relationship with Him and with each other. His laws
(when obeyed) protect those relationships, and our violation of His laws
damages or destroys those relationships. Religion is man's attempt to
create God in his own image. God, however, has already defined Himself.
Science comfirms Him as the Creator; it proves that there is a Master
Designer. We should not confuse God with religion or truth with science.
God and truth don't change. Religion and science are constantly changing.
The only stability they exhibit is when and where they intersect with God
and truth.
RE: Whole Series
Rich Schnarr
06/09/2008
The assumption of all the writers seems to be that we humans are fully
capable of comprehending the cosmos. My problem is with this original
premise. In many if not most religious scriptures, we are clearly told that
we cannot ever understand it ALL. We are capable of limited
understanding. Evidence of this is pervasive. The law of unintended
consequences is the first that comes to mind. Every solution humans apply
to a perceived "problem" results in new problems. We end up like a
hamster running on the wheel. There is insanity at work in our scientific,
materialistic culture. We resolve some short-term issues only to discover
the new issues we create. Many of the religious leaders of the ages have
indicated we need to be less concerned with fixing those individual
problems and focus more on our "oneness," or the "now," or whatever you
want to call it.

The choice is illustrated in the Genesis story of the Garden. Do you trust in
what God is reported to have said or do you turn to your own human
devices? If you choose your own human devices, you have, in essence,
rejected the Creator. Since we in this culture derive our "purpose" from
inquiry and exploration, we find ourselves embracing our own devices.
This is rejection of the Creator. It is the "original sin" described in Genesis.
RE: Steven Pinker

242
Tony
06/09/2008
God is irrelevant unless someone can prove that he/she does exist. Until
then, God does not exist and is irrelevant.
RE: Whole Series
Gelinde Narekine
06/09/2008
Belief in God being made obsolete by science is very much dependent on
our perceptions of natural phenomena and of our understanding of
civilization. It would be misleading to say that science makes belief in God
obsolete. Science has given us a deeper understanding of the surrounding
cosmic environment, which also includes the essence of human existence.
This has created more questions than answers. We now know that DNA is
the blueprint of life, which requires RNA and enzymes as precursors, still
boiling down to the hen or the egg problem--the super-cycle.

We are also fascinated by the vast universe before us. No matter how
much farther we go back on the prehistoric and/or historic timeline, or
drive into the future, we will go on for eternity. We see more complexities
within us and in our surroundings. Science has enabled us to know that the
more we know we know, the less we know. Many things cannot be rectified
in test tubes and/or under microscopes. But many more things are
generally accepted based on intuition, creative thinking, and inspiration.

It is a matter of fact that science squarely complements and enhances our

belief in God. Human beings are physical and cosmic, natural and
supernatural, temporal and permanent, dispensable and indispensable.
That is the complexity of our existence. Whether one is a rocket scientist
or a primitive jungle man, both will eventually meet at a common place,
acknowledging the infinite complexity of supernatural things. The
Egyptians and the Aztecs knew this, and their great pyramids still
fascinate our science.
RE: Whole Series
Lloyd G. Zellmer
06/08/2008
Some scientists believe a computer with four or more variables could think
as the human mind does. Limitations of binary computing (two variables)
are appreciated. Not fully appreciated is the potential of changing among
the six flavors (variables) of quarks simply by being observed. Asking how
and why poses interesting questions. Could this be a clue indirectly
suggesting some kind of a natural computing system existed from the
beginning, undetectable? Could it have evolved to be as comprehensive as
easily knowable physical systems? It's possible such a computing system
(free to think and act) is uniquely combined with a physical life form for
the first time in humans. Exploring that possibility offers a new frontier for
science. Combining research of the physical brain and the non-physical
nature of the human mind has incredible potential. But current science has

243
no tools to do all that. In this arena current science could actually be
reaching practical limits.

Initially, current science and religion will both have objections. Try to avoid
letting the future be trapped by the past. The ultimate reality of a God,
belief or no belief, will not be affected by what we think. Such a computing
system could be a communicating link. Perhaps it has tried to connect with
humans throughout history, but humans are good at misinterpretations to
fit what they already think they know. Anyone who's had an experience
that science can't explain knows how real it was. A natural computing
system could explain a lot. Exploring it could open a new level for
knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. Imagine all the possibilities.
RE: Whole Series
michel Herlant
06/08/2008
I appreciate the opportunity to be able review the different positions on
this subject. I was raised as a Catholic, but at age 11 I already questioned
the claims made by the priest during the study of the New Testament. I
say that man created God, not the other way around.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
D. Westphal
06/08/2008
No, science does not make belief in God obsolete. Whatever happened to
the agnostic-atheist distinction? Today, many "scientists" claim to be
atheists (there is no God) and not agnostics (there is not enough evidence
to believe in God). While I find the latter position defensible, I find the
former position extremely dishonest for someone who claims to be a
scientist.

When I was in college and took philosophy courses from Paul Kurtz (a
famous skeptic, agnostic, secular humanist), he was always clear that he
is an agnostic. I respect that position because he understands that there is
not enough evidence for a materialist to take a position on origins. In fact,
I don't recall any intellectual claiming to be an atheist 20 years ago.
Atheism was considered a semi-religious position--a belief held by pagans,
occultists, and others holding to various spiritual philosophies. Why the
sudden boldness and irrationality of "atheist" scientists? Is it fear of losing
the receding scientific paradigms like macro-evolution? Since more and
more evidence seems to support the inadequacy of current theories of
origins, maybe atheist scientists are reacting out of a fear of losing the
argument.

But there is no argument between scientists and God-believers. At most,

scientists should be ignoring religious belief and focusing on perfecting
their own paradigm. "Atheist" scientists like Dawkins are much too
emotional about a subject on which they should care little. Atheism seems
to be a fad of some kind. Science has created nothing and should have

244
nothing to say about ultimate origins. The agnostic position is the only
respectable position for a scientist who does not believe in God.
RE: Whole Series
Scott D Deutsch
06/08/2008
"God" is an invention by man to keep others in line. You can have a
perfecly acceptable, socially relevant life even if you don't go to church,
believe in "God," or consider yourself religious.
RE: Whole Series
K. Jagannatahn
06/08/2008
I am a retired professor of neurology and am interested in knowing the
way the brain functions in realizing the presence of a supreme power, call
it by any name. I always think that the concept of "God" came from within
our mind, mainly because no explanation or experimental verification can
either prove or disprove it. It is said of the sage Ramana Maharishi, who
preached the oneness of God, that he tried to answer the question "Who
am I?" and found it unanswerable. Even as a scientist, it cannot be
explained by virtue of the knowledge that the brain acquires in a lifetime.
What can't be answered will have to be derived by arguments and known
experiences, a kind of deduction based on possibilities. It boils down to the
intricacy and density of the network in the brain. The answer is not
complete, but it gives one the thought, until some better explanation is
available, that "God" is the creation of the brain itself.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Clifford J Mikkelson
06/08/2008
I enjoyed Cardinal Schonborn's answer. He went deep into the question
and gave an answer that could satisfy an open-minded scientist as well as
a believer in an ultimate God. He didn't try to define that ultimate God, but
he made it clear that we will always seek to know the truth about
ourselves and about life, so God will never be obsolete. If you realize that
One consciousness is the ultimate reality from which everything comes,
then you know that the obsolescence of God is a ridiculous notion. We are
part of that consciousness.
RE: Mary Midgley
Jake Kenner
06/07/2008
The only essay in this series that is worth reading is the one by Mary
Midgley, since only she challenges the assumptions upon which the
scientific method and all scientifically supported beliefs are constructed.
The other writers have absolutely nothing interesting to say because their
assumptions are based upon a delusion. Only Midgley appears to have
read and understood Plato and the Allegory of the Cave.
RE: Whole Series

245
Eric Stubbs
06/07/2008
Yes, God has been obsolete for over 100 years now.
RE: William D. Phillips
S. Crawford
06/07/2008
Mr. Phillips has an excellent article. I would urge him to supplement his
thinking slightly by looking at the writings of "creation" scientists. He
might appreciate Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe, which introduces
the notion of irreducible complexity and claims that its presence in many
biochemical systems indicates that they must be the result of intelligent
design rather than evolutionary processes--this is a seminal book. Also
important is The Privileged Planet, by Gonzalez and Richards, which claims
there is scientific evidence that shows the Earth and life are the products
of intelligent design.

The Institute for Creation Research says that "Today, thousands of

creation scientists repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in
their analysis and use of scientific data. They can now be found in literally
every discipline of science, and their numbers are rising rapidly.
Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that
evolution is 'science' and creation science is 'religion.' Such statements
today merely reveal the speaker's own liberal social philosophies, not his
or her awareness of scientific facts."
RE: Whole Series
Bob
06/07/2008
It is wonderful to live where one may freely read and discuss these essays
without fear of retribution.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Kathleen Schmitt
06/06/2008
Until science has answered every last question, one must still allow for the
possibility that what we don't know holds God. Consider also that God
could easily have arranged things so that we could interpret geology to
support evolutionary theory (I emphasize the term "theory"), and he could
have done that in one day or a few thousand years or a few billion years.
The way I figure, we will all know the answer to this question eventually. It
doesn't help to get into conflict over it in the meantime.
RE: Michael Shermer
Paul Norman
06/06/2008
Shermer should try to get his facts a little straighter when describing
others' beliefs. I doubt that he can find any Mormons who believe that the
Book of Mormon "was dictated in an ancient language onto gold plates by
the angel Moroni." We believe that he was the last of a series of prophets

246
who inscribed their stories and revelations onto the plates during their
mortal lives. Neither would they call the translating instruments "magic
stones."

Mormons do believe that God performs dramatic "miracles" (i.e., He does

things that are beyond current human understanding) from time to time.
We also believe that God's miracles commonly come with a lot less
fanfare. They can generally be ignored or dismissed as illusion or delusion,
if one chooses to do so. Not that you could ever capture such things in a
laboratory.

If Shermer hopes to persuade us to give up belief in God, he really ought

to understand first what we really do believe. I realize that what we
believe may seem as nonsensical to him as what he said we believe, but it
really undermines ones' argument when one gets it wrong in the first
place. It kind of makes me wonder how careful he is in his regular
Scientific American column.
RE: Whole Series
Ron Krumpos
06/05/2008
"Does science make belief in God obsolete?" Rephrase the question: "Does
science or religion make belief in ultimate reality obsolete?" The answer to
that is no! Most scientists, in any field, seek ultimate reality but admit that
they have not yet found it. If dark matter is 25 percent and dark energy
about 70 percent of the critical density of this universe, they may never do
so. Religious leaders say God is ultimate reality, yet none of them has
seen it. Some of them "felt it." Mystics directly "experience it." It was real
but not sensory. Many particles in quantum mechanics are not sensory.

Neuroscientists and psychiatrists have said God is a construct of the brain

or mind to answer questions of a cause for that which seems to have no
cause. What was the uncaused cause for the theoretical Big Bang? "God"
is just one of many names used by religions. The divine essence is
ultimate reality in mysticism. Physics, biology, chemistry, and
mathematics have numerous terms for unseen, underlying realities. What
"is" is, believe it or not. Faith accepts it. Belief makes you seek it. Don't
seek? You may never find.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Ogburn
06/05/2008
Science does not make belief in God obsolete. Science is based on
observation and comprehension. God is unseen and incomprehensible.
Science has made certain religious beliefs obsolete. All religions' creation
myths have been made obsolete by science. There is still the unknown
and uncertainty in science, so it would be hard to declare God dead or
non-existent. Irrational thought will always be with us and so will the belief
in the supernatural. Until human beings can know everything, it will be

247
hard to convince others that their beliefs are false.
RE: Whole Series
Ayesha Hashmi
06/04/2008
Belief in God is embedded in human consciousness. Even if one explains
the evolution of our consciousness to have belief in God as a security
against our loneliness and a desire to have a fatherhead, God has grown
into human consciousness even more. That is why he is so readily
acceptable to the innocent mind. And that is why we rationalists find Him a
perplexing, invisible, "imaginary" friend hard to put to rest. But when we
try to prove He is not there, we move against our grain, with a tremendous
effort of logic and rationality. Despite our huge advances, we still know too
little about ourselves and the universe to dismiss Him entirely. God lives in
the unexplainable, in mystery, and until we solve that mystery, which I
believe will never be, He cannot be considered obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Jason Coursey
06/04/2008
How is it possible that the universal constants came to be by pure chance
or accident? Surely no scientist believes that a car, ink pen, or beaker
could just spontaneously appear out of nothing. If it can, please
demonstrate. Just because we know how GM or Ford makes automobiles, it
doesn't mean that we don't believe that GM and Ford made them. Certain
intellectuals feel that by gaining a better understanding of how the earth
and universe operate, they can eliminate God. Preposterous. Knowing how
something was made still does not mean someone did not make it.

Some evil things have been done in the name of God, but that does not
mean that God condoned them. America is at war now, but that doesn't
mean that every American condones the war. Science has done many
harsh things against people. Some years back, children were castrated for
not scoring well on the SAT, and how many people were unwilling test
subjects for LSD? Should these and other atrocities prompt me to write a
book called Science Is Not Great or maybe The Science Delusion.

Has science provided proof that there is no God? No, not even close. Is
science turning into a faith-based religion? In many ways, yes. Scientists
are making assumptions that they cannot prove. I call the god of science:
Fluke. Almighty Fluke, answer me this: How did you set the constants? The
day that I see a tornado speed through a salvage yard and create a brand
new stealth bomber will be the day that I consider it possible that this vast
universe, the earth, and over 6 billion people are the product of some
senseless fluke!
RE: Whole Series
Hernan Echaurren
06/04/2008

248
More and more, science points to the fact that the universe started at a
certain point and is finite. If logic is part of science, there must be a first
cause--call it whatever you want, but God seems appropriate. Then the
question is, does this God care for his creation? Given the attributes of
God (almighty, eternal, infinite, omnipotent), why did He create the
universe and us? The only logical reason is because of love, and there
cannot be another answer. God does not need a toy or a pet. And you can
only love what is in your own image, in your own nature, and this is us,
created in the image of God and loved by Him, necessarily and logically.
RE: Whole Series
Nathan
06/04/2008
My thanks to the John Templeton Foundation for their contribution to
dialogue that is critically important to all humans. This is a better world
thanks in part to the work you have done.
RE: Whole Series
The Revd Dr J Bradshaw
06/04/2008
I am writing my autobiography at age 84. I have studied atheist and
Christian existentialism, and found reconciliation when working with Carl
Rogers in Chicago. The essays are fascinating and helpful to me.
RE: Steven Pinker
Clifford J Mikkelson
06/04/2008
Mr. Pinker defined what he meant by science, but he didn't define what he
meant by God. The God of the Bible isn't the only conception of God, and
that is the God he seems to be knocking. The God of the Tao is another
conception, so is the supreme God of the Hindus. So far I'm finding that
some of the comments by the readers, such as Donald Kaple, are more
profound than the featured contributors. Mr. Pinker should address some
of the more sublime and majestic conceptions of God rather than knocking
down a straw god.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas K. Johnson
06/03/2008
It is time to abandon religion and usher in the post-religious age. By and
large, religions are based on obsolete concepts and demonstrably false
ideas. It is sad to see all the animosity that stems from arguments over
notions that are archaic and arcane. Sunni Muslims kill Shi'ite Muslims,
Catholics disagree with Protestants, and so on--fights over how to worship
invisible beings in the sky and how to reach an imagined paradise after
death.

The sooner we get away from religion, the sooner we can begin to apply
scientific knowledge and rational thought to solving the real problems that
we face on earth. I refer to the problems of over-population, scarce

249
resources, the extinction of scores of species each decade, and the
multitude of other threats to the environment. "Go forth and multiply" may
have made sense when homo sapiens were at risk of going extinct. But if
we continue to be guided by outdated teachings, we may face a grim
future of fighting endless wars over dwindling resources on a polluted,
over-populated planet.

Many religious teachings stand in the way of efforts to achieve zero

population growth (ZPG). Given that the earth is finite, ZPG must be
reached eventually. Will we stumble toward ZPG with billions of people
who barely survive (Haiti, Sudan)? Or will we plan for a future with only
one billion people, all living in comfort while sharing sustainable sources of
food and energy (Denmark, Sweden)? I would hope for the latter, in the
dawning post-religious age.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Clifford Marsh
06/03/2008
As a chemistry research scientist and educator, I have found that none of
my work has made me any less a believer in God. For me, God is the
originator of the physical universe and therefore the origin of science as
such. Whether He created via evolution or "special" creation is neither
here nor there. He gave us minds and brains so that we could study the
natural universe in depth and come to sound conclusions about it.
RE: Whole Series
Menachem Brakefield
06/03/2008
How can a person have an opinion about something that can't be
comprehended? To declare something obsolete would mean that
something has been brought into existence that can replace it. Scientists
can't explain what can't be seen. Science has the need to explain itself so
man can feel confident that he is in charge and has no responsibility
except to himself. If man was to read what was written 3,500 years ago
and look at the present situation, he might want to rethink his opinion.
There were ten events that took place in Egypt, and a group of people
were released from slavery. It wasn't mother nature.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Hannah Sanoel
06/03/2008
Kauffman's observation that "We do not want to return to any form of
religion that demands that we abandon the truth of the real world"
resonates with me. I am considered a prodigal in my evangelical Christian
family for becoming convinced of evolution and supporting gay rights,
among other things. I have been told that my metaphorical return home is
awaited with open arms, as the father welcomed back his son in Jesus'
parable. It is irksome to me, because I can't pretend I haven't learned and
discovered realities that are not acknowledged in the package of faith with

250
which I was raised.

I finished reading Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" and think it

should be required reading in the evangelical and fundamentalist
communities. I am grateful to him for rescuing God from being the
"placeholder of human ignorance." Such a belief system only stifles
progress and discovery, and I want no part of it.
RE: Whole Series
Donald Kaple
06/03/2008
This is wonderful and timely series. All of the authors seem to begin with a
"God-assumption" that logically leads to their conclusions. There is an
axiom in philosophy: "Quidquid recipitur secudum modum recipientis
recipitur" (roughly translated: whatever is observed is observed according
to the ability of the observer). Science has a similar principle. Science
recognizes that the observer influences what is observed. A question
implies the answer. In the West, the dominant assumption is that "God" is
something apart from us. In the East, many assume "tat tvam assi" (Thou
art That), meaning that the whole universe is one with God. According to
this view, we do not exist apart from God, so we are naturally
supernatural.

The very word "definition" (de fini) implies putting limits on our experience
of reality. When we assume we know what God is, we make God a mental
object--a human abstraction. We put limits on God. Science is simply one
of many ways we have of inquiring into what ultimately is reality. We know
we're here and how we evolved, but we're really no closer to
understanding where we came from or why we're here or what our end will
be like. Can we know that God is without knowing who or what God is? And
who are we? Without us, the universe has no meaning, but we are
compelled to create meaning. A rose is a rose until we give it to someone
we love. Is it possible that we are God awakening, as some Eastern
religions believe? Science is one of the books in my Bible. It is simply
another way of inquiring into the Great Mystery.
RE: Whole Series
Stephan Serowy
06/03/2008
Of course it does, and I am shocked to see that so many obviously well
educated people are afraid of admitting it. The scientific approach and the
religious approach are diametrically opposed. A consistent, rational, able
mind values evidence and is not satisfied with blind belief in the absence
of any evidence. The one approach is open-minded, whereas the other is
in a way closed-mindedly totalitarian. Even if we neglect the fact that
science more and more pushes religion and mysticism back into the
corners of knowledge not yet acquired (the "God of the gaps" concept), we
still end up with the realization that you can't have your cake and eat it.
Either you value evidence and think critically or you are intellectually

251
blind. Sure, there are ways to somehow have it both ways, but it requires
very complicated twisting and bending of the mind. It basically equals
Orwellian "doublethink." So, yes, science does make belief in ANY mystical
nonsense ever more obsolete!
RE: Whole Series
Temur Z. Kalanov
06/02/2008
My work is devoted to the 21st century's most urgent problem: the
theoretical proof of the existence and uniqueness of God, based on the
correct method of knowledge, the unity of formal logic and of rational
dialectics. This proof represents a theoretical model of God: a system of
axioms from which the principle of the existence and uniqueness of God is
deduced. The principle runs as follows: God exists as the Absolute, the
Creator, the Governor of the essence (information) and of the
phenomenon (material manifestation of information). The theoretical
model of man and the formulation of the principle of development of
mankind (as consequences of the model of God) are proposed as well. The
main conclusion is as follows: the principle of the existence and
uniqueness of God represents absolute scientific truth and, consequently,
should be a starting point and a basis of the 21st century's correct
science.
RE: Whole Series
Juan Chamorro
06/02/2008
I find the "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" Big Questions series
excellent. I read in amazement all the essays, and even those I don't
agree with, I find interesting, because they let me see how this Big
Question is seen from different points of view. This series has become one
of my favorite sources in order to focus on the faith-science debate.
Besides, the series has been very useful for me to learn where science
stands today regarding how the universe came to be. The fact that the
essays are short has proved key to me. The authors are forced to be very
succint, and that makes the essays easy to follow for those with a poor
scientific knowledge such as myself. Thank you very much.
RE: Whole Series
Christopher Heward
06/02/2008
Science does not make belief in a god obsolete. The fact that there is no
god makes belief in a god obsolete. Any false belief, whether superstitious,
religious, scientific or otherwise, is automatically obsolete, simply because
it is false. The challenge for each of us in life is to distinguish what is true
from what is false. Logic, reason, and the scientific method are quite
helpful in this regard. Faith is not. One can believe anything based upon
faith. For faith-based beliefs, no standard of proof is required. In fact,
evidence for faith-based beliefs is strictly prohibited. Otherwise, such
beliefs would not be faith-based. They would be rational.

252
Still, the rational approach is not perfect. The requirement of evidence for
rational beliefs imposes significant limitations upon what questions can be
answered with confidence. The certainty of a rational proof is contingent
upon the quality of the evidence available. In the absence of sufficient
evidence, many intriguing questions are not answerable. For example, the
Deist notion of god as "the prime mover" must remain an open question.
There is not enough evidence available to answer this question logically.
On the other hand, the common Judeo-Christian-Muslim notion of "God" as
the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent creator of
the universe is patently and demonstrably false. Simple logic and reason
easily demonstrate the impossibility of any entity possessing this
combination of absolute characteristics. Belief in such a God has been
obsolete from the beginning.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Paul Rizzuto
06/02/2008
Hitchens hopes "the human capacity for wonder neither will nor should be
destroyed." Yes, this wonder is what is responsible for mankind looking
into and making scientific discoveries about myriad things in the cosmos.
This wonder is also what is responsible for primitive human belief in gods.
Why does Hitchens want to preserve it? Where there is perfect
understanding, there is no room for wonder. Do you wonder at a cracked
toenail growing back to a healthy state? Does an astronomer wonder that
the other planets, even the sun, do not revolve around our Earth? I would
submit to Hitchens that he do a philosophical analysis of the concept and
phenomemology of human wonder. In it is the rational basis for belief in
God.
RE: Whole Series
Angela Peel-White
06/02/2008
Fascinating reading in general, but I am always aware that at the heart of
this question is an issue that goes beyond word and analysis. How do we
aim to comprehend what God could be let alone replace he/she/it (cursed
pronouns!) in a structure of beliefs about the nature of reality that is
incomplete. It is necessary as humans to ask these questions, but I'm not
sure it isn't hubris to think we can answer them too--yet.
RE: Whole Series
Eugene Taylor, PhD
06/02/2008
As a historian and philosopher of psychology, I am extremely interested in
the question, although the way it is couched raises a number of crucial
issues while leaving aside the most important core of the discussion. For
instance, there is no differentiation made by the different authors between
organized religious denominations and the capacity to experience generic
spiritual states of consciousness within the person, regardless of

253
denominational affiliation. So the discussion seems like it is confined to the
dialog between belief in Christianity and evidence from physics that moots
this or that part of the Christian scheme of salvation.

Second, there is a widespread confusion among the writers about the

difference between the methods of science and the kind of worldview
suggested by applying those methods. The methods produce solid
empiricism, but the worldview is a consensual conjecture. Let us call it the
rationalists' fantasy. To subscribe to it under the banner of science, as if
ipso facto that made it superior, is bad science. In fact, belief in the kind of
worldview suggested by the products of science has all the characteristics
of religion, though most scientists deny that science for them is a religion.

Third, the way the question is posed makes science seem to be merely
Christianity but without a God. Is this a hidden bias of the Templeton
Foundation? The discussion is confined to the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian
tradition, and has nothing substantive to say about spirituality across
cultures, traditions that are non-theistic, such as Buddhism, or human
experience in a way that gets beyond mere rational discussions about
belief. It seems a big question only for Christians and their atheistic
counterparts in science, not one of the truly big questions confronting all
individuals on the planet about the mystery of being.

Fourth, the results are stock arguments from distinguished scientists and
clerics who believe in this or that, but who have never actually been
transformed by a spiritual experience (or will admit it) or have a nuanced
enough understanding of the history and philosophy of science to remain
objective about their subject matter. They seem determined to keep
spirituality, which is beyond mere reason, out of the discussion and to limit
the dialog only to rational arguments, which are interesting as a source of
their underlying assumptions but irrelevant to the deeper intent of the
question.

That said, I would reformulate the question to ask: Is science the end all
and be all of everything unto itself or is it only one among many other
useful epistemologies within modern culture? Is the purpose of science to
generate more science, or is to verify that the questioner is a bona fide
scientist? Is science a valuable tool, like other tools, including religious
beliefs, to understand the mystery of the person, which should more
objectively remain the center of our inquiry about the ultimate nature of
reality?

To rectify many of these problems, the Templeton Foundation might want

to consider contributing to the development of a truly objective science of
religions, focused on the phenomenology of spiritual experience across
cultures, instead of its present narrower focus of whether or not physics
can prove or disprove the truths of Christianity.

254
RE: Whole Series
Scott Macumber
06/02/2008
Science does in fact prove the bible to be true. Everytime that anyone
tries to prove the bible wrong, they end up proving it to be right. I am a
ministry founder and an evangelist; I will defend the bible and all that is in
it. Science does not make God obselete. Just because scientists can't
prove something in the bible does not mean it's not true. It is that they
can't figure it out, so they say it's false.
RE: Whole Series
John Hower
06/01/2008
With such a topic, why are there not any comments from creation
scientists, who point out that science has not proven evolution? The
religion that has been disproven is Darwinism, or the position that there
must be natural explanations for all observed phenomena. The fact is that
evolution has not been demonstrated scientifically. To the contrary,
science demonstrates easily that evolution has not happened and could
not happen. Natural selection simply shows that out of the existing gene
pool certain characteristics can survive better in a given environment.
Birds in a seed-cracking environment seem to develop thicker beaks, but
this just represents selecting from existing alternatives. This says nothing
about making the transition from a fish to a bird. The genes for thick beaks
were already there. Nothing new was evolved.

What about mutations? Mutations can alter the genes--but in the wrong
direction. Known mutations such as Downs syndrome or cystic fibrosis
decrease the full functionality of the organism. Mutations decrease the
complexity and functionality of the gene. Hypothetically, a mutation could
be better suited to an environment, but in the real practical world, the
opposite happens. It takes an intelligent design to move from a fish to a
hummingbird. Microsoft improves its product not by chance errors but by
the planning of engineers. Science shows that the complexities of life
could not have arisen by chance and without intelligent design, but the
religion of Darwinism has such sway over the scientific community that
alternatives cannot be considered.
RE: Whole Series
Frank G
06/01/2008
More and more during my senior years, as I continue to exist, there seems
to be a growing effort to challenge the existence of God. In a world that is
forever advancing in technology, improved well-being and health,
prosperity combined with individual independence, it is no surprise that
atheism is on the rise. Who needs God when all is good and comfortable?
But nobody is immortal. For those who don't believe in any form of eternal
salvation, I ask, whom do you appeal to once all is not well, when you are
dying in pain and suffering? Take heed and fear not. I will gladly pray for

255
you.
RE: Steven Pinker
Paul Rizzuto
06/01/2008
The only way science could make theism obsolete is by turning man into
god, that is, disclosing all possible knowledge in the universe, thus making
humankind perfect. Until then, it is overly optimistic for an atheist to
answer this question affirmatively, perhaps even haughty or prideful. I
propose a new understanding of God: He/She is the sum and source of the
cosmic unknown. This really is just a rephrasing of what an existentialist
like Gabriel Marcel would call a "mystery."
RE: Whole Series
Harold Katcher
06/01/2008
There is no test that can prove the existence or non-existence of the God
defined by the predominant religions of the world. If there were an
irrefutable test, the problem of God's existence would have already been
solved. What proof would convince? Even should a voice of thunder come
from the sky, telling us that He was the Lord our God, Creator of the
universe, how would we know that it was telling the truth, how would we
know it was not a magician's trick, or an alien of a race superior to man, or
a demon?

The existence of God depends on the definition of God. If God is defined as

that force in the universe that is behind its evolution, the answer would be
that, "yes, there is a God," and the problem would be about the nature of
that God. It can be shown mathematically (a la Prigogine) that complexity
arises from the laws of nature, but the question remains: why?

The evolution seen in nature would therefore be the most direct

manifestation of God, and that is what should be studied as evidence of
His will; actions speak louder than words, especially words from mere
human beings. If there is a God that is fundamentally greater than man, a
human being could no more understand or communicate His thoughts
than a dog could be taught the calculus. It is therefore amazing that
priests, mullahs, or rabbis who cannot understand things as simple as
general relativity or quantum mechanics nonetheless tell us that they
understand God's plan or purpose. Even the Bible has God say to Man, "My
thoughts are not your thoughts." At the most, one can say, "This I believe,
but I may be wrong." With such humility, proper to all human beings, the
arrogance of religious authority would be quelled and the pernicious
qualities of religion obviated.
RE: Whole Series
chenbagam
06/01/2008
Jesus said, "Those who know all, but are lacking in themselves, are utterly

256
lacking." Socrates said, "Know yourself." Modern science asks, "Who are
we?" Jesus also said, "Show me the stone that the builders rejected; that is
the keystone." The secret is in what modern science has rejected.
RE: Whole Series
Mali Bahreman
05/31/2008
For me, the belief in God is really the belief in goodness, and science does
not make goodness obsolete. However, if belief in God is belief in the
supernatural, science has accomplished more than religion. I know that
religion is not equivalent to belief in God (goodness). One can believe in
God and not in religion. To be fair to religions, they have brought a lot of
people to goodness.
RE: Whole Series
Raja Rethinam
05/31/2008
It's interesting to see how two scholars have the same starting point and
end up with opposite conclusions. Both Mary Midgley and Robert Sapolsky
talk of the less than 100 percent objectivity or predictability of physical
sciences. But Midgley posits the need for basic trust that includes faith;
Sapolsky insists that ecstasy born of science may be required, but not
religion.

To me, it appears that Midgley advances towards the scientific basis of

God's existence, when she hints at the rationality of accepting others'
consciousness, starting with the personal experience of one's own mind.
The intelligent behavior of others does point to the unseen intelligence
they ought to have. Similarly, what is revealed in the cosmos necessarily
implies the supreme intelligence. This is not merely a worldview, which
one could exchange with just any other in the way Midgley suggests, but
rather a compelling rational foundation toward faith. There are, after all,
gradational stages of reasoning, from physical evidence of material
sciences, to personal evidence of one's own consciousness, to rational
deduction of others' consciousness and that of God from what the world
manifests itself to be.

Having said this, Sapolsky is no less reasonable. As things stand right now,
the most predictable outcome can only be offered by science and not by
religion. One could hardly dispute him. But then a psychological outcome
merely implies more personal efforts, more patience and longer awaiting.
As for a spiritual outcome, it could very well be that we haven't stepped
into its threshold yet. Suppose the following maxim is true: He who
recognizes the rationality of God's power and love will definitely see it
happen. It's obvious we haven't yet cultivated such a vision or put in the
relevant training.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Garramone

257
05/31/2008
The belief in God or religion does not interfere with scientific methodology,
provided it does not contradict scientific findings. Scientific reasoning will
not interfere with religious beliefs unless these beliefs are taken on a
concrete, immature level (such as 144-hour Creation or a 6,000-year-old
universe). So science does not make belief in God obsolete unless belief in
God has extra baggage. St. Augustine, a fundamental scholar of the
Church, also argued against the literal interpretation of Genesis and held
that the only thing sacrosanct in the Christian religion was the Holy Trinity
and Salvation--not the details of the physical universe or its mechanics.
RE: Whole Series
chenbagam
05/31/2008
Basically, the question is wrong. Without knowing the real meaning of the
word God, it is like a fighting with a shadow. People who participate in
religious activities are really employees and not the employer or the real
authority by which the religions were founded. They are simply following
the things that were done generation by generation. They have no idea
about the real intention of the writers of the scriptures; it is meaningless
to talk with those who have no real knowledge of the scriptures. But the
scriptures are the treasure of what the scientists want to know. So now it
is very urgent for the people who deal in science to research the real
meaning of scriptural words. It would be very useful for all.
RE: William D. Phillips
John W Kennette
05/30/2008
The pursuit of knowledge and understanding is basic to human nature. A
keen respect for the contribution made by science and an interest in what
the future may hold make us wonder what contribution we can make. I
would make the case that the task of science and religion is to express the
essence of God.
RE: Whole Series
Artsy Jane
05/30/2008
Belief in God is in the realm of spirituality. Better questions would be: what
place for God more than 200 years after the Enlightenment, and does
humanism make belief in God obsolete? Why do we still need that belief
after we've created all these other concepts and constructs that help us
grasp the world, cope with life and mortality, and sustain our sense of self,
such as psychoanalysis, humanism, romantic love, the ideal of self-
fulfillment, and the pursuit of happiness? It is harder for me to make these
co-exist with belief in God. Science is a whole different realm.
RE: Whole Series
Norm Koehler
05/30/2008
Science doesn't make god obsolete. God is a construct of the human mind.

258
God has been used all through history as a means to control the masses.
The worship of god was controlled by a lazy elite and foisted onto the
more simple people. God has been the downfall of human progress.
RE: Whole Series
Laura Wardrip
05/30/2008
No, I don't think that science dismisses God. God is supposed to be all-
knowing and all-powerful. Since that is the case, I can surely see how God
could be responsible for the workings of the world, the study of which we
call science.
RE: Whole Series
John Anih
05/30/2008
It is not possible for science to drive God to oblivion. Science has done and
will continue doing much to help humanity understand the dynamics of our
relationship with God.
RE: Whole Series
D. Zent
05/30/2008
Science can only describe what physically "is" and provide an analysis of
the makeup of "is." But science did not create what "is," and in any case
can only observe, from the outside, spiritual processes. Anything science
has to say about where life came from has to be taken on faith, in the
same way religious beliefs are, and no scientist has ever created life from
the completely inanimate--nor ever will, I believe. So my belief in God has
every bit as much value as a philosophy as does science. I can still accept
the benefits science offers while not necessarily accepting the atheist
assertion of what that knowledge means.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas McNamara
05/30/2008
As several of the respondents have already pointed out, science cannot,
by definition, prove or disprove the existence of a purely spiritual being. A
better way to phrase the question would be: Do you believe scientific
knowledge, which is based on empirical evidence, is compatible with
traditional religious beliefs? This question goes to the heart of the matter
because it is traditional religious beliefs, not abstract knowledge, that
motivate most people to behave in ways that have a direct impact on
other human beings (for better or for worse).

Traditional religions have motivated some individuals to extraordinary

altruism and others to extreme violence. Human behavior is vastly more
consequential in this world we all share than any belief system. Any
thinking person would agree with that statement. Thus, my proposed
question can serve as the basis for a meaningful dialogue across all
religions and cultures. Furthermore, this is a question that scientific

259
knowledge can address effectively.
RE: Whole Series
Joe Galatha
05/30/2008
It has been suggested that Neil Armstrong's first words on the moon were
"One small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind." Religion can be
said to be indispensable to heal and save the soul of a man, while being a
burden for mankind. Religions give counsel and endorsement to hate and
segregate people for many disparate reasons (despite preachers' and
gurus' teachings and pleadings to the contrary). Yet a person finds solace
and healing company, like family, in a church of his choosing. Until we
figure out that we need to be united as humans, and that religion only
divides us as groups of worshippers, religion is destructive to our global
and national populations. It still serves to heal a man, and yet it continues
to wound mankind.
RE: Whole Series
Darren Perkins
05/30/2008
Belief in God is waning simply because he is not seen as needed due to
the advancement of science. Our creature comforts are well taken care of
by our society, to the point that even the poorest individuals do not need
to worry for the basics of life. Most people who reject God as a possibility
do not do so because they are well versed on scientific matters that
explain things to their satisfaction, but because they wish to follow their
own natural hedonistic tendencies rather than submit to a moral and Holy
creator. Thus they decide that God does not exist, or they create one that
does not require that they behave in a moral fashion, except to the extent
that they prescribe for themselves. They call themselves good people but
reject the one who will be the judge of that in the end.
RE: Whole Series
Edgar Svendsen
05/30/2008
Science is not so much a body of knowledge as a methodology. As we seek
to know reality, that methodology has been amazingly successful. Belief
without data is less successful, and where it is specific, as in some holy
books, often dead wrong. Belief in God seems wrongheaded. We should be
looking for evidence of God, using the methodology that, currently, seems
the most efficient one that man has developed. Belief, per se, is not a
reliable guide. God may or may not exist, and belief in Him, in and of itself,
will not illuminate the isssue.
RE: Whole Series
Rubens Turkienicz
05/30/2008
Perhaps all beliefs (in anything, including so-called "science" and a so-
called creator "God") are simply irrelevant. The human mind is certainly all
powerful, and we may use it for the benefit of all.

260
RE: Whole Series
Jurek Zarzycki
05/29/2008
How can we rationally discuss such a topic without first agreeing on a
definition of "God"?
RE: Whole Series
Susan Weikel Morrison
05/29/2008
Science studies physical reality. If God is not of that reality, there's nothing
science can say about God. I believe the human mind is capable of
interfacing God's reality ("kingdom") and the physical universe.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Nick Saint-Erne
05/29/2008
As a scientist, I have found that the more I learn about the mysteries of
the Universe, the internal workings of an organism, or the genetic codes
that link all of life, I am more confirmed in my belief in a Creator who
instigated all things through a purposeful design. There is no doubt in my
mind that all of this is not just random activities that occurred through
entopic reactions, but rather life, the world, and everything are a
thoughtful result of an omnipotent designer. Too many coincidences occur
in nature to allow the evolutionary process to have arrived at its current
state just through random genetic diversity.
RE: Whole Series
Delano Hill
05/29/2008
Interesting but maybe the intellectuals should consider toning down their
message so the middle class could understand their real meaning.
RE: Whole Series
Jack King
05/29/2008
In scientific and technological endeavors, God is pretty much obsolete.
When only the thoroughly discredited politicians are invoking his name, we
will know the end is near, and when they all stop doing it, the
obsolescence will be complete.
RE: Whole Series
Dan Kanoza
05/29/2008
It is obvious that humans have a strange need to look for something other
than logic to allow them to go through life. Polls indicate that the number
of people who don't believe in a god, or gods, is getting larger as more
knowledge of the universe becomes available. A change in thinking is
slowly taking place. It's unfortunate that so many people continue to
believe and are willing to kill if you don't agree with them.
RE: Whole Series

261
Anthony A. Aiya-Oba
05/29/2008
Science will someday make belief in God (the Stem-Being) inevitable.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Sobotor
05/28/2008
Faith in truth may seem to become more necessary as science sheds
increasing light through understanding. But as we realize the mechanism
for how things operate in the physical world we are able to take increasing
comfort in better knowing the miraculous revealed. The reassurance is in
the complexity and how seamless the various and intricate details are
woven together, showing the far from random nature of things. I often
wondered about the beauty in unseen detail and events and now wonder if
it is simply an extension of how scientific pursuit is encouraged by a God
not afraid of revelation.

To come to understand the nature of evolution and its dissenting impact

on the six literal days of creation recorded in Genesis is not an insult or
blasphemy to a God who endowed part of that creation with reason and
intellect; it is inevitability. A scientist is no more wrong concluding there is
no God in light of his understanding than a Godly man is being convinced
that denying current truth is necessary to affirm his belief in the same
God.

I can speak as one who is scientifically ignorant but who possesses a level
of reason sufficient to allow me to safely assume that those more
educated, in theses areas of my relative ignorance, know more than I do
about those areas in which they have been convinced by application of
this same reasoning ability. Far from an enemy, they are my proxy,
dedicated to advancing a facet of our collective understanding of the
world in ways I will never completely understand. But I have to reason
their understandings are based in some truth as so much of what we have
is the result of these truths applied. Further they are honorably motivated
by a burning desire to understand the unknown using reason and intellect
in the same way I would had I the same education, access to information,
and passion for scientific understanding.

I can see how for a scientist it would be frustrating to seemingly have to

deny what has been concluded based on study and application and goes
against what they know to be true in order to allow for God. I also
recognize the same can be said for an individual who knows, as the result
of the application of knowledge and experience, the reality of a personal
God who is not expressible as a quantifiable being. No denial of truth is
needed to embrace either science or God. The simple elegance of each
points to the other.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert

262
05/28/2008
No, science does not make a belief in God obsolete. What science does is
tell us that we must be more patient than ever before about receiving
enlightenment from God. Science strips God down to the human hope of
continually divining reason in the natural world before us. But stripping
God down is fraught with peril and requires continual advances in human
patience. It means we must study the natural and not lose our heads and
throw our hands up to God, in the traditional sense, or just pronounce
existence Godless, an absurdity without even reason. We are required to
be more disciplined--moral--than man has ever been and to submit to the
process of generation upon generation of humans studying the natural and
paradoxically becoming more and more capable of the supernatural with
each divination of nature's secrets.
RE: Whole Series
Mark
05/28/2008
Science offers no opinion of the obsolescence of a belief in god. The
question itself is specious, almost insulting. Why, if I were God, I'd . . . God
is on all sides of every argument and is invoked, rightly, to support
opposing views. God is omniversatile. Anything can be made to seem
right. As to the utility of a belief in God, science knows nothing of it.
RE: Whole Series
Deborah
05/28/2008
This is an excellent series. I have copied it for discussion at the Unitarian
church that I attend. Are there any women scientists that could speak?
RE: Whole Series
James Hamilton
05/28/2008
Thank you for a wonderfully thought-provoking series! I've loved reading
the authors' comments in The Economist and look forward to more. This
kind of discussion elevates us all.
RE: Whole Series
Ian Morison
05/28/2008
Has science rendered religion obsolete? Probably not. As other
contributors have demonstrated, scientists of faith still find it possible to
see God's hand in science or to view science and religion as "non-
overlapping magisteria." However, it is not just science, and certainly not
just cosmology and evolutionary biology, but the entire ever-expanding
body of human knowledge that is challenging religion.

In the domain of philosophy, for example, epistemologists have exposed

the inherent flaws and inconsistencies in religious propositions, while
ethicists have shown that faith is not the best basis for engaging with
complex issues such as rights and responsibilities or liberty and fairness.

263
Biblical studies have shown how the Gospels were edited long after the
event to meet the theological agenda of the day. Archeology has
challenged the veracity of many seminal events of the Judeo-Christian
tradition. Aesthetics helps to explain why we find great art so emotionally
potent that it leads us to believe in the ineffable. Psychology and
anthropology, using the new tools of social Darwinism, provide plausible
explanations for our deep-rooted propensity for religious belief.

More fundamentally still, neuroscience and philosophy have combined to

undermine our even more deep-rooted belief in mind/brain and body/spirit
dualism. Even the theologically central concept of free will is now under
intellectual attack. The obsolescence of religion is an inevitable
consequence of these and other advances in our understanding of the
universe and our humble status within it.
RE: Whole Series
Anne Baring
05/28/2008
It may be that the basic problem for both religion and science is the image
of God we have inherited from a distant past. This image may now be in
need of renewal. God may be longing for release from His imprisonment in
the strait-jacket of our beliefs, whether religious or scientific. To use a
gardening metaphor, God has become pot-bound, constricted by the
anthropomorphic, gender-biased, paternalistic image that was projected
onto Him. As Teilhard de Chardin suggested, it may be that we need to
formulate a new image of God that is related to the phenomenal
discoveries science has recently made about the vast and ever-expanding
dimensions of the universe.

Also we need to know more about our own consciousness. Is our physical
brain the origin of consciousness or is it the slowly maturing vehicle of
what might be called "cosmic consciousness"? It may be that our
consciousness is still too undeveloped to be able to understand what
might lie beyond the image of God we have formulated. Perhaps we could
focus more on the primary aim of the Eastern religions or what they
named "enlightenment"--a state that the mystics of all religious traditions
named "union with the divine."
RE: Whole Series
Jeffrey Johnson
05/27/2008
There is one and only one scientific experiment that can discover the truth
about God. It begins like this: If God exists, he must have some
describable nature, character, and set of attributes and perfections. And if
he is real, and describable, then there must be only one correct nature of
God among many competing notions offered by various religions. If the
bible is a book containing words which God inspired, then God himself has
left an experiment for anyone to try. You simply have to "knock." "Ask
wisdom." "Prove" him. If you want to know, you ask. However you know

264
how, you just ask him. If you do, you will come to know. It is the simplest
experiment, and I honestly believe it to be perfectly scientific. Anyone can
replicate it. It is guaranteed. If God promised it, he is bound by it, or else
he ceases to be God.

There is only one caveat--if you try the experiment, you must be prepared
for the consequences. You must go into it with the full commitment that if
you receive the knowledge of God, you must change your life. You must
recognize that you have only taken the first step in a life-long journey. If
you have no desire to complete the journey, God will not show you the
path. For many, pride gets in the way.

There is nothing difficult about finding the truth. God does not intend it to
be difficult. The only impediment for some people is that they do not want
to know the truth because they might have to humble themselves,
abandon past beliefs, or change their ways in life. For the skeptical
scientists who wrote some of these columns, it might mean having to
rescind many of their conclusions from a life of scholarly work. God is very
real, and I have scientifically proved it for myself. He does not hide the
truth, except from those who do not have the desire to know. His way is
the way of happiness and is worth any and all sacrifices one might make
to find him.
RE: Whole Series
Gene
05/27/2008
Blind faith has been with us ever since we became aware of ourselves and
started asking the big questions. Then we started to fear every
conceivable event and questions we couldn't understand. What did we do
to solve these fears and questions? We created gods to enable us to cope.
These man-created gods evolved into today's god via the church and its
religion. Man even created this god in man's own image and then turned it
around to state in the bible that it was god who created man in god's own
image. This made this man-created god more believable.

In order to ensure their survival, all churches had to find a way to have
complete control over their flocks and to brainwash them so as to not lose
their blind faith. Their religion along with their bibles served this purpose
very well: heaven for believers and a fiery hell for non-believers. My door
is always open for a real creator, if there is one. The present god and all its
baggage do not fit, as they smell too much of the essence of arrogant
delusional man.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas Valan
05/27/2008
God will never be obsolete. He is the main character that explains the
story that science has to offer us. He is our creation . . . we are not His.
And as science determines what the story is, when it dives into the depths

265
of the smallest parts of us, or soars through the vastness of our ever-
expanding heavens, God must grow also, to explain it all. We must re-
create Him to give meaning to our new deeper, more expansive story.

But it's not what has been created, or is being created--including God and
what science has determined--that is important. What's important is that
anything is ever created at all. It's not important where I came from,
where I've been, or where I'm going. It's that I am here now, that there is
an Earth to stand on, that the Sun, our star, shines down on all of us
everyday, that there are trillions of stars, that there is anything. This helps
me understand what it means that I am.
RE: Whole Series
R. Mirman
05/27/2008
It is not science that makes belief in God obsolete but language. The word
is undefined and undefinable. See the chapter "Does the word God exist?"
in my book, Our Almost Impossible Universe: Why the laws of nature make
the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely. Can anyone disagree
with the arguments?
RE: Whole Series
Bill Carman
05/27/2008
God is a creation of man, period.
RE: Whole Series
Joe
05/27/2008
The question is poorly stated. Why does it have to be science (which has
nothing to do with religion) that makes religion obsolete? The more basic
question is simply: Is belief in God obsolete?
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert
05/27/2008
After reading through most of the reader responses, I think I see part of
the problem. Many scientists and, of course, atheists try to remove
traditional religion as much as possible from their thoughts and try to
proceed by proof, facts, etc. But for all their attempts to remove God, they
are left with a residue of God because they have to believe in at least
reason and the possibility of future discovery for the betterment of man or
be branded simple nihilists who believe existence to be absurd. So the
scientific project can be characterized, for all its discounting of God, as a
slow, perhaps the slowest, path to God. We have generations upon
generations of the most patient and meticulous men and women
engrossed with the natural, divining the natural, in something of a
balanced walk between just throwing up their hands in a call to the
supernatural and pronouncing existence godless, absurd. The more we
have people patient and meticulous without being engrossed with

266
minutiae, the more we have a humanity which takes the long view and
becomes capable of the balanced walk I speak of.
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Bob Blinn
05/27/2008
I built my own 15-inch reflector telescope. With this crude instrument, I
can visually reduce the apparent distance to nearby galaxies by a factor of
roughly 50. So I can see galaxies a few hundred million light years distant.
I understand the Hubble ultra deep field extends over 10 billion light years.
Is Dr. Stenger telling us that the observable universe is just the tiniest
fraction of the entire universe? I am barely able to deal with the few
hundred galaxies I can see. What basis does he have for such an
assertion? Is this a matter of his personal belief or of science?
RE: Whole Series
Jeremy Besch
05/27/2008
No, and yes. Science is the means by which we come to a greater
understanding of the universe. More importantly, through science, we
should also come to a greater understanding of ourselves. It's in the
understanding of ourselves that I suspect we'll gain a clearer
understanding of what "God" truly is. In doing so, however, the classical
interpretation of God becomes less and less viable.

The pursuit of science should be taken as motivation to have more faith in

ourselves. Our successes and failures are a testament to our abilities and
potential. Science allows for a keener awareness of our own intrinsic
capacities and thus makes it less necessary to depend on an extrinsic
deity or explanation for answers. This becomes more difficult as our
discoveries and new understandings make it (sometimes frightfully) clear
that we are so ignorant of so much. But human greatness equates to our
ability to recognize our ignorance (and in some ways embrace it) and push
forward anyway. In the past, God has served as the explanation. Science
lets us say there's a better answer, even if we're not yet capable of
knowing what it is.

In the end, science allows for greater faith in ourselves and less need for
faith in other things. It makes it less uncomfortable for us not to know
things and to move forward anyway. Science does not eliminate God, but
it should prompt us to redefine It.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Will Taylor
05/27/2008
In reference to God, Miller writes: "He is the answer to existence, not part
of existence itself." If God is not part of existence, He must exist outside of
existence. In order to exist outside of existence, surely one must not exist.
If one does not exist, one is hardly in a position to be the basis of any kind

267
of sensible belief.
RE: Whole Series
Paula Phillips
05/27/2008
Oh, please. Science is the means by which man describes the universe. It
is a useful tool for measuring and finding answers to certain questions
relating to the universe and each person's personal questions. But science
cannot answer, nor does it endeavor to answer, one extremely important
question: why? Why did all this universe thing happen? Why did I happen?
For the answer to this type of question, one must look beyond science.
RE: Whole Series
Allen Williams
05/27/2008
From the Urantia Book: "To the unbelieving materialist, man is simply an
evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of
mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the
reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter.
No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the
grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men
are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of
eternal oblivion and soul extinction. . . . But such is not man's end and
eternal destiny; such a vision is but the cry of despair uttered by some
wandering soul who has become lost in spiritual darkness, and who
bravely struggles on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a
material philosophy, blinded by the confusion and distortion of a complex
learning. And all this doom of darkness and all this destiny of despair are
forever dispelled by one brave stretch of faith on the part of the most
humble and unlearned of God's children on earth."
RE: Whole Series
James Mendes
05/27/2008
For a moment, let us remove the notion of God from this question. Instead,
let us ask, "Can science make belief in *anything* obsolete?" The
heliocentric model of the solar system is now known to be fact. However,
as when the model was first postulated, there are those who still firmly
believe otherwise. Hence, modern geocentrism as a belief is not obsolete.

Another example involves perhaps a stranger, yet more widespread belief.

Science, in the form of explorers and Earth observation satellites, have
found no evidence of communities of elves or flying reindeer anywhere on
the planet. But millions of people still believe an elderly, overweight
gentleman in a red suit delivers presents to every home in the world each
year. The fact that most of these people are children does not negate their
belief, nor can science ever make it obsolete. Indeed, a knowledgeable six-
year-old, told that this man does not exist, could proceed to kick one of his
presents and declare, "I refute it thus."

268
Proof or disproof does not prevent belief. Were scientists somehow able to
completely refute the existence of God, I sincerely doubt anything would
change for the person of true faith.
RE: Whole Series
Sarah Fenwick
05/27/2008
Science didn't save my cleaning lady's mother-in-law, who died yesterday
of cancer. Although she was deeply grieved, as she washed the coffee
mugs on the morning after the funeral, she said that her mother-in-law
had gone on to the real world. We live in the false world, she said.

Hers is an unshakeable belief in a God that goes beyond our man-made

systems; systems which she quite wisely sees as temporary. Although I
admire science immensely, I also think that the more we explain about the
nature of the universe, the less we truly understand. Conclusion? No,
science does not make belief in God obsolete. It does make belief in God
more challenging, forcing one to think beyond the material solutions we
have all around us.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Corfield
05/27/2008
Looking down the list I note that only the Abrahamic god is discussed.
Models such as Buddhism and Hinduism are not covered. Would it be
useful to generalize "God" in this kind of discussion, or do we presume
that if there is a god it's the Abrahamic one? Still, some interesting
arguments on both sides. I think it would be nice to separate religion out
into parts--the loving bit and the dogmatic bit. In that respect, the
dogmatic bit is clearly the problem. The loving bit we can keep.
RE: Whole Series
Karen LaBonte
05/26/2008
Interesting question. What's even more interesting is that 12 of the 13
answers are given by men and one by a woman. Is this because the
Templeton Foundation doesn't regard other women as "leading scientists
and scholars"?
RE: Whole Series
Brad Hoffman
05/26/2008
Scientific and religious beliefs cannot coexist under one unified belief. This
can be seen on both ends of the spectrum: from scientific wing-dings who
fancy themselves too brilliant and mature to follow the follies of simple
men (which are the creations of religion), to the religious zealots who go
so far as to consider dinosaur bones fake. But I disagree with the
argument that science and religion must counteract each other. People
say that God is a creation of man and our investigations of the world

269
around us prove this so--as if we could only have a God if we were to
remain ignorant of the working world. The truth is that no one knows. No
one has measured God or recorded him. Nor can they prove that there is
no supernatural world. It's how we choose to deal with this mystery that
makes us who we are. It's how we perceive the importance of this ultimate
question that defines us.
RE: Whole Series
S. Crawford
05/26/2008
It is an ironic twist to consider whether science could make belief in God
obsolete; belief in God and the "revealed" knowledge contained in the
Judeo-Christian scriptures has historically been the textbook of science.
The Judeo-Christian belief is that God has revealed himself in history;
otherwise, many commentators to this series would be correct, no one
could know God.

The Bible revealed scientific facts millennia before they were discovered
by science--scientific foreknowledge. Just a few examples: (1) The earth is
a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat,
the Bible stated that the earth is spherical. (2) Light can be divided (Job
38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is
made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. (3) The
earth floats free in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other
sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was
held up by Atlas, the Bible states that the earth floats in space. (4)
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not
until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of
invisible elements. These are just a few examples.
RE: William D. Phillips
Robert Hensington
05/26/2008
Mr. Phillips, I congratulate you on being able to admit to yourself that we
don't know everything and, rather than presume so far as to say that there
could never be a God, you conclude that you do not know. Yet you resolve
within yourself that there is one, at least at the present time, and find
solace in these facts, whether they be artificial or not. It's all about finding
comfort in our everyday lives, and you have done it without trying to get
others, people who may be content such as yourself, to change their ideas
and beliefs, accommodating to yours. Good for you.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Matt King
05/26/2008
I completely agree with Sapolsky's statement that science isn't always the
answer we seek. We don't know everything and definitely will not know
everything--there is too much to know. If you look at science and religion,
they work more together then apart. Science is our way of explaining

270
things in detail that we have experimented and worked on to figure out.
Religion is our way of explaining what we do not know and likely will never
know. Also, many times science has proven that what religion teaches us
is true. For example: evolutionary theory states that everything that is
living came from a "soup" that was struck by lightning and started the
makings of one-cell organisms. Religion teaches us that God made man
from non-living materials. In my mind, these ideas are the same thing.
RE: Steven Pinker
Matt King
05/26/2008
Right from the beginning I started to disagree with Mr. Pinker's statement.
We do not know where the universe came from--we know its history up to
a point but beyond that we have no idea. He states how religion says the
universe is only a couple thousand years old, but we know from science
that it's a couple billion years old. The science part is based on one year
being the time it takes the earth to rotate around our sun. Yet in religious
terms, the base of time could be different, say, one year being how long it
took our sun to rotate around the center of the Milky Way. Also he tries to
show that we know what is going on in our minds, when in religion we call
this the soul. What we call something in science has a completely different
name in religion. Therefore, what we call the neurosensors and the human
soul could possibly be the same thing, proving that religion was right
again.
RE: Steven Pinker
Micah Bair
05/26/2008
I respect Pinker's opinion that science explains a lot, but it has not
explained everything yet. Besides, many of these discoveries are still
assumptions of how things work. They don't answer why they function the
way they do. He also picks on morals and neurological advancements, but
just because we can plug wires into an organ and register its electrical
impulses doesn't mean we understand it. We have only begun to map it.

I completely disagree with Pinker's last three paragraphs. Just because

there hasn't been an answer does not mean one doesn't exist. When
people didn't know what caused illness, they kept looking for a reason.
Today that reason is found in religion. If there is something that science
can't explain, people will look to a higher power to explain it. Science may
be getting closer to making religion obsolete, but it has not gotten that far
yet and it may never will.
RE: Steven Pinker
Michael Wassenaar
05/26/2008
I agree with Pinker's argument against the first-cause argument,
intelligent design, and the soul, but his argument against divine command
theory (DCT) represents an outdated philosophical consensus. DCT has

271
developed in the past 20 years, based on the insight that it matters
whether the theory assumes a generic, philosophical god or that of a
particular religious tradition such as Christianity, which includes "loving"
among God's attributes. To base moral obligation on the will of a loving
God goes a long way toward solving the circularity problem to which
Pinker alludes. For more, check out Robert Adams's book, Finite and
Infinite Goods.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Micah Bair
05/26/2008
I agree with Cardinal Schonborn that science doesn't make belief in God
obsolete. Science can answer some questions, like how or when, but not
all of them, like why. Even if it does answer some of them, it can still
cause other questions to arise. Since science can't answer some of the
questions, it causes people to look elsewhere for answers, usually to
religion. I also agree with his idea that because people are dealing with
new technology for entertainment and during work, they are forgetting
about religion. They are being drawn away by science. In my own
experience, when I can't find an answer in science I tend to ask a higher
power for an explanation. This usually occurs when I have a "why"
question.
RE: Whole Series
Maurice Goulet
05/26/2008
I find discussions about the relationship of God and science quite circular.
It is evident from all the points of view that the position from which
authors start is where they end up. It all comes down to whether you have
faith.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Herrold
05/26/2008
Science has not made the belief in God obsolete. I am not an extremely
religious person, but I do still believe in God. I have never really doubted
my beliefs in God nor doubted there is a God. In the science world,
scientists try to figure out why things occur and how they occur. Some
may be successful while others may make no contribution. Whichever it is,
it should not have anything to do with making the belief in God obsolete.

I enjoy learning about science and why things happen and what causes
them to happen. Our scientific discoveries would be nowhere without the
belief in God or some kind of faith or hope. Still forty percent of scientists
believe in God. Many of them pray and hope that eventually God will help
them discover something or find a reason why something happens. At this
point, I don't understand how anyone could think that science has made
the belief in God obsolete.
RE: Whole Series

272
Nigel Blackmore
05/26/2008
God has always been at the frontiers of science. What humans did not
understand, were in awe or fearful of, could be safely attributed to the
magical powers of this supreme being--God. The problem with this as a
base for God's existence is that every major scientific development pushes
the boundaries and, therefore, God further away. A new religous approach
is needed that welcomes and is not suspicious of science.
RE: Whole Series
Helen Shanks
05/26/2008
As a church minister with a science background, I feel that the current
scientific hypothesis of string theory requires a greater degree of faith
than a faith in God. No matter how much we learn about our universe, it
simply reveals how little we really understand. Science can never prove or
disprove the existence of a God. It is about time it stopped trying.
RE: Whole Series
Shambhu Gupta
05/26/2008
The word "God" is man-made. We have given a name to someone or
something which is supposed to have created us. A father or mother has
the right and ability to name a child. The reverse is not true. As such, even
if "God" exists, we have no right to name him or her. "God" will have to
precede matter, time, and space. God will have to precede all forms of
energy known and understood by man. Electricity, magnetism, gravity,
radioactive energy, and many others are all interconvertible. What was the
original form of energy from which all known forms of energy originated? It
is neither possible nor necessary to know that original form. However,
from time to time people will claim that they know what is unknowable. It
is kind of scam that has been going for a long time.
RE: Whole Series
Edward Nugee
05/26/2008
Keith Ward says, rightly in my opinion, "It is not science that renders belief
in God obsolete. It is a strictly materialist interpretation of the world that
renders belief in God obsolete, and which science is taken by some people
to support." The materialist interpretation of the world is wrong. There is
ample evidence, for example, attested by tests carried out under rigorous
scientific conditions, that telepathy exists, even though the exercise of
telepathic powers of communication cannot be controlled to order. As
Professor H.H. Price, Wykeham Professor of Logic in the University of
Oxford for 30 years, wrote: "We must conclude, I think, that there is no
room for telepathy in a materialistic universe. Telepathy is something
which ought not to happen at all if a materialistic theory were true. But it
does happen. So there must be something wrong with the materialistic
theory, however numerous and imposing the normal facts which support it

273
may be."

Some people who claim to be scientists have closed minds on this and
similar subjects (poltergeists are another phenomenon which are well
attested but for which there is no materialistic explanation). Once you get
away from the strictly materialist interpretation of the world, the main
obstacle to belief in the existence of God disappears. God, if he exists, is
obviously a spiritual being, with no atoms or molecules in his makeup; but
there are many examples of his communicating with human beings, mind
to mind. Sometimes the communication may take an apparently physical
form, as in the appearances of Jesus after his death which are listed by St.
Paul or the equally well attested appearance of Jesus to Bishop Hugh
Montefiore in the 1930's which turned him almost instantaneously from a
devout Jew, considering becoming a rabbi, to a convinced Christian.

Science has nothing to say about paranormal phenomena like this,

because they cannot, like materialist scientific experiments, be repeated
to order and thus be verified in the way that materialist theories can
(though the experiments with telepathy come near to this); but that does
not mean that they are any the less real.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
David
05/26/2008
Cardinal Schonborn argues essentially that "our innermost being" is more
than the "quantitative and reductive description of the workings of their
parts." True as it is, I would like to suggest that science and its
methodologies in understanding Nature can be more than merely the
quantitative and reductive. That is why the notion of "intelligence" as an
external input or constraint to the reductive can be so exciting. Even
though the "holistic" Nature may not be directly analyzed, the notion of
"intelligence" is quantitative and observational, and hence scientific.
Therefore, a truly expanded (rather than exclusively reductive) science is
compatible with belief in God and the understanding of Nature as well.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Maloney
05/26/2008
Outstanding compilation--a provocative discourse on universal questions.
RE: Whole Series
Sara Barton-Wood
05/26/2008
Belief in God may be absolute in the sense that one either believes, or one
does not, in a being beyond our understanding. But belief is not the same
as knowledge, and whatever you believe, you have to accept that you may
be wrong. In science we have theories which are constantly being
updated, revised, sometimes rejected as false. In religion we have stories
which are constantly being reinterpreted, translated, or shown to be

274
untrue. Both are valuable. Ultimately, neither can be shown to be 100
percent. What, then, can we depend upon? Suggestions please.
RE: Whole Series
Rita Barrett
05/26/2008
Einstein changed his mind many times on many subjects. What scientists
knows is so minute compared to what they don't know. What they don't
know is more than what they know. Some scientists say we are the center
of the universe. Others say we are not. How will they ever know? What are
the boundaries? How do they calculate? There is no end to this debate. But
"the conclusion to the matter" is found in Ecclesiastes 12:13: "Fear God
and keep His Commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."
RE: Whole Series
Jayesh A Patel
05/26/2008
Looking at your contributers list, the God you refer to is the Judeo/Christian
God, and that God is patently obsolete by current scientific standards. So I
turn your gaze to the creator of maths. There is "another" God, the
pagan/Roman/Greek/Hindu God. From a Hindu perspective, the concept of
zero is from "Sanyas" (Sanskrit) to Sifer (Arabic) to Cipher (Latin). This
term defines non-existence and is similar to God. Western thinkers who do
not know Hindu Vedas and the Sanskrit language are lost. The Christian
God can be rescued if he is returned to his Hindu roots. Hindu "religion"
gave the world maths and also language (English being of Indo-European
origin). This pagan/Hindu God is defined as free of material association,
pure, the absolute truth, of full and perfect knowledge, all-pervading,
without beginning or end, attainable only to those free of contact with the
material world through control of their five senses.
RE: Steven Pinker
Mick Moore
05/26/2008
Those here arguing against the existence of a God ascribe such a childish,
literal interpretation of scripture to those who do believe. So are the
atheists so sure of the true nature of what they see? If they are, then they
are not looking hard enough. We, the observers, place our own construct
on this world, but we can only apprehend a fraction of the available data
through our senses. The narrow window of electromagnetic waves that we
perceive as visible light is a good example. Think of the photon that brings
us this light; photons have no mass, and matter itself is made up of
particles which act on and react to forces that work from outside our view
of a causal space-time universe. We can't even find a fundamental
particle, and we can't create or destroy matter. Quantum entanglement,
the zeno effect, and even some of the processes in evolution are working
outside of time and the logical chain of cause and effect.

Let's get rid of this notion of ethics being an arbitrary set of rules imposed

275
on us by some superior being. We didn't come up with ethics ourselves
either. Symmetry is a fundamental characteristic of the cosmos on a
macro and a micro level; it permeates everything from our perception of
beauty to our ethics. The "scales of justice" give nodding
acknowledgement to this. It can be said that the laws that govern
subatomic particles and all of nature and the universe as a whole are
ethical laws. When we can apprehend this reality beyond our everyday
perception, we can be said to "see" God.
RE: Michael Shermer
Ron Good
05/26/2008
Michael Shermer is the only one of the critics answering the question with
a yes who equivocates by saying science makes the God concept obsolete
but not belief in God. This position seems to allow one to reject the
concept of God but accept belief in God, a rather strange combination. The
only way to make sense of this curious position is to associate belief in
God with other irrational, unscientific habits of mind that continue to
characterize much human activity. Believing in things for which there is no
credible evidence does seem to be a common trait among humans and
can be considered from an evolutionary viewpoint to be adaptive in certain
ways. David Sloan Wilson's recent book Evolution for Everyone takes a
position that is sympathetic to this view of belief in God. However, a brief
look at the history of religious belief and its consequences forces one to
question whether the positive outcomes of religious belief and practice
outweigh the negative.

In my brief account of Scientific and Religious Habits of Mind (Lang, 2005),

I compare these "magesteria" and find religious habits of mind to be
incompatible with the habits of mind associated with scientific thought and
a sound science education. If religious training could be postponed until
after children develop critical reasoning abilities, the tendency to defer to
belief in the supernatural would be reduced considerably. Once one has
developed an understanding of and appreciation for the beauty of
scientific explanations, God-like explanations seem child-like and very
unsatisfactory. However, the need to explain the persistence of religious
beliefs is real and should be pursued by all scientific means available.
Considerable progress has been made in the last decade, and I am
confident that in a few more decades we will have a satisfactory scientific
explanation to this important question. I look forward to the day when
most people hold "God" beliefs closer to Einstein's than those of today's
TV preachers and the Pope.
RE: Whole Series
Marcus Dixon
05/26/2008
"God," "gods," religion represent a real social scientific principle, and like
life itself, they continue to evolve for the same simple reason: the
preservation of life. Knowledge is power; the most powerful survives by

276
the deterrent of perceived power or the exercise of real power. "God" and
"gods" are a proven social scientific tool for the transfer of perceived
power(knowledge). Who ever has the true God belongs to the most
powerful group and therefore possess the greatest likelihood of survival.
The principle also works on an individual level.
RE: Keith Ward
Peter Bond
05/26/2008
If God is not "publicly observable" and follows no rules, it seems to me
that belief in Its possible existence is irrelevant to humanity. To all intents
and purposes, we live in a material world--even if physical science shows
complexities that are, in both senses of the word, immaterial--and seem to
have evolved to have a moral instinct that includes for many (but not all)
of us a bias towards a sense of the ineffable. There may well be a God, but
belief appears to be irrelevant to the vast majority of people, and may
simply fulfill an emotional need in others. In this sense, science can never
make belief obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Ernest Hess
05/26/2008
Why would a loving God have created the universe knowing the
consequences?
RE: Whole Series
Paul Jackson
05/26/2008
When we regard the work of an artist, we can interpret it only in terms of
its relevance to ourselves. This says nothing about the true meaning of the
creation and the artist, only about our understanding and our reaction to
it. As I age and learn more, my understanding and beliefs change. The
weight of wisdom lies uneasily upon the soul. I think, therefore, I may
change my mind. Nothing remains exactly the same. The fact that
scientific truth and rationality are very recent tools of the intellect, through
which we can perceive the world clearly, means that we are allowed to see
the workings of the universe with greater accuracy. As fashions change, so
do beliefs and perceptions of what God may be.

Our understanding of the true nature of God will inevitably alter as we

grow and mature as a race, and this will challenge many of us. But that is
our burden. To survive, we must adapt to the answers we discover so that
we may develop. And so it is with God. You can teach me about atoms or
evolution and prove it to me with experiments and clear argument. I will
believe with a mind that has been taught to see reason. But I can also
believe, with both my heart and my mind, in an artist who has created a
great work of growing wonderment.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Dobson

277
05/26/2008
As a militant atheist, I do not believe in any God. However, I believe in
spirituality, the "soul," aesthetics, and art forms--those things that are not
essential to the survival of the species. Where these feelings originate or
what purpose, if any, they serve, I do not profess to know.
RE: Whole Series
Zeev Reuteman
05/26/2008
My grandma used to comment that "when lightning strikes, even atheists
pray." With the dire consequences of the coming crisis, highways will be
empty and churches will be filled to the brim. Peak oil and the second half
of the oil era will thwart almost everything science holds dear today.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Norwood
05/26/2008
People in power use science and religion for the same purpose and cannot
do without both, which leads them to strike a careful balance, believing or
pretending to believe religion to keep the mass of people on their side in
an internal conflict, and yet promoting science, which is so necessary in
any external conflict. If the powerful ever stood back and allowed the
people to choose between science and religion, religion would win easily,
and science would be abandoned. So it is fortunate for those of us who
love science that the powerful need us and protect us, while still turning to
religion whenever they are caught with their hands in the public till.
RE: Whole Series
Haj Pikus
05/26/2008
The question should not be "Does science make belief in god obsolete?,"
but the precise opposite. In my opinion, belief in a traditional god
potentially makes science obsolete. The logic of the scientific method, its
discoveries and advances, can be accepted incrementally. We get to
choose whether to believe that any particular premise is valid. Is there
sufficient proof to support the scientist's hypothesis?

Belief in god is absolute. Either you subscribe to faith in a being beyond

discrete proof or you don't. Of course, believing in god doesn't restrict
one's ability to believe in scientific discovery and advance. It is curious
that many accomplished scientists can, when faced with the ultimate
questions, shy away from the logic they rely upon for their daily lives.
When asked about god, otherwise logical people abandon logic in favor of
faith. This discrepancy is a mystery, although some have provided various
unsatisfying explanations.

When taken to the logical extreme, if we are willing to accept the idea of
an anthropomorphic god, watching over us and involved with us to some
degree, then why bother with science? Why do we need the rigor of the

278
scientific method, research, and scientific advance when all will be
handled by god? It doesn't matter what we know or don't know, what we
learn or don't learn, our destiny is not in our hands but in those of god. Our
society's preoccupation with a traditional idea of god is in serious danger
of jeopardizing our ability to understand our environment, the human
condition really, and to make advances in knowledge and practice that will
help us to live better and provide a better environment for our
descendents and the other inhabitants of our planet.
RE: Whole Series
George M. Freeman
05/26/2008
Of course not! Science makes religion (not belief in God) obsolete. If the
validity of religion were tested by the veracity of its past conclusions on
what was once unknown but is now known, it would be disqualified as a
form of human knowledge.
RE: Whole Series
Dr Mike Viccary
05/26/2008
I am amazed at the lack of understanding here, with regard to both the
nature of science and the nature of the scriptures. Science really cannot
speak about origins because we do not have access to times before us.
The whole point about the Bible is that it is (as it claims to be) a revelation
from God about all things.
RE: Whole Series
Dr David Green
05/26/2008
Philosophy is not and should not be concerned with proofs of God's
existence or non-existence. The most philosophers can claim is the
possibility or impossibility of a divine entity. They're not in the statistical
business of probability or non-probability sampling. In short, as string
theory posits, there is still room for a non-physical entity in our heavens
and earths.
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Chris Hazel
05/25/2008
One problem I find with Victor J. Stenger's essay is that it gives no true
reason for why he believes what he writes. His essay consists of the major
scientific discoveries in the world and then blames this for his belief. Of
course, a lot of these things have been seen to be true about our universe.
Evolution and the idea that the universe is constantly moving away from a
central point are seen as being true, but what about the things that we do
not see? People can only see so far into the universe and everything else,
if it is even there, is left to be unknown.

Stenger and other scientists make some bold statements about how vast
the universe is. They also say something that blows my mind away:

279
everything in the universe started from nothing. Now I have heard of the
Big Bang theory--that everything in the universe started at a single point,
then exploded. But a single point is a lot different from nothing. A law of
science is the conservation of energy and matter, and now someone is not
only saying that this law is untrue but that the entire reason for our
existence is this law being untrue. I don't believe this. I believe that the
universe started in one point and God is responsible for that point.
RE: William D. Phillips
Chris Hazel
05/25/2008
I completely agree with William D. Phillips; I think that science should only
strenghten a person's belief in God. I too am a religious person, and
science has never made me think twice about whether or not God exists.
The purpose of science is to attempt to explain phenomena that occur in
our world. However, there is a catch-22 to science: whenever someone
discovers something new or believes they have found an answer to
something, it only opens more questions. I'm sure that science will never
be able to answer everything that occurs in the universe.

I am fascinated with science. I like to learn how our world works, and I
would really like to learn how everything works, but I know that I will not
be able to. And these things that I don't know, I leave up to faith. Even
though our society does not believe that God is responsible for everything
that occurs in the natural world, I'm sure that nearly everyone has faith
that something is responsible for at least the existence of our world. It is
impossible to explain everything with science, so a belief in God is almost
needed in order to fill all of the holes.
RE: Whole Series
Lawrence Marcus
05/25/2008
I would like to read all of the essays before commenting. I feel I am an
atheist, but I am exploring my beliefs. I have seen and lived a lot--I am 91
years young.
RE: Whole Series
Norb Baumann
05/25/2008
The issue between evolution and creation in the biblical description is a
non-issue for me. I am a strong believer in evolution and a strong non-
believer in the six-day version of creation. However, neither provides an
incontestable explanation for the origin of the material universe as we
know it. Whence came the singularity that led to the "big bang"?
RE: Whole Series
Jon Quirk
05/25/2008
Is not the whole point of the debate to concentrate minds on the question
posed by A.C. Grayling: what constitutes a good life? That life, like

280
Cavafy's poem "Ithaka," is about the journey making you rich rather than
the destination being all. The asking of the question is the fundamental
issue rather than the need for an answer.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Soja John Thaikattil
05/25/2008
Professor Kaufmann, to my understanding, "nature as God" or pantheism
is perhaps the oldest form of religion. Scientific pantheism is a
sophisticated form of religion, to be sure, but it is still pantheism, and on
the religious grading is a pretty primitive understanding of God, for it
brings God down to the level of how much human beings can understand
the universe He created, restricting God to the size of human empirical
knowledge.
RE: Whole Series
Soja John Thaikattil
05/25/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Does understanding the theory
of relativity make belief in Albert Einstein obsolete?
RE: Whole Series
David Henderson
05/25/2008
God has spoken to mankind through the process of progressive revelation.
He has chosen his prophets and messengers from among his children on
earth. In the latest dispensation, the Baha'i faith, God has intimated
through his chosen one that science and religion are universally
reconcilable. It is because of God that we have science, not the other way
around.
RE: Whole Series
Charles Tripi
05/25/2008
Yes, of course, science is incompatible with the idea of a God, if by science
we mean explaining our environment naturalistically. If you are instead
going to explain our world supernaturally, you have displaced scientific
operation. The systems of thought differ, the languages used to describe
them are incompatible.
RE: Whole Series
Michael Everding
05/25/2008
Paul Tillich, the existentialist Christian theologian, provided the insight
which grounds my faith: God is not a being but rather being itself.
Statements about God must always be symbolic. Statements about God
are true, as Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell showed mythology to embody
truth, because they symbolize and express the ineffable human condition
and will-to-be-more. Science, likewise, is an embodiment and symbol of
God's will and being made manifest. Religious beliefs which literally

281
contradict scientific facts, then, aren't about science; they are about our
inscrutable inner being, seeking to reach its ground in God.
RE: Whole Series
Charles King
05/25/2008
For me, science makes a belief in God possible. If it were ever possible for
man to learn how to travel in time, we would probably discover that God
and man are one and the same, separated forever by an ever more distant
eternity, and that all this arguing has not been useful except to shape our
future and to instruct our present.

My reason for choosing hardware over software as my field of study was

that I wanted to see how a few lines of code on a page could open the
sluice gates of a mighty hydro-electric dam and power the grid of an entire
city. Eventually I came to understand the links between written computer
code and the electronics and mechanics of amplifiers and relays. Much
later I saw how the stochastics of chance could create, in a few billion
years, the enduring coded abstract structure embedded in the DNA of
living things. I saw that it was just a matter of time in any chaotic situation
before structures such as these appeared and persisted.

A series of events occurs in a way that constitutes an instruction to

replicate that series, thereby creating a structure. A few of these
structures also create an additional instruction not simply to replicate but
to multiply in a Fibonacci-type series. If chance can do this in a few billion
years of the existence of matter, it is also bound to create other far more
complex organisms in the eternity of time.

A parasitic amoeba probably perceives the human body as nothing more

than a benign environment. That we cannot perceive organisms more
complex than ourselves is a consequence of our own limitations. Software
is a sequence that can exist anywhere independent of a single physical
structure. To separate the sequence from the structure is a pointless
exercise. Conceptually, one cannot exist without the other. If chaos can
create us in a measurable instant, then it can create others more complex
than us. Arguably it must, given eternity, create God.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Sobotor
05/25/2008
The premise of a comment below about heat and cold, light and dark
seems a bit flawed. The writer assumes falsely that cold and dark are
scientific terms. But they are merely colloquial expressions. Interestingly,
though we can quantify an absolute zero and absolute darkness, we
cannot fully express their inverse.

Why would God use scientific trickery to hide His presence? If He interacts
with His creation in the material world, His impact on things connected to

282
it through the laws He is credited with having instituted to govern it would
have to be deliberately violated with each interaction. Is this simply God
playing a joke on us, or a mean-spirited attempt to deny those who seek
truth through understanding what He created? The command of "Test me
and see, know that I Am God" is a bit hollow if it come with strings and
clauses that contradict the nature of God. But maybe that is the best
argument against Him-- His inconsistency.
RE: Whole Series
Jeff Haley
05/25/2008
Neither yes nor no. This question is the equivalent of "Did you stop beating
your wife?" Answering yes or no concedes there was a time when belief in
god was useful (or some other opposite of "obsolete"). No matter how
"god" is defined, no such belief has ever been useful. That the Templeton
Foundation would present such a prejudicial question reveals it to be an
advocacy organization that has no genuine interest in intellectual inquiry.
RE: Whole Series
Patrick Watson
05/25/2008
With credit to C.S. Lewis: Omnipotence means power to do everything.
And so we are told in Scripture that "with God all things are possible." It is
common enough, in arguments with an unbeliever, to be told that God, if
he existed and were good, would do this or that; and then, if we point out
that the proposed action is impossible, to be met with the response, "But I
thought God was supposed to be able to do anything." This raises the
whole question of impossibility.

In ordinary usage, the word impossible generally implies a suppressed

clause beginning with the word unless. Thus, it is impossible for me to see
the street unless I go up the top floor, where I shall be high enough to
overlook the intervening building. If I had broken my leg, I should say, "But
it is impossible to go up to the top floor"--meaning that it is impossible
unless some friends turn up who will carry me. Now let us advance to a
different plane of impossibility, by saying, "It is, at any rate, impossible to
see the street so long as I remain where I am and the intervening building
remains where it is." Someone might add, "Unless the nature of space, or
vision, were different from what it is."

I do not know what the best philosophers and scientist would say to this,
but I would reply, "I don't know whether space and vision could possibly
have been of such a nature as you suggest." Now it is clear that the words
could possibly here refer to some absolute kind of possibility which is
different from the relative possibilities and impossibilities we have been
considering. I cannot say whether seeing around corners is, in this new
sense, possible or not, because I do not know whether it is self-
contradictory or not. But I know very well that if it is self-contradictory it is
absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called the

283
intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself,
instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in turn depend
upon others. It has no "unless" clause attached to it. It is impossible under
all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents.

"All agents" here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to
do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible.
You may attribute miracles to Him but not nonsense. This is no limit to His
power. If you chose to say that God can give a creature free will and at the
same time withhold free will from it, you have not succeeded in saying
anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly
acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words
"God can." It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His
creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not
because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains
nonsense even when we talk about God.
RE: Whole Series
Eric Porter
05/25/2008
The question at issue here must begin with the hypothesis that God does
exist and is the creator of all things. He cannot be rendered obsolete if He
does not exist. And the book of Genesis allows for this obsolescence in
stating that man had become as a god when he ate of the fruit of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil. The whole creation story in Genesis is
merely the story of humankind moving forward in learning how to harness
its environment and, therefore, needing God less. THIS is the original sin.
As humankind progresses scientifically and provides answers to God's
wonders, we are becoming more like Him in our capabilities. Therefore,
God is slowly becoming obsolete in our lives in the matters of maintaining
our physical existence. But God can never become obsolete in matters of
moral judgment, as science is, by its nature, pragmatic rather than caring.
RE: Whole Series
John R. (Jack) Smies
05/25/2008
God could use definition(s). Hitchens describes the classical view, which
probably reflects a background from Western European feudalism or a
structure of control with a "big" guy in charge. A definition of God as the
highest good seems to me to square with science and allow for creation
and evolution from natural quantum phenomena. Belief should probably
be tempered by considering that what you don't know does not hurt you
as much as what you do know that is not true.
RE: Whole Series
Shawn Wooster
05/25/2008
I am not sure that the mantra "form follows function" (see comment
below) is applicable to organic things. This idea was originally meant to

284
describe structural applications in architecture, furniture design,
automobile design, etc. It really doesn't apply to nature. The human brain
is a perfect example of function following form. Our ancient ancestors,
250,000 years ago, probably had brains very similar to ours, if not exactly
like ours. Learned behaviors and the environment forced new functions on
our preexisting neural forms. It turns out that the human body itself is the
perfect multi-purpose vessel. I would argue that room for more function
still exists in the human body, making the idea that form follows function
inapplicable.
RE: Whole Series
Shawn Wooster
05/25/2008
One of the readers made a comment about the immaterial existence of
the image of a finger in the mind and used Bertrand Russell as a
reference. I am not sure if the immaterial aspects of existence are best
represented by an image in the mind's theater. Though the image is
digitized and processed, the process is still a mechanical one. Thought
itself is certainly not an immaterial, fluttering, ethereal thing. Thought is
the result of electro-chemical process. It is purely physical. This doesn't
mean that we can't still believe in God, but we should be careful how we
define things.
RE: Whole Series
Pragmatist
05/25/2008
I am in agreement with the commenter who noted that the question is
rendered meaningless by the fact that God is an ambiguous term. If we
are talking about "God"--an intelligent being/force that may have created
the material world, then science has no information and nothing to say as
of yet. If you refer to an interventionist being who operates within the
physical world but who is immune from its laws, then science does have a
role and thus far finds no factual basis for this belief.
RE: Whole Series
Ralph Huntington
05/25/2008
Everyone and everything is god; there's nothing else to be. Form follows
function in nature, not the other way around. Thus consciousness must
precede matter, rather than arise out of it.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert
05/25/2008
No, science does not make a belief in God obsolete. In fact, if scientists
were truly scientific, truly willing to examine what people want in life, they
would be faced with the fact that people want things dramatically better
than they are, no matter how good things get. People want the miraculous
in their lives. Scientists can trot out all the rational arguments they like for
not believing in God, but a belief in God cannot become obsolete unless

285
science itself provides us with a continual thrust toward the miraculous.
Should science flag in providing us with the miraculous, then people are
going to retain a simple hope in God.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Abraham
05/25/2008
Science should not make belief obsolete. Physics proves that a great mind
of some sort started this universe. For example, at one point, the universe
expanded at a speed greater than the speed of light (not possible in the
universe today). Why is it that matter, energy, space, and time interact in
a very fine balance that allows atoms to exist, to bind together, to be
affected in state by energy (solid, liquid, gas, plasma), and bound by
gravity in perfect proportions that allow humans to exist?

Gravity could be slightly weaker than it is. If earth had formed at all, it
would have flown out of the solar system long age. Gravity could have
been slightly stronger. The earth would have crashed into the sun. Energy
could have a greater or lesser impact on the state of matter. The sun
would have collapsed or exploded long ago. All this could have been.
Physics proves that none of the rules that we understand today were in
place in the beginning. Even the speed of light had not been established.

Who decided what the laws of physics would become? Considering the
infinite possible arrangement of rules in our (at one point) "lawless" proto-
universe, the chances of our existence are literally infinity to one. It is not
possible for our universe, with its perfect balance of the interactions
between space, time, matter, energy, and gravity, to come into existence
out of chaos.

This contradiction is scientific proof of the existence of the great mind that
brought order to the chaos, sort of like a maestro in a symphony. The
great mind does not decide exactly where each atom, or each person will
be at any given moment, but it does allow for planets like earth, and
species like humans, to exist.
RE: Whole Series
Rol Read
05/25/2008
People who believe in God seem to start with a belief that is non-
negotiable and then do all their arguing from that premise, which means
that their arguments are, logically, fatally flawed from the outset. This is
clear, even with Nobel Prize winners. So it really doesn't matter to those
people what science comes up with, as they have been saying black is
white for most of their life, and have probably been taught to do so since
their infancy. In effect, they haven't grown out of that and don't want to. I
mean, what a downer to discover that the prayers you have been relying
on are a waste of time and you are on your own to face everything,
including death, when you have had this lovely comfort system with

286
imaginary friend, parent, bodyguard, and personal wizard in place for so
long!
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Irving Krakow
05/24/2008
Cardinal Schonborn believes the New Testament was authored or at least
inspired by a supernatural deity. The most important question he must
answer is not, Does such a deity exist? Rather, it is, What credible reasons
do you have to justify your belief that a deity provided you with the New
Testament? That question is completely independent of whether a deity
exists, but it must be answered, or Christianity is nothing more than
mythology. The same point applies to both Judaism and Islam.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Bruce Wayne
05/24/2008
Science, by itself, is a belief. If a person says that "science belief" makes
"God belief" obsolete, then that is just a belief of science--a belief not to
believe in God. For people who believe in God, the answer to the question
will be no. And for people who believe in science, the answer will be yes.
Well, debates and essays are for people who love to sell their thought.
Science and religion are merely tools for brainwashing others for the sole
purpose of persuading them and controlling their beliefs. As long as
humans live, neither "believing" tool will ever become obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Philip Berns
05/24/2008
Whose "science"? Who knows (scientia)? What is "God"?
RE: Whole Series
Kay Delanoy
05/24/2008
I find the question unreasonable. Belief has nothing to do with science. I
don't believe in a god and think all the god stories are interesting myths,
because I was brought up that way. Someone taught to believe in a god is
more likely to. I feel awe when I'm out in an old growth forest. Some
people would say that is God speaking. I just think we are programmed to
be impressed with beautiful things. But science isn't going to make anyone
change their beliefs, reasonable or not.
RE: Whole Series
Jane Anne Gleason
05/24/2008
I teach science and religion to preschool through 3rd grade in an Episcopal
school. For me there is no doubt that God exists in our world. How else can
we explain electricity, the vast expanse and variety of life forms, the
beauty of nature, and all the other marvels of our world? Does God exist?
Unquestionably yes!

287
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Gordon Hughes
05/24/2008
Science and religion both fixate on the surface appearances of our
universe. Science is satisfied with predictive math and never searches
deeper. It doesn't ask what's before the Big Bang, or what's beyond our
14-billion-light-year-size universe. Science criticizes religion's primitive
books, but such books can only limit what God is, because they were
written by limited space-time humans.

My hypothesis is that, logically, if God exists, God can have no limits. This
leads to both science and religion springing from a deeper truth. In the
Republic, Plato called it "the Cave," wherein our existence is like images
projected onto the walls of a cave where everyone lives. Science now calls
this projection string theory or the multiverse, where our 3D space-time is
projected from a higher dimensional reality.
RE: Michael Shermer
Timothy Stone
05/24/2008
I agree with Shermer: It is the act of believing that is most important, not
what one believes, whether it is evolution vs creation or Moses vs Buddha.
In any case, if the belief makes one feel secure, all is well. Believe it! Just
don't try to make it sound rational, or you'll be unhappy.
RE: Whole Series
Wm E. Haynes
05/24/2008
Consider the time when the entropy of the universe was at a minimum. At
the instant in which the Big Bang banged, the energy potential of the
universe was at its maximum, and the organization of the universe was
total. How can we know this ? Because, if there can be no net entropy
decrease within the universe, then the net entropy of the universe had to
have been at a minimum at its beginning, and current theory holds that
that was at the initiation of the Big Bang.

We are now in a position to ask: What led up to the Big Bang? Physicists
generally decry this as an inappropriate question, meaning that they don't
have the faintest idea how to go about seeking an answer to it. Yet the
answer seems clear: only a living intelligence can produce complex
negentropic conditions.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made
through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. In
him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the
darkness, and the darkness hasn't overcome it." John 1:1-5
RE: Whole Series

288
Emeritus Prof. Elemer E Rosinger
05/24/2008
The possible relationship between science and religion is being debated
endlessly, and its main feature appears to be nothing more than a growing
cacophony of opinions which do not seem to reach deep enough. Among
some of the more important deficiencies in this regard is the endless issue
to believe or not in God. Belief, as any number of well known examples
illustrate, is a rather weak ontological approach or position. After all, the
historical list of most firmly held beliefs, including by those considered to
be most important opinion makers, contains any number of well known
ridiculous items (the Earth is immobile at the center of Creation, the Earth
is flat, etc.). No lesser a thinker than Descartes could argue that the
velocity of light is infinite.

Obviously, a far more solid ontological relationship is that furnished by

knowledge. And here we mean knowledge in the more modern scientific
sense, that is, supported directly or indirectly by empirical evidence.
Amusingly, from the start of that more modern kind of knowledge, the
Church has been far more aware of the deeper relationship between
modern science and God than most scientists seem to be even nowadays.
Indeed, the biggest danger the Church saw in the emergence of modern
science was in the fact that humans would no longer be satisfied with the
traditional weak relationship with God given by mere belief, and instead,
they would now rather turn to requesting the stronger possible
relationship based on knowledge. In such a case, the whole approach of
the Church, starting with the Bible, going through theology, and ending in
sacraments, rituals, ceremonies, and so on, would of course become
redundant, if not ridiculous.
RE: Steven Pinker
Donald Kaple EdD
05/24/2008
Pinker lost me in his opening paragraph. Physical science, strictly
speaking, is a discipline whose object is limited to observable phenomena.
History and philosophy have similar limitations. Science no more makes
God obsolete than religion makes science obsolete. "God" is an ambiguous
term. The late theologian Carl Rahner is reported to have said that God is
the mystery in human experience. I consider myself to be an honest and
informed person. The more aware I become, the more I experience wonder
and awe.
RE: Whole Series
Joanne
05/24/2008
As others have more eloquently stated, science and religion/God are not
mutually exclusive or opposed. Science is a means of studying and
explaining the natural world that God created. To answer those like
Mamouka L, who readily point to death and destructive forces done in the
name of religion, I remind you that atheistic Communist regimes (e.g.,

289
Stalin, Pol Pot, China) have killed, destroyed, and violated the human
rights of millions of people, just in the 20th century alone.

The progress of civilization is usually measured by the advancement of

science and technological achievements. However, when science and
technology proceed without ethical restraints, man and nature suffer.
Religion brings us those ethical restraints. Furthermore, the Catholic
Church introduced to the world the scientific method and the higher
education system for learning. Religion is not based upon the utterings of
fictional characters. Rather, they are historical characters.
RE: Whole Series
Larry Goenka
05/24/2008
Our current understanding is that atoms are made up of about 50 sub-
atomic particles, with neutrons and protons (having up quarks and down
quarks) and electrons (with p- and n- shells), to name a few. And the
nucleus is bound by immense nuclear forces. Matter consists of trillions of
such (identical) atoms. I'd love to have someone explain the processes
necessary to make ONE atom (assuming that no other exists). What would
be the "starting condition" to have created trillions of such incredibly
complex atoms? Does the Big Bang explain this? If not, it makes a pretty
strong case for Intelligent Design, and the presence of a Creator.
RE: Whole Series
Chris Nicheols
05/24/2008
I would argue on the side not of science or religion but of logic. The God
that most people believe in cannot exist because of the paradoxes of
omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. If God is all-powerful, what
power do we possess? If we are to possess free will, does God cease to be
all-powerful? If God is ever-present, where do we fit into this reality? At
what point do we exist? If God is all-knowing, what are we doing here? If
God knows the details of our lives, are we predestined for heaven or hell
no matter what our course? Why should we bother to pray to an all-
knowing God? Why should we bother to do anything? If we are to believe
in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God, our lives have no
apparent value.

The thought I just expressed is a mere extension of God, not a blasphemy.

However, if we are to believe in a god that does not possess these
qualities, we are merely slaves to this particular being, which may not
necessarily be the only god in existence. A god without omnipotence,
omnipresence, and omniscience is just another being in the universe. A
being that holds ever-lasting torment over another is an oppressor. So
what do you want to believe: God does not exist or enslavement?
RE: Whole Series
Irving Krakow

290
05/24/2008
In my previous comment I said that it's necessary to deal with distinct
questions on an individual basis. I'll start the process with this question:
Can you make just one statement about a supernatural deity that is known
to be true? If so, can you explain how you determined that it was in fact
true? If not, why not?
RE: Whole Series
David Rine
05/24/2008
Nomogenesis is an evolutionary model holding that the direction of
evolution operates to some degree by rules or laws, independently of
natural selection. For a long time it was regarded as an outmoded
hypothesis, but recently it has been maintained that it corresponds rather
well with observations of evolution in the fossil record, and that such
mechanisms as heterochrony and molecular drive would produce
nomogenetic effects. The relationship between nomogenesis and theistic
evolution can be seen in the above phrase "direction of evolution operates
to some degree by rules or laws, independently of natural selection,"
wherein one fundamental law is called the Moral Law, which has been
confirmed by genetic science and acknowledged by both those of faith and
atheists as being outside what genetic evolution can derive.

Two examples of acknowledged leaders in the field of evolution who have

confirmed this in their writings are Dr. Francis Collins (head of the
international Human Genome project and pioneer in genetic science) and
Dr. Richard Dawkins (eminent philosopher of science). Collins is a believer
in Creator God (and Jesus) while Dawkins is an atheist. Among leading
scientists and philosophers of science, nomogenesis and theistic evolution
appear to be on more solid grounds than intelligent design (ID), which
does not affirm that genetic evolution and Creator God are consistent.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Glassock
05/24/2008
Science changes the definition of God from a supernatural, unknowable
mystery to the beauty of Nature in all its glory. It reinforces the God of
Spinoza and Einstein. Science becomes a quest to know God, as expressed
in Nature.
RE: Whole Series
Ravindra Kumar
05/24/2008
Geoffrey Collins calls my suggestion naive and nonsense. But watching the
night sky and concluding that the earth is rotating is not a sensory
perception. It is a scientific conclusion from the observation of natural
phenomena. The biggest giant cannot stand on a platform and lift it too.
The eye that can see the whole world cannot see itself. We are trying to
make conclusions about something that is beyond our sensory equipment.

291
Mind is part of that.

As for Mamouka L's assertion that science has benefited human beings
while religion has destroyed them, may I ask what threatens the extinction
of the human race today? Is it science in the form of a nuclear bomb or
religion? And it is we humans who are destroying our environment, not
God. It is we who are killing each other in the name of religion. Not God.
Don't equate God with religion.
RE: Whole Series
Gibin Thomas
05/24/2008
Interpretation and not just words in sacred books matter. One Hindu view
is that Brahma created the world in days, but modern Hindus define
Brahma's days as billions of human years. The word "days" in Genesis also
can be viewed as eras of various lengths. Our basic need is constant
humanistic progress toward the absolute universal truth or ultimate
reality, which is not fully perceived from our human-level viewpoints.

The word spirituality rings with the idea of the supernatural overcoming of
natural laws. Evil spiritualism is when our infinitely variable human whims
and fancies lead us astray, as exemplified by stories like King Midas's
golden touch, which proved to be a curse. The Holy Spirit guides us on the
right path of spirituality as distinct from the path of evil.
RE: Whole Series
Mamouka L
05/24/2008
God does not exist, nor does Mickey Mouse. There is no proof of god,
except lies and falsified evidences. But there are industries of religions
that "employ" millions of priests, mullahs, rabbis, lamas, and others who
cling to the dark ages and drag the rest of the world into destruction.
Science is the opposite of religion. It cannot coexist with religion. Science
can deliver us from the darkness and ignorance that the religions have
brought to the human race. Science is based on evidence. Religion is
based on the utterings of fictional characters. Science has found cures for
malaria, pneumonia, syphillis, and other diseases. Religion has destroyed
billions throughout human history: the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11. It is
time for the great minds of the modern era and the leaders of the Western
world to distance themselves from religion and back science as the true
activity for the healthy, peaceful, and successful development of the
human race.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert
05/23/2008
No, science does not make a belief in God obsolete. In fact, science is
expected to give us, through its penetration of the secrets of nature,
precisely what religions have expected of God: the miraculous. If science

292
cannot give us the miraculous and instead tells us we should live with
something less--or, God forbid, that we should accept pessimistic
assessments of the universe--then science, far from making God obsolete,
will become obsolete before a belief in God. There is decreased belief in
God in the modern world and an emphasis on the natural rather than
supernatural precisely because we have extremely high expectations of
the natural--that, through an understanding of the natural, we can achieve
what to ancient man would be supernatural accomplishments. Science has
no choice but to keep making our lives more and more miraculous--in
essence bringing us closer to God--or it will fail before the simple human
hope in the miraculous, a religious belief in God.
RE: Whole Series
Geoffrey Collins
05/23/2008
In the post below, Ravindra Kumar makes the naive analogy suggesting
that, since we cannot perceive the rotation of the earth, we are taking this
assertion on faith and this is no different from belief in God. This is
nonsense. All science is based on repeatable observations described in the
scientific journals. Anyone who watches the night sky can see that the
earth is rotating. It is clearly perceivable. There are no reports of anyone
seeing God for the last 2,000 years, and those that exist in the Bible would
not meet any reasonable standards of evidence.

Paley's 19th-century argument for design hinges on the obvious

deduction, upon finding a watch, that it has no mechanism for
reproduction. It could not be self-made. By contrast, the components of
living organisms clearly are the result of reproduction with clearly
understood mechanisms. The obvious conclusion when viewing complexity
in living organisms is that this arose by a process of evolution. The
evidence for this fact is overwhelming from many sources.
RE: Whole Series
Ravindra Kumar
05/23/2008
I am amazed at some of the views which state that science makes belief in
God obsolete. What is science? It is the result of experiments, observation,
contemplation, deductive logic, etc. Yet it is the human mind that created
scientific progress. We all know that the earth is revolving on its axis and
at the same time orbiting the sun at some speed. But can anyone
standing, lying, or sitting perceive this motion? Can any of your senses
feel this motion? No--nobody can. But we fully believe that the earth is
rotating and orbiting. We believe even though our senses do not perceive
it, because science has told us so. Yet if our senses and science cannot
perceive the existence of God, we doubt His existence!

Also, let's not just deny the existence of God based on the story of
creation in the Bible. There are other religions and many saints from every
religion who have told us how they were able to realize the divine. It is not

293
possible to realize God by our senses. We need faith and intuition at a
level of consciousness which can only be achieved by an intense desire to
know God. To think that we can know everything by our limited intellect is
to live a shallow life.
RE: Whole Series
Gerardo E. Mart�nez-Solanas
05/23/2008
God has many faces that reflect many beliefs. The atheist god is science,
and for the skeptic, god is knowledge. The farther science reaches, the
less we realize we know about a theory of everything that would give an
explanation of reality without God. But such a theory would be a theory of
God. After all, believers know that God is everything. Science is a human
endeavour in search of proper and rational explanations of what is known
and unknown. It neither interferes with God nor with human believers. It
just corroborates what He has created.
RE: Whole Series
Jack Goldman
05/23/2008
The Universe is impersonal. God is the personal experience of the
Universe. No one ever really understands the Universe. It's almost a trick
question. We are all ignorant, flawed sinners and slackers who will never
know it all or stop making mistakes. Science helps us operate outside the
eyes with experiments. God helps us operate behind the eyes, with faith,
and to make leaps of faith regarding happiness, love, compassion, and
bliss. Science would be too slow behind the eyes. Faith and science are
complementary opposites, as are God and science, like inhaling and
exhaling. Does science make God obsolete? No. We all have opinions. We
all have faith. We all have science. These are all dimensions of life that
add up to the fact that you don't find a miracle, you live one. We are all
miracles. Love is a miracle.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Al
05/23/2008
I am not a scholar, but I am always very interested in the theories of the
scholars regarding their perceptions of God. In Cardinal Schonborn's
essay, I found the use of English and scientific language quite impressive.
As far as its getting to the answer to the question, I didn't find one.
RE: Whole Series
Martin Kail
05/23/2008
Who lit the fuse on the Big Bang? Can science ever answer questions like
"Why was the universe created?" or "What is the meaning and purpose of
our existence?"
RE: Whole Series
Steve Peterson

294
05/23/2008
Faith is the idea that it is a virtue to try to believe religious things that
seem unreasonable. Some say doubt is even required for faith. If
something seems reasonable to believe, it requires no faith, so to have
this virtue means that you have to believe things that you doubt.
Obviously, this idea that faith is a virtue is at odds with science. In the
scientific way of thinking, it is simply dishonest to say that you know
something that you don't know. Instead, from a scientific perspective, it is
a virtue to hold your beliefs to the tests of consistency with evidence and
rational coherence. What is true today must be discoverable today. We
shouldn't need to consult ancient "magic books" to tell us what is true.
Since today people apply scientific standards for truth in virtually every
facet of life (other than theological questions), it seems clear that science
is winning on the "truth" front.

I imagine it won't be long before more people start applying their usual
scientific standards of truth to the claims made by church authorities. It all
depends on whether it is socially acceptable to question religious beliefs in
the way we would question one another's beliefs about anything else. The
Templeton Conversation suggests to me that we may be able to start
having these sorts of conversations about irrational religious beliefs. (I
sure hope so, since these are the sorts of beliefs that motivate people to
fly airliners into skyscrapers.) If conversations like this one continue to
take place, maybe the next time someone claims that human beings are
issued their souls at the moment of conception, someone else might ask,
"How do you know that?" As such conversations start to happen more and
more, gods will become obsolete, because to engage in such a dialogue is
to presuppose that beliefs need to be reasonable rather than based on
faith.
RE: Whole Series
Jarrod M.
05/23/2008
I would like to thank all the contributors for their thoughtful answers. With
science and knowledge advancing at a rate unparalleled in our history, this
is certainly a relevant question. However, it is also a very deep and
personal question that people can only answer for themselves. For a
person to consider him/herself to have all the answers, beyond a doubt,
and to think that all the other billions of people who have lived before us,
share this time with us, and will live after us are stupid and wrong, is not
only itself the essence of ignorance but woefully shallow. Obviously, this is
not to discourage debate. Decisions are made best when all points of view
are readily available. I can only advise people to keep their aggression in
check while presenting their opinion. Let's appreciate our diversity, please.
RE: Whole Series
Irving Krakow
05/23/2008
It is a very bad question in two respects. First, it presupposes that the

295
methods of scientific research, the results of such research, or the
philosophical presuppositions of science are relevant to the issue. But
there are good reasons, based on very basic principles of deductive logic,
to deny the relevance. Second, it avoids the absolutely crucial distinction
between talking about a deity and talking about a religion. It's not true
that a belief in the existence of a deity is equivalent to believing in a
religion. This sort of dialogue will achieve no understanding of anything
unless and until several distinct questions are addressed individually.
RE: Whole Series
Bill Brouwers
05/23/2008
From my experiences, the languages of science and religion are as
different as Russian is from English. The language of science is evidence.
The language of religion is belief. But religious people believe so many,
many different things, past, present, changing, around the world. Not only
among the various religions but also within them. All claiming truth. What
is objective truth?

I understand the language of science. And from evidence I have come to

understand that there was an Intelligent Designer/Maker who made the
universe. I recognize the arguments of those who differ, but the structure
of the atom and the amazing structure of the human body, among many
other things, have caused me to come to the conclusion that there was an
Intelligent Designer/Maker involved. Just as intelligence was necessary to
bring about a computer or an automobile.

But what was/is that Intelligent Designer/Maker like? How does one know?
From evidence, I have come to understand the Bible as a message from
this Intelligent Designer/Maker of the universe, saying, "You can't figure
Me out, can you? So I will tell you." But there is a great variety of
understandings regarding the Bible. From evidence, I have come to a
certain understanding for myself, respecting the right of anyone else to
their different understanding. Let's talk.
RE: Whole Series
Texas Gypsy
05/23/2008
I find the variation in conclusions reached by these men and women of
magnificent intellect very interesting. Those who insist science has
replaced theology seem to reach that conclusion based on the belief that
the purpose of theology is to establish how the universe/world/humankind
came into being. They quite naturally believe that science does a better
job of investigating that than does religion. On the other hand, those who
see God and science separately tend to see God as a source of
individuality, beauty, and sensation. In other words, they see God not as
an answer to the "how" question of the existence to the universe, but as
the response to the "why" question of our own feelings.

296
It would appear to me that the two philosophies will not agree, and either
they will co-exist or combat one another. In either event, it is clear that
science has not made belief in God obsolete, and will not, unless or until
all feelings and emotions are bled out of humanity. If and when that event
occurs, God will be dead, and as far as I'm concerned, so will we all.
RE: Whole Series
Ryan Lane
05/23/2008
Science says you have five senses to identify and observe the world
around you. Using these senses we cannot see God, but that does not
mean He does not exist. According to the rules of empirical, testable,
demonstrable protocol, science says God doesn't exist. All we have is our
faith. There is no definitive evidence.

But let me ask this. Is there such a thing as heat? And is there such a thing
as cold? Surely if there is heat we must have cold? Heat there is, but cold
there is not. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-
heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat, or no heat, but we don't
have anything called "cold." We can measure heat in thermal units
because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat just the absence
of it.

Is there such a thing as darkness? Darkness is not something; it is the

absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,
flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's
called darkness. That's the meaning we use to define the word. If darkness
were real, you would be able to make darkness darker.

To try using scientific priciples to "prove" God's existence is flawed to start

with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed if it implies that science
can prove God does not exist. You are trying to view God as something
finite, something we can measure. Nor did God create evil. Evil is the
result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his
heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness
that comes when there is no light.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert
05/23/2008
No, science does not make a belief in God obsolete. In fact, for all the
naturalism of science, its supposed discounting of the supernatural, it
strives daily to provide us with exactly . . . the miraculous. We dream of
science having such advances in medicine that death can be conquered or
at least dramatically retarded. We dream of spacecraft to take us to the
end of the universe. In fact, modern science has already achieved a great
measure of the miraculous measured by the understanding of ancient
man. It seems reasonable to assume that, for all our discounting of God
through science and emphasis on the natural, one day we will achieve

297
what looks like the supernatural to present-day man. Science does not
make a belief in God obsolete--science is just the latest method of
reconciling God to man.
RE: Whole Series
Valerie Mitchell
05/23/2008
All major religions have many subsidiaries or sects within them with their
own distinctive beliefs, often pitting them against one another, even
though they are all basing their doctrines on the same ancient texts. It is
human nature to use the knowledge we acquire to reinforce our own
personal beliefs and theories. You can't get any more personal than the
belief in a higher power. The statement that science makes belief in God
obsolete only fuels the desire to keep people ignorant. That doesn't
benefit God or science or society. For all time, faith in a greater purpose,
meaning, and being has been more important to people than anything
else.

Science proves the mystic qualities of the forces at work around us and
within us. It proves how much there is that we still don't know. Science is
applied mathematics. While one cannot prove that any particular God
exists, one can not disprove it either. I believe our founding fathers were
quite brilliant in their decision to separate church and state. Faith and God
are personal choices. In a free society, nothing should infringe on that. I
sincerely hope that belief and faith will never be obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Chris Richmond
05/23/2008
This is a general comment on the yes proponents and many of the
commentators. It seems like a lot of people are angry at God and have
therefore rejected the possibility of a creator due simply to the pain,
suffering, and injustice in the world. I am sure that it pains God many
times more than it pains us to see these things. What is the explanation? It
seems pretty obvious to me that the great scientist set nature in motion
and refuses to interfere, and that s/he granted us free will to do right or
wrong, good or bad. Our planetary mess is the result. It didn't have to be
like this, but believe it or not, we are blessed because of it. How do I
know? I've read The Urantia Book. You should too.
RE: Steven Pinker
Chris Richmond
05/22/2008
Isn't Pinker's second to last paragraph a restatement of something known
as "The Golden Rule"? Where does that come from again, I forget? I find
this whole argument comical, however. Want to find God, pray!
Unselfishly. God wants to be found, and the truth of the Creator's
existence resides within.

298
The truth never suffers from honest examination, and most of all, as
human beings, we should seek to know the truth. To reject something
without evidence to back it up is foolish. It's true that religion has done
little to back up the case for God, and yet belief persists. If one must,
reject religion--I did. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water!
Does Pinker's analysis provide any clear evidence that the observable
world negates the possibility of a creator? I think not.

For me, the evidence is all around. I prayed, God answered in a

meaningful way for me, and now I believe. I can't prove to Steven Pinker
or to anyone else what is now for me an unshakeable truth. I just feel it. I
hope the same comes to all who read this. Peace upon you!
RE: William D. Phillips
Dmitrii Manin
05/22/2008
One can continue to be a scientist but cease to be a true believer. Max
Planck is a good example. He claimed to be deeply religious, but at the
same time he denied the existence of a personal God, i.e., a God that is a
person. But a non-personal God is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
One has to be a person to create, love, have desires, plan actions, and so
on. A non-person can't be a subject of love or creation, neither can it have
free will. A non-person can't be a God. These are not the only possible
ways to betray either religion or science, but some kind of betrayal is
inevitable if one wants to entertain both, and it is in this sense that
science and religion are most importantly in conflict.
RE: Whole Series
Patty Koltko
05/22/2008
To better understand both the question and the answers, it's important to
begin by differentiating between science-as-method and science-as-
religion. Science-as-method is a way of increasing our knowledge by
developing theories about how the world works, figuring out measurable
predictions that follow from those theories, measuring those
characteristics, and then seeing which theory's predictions are closest to
the measurements. It's an extremely useful method, but it can only be
applied to theories where you can figure out an appropriate thing to
measure and a way to measure it. These practical constraints create
science's domain of applicability.

Science-as-method becomes science-as-religion when it adopts a belief

statement about the nature of the world. Science-as-religion is based on
the belief that any knowledge outside science-as-method's domain of
applicability is either false or meaningless. This of course can't be proved
but is a statement of faith.

Science-as-religion has as a basic belief the impossibility of a god. But this

doesn't make God obsolete. Expanding the question, I understand it to

299
mean, "Since we can imagine the physical world existing without a god as
cause, does this mean that it is silly or naive to believe that a god exists?"
Which is, at its core, a question about current Western culture and what it
finds silly or naive. A more fundamental question is "Does God exist?" To
this question, science-as-method has no reply, one way or another, since
the question lies outside its domain, which is why many scientists believe
in God and many don't.
RE: Whole Series
Cliff Bisch
05/22/2008
From the Christian perspective, it has never been a question of religion
having value. If one understands scripture, belief in God has to be a
matter of the heart. Science measures, counts, tugs, and pushes at the
encounters of our experiences. Science can chemically alter our
perceptions and behavior. But there is an odd question here. Can science
affect what we know in our heart?

Thirty years ago, my heart's perception of God changed . . . in an instant.

What I knew to be true was transformed. How? By what observable
mechanism? Maybe scientific cause and effect did take place. I heard the
word of God and my heart was transformed. I was not looking for it, rather
I was avoiding it. It was not part of a church doctrine or ritual. The words
changed me. This is true to what was predicted, where Christ said "you
shall hear the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

I am educated, a designer with patents. I work in aerospace quality

control. But science never gets at the root cause, only tries to explain
apparent cause and effect. It is impossible to use knowledge and science
to satisfy the needs of the human heart. It cannot be found other than in
the wake of its passing. If God is a spirit, he cannot be found. If he alone
addresses our heart, he is meeting the direct need of man in ways that
man cannot find unless he experiences it himself. Once a man really
knows God in his heart, the change is apparent. It does not happen
through ritual, church membership, belief system, or any of man's devices
that he might control. It only comes through the abandonment of one's
self to the one that He Is. The assault on the ego is simple. We are not in
control.
RE: Whole Series
Tim Naginey
05/22/2008
I would use an analogy to explain my opinion on the matter: all of the
universe is like a man lying dead with a knife in his chest. No one has
witnessed his death, but the fact that he is dead is a fact undisputed by
scientists or anyone else. But the cause is not fully "knowable." Could it
have been a chance accident in which the knife fell from a table and
impaled him? Or a deliberate murder carried out by another? All that
science can prove is what is available at the moment. Is there another

300
person's DNA at the scene? Then science can prove only that. No matter
how much DNA they find, they can only reach a probable conclusion,
never an absolute one. The uncertainty principle is brought to mind. We
can only know the probability. We are left to ourselves to draw conclusions
about the evidence that science can uncover. I believe in peaceful co-
existence.
RE: Whole Series
Maureen Newlin
05/22/2008
First, I wish to congratulate the publishers of this site for its commendable
intellectual purpose. How refreshing to read thoughtful and well-reasoned
views on such an important topic. I was stimulated by many of the
opinions, and, as a humanistic non-deist, I wish to share my responses to
some of them.

Pinker's thought that we don't need a belief in God to explain the nature of
the soul or of morality makes a lot of sense, especially considering that
much immorality in the world has stemmed from religious practices. In the
same vein, I disagree with Schonborn's suggestion that to correct our
broken selves, we need "Someone who is the Good of us all." Wouldn't we
be better advised to look for that Good within ourselves and concentrate
on our potential for improvement? As Phillips would agree, such Good
includes loving each other. However, he makes a debatable claim that
"God loves us and wants us to love one another." The Bible provides
abundant contradictions showing that God loves only those who obey Him
and that believers should punish those who don't.

Despite the problems he finds with religious belief, Hoodbhoy makes the
highly ironic assertion that because we are unsure of why we happen to
exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in search of
meaning. Though he indicates that such searching is intellectually
inevitable, he hints, on the other hand, at a wasteful futility in the effort.
This search for meaning in the universe certainly correlates with what
Sapolsky says about one rationale for religion being our desire for ecstasy.
Much in his essay hits home; especially penetrating are certain unique
phrasings, like "who has the truthier truth" and "[t]he blood on the hands
of religion drips enough to darken the sea." But the idea that our sense of
wonder can be addressed only through religion seems to slight other
avenues, such as the arts, philosophy, and science itself.

Stenger's summary of scientific history is concise and informative in the

way it inexorably eliminates both the relevance and coherence claimed by
religion. Perhaps Kauffman is right about the need to "reinvent the
sacred." However, I am more inclined to agree with Hitchens's idea that
religion belongs to the "terrified childhood of our species." Finally, having
once been a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist, I appreciate Groopman's
reminder that both sides of the debate need to respond with tolerant

301
respect to the opposite view. Extremist rantings from either side, as Miller
points out, simply disclose the shallowness of one's argument.
RE: Whole Series
Christopher Gwyn
05/22/2008
For science to be able to make God obsolete, the concept of God has to be
limited to questions that science can answer. If God is limited to being the
creator of the universe and other matters that science can address, then
science not only can but should supplant God. If God is defined as "that
which I believe regardless of evidence," then God and science are
completely irrelevant to each other and the question is meaningless.
RE: Whole Series
Krista Keisling
05/22/2008
Science exists because God created a world that makes sense. Science
allows us to explore the wonders that God made. Post-modern people
have a hard time accepting that mysteries do exist and that it is perfectly
okay for some things to be unexplainable. This is why some people have a
hard time believing that God exists. However, without God as creator, life
has no meaning and no purpose.

Darwin's theory of evolution is just that: a theory. When it is examined

closely, faults and shortcomings can be clearly seen. Evidence was
tampered with and falsely reported. Nancy Pearcey writes about this in her
book "Total Truth."
RE: Michael Shermer
Douglas Reid
05/22/2008
I hope readers will read more basic material about how the Book of
Mormon came to be, rather than Shermer's inaccurate description. Joseph
Smith did not speak of Moroni or Mormon "dictating" the book, but rather
said they inscribed their writings from AD 300-400 onto metallic plates
with the "appearance of gold." When Joseph Smith described "peering into
a hat" to see the translated words he then dictated to a scribe from "seer
stones" (clear stones which might be compared to an LCD screen), surely
one can detect the normalcy of needing to block outside light so that he
could see the words more clearly. Similar to the logic of Shermer's analogy
about intelligent extra-terrestrial beings, his use of the term "magic"
stones is convenient but is only "magic" because science can't explain it.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Samuel Feldman
05/22/2008
Kenneth Miller got it right. As a scientist and science teacher, I am
constantly reminded that science is about evidence not truth. I remember
the back-to-back interviews on Terry Gross's NPR "Fresh Air" show last
year. Richard Dawkins claimed science makes religion unnecessary.

302
Francis Collins said that science supported his belief in God. It is
interesting that both scientists talked about how the great awe they felt
when comtemplating the natural universe convinced them that their
conflcting views were correct. If there is anything that we humans excel
at, it is rationalization. Most likely our belief or non-belief in God has
nothing to do with scientific evidence. Rather we form our religious beliefs
based on what "feels" right and then come up with reasons to justify those
beliefs.
RE: Whole Series
Ian Lawton
05/22/2008
God and science can certainly co-exist. Science is man's tool to measure
and understand God's creation, and evolution is one of God's tools of
creation. I fervently believe in the scientific process but also try to keep in
mind that much of what is scientific truth today was not even imagined
100 years ago. We are constantly expanding our knowledge, and so
science is really more a process of garnering knowledge than a firm, fixed
set of truths.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Dmitrii Manin
05/22/2008
Kenneth Miller states that religion is contradictory and incomplete, but
science is incomplete too, which puts them on common ground. But this is
a rather crude sleight of hand. True, science is incomplete, but it is
emphatically not self-contradictory. Nor are there a number of mutually
contradicting sciences, as there are a number of mutually contradicting
religions. Any attempt to reconcile religion with science leads to a betrayal
of one or the other or, likely, both.
RE: Michael Shermer
Kay Parker
05/22/2008
As a Mormon, I was disappointed in Shermer's comment about Joseph
Smith "burying his face in a hat." Clearly he knows very little about our
faith or, for that matter, about any religion's faith in God. I believe this
shows arrogance. A couple of weeks ago on his show, Bill Moyers quoted a
great historian as saying "Beware the terrible simplifiers."
RE: Whole Series
Robert R. Reynolds
05/22/2008
As a geologist, I find it incredible that anyone could believe in the fairy
tales that are replete in our Bible. Evangelicals are in a state of denial
about the age of the earth and the extremely well-tested theory of
evolution. They are using every trick in the book to get creationism
introduced into high school science classes as an alternative theory. I find
it alarming that over 50 percent of our population do not believe in
evolution. With our politicians trying to push us into the nonsense of global

303
warming due to CO2 and the medieval religion of Islam knocking at our
gates, any Gods, if present, must have turned their backs on mankind.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Sakovich
05/22/2008
I still do not see how so many people are sucked into believing that
evolution is true. There is the "missing link" that people are chasing after
to show how one species evolved into another. The problem is that there is
no such link. If all life came from one form, would it not make sense that
all lower forms would evolve into the higher form?

As for the general question of science and its relation to God, I can
honestly say that I have never seen anything come from science to refute
what the Bible states. Man just seems to want to have control over things,
though, and think that we are the standard against which all things are to
be judged. Scientists tend to get too puffed up in their own knowledge and
seemingly forget that while, yes, we might be able to explain how some
things work, we cannot explain why everything works together as well as it
does. For the Earth and the other planets to wind up randomly in the
positions that they occupy has the possibility of a billionth of a billionth.
RE: Whole Series
Leah PettePiece
05/22/2008
While science moves us forward every day, opening new venues for
exploration, it in no way diminishes the need for spiritual fulfillment. There
are points to ponder on both sides of the question of God. For my part, I
should like to point to certain obvious facts that tell us science does not
displace the need for seeking and attempting to know a "Creator Being,"
nor does science attempt to disprove that there is an intelligence in
humans and animals that cannot be easily explained away by some
scientific formula or equation.

If we take the road most traveled among human beings for thousands of
years, we clearly see that while mankind has a thirst for knowledge,
gaining knowledge does not eliminate the need for something to worship.
Looking back over the Christian/Judaic past, we see noted scientists who
were also devout. When I was younger I had the grand opportunity to live
in foreign countries and observe and learn about religions that were much
different from my own. My mother was a Russian Jewish immigrant to the
United States, and she later married a Roman Catholic whose mother was
a Gypsy, so perhaps I come to this discussion from a different place
intellectually than some of the folks that I read here.

I set out in my own life as an adult to be somewhat of an agnostic, but as I

grew older that changed. Instead of being one religion or another I tried
out a lot of different things. Science was simply fascinating to me. I loved
genetics and astronomy, but never did that sense of there being a Creator

304
leave me. Now at 63 I can safely say that religion was all man-made, an
aide probably to controlling the common man, while the fact remains
firmly set in my mind that God just is. I believe that we were given
intelligent, seeking minds so that we could make life better, overcome
illness, wipe out plagues, reach for the stars, and seek to understand all
that we possibly can about what makes both this planet and humankind
tick.
RE: Whole Series
Andre Ryland
05/22/2008
Many of the responders are still arguing this question from the point of
view that this god exists. That a god exists in actuality we do not know.
That science exists we do know. The question for me is who benefits from
this debate. Who benefits if a god exists? Who benefits from science?
Whether or not a god is obsolete should have no bearing on what we
scientifically discover. We use science to improve our lives and our
understanding of what is. We use a god to do the same, superfically, and
also to create much more despair.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Swartzwelder
05/22/2008
It's the Darwin thing, isn't it? I believe God created everything--we just
don't know how. You see, like Galileo, Darwin just observed and reported
what God did. Arguing about Darwin has alienated scientists and
theologians. Even though the positions are not mutually exclusive, the
fighting goes on. Humans are two things, body and soul. Evolution is about
body and Darwin, religion is about God and soul. Just as Galileo's pope
couldn't stop the earth orbiting the sun, neither can we change the fact
that body and soul are one unit until death.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Imperiale
05/22/2008
Intriguing. I like best that you represent all points of view, leaving to the
reader any injection of bias. Journalism and academic thought are best
presented as neutrally as possible.
RE: Whole Series
Georges E. Melki
05/22/2008
The question is misleading! It should be re-phrased as: "Does science
make belief in the God of the traditional religions obsolete?" To this
question, my answer is definitely yes! For how can one believe in modern
science and at the same time believe in what the so-called "sacred books"
tell us? According to the Bible, for instance, the earth would be 6,000
years old and man would have been created from "dirt" separately from all
other animals. I wonder how people in their right minds can believe in
such statements! After all, religion is the only form of "knowledge"

305
inherited from antiquity which still has widespread belief. Does anybody
still take seriously the story of the four elements or of the seven heavens
and the epicycles of Ptolemy? For me, there is no distinction whatsoever
between religion and mythology. Now, if there are people who are
comforted by the belief in the "Trinity" or in the message of Mohammed,
they are free to do so, but let them keep their beliefs to themselves.
RE: Whole Series
Douglas Reid
05/22/2008
Thanks for presenting this debate. It appears to me that neither side deals
adequately with the possibilities of God's purposes in the creation of this
particular earth nor in other possibilities within the universe, such as the
possibility that it has no beginning nor will it have an end. The debate
seems to ignore the utmost importance of human cognitive choice as an
answer for why a "loving God" would allow humankind to have such
destructive power. Why not allow such if one of God's purposes is for
humankind to learn how to use power lovingly wihout imposing constraints
or coercions?

Richard Dawkins has argued that resurrection is an issue that needs to be

addressed. I agree. Resurrection to a renewed state of being that will be
endless refutes the idea that God cannot possibly be loving if such a Being
allows all of the suffering that we see and have seen in the known history
of the world. The scientific discoveries about DNA seem to me to support
rather than refute the possibility of resurrection.

I didn't notice adequate treatment of the question of why there are such
vast differences in human attainment during the course of known human
history, if all of this was a strictly evolutionary process. For example, why
no equivalents to Shakespeare today, if evolution explains all human
development?
RE: Steven Pinker
Jean Berko Gleason
05/22/2008
Thumbs up for Steven Pinker on this. The concept of a god may be
comforting, just as a belief in life after death and reincarnation may
provide a way to stave off thinking about the inexorability of death, but
observable phenomena can ultimately be explained by science, and
spiritual feelings do not prove the existence of god. Now how about giving
up belief in that Language Acquisition Device?
RE: Whole Series
Surinder Pal
05/22/2008
Where human intelligence and knowledge give way in explaining things,
the unknown powerful being called God is temporarily given credit for
knowing everything. Where humans succeed in unfolding the layers of the

306
unknown, the word God is replaced by science. For example, when we did
not know how thunderstorms were formed, we used to say God sent them.
Now we can even predict the weather conditions for a number of days.
RE: Whole Series
George Robertson
05/22/2008
It seems to me that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven,
because it is outside of nature or reality, and therefore I would suggest we
not consider the subject further. The same, however, cannot be said of
religion. Religion is clearly a human creation, natural and subject to
scientific study. We have at least 10,000 years of religious data. I would
suggest that a scientific study of the human societal benefits and
detriments of religion would allow an individual to make an informed
decision as to whether to participate in a religion or not.
RE: Whole Series
Michael Rogers
05/22/2008
Science doesn't tell us what can't happen just the probability of what can.
This means that anything is possible but not necessarily probable. For me,
this makes the argument simple: what is the empirical information that
can be used to support deism? Despite my wishes, I have never
experienced anything that can't so far be explained by a rational
evaluation. If someone would like to perform a supernatural act to
convince me otherwise, I'm available. Supernaturalism is accepted on
faith, which is just what a researcher doesn't want to do.

This says nothing about the validity of some of the tenets of religions. I
guess that they were the best thoughts of that ancient era: don't marry a
women who has slept around in that she may carry something that will
make you both very sick; don't eat pork for the same reason. Real physical
causes weren't known then. The supernatural power was included to add
weight to the rules in these early life manuals that otherwise might be
ignored. We do need a modern "life manual," but it must be constructed
using the best knowledge available now and somehow made to appeal to
the masses.
RE: William D. Phillips
Dmitrii Manin
05/22/2008
I want to take issue with the position of William D. Phillips. I agree that a
person can be a scientist and a believer at the same time, but I submit
that thereby he betrays in subtle ways either science or religion, and
probably both.

To be a true scientist does not mean, of course, to avoid making non-

falsifiable statements. The statement "killing people is bad" is not
falsifiable, but it is meaningful, important, and in a sense, true. However,

307
there is a significant difference between this kind of statement (or other
examples Phillips gives, such as "she sings beautifully"), which are
evaluative, and the statement "there is God", which is ontological, i.e.
asserts an objective truth.

A believer may think that this statement is non-falsifiable, but he must

think that it is objectively true. And an objective truth must not contradict
other objective truths. For a scientist, who knows a lot of objective truths
about the world and who values consistency in his ontology, this is a
powerful constraint on what kind of God could exist. Consider a simple
example: can God violate conservation of energy? If He can, His existence
will be, at least in principle, detectable (by observing non-conservation of
energy). This goes against the comforting idea that God is undetectable. If
He can't, how can he affect anything in the material world? Any
intervention in worldly affairs must have a non-zero balance of energy.

A scientist's internal engine runs on curiosity about the big questions, and
for a believer, no question can be bigger than those about God. I'm not
saying that a believer scientist must have ready-made answers to these
questions. What I'm saying is that he must not try to sweep them under
the carpet, otherwise he ceases to be a true scientist (even though he can
still be a Nobel laureate, apparently). Or one can continue to be a scientist
but cease to be a true believer.
RE: Whole Series
Dave Peters
05/21/2008
Science is a method of inquiry. You posit competing hypotheses, design
experiments to test between them, and then refute or support one or
more hypothesis based on the results of your tests. Science is useful in
helping us understand the physical world. It has no use in answering
questions about belief. The existence of god or gods, depending on your
particular religion, is a matter of belief. You believe in god or you do not. A
god is not a physical being. Thus, the scientific method is not a useful tool
to determine if god exists or not. There is no experiment that can support
or refute the existence of a spiritual being. Can you believe in something
that you cannot scientifically support or refute? Absolutely!
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Neil V. O'Connell
05/21/2008
A key factor that we all must recognize is that the vast majority of
scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are
some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who take a
deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world; everything
proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and
honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution
betters fits with the data. Again, though, these represent an insignificant
portion of scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of

308
evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without ANY
intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic
science. For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation for
how the universe and life came into existence.

Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, Darwin

was the first to develop a plausible model for how evolution could have
occurred--natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian,
but later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God as a result
of some tragedies that took place in his life. Evolution was "invented" by
an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is
one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of
atheism. Evolutionary scientists today likely would not admit that their
goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to
give a foundation for atheism. However, according to the Bible, that is
exactly why the theory of evolution exists.
RE: Whole Series
Shawn
05/21/2008
The blurb on NPR worked. Great series--thank you.
RE: Steven Pinker
Neil V. O'Connell
05/21/2008
There is a perception that creationism is "unscientific." This is partly true,
in the sense that creationism entails certain assumptions that cannot be
tested, proven, or falsified. However, naturalism is in exactly the same
predicament, as an untestable, unprovable, non-falsifiable philosophy. The
facts discovered in scientific research are only that: facts. Facts and
interpretations are two different things. The current scientific community
rejects, in general, the concepts of creationism, and so they define it as
"unscientific." This is highly ironic, given the scientific community's
preference for an interpretive philosophy, naturalism, that is just as
"unscientific" as creationism.

There are many reasons for this tendency towards naturalism in science.
Creationism involves the intervention of a supernatural being, and science
is primarily concerned with tangible and physical things. For this reason,
some in the scientific community fear that creationism will lead to a "God
of the gaps" dilemma, where scientific questions are shrugged off by the
explanation, "God did it." Experience has shown that this is not the case.
Some of the greatest names in scientific history were staunch creationists.
Their belief in God inspired them to ask, "How did God do it?" Among
these names are Pascal, Maxwell, and Kelvin.

On the other hand, an unreasonable commitment to naturalism can

degrade scientific discovery. A naturalistic framework requires a scientist
to ignore results that do not fit the established paradigm. That is, when

309
new data do not correlate to the naturalistic view, it is assumed to be
invalid and discarded. While there may be many reasons for tension
between the scientific community and creationism, there are plenty of
reasons why they should be able to coexist peacefully. There are no
logically valid reasons to reject creationism in favor of naturalism, as the
scientific community has done. Creationism does not inhibit discovery, as
evidenced by the titans of science who believed strongly in it. The derisive
attitude spewed at creationists has diminished the number of capable and
willing minds in many fields. Creationism has much to offer science and
the scientific community. The God who made the universe revealed
Himself through it (Psalm 19:1); the more we know about His creation, the
more glory He receives!
RE: Whole Series
Mike
05/21/2008
No. The word obsolete means that something once useful is no longer
useful, generally because of something that is newer and better. The
emphasis here is on something that was once useful. Religion has never
been either correct or useful. Because many think something is useful
does not make it so.

Rational thought about god shows that the concept is fundamentally

incorrect. Science verifies the rational thought and refutes blind faith. We
must also recognize that science is frequently wrong. Begin with the most
fundamental concepts--the characteristics we assign to this entity we call
god. This god has all knowledge and all power. He knows everything and
can do anything. This god created humans with love. He loves this world
and all the people in it. Then look around and try to find the evidence of
these characteristics. Wishful thinking is not sufficient and never has been.

Would that evidence be human beings that behave so incredibly

irrationally and treat each other incredibly badly while fouling our
environment? Would that love be manifested in an existence designed and
created such that so many animals must kill other animals in horribly
painful ways and then consume their bodies in order to exist? An all-
knowing and all-powerful god had to have created our earth this way with
dedicated intent.

When we kill so many in god's name, why does he not make an

appearance and tell us, all at the same time, what he asks us to do? The
concept of revealing himself to one person at a time is a prime example of
our irrational thinking. Before debating if god might now be obsolete,
determine if god ever was a valid concept. Toss out the wishful thinking
and present the evidence.
RE: Whole Series
Mike Hennessey

310
05/21/2008
It seems to me that science cannot and should not try to influence belief in
God. The simple reason is that God is unlikely to allow his creations to
poke and prod at him, and if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it is not
science.
RE: Whole Series
Edward Feist
05/21/2008
The question is not whether science makes a belief in religion obsolete,
although that may well be a compelling academic debate. At a practical
level, the question should be an examination of how a belief in God
becomes a religious practice that does harm to the world. It would first be
necessary to define harm. If this relatively short mortal existence is simply
a test for how eternity will play out, as in accepting suffering now to earn
an eternal reward of song and joy, bring on the pain. But if the test is more
one of living well and taking seriously our stewardship of the home we are
given (starting with the Earth), well then, that is something else, now isn't
it?

Then you would also need some focus on the other side. Go beyond the
obvious good of helping people to earn that eternal reward. Would
advancing the quality of that much shorter mortal life have value? Isn't
that what science is concerned with? The quality of this mortal life rather
than the eternal one? Create a scorecard. Which religion is doing the most
harm to whom? Which have done the least harm? Which have produced
the most scientific progress, which the least? Also ask which areas of
science have done the most harm (as defined within the religious context)
and so forth.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Barham
05/21/2008
I think the answer, simply, is yes. Belief in God once served the lofty
purpose of keeping the man who lived in mud every day, farmed the fields
his entire life, and slept on straw all night from questioning "why" . . .
instead denigrating him to "when"--which is to say, when would he depart,
and what would lie thereafter, because certainly for most what lay in the
now was not very satisfactory. It also strived in a very vain and harmful
attempt to explain the phenomena which no one at this time could have
hoped to understand. In retrospect we should realize it was a valorous but
erroneous attempt, as it did not predict much about the universe of any
considerable worth.

Science was, in many ways, the savior of humanity. It came forth and said
"What religion did not provide--food, comfort, order, and progress--we will
bring to you, not through magic, but through the efforts of ourselves as
humans." It is with difficulty and strife that the revolutions of thought take
place. Just as we abandoned the many ridiculous theories of the past, so

311
too shall we find that religion at large does little to no good.

As far as one could argue for the moral values in the Bible, I believe
Hitchens is very accurate. Not only is it very very unlikely the God of most
religions exists, but we should be extremely grateful he does not. The
things said in the Bible and the Koran are some of the most barbaric,
hateful, incendiary things ever written. And as far as I can see, they're
likely the most popular. We have a book in general circulation, being read
by children, in which women are treated like animals, men are brutalized
and their genitals disfigured, and fairy tales and magic are taught, false
hope and all.

Science has made religion obsolete, as can be seen by major religions

bleeding by the thousands. We merely have to be patient for its demise.
RE: Whole Series
Pepper Bruce
05/21/2008
In these essays I found very little remembrance of the historic fact that
science did not develop in any culture except the Christianized West.
Moreover, most of the classical scientists of the scientific revolution were
Christians. Why did things turn out this way? Sociologist Rodney Stark
attempted to set forth some of the answerers in his book The Victory of
Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western
Success. While the ancient Greeks and others had reason, it appears that
Christian faith alone provided the mentality necessary for the birth of
science. Other cultures possessed intelligent and creative souls who
developed sophisticated technology but no science.

It may be due to the fact that little gods can neither create a universe nor
give men the confidence needed to find order in that universe. Thus, for
the Greeks as well as other non-Christian cultures, the universe would
remain a vast mystery incapable of exploration. Likewise, it was faith in
the personal creator God that turned on the light of reason that made
science possible. If these things are true, then what will become of science
when the light that gave birth to it is turned off?
RE: Whole Series
Ravi Chandra
05/21/2008
The only truth that I and most human beings have experienced for sure is
that "change is the only constant." Given enough time, everything living
and non-living will change. If the word of God is "forever" and cannot be
changed, cannot be adapted, cannot be altered, then it soon starts to
become irrelevant, since it contradicts the only fundamental truth that all
of us have experienced. Most people hope to experience God through their
religious practices and scriptures. If part of these scriptures are proven to
be untrue or doubtful, then belief in them, and hence the belief in God, no
longer makes any sense.

312
RE: Whole Series
Prem Sobel
05/21/2008
Any attempt to explain consciousness in terms of the complexity of
physical and biological forms is doomed to failure. Vedanta and many
thousands of years of yogic experience tell us that Consciousness and
Being and Delight are the essential characteristics of Reality, of the
Transcendent, or God. Divine Consciousness is the source, the creatrix of
all design.

Take the ribosome, a great example of intelligent design. It is a molecule

with 50,000 atoms and is the digital copying device for DNA. It cannot
evolve because it either copies perfectly or does not. Yet it is part of a
process of biological evolution where the software (the DNA) evolves.

Belief in God is good, useful, and helpful, but experience of God is far more
valuable, getting to know and serve and love God, and ultimately to
reunite or more accurately to realize one was never separate from our
source. We only had the illusion and belief in separation. This illusion is a
direct consequence of the ignorance at the begining of the creation of this
universe (what science calls the big bang), at which time there was no
apparent life or mind, and matter itself had to evolve to fulfill the table of
elements through the evolution of suns and galaxies. Evolution of
consciousness is the real process of evolution.
RE: Whole Series
David Brant
05/21/2008
To the contrary, scientific discoveries give us a window into the awesome
power and creativity of our God. Modern science has destoyed
evolutionary theory and only affirms the existence of God. If Darwin were
alive today he would refute his own theory. Evolution is now nothing more
than a man-made religion that requires blind faith in order to deny the
existence of God. We are without excuse because of what we see with our
own eyes and even more so with every new scientific discovery.
RE: Whole Series
bake
05/21/2008
Science/intelligence does not make a deity/spirituality obsolete, but it sure
does make religion unnecessary.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
H. Watkins Ellerson
05/21/2008
As a nonbeliever, I find the question to be irrelevant. Science does not
"make" anything, least of all anything to do with belief in a deity. This
question was obviously fashioned by a believer seeking (successfully) to
provoke a discussion about God vs. science.

313
It also implies that belief in God was at one time necessary but may now
be less so. Before he died, Stephen Jay Gould succeeded in demolishing
the fabricated conflict between science and religion. I believe the conflict
to be totally manufactured by religious believers who loathe or fear
science, while science has (or should have) no involvement at all with
religion. Science is not a threat to religion except when religion promotes
nonsense (as it so often does) readily disproved by science.
RE: Whole Series
T R Hill
05/21/2008
I notice that Mr. Hitchens eschews the usual capitalization of god, and
that's a good start. Nice to be presented with all these essays--for free and
no password or subscription fee required. Thank you!

It is very lonely here in SE Idaho for a 78 y/o atheist! But briefly let me
suggest that it doesn't take science to reject a belief in god or a "supreme
being," as some of my friends prefer to say. Common sense rejects this
mysterious thought process of "faith." And it helps to read Hume, Berkely,
and Descarte, as I did 57 years ago.

Finally, please pass on to Fred Hoyle that his cosmos still makes more
sense to me than the thinly supported Big Bang theory with its absurd
notion that all evolved from a truly unbelievable condensation of all
matter, as it is described in Scientific American and elsewhere!
RE: Whole Series
Prof. Rati Ram Sharma
05/21/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? No. Belief invokes
unquestioned acceptance. But a symbiosis of science and philosophy
based on irrefutable logic revises the foundations of science and supports
the existence of an all-composing and all-pervading cosmic entity like God.
Einstein's equation of E=mc2 points to an entity composing all forms of
energy & mass to allow interconversions.
RE: Whole Series
Dan Doerer
05/21/2008
When scientists do anything more than provide false hopes, perhaps I'll
take them more seriously. But for now, I see man's folly, which has put this
beautiful planet in peril such as it has never experienced before. Hubris
and its cousin, greed, rule the day, leading to misery for billions. Perhaps
the gods of science should take their eyes off their microscopes and look
around them to see what they have helped create.
RE: Steven Pinker
ddougall
05/21/2008

314
God is not obsolete. Tell me that the Big Bang was not creation. You start
with nothing and within a nanosecond you have everything, with all
physics defined. Hmmm . . . sounds like creation to me. I think that the
writers of the Bible have a time issue. They are, of course, geocentric, but
this does not mean that their writing is not universal.
RE: Whole Series
Roger Ho and Clemente Lowe
05/21/2008
We do not believe that science can either prove God does not exist or
make belief in God obsolete. Science gives answers that are probable but
not absolute. The works of Professor Stenger or Professor Dawkins render
the existence of God highly improbable but not impossible. It is rickety to
use only low probability to rule out something unknown. Belief in God and
His existence has eschatological significance. You need eternity to prove
God's non-existence, but you know He exists if on one occasion, He
appears before you (provided you can prove that He is God).

A lot of us believe in God. We suspect that it is primarily because of our

biological properties (e.g., instinctive insecurity or uncertainty when facing
nature), but science cannot give an absolute answer to this question.
Discussion on God will go on forever, and belief in God will not be
obsolete. Whether God is the Judeo-Christian God is another question, one
that seems easier to answer.
RE: Whole Series
Mee
05/20/2008
The force that brings everything together and apart is nature. To
understand nature, we take help from science. Ancient people called it
God just to understand "nature's rule."
RE: Whole Series
Dave Grasso
05/20/2008
It depends. If one is using the concept of God as an explanatory
hypothesis to account for the origins of man, how the world began, the
creation of the universe/space/time, etc. then, yes, I would say God, in this
context, has long outlived his/her usefulness. If, however, one uses the
idea of a Supreme Being or Ultimate Power as a source of comfort or
strength, to give meaning to life, or to help explain the imponderables of
life, then the idea of God will never be obsolete. People will always have a
deep-rooted, almost hard-wired, need to believe in something greater than
themselves to give them comfort in times of trouble, solace in times of
grief or stress, and as a way of making sense, to themselves at least, of
things they are psychologically unable to accept.
RE: Whole Series
Arthur Heimbold
05/20/2008

315
Man believed before "science" was conceived. Man is on a spaceship going
nowhere. We, the voyagers, entertain and educate each other. Given only
the ingredients on earth, we slowly attempt to decipher what is our world
and the vastness beyond. Can one even imagine the power of a Creator?
The Creator's existence cannot be proved to be impossible nor can we
prove it to be possible. But whence came thoughts of beauty, of justice, of
all the intangible things that are of a power and magnitude far surpassing
what science has brought to our table? Look at your hands, look out the
window, listen to your grandchild. The Creator is here, there, and
everywhere. Stand in awe.
RE: Whole Series
Chris Mandel
05/20/2008
The recent unveiling of the conspiracy to blackball scientists who even
mention intelligent design is all the evidence needed to know the answer
to this question.
RE: Whole Series
Bill M.
05/20/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Such a silly question. It is
amazing that anybody would think it does. Science is no threat to God.
God Created science. Any person who claims to believe in God and yet
fears science has little faith. Science is slowly figuring out how God
created the universe and everything in it. God's existence will never be
proved, and it will never be disproved.

Scientists who believe that disproving the seven literal days of creation
disproves God have no understanding of theology or the beliefs of the vast
majority of creationists. If the Genesis version is true, one need not look
any further than the fourth day when the sun was created. Obviously, a
"day" to God is not 24 hours based on one revolution of the earth.

Evolution helps us understand how life changes over time, but it offers no
explanation for the origin of life or the variety or complexity of life. I was
watching maple seeds fall in the wind. They twirled about, sometimes
travelling a hundred yards from the tree. What a marvelous way to
propagate the species. Yet other tree seeds fall staight down below the
tree. Some tree seeds are bitter and rarely eaten by any animal, other tree
seeds are delicious and consumed by a wide variety of animals. Is
evolution the explanation for both? Is the maple more evolved than the
walnut? Science is fascinating, but it will never answer all the questions.
RE: Whole Series
DonPaul Olshove
05/20/2008
Interesting question. Let's start with the word "obsolete." An item, physical
or mental, is obsolete when it is no longer in use, has become outdated or

316
unfashionable. It is far from obvious that a belief in God is no longer in
use, is outdated, or has become unfashionable. So the first thing we must
do is restate the question more accurately: "Can science make belief in
God obsolete?"

Next, the word "belief." Belief is usually thought of simply as assent to a

proposition. In other words, it is the mental state of a person who holds
some concept (thought) to be true, that is, an accurate model of reality.
What exactly is being assented to when a person assents to "belief in
God"? We can make a guess that since the word God is capitalized in this
question and the question is posed in English, that the speaker is referring
to the Western monotheistic conception of an ultimate being or supreme
truth.

Next, the word science. What most of us think of as "science" consists of

the practice of modeling human experience by way of the scientific
method. The conceptual models that result from this activity and become
widely accepted are called "scientific knowledge" or simply "science."

OK, let's restate the question again: "Can the conceptual models
developed by the scientific method make a person no longer use, or
consider outdated and unfashionable, those mental states which express
the concept that there exists a supreme being?" Stated this way it
becomes very obvious that the products of science are completely
incapable of dictating people's judgements about what they think are
useful or fashionable ideas. The correct answer to the question is a
resounding NO. Present-day science stands a long way from dictating what
a person thinks. A person can choose to believe or not to believe.
Everyone's model of reality is uniquely their own.
RE: Whole Series
p. deveau
05/20/2008
Science is as much an abstraction as religion--a theoretical belief. People
who have faith can fit science into religion just as people of science can fit
religion into their scientific beliefs. It's strange that they require a faith in
the abstract.
RE: Whole Series
Jayanta Chatterjee
05/20/2008
I don't believe in God, but I do believe in "religion." If someone gets relief,
satisfaction, and courage/desire to do something good for society or
humanity by believing in something without hurting anyone, then I do
support such faith/belief.
RE: Whole Series
Lee Perry
05/20/2008

317
The laws of probability compel the conclusion that Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism were premised upon visionary experiences
induced by contemplations of the mandala (line pattern) known to the
Hebrews as the "Pargod" or "Bar Goda," known to the Greeks as the
"Katapetasma," known to first-century Christians and early Islamics as the
"Heavenly Veil," and known to Goidelic and Brythonic Celts as the
"Greille." Thus, science ALWAYS, not just in modern times, has made belief
in the God of the foregoing religions obsolete. They all are based on the
mathematical science of astronomy!
RE: Whole Series
Jim J
05/20/2008
To be able to answer this question, we must first put the subjects into
perspective. Science is a method used to obtain knowledge of the physical
world. It works within our capabilities to understand physical realities as
our senses and intelligence permit. As such, it is not an all-powerful
element of our existence--only a tool or method. It is also a method that is
extremely limited and flawed, as evidenced by the amount of knowledge
that we are still to attain and the number of theories that are annulled
every day.

On the other hand, God is the creator of all things, including the ability for
us to apply science. It is for this simple fact that science is inadequate to
dispute belief in God, as it does not provide us with the scope necessary to
comprehend the Creator of all things. Nevertheless, science and religion
must be in harmony as part of our quest for knowledge--science as part of
our physical reality and the Holy Writings as part of our spiritual reality,
with intelligence (in parallel with intuition) as the bridge between these
two realities.

I invite you to study the Bahai writings, which contain an ocean of

knowledge regarding science and religion and our quest for knowledge of
our reality. It does not matter how smart we are. Science on its own is
limited in its ability to provide us with a complete view of our reality, thus
requiring belief in God to complete the picture.
RE: Whole Series
Penny
05/20/2008
A very interesting debate. But surely it must have been possible to include
more than just one woman?
RE: Whole Series
Steve
05/20/2008
String theory--a new mathematical approach to theoretical physics--
postulates multiple dimensions. It should not be difficult to understand,
then, that most people believe there are one or more unknown physical

318
and/or spiritual dimensions. Belief in God is far from obsolete, but
consistent with, even supported by, known physical laws. Kuhn's
"Structure of Scientific Revolutions" postulates that practicing scientists
will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible
alternative is available; to lose faith in the solubility of the problems would
in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist. I think people of faith understand
why scientists cling to established paradigms but have trouble
understanding why there is not enough self-awareness for many to
understand this is happening.

It seems to me that atheism, by contrast to faith, is provably false, since it

postulates that physical realities exist without cause and, arrogantly, that
a creator does not or cannot, which violates known laws of physics. I have
heard some atheists say that we will one day discover laws that allow for
the creation of matter and energy from nothing. This is absurd to many,
but atheistic scientists cling to it because, apparently, they believe they
cannot be scientists and believe in a first cause. Scientists can remain
scientists, committed to describing physical reality, but also understand
the limits of this endeavor and acknowledge that there indeed must have
been a first cause.

I often hear atheistic scientists ask, then who created God? Simply put, the
assumption is no one. God is postulated to be outside the physical
dimension that we inhabit and seek to describe with science. Science
describes and defines a universe that we find ourselves in but explains
nothing of creation. I commend The Privileged Planet, by Gonzalez and
Richards, which claims there is scientific evidence that shows the Earth
and life are the products of intelligent design.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Swartz
05/20/2008
I am a registered pharmacist. I have read most of the seminal works of the
intelligent design movement: Behe, Johnson, Dembski, etc. From a
chemical standpoint, I find them quite convincing. I found the movie
EXPELLED disturbing--the intolerable things happening to untenured
academics.
RE: Whole Series
Amanda Forsyth
05/20/2008
Science is about explaining the physical world, so, yes, there are lots of
examples of phenomena which are now explained by science but which
used to be explained as the work of God. It shows extraordinary
arrogance, though, to assume that we must be able to look just to the
physical world to prove or disprove the existence of God, let alone the
entirely separate question of belief. Science can no more make belief in
God obsolete than printed books can obviate storytelling.

319
RE: Whole Series
Kenrick Hackett
05/20/2008
Science is synonymous with knowledge and the means to acquire
knowledge. To the extent that religious men and women have felt their
religious beliefs undermined by science, the answer is "yes." To the extent
that such men and women place their faith not so much in tradition but in
Ultimate Reality, the answer is "no." Religion is the vessel of belief and
faith, which are not synonymous.
RE: Whole Series
greg
05/20/2008
No. We are a tribal species evolved with beliefs in nonexistent beings or
powers to explain what we have been unable to understand but also with
an intelligence suited to study and eventually interpret circumstances we
cannot explain. Problems begin when religion strives to contradict science.
This is generated by the established mindset and false security that
religious belief systems provide. Religion can be allowed, as it has not yet
run its course for us as a species, but for it to handicap serious scientific
study (evolution, stem cell research, etc.) reflects poorly on the religious,
and forces science to participate in apples-and-oranges debates.

A belief in God is a personal matter, desired for whatever reason by an

individual. It has little to do with genuine science, and so therefore, no,
science does not make belief in God obsolete. Belief in God has never
been relevant, but has existed to soothe guilt, while providing easy and
quick explanations to complex issues--issues that are finally beginning to
be understood through scientific study. When people perceive a conflict,
they need to examine themselves, not others, and what they are choosing
not to learn and understand.
RE: Whole Series
Juan Antonio Agostini
05/20/2008
Of course, there's no scientific, verifiable answer to the everlasting
question of our origin. At best, we can only theorize and speculate. Or
being overwhelmed by the greatness, beauty and immensity of Creation,
we can do some soul-searching in our inner selves and humbly make
space for faith and eventually for grace.

A starting point could be our common, shared conscience or "belief" in

good and evil. Would justice--which we all advocate as a right for
ourselves--and its implications of cause and effect have any meaning were
it not for that common denominator of all epochs and cultures: our
intuition not only of an intelligent order in the universe but of the
existence of goodness itself. Let modern theologians, in open and frank
dialogue with non-fundamentalist scientists, take it from there! Amen.

320
RE: Whole Series
Debbie
05/20/2008
No, but why is it our job to find this alleged God? Why would a being
create us and then hide?
RE: Whole Series
squirtapotamus
05/19/2008
Before reading the series (we will see how it changes my mind), I say "No,
of course not." The reason? Belief in God was obsolete long before science
had any say in the matter.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Bolger
05/19/2008
There seems to be something wrong with attempting to answer such
questions without first spending a bit of time attempting to delineate the
meaning of certain concepts. I take it that this is what D.Z. Phillips spent
most of his carreer urging philosophers of religion to do, but seemingly
without much avail. There is a thrust these days to attempt to make
religion look like a science, by people such as Polkinghorne, Peacocke,
Clayton, and Murphy, who simply refuse to do the hard philosophical work
of determining what concepts mean. If the scientific theologians
mentioned above want to make religion look like a science, I am content
to side with the likes of the so-called "new atheists," but I take it that the
religious concepts these folks discover when they try to to make religion
into a pseudo-science is not what any (or very many) believers ever
believed.
RE: Whole Series
Don Reede
05/19/2008
Science is nothing more or less than a yardstick by which to measure
physical reality. Science is quantitative. Religious belief or faith in the
existence of God is qualitative; it deals with values and meanings. The
only time that the two may appear to be at odds is when science proves a
superstition to be false. Whence comes all of this science without a master
scientist?
RE: Whole Series
Guanshi Edyo
05/19/2008
Yes. Religion is the approach that starts with the answer, and science is
the approach that is willing to consider all answers. When we genuinely
ask the question "What is God?," and we seek an answer that is truthful,
we are, in fact, asking a scientific question. It is true that science is
embedded in its social context, and that all truth-seekers carry
inescapable biases, but those who take a scientific approach hope to
remove their colored lenses and see the world as it truly is. A scientist is

321
one who acknowledges that she doesn't know all there is to know, and
that there will always be more to learn, and more to learn about the
methods of learning.

Either life is guided or it is not. If a deterministic process originating from a

cause in a long-past eon resulted in the human creative endeavor and the
technological progress that we see today, then life is not guided in the
sense understood by religion. As science has marched along, God's ground
has grown smaller. We no longer need a seven-day creation story, or a
cosmic egg, or the blood and guts of the Gods, because we have
evolution. We no longer need Thor's hammer, because we have electricity.
We no longer need to be people of the Book, because the people have the
means to write a better book.

The philosophers of our age who have argued that religion and science are
compatible seek refuge in a tiny corner of the map of possible Godly
incarnations. The rational thinkers who write here all acknowledge that if
God exists, she must be distant and limited by scientific principles. No
serious scholar will argue for the biblical God of vengeance--they can only
muster the will to advocate the existence of the miniscule God of a non-
arbitrary first cause. Why do we cling to this miniscule God? Why can't we
see the ground shrinking before our feet and simply give up?
RE: Whole Series
Rodney
05/19/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? I believe not, because the
question is an invalid one. Whose God is made relevant or irrelevant by
science? God is a mental concept based on culture, nationality, and/or
belief. These are in a constant state of change, and therefore belief is in a
constant state of change. We have thousands of years of data to back this
statement.

Belief requires no fact, proof, or demonstration of its validity. There is no

true mystery in belief, only an overwhelming fear of uncertainty. Science
is committed to discovering the principles behind mystery and seeks to
dispel fear of the unknown by challenging uncertainty. Unfortunately,
religion is confused with God. I ask, "Whose God does science make
obsolete?" Is it the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, or Native
American God? History seems to reveal that the only thing that makes God
obsolete is war and conquest. To the victor goes the spoils. The victor
establishes the God to be served.

In truth, science only dispels ignorance, and unfortunately, many religions

require a belief in an unexamined God. This, in my opinion, is the acme of
ignorance, which is the natural enemy of science. So, to be clear, science
does not and cannot make God obsolete. Science only makes ignorance
obsolete. Only those who serve ignorance need be afraid of science.

322
RE: Whole Series
Kambiz Motamed
05/19/2008
Has science made belief in the tooth fairy obsolete? No. People still tell
their children that the tooth fairy put a nickel under their pillow. Does the
tooth fairy exist? Certainly not. No matter how much scientific progress we
make, some of us can and will choose to believe in superstition.
Superstition is irrational but certainly not obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
huesebastian
05/19/2008
Unfortunately no. For many people, evidence and proof mean little. They
will go with what they have been taught or what makes them feel good,
irrespective of scientific findings. However, as secular Europe shows,
science makes thoughtful people doubt supernaturalism, and in time we
can expect a shift away from supernatural beliefs to a more rational and
meaningful value system.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Foy
05/19/2008
There is a God. How could the universe in all its complexity exist and be
formed without some super power? But evolution shows how the flora and
fauna came to be.
RE: Whole Series
Linda
05/19/2008
For anyone who has lived through the death of a child, the answer is
absolutely not.
RE: Whole Series
Krishna
05/19/2008
Absolutely not! I believe it is the other way around. Science makes us
better appreciate the concept of a "higher-order" power which most of us
refer to as "God." Unlike many, however, it is difficult for me to give this
power a physical manifestation, since this leaves open the question of who
"God" looks up to in the chain of command.
RE: Whole Series
Henry Gould
05/19/2008
Imagine a certain person, a stranger--someone you've never met, never
known, never cared for--inaugurates a massive intellectual project to
"explain" you. Would you be inclined to reveal yourself, your true nature,
to this person? I doubt that I, for one, would be so inclined. But then it's
possible God is a little more generous than I am.
RE: Whole Series

323
John Salchert
05/19/2008
I liked the whole idea of the ad. Keep it up.
RE: Whole Series
Jill Bowden
05/19/2008
Scientists may be the greatest believers of all. They labor from a left-
brained perspective to determine that which does not fulfill the model of
faith: the provable, the reasonable, the measurable, what can be seen
with the naked eye. They continually shape the possibilities of scientific
probability and what is left, that which cannot be proven, will be God.

There is another model that is perhaps more available to the right-brained:

Michelangelo's model for the creation of a sculpture. In our search for God,
each of us must start with a block of marble and carve away all that is not
a part of our vision. What remains is as much of God as we can imagine,
as much as we can bear to see, as much as the spirit can contain.

God is more than we can fathom. Scientists and mathematicians will

continue to chip away at the proofs, identifying that which is not God, but
they will never arrive at the whole of God, and they will never stop trying.
They keep reaching for God, which is somewhere at the end of an infinite
set of points that we call reality.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Simerly
05/19/2008
The disagreement discussed in this series of articles is not between
science and religion but between theism and atheism. For those who
accept the existence of God, there is no problem; science is simply the
process of discovering the work of a creator God. For them, science and
religion fit together seamlessly. The atheist, however, rejects the
existence of God and therefore must construct an explanation for
existence that does not include a cause (i.e., a creator). Due in part to the
anthropic principle, it is becoming more difficult to explain the universe
without a creator; it is simply not large enough or old enough for chance to
have been responsible. Therefore, they must stretch their speculation to a
near infinite multiverse, a speculation that is not testable and is more
metaphysical then scientific. It seems that they are simply substituting
this multiverse for the God they reject.
RE: Whole Series
Chenbagam
05/19/2008
If we understand the real meaning of the scriptural words, we can
understand everything about nature. An ancient sage said that the
scriptures are true, but they have had different meanings, a general
meaning, mainly related to culture, and a special meaning. One is for the

324
general public or social life, and the other is for those who want to know
more details about the true knowledge of life and the universe.
RE: Whole Series
Jeff
05/19/2008
Science cannot answer why there is something rather than nothing.
Science can only study the something. Only an eternal omnipotent God
can create something out of nothing.
RE: Whole Series
Edward Gordon
05/19/2008
Actually, it's the other way around. Faith makes science obsolete. If there
has ever been even one miracle in the entire world, at any point in history,
then science has become inadequate to explain the universe. At that
point, science becomes nothing more than a means of technology, just
something to make our physical lives better.
RE: Whole Series
R
05/19/2008
No. The proof of God is that man is capable of love reflected in individual
compassion. God is love. Compassion is not required for survival of the
species, yet man cannot live without it. When atheists are asked if they
would donate an organ to their dying loved one at the expense of their
own life, the overwhelming response is yes. This is the proof of God.
Atheists are individuals who believe that at the end of their lives eternal
nothingness is a strong possibility, yet they willingly give their lives. Why?
Compassion for loved ones extends beyond the self. This is the expression
of God in man. This observation is Newton's apple. That science has not
quantified love is the shortcoming of science. Where is it established that
science is complete?
RE: Whole Series
Yves Charles
05/19/2008
Belief in god was never necessary per se. It was and is a convenient way
for the common man (99 percent of us) to explain what our feeble mind
cannot presently understand. Fortunately, given enough time, I believe
that human society will come to its senses. Societies have become more
civilized as science has become more and more advanced. Barbaric
tendencies (e.g., slavery, witch burning, death for petty offences) are
becoming less acceptable. Belief in the supernatural is a handicap of the
mind that humans will eventually overcome.
RE: Whole Series
Joao Manhaes
05/19/2008
It amazes me how often people mention the wonders of the universe and

325
the order of nature to justify the existence of a god. The say that such
well-organized systems could not have just happened by chance; a
designer, an engineer, must be. And that would be god.

By the same token, we never saw a child, which is actually one of the
greatest wonders in our lives, without having parents. Nevertheless,
religion readily accepts a being that does not have parents. What is the
logic behind that? The universe is so wonderful that it needs a creator. The
creator himself must be even more amazing. Following this reasoning, he
would need a creator, or parents, as well. And the process should go on
forever.

But people accept that an extremely complex and powerful god was
always there. Why not accept that the universe, indeed simpler than god,
was always there? I guess the response is that we humans never actually
took charge of our own fate. We need somebody to ask for favors, grace,
and protection. And that is the boring job of god: to have people asking
and begging him for stuff through eternity.
RE: William D. Phillips
Eric Abrego
05/19/2008
I appreciated the sheer depth of Mr. Phillips's essay. It closely resembles
what I believe. I am a Christian but also a firm believer in science. I do
believe that the Chrisitan community cannot abandon or demonize science
because it doesn't fit what our Bibles tell us. But the secular community
should not dismiss Christian belief or those who believe in a higher power
because science says this and that. We can believe in both God and
science without conflict, because God has designed this amazing universe
that we and other species inhabit.

I know the cynical and the "realists" would dismiss this as religious rhetoric
and a way to comfort the weak religious community, but many Christian
intellectuals like myself believe this. The stars in the sky were made
beautiful by God, the earth revolves around the sun because God designed
it that way, we walk, live, and breath because God has designed us that
way. This is what I believe, and I don't want to be called stupid because of
this. We can mix science and religion.
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Paukert
05/19/2008
No, I do not believe science makes a belief in God obsolete. And if anyone
thinks so, I would like that person to tell us the consequences for the
human race of irrevocable proof of the non-existence of God. In fact,
regardless of whether we have proof of the non-existence of God, we
should be asking ourselves what human society would look like without
God.

326
If we lived in a purely Darwinistic world, or rather a world of evolution as
understood so far, we would not only have to have some sort of political
structure which both fosters Darwinistic winners and consoles the losers,
we would have to have some sort of trust in ourselves which goes far
beyond morality today, because we would be expected to ensure that the
human race does continue to exist. A world without God would require
something of a totalitarian structure, no matter how much we want
democracy, because we would be forced to accept that we must exist by
our own hands (only human agency) or not exist at all.

In fact a world without God would require a political structure which not
only makes all belief in God obsolete, but makes us each as individuals
obsolete because we would be forced into having to continually evolve or
be a species static and in danger of perishing. A world without God might
be without Christopher Hitchens's dictator in the sky, but we will be under
the dictatorship of our own consciousness.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Ray McDaniel
05/19/2008
Sir Isaac Newton is considered by many as the greatest scientist who ever
lived, and he spent more time studying the bible than he did on science.
He saw science and bible to be closely related. Hitchens describes Newton
as a hater of church doctrine and an enthusiastic alchemist. Hitchens
makes himself look like an enthusiastic God-hater. Another gaff: Newton
never believed that the main clues to the cosmos were to be found in
Scripture. Rather, the answers were to be found there. God created the
world. It's as simple as that.

Atheist science violates its own scientific method by banning truth from
the realm of possibility before beginning its search for truth. It hasn't got a
clue, just anti-bible theories. Evolution and natural selection are crackpot
ideas. Darwin found 13 species of finches on the Galapagos Islands. He
explained why birds with longer, sharper beaks would survive and birds
with shorter beaks would die out. One hundred fifty years later, people
visit the islands and see 13 species of finches that still inhabit them.
Atheists believe Darwin's fantasy that all forms of life came from a one-cell
bug that transformed itself over long periods of time by numerous,
successive slight modifications. THAT would be supernatural, if it were
true.

The Big Bang never was observable, and no one has ever proved there
was one. They never will, because there wasn't one. A universe full of
nothing but hydrogen and other gas never transformed itself into galaxies
or into a planet with a molten core. In 20 billion years we're going to
collide with the Andromeda Galaxy! How could God be so careless about
our safety?
There are sights to see, but blind people can't see them. Many people all

327
around the world have felt the presence and love of God, but people who
are spiritually dead never saw, heard, or felt them.
RE: Whole Series
Jeffrey R Smith
05/19/2008
It is arrogant for scientists to believe that their understanding and intellect
are equal or superior to those things that are far beyond their
comprehension, thereby creating a belief that God does not exist.
RE: Whole Series
Gary
05/18/2008
Let's just accept the idea of a god. Call him what you want, and we can
ascribe to him the power to create the universe and all that is in it. We can
assume that this world is where god wants us to be. This reality, as we
perceive it, is what he intends for us to experience. This reality, then,
cannot be a cheat or a trick. At least my god doesn't play games with the
universe. Then science is the study of god's handiwork, directly
investigating god's own work. It does not rely on the interpretation of
ancient texts written by bronze-age shaman in the pseudo-linguistic codes
of religious symbolism. We don't need to know ancient languages, we
don't need to try to understand the life and times and politics of that era
to ensure that we are correctly translating the message. If we can
measure, touch, weigh, calibrate, and see the world, we can understand
the mind of god.

So does science make belief in god obsolete? Only for those who do not
need to believe in god. But it also does not invalidate anyone's belief in
god. Science and theology are two sides of the same coin. One overtly
seeks to understand god and the other reveals god as a byproduct of its
mission to decode the universe.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Ng
05/18/2008
No, science cannot make God obsolete. Science is for this world only, and
it cannot explain the world of God. Humans can create the digital world
any way they want, so why can we not understand that God can create us
the same way?
RE: Steven Pinker
Clemens Suen
05/18/2008
Professor Pinker should update his understanding of the six-day creation
story in Genesis, which is, after all, a story. It reveals theological truth, not
scientific truth. Today, only the Christian fundamentalists still believe in
the literal explanation of the Bible. Because there are so many God-
believing scientists, you can probably conclude that there is no inherent
conflict between believing in a God and believing in the process of

328
evolution, unless you believe that those scientists are not true believers in
science! Note that mainstream Christianity, such as the Catholic Church,
has already officially stated that there is no conflict between the two. I
also found his definition of morality an over-simplification. Is morality just
"you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"? Is altruism just based on
some utilitarian motive?

Modern science does strip away many superstitions about our

understanding of God. We can consider this as a matter of "human
consciousness evolution." Reason does clarify faith, but reason cannot
make you love people who are different in terms of race, religion, ideas.
Nor can reason or science alone resolve the many hatreds and other
problems in the world. We need both science and the belief in God to
make this world a better place for all humankind.
RE: Whole Series
One Who Is Interested in the Topic
05/18/2008
One point that comes up often in this debate is the possibility of miracles.
Consider the definition of a miracle as an exception to natural law. The
scientific argument is that since miracles are exceptions to natural law,
they cannot exist. This is the same as the rather circular argument that
exceptions cannot exist because they are exceptions. But IF there is an all-
powerful God, how can we limit Him to our mere logic?

Another oft-expressed sentiment is that an all-powerful and just God would

forbid the tragedies taking place in the world. But religion has already
provided an answer to this question. The Christian concept of free will
holds that God did not make us robots programmed to do the right thing
(which is obvious) but gave humanity the choice to do the right thing.
Therefore, true goodness may exist but also malice--evil. Since we are
given responsiblity, it is unreasonable to expect God to fulfill the role of
problem-solving magician--something scientists are, at the same time,
claiming is incompatible with reason. Therefore, God would be free to use
miracles (exceptions) to get our attention when we stray from the path of
goodness and equally free to allow disasters to urge us to return to that
path.
RE: Whole Series
Adam Scott
05/18/2008
In response to Barry Pearson (05/13/2008): The first law of
thermodynamics in fact DOES state that energy, or matter, cannot be
created or destroyed. Energy and matter are interchangeable, as shown in
Einstein's theory of relativity and in his equation E=MC2.
RE: Whole Series
L Foretich Jr
05/18/2008

329
Science is the study of the material world; God is not material--QED. Many
people support the claim that "Science makes belief in God obsolete," but
not one person has ever referenced a study to support their views,
because there are none.
RE: William D. Phillips
John Erickson
05/18/2008
I wish the "intelligent design" people could read this essay by Phillips or, in
fact, all of them. Then they might concentrate on promoting humane
values-- kindness, altruism, love--instead of trying to destroy science and
science education!
RE: Whole Series
Michael DeMarco
05/18/2008
Nothing wrong with wondering about the possibility of a higher power.
Curiosity is the basis of science. But living your life by a book--and not
even one book but a series of poorly translated and poorly interpreted
stories put together to make a book--well, it doesn't seem to be working
out too well for the world so far.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Schaub
05/18/2008
The universal non-visibles, such as awareness, energy, love, purpose, and
animate human life, can be perceived by direct experience. Rational
discussions are incapable of these discoveries. The real question becomes
how to synthesize the aspects of science and relgion that lend support to
the study of the non-visible for the sake of individual inner peace and
greater knowledge about reality.
RE: Whole Series
Margaret Scott
05/18/2008
I think about these things all the time. Just two days ago I was speaking
with an atheist friend about them. I am very anxious to reach out to all the
authors carefully and to get help coming to my own conclusions.
RE: Whole Series
mel-lo
05/18/2008
Many people seem to think just because we can't see, hear, touch, or
smell something that it doesn't exist. Two hundred years ago we didn't
know a lot of things existed that we do now and were discovered through
the application of science. Perhaps in a good number of future years we
might know that God does exist and have the means to prove it. However,
since I believe God is "spirit," it may be extremely difficult. At this point, it
is speculation and mainly a matter of faith, something that cannot be
proven by science or any other rational means. We must continue to

330
explore and discover until we reach conclusive evidence to the contrary or
to support our claims.
RE: Whole Series
Jay Smathers
05/18/2008
Gods are superstitions proven false by the application of common sense,
so science is not even required. Is science required to dispel belief in
ghosts or witches? The only distinction religion has from other
superstitions is its more aggressive claims to be the source of morality,
ultimate good, and/or a defense against ultimate evil. Thus religion is a
more intoxicating and thus more tenacious idea than your random ghost.
Those who see religion as benign or positive in its effects are advocating
that morality and ethics be derived from superstition. It would seem
unlikely we can resolve our conflicts and progress as a species if this
continues much longer.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Bramwell
05/18/2008
What utter nonsense: a "God"? My high-school biology students showed
more intellectual integrity and honesty than is evident at this site. Ten
years, 100 students a year, grasping that faith is the opposite of reason,
as surely as non-existence is the opposite of existence. The Greeks, 2000+
years ago, knew that Something cannot come from Nothing . . . not even a
God. Such an idea was completely irrational. Gods to them were amusing
super-beings that played out a superb (not truly supernatural) game, but
who had little to do with human life. The Founders of America had a similar
view of a singular God. Their God started material things but did not
interfere in day-to-day human life--that was up to us.

Any sort of super-Being cannot be real if he is outside the Universe,

because there can be no "outside." And then, if he is within the Universe,
he is just another being. He is not to be worshiped, he is not supernatural,
even if he made human existence possible. He should simply be thanked,
and then receive a proposal for peaceful cooperation.

For a full explanation of why God is the antithesis of science and reason,
one that has been out far longer than the work of Charles Taylor (a
deserving recipient of the Templeton Prize, for its symbolic support of the
irrational), see "For the New Intellectual" and other writings by Ayn Rand.
Her arguments are fundamentally rational and unassailable, regardless of
the denials of those whose whimsical desires require that medieval faith
subordinate reason.
RE: Whole Series
Blackfish Joe
05/18/2008
God is nature, so what's the problem?

331
RE: William D. Phillips
bogi666
05/18/2008
Science doesn't make God obsolete, but it demands a definition of God to
make God credible.
RE: Whole Series
Gary
05/18/2008
I find both sides of this argument equally in error. Science can neither
prove nor disprove the existence or power of G_d, and thus cannot render
religion obsolete. Conversely, science cannot yet or ever explain
everything, leaving the balance to G_d. A religion trumping textual
literalism over testable facts is as blasphemous as a science discounting
what cannot be tested is illogical.

Assuming a belief in G_d, science can far better explain the universe that
G_d created and the rules through which he operated than theology. A
cosmology and biology that reveal the natural history and principles of
how the universe sprang forth and evolved provide a far greater insight
into an awesome G_d than a notion driven by a mortally limited textualism
in which G_d played a joke and abrogated the natural laws and falsified
nearly all observable phenomena.

To force creation science or prayer power into a pseudoscience is the

height of blasphemy by assuming an omniscient translation and
interpretation of scripture. To ascribe mortal objectives and hatreds onto
G_d's mind is the very pinnacle of evil. To hate and kill and harm others for
no other reason than because their beliefs differ is to assume G_d's role.
RE: Whole Series
Oh, really?
05/18/2008
Which god now? Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Thor? Or perhaps the one with
service pack Y2K concocted in the laboratory of the impartial, agenda-free
Templeton Foundation in order to replace the god debunked by Epicurus in
the 4th century BC, made untenable by Darwin in the 19th century, and
now deemed dubious by 93 percent of the members of the National
Academy of Sciences. (The remaining 7 percent either haven't really
thoroughly thought it through or don't want to ruin their chances of getting
a grant from the Templeton Foundation.)
RE: Whole Series
Ugene
05/18/2008
The question should be about belief in the concept of an all-loving, all-
forgiving, all-merciful God. That concept absolutely does not exist as we
watch the multitude of human suffering every day on cable television,
most of it from natural disasters heaped upon the innocent. My life as an

332
atheist has been very good up to now.
RE: Whole Series
Liliane Bilezikian
05/18/2008
I love the thought-provoking essays! I am wondering what percentage
have been contributed by women. There usually seems to be the token
one or two, not nearly a true representation of the population.
RE: Whole Series
Fernando Peregr�n Guti�rrez
05/18/2008
Rather than a simple yes or no, let's say that science establishes certain
growing limits both to the belief in god and to what the word god really
means, i.e., to the possible definition of god or the epistemology of
theology. The idea of a god will always be very adaptive to the
advancement of knowledge provided by science. If this is not the case,
god and religion may need to be considered as endangered species.
RE: Steven Pinker
Harry
05/18/2008
It seems to me that evolution fits well within the bible. God doesn't say
that creation was it, so that any changes we find are proof that God's
statements are incorrect. How narrow and limited our thinking has
become! The bible wasn't written as a group-therapy exercise, but as a
personal one for each individual. Each of us will read it, some of it will
make sense, most won't. Am I to believe the whole work is junk?

Science does nothing but prove how little we really know. Then we run to
compare our new findings with the bible, and we say, "See there, that's
not what it says in the bible, so the bible can't be true!" How about the
"spark of life"? When we die, the body is the same as it was one
millisecond before, but something is now missing for life to continue. Can
you imagine science solving that one? Where did the spark go? Nice
article.
RE: Whole Series
Shawn Wooster
05/18/2008
Scientists always say that their discipline proves the non-existence of God.
Some believers/spiritualists retort that science and God are two separate
realms and cannot be compared, for one deals with faith, while the other
deals with the material world. Some of the faithful believe whole-heartedly
in the Bible, Quran, etc., and also are able to embrace quantum physics
and the various mechanisms of evolution. Is it naive to think the two
systems are compatible? It seems to me that both sides are too rigid and
are more heavily influenced by individual personalities and dispositions
than reason or faith.

333
RE: Whole Series
Al Justice
05/18/2008
God is not some abstract deity that can be disproved. God is the totality of
life and all that exists and our awareness of this totality. The
commandment "no graven images" applies to our wild imaginings of a
white-headed old man recently giving Charlton Heston a hand up. The
importance of the commandment is to help us not to get lost in the rubble
of our own mind. But this mysterious, unmentionable Yaweh concept is
only magnified and glorified as new information is understood.

This concept of God is a superstructure for the huge breadth of awareness,

from the grandest to the smallest. Kepler saw God in his geometry, as I
see God in my violin and gardens. This silly silly God. As soon as you hem
him in, paint a relief, watch Ben Hur, and have him figured out, you realize
he's something more--much more.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Garramone
05/18/2008
If an all-powerful, loving God exists, he doesn't care about Burma (they are
Buddhist and therefore heathens!). So maybe he is all-powerful but not
loving. Maybe he is mean and petty, just as fundamentalist Christians say
he is ("us" versus "them"). Then we're all shafted. Chris Hitchens, you are
so-o-o right!
RE: Whole Series
Nick Jury
05/18/2008
Have we come so far that we have no questions to answer? How
disheartening the state of human endeavor that we have finally reached
the end of our journey and find . . . nothing there.
RE: Whole Series
Anonymous
05/18/2008
We must find, as Hoodbhoy says in his essay, a "science-friendly, science-
compatible God" because at this moment science can't explain everything.
RE: Whole Series
David C Anderson
05/18/2008
Somewhere in the New Testament Jesus says, "If you don't believe me
when I tell you earthly things, then how can you do so when I tell you
heavenly?" To me, "science" is earthly things; "religion" is heavenly ones.
My personal philosophy is: A man can justify anything except his self-
being. What would it be were man to know all things of the universe, from
beginning to end? Would he know himself? Certainly. Would he be God?
Certainly not; God is uncreated. Can God ever be known? Of course not, of
course.

334
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Randal Ackley
05/18/2008
Wonderful discussion. I do believe in intelligent design and that we can
observe evidence of God as creator. DNA is a language of immensely
complex information in sequence. The Genesis account of creation was by
spoken word. I propose that this approach, in Sapolsky's terms, gives us
more predictive power and the ability to change an outcome.

Mankind has always found a way to abuse power for selfish means,
whether it was religious (the Pharisees who led the crucification of Christ
because he threatened their authority and popularity) or scientific (the
medical society that, at the time of Pasteur, would not believe something
so small as a microbe could kill a man and thwarted his efforts to bring
sterilization to surgery). No religion is so moral as to fully cancel the
avarice of man's heart. No science is so compelling as to prevent man
from compromising his own intelligence for the sake of what his heart
chooses to deny.
RE: Whole Series
Jay
05/18/2008
Does science make God obsolete? Maybe the correct question is: does
science make religion obsolete? For what is religion but man's attempt at
explaining the unknown and giving that explanation a name, God? Science
is peeling back the layers of the natural world, but it has yet to discover
the origin of Love, or explain how we experience premonition, or the near
total agreement of the explanations of the near-death experience.

No, science will not give the answers to man's most vexing question: why
are we here, why is one born into poverty and another into unimagined
wealth, yet the former rises to change the world and the latter squanders
his inheritance? Science can probe down to the most minuscule sub-
atomic particle or look out into the universe, where light was first born a
billion light years ago. Science is the field of the intellect. But read any of
the works of great poets and mystics, and their words transcend the harsh
numbers and dry dissertations of proofs and math. The poet's song
touches the human heart, and the beat of that eternal rhythm will never
be explained, save by the Love of God.
RE: Whole Series
Donald W Walker
05/17/2008
Simply put, the reason religion exists is to explain how nature works. A
quick look at early religions reveals answers to questions about where
rainbows come from, the differences in human languages, and, of course,
the most basic of all questions, where did the earth and therefore humans
come from. Religion has evolved over time to cover ethical behaviors and
societal rules. It continues to evolve today. Just look at how many Christian

335
denominations allow for women clergy and the recognition of homosexual
rights. Since science has begun to explain how the universe works, it is
time for religion to die a graceful death.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Ken Wackes
05/17/2008
Neither Hitchens nor anyone else has yet debunked Immanuel Kant.
Without an orderly design in the universe, there is no science. There would
be only guesswork within an arbitrary, inconsistent chaos.
RE: Whole Series
Luis Villanueva
05/17/2008
God created science in order for the gifted to find the truth about HIM.
RE: Whole Series
Shripathi Kamath
05/17/2008
Of course it does! Or rather, it should. People clinging to a belief in God
certainly have no scientific basis to their belief, and therefore are merely
speculating on faith, not reason or evidence. This is most likely brought on
by the inculcation of young minds by religious authorities.

Positing God has not provided a single answer to any question that has
remained unanswerable by science. If and when postulating God actually
provides a verifiable answer, one that cannot be provided by science, a
belief in God would become at least useful. Simply claiming to have an
answer is abandoning reason and logic. Those who believe in God after
understanding what science has done are clinically deluded. How else
would you phrase it? Under just about any definition of a delusion, belief in
God qualifies as one.
RE: Whole Series
Kate McDaniel
05/17/2008
Science will not render belief in a Spiritual Creative Source obsolete, but it
may render many belief systems we know as religion obsolete. So far,
quantum mechanics has validated many "natural laws." These laws, such
as cause and effect, do not depend upon a belief system to exist--they just
are. Everything is ultimately Spirit.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Colleen Anderson
05/17/2008
Kauffman's proposal to "reinvent the sacred" or change our ideas about
God into something more universal and less traditional looks a lot like
pantheism.
RE: Whole Series
Theo P Pilligrini

336
05/17/2008
God is not defined, so everyone has a different answer because everyone
has a different question.
RE: Whole Series
Paul
05/17/2008
Science will eventually make belief in God obsolete, if common sense
doesn't get there first. As a Catholic child, I used to ask parents, relatives,
parish priests, and anybody who would listen, "Don't the stories in the
Bible all seem exceptionally unlikely?" In the main, the answer I came up
against was that these stories "were made for people of a simpler time,
and hence they do not neccesarily need to be believed word for word
now." After getting this answer many times, I made what was for me a
startling observation: as we, as a species, become more intelligent,
religion gives up more and more ground of what used to be considered
"truth." Following this pattern, I truly believe we will eventually reach a
plateau in which the idea of a higher power is no longer necessary.
RE: Whole Series
Paul Dinner
05/17/2008
Listening to the positions as podcasts would be great. I'd listen to every
one. I'm not prepared to wade through the text online. So if you decide to
do a modern tech version, please email me.
RE: William D. Phillips
Pedro Ferreira
05/17/2008
Very good comments by the Nobel Prize winner William D. Phillips. I would
add that we can "prove" the existence of God, using the Sufficiency
Principle, developed by Leibniz. In simple words, the universe cannot have
the sufficient reason for its own existence. If the universe had the
sufficient reason for its existence, the universe would be God. But God
cannot be not necessary. And it is clear that things occur in the universe
which might not occur, so the universe itself is not necessary, and hence
an extra sufficient reason for its existence has to exist, and this we call
God. In other words, from nothing comes nothing, so something has to be
necessary, and this we call God.
RE: Whole Series
Sami
05/17/2008
The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and all the other religous books were
written by human beings and who knows what their mental state was at
the time they were written. Maybe religion is just a man-made device to
give people hope where none really exists.
RE: Whole Series
SAMI

337
05/17/2008
These are some very interesting observations. I think we are a science
experiment by aliens who passed by here long ago and forgot about us.
RE: Whole Series
Mark Lambert
05/17/2008
One of the most fundamental laws of physics is conservation. This, simply
put, says that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed and
can only be changed from one form to another. Conservation implies that
the universe is closed. "God" may exist on an "alternate plane," but that
"plane" is permanently isolated from us and us from it. Conservation
prohibits miracles and magic--action without cause. Either stars,
computers, cell phones, TV, atomic weapons, etc. work and conservation is
obeyed, or magic and miracles exist. The two are mutually exclusive. The
original question is mis-stated. It should not be "Does science make belief
in God obsolete?" but rather "Does science make FAITH in God obsolete?"
To that question (faith, belief without evidence) the answer is
unquestionably "yes." There may be a "god," if you define "god" as what
was before the big bang, but that "god" set up the rules of the universe so
that they could never, ever interfere once the universe was "kick started."
RE: Whole Series
Harold Kassel
05/17/2008
It is perhaps rational thinking more than science that makes religion
obsolete. The idea that a first cause, uncaused cause, prime mover,
universal mind cares what you eat, about your sex life, and wants to be
worshipped is unreasonable.
RE: Whole Series
Peggy Pulicover
05/17/2008
Thank you for this conversation.
RE: Whole Series
Chuck
05/17/2008
Science is the study of reaction, not initialization, and can never go
beyond the limitation of the observable. Let us assume we may one day
prove the "Big Bang" theory. By the inherent nature of such an event, our
inability to look beyond it precludes us from knowing anything about its
cause, whether it is a unique event or a cyclic event. The study of a
sculpture provides little information about the sculptor, and without
knowing the pre-sculpted state of the material, all is only theory based
upon supposition.
RE: William D. Phillips
Joel Hendon
05/17/2008

338
The astonishing discoveries by brilliant scientists are facts that have been
in place since the creation (yes, creation). Physicists are creating nothing--
all they are doing is learning the magnificient details of our universe,
which is totally compatible with science. Only the foolhardy hypotheses
are contradictory to the existence of God. It is only when they attempt to
eliminate Him that they find their ideas thwarted.
RE: Whole Series
artmiss
05/17/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? No, because both god and
science are concepts that live by themselves; humans are what "make"
them and help them go "forward."
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Peter T. Walling
05/17/2008
When you look at your finger, the image on the retina is digitized to nerve
signals. The percept which soon appears in your perceptual space is NOT a
physical finger in physical space. Bertrand Russell pointed this out more
than eighty years ago. There are physical and nonphysical aspects to
existence, physical and nonphysical spaces which are both "real." A
scientist with only one eye fixed on the physical universe will not find God.
He must open both eyes to appreciate physical and nonphysical mysteries.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Habecker
05/17/2008
It requires much more faith to believe that God doesn't exist then to
believe that he does. The order of the planets and the universe and the
signs of life all around us point to a creator. Yet non-believers faithfully
believe that a lightning bolt hit a puddle of slime just the right way to
create the first life! Or they believe an intelligent being (of unknown
origin) visited and planted the first seeds of life on earth. Then there's the
non-existent (and, in so many instances, fraud-ridden) fossil record of
"evolution" that some blindly trust. Conversely, so many of the events,
people, and places cited in the Holy Bible have been confirmed by
archeology and historical record.

Truly open-minded persons need only take an honest, inquiring look into
these facts. I think the past century (as one example) has plenty of
evidence (millions of dead from non-believing state-sponsored war,
genocide) of the conduct of those who followed the Humanist faith. So I
choose to believe in a God who knows each of us intimately. He is one who
leaves an invitation and doorway open for us to enter and follow Him. So
many of the things right with human existence (compassion, love,
foregiveness, etc.) can be traced back to Him. The displays of these things
and others I cited make it far easier to believe that He exists.
RE: William D. Phillips

339
Will
05/17/2008
I whole-heartedly agree with Dr. Phillips. I am a chemist doing cutting-
edge research and publishing papers. I also go to church and believe that
Jesus is Lord and that the evidence for God exists. I see it every day. Am I
wrong in being a scientist and believing in God, because science and God
cannot coexist? Absolutely not. My faith does not interfere with my
science; however, science increases my faith.
RE: Whole Series
David Roemer
05/17/2008
Quickly scanning the essays, I see no one who seems to understand that
there are two methods of inquiry: science and existentialism
(metaphysics). Examples of existential propositions are (a) human beings
have free will (b) God exists. Of course, there are scholars who deny (a)
and (b), but their reasoning is very poor.
RE: Whole Series
Brian O'Donnell
05/17/2008
The mind emerges from the interaction of brain cells, existing at the same
time as the brain but not in the same physical space. Call it soul if you
prefer, but there is no reason to suppose it survives brain death. The mind
can be reduced to electrical signals, but something is lost in the process,
which emerges only on the higher level. You can't deduce the existence of
emotions from neuroscience alone.

Collective intelligence, such as team spirit or national identity, emerges

from the interactions of people. If we look beyond ourselves to higher
levels of organized knowledge, there emerges the idea of God. There is no
good reason to think that God can exist without humans to believe in Him.
Scientific advances will find more explanations for events which were
previously considered divine but will also discover more things in the
universe to wonder at. While science makes belief in God unnecessary, it
won't stop people believing.
RE: Whole Series
Allen Holland
05/17/2008
There is physical evolution AND there is the evolution of our human
consciousness. Why would this happen? Our consciousness has risen over
the millennia. There is more freedom and equality in the world now than
ever before, and as the years go by, we strive for more justice, less
suffering for our fellow humans. Collectively we are helping each other
more and understanding our connectedness more and more. There is still
misery in the world, but we work more and more together to implement
more and more creative and higher-level solutions.

340
Love and forgiveness can heal and can change minds, actions, situations,
relationships, people, lives, the world. Why would this be the case? Why
would the atomic origin of the big bang and life on Earth include the power
of love?
RE: Whole Series
Gloria Husk
05/17/2008
Why should mankind believe in God? We are followers of our own paths,
making decisions that affect our entire lives with no apparent help from
God. We police our own, creating laws and, when those laws are broken,
consequences. Why believe in an entity that is said to be all-powerful and
can create the heavens and earth, yet fails to use his/her powers to
intervene when an innocent child is harmed in ways unimaginable by most
human beings? Believers use the argument of blind faith, but followers of
Jim Jones also had blind faith, and we all know how that story ended. The
idea of God has outlived its usefulness as mankind evolves and continues
to evolve and gain knowledge of how the universe works. Science cannot
make God obsolete if he never existed in the first place!
RE: Whole Series
Johnnie
05/17/2008
You cannot mix science and God, just as you cannot have two masters. No
man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the
other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot
serve God and mammon.

Since the beginning, man has wanted to elevate himself above God. Man
has never wanted to be told what to do by a higher authority. Man puts
faith in man, and it has always let him down. God has never let man down.
I do not need proof, I have faith. And if I were to need proof, all I have to
do is look around and see everything that God has created. All I need to do
is to think of the things God has done in my life and is still doing. God is
absolute. Everything else is obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Jim
05/17/2008
Life in its purest form is simply existence. We are rooted in something else
that still has not been explained, since we are still searching for it. Isn't
that what science is about? To discover who we are and where we are
going? Will we ever find an end to this? If we do, what then? Is that why
we believe a God exists--to help explain those missing gaps that can't be
explained . . . for the moment?

As time passes, man will discover new technologies and venture across
the stars, exploring a whole new set of discoveries, which have yet to be
explained or understood. However, since we are not there yet, man will

341
likely align more with spiritual guidance than science. Mankind is still
primitive and has a lot to learn before getting passed its primitive way of
living and thinking. In time, we will overcome these obstacles.
RE: Whole Series
Alejandro
05/17/2008
Absolutely yes!
RE: Whole Series
Sharma
05/17/2008
Science is ever expanding and unraveling the nature of the universe. We
are still grains of sand strewn in the ocean of universal knowledge that
exists. Our mental limitations are restricted to the depth of perception of
our five senses. With this tool it is impractical to comprehend the infinite
and all pervading.

What is God? The very first declaration in the Hindu Upanishad is "Isha
Vasyam Idam Sarvam"! That Isha (God, Energy, etc.) is the basis of the
universe. When Einstein spoke of E=MC2, he was connecting that all
matter is energy and energy is matter. The Universe is just Energy, which
is all-encompassing.
RE: Whole Series
Marcia
05/17/2008
The supposition of the question is that God is a tangible or knowable entity
and not, perhaps, exactly the sort of unknowable entity that can only
make agnostics the ones who have it right in the first place. I am pretty
sure if I were able to be God, I would want to make myself known to my
earliest or most favorite creations--but I just as easily might choose to
simply sit and observe without intervention of any kind.

Science will never disprove God and never can. Until the day when the
phrase "science is the how of creation and God is the doer of creation" can
be proven false, the belief will exist and cannot be obsolete. Only another
religious concept can make belief in God obsolete, as the growth of
monotheism made polytheism and pantheism obsolete in so many
cultures. In this same way, unless science becomes a religion unto itself, it
can never make a belief in God obsolete. The closest we can get may be
the idea of the area of the brain which, when electrically stimulated,
causes people to have "religious" or "mystical" experiences.
RE: Whole Series
Rev. Jimmie Duran
05/17/2008
Aristotle wrote, "I know, therefore I believe." Years later, Thomas Aquinas
wrote, "I believe, therefore I know."

342
RE: Whole Series
Phil Harnick
05/17/2008
Never did, probably never will. Belief requires no evidence; in fact, denial
of clear evidence only strengthens belief. To believers, belief is wrapped
up inextricably in essential morals, morals that cannot, to their minds,
exist without it. It moves in herds through societies, to reinforce itself.
Science is rooted in evidence. Belief in god exists in the face of evidence.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Seagrove
05/17/2008
Fascinating to hear different sides.
RE: Michael Shermer
Michael Cromar
05/17/2008
It is always fascinating to read so-called "scientists" like Michael Shermer
who like to recite what others believe and can't even get their facts right!
I'm a Mormon and his "cute" little summary of what Mormons believe is
wrong (on several counts) and shallow. More importantly, his obvious lack
of curiosity about what Mormons really believe as it pertains to the nature
and attributes of God is astounding for someone who would call himself a
scientist. It would seem even a skeptic ought to know a little more than
myth about what he is going to be skeptical about.

If Shermer extended his "curious" mind a little, rather than portraying

what others believe as some sort of joke, he might find some commonality
between some of the thoughts expressed in his essay and what Mormons
believe about the attributes of and evolution (there's that word again) of
God.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Yost
05/17/2008
No, science doesn't do anything. An average person's common sense is
what makes belief in any religion obsolete. I really don't think "obsolete" is
the right term. It makes it sound as if there was ever a time that it was
proper to "believe" in, and act on, fairy tales.
RE: Whole Series
Angelia
05/17/2008
No matter what evidence is used, the term "self-fullfilling prophecy" often
applies to both sides of the God issue. I'm looking forward to the day when
science and religion walk hand in hand.
RE: Whole Series
Anteo
05/17/2008

343
As time passes and science progresses, religion will have to invent a
smarter and better God. Any high-school student would have made a
smarter and better God than our forefathers did.
RE: Whole Series
Dariel R. Newman
05/17/2008
There is no paradigm seeking to explain the birth and continuing evolution
of the cosmos that does not only allow room for the existence of a
Supernatural Intelligence (God) but, at some juncture, even supports the
faith and existence of God. The "limiting points" of most theories
concerning cosmological genesis begin and end with and in God. As the
ancient koan asks, "All things return to the One. What does the One return
to?" The limiting questions within scientific disciplines are the very
questions that bear witness to God's existence and continuing agency.

It is with great egocentrism and hubris that some of our greatest minds
and thinkers deny the obvious, because those same minds cannot yet
create a model for God's existence. It is as if the line of thought is that
since "we" do not understand, then "god" must not exist. This goes far
beyond intellectual elitism and dangerously approaches the denial of
scientific process itself. Science and theology/faith are not only congruent
but also synergistic. How dare either discipline deny the other's ability to
inform and sharpen its understandings, beliefs, and suppositions! If both
disciplines and their respective high priests were to openly discuss and
envision together, the result would be two stronger disciplines with keener
understandings of all things as well as the Source of all things.
RE: Whole Series
Barton
05/17/2008
Science has made incredible contributions to improving the human
condition with its focus on the physical world. However, it has totally failed
to explain what is next for humans. My personal interest in God has
involved acquiring personal awareness as to the potential of a life
hereafter. In this regard, I will hedge my bets to say my belief is that our
Creator intentionally "holds his cards" close to the vest in terms of
revealing Himself to us, so that we will get on with life and use our free
will. If we {as individuals} choose to want to know him, this is possible,
but His revelations to us are so entirely personal that no scientist could
"gather data" to validate the God hypothesis.
RE: Whole Series
William Tobias Straney
05/16/2008
Science assumes from the outset that only the empirical, quantitative
world exists. The empirical is all that science is interested in and capable
of verifying. It then "proves" that only the empirical world exists by
repeatedly measuring only empirical phenomena, and then pointing out

344
that at no time was the non-empirical verified. This no more disproves the
existence of the non-empirical than practicing mathematics disproves the
existence of poetry.

All that is qualitative--rather than quantitative--and all that is metaphysical

is, strictly speaking, outside of the scope of what science can legitimately
observe, or all that it has actually tried to observe. And for those who think
that science has really reached outside of the parameters it has set for
itself, and has really tried to look at the non-empirical as such, we need
merely point out the elephant in the room: the non-empirical will not be
defined or described by strictly empirical terms, no more than poetry will
be defined by mathematical terms. They're related, but you simply cannot
reduce the one to the other and legitimately wonder why there's no poetry
left. It was defined out of reality by the assumption that math is the only
reality.
RE: Whole Series
Doug Duffee
05/16/2008
As a seminary-trained physician, I see science and religion as
complementary epistemologies. Science's way of knowing works well in an
empirical environment. However, when questions are presented that are
beyond the ability of empiricism to address, revelation encountered
through faith in God speaks.
RE: Whole Series
Gene Shea
05/16/2008
We can't prove the existence of God, since God is spirit; but we can prove
to any reasonble person that humans have a soul, which is tantamount to
proving the existence of God.
RE: Whole Series
Clifford J. Mikkelson
05/16/2008
God is the eternal consciousness within and beyond the material universe.
His/Her/its consciousness has created all the energy and the beings in the
universe. We are co-creators within the consciousness of God. If you
believe in your own life, then you believe in God. If you love life, then you
love God. Science is just a way to learn how the universe works.
RE: Whole Series
Adolfo Morales
05/16/2008
In science, time is one of those things on which everything else is based.
Science tells us that the universe was created approximately 13.5 billion
years ago (in earth time). I would like to introduce the mathematical
concept of infinity. Infinity is not so much a number as a representation of
numbers unfathomable. What's an unfathomable number, well something
like 47 ventillion--63 zeroes!

345
Time could actually be infinite (or longer than we can comprehend with
our earthly brains). Therefore the thought that we spontaneously
combusted into being about 13.5 billion years ago is a far cry. Einstein
theorized, and science believes, that time is relative. What does this
mean? Well, basically, that time is not measured the same in any two
separate points within the universe. Based on the concept of the relativity
of time, one can theorize that a God who is not constrained by the bounds
of our Earth could create the universe in six days if those six days were
not measured in Earth days but based on the infinite time line a God would
have. Just a scientific thought from a religious nerd!
RE: Whole Series
Leo Plouffe
05/16/2008
Must one be blind to sense and believe in the invisible? Science provides
us the sight of the natural world around us and beyond. What we learn
with every new day is how we were blind to so many wonders the day
before. It is the belief that there is still more that lies beyond that drives us
as scientists to discover more. This belief and search for the still invisible
is our communal ascent to the Omega of Theilard-de-Chardin, both a
scientist and religious philosopher. Belief in God is what keeps me seeking
God every day in the world of science and every new discovery reminds
me of how far I still am from comprehending the universe and God.
RE: Whole Series
John
05/16/2008
I am a Christian, but (for the sake of argument) if the agnostic and atheist
scientists are right, many years from now people will look back and ask,
"Why did so many great minds in that era waste so much time trying to
disprove something so trivial when solutions for many of man's problems
have now been discovered to have been right in front of their faces? They
could have saved mankind from much distress and disaster these past
hundreds of years if they would have used their time better to find
solutions instead of disproving their disbeliefs."

If God does not exist, then why are you spending so much of your time
and energy and thought on something that does not matter and is not
productive? All of my efforts as a Christian are to help others. If you are
right, I'm just wasting my time. If I am right then, well, oops on your part.
RE: Whole Series
Matthew Turney
05/16/2008
Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound? The scientist should ask
for the definition of sound: Is it the generation of the waves or the
reception and decoding of those waves that makes them sound? Ask
someone about god: Can god make a rock so large/heavy that he himself

346
can't move it? The believer should ask, does god want to move the rock or
does he want it to stay static? It is not the size or weight of the stone, but
the will of god. If he wants it to move, it will move. If he does not, then it
will not; size has no meaning in the equation.

I do not see how there will ever be scientific evidence to prove that god
does not exist. If god is all powerful, then all things discovered were done
so by his will. I don't see the question as being, Should science replace
god? It should be, Will science change our understanding of the concept of
god? Changing your beliefs in the face of scientific evidence is something I
believe we should do. A skeptic should not out of hand reject the idea that
god is real, just as a believer should not blindly follow a doctrine without
questioning every day the teachings in the face of technological advances.
RE: Whole Series
Duane Voth
05/16/2008
No, because science has deliberately restricted itself to the study of only
those things which are common to all men. There are truths, exclusively
subjective, that can reside within the mind of a single individual, which are
as valid as any agreed-upon, objective, experimentally verified scientific
truth. But subjective truth, by definition, defies peer review and thus it
tends to be admonished by those who live by the rule of peer review. With
the awesome and literally staggering accomplishments of objective truth
over the past two hundred years, it is hard to justify time spent working on
subjective truth. And yet character, if not consciousness itself, requires at
least a minimal subjective working set.

Science has relegated itself to documenting only that which can be

verified via experiment, and thus recuses itself from verification of
subjective truth. The body of science does not reject or deny subjective
truth; it is only the conclusions and often the implications of science which
appear to conflict with our subjective truth.

It is important to define a clear boundary between objective and subjective

truth and to recognize when ideas from one begin to impinge on the other.
To lose this boundary is to become lost in a either a world of indecision,
where none of our ideas are our own, or arrogance where none of our
ideas are shared. And yet the war between objective and subjective truth
seems to never have been more pronounced; it is as if we find our selves
battling for our very thoughts amidst the flood of information and opinions
which now constitute our daily lives. But what more perfect way to ensure
each of us does not cheat on the Test of Life, than to make the spiritual
aspect of life completely and undeniably subjective.
RE: Whole Series
Troy Camplin, Ph.D.
05/16/2008
Many people are concerned that science is dependent upon a materialist

347
ontology and that materialism is itself atheistic. But science does not have
to be dependent upon materialism. In fact, the evidence increasingly
shows the world isn't so much materialist as informational in nature. Thus,
I subscribe to an informational ontology, which is highly compatible with
Christianity. I do not ascribe to a materialist ontology nor an idealist one,
but rather, an ontology of information. In other words, I take the following
from John 1:1 seriously: "the foundation of all things is information" (en
arche hn o logos).

Admittedly, this is a definition that comes about in light of information

theory, but if you truly understand both what information is and all the
meanings of logos, you can see that "information" is a good translation of
"logos." Certainly a far, far better choice than "word," which is such a
peripheral meaning of logos as to be almost completely inaccurate. When
we "logos," we communicate information one to another, process that
information, and pass on that information. All things are information at
different levels of complexity. For biological organisms, the vehicle of
communication tends to be chemical, though also photons and sound
waves. Humans communicate using more complex information-carriers,
particularly through grammatical, syntactical language.

"The foundation of all things was information, and the information was 1)
to the advantage of 2) at, near, by 3) to, towards, with, with regard to (the
word translated as 'with') God, and God was information." That is the most
literal translation of John 1:1 I can render. The universe is founded on
information, and that information becomes more complex over time.
Atoms have less complex information than do chemicals, especially
chemical cycles and systems. Biology is a set of highly complex chemical
systems. The human brain is a complex neural system in complex
interaction with other humans through complex social systems. That
information is communicated through language, which itself must be
complex in order to communicate most efficiently.

God is the most complex of the universe, and thus has all the information.
This is how God is both the Alpha (the information that gives form at the
beginning of the universe) and the Omega (the most complex, most
informed).
RE: Whole Series
Keith Kwiatek
05/16/2008
I find it so interesting that scientists try to define the box that we are
allowed to live in at any given moment. "Yes," scientists say, "there may
very well be more outside the box, that explains more clearly what is in
the box, but let us worry about that. You unlearned people just be content
to live in the box we give you."

Scientists very well know there is much more outside the box. They readily

348
admit there are forces of nature that cannot be accounted for by current
science. Hence, they give us things like "string theory" and quantum
mechanics, to explain the unexplainable. I use another approach. I
observe the world, and I see many things that seem very precisely
designed, and therefore must have a designer. I then ask myself, has
anyone claimed to be the designer? There seems to be only two choices
with any historical veracity: either the God of the Jews or the God of the
Arabs.

So then I ask myself, why doesn't God make Himself more plain? Then I
read the story of Jesus, who claimed to be the God of the Jews and who
came to earth to deal with man's sin by becoming the final sacrifice for
sins, so that all who turn to Him should not perish but have eternal life
(John 3:16). The evidence for me was when I sought God with all my heart,
and read the Bible, and invited Him into my life. Something took place. I
am not alone anymore. I sense Him near. I hear His voice. I am confident I
know where I am going when I die, and in whom I have believed.
RE: Whole Series
Richard E. Swindell
05/16/2008
The naturalist's new definition of science: matter and energy are all there
is, was, or ever will be. If science is defined by the scientific method, then
hypotheses become theories and laws based on probabilities. Nothing is
fact; rather, probability dictates rejecting or accepting the null hypothesis.

It would take about 1,000 base pairs to code for a small protein of 300
amino acids. If the probability of getting the right order of bases by
accident is 1/4 for each base (and it is actually drastically smaller, since
you would have no DNA polymerase to direct the reactions to the right
sites on the sugar, phosphate, and nitrogenous base), that is 1/4 to the
1,000th power, about 10 to the minus 602. The Sahara desert contains
about 10 to the 25 grains of sand. If we paint one red and allow a blind
man to choose, trying to find it, the probability of his finding it twenty-four
times in succession without mistakes would be 10 to the minus 600.
Probability shows us that the natural world cannot explain life. Probability
is real science.

The first law of thermodynamics, the best-established law of physics, says

that energy cannot be created or destroyed. But the scientists say the
universe has an age. Impossible. If it had always existed, it would have
reached equilibrium, heat death, and there could be no energy exchange.
What we see could not be here, according to the best-established laws of
physics. Natural law shows that the supernatural must exist. Redefining
science might save the naturalist's day if his axiom didn't fail the test of
real science.
RE: Whole Series
Joseph Decuir

349
05/16/2008
Thank you for assembling these essays and offering them to the (English-
speaking) world.
RE: Whole Series
Joao Manhaes
05/16/2008
Science indeed gives many explanations about life and the universe that
contradict all religious dogmas. However, even before the great advance
of science, the concept of God was flawed and could not be supported
without blind faith. Look at the catastrophes just happening in China and
Myanmar; thousands of people, including a great number of innocent
children, have faced horror and death. On the other had, I am here, writing
in disbelief of God. How is that? What are the criteria God uses to choose
who is going to live and who is going to die? Who is going to be happy and
who is going to suffer? It is time we adults stop believing in our own Santa
Claus.
RE: Whole Series
John
05/16/2008
Try to imagine that the Bible's explanation of the Earth's creation is
scientifically correct. First there was light, then came the separation of
earth and water; life began to spring and man was created in God's image.
Is it possible that, just like most stories from the Bible, these are parables
or representations of things, simplified for man to digest at the time and
that creation actually took 200 million years? Remember--God works in
eternity, another concept science cannot comprehend. Seven hundred
million years to God may seem like 7 days.

I only know that the better science gets, the more we find out how
incredibly accurate the writings from a few inspired writers from 50 AD can
be on such topics as the sequence of the Earth's creation, human
psychology, and, oh yeah, that crazy thing called "the meaning of our
existence."
RE: Whole Series
Heather Gee
05/16/2008
I've read a comment here based upon the notion that faith cannot prove
the existence of God. In a manner of speaking, this is true. Faith cannot
prove the existence of God unless you were to see firsthand that God was
creating the faith within humanity. If you're solely basing the claim on
looking at the acts of faith of the faithful, then it will be impossible to
prove the existence of God.

But how/when/where did the natural explanations form? Was there simply
the Big Bang or was there something/someone prior to the Big Bang that
made the Big Bang bang? How can anything come into existence without

350
motivation or origin? Even science cannot create itself--it would be
unscientific! Despite all of these questions, I am still agnostic.
RE: Whole Series
Bernard Johnson
05/16/2008
I find it hard to see how one can argue that scientific knowledge has
brought an end to the possibility of a relationship with the living God.
Every scientific study I've ever read about has posed more questions than
it has answered. Scientific knowledge will always continue expanding. The
wonders of science should be humbling to the truly thoughtful person.
As an evangelical Christian, I see two distinct spiritual (psychological, if
you prefer) problems: If one's mind is totally focused on spirituality, it is no
wonder that science is ignored, or at least in soft focus. Some evangelical
(and other) Christians who do not appreciate the agnostic scientist's
perspective mistakenly seize on some demonstrably unscientific
alternative theory to "combat scientific secularism"--currently, intelligent
design. This makes evangelicals appear dangerously naive in the eyes of
scientists and many others. Surely, if Christians want respect from
agnostic scientists, it is mandatory that we appreciate their perspective.

Conversely, if one's mind is totally focused on science, it is no wonder that

God is obscured. Agnostic scientists must find comfort in their sense that
their focus on science obscures God. A d�tente must include a Christian
appreciation of the mindset of agnostic scientists and an understanding
among scientists that many Christians have not yet absorbed the
intellectual impact of scientific enlightenment. After all, most Christians
are not scientists, and agnostic scientists certainly are not (yet) Christians.
RE: Whole Series
Larry Klassen
05/16/2008
Scientists declare that there is no such thing as the supernatural and that
everything must have a natural explanation. Having thus limited
themselves, they confidently declare that there is no natural evidence for
a supernatural God. Be careful what you decide before you start looking at
evidence. The fool has said in his heart, "there is no God."
RE: Whole Series
Tom Trinko
05/16/2008
Scientists who say there is no God are like a man who has a screwdriver
and uses it to hammer in a nail because it's the only tool he has. What is
science? It's the study of the universe. Contrary to what some may claim,
there is no experimentally verified theory--no experiment, no science--that
explains how the universe came to be. "Something from nothing" is a big
deus ex machina used by some to say God doesn't exist. Of course there's
less evidence for the universe just popping into place--much less
explaining why there are physical laws which make sense (and don't get

351
me started on why the universe is so singularly tuned for life as we know
it)--than there is for God.

But forget all that. I bet you can't find a single scientist who picked his/her
spouse based on a set of differential equations. A lower-middle-class
family in Iowa doesn't send money to help starving children in India
because of evolution. Love and the things that make us human aren't
"scientific," unless of course you argue that we're just will-less machines
with nothing to distinguish us from random pools of decaying vegetation.
Science doesn't explain love any more than religion can explain nuclear
fusion. Science explains how the universe works while religion explains
why it, and more importantly we, are here.

Of course, it's important to know what God is supposed to be: all-powerful

Creator of everything. When a scientist says that if some alien race can
create life it is no different from God, he shows a great deal of ignorance.
God is a creator; He makes something from nothing. Synthesizing life
takes something and makes something else from it.

Scientists condemn religious people for using their faith to address science
but then turn around and use science, their one-size-fits-all screwdriver, to
attack religion. A little introspection might come in handy here.
RE: Whole Series
Ernest Lowell
05/16/2008
If you could ask the related question, "Does belief in God make science
obsolete?," then the conversation is worth having. Otherwise, you aren't
really asking a question to begin with.
RE: Whole Series
Jonathan
05/16/2008
As Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science
is blind."
RE: Whole Series
Michael Goolsby
05/16/2008
I am a Christian. I believe in the holy Trinity. I believe that Jesus died for
my sins and the sins of all others. And I know that when I die, because of
these things, I will be with God in Heaven. For these things many of those
who have written opinions on this topic would believe me a fool--a deluded
man who refuses to see the great truths that somehow to you disprove
and make irrelevant all that I beleive. What great pride--such hubris to try
to be the men that made God irrelevant and obsolete.

The light that science seems to be shining in the lives and minds of so
many appears to be darkness itself. This science that dares to challenge

352
God does not offer anything in the place of God but nothingness itself.
Instead of a life of seeking God to live more according to his wishes, with
the knowledge of redemption and eternity, science only offers a hollow,
short, brutal, meaningless existence with no purpose.

It is shocking how the collective experience of man in relation to God over

thousands of years can be so derided and dismissed by men of
intelligence in favor of the canons of science. To say that a scientist's
observations and experiments in the pursuit of a hypothesis, viewing the
world through his own eyes and the "eyes" of his instruments, is so much
greater than other observations of other men because they used a
different method is what is truly illogical.

If a man were to go outside and see the sun and say "Look, there is the
sun," you would say to him that it is not what he thinks it is, that it is but a
star with all of its various properties and not "the" sun. Such a comment
would perhaps be scientific, but worthless. Science cannot make belief in
God obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Chris Burris
05/16/2008
It is very easy for someone of faith to state that god works in ways that no
one can explain and to leave that as the truth of their faith, but it has no
real impact on what is truth and what has been proven. Faith is not proof;
scientific theory is for the most part truth--it is the explanation of the
mystery trying to be solved. The question that everyone needs to ask is,
what makes more sense: the natural laws that make up this universe or
some supreme being that with a snap of a finger created everything?
Anyone with common sense knows the answer is nature's explanation,
proven over and over again, compared to faith, which can never be
proven.
RE: Whole Series
Rob Finch
05/16/2008
With reference to Scott Schumacher's comment below that "the theory of
evolution is not fact, otherwise it would not be called a theory": he gets
lost by confusing a guess with a testable hypothesis. It is called a theory in
much the same way gravity is referred to as a theory. Science deals in
many areas that are "unknown" but does not close itself off to all
possibilities. Using just one book as a fount of all knowledge is both stupid
and dangerous.
RE: Whole Series
Tony
05/16/2008
Yes. While I think that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have provided a
method for cultures to flourish and communities to live together, the

353
premise that there is a god is ultimately a false one. The fact that we are
able to understand how humans interact with each other and the natural
universe around us means that we can shed the enforcer and benevolent
giver that is God.
RE: Whole Series
Jed Livingstone
05/16/2008
My reply to the question of god's existence is that the issue is not worthy
of debate. If you do not believe in god, then it does not exist; if you do, it
does. There is no way to prove either position, so the opinions of others
are irrelevant. We would all be better served devoting this energy to
something of consequence.
RE: Whole Series
Bruce J. Cameron
05/16/2008
Yes.
RE: Whole Series
JM Moody
05/16/2008
Science is only one avenue of knowledge that prepares humans for the
infinite power of God. The action of God's will upon us is performed in a
dimension that science cannot detect, yet it is the most powerful force
ever known to man. Looking out into the vastness of space and time, it is
easy to feel an emptiness--that there is no one there, looking back. But we
must not forget to look within ourselves and heed the yearning soul that
God has given us.
RE: Whole Series
Ray Eakles
05/16/2008
I don't think science has come far enough to discredit the existence of a
higher power. I am neither spiritual nor a believer. If there is a higher
power, he is not concerned with one grain of sand on a beach.
RE: Steven Pinker
Anthony Camele
05/16/2008
Steven Pinker's understanding of religious belief is comparable to a
fifteenth-century alchemist's understanding of science. As for his
especially juvenile twisting of "Where did the universe come from?" to
"Where did God come from?," I am sure any number of more subtle
thinkers will be happy to answer that as soon as he answers "Where did
one come from?" and its corollary, "Why a first, and not something prior,
whether logically or in time?" As a scientist who works with change, surely
Pinker is aware that there is no change, no time, and hence no before or
after until there are at least three realities: a thing that is different from
what it now is or appears to be, and a memory aware of both stages of the

354
thing.
RE: Whole Series
Tobin Lowell
05/16/2008
Denying the existence of God requires the same level of blind faith as
being certain that God must exist. Neither position can be proved,
although Pascal's hypothesis makes an excellent argument. The fact is
that the universe may or may not have been created by a being or beings
for their own purpose.
RE: Whole Series
Carol McGrain
05/16/2008
Thank you.
RE: Whole Series
Austin Kelly
05/16/2008
I agree with Dennis Abitz's comment earlier today. I would like to see the
scientific community come from the approach that God is real and working
through our lives and then try to disprove such a position. Just because
science has given answers to the mysteries of life doesn't mean that God
wasn't using these methods Himself. In my life, my faith and my passion
for science go hand in hand, each one strengthening the other. To me,
denying the hand of God in our everyday lives makes no sense at all. I
think that God meant for science to be a physical tool that helps
strengthen our faith. Faith alone is tough, especially for the scientific and
analytical minds, but God has given us scientists a way of having a faith
that is supplemented by knowing the reality and truth of the world around
us.
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Giles Hawkins
05/16/2008
Dr. Stenger is no doubt a wonderful physicist and astronomer, but he
should limit himself to the things he is trained in! Philosophy is a
complicated business. The title of his book makes him look foolish. No
matter how much he makes squinty eyes and looks intent, he still can't
prove a negative.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Law
05/16/2008
Because neither discipline provides an absolute perfect truth, both are
relevant in the current discussion. Efforts to diminish the importance of
either science or religon are simply attempts to assert control and power
over the thinking of others. The spiritual pursuit of God is a mere
recognition of the greater existence within the creation that is our
universe. The scientific pursuit of how the universe functions accounts for

355
a mere understanding of the dynamics of the universe as we understand it
at this point in time. In both cases, one's understanding and knowledge of
the inter-related aspects of universal "truths" provide a basis for continued
efforts to understand more. Our knowledge and understanding grow with
each endeavor, scientifically and spiritually. To be complete, one must
have knowledge of both. Thus God is no more obsolete than Einstein and
is at least equally as relevant.
RE: Whole Series
Dennis Abitz
05/16/2008
It never ceases to amaze me how scientists can deny the existence of God
and yet see his wonders every day. To believe that everything we see and
experience is by chance is ludicrous. The sun rises and sets every day, the
earth continues to rotate around the sun, never getting too close or too far
away. Human life, with all the genetic possibilities and differences in every
human being--how can anyone deny that the "creator GOD" exists? I
challenge all the scientists to disprove God's existence rather than to
prove he exists. Let's not be so arrogant that we miss out on the one truth
that stays constant.
RE: Steven Pinker
Mel Nicolai
05/16/2008
I am in general agreement with Dr. Pinker's historical analysis and with his
conclusion that "the more we learn about the world in which we live, the
less reason there is to believe in God." So, has what we've learned so far
made God obsolete?

Regarding "obsolete": not an innocent word choice. God might be real, but
obsolete, like old software? Or conversely, God might be a fiction, but an
important one. Obsolete for whom? If "science" renders God obsolete for
someone, is it because that someone is a member of a complex and
longstanding scientific community, a community with its own internal
agreements, obligations, procedural standards, etc.? What about people
who are not members of the scientific community? What if one's daily life
makes no pragmatic contribution to the scientific community? What about
people whose lives are informed by the scientific community only at the
level of uncritical consumers? In such cases (covering the vast majority of
people), is abandoning God for the "production value" of the scientific
community an act of faith?

Opting for better (more scientific) explanations of the world's mysteries

necessarily entails a shift of authority. Replacing God with science means,
among other things, relinquishing one's own authority, unless one is
willing and able to become an active, participating member of the
scientific community--an option open to only a small percentage of people.
If I believe in God, I have the personal authority to decide how that belief
should be manifested in my life. Having that authority consists of little

356
more than deciding to have it. If I do not believe in God, it is no easy
matter to decide how my life should be conducted in light of, say, results
obtained by CERN's new Large Hadron Collider.
RE: Whole Series
Scott Schumacher
05/16/2008
I beg to differ with Jerry Schleifer's post of yesterday. First off, Webster's is
not the final word in definition. Just because it states that science is "the
state or fact of knowing" does not mean that this is so. When one
recognizes that much of science, especially around the edges, is as much
"belief-based" as religion (the theory of evolution is not fact, otherwise it
would not be called a theory), one must admit that we ARE playing on the
same ball field, since much of science is also faith-based.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Edwin L Muir
05/16/2008
What is the fruit of Hitchens's synopsis? Despair, hopelessness, confusion,
and (perhaps worst of all) impurity and tormenting fear. Personally, I left
that all behind by seeking the truth with ALL my open, once atheist heart. I
heard that still, small voice say, "I am the way and the truth and the life."
RE: Whole Series
Warrup
05/16/2008
All around us we find order out of chaos, both macro and micro, on an
unimaginable time scale. We were given/evolved with thinking brains on
this tiny speck of creation and now have the luxury of no longer having to
think just to survive but to ponder all the why's and wherefore's. We have
curiosity and a hard-wired need to know, search out, find out, and go to.
The more knowledge we get creates only further mysteries. I feel as if we
are a minute part of a great infinite experiment on some unimaginable
time scale. We are here, physically, as a result of umpteen supernovas just
to create our elements. With an infinite universe, we could be one of many
experiments doomed to failure. Emotionally, I'm attracted to Buddhism.
Life is a physical experience, to learn and evolve individually with an
ultimate hope of becoming part of the creative Godhead.
RE: Whole Series
Maureen Callahan
05/16/2008
Even if science has made God obsolete, that fact will be overlooked and
debated forever. Why? The answer is money; both sides have made this
debate as eternal as God. In this day, it may be the controversy that keeps
both science and God in the news. Can good exist without evil? Can
poverty exist without wealth? I'm not a scientist or a philosopher, but
science and God seem to have (excuse the term) evolved together as
parts of us all. Am I wrong?

357
RE: Whole Series
Joseph A.
05/16/2008
Science and God are entirely compatible and always have been. The sad
fact is that people are motivated against religion in general, and
Christianity in particular, for personal and political reasons. People who
argue one side or the other of any religious argument, from the problem of
evil to the existence of the soul, are usually fighting a proxy battle. They
hope that, by getting more people to reject faith in God (or, frankly, accept
faith in God), they'll vote the "right" way, think the "right" way, or be on
their team--whether it's a political party, a special interest, or anything
else. Debate over God is more often than not a proxy fight for other
issues.

People here are talking about how rational thinking speaks against the
existence of God. But rational thinkers disagree on plenty of topics, even
atheists do. In quantum mechanics, some scientists adhere to
Copenhagen, others to MWI, still others to Bohmian mechanics or
otherwise--yet they all have access to the same scientific data. Are all of
them being irrational except one? Of course not. So why the assumption
that everyone who believes in God--and what comprises God has been the
subject of debate within every faith, or even subset of faith--is irrational,
rather than merely people who see things different ways? Is saying that
"all the people who disagree with me are not just wrong but deluded" an
example of that "free thinking" among atheists I hear so much about?

God is here to stay, and the dialogue likely will continue for nigh unto
eternity. The theists will make plenty of mistakes. The atheists will do the
same (you'd think the 20th century would have demonstrated to them that
being an atheist is not an immunization against lunacy, or even close to
it). And few people will ever stop to realize why they're arguing. But
enough will do so, thanks to organizations like Templeton, to make all this
effort worthwhile.
RE: Whole Series
dls
05/16/2008
No. Science can't prove that which is not, is not. A belief is anything you
want it to be, regardless of truth. So belief is regardless of science.
RE: Whole Series
John Barnes
05/15/2008
There's a line from a Tom Rush song (The River Song) that has always
stuck with me: "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know." I am told
that when Sir Isaac Newton was pushed too hard by a sycophant to claim
superiority over Archimedes for his work on optics, Sir Isaac responded by
saying "If I have seen further than other men, it is only because I have
stood on the shoulders of giants." Sir Isaac's humility should be a caution

358
to all. He, of course, was a natural philospher, not a scientist, and he also,
in a very human way, got lost in alchemy. And yet his work on optics and
the wave nature of light is enormous--and watch what happens when the
particle nature of light is discovered in the 20th century. Any scientist
must surely know humility from the 20th century, although many get lost
and starry-eyed staring, without perspective, at our tremendous advances
in science.

I remain confident of two things. First, that the power of the human
intellect (and the human cooperative community) will continue to extend
the boundaries of human knowledge and technology. Second, no matter
how far that boundary extends, there will always be room beyond for new
discoveries, mystery, and faith. This to me is good news!
RE: Whole Series
Donald McMiken
05/15/2008
Rational thinking makes God obsolete. It is not a massive scientific
conspiracy that makes God obsolete--it is evidence-based rationalism that
does the job. No one thinking rationally can believe that space/time and
matter and all the known forces acting on them were created and are
micro-controlled down to the last fallen sparrow by a personified,
compassionate being of any kind. Nor can the children of Darfur.

The only thing that allows scientific minds to believe in God is a massive
disconnect between their professional thinking selves and their brain-
washed believing selves that have been cultured since childhood. I cannot
abide such dissonance in my mind, so I reject the infantile beliefs I was
taught. Examples of the misery, death, and destruction wrought by
religion today should be sufficient incentive for any thinking man to
question his belief in a 2000-year-old philosophy of the ancient Abrahamic
tribes and their various prophets. If they do not do this then they are not
thinking men regardless of their scientific pursuits.
RE: Whole Series
Pedro Flecha
05/15/2008
Belief is contradictory to knowledge and, therefore, to science.
RE: Whole Series
WeatherJeff
05/15/2008
For every single person on earth there exists one trillion tons of earth. One
person represents the entire biomass of the planet; everyone else gets a
trillion tons apiece of crust, mantle, or core. I have two sons whom I love
very much. Tell me how much that love weighs. That, to me, is the
difference between science and God.
RE: Whole Series
SJ

359
05/15/2008
Very interesting how one of the writers mentions that "an exact balance
exists between the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of
gravity. So, no energy was required to produce the universe. The universe
could have come from nothing." If you trace everything back to a source
(where did that come from, and where did that come from, and where did
that come from, etc.?), you have no choice in the end but to acknowledge
a Designer. Finding this to be unacceptable, the evolutionist must turn to
the only other option: "everything we can experience via our senses
comes from . . . well, nothing." Not a very scientific deduction, eh?
RE: William D. Phillips
Kristopher Dylan Andrews
05/15/2008
If invoking the Declaration of Independence is the refuge of someone
arguing against the obsoleteness of belief, then the views on Christianity
of the author of said document should be instructive. In his letters,
Jefferson was explicit in his derision of Christianity. If we could take politics
out of this discussion, we would not have much of a discussion left.
RE: Whole Series
Kristopher Dylan Andrews
05/15/2008
Does one decide what one believes? This is the core of substantial parts of
this conversation. Belief in God is obsolete because it does us, and by
extension everything else, less good than bad. God has never been a very
good explanation for anything, other than the Primum Movum, and science
has certainly made this belief obsolete for all purposes but allowing a non-
deterministic and non-causal beginning to the universe.

If scientific evidence, or even plausible theory, arises to justify a belief in

God, then belief in God is more rational, but even this does not keep it
from being obsolete. The whole idea of belief being obsolete or not
presumes the usefulness of belief. The two uses that seem to be argued
for the most is: belief makes us feel good, and belief makes us behave. I
can think of innumerable items and activities that suit those purposes that
are far better than pretending that fairy tales are real or trying to convince
ourselves they are.

Belief in a God that does not exist does not give us meaning any more
than emperor's clothes covered his posterior. It just tricks us into feeling
like it does. And all of this is when you consider a nonpolitical, sterilized
belief, which is far from the current applications, where death, destruction,
exploitation, brutatility, inequality, and prejudice are pretty much the
universal and immediate response to discovering there is a God and he's
on your side.

Most of the responses in this discussion are the kind of apologetic

explanations for liberal acceptance of open-ended variations of religion.

360
They are more political than sincere. I despair that even in the 21st
century, as we converse over nuclear-powered, thinking machines
networked across the globe, that people still pretend to be justified for
their greed and manipulations by an imaginary friend.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Douglas Presler
05/15/2008
I congratulate Kenneth Miller on knowing a deity that would be
unrecognizable to the creationists of this world, but at the risk of offending
him, I ask: so what? You espouse deism. So did Thomas Jefferson. But
there's an ugly fly in your mutual ointment: Christianity is, vide Hitchens's
bons mots, theism, not deism. If it were capable of sustaining deism, the
Theosophical Society would, probably through the aegis of the Liberal
Catholic Church, be far and away the world's largest Christian
denomination. And that just isn't so.

People reject God, if reject is the right word, for two wholly intelligible
reasons: offered proofs for God's existence are readily refuted, and the
price of adhering to belief simply outweighs the benefits. We can and
should cultivate ways to both secure our own defense against jadedness
and step forward with owning our moral responsibilty without relying on
discredited ideas that sustained many a dark age.
RE: Whole Series
Mikhail
05/15/2008
God is the interaction between natural and social systems.
RE: Whole Series
Kevin Barnes
05/15/2008
As I grew up, I learned first about God and then about this extraordinary
thing called mathematics. As I began learning mathematics and various
levels of science, I found out that they helped me understand the universe
better, and in turn helped me to understand better the Intelligent Designer
that I knew as God. As I learned more and continue to learn more about
mathematics, I also understood more (not fully) about God.

If you believe in God, science can only strengthen your belief. If you don't
believe in God or question His existence, science will reinforce that belief
also. I hear the science/religion argument from both sides. Since I do go to
church, and believe in God, I hear the "Science hates God" argument. But
being a mathematician, I also hear the "If you are intelligent and
understand the principles of science, you shouldn't believe in God because
it is illogical." Why do they always have to butt heads?

So, what I have found is this: I am intelligent. I am a mathematician. I still

believe in God. I use the power of science and mathematics to reinforce

361
my belief, and it also makes me WANT to seek more and learn more so
that I can better understand this world that was designed so magnificently
and intelligently.

I know that my arguments will not sway some of the great minds that I
have been reading in this list. I also know that they may seem somewhat
childish, but please just take this: science and God don't have to be the
antithesis of each other; they can and probably should coexist.
RE: Whole Series
Carl Benjamin
05/15/2008
What if we consider that we are all imbued with some power or division of
god or godliness. We feel love; we have a level of intelligence; in the
majority; we care for our and other's existence; we strive to survive at the
highest level. Are we pushing "God" to some elusive cloister in the sky
when we should be looking at ourselves first?
RE: Whole Series
Christina Leatha
05/15/2008
Belief in the intricacies of any religion can certainly be refuted by science.
However, as much as humans can ever possibly know on a scientific level
about the universe, the question of God and meaning will ultimately come
to this: why not Nothing? We can discuss and debate ad nauseam all
things within our universe (intelligent design, divinity, miracles, etc.), but
when we take the step outside of ourselves and the space we inhabit (the
universe) and take a larger view of our conundrum, it begs the question: if
there is no meaning, no God, why is there not Nothing? Or put another
way, why does matter exist?

It is a simple question, but if one can fully grasp it and its implications, it
seems to me that belief in at least some sort of meaning (albeit
unknowable) beyond the physical, observable universe makes logical
sense. It isn't something that can go against science--it is a matter outside
of science, since we can only know the space we inhabit, much like a fish
can only know the space inside its bowl. Consequently, belief in absolutely
no type of God or meaning behind existence seems illogical and myopic. If
there is absolutely nothing behind matter's existence, nothing should exist
at all.
RE: Whole Series
Charles
05/15/2008
The topic about science making God obsolete suggested to me a solution
to the "theory of evolution" battles. A simple name change, from
"evolution" to the more scientifically descriptive "theory of biological
change" would unleash scientific curiosity about how biological change
occurs, including the latest stuff on DNA, genes, and gene expression--this

362
is the science that really matters but it is too rarely reached in fights over
"evolution." How plants and animals change is the real scientific question.

We should respect some people's religious beliefs about "evolution" and

stop diverting good science. They are two different and legitimate
subjects, both deserving respect. Science doesn't make God obsolete
when the two worlds are recognized and words that are insulting to either
world are not used.
RE: Whole Series
Jerry Schleifer
05/15/2008
Differences of opinion require playing on the same ball field--the
boundaries established by rules of definition. By accepting Webster's
definitions, God and science are not likely cohabitants. Faith:
"unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence." Science:
"the state or fact of knowing." The question "Does science make belief in
God obsolete?" defies rational discussion. Believers believe that which
their brains refute.
RE: Whole Series
Vadis Frone
05/15/2008
Science can make belief in God obsolete, but it will never make God
obsolete. It does not seem possible that an explosion could create order
within our solar system with the planets circling the sun. What about the
angle of the earth and the force of gravity? What about the systems within
our earth like water from the ocean evaporating and creating clouds which
are blown across the land, cooling, dropping as rain, nourishing the earth
on the way back to the sea?

Some people have never read much of the bible for themselves. Even
people who do attend church. It really doesn't matter much what we
believe. Our belief will not slow or halt what God is going to do. We come
into this world just for a moment, what can we do? We cannot even decide
not to die. No matter what we think, our ultimate control is very limited.

The media and the population have been sucked into the belief in science
vs. reading and understanding about the true and living God. But
nonetheless, even if 100% of people stopped believing in God because of
science, it would not negate God.
RE: Michael Shermer
David Young
05/15/2008
A more "scientific" approach toward religion may actually produce a
greater understanding of it. Michael Shermer's presentation of the "data"
regarding Mormon belief is a bit, well, sloppy. Mormon was the second to
the last of a series of prophets that lived in the "Americas" between

363
400BC-600AD. He abridged the writings of these prophets into one
volume. The book carries his name for that reason.

The Mormon belief is that in 1820, God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ
appeared to the boy Joseph Smith as he was inquiring through prayer
which of all religions was the right one to join. He was told not to join any
of the churches and that through him they would restore the true and
living Church as it existed at the time of Christ. Part of this restoration was
the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Joseph was shown where this
record was buried by an angel named Moroni. Moroni in his mortal life was
Mormon's son, and the last of these prophets who hid this record before
he died approximately 600AD. Joseph Smith was given the power from
God to translate this record through various means. This translation is
what constitutes the Book of Mormon and why members of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints carry the nickname of "Mormons."

Would you present any "scientific" statistics or findings as nonchalantly as

you presented Mormon beliefs as evidence for your argument? What about
dismissing, without thorough and proper research, what is a most
remarkable book that would certainly provide some sound answers to the
question of God? The Book of Mormon is as tangible as any "evidences"
provided by the scientific method.
RE: Whole Series
Kathryn McKinney
05/15/2008
I wouldn't say that science has no impact on the beliefs of the religious. It
certainly has an impact on my own perceptions, and I consider myself a
religious, although non-denominational, Jew.
RE: Whole Series
George Edwards
05/15/2008
Science deals with the comprehensible; belief in God is spiritual and not
subject to the logic associated with the scientific method. If your heart
does not grasp an appreciation of the Almighty, then your brain will easily
dismiss any linkage to the hereafter or theology in general.
RE: Whole Series
Neville Zwickey
05/15/2008
Whether belief in god (gods) is obsolete is the wrong question. Better to
ask if it is a waste of time. To this, I concur.
RE: Steven Pinker
Bin Srinidhi
05/15/2008
It is true that the need for God has decreased as a result of science. In
economic terms, this "need" has now become more of a "want." We still
want to believe in a comforting and healing God that could be more

364
effective than counseling. We want to believe in a God who might insure
us from a destruction of order and structure in the universe. Viewed this
way, God makes our lives richer and more comfortable. Just as we don't
need poetry or art to live but want them to enrich our thoughts and
sensibilities, just as we don't need this debate to live but want it to satisfy
and comfort our deeper curiosity, so also we don't need a belief in God to
live our lives but want it all the same to comfort us, satisfy us and enrich
us.

Our wants are fulfilled by diverse products and concepts, customized and
branded in different ways. So also do we have a demand for diverse
concepts of God and religions. Just as the producers of one brand try to
increase their market share by catering to the wants of more people, so
also do different "brand" religions try to propagate and improve their
market share. Overall, I do not see the belief in God as becoming obsolete.
Rather, it has a strong demand that is being satisfied by a myriad of
religions, cults, and Godheads.
RE: Whole Series
Mohammad Nasser Khan
05/15/2008
Science must have failed if it has so far not found itself agreeing to the
existence of God. Whatever semblance of discipline in the universe we see
is entirely due to the will of God. A scientist might gain the ability to
conquer this world and many other worlds beyond this one, and yet it
would merely be a passing phenomenon or else all these notable scientists
and philosophers would not be pulling each others hair in this forum. The
mere fact that all these people with incredible knowledge are forced to
debate God demonstrates God's power and will over these mortals.
RE: Whole Series
Wolfgang Somary
05/15/2008
Who are we that believe or disbelieve? Let us first answer that question. If
we observe and experience, we need no missionaries; but if our assertions
are based on belief, we do, because we are constantly busy convincing
ourselves.
RE: Whole Series
Anne Ronan
05/14/2008
Will science ever make hunger obsolete? Not without changing the very
nature of the human being. Neither could science ever completely remove
the human need for belief systems, unless we all end up drugged. What
science could do is make blind faith in the human constructions of the
manifestation of god--the books and the laws--obsolete with wider
education on the origins of those artifacts. They, not the need for spiritual
belief, cause problems and directly contradict science. Why waste time on
the abstract when you can deal with the concrete?

365
RE: Whole Series
Bob Werme
05/14/2008
Belief in God as a human-writ-large has been rendered obsolete by the
advances of modern science and the knowledge of our universe this
science has cataloged. This is the deity who makes things that humans
can barely imagine (but would if we could), who sees things we can't see,
knows things we can't know, lives longer, travels further, jumps higher
(don't remember if that's in the catechism)--a self-projection, a highly
exaggerated image of ourselves or, as biblical religion calls it, an idol.
There may be divinity that is not predicated on human categories, and
since science and knowledge are human categories, these cannot render
such divinity obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Andrejs Ozolins
05/14/2008
Of course not! When has rationality ever dampened the pursuit of non-
rational aims or ideas? Science has no impact on the beliefs of the
religious--except when it is misinterpreted and provokes still more
irrational outbursts of defensiveness or hostility.
RE: Whole Series
Matt Risolia
05/14/2008
Of course science doesn't make belief in God obsolete! It never will. God is
taken as a matter of faith. We don't look for or want proof of his existence.
Proof would negate the need for faith and undermine most religions.
Science explains God's creation, in my eyes.
RE: Whole Series
Robert J. Dillon
05/14/2008
I agree with many of the comments by both the authors and the public
responders. I feel that there are those who psychologically need to have
some outside influence in their decisions. For them, a god is a way of not
accepting that most of the things that happen in life are a matter of
personal decisions or random chance. In these times of conflict and
economic turmoil, people turn to religion as an explanation. If young
people in many of these areas felt they had a chance of affecting their
futures, I do not believe they would be so ready to say a god controls all
events. As these are all expressions of personal beliefs, there is no
relationship to scientific analysis. We may use science to explain many
things. But when a person uses belief as an explanation, facts have no
influence. I hope that the more events and other mysteries are explained
by science, there will be less dependency on belief. There are those who
feel so strongly that they can not affect their lives that they will always be
dependent on some god's determination. We cannot change that, we just
have to work to minimize their influence on others.

366
RE: Whole Series
Frances Horton
05/14/2008
An unanswered question is never obsolete. There's no evidence to support
or deny the existence of God. Until such time as evidence is uncovered,
the question remains open and, therefore, valid.
RE: Steven Pinker
Robert Burkhardt
05/14/2008
Human science is inherently limited by human sensory perception.
Although technology has enhanced our perception of the universe, the
phenomena that we cannot naturally perceive must be translated into
data that we can access by our natural human sensory perceptions.
Technology has therefore revealed to us that the creation conceals vast
truths about itself which before our species could not know naturally. If
creation is more wonderful and vast than we can know, then it seems that
the Creator of it must be much more so. And since we as humans are self-
aware, intelligent, emotional, moral persons, then the Creator of such
human personality must be much more so Himself.

So, to deny the Creator's existence is inherently close-minded and

arrogant, in the same way a worm without eyes would confidently deny
that a rose is red. Regardless of the worm's denial and limited perception
of the world above him, roses are still red. We humans know that. So how
would a human explain to a worm that a rose is red? And how would God
explain Himself to a human being? Perhaps a human could do something
wonderful and become a worm to explain red roses to all of wormkind?
And perhaps God could become human and explain the Heavenly Father
to all mankind?
RE: Steven Pinker
Rob G
05/14/2008
Give me a break. If there were no God, where did science come from?
Were we just born with all this knowledge? No, it had to come from
somewhere.
RE: William D. Phillips
Jane Dean
05/14/2008
Thank you, Dr. Phillips, for helping me to synthesize what used to be a
division between my knowledge of science and my faith. I thought I would
never be able to reconcile the two. You and Dr. Miller have clarified the
issues and have "helped me over my blind spot."
RE: Whole Series
Rhonda Miller
05/13/2008
Science estimates that there are at least 50 billion stars in our galaxy and

367
that there are at least another 50 billion galaxies in the universe with 50
billion stars (suns) in each galaxy. This puts the minimum amount of stars
in the universe at 2.5 x10^18. There are more stars in the universe than
there are grains of sand on every beach on earth. Our solar system alone
has 8 or 9 planets (depending who you ask). The thing I find interesting is
a question that I have never seen asked or answered. If you believe that
there is a god, how can we humans be any more than ants or microbes to
a god that created the entire universe?
RE: Whole Series
JWC
05/13/2008
Some sophisticated persons are perfectly willing to "believe" in the
existence of extra-terrestrial life, without a shred of evidence to support
such a belief other than extrapolations based on Earthly experience. The
search for such evidence continues. Some sophisticated persons are
perfectly willing to "believe" in the existence of God, without a shred of
evidence to support such a belief other than extrapolations based on
Earthly experience. The search for such evidence continues. Let us cherish
the search!
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Shipley
05/13/2008
Yes, of course it does. We do not have to pray for rain, fertile fields,
healing of illnesses, heirs, or wisdom from leaders. We can think and do
instead. As soon as the vast majority of people begin to adopt this notion, I
can stop having to deal with hallucinations in my daily life.
RE: Whole Series
Mac B James Makheru
05/13/2008
Science cannot make God obsolete. Arrogant pseudo-intellectuals, inflated
with their own brilliance, will never perceive anything greater than
themselves. "Science" IS religion. The two subjects have been set in
opposition, but the reality is that they share the same base--observation.
The esoteric "mysteries" of antiquity were developed from the
observations of men over extremely long periods of time. Though we
understand magnetism on an atomic level, it does not diminish the
magnificence of the phenomenon. We in arrogance dismiss it as
"common" and fail to perceive the Divine Wonder. Our ancestors looked at
magnetism in a different manner. They said Mars went into Venus, and
Eros (and Anteros) were born. Inflated men call our ancestors imaginative
and without foundation. They cannot perceive the ultimate reality-- our
ancestors' truth. When Iron (Mars) goes into a Copper (Venus) coil it
produces attraction (Eros) and repulsion (Anteros). They may not have
understood magnetism in the way that we do, but to dismiss their
obervations as "foolish" is foolish, though those without eyes can not see.

368
I am a biologist, and biologically speaking, "science" has only proven the
existence of God. The idea that all life arose from a single life form is the
ultimate conclusion of evolutionary theory. By analogy, this asserts the
presence of god. In the beginning, God was alone and existed completely
unto himself, having all the capacities to produce all that would come
later. From an evolutionary perspective, the first life form was a single-
celled Life, that had within it the capacity to produce all the plants and
animals extinct and extant! Others would say "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the
beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him
nothing was made that was made." In this case, the Word is analogous
and homologous to evolution's first cell.

The theory that phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny has been discredited.

However, I ask the reader to remember that even (s)he was once a single-
cell complete unto itself, containing within it the capacity to produce
everything else. I speak of the moments after fertilization, and before the
waters divided (first division). One should also notice the larger analogy of
experience: the womb is the dark watery abyss from which the God
sprang, from darkness all are born into light. Science and religion are not
at odds; religion's problem is with history!
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Ginko8
05/13/2008
No, no more than created matter makes love obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
John A. Abernathy
05/13/2008
I feel secure in the knowledge that science can neither prove nor disprove
the existence of God. Simply put, proof one way or the other eliminates
the need for faith altogether, and faith is the basis for all religious belief. If
you get out the English language bible and read carefully the words of
Jesus, it is clear that he was, and is, instructing his followers to stop with
the religious tripe and get a life, which is good advice for those myopic
thinkers and hypocrites on both sides of this tired argument.
RE: Whole Series
Sophie Amrain
05/13/2008
Belief in God was obsolete even before the emergence of science, in the
sense of not being required for moral choices, world explanations,
community-building. Of course, one can use it for all these things, but it
never has been essential for them. Science has changed the balance a
little, for people who wish to understand, i.e., a small minority (which is ok,
a love of science is not required to lead a fulfilled life). Anthropology,
ethnology, and archeology have given us an understanding of the
evolution of the God concept in the human species. Physics has given real-

369
world explanations, including the origin of the universe; chemistry has had
things to say about the origin of life; biology has had lots to say about the
evolution of the species; and the neurosciences have contributed greatly
to understanding of our mind and even our propensity for religion. Hey, it
is an evolutionary thing!
RE: Whole Series
Linda Delfs
05/13/2008
When I heard of this effort, I knew we had been here before. Read these
excerpts from an 1881 speech by Anglican Bishop JB Lightfoot on modern
science: "If we are wise we shall endeavour to understand and to absorb
these truths. They are our proper heritage as Christians, for they are
manifestations of the Eternal Word, who is also the head of the
Church. . . . Astronomy was thought to menace Christianity. Before we
were born the menace had passed away. . . . Geology next. We are old
enough, many of us, to remember the anxiety and distrust with which its
startling announcements were received. This scare, like the other, has
passed away. . . . We admire the providential design which through
myriads of years prepared the earth by successive gradations of animal
and vegetable life. . . . Our theological conceptions have been corrected
and enlarged by its teaching, but the work of the Church of Christ goes on
as before. And now,in turn, Biology concentrates the same interests, and
excites the same distrusts. Will not history repeat itself? If the time should
come when evolution is translated from the region of suggestive theory to
the region of acknowledged fact, what then? Will it not carry still further
the idea of providential design and order? Will it not reinforce with new
and splendid illustrations the magnificent lesson of modern science--
complexity of results traced back to simplicity of principles--variety of
phenomena issuing from unity of order--the gathering up, as it were, of the
threads which connect the universe in the right hand of the One Eternal
Word?"
RE: Whole Series
Elizabeth
05/13/2008
People are given science and can run one of two ways with it. They can
choose to say the science proves there is no God or they can use it to
prove there is a God. It's all a matter of what they want the science to say.
We aren't going to be able to prove exactly whether God does or does not
exist--there are too many arguments on both sides. It's a matter of faith . .
. or a determined lack of it.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Onsted
05/13/2008
Admit it or not, God is only as personally real as any individual wants to
pretend him to be. While I certainly do not deny the existence of a cosmic
soul, collective consciousness, over-soul (call it what you will), it differs

370
vastly from the concept that the ancients called "God," which they created
in their own image. This image of a divine, omniscient, and omnipotent
parent figure is one that modern man must be willing to shed as he takes
increasing responsibility for his own lot in life, but that takes courage and
maturity. Just as few children are willing to admit that there is no Santa
Claus for fear of not waking to a pile of gifts on Christmas morning, neither
is the spiritually immature person willing to waken from the childhood
dream of pretense by accepting that God is as real to him as Santa is to a
child.

Relatively few believers are willing to admit that, just as man is the cause
of most of his earthly problems, so also is he both capable of, and
responsible for, addressing those problems rather than sitting back
praying for some heavenly parent to intervene and make everything all
better in one fell swoop. Unless, and until, we are ready to grow-up and
assume control and responsibility for our own lives and fates, we cannot
but continue the dream of the magical child who sleeps away his potential
as God-in-transition. Just as every chick was meant to leave the nest in
which it hatched, so too was man intended to spread his wings and
provide for his own sustenance.
RE: Whole Series
Richard B. Firestone
05/13/2008
As a scientist who has worked broadly in the areas of chemistry, physics,
and biology, I can say with great confidence that science can tell us
everything we want to know about how the world around us works, but
practically nothing about why it works that way. Thus we can rule out the
more fantastic stories in the bible, like creation and immaculate
conception. But these are truly stories written about man by men and
have nothing to do with God. God is our window to the why of our
existence, and to the extent that he gives us comfort and moral direction,
his existence is justified and cannot become obsolete. Religion on the
other hand may become obsolete when it assigns attributes to God that
violate the laws of science. Faith-healing and rain dances won't work any
better than the law of averages can allow. If God exists, he reveals himself
through the beauty and complexity of science itself. If God doesn't exist,
then the universe is a cruel, meaningless, inexplicable joke. We can
choose to believe that God exists without violating any law of science, and
this freedom of choice guarantees that God cannot become obsolete.
However, unless God shows himself to us and becomes part of the
physical world, he is only a belief and beyond the purview of science. Of
course, if he does show up, all scientific bets are off.
RE: Whole Series
Frank
05/13/2008
To Jerry Schleifer: you yourself are proof of a universal intelligence or God.
If you cannot figure it out, the problems lies within you not within the

371
question itself.
RE: Whole Series
Chle'
05/13/2008
In 1978 two significant events took place in my life. In September I
received my degree as a nuclear physicist, and in December, I was
ordained as a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses. When people learn that I
am a scientist as well as a Witness, they often wonder how I reconcile my
scientific knowledge with my belief in the Bible. Granted, for years I too
wondered whether scientific knowledge and belief in the Bible could go
together. Eventually, though, I became fully convinced that the Bible is in
harmony with scientific fact.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Kent Lyon
05/13/2008
"Oh World, thou choosest not the better part. It is not wisdom to be only
wise and on the inward vision close the eyes, But it is wisdom to believe
the heart. Colombus found a world and had no chart but one that faith
deciphered in the skies. To trust the soul's invicible surmise was all his
science and his only art. Our knowledge is a torch of smokey pine that
lights the pathway but one step ahead, across a void of mystery and
dread. Bid, then, the tender light of faith to shine by which alone the
mortal mind is led unto the thinking of the thought divine." --Santayana

Dr. Kauffman, your wonderful essay made me think of Santayana's poem.

Thanks.
RE: Steven Pinker
Grahm Foster
05/13/2008
In response to Steven Pinker's essay: Morality cannot be, in essence, just
the interchangeability of perspectives. For example: If it was decided
agreeable to allow lying when pertaining to self-preservation (survival)
within any structure--meaning you lied and resolved it as ok to expect
lying from others within these structures--then you would have a
cheapening and breakdown of trust, relationships, life, etc. This would be a
poor direction for society, but it fits underneath the blanket of your
statement. If there is a higher moral code, where did it come from and by
whom? Certainly not by the structures and institutions throughout history,
because they have always fallen. What is right has always been
unwavering; whether suppressed or destroyed, it remains the same and
still known. And this was not created by people who are better and more
important then everyone else in a different time. It also wasn't created
over time; it appears to have always been understood.

In response to Jerry Schleifer's comment below: Emotion has nothing to do

with the basis of religious belief. That makes for a tragic religion,

372
especially since one's emotional state is subject to the mind.
Unfortunately, the term religion has always been bastardized. Not much of
what the word stands for has anything to do with the God of the Bible.
RE: Whole Series
W. Paul Dammann
05/13/2008
As a scientist and believer myself, I find the essays of my fellow believers
who are distinguished academicians to be intriguing in their substance and
style. Unfortunately, the formulation of the question forces them to treat
God phenomenologically, rather than as the Heavenly Father that I know
and on whom I have come to rely. There is a mistaken notion that our
western society and many who call themselves scientists have about
science. It is that science can tell us more than can be measured. It just
isn't so. Any statement based on measured data which extends beyond
the samples in space or time is an extrapolation. Modern science cannot
tell us what happened 200,000 years ago. It can tell us what the carbon
isotope ratios in a piece of fossil bone are today. Any extrapolation into
the past from there is based on faith in today's understandings of
biochemistry. The foundations of science are built on "first principles" that
are assumed to apply universally. Faith is applied in the secular sciences
all the time. To suggest that faith in science could somehow make faith in
God obsolete just doesn't hold up under even a cursory analysis.
RE: Whole Series
Barry Pearson
05/13/2008
Adam Scott (05/11/2008) said: "Think of this: if science says that matter
cannot be created or destroyed, then there are really only a few
possibilities." Science says no such thing. It DOES say energy (rather than
matter) is conserved, which is a different statement. Victor J. Stenger
makes the case that the total energy of the universe is zero. (He goes into
more details in one of his books.)

Harvey Moxness (05/12/2008) said: "I think that non-believers would

accomplish the most good by focusing on the bad results of religion." That
says nothing about whether god/Gods exist. Indeed, given that the God of
the Old Testament is probably the most evil creature in human literature,
if that God existed, the universe would probably have lots of devastation
and evil in it.

Keith Kwiatek (05/12/2008) asked: "In any case, I always want to ask
scientists who claim not to believe in God what they think will happen
after their physical bodies die. Do they really think that they are simply
evolved bio-mechanical machines whose life energy returns to the
cosmos?" Plenty of such scientists have given the answer. Yes, they
believe we are evolved bio-mechanical machines. They don't believe in the
concept of a "life energy" separate from the physics and chemistry of the
body--no "elan vital." They (and I) believe that when our brains die, we will

373
never experience anything again. It won't be unpleasant--we will be back
to the state we were in before we were conceived.

Keith Kwiatek (05/12/2008) also said: "This fact is evidenced ..." There is
no such evidence! There is no good reason to believe that the Bible isn't
just text written by ignorant people centuries ago without divine input. It
certainly can't be used as evidence for its own truth!
RE: Whole Series
Doug Janelle
05/13/2008
Jerry Schleifer states: "give me that one iota of proof of an omnipotent God
and I will gladly and humbly bend my knee. But the whole premise of faith
is that it does not require proof. For believers, no proof is required; for
non-believers, no proof is enough. If the proof he requires was possible,
faith itself would be obsolete. Jesus said to Thomas, "You believe because
you have seen me; blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."
I am a firm "believer" in science and the value it provides society, yet I
also believe in God. This is not contradictory. To be of a scientific mind,
and not to believe in God, limits the glory of the universe. It is a painting
with just two colors, or music with only two notes. While there is some
merit to both of those, they are ultimately limited. Allowing ourselves to
accept that the Almighty exists within the universe, and at the same time
beyond the universe, places science in context. It demonstrates the
humility of man and gives meaning and value to all the truths that sceince
uncovers. Science without God is a pessimist's view of the universe.
RE: Whole Series
Jerry Schleifer
05/13/2008
Whenever I ask for just one iota of proof of God's existence, invariably the
retort is, "Can you prove God doesn't exist?" How does one prove or
disprove a negative? Why bother? Emotion, the basis of religious belief, is
subjective, so it is outside the realm of objective discussion. The question
"Does science make belief in God obsolete?" has no relevance to science
or, for that matter, to God. Negativism refutes both question and answer.
Yet, give me that one iota of proof of an omnipotent God and I will gladly
and humbly bend my knee.
RE: Whole Series
Gilbert Cantlin
05/13/2008
When we distinguish between mythology and poetry, between the
illiteracy of ancient times and present knowledge about our universe and
ourselves, yes, religion recedes. It may still be used as a poetry of life, but
that poetry can be very incomplete and misleading and diverts attention
from the continually increasing knowledge we gain through time and
experience.
RE: Whole Series

374
Brian Schreiner
05/13/2008
During my freshman-year high school biology class, I learned that, in
science, proving a negative is impossible.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Griffihts
05/13/2008
This debate is well meaning but pointless. No scientific advances can ever
obliterate faith or God, as it will always be possible for religion to do what
it has done in the past--back away from any specific propositions that have
proven to be false. We may make some progress on this matter when we
are in a position to do the next generation of brain research that reveals
why some need faith and others don't, but until then we are whistling in
the dark.
RE: Whole Series
Sergio Nevel
05/13/2008
As I see it, the fundamental question is, "Is god knowable?" If yes, then
how and by whom? If not, then what we have defined to be god is a
creation of man. Rabbi Joseph Albo, in the fifteenth century, asserted that
"If I knew him I would be him." This statement opens or closes the
discussion. We either are god, or we cannot know god. If we cannot know
god, the discussion is moot. If we are god, then we have the power of
creation and can invent the universe to our liking, including the invention
of a being that orchestrates the universe.

At our current level of consciousness, we will never know if we created

god, if god created us, or if it was all randomness. Nevertheless, the mind-
blowing mysteries of the universe certainly prove our insufficiency and
may provide a glimpse at the unknowable mind of god. I know that I will
never know, but the unfolding questions and answers that adventurers of
the physical (scientists) and adventurers of the soul and spirit
(philosophers, mystics) provide will continue to create a worthwhile drama
and meaning for me in my life. This is sufficient.
RE: Whole Series
Rhonda Miller
05/13/2008
The answer to whether god is obsolete is no. Today god is like Santa Claus
for adults. If you are a good boy or girl, you are rewarded with going to
heaven or the 72 virgins, and if you are bad you won't have any presents
and you go to hell. Whether or not god is obsolete is actually asking
whether man is ready to be moral for the sake of morality and not for
some artificially created reward. God will truly be obsolete when man
respects the rest of his environment, because it has the same right to
exist as man does. Science forces man to acknowledge that he is only a
part of the universe, not a special entity destined to exist eternally in one

375
form or another. Much of religion is based upon fear of the wrath of god,
which I interpret to be reactions to the weather or earthquakes and the
like.

Does man use god as a crutch? To gather strength when sick? To pray for
something in want or need? If man had to give up these delusions, where
would he look to find inspiration? If you are allowed to give all of the credit
to god when something good happens or if you have a special ability that
allows you to excel above others in a given field, what does it mean when
you are ordinary or deficient in some manner? Is god punishing you for
being wicked?

Today we know that Hurricane Katrina began as a storm off the coast of
Africa that traveled across the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean and
slammed into the Gulf Coast. But still there are ministers in this country
who say the storm is retribution for the existence of homosexuals in New
Orleans. One hundred or even one thousand years ago this story would be
difficult to challenge. But today, because of science, we can watch a storm
form from beginning to end, and yet there are those among us who
believe that our moral behavior controls the weather but not the fact that
we are plowing, chopping, and burning this planet for our pleasure.

We live in a world built upon science, from the airplanes that fly to
microprocessors to splitting atoms. But religious people often deny science
when it benefits their viewpoint. Evolution comes to mind. I believe that
science is the bridge that takes humanity from where we were to where
we are going. Science shapes us as we move into the future. As our
knowledge grows, we learn that the goodness of man is not due to some
supernatural being but because we are essentially good. God won't be
obsolete until we learn that we each create our own reality and learn to be
good for goodness sake.
RE: Whole Series
Joel LaPinta
05/12/2008
The most competent response to the question came from Mary Midgley. I
strongly suspect this is because her primary m�tier is philosophy, and the
question is properly understood as a philosophical question. Statements in
science can only have meaning in the context of assumptions about reality
in general. Belief in God is a manifestation within certain cultural traditions
of the need for any human who seeks to justify her actions to make
assumptions about reality. Immanuel Kant famously demonstrated that
the assumptions of rationality are by necessity assumptions of morality.
But just as famously, he left out the details. People accumulate a lot of
arbitrary assumptions about reality that contribute to their world view.
What is most interesting is how these other assumptions can lead to
conflicts between moral actors.

376
Perhaps you would consider a follow-up question. I would like to suggest:
Is science possible without moral assumptions about our world? Or
perhaps a better choice of words would be: Can human science exist
without human values? Of course, phrasing the question in this way
exposes the silliness of some of the essayists' responses.
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Bert
05/12/2008
There is so much wrong with religion and with the very silly ideas it
promulgates that Sapolsky's hanging on by a fingernail isn't worth the
effort. Sure, ecstasy--the wow in things--is wonderful, but religion as a
whole stands in the way of authentic ecstasy. When societies went to
monothesism, we lost authentic experience for externalized, dead
experience. Maybe the animists were closer to ecstasy.
RE: Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy
Richard Lewis
05/12/2008
I heartily agree with the point made in Hoodbhoy's very first paragraph:
that science has established that God does not interfere with the working
of the physical world. There is a very good theological reason for this: so
that we can be children, not robots, who have the dignity of creating
themselves.
RE: Whole Series
Donald Knox
05/12/2008
Yes, if by "God" is meant the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god who is more like
a super-Oriental Sultan than anything else. No, if by God is meant the
Intelligence behind the Creation. Consider the enormous improbability of
the chance "happening" of a self-reproducing organism and the even more
improbable chance happening of a second self-reproducing organism
which feeds on the waste of the first and who's waste is food for the first.
RE: Whole Series
Eleni Bastea, Ph.D.
05/12/2008
I support your organization's efforts to examine the Big Questions, but I
was disappointed to see no women included in the advertisement that
appeared in this week's Economist (May 10-16).
RE: Whole Series
Michael A. Wooten
05/12/2008
Neither of the answers to this question is proven or debunked. To say
which is more likely is relative to the selective evidence of each side's
proponents. The creationist theory is naturally more vulnerable to attack
because of its long standing as the ultimate truth. But neither is the theory
of natural selection proven. Both should be criticized and micro-analyzed

377
equally. The data and knowledge that come as a result should be taken
seriously, and we should be open to the possibility that both probably do
hold some weight. The combined knowledge of both could lead to a new
theory, prove one or the other, or prove them to be complimentary. The
thirst for knowledge, not the spite to debunk, should be the motivating
factor involved in this discussion and in science.
RE: Whole Series
Nathan Shippee
05/12/2008
Teaching evolution as a dual process is the problem. Evolution is an open-
ended process that proceeds from the simple to the complex until it
reaches the highest point of complexity of interacting parts and fusion
takes place, thereby developing a new entity. Evolution is clearly marked
by a series of "jumps" over billions of years, which are now accelerating so
that the last "jump" was only 2500 years ago. As a frame of reference,
these stages are identified as the fin, the foot, the wing, the thumb, the
mind, and now emerging: the Sensorium Age.

All the stages of life are present today and are visible to the eye. What
next? Edgar Mitchell discovered this on his way back from the moon while
viewing the earth. He saw the earth and the vastness of the universe as
more than material--as spiritual. After his return he founded the Institute
of Noetic Science for further exploration. He "jumped" out of his science
consciousness and into his noetic consciousness as he came to realize that
the science consciousness that got him to the moon was not enough.

And so, in the words of Buckminster Fuller, "In order to change something,
don't struggle to change the model. Create a new model and make the old
one obsolete." Don't struggle over science, which is based on proof. Don't
struggle over religion, which is based upon faith. Simply reframe the
context of your Big Question about evolution. Accept that evolution is an
emerging process, marked by a series of "jumps." New name: emergent
evolution.
RE: Whole Series
Nelson Grimes
05/12/2008
I don't think science makes belief in God obsolete. Science is a
methodology not a belief. The scientific method has been refined over the
centuries and is a way of organizing and analyzing the physical universe.
In its simplest form, you make an observation, create a hypothesis, create
a test that can be independantly verified, conduct the test, and analyze
the results. Then you state whether the results supported the hypothesis
or not. This has nothing to do with belief in God.

Before addressing belief, we must first agree on the definition of God. If

you define God as Aristotle did, in terms of the teleological argument, then
God is the force that acts on other things but is not itself moved. I think

378
the Big Bang would fall under Aristotle's definition. This is a very broad
definition and does not conflict with science. If you use the ontological
argument of St. Anselm, then God is the ordering force in the universe,
like a clock maker. But this is also a broad definition and does not conflict
with science, as scientists are continually amazed at the beauty of
organization on the subatomic as well as the galactic level. Even if you use
the earliest Christian definition of God, that "God is Love," which by
extension indicates that "To be in love is to have touched the divine," it
does not conflict. Even scientists fall in love, and love is an emotional
quality not a physical one. It still does not conflict with the scientific
method.

Problems exist only when one uses a very specific definition like the
Christian view that "God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent." Here we
have moved away from defining God as a quality to defining a specific
being. People who believe in this definition often see everyday occurences
as "God's will," when science can provide a logical reason. Science can't
prove or disprove the existence of God, but it might make people less
feaful when logical explanations are available.
RE: Whole Series
Tracey Martin
05/12/2008
It is absurdity that makes belief in god obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Keith Kwiatek
05/12/2008
Even among those essayists who purport to be Christians who believe in
God, their arguments seem to support the opposite. I see a very poorly
selected panel. There is much better representation (e.g., Guillermo
Gonzalez) of how the science of this world points to a living God. In any
case, I always want to ask scientists who claim not to believe in God what
they think will happen after their physical bodies die. Do they really think
that they are simply evolved bio-mechanical machines whose life energy
returns to the cosmos?

Clearly there is more than meets the eye going on with this world. Can a
scientist measure the qualities of love, compassion, and mercy, the very
real essence of what it means to be human and alive? If scientists cannot
measure such things, how can they know that they exist? Clearly they do
exist and yet remain unquantifiable to scientists.

If you look at the Old and New Testaments in concert with Jewish history,
you see a long dialogue with a living God--but a God more concerned with
the human heart and its flawed nature than with our knowledge of the
physical. This fact is evidenced by this same God taking on human form
and showing us how unquantifiable His love is: He would be beaten and
crucified and then suffer in hell so that we would not have to suffer there.

379
If we would only turn our unquantifiable human hearts toward Him and cry
out.
RE: Whole Series
David Downs
05/12/2008
Eloquent arguments on both sides. What troubles me is that many lay
blame on religion for all the world's ills. The Church did much damage,
sadly, and should be held responsible for its crimes, but what about
science? Hasn't science been misused? Hasn't science helped to create
everything from the atomic bomb to biological weapons? The problem has
never been religion or science; it is the bipedal carbon life-form named
man. Everything else is just his excuse.
RE: Whole Series
Brian Hastings
05/12/2008
When science attempts to explain the origins of life outside of any
intelligent input, it falls short. What is often missing from the evolutionist
propaganda is that it cannot successfully explain how life auto-generates
from nonorganic matter. The complexity of a feather is often glossed over
when making the leap from a reptile's scale. Eons of time are substituted
for actual knowledge, and then arguments are built that stifle debate. If
scientists disagree about evolution, which they do, then evolution remains
a theory, and a theory is not a fact. If we accept a theory as fact without a
means to test and prove that theory, we have stopped debate, and it
ceases to be science.
RE: Whole Series
Nate Morse
05/12/2008
Buyer, beware! Both concepts, science and God, are corruptible. To be
successful (helpful) they both rely on an open-mindedness that is difficult
for humans to achieve. Both have authoritative doctrines that are not
always helpful in allowing the truth to be seen or communicated.
RE: Whole Series
Jos� Ignacio Castro
05/12/2008
The correct answer to the question is "of course not." How poor would be
my God if its existence depended on the validity of natural laws! And I
refer only to natural laws because, if we are going to suppose that God
doesn�t exist, we also need to suppose that there are only "natural" laws.
The concept "God" can�t be proven to be man-made. All is a matter of
faith. In fact, I�m a scientist, a quantum physicist, and I agree with the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. I also agree with general
relativity inasmuch as it deals with "macroscopic" objects. Both theories
tells us that "materiality" is illusory: energy coming from the Higgs
interaction, having ponderable properties of inertia and gravitation.

380
We should consider the possibility of a God whose thinking (his "logos," his
Spirit) could be identified with the abstract (mathematical) concept of
physical energy. Nobody knows what energy "is" (see the famous
Feynman lectures); from our personal experience, we believe we know
better what the spirit "is." If all matter were the dreams of God, his Spirit,
nobody could tell that they are so: you need faith to believe this, but you
also cannot reject the idea. So God will be present in human minds until
the end of times.
RE: Whole Series
Rocky Bennett
05/12/2008
There can be no logical way that an intelligent person could ever believe in
a God with all of the scientific evidence pointing to a natural world.
RE: Whole Series
Konrad Kozik
05/12/2008
If we accept the common definition of "natural," there is nothing natural in
nature. Everything is planned--each blow of wind, each stroke of a sea
wave. Because everything is governed by science, by the laws of nature, it
is predictable. One can easly imagine an immense "computer," where
each piece of information related to the universe is stored. This fact of how
artificial our universe is makes me belive in an act of creation. Overall,
God did quite detailed work; but there is one place where he took a
shortcut: the fact that the final answer to each significant question stops
where a wall of infinity begins. It is a guarantee that no big question
concerning God will ever be answered.

God is not obsolete, but the "sacred books" probably are. Those were
written using a language, allegories, etc. that were meant for their
contemporaries. Some contain quite clear hints as to how to reach one's
full potential in life, while others give very good intuitive hints as to where
to look for at least partial answers. If you were to create a universe, you
would try to make it look "natural" by allowing for a random sequence.
How would you set things up? Would you create a "man" and "woman"? Or
would you start with an atom and, knowing the "rules," wait for it to
develop? Darwin, Wallace, Watson, and Crick prove the point.
RE: Whole Series
Eric McClure
05/12/2008
I don't think science renders God obsolete. I do think science allows for a
greater discussion of God for believers. Science also allows for atheism to
exist without the old fears of inquisition. Rational inquiry can in fact
strengthen faith and promote a deeper study of metaphysics. Further, it is
silly to assert the old childish argument that a loving and compassionate
God is not compatible with a violent and suffering universe. Any casual
reader of Dante, Virgil, or Kierkegaard can find that answer without acting

381
petulant. There is nothing rational about presuming human moral
considerations for a universal creator. Read Job.

I love science, and I love faith. Both are responsible for the good in man
and are equally responsible for the bad. From the inquisition to Stalin, faith
and science have much to answer for without slinging mud at one another.
We have to recognize that there is a human reason behind murder--and
you can see the roots of mass murder when you watch a child play with
soldiers.
RE: Whole Series
Harvey Moxness
05/12/2008
A very interesting series, good points on both sides. I think that non-
believers would accomplish the most good by focusing on the bad results
of religion. As for proving God exists, this is a job only God could
accomplish, easy for an all-powerful, all-knowing entity. I am awaiting such
proof, and until it appears, I remain a doubter. Sorry, God.
RE: Whole Series
Stan
05/11/2008
A major problem is that only one of two concepts is tolerated by the
media, i.e., creationism as propounded in the Bible or the evolution of
species by natural selection as put forth by Darwin. The more likely and
more scientifically supportable concept is "design evolution" with "block"
or model changes by an entity. But this concept does not seem to be
tolerable. The question is why.
RE: Whole Series
Frank
05/11/2008
God is the universal intelligence and force that everything is made of.
Without it, we would not exist. The reason many of us do not know or
understand God is that we tend to think of God in human and materialistic
terms instead of divine or spiritual terms. Science will never understand
God until it progresses to a spiritual level. In other words, scientists are
trying to find roses in the desert.
RE: Whole Series
Rob Fleischer
05/11/2008
Unlikely, but not obsolete. Wishful thinkers can have their happy god pills,
but when religion obstructs or obfuscates scientific inquiry (e.g.,
creationism, flat earth, Galileo), I object.
RE: Whole Series
Adam Scott
05/11/2008
I don't believe that Christians or scientists are "shooting themselves in the

382
foot" with the "first cause" argument. Though the question may not prove
the existence of God, it certainly does not prove the existence of a
Godless world. Think of this: if science says that matter cannot be created
or destroyed, then there are really only a few possibilities: (1) the world
has existed forever and was never created to begin with; (2) God has
always existed and created the world; or (3) both God and the world have
always existed. What this proves to me is not that anyone is shooting
themselves in the foot, but that none of these theories is any more
credible or empirical than the other.
RE: Whole Series
David Fahey
05/11/2008
Far too many people see atheism as being anti-God. It is not. It is merely
the disbelief in God due to a lack of evidence. It's really that simple. I am a
Taoist and do not believe in a supreme being. To me, God is a force not a
being. It's the force and intelligence and harmony within all of nature,
including ouselves. Is that not enough?
RE: Whole Series
James Brody
05/11/2008
(1) Debates of faith and religion are not only a Darwinian display but a
surrender to secularism: heritable preferences are treated as if erasable.
(Templeton plays fair, telling us in advance: "Supporting science,"
"education of the gifted," and "civil, elegant prose" and, therefore,
accepting discussion, rule-generation, and top-down responses to
challenges that arise from the bottom-up.) Even those inclined to keep
God around appear to do so on "progressive" terms!

(2) Darwin challenged top-down beliefs (cathedrals and species are both
products of a designer) with natural selection: cathedrals began with huts
and holes, species perhaps with bubbling clusters of viruses. However,
none of these thirteen essayists--not even the great Pinker--consider the
adaptive functions of religiosity, that it provides a "glue" for us in crisis
and in settled times, helps us to live in peace. Irony: scientists may find
themselves protected from members of one religion by members of a
different religion.

(3) There are reminders in these essays that religious authorities and their
soldiers have killed many of us. I remind everyone of the tens of millions
slaughtered, with no help evident from God or clerics, by Hitler, Stalin, and
Mao all in the name of making a better society for those who live
afterwards. And secularists now nourish the next great war by selling
fissionables to impulsive, territory-driven thugs. Hume (or Hobbes)
suggested that wars are motivated by gold, territory, and women. Those
drives are still with us, perhaps tempered by prenatal genomic imprinting
in different environments, but no amount of discussion will erase them,
and those susceptible to delay, discussion, and negotiation would be on

383
the sidewalk--gasping, bleeding, or dying--if engaged in a street fight
where Rule 1 is to hit the other guy first and do it while he's talking.
RE: Whole Series
Tim Gorski
05/11/2008
Although I accept the term "atheist," I would hasten to add that I do
believe in God in the same way that I believe in James Bond and John Luc
Picard. Since the discovery that the basis of life and living things does not
require a spooky/supernatural "vital essence," there has come to be little
or no need for deities to explain the workings of the universe. But the need
for the idea of a deity as superhuman, as the apotheosis of humanity, as
something that we strive for or seek to grow closer to, even if we never
quite attain it, remains. Nothing spooky about it, of course. It is just a part
of what Karl Popper drew our attention to when he wrote of ideas that are
unreal and, at the same time, have a real impact, like scientific theories
and other creations of the human imagination. Just because something is
pretend does not mean it has no value. Take a look at what the Disney
empire and its competitors have done with the imaginary!
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Robert Reck
05/11/2008
The answer to your question is probably "yes" if, as many do, one is
hypothesizing an anthropomorphic individual sitting in some Heaven
wearing a white robe with a big gold "G" sewn on the pocket. Most
religions have done humanity a great disservice by positing a limited
vision of God, tainted by the limited vision mankind can have of such a
Higher Power. One byproduct of these teachings has been egoistic and
dogmatic structures that ultimately propagate war, fear, and distrust
among huge segments of the world's population.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas
05/11/2008
What comes after death? What is the purpose of our existence? Is it
possible that we, who are part of this world, can explain it scientifically, in
total, as if we analyzed it from the outside? Don't we only see what we are
able to see? What is beyond nothingness? Don't we all want love, and is it
not a reassuring thought that love exists, maybe even beyond death?
What has science to say to these questions? Are they even allowed in
science, or are they dismissed as "unscientific"? Should they not be
passed on to philosophy? Have philosophers not passed them on to
religion? Have the philosophers of the Enlightenment not already
answered the question of this debate?
RE: Whole Series
Dave Blau
05/11/2008
It is interesting that words are so minced here. The idea of a god is a worn-

384
out, useless concept that has caused much of the suffering and conflict in
the world. The concept has no relevance to science. If god acted in the
world, that would mean that cause and effect would have to be discarded.

Morality has nothing to do with a god concept or with science. There is

always the question, Why is there anything instead of nothing? But a god
idea, especially the idea of a compassionate, loving god, is a complete
cop-out. As a number of these commentators mention, how does the idea
of a compassionate god fit with the reality that innocents are destroyed
and the violent rewarded?
RE: Whole Series
Alan Steinbronn
05/11/2008
What scientist would deny that Existence is a fact, that Existence exists?
What is Existence? Isn't it everything that exists? Isn't it the source of
everything that exists? I find the question "Is there a god?" to be
misleading. The more correct question is "Does Existence exist?" Here you
find the ridiculousness of the ongoing argument over god. Existence has
been mistakenly labeled "god."
RE: Whole Series
Barry Pearson
05/11/2008
Alessandro Machi asked (May 3): "What type of real evidence from ages
ago could a present-day scientist accept as proof of a God or a progeny of
God?" Imagine a sentence in a religious book similar to "Light travels from
the sun halfway to the Earth in the time that a man can hold his breath."
Think what a difference such a simple and unambiguous statement would
have made to current debates about whether religions are man-made. It
would be plausible to claim that science is now providing evidence for the
god of THAT book.

What we have instead is failure, across many centuries, by millions of

highly motivated people poring over every word of the various
(contradictory) books to find evidence of divine input that stands up to
scrutiny. We have bizarre attempts at post-hoc interpretations of verses to
match already-known scientific results, but nothing that speaks with
clarity. Then the task falls to theologians and apologists to make excuses
for the lack of the sort of evidence that we would demand for the simplest
court case.

Surely we can all agree that most gods and religions are man-made, even
if we don't identify which ones are. There are lots of gods, lots of religions,
and they contradict one another. We lack evidence for the existence of
any particular god, and we separately lack evidence for the identity of the
"one true religion" (if any) that might act as an authority. We wouldn't
need such evidence if religions were always practiced as hobbies among
consenting adults in private. It would then be up to practitioners to decide

385
what strength of evidence they need. It is when religions "step out of the
box" that we should ask for suitable evidence.
RE: Whole Series
Warwick Wakefield
05/11/2008
If I understand it correctly, science deals with the structure and behavior
of physical substance, and this includes non-solid substances such as light
and other energy forms. Science does not concern itself with
consciousness, and it does not possess the tools, either conceptual or
practical, to deal with consciousness. Many scientists are convinced that
consciousness can be reduced to material substance behaving in certains
ways, but the empirical evidence for this is non-existent, so this conviction
is no better than any other non-verifiable or non-falsifiable faith. This
conviction is deeply unscientific.

But everyone knows that consciousness is, and unless one is a solipsist,
everyone knows that others also participate in consciousness.
Consciousness can be explored, and the exploration of consciousness can
produce astonishing ontological insights. I do not think that it will ever
reveal the existence of a God, a personal God of the type that is pictured
in the Jewish, Muslim, or Christian religions, but I do think that astounding
discoveries have been made and are yet to be made. But they will not
have much to do with science.
RE: Whole Series
John
05/11/2008
Since science is hardly qualified to comment on the metaphysical, I don't
see how it can render belief in the metaphysical obsolete. The person who
has some explaining to do is the one who doesn't believe in God, believes
only in what he can see or what can be measured, and yet has values that
are remarkably similar to one who holds to some faith. Science is cold and
logical. It has no "soul," no ethics.
RE: Whole Series
Eric
05/11/2008
The Apostle Paul writes in Romans that "Humanity supresses the truth in
unrighteousness." Belief in God (or more accurately, the lack of belief in
God) is presented as an intellectual question. Yet it is more profoundly an
ethical and moral question. The truth of God is suppressed because of the
moral implications of this belief--that we can no longer live according to
our self-desiged and self-defined moral categories. As the title of C.S.
Lewis's "God in the Dock" implies, humanity desires to put God on trial.
But we are not the judge or the jury.

That Christians have failed morally is a testament to the wickedness of

man and further proof of our desperate condition. Atheists and agnostics

386
decry the suffering of innocents as proof of God's non-existence. Yet a
worldview that denies humanity's unique created status as compared to
other life forms should no more mourn the loss of a child to cancer than
the death of the bacteria on the sponge in the kitchen that I just ran
through the dishwasher. If the morality and eternality of the human
personality are illusions, then let us be done with it. Nietzsche's "will to
power" would be the only standard. Might and pure power, devoid of
conscience, would be the only rule. But then don't cry when the world
goes mad (like Nietzsche did).

As a Christian, I believe, as John writes in Revelation, that there will be a

day in the future when God will right all wrongs and there will be no more
tears. Until then, humanity has some hard lessons (and getting harder) to
learn about our own depravity and the grace of God, which is only offered
through Christ Jesus.
RE: Whole Series
Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi
05/11/2008
The parameters of scientific inquiry, discovery, exploration, and
investigation do not concern the concept of God or its existence. For
science to challenge God's omnipotence or omniscience is tantamount to
refuting the credo and objective of scientific knowledge.
RE: Whole Series
Recep Budak
05/11/2008
Science makes belief in God more current. If you look over space or
wherever you want on the earth, you can see the magnitude of God. Can
you see any fault in Genesis? If you look for a fault in this universe you are
going to come back tired to death. How can we not see the design at the
creation? How can we not see the very high mathematical planning in the
microcosmos and macrocosmos? If we can read the book of the universe,
science amplifies belief in God.
RE: Whole Series
David Hillstrom
05/11/2008
Religious beliefs are inconsistent with contemporary scientific knowledge.
Either the religious myths need to be radically revised or they must be
abandoned. Yet it is not only religious beliefs that are anachronistic. Many
secular assumptions that affect the organization of political systems are
suspect as well.
RE: Whole Series
Scott Covington
05/11/2008
The question is not "Do you believe in God?"--as if, by your belief, He
exists. The question could easily remain "How did all these miraculous
things designed by God evolve in the way He wanted?" Too many people,

387
on both sides of this wonderful argument, propose to claim exclusivity to
the answers. One does not necessarily preclude the other. Why does proof
supporting evolution or the "big bang" automatically negate the existence
of God? Why can't science explain the mysteries of how rather than the
mysteries of who? I'm equally disheartened by the number of Christians
who immediately block out the wonders and strides of science, as if the
two cannot coexist. If both sides of the argument could stop making the
unproven claims that science precludes faith or that faith has no room for
science, we may just reach a clearer understanding and truth that neither
side can fully understand or appreciate.
RE: Whole Series
J A Scott Kelso
05/10/2008
Does science make belief in God obsolete? The essays tend to line up on
one side or the other, just as one might expect. Why do we find it so
difficult to see faith and reason as complementary? Both are needed for a
complete understanding of ourselves and the world we live in. A strong
case can be made that apparently contrary aspects like nature and
nurture, mind and body, integration and segregation, competition and
cooperation, individual and collective, part and whole, reductionism and
emergentism--and yes, faith and reason--are mutually related and
inextricably connected via a remarkable unifying dynamic. This deeper
truth is grounded in a new principle of how the human brain works and in
the science of coordination dynamics.
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Alfred Levinson
05/10/2008
Victor Stenger gave a talk in January in Tucson, AZ on science and God. He
argued that science could explain everything about the universe and that
a god was not needed. I told him that if he rejected the need for a first
cause, then he must assume that the universe has always existed in some
form. I challenged him to produce a thought experiment that would test
that hypothesis. He was unable to. I again challenge Professor Stenger to
produce a thought experiment that would test his hypothesis. Bertrand
Russell failed a similar test in the 1920s.
RE: Whole Series
Lee Harrison
05/10/2008
I find this question in itself worthy of some discussion. It implies at best
that the only thing that matters about God is whether or not we believe in
Him, or at worst, that God is only a man-made construct that we can form
and choose to believe in as we find convenient. If the latter is true, then,
no, there certainly is no need for this man-made God; science is a more
convenient system to put your "faith" in. If the former, then we make the
same mistake as the church did in the time of Galileo, putting self-interest
ahead of the truth, whether it be in the placement of the Earth in the

388
universe or the placement of God in our lives. We should instead be
seeking the truth about God to the extent that we are able.

If a true supernatural God exists, His nature and form are independent of
whether we believe in Him or what we think He is like. It has always
seemed ludicrous to me to think that we can shape God in our own minds
or think him in and out of existence. Either He is, or He isn't. And if He is,
He is likely to be supernatural and thus beyond the ability of our "natural"
science to prove or deny.

But does this make Him impossible because He can't be "proven" in the
natural world? No, it doesn't--no more than it made subatomic particles
non-existent several centuries ago because the technology was not there
to discover them. They have always been there, as have all of the great
scientific principles.

If we seek the true God, we must look honestly in the way that good
scientists search for truth in the natural world, not to serve their own
interests but to attempt to understand and explain how and why things
are as they are. If there is a true supernatural God, we will only be able to
discover him by evidence He has put before us in the natural world. The
fact that this question is even being posed is an excellent bit of evidence
to start with.
RE: Whole Series
Robert Dryja
05/10/2008
Perhaps the expansion of scientific thought means that our conceptions of
God need to be reconsidered. It appears that the various authors have
various concepts of God in mind when they present their ideas. Is God
very personally and directly involved in this world or is God the distant and
disinterested first cause? To the degree that science-based empirical
rationalism dominates, a personally involved God becomes increasingly
obselete. To the degree that one has a humble appreciation of how little is
understood of the universe, space increases for some form of God.

Newton's comment about being like a child at the seashore who does not
recogize the large sea adjacent to him comes to mind. As I write these
sentences, I am wiggling my index finger. In terms of science, I can
explain its movement in relation to brain structure, neurons, muscles,
ionization waves, hydrocarbon molecules, and sub-atomic particles. As a
conscious person, I still do not understand why my finger wiggles simply
because I think I want it to do so.
RE: Whole Series
David Wilson
05/10/2008
Science has not made a skygod obsolete. Logic and reason have made a
skygod unnecessary. A skygod, an afterlife, and other such nonsense are

389
only of use to persons who cannot cope with the finality of death. They say
to their egomaniacal selves, "I am so important that I cannot possibly
come to an end." Wouldn't it be nice if the whole question were viewed as
obsolete? We could finally get on with the problems at hand, as a free and
intelligent species ought to, and make some sensible moves toward the
future without all this childish, desperate, and silly sociological baggage.
RE: Whole Series
Gene C. Sproul
05/10/2008
So far, science has been unwilling (unable) to accept any explanation
which involves supernatural causation. Religion, on the other hand,
accepts supernatural causation as the only explanation. A fundamental
fact which all religions (and many secularists) reject is that all thoughts,
feelings, beliefs, etc. are the exclusive product of the physical brain; there
is simply no other source.

No brain works perfectly all of the time; but most brains work well enough
to permit us to be cognizant of, and manipulate, physical reality; and
many brains work well enough to manipulate others to achieve the
remarkable social/physical existence most of us enjoy. As long as so many
seem to need a god(s) figment both to manipulate social reality and to
deal with it emotionally, it appears that a belief in supernatural causation
will certainly not be "obsolete."
RE: Whole Series
David Lusan
05/10/2008
I believe in God. I believe in his principles and am trying to follow them. I
do not believe that scientific knowledge will ever shake that belief,
because it is based on my faith. Sometimes I think that scientists think
that faith is some kind of superstitious nonsense that will be replaced
eventually by science. It will never happen, and I am willing to bet my life
on this. However, I can see how one can think so. The church, in general,
has not been a good example. On the contrary, today's church is more of a
bureaucracy than a ministry. But, to quote a song, "the lord is not the one
to blame."

My faith is very personal, and it is just as powerful as scientific proof. It is

based on who I am, not what I do. It is based on spiritual values, not
materialistic ones. Science has provided and will continue to provide
answers to questions. I believe in science, but it can never replace my
faith. It can, however, support and supplement it. In the long run, I do not
view science and faith as polar opposites. They are actually two sides of
the same coin. So for me, this debate is sort of pointless.
RE: Whole Series
Sean Henderson
05/10/2008

390
Not yet. When true scientific solutions for the human condition exist,
people will naturally forget about rationalization (belief in God).
RE: Whole Series
Stan
05/10/2008
The concept of a supreme entity isn't the problem, and that entity can
even be referred to as "God." The problem is that the concept has been
hijacked for reasons of favoritism and political usage. The first debate
should be on the concept of one God and whether or not that God has two
subordinates, one for Good and one for Evil, or if chaos reigns. Maybe the
conclusion would be that humans don't have the intellect to conceptualize
what is running the universe.
RE: Whole Series
Julia S Butler
05/10/2008
Science cannot make God obsolete, because without God, there would be
no science (or anything else). I refer you to Genesis 1:1. The will of man
and his ability as a "free agent" are gifts from God. The systems that make
our bodies work were not created by science. Case closed.
RE: Whole Series
Anthony Flint
05/10/2008
The Templeton Foundation is getting ahead of itself. A question to ask first
might be "What would happen if science were to prove that reincarnation
was a natural process?"
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Jim Soldini
05/10/2008
Christopher Hitchens points out, "Those who dare to claim to be [God's]
understudies and votaries and interpreters must either accept the cruelty
and the chaos or disown it." That point is even better made in Job. After an
attitude shift, Job accepted the cruelty and the chaos. The attitude shift
concerned who's will should be done. If God is inferior to me and is my
servant, then my will should be done. When events do not serve my
understanding of what's best for me, I can apply adjectives like cruel and
chaotic. If God is supreme, then events are His will, and all I can attempt is
to trust and to praise Him. This is horrific to the humanist because it cuts
to the core of the issue: is His Throne His or mine? Nevertheless, it is
reality.
RE: Whole Series
Jim Soldini
05/10/2008
For science to make belief in God obsolete, one must assume that God is a
human invention to explain the unexplainable and that this explaining God
is now obsolete. But the assumption is wrong; humans are a creation of

391
God, and God is the Author of cause and effect.
RE: Whole Series
Charles Forder
05/10/2008
The argument about the existence of God has gone on too long. It is now a
waste of good intellectual time. It is time for thinkers to examine the
human situation and try to agree about basic truths about human beings
upon which to build a philosophy of the future--which may find that God is
a necessary component!
RE: Whole Series
Gordon Black
05/10/2008
The answer is "extremely unlikely." God is the life force that pervades the
universe, looking for suitable ambient conditions and raw materials to get
started. God has the design for converting inanimate elements into stuff
with a structure, a metabolism, self-replication ability, and adaptive
intelligence. God then takes a back seat and lets the process rip, without
having a proto-anything in mind.

This type of debate between "scienceism" and "religionism" is spurious;

we should have "truthism," where nothing is certain but where every idea,
conjecture, hypothesis, and theory can be evaluated with a probability
between 0 and 1. Thus, "the moon is made of green cheese" would be
close to 0, and "the sun is at the center of the solar system" would be
close to 1.

Human ego-centricity and its remarkable self-delusion are the barrier to

rational inquiry; wrongly believing the Earth to be stationary at the center
of the universe, Ptolemy invented incredible planetary motions when the
truth was intuitively obvious; wrongly believing humans to be super-
special, theists have invented incredible myths when the truth of our
(highly advanced) animality is also intuitively obvious.

Everything in God's world is as it should be, ranging from the undesirable

(deadly, poisonous, biting, stinging, parasitic, genetically malformed anti-
social, psychotic organisms from bacteria to humans) to the desirable
(human spirituality with its vast variety of gregarious, altruistic, aesthetic,
and creative opportunities). I have had my fair share of both and can
clearly see that the terms "good" and "evil" are nonsense. My suggestion
for "truthists" investigating God is to start with water, which is so much
more than the sum of its parts.
RE: Whole Series
Wayne
05/10/2008
Not at all. In fact, it seems that we have met the ghosts and angels--and
they are us. Our long belief in and fascination with the metaphysical

392
aspect of our nature and the new revelations detailing the spirit world of
our birth and life between lives is now being confirmed by science. We are
learning through the aid of both quantum physics and regressive hypnosis
that human consciousness is not the epiphenomenon of neuronal brain
interactions but emanates from a transcendent domain (spirit world) and
is the co-creator of all material reality.

Now in making this wild claim, I am neither circumventing science nor

denying an ultimate Creator. I am simply describing our current level of
knowledge regarding the non-local and transcendent nature of the
quantum connectedness of primal particles through empirical science and
the revelations of discarnate soul memories of everyday people like you
and me through the use of advanced techniques of hypnotic regression. In
other words, our consciousness (intelligent spiritual energy) is a
manifestation of our primary soul and the product of a transcendent
reality.

Human testimony from recalled memories (albeit from a discarnate state

of being) and empirical science are now on the same page regarding the
existence of the soul (our conscious energy), which is transcendent and
separate from the physical body. The vast majority of scientists are
materialists and, despite the indisputable transcendent nature of quantum
objects, still believe we live in a closed system of reality and could not
possibly have any interaction with some other reality/domain. This would
somehow violate the sacredness of our understanding (natural laws) that
all things are in a constant flux between matter (quantifiable materiality)
and energy, and that nothing can be added to and nothing can be taken
away from what is already here, thus precluding any exchange with some
other domain of being. But there is a small but growing new cadre of
scientists who call themselves Monistic Idealists (as opposed to Dualistic
Materialists). This is a fancy name for those who now believe that
consciousness is the ground of all being rather than that all things are a
product of random molecular conglomerations.
RE: Steven Pinker
Lennart Svensson
05/10/2008
How can you even begin to compare God with science? Science has to
have evidence and proof, but God is based on faith and faith alone. If man
could prove God's existence scientifically, faith would immediately become
obsolete. The Bible, being the source of man's Godly wisdom, has been
proved true by archeologists and prophetically. The only way that man can
test the remaining spiritual facet is by faith, and I do believe that enough
men have gone before us and tested it sufficiently for us to say "it works--
God does exist." I also find it interesting that our learned friends in the
theoretical sciences readily discount the existence of God, by quoting
Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, etc., but those in the advanced physical
sciences have seen the created wonders in detail and generally believe in

393
God. My view is that the biblical account of creation is accurate if
somewhat unfortunately condensed in the first chapters of Genesis.
RE: William D. Phillips
Chris Mankins
05/10/2008
In history, almost all of the great minds in science have had the humility to
acknowledge a higher power. It is only relatively recently that it has
become such a dogma among scientists to forbid any dissent about the
total rejection of God. Entropy is a law of nature concerning how systems
decay and break down, leading to inevitable disorganization in the
universe. Yet it is believable to atheists, who ridicule believers for their
naivete, to accept that accidents in nature lead to increasingly complex
and organized genetic material. The only religious feeling driving the
debate about evolution is atheism. Believers know God can do anything,
even evolution, but Darwinists need evolution to be true or else they have
no explanation for their beliefs.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Fisher
05/09/2008
For those who have taken the trouble to study the question critically--in
depth, with an open mind, and with sufficient intelligence to understand
the arguments--any faith in the supernatural will be dispersed to the realm
of "unlikely." But life has always had a tendency to remove such people
from the gene pool because they are overly curious (or if you like,
insufficiently conservative), leaving them as a minority in a sea of
genetically successful conservatives, who don't push the limits or question
too much what they are taught and told. These less-curious conservatives
also prefer comfort to truth, and so they choose to believe what feels best.
The quote (from somewhere) is that if religion didn't exist, people would
invent it.

As life proceeds, diversity increases. Religion isn't going to go away, but it

will fragment and diversify into all manner of esoteric beliefs, some having
little to do with a conventional God, who is typically a pseudo-father figure.
RE: Whole Series
Herb Smith
05/09/2008
The question is absurd on its face. Science is an examination of the
attributes of God and therefore presents the face that man is capable of
discerning. God is infinite and man is finite, so man cannot comprehend
God exactly.

God needs no proof, but science proves God. Science informs man of the
intricacies of nature, the age and development of the earth, and the
probable cause and development of man through evolution, and it
theorizes about many aspects of life we cannot directly discern or explain.

394
But one fact is clear: science cannot explain why nature is so well
organized, so absolutely logical, so magnificantly intricate, and so patently
inexplicable in the final analysis.

God exists because my soul exists, and my soul exists because God
breathed the breath of life into Adam. That breath was the immortal soul,
comprised of boundless energy and destined to commune with God
forever, unless of course, the user of that soul prefers Satan. However,
God is merciful to those who seek Him. It is quite simple to "find" God:
apologize for sin and be forgiven. Those who are ambivalent, qualifying
their comments by sophistry, have a problem: they don't know God. How
can one who does not know God argue God's non-existence or His
possibility? It's illogical! God is real and science proves his reality every
day. Otherwise, why does science exist?
RE: Whole Series
Rick
05/09/2008
Of course it does. Science is the process of using reason, data, and logic to
find relationships and causality for observed phenomena. Religion was an
earlier approach based on myth, superstition, and the desire of those in
power to keep people oppressed. Religion is (and should be) on the way to
extinction.
RE: Whole Series
Hsien Hong Lin (Joe)
05/09/2008
No, it does not. Scientific knowledge is one of our weapons to manage the
world and the universal, and scientific development seems to make
human beings be like God. But don't forget that evil is also one authority
in control of scientific knowledge. Without a true understanding of God,
science makes belief in God obsolete; with a full experience of God, belief
makes science God's gift to men or God's work for people.
RE: Whole Series
Scott Benjamin
05/09/2008
Regrettably, no, as evinced by the puzzling existence of scientists of faith.
Clearly, science often finds itself incapable of overcoming years of
childhood conditioning and cultural influence. Science does, however,
suggest that better (i.e., more rational) explanations exist for the as-yet-
unknown, while providing a rigorous methodology for pursuing those
explanations.

Interestingly, organized religion has become quite adept at asserting the

existence of God through arguments couched in scientific-sounding
rhetoric (witness Cardinal Sch�nborn's liberal use of scientific and
philosophical jargon) and relies increasingly on pointing out the failings of
science--for example, that science cannot instill atoms with "meaning"

395
(which, of course, presupposes a fundamental requirement for an atom to
have meaning). But this is where the paths of science and religion diverge,
and purposefully so. Religion's clear agenda (as manifest in the construct
of an all-knowing deity) is to supply meaning, whatever the cost in terms
of rationality. Whatever shortcomings it may have, science seeks only
truth.
RE: Whole Series
Diana Fredrich
05/09/2008
Belief in god--or unicorns or leprechans--doesn't need science to disprove
it. It simply has NO basis in reality, period. Some organizations compare
religion with science, and that is a false association, a way to make
religion seem more viable. The comment that you normally hear--that
religion must be "hard-wired" into the human brain--is just wrong. There
are many people who lead very meaningful and satisfying lives without the
least need for religion.

Science is not the killer of religion, but critical thinking is. Isn't it obvious
that it just so happens that the things that religion and belief in god
address are the very things that humans fear--death, loss of loved ones,
coping with adversity? With all the horrors that occur in the world every
day to innocent people, isn't it obvious that there is no benevolent being
concerned with human suffering? As for religion's answering deep
questions of "why we are here," remember that for millions of years, we
were not here. We are here because our planet happens to grow our
particular type of life-form. We need to let go of this diversion of religion--
we have too many real problems to address. Many people in this world
have a very sub-standard, low quality of existence. The money, energy,
and resources that go toward religion could go to a much better use.
RE: Whole Series
Todd Bacon
05/09/2008
Thank you for this collection, which represents a diverse spectrum of the
relationship between faith and science.
RE: Whole Series
Karen Hedwig Backman
05/09/2008
It is an unsatisfactory question. How does one define God? Does one use
scientific terms? If so, the question might be useful. But God is not defined
by science. Science measures what is real, what is there. God is a concept
of mind. God is not measurable. God cannot be viewed through a
telescope or a microscope. The question is meaningless.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Ryan
05/09/2008
Millie Mukh makes a good point on May 8: "Being a scientist made my faith

396
stronger, as every day I realize that the deeper we delve, the less we
realize we know. . . . What science does is to explore and unravel what is
already existing in nature." This is a good point: real science takes what
we see and investigates it, empirically. But there is fake science. As Colin
Patterson (Sr Paleontologist, Brit Museum Natural Hist) stated, "stories
about how one thing came from another are stories easy enough to tell--
but they are not science." It is only when the dogma of story-telling found
among some promoters of Darwinism are mixed in, as if they were true
science, that a question about "God vs science" even surfaces.
RE: Whole Series
David Bross
05/09/2008
I enjoyed reading the postings by Adam Scott and Anne Nocher. Their
mature, thoughtful postings encourage us all and allow us to move
forward together, even if we don't agree on everything. Thank you both.
RE: Whole Series
Jasna Gruden
05/09/2008
Forgive me, writing German: Niemand soll Religion obsolet machen! Die
bleibt jedem einzelnen Menschen �berlassen. Man d�rfte niemanden f�r
seine Denkweise ver-, ab-, urteilen. Leider, gibt es psychopathen unter
Menschen, die denken, sie h�tten das Recht wegen anderer denkweisen
und religion sogar andere zu executieren. Diese muss man
verunm�glichen, nicht den Got beweisen oder negieren. Wissenschaft soll
der Wissens--verbreitung durch plausible argumente dienen,nicht um die
Religion in Gott obsolet zu machen. Wie gesagt: jeder kann glauben nur
nicht in Namen des Glaubens t�ten! Das muss obsolet werden!
RE: Steven Pinker
Chris Mankins
05/09/2008
The dogmatists in this argument are the scientists who step outside the
realm of science and make statements that do not pertain to science. A
priest has just as much business arguing with a physicist about laws of
relativity. The scientists denying God are the close-minded ones. Men like
Richard Dawkins are willing to accept zany, bizarre notions of
interplanetary beings "programming" DNA, but they deny God. It's stupid,
really, because where did the interplanetary beings come from? Atheists
need science to explain everything, to support their beliefs. Christians do
not care how the science turns out. It is obvious, even to a modest lay
person, that our origins and the complexity of the universe will never
suddenly "stop" with one great discovery. The more we know, the more
complex the picture, the smaller the pieces, the more irrational it becomes
to think that anything in the origins of life and the universe occurred by
chance.
RE: Whole Series
Duane Harris

397
05/09/2008
I say "no." Science cannot possibly make belief in God obsolete. Belief in
God is based on faith, not scientific facts. If there is no God, then why is
God the greatest belief and occupation of billions of humans in every
generation? Science is limited to the physical realm. Trying to use our
earthly science to prove the existence of God is like using a yard stick to
measure the universe.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas
05/08/2008
"Where did the first 'something' come from?" If your answer to this
question is God, doesn't it automatically shift the question to "Where did
God come from?" Does a Christian ever get tired of shooting himself in the
foot with the "first cause" argument?
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Thomas
05/08/2008
What ordered universe? What intelligent design? We live in a universe
filled with collapsing galaxies, half-formed sun systems, black holes that
suck up everything, meteors and comets that crash into planets--and here
we are trapped on this tiny island called earth, which can just barely
support life. Ninety-eight percent of all species that evolve go extinct, the
human species will certainly go extinct in another million years, in 500
million years our galaxy will crash into a neighboring galaxy, ending the
Milky Way and sending the earth into some distant dark corner of the new-
formed galaxy.

What design? Where? It's more chaos than design. Who are you kidding?
RE: Whole Series
Adam Scott
05/08/2008
If life is God's creation and science is the study of life, simple logic would
indicate that science is really the study of God's creation. So does science
make God obsolete? The answer is very clear.
RE: Whole Series
Anne Nocher
05/08/2008
I want to know why we continue to think that God and science must be
mutually exclusive. Science only continues to prove to us how deeply we
need mystery and how active mystery is in science. The broad scope of
science and its continual revelations about our world prove to me that God
is actively, eternally at work in our lives. Science and God will continue
their marvelous revelations and, I hope, never truly exclude each other.
RE: Whole Series
Rev. Robin

398
05/08/2008
The question makes too many assumptions. A more appropriate question
might be, "Does science make religion obsolete?"--although I find
interesting similarities between the two.
RE: Whole Series
Russell H. Krauss
05/08/2008
Has no one ever wondered what we will be like in a thousand, ten
thousand, a million, even a billion years from now? Do we really think 500
million years from now, if we haven't eradicated ourselves, that we'll still
be going grocery shopping, pumping gas, living 75 years in our painful
bodies? Has no one ever read Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End"? Is it
not likely that we will evolve, by our own efforts, into spiritual beings, and
that many who have come before us have already done so, that we will
join a community of alien intelligences, the whole sum of which is what we
intuit as God? In other words, just as man created the silly biblical god,
and the more sophisticated versions afterwards, is it not likely that if there
is a real god, that it is the creation of the lower, biological entities on other
worlds that evolved to our level, or higher?
RE: Steven Pinker
Kirk Cornwell
05/08/2008
Prof. Pinker's admirable credentials fail to mask his inability to differentiate
between knowledge and wisdom. The brain performs many functions to
enable and protect the body (and the species), but it is not the mind. I
suggest a simple experiment for locating one's own thoughts--many of us
will point to a spot OVER our heads and be correct. Evolution is real but
does nothing to disprove the reality of God, while "neuroscience" and
suspicions of intelligent design only give us an inkling into the complexity
of the creator. Morality, or the lack of it, simply points to the level of one's
understanding of cause and effect. The Buddhist teacher Asanga asked
"What is the absence of illusion? It is the knowledge of the results of
actions." Experience can teach us, or we can learn the lessons of others'
success and failure in ethics, psychology, criminal justice, economics, and
the science we love so much.
RE: Whole Series
Mr. Raymond Kenneth Petry
05/08/2008
Science and belief are human footsteps out of error proceeding together,
though the left foot does not know what the right foot is doing. To argue
whether you can proceed one-foot vs. two-feet is pedantic, nonsensical
talk: Keep your feet from running to the troubled sides, Mr. Believer, Ms.
Scientist. A little belief is as dangerous as a little science. Even if one wins
a battle over the other, the telling of the lie destroys both.
RE: Whole Series
Mitch McGill

399
05/08/2008
Those who profess atheism as a scientific conviction commit a major
transgression in logic. They say that because astronomy and physics have
explained the origin of our universe, and biology and chemistry the origin
of life, we must conclude that God is a myth. This is incorrect. Science
drops us off at agnosticism. It shows us that God is unnecessary, but it
cannot (by its very nature!) show us whether or not a God exists. By
definition, physical explanations say nothing about inherently nonphysical
things (including whether or not they exist). Any statement about the
supernatural beyond agnosticism, whether negative or affirmative,
requires a blind leap of faith on our part. Atheist or theist--it is all faith. I
say this as a PhD student in cell biology.
RE: Whole Series
Rev. Christopher "Kit" Wilke
05/08/2008
The conflict of science and religion exists where our view of religion and
God is too small. In the West, the awesome Hebrew God, beyond any
description or definition, was translated through the metaphor of God as a
loving father into a Greek culture quite comfortable with visual
representation of God in human form. The irony and power of calling the
infinite and unimaginable "Daddy," which was shocking for Jews, was lost
as God became an image: male, old, and no matter how big, localized in a
place called heaven, a place science cannot find.

However comforting our picture of a grandfatherly God may be, it is

idolatry and ultimately destructive to the ongoing purpose of religion. For
religion is and has always been the struggle to organize into useful
patterns in our brain the inexplicable chaos which surrounds, assaults, and
exceeds our senses. God is not a "Heavenly Father" somewhere in space.
God is the awesome unknowable that encircles and engulfs all existence
out of which we all struggle to paint, in our evolving bodies and our
deepening minds, a picture useful and reliable enough to increase the
likelihood of our survival. From bacteria to brain, from photosensitive skin
to eye, from herd to community, language, culture, and science, it is all
part of the process of organizing the chaos to survive.

For humanoid and human it began with awe and deepened, through the
veneration of ancestors whose concepts and mores helped us organize our
own experience for survival. It continued through the exercise in trust we
call faith, the courage to look directly at the awesome unknown rather
than mask it in lies or run from it in terror. Science itself began in the
cradle of religion. It is born in grace: a belief in the usefulness of failure,
honest confession, re-examination, and new discovery. God will continue
to exist if our picture of God is large enough to encompass the chaos and
intimate enough to give us the courage to explore.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Reeves

400
05/08/2008
This question misses an underlying principle--the principle of trust or faith.
The question behind "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" is
"Where do you put your trust (faith), in God or in a god?" Science can be a
god or a religion. Conversely, a religion can be a god. God is God no
matter what our wee minds think or come up with. We all have a decision
continually to put our trust (faith) in God or into some idea. The
consequences of these decisions are eternal. Which brings up another
question, "How do you know that you are making the right choice in your
faith?"
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Nan Owolowo
05/08/2008
If natural selection explains the current complexity prevalent in higher
organisms, why is it that fossils of intermediary species have not been
discovered? The fact is that to date, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
there has been no conclusive evidence proving that new species, with
entirely different genetic materials, have evolved from older species.
Darwinian evolution would have us "believe," without concrete evidence,
that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms. Natural selection
for adaptive purposes and preservation is logical. But to suggest billions of
years from now (if we have that long) humans will somehow evolve into an
entirely different creature is absurd!
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Tricia Griffin
05/08/2008
I am interested in Cardinal Schonborn's statement about an "Intelligence
behind the universe." This presumes that there is such a thing as "outside"
the Universe and that living in that "outside" is some all-knowing being
who can be located in space-time and who is busy creating all this stuff we
see around us. Here we are, looking for evidence of an "Intelligence
behind the universe" through science and religion, and we haven't
succeeded. But what if, all this time, we have been looking right at
it/him/her? What if the Universe itself is sentient, and we are merely
elements within it? Are we looking for God in all the wrong places? Or are
we finding God everywhere we look and just can't imagine it could be so
mundane?
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Ed Feely
05/08/2008
Where did the first "something" come from? Isn't nothing the opposite of
something? Aren't negative and positive "something"?
RE: Whole Series
Darryl Turner
05/08/2008
The art of science will never become strong enough to make belief in God

401
obsolete, because God himself will not let it do so. Science is His creation
just as everything else is. To have belief you must have unbelief, and
science is that unbelief. Science is not bad, but the pride of men leads
them to say "Look what I have found--this is not God." It is pride, the "I"
and "me," that causes them to say there is no God. In my own life, I see
things that point me directly to a God, a Creator, a Heavenly Father, and I
will put the proof of this up against any scientist. Why are Christopher
Hitchens and Michael Shermer so bitter?
RE: Whole Series
Johnny
05/08/2008
I saw a comment that said: "I can only hope for the day that science
obliterates all of this fairy-tale mysticism. It's high time the world woke up
from its childhood dreams and began to look at things objectively." What a
sad world that would be. I hope to never live in a world without
imagination. It would be very gray and boring. Many of the great scientists
and inventors that you study and praise were deemed to be ignorant
dreamers with their heads in the clouds. Yet somehow, in spite of all the
reasoning, logic, and doubting of their world, they were able to take
chances and make discoveries. One spark of genius can lead a person to
create a light-bulb, find a cure for a disease, or take flight. Yes, there are
very scientific explanations for how these things were accomplished. Yet
all the objective reasoning in the world does not take the place of
inspiration. A perfectly objective scientific world would have no room for
the Michelangelo's or Van Gogh's or a plethora of other artists we
celebrate. You all have valid arguments, but I'm sorry: faith doesn't make
me weak, it makes me complete.
RE: Whole Series
John Lamont
05/08/2008
I think you should rephrase the question to say "Does science make belief
in the tooth tairy obsolete?" By doing this we can eliminate the opinions of
people who have a vested emotional interest in believing whatever they
want regardless of its verifiability.
RE: Whole Series
Carlos Mojica
05/08/2008
The Templeton Foundation asks: "Does science make belief in God
obsolete?" The question as formulated is almost too broad. A better
question would be: "Does science make the concept of god obsolete?" The
answer to this one is a resounding yes. It is well known that humans have
created all sorts of gods since we dwelled in caves. Before we knew about
evaporation and condensation, there was the god of rain, which people
thought could be favorably manipulated in times of drought by special
dances. Before we knew about geologic plate tectonics, we had the god of
the volcano, which lived on some mountain that blew up on seemingly

402
random occasions. Humans have worshipped gods and goddesses that
have dealt with the moon, the sun, the oceans, love and sex-- pretty much
everything. These deities have served as explanations for things humans
did not understand, and have covered the complete span of human
concerns, from natural phenomena like the weather to metaphysical
questions about life, our role in the universe, and what happens after we
die.

To answer specific questions about measurable phenomena, humans have

developed the physical sciences. However, none of these old gods came to
us in revelation or from holy books. We invented them, and science has
shown us that they offer poor explanations for nature; they fulfill no need.
Ergo, we say they do not exist. So, in a very real sense, advances in
science have made belief in these gods obsolete. What remains are gods
that deal with metaphysical questions.

How do I derive a moral code of behavior? Why am I here? Why do I have

to endure this life full of suffering? What happens after I die? Many of
these questions cannot be answered by hard data and experimentation.
These questions belong to philosophy, logic, common sense. And here is
where the current concepts of god make their grand entrance.

Christian dogma, for example, offers explanations for all these

metaphysical questions (and, some argue, for physical ones as well). Jesus
offers us an example of a moral code of behavior: we are here to repent
our sins and as a trial to see if we are worthy to go to celestial Heaven;
after I die, if I believed in Jesus, I'll go to Heaven. However, given our
natural propensity to create gods whenever confronted with a difficult
problem, I do not think it is a big stretch to conclude that all gods, past
and present, are figments of our imagination. Humans can indeed derive
secular moral codes, we can give our lives meaning without the need for
celestial ordainment. Religion indeed is, to paraphrase Spinoza, an asylum
of ignorance.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Tim Bates
05/08/2008
Thank you, Cardinal, for the eloquent explanation for the existence of a
Creator in our ordered universe. Though not a man of science, I subscribe
to another great man's statement that "The fool has said in his heart
'There is no God.'" I believe there is no excuse for the great minds of
science not mining the depths of our natural world. However, the more
that is discovered, the more complex and ordered our natural world
appears to be. This leads me to a reasoned faith that God created and
gave order to our world and beyond.
RE: Whole Series
Scott L Costello
05/08/2008

403
If belief in God is for the purpose of developing new technologies, then
science does make the belief in God mostly if not entirely obsolete. But it
seems we have stopped using God to advance technology and now use
God as a way to cope with suffering, deal with death and dying, and find
happiness. We use "the word of God" to help guide us in relationships or
other decisions. The question that is presented here seems to be
comparing apples to oranges.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Alan McPeak
05/08/2008
Bravo. No one will ever prove or disprove God. The only defensible position
is agnostisism. Of course, you are free to believe what you will; just please
don't try to foist it on everyone else. Deism indeed.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Peter A Smith
05/08/2008
Kenneth Miller wrote: "Why, then, should we declare faith a 'delusion'
because belief in God is subject to exactly the same failings?" We can do
so because scientific knowledge requires theories to be tested and, if
found false, discarded. Religion does not allow similar testing, so you are
not comparing like to like. Science cannot disprove God's existence, of
course, but it equally cannot disprove the existence of the tooth fairy and
the invisible pink unicorn or any other myth man may dream up.
RE: Whole Series
Lee Murtha
05/08/2008
Yes and no: Beliefs are referenced by, and involved with, a different part
of the brain than is critical thinking and science. (But note that many
scientists also form belief systems about their work!) Beliefs tend to
hamper people from thinking critically. Some people are more prone to
using the belief areas of the brain. Perhaps it is due to cultural imprinting
in one's early life.
RE: Whole Series
Millie Mukh
05/08/2008
I have a Ph.D in molecular genetics and am a strong believer in God. Being
a scientist made my faith stronger, as every day I realize that the deeper
we delve, the less we realize we know. Science still cannot explain the
origin of life, consciousness, and free will, and has no control over nature
or death. What science does is to explore and unravel what is already
existing in nature. We scientists struggle to find a cure for one disease,
and thousands more emerge the next second. Can science control or stop
natural disasters, make a human immortal, or explain consciousness?
Moreover, as a scientist, I know that every creation requires energy, so to
me a supersoul or superconsciousness is meaningful when it comes to
thinking about the vastness of the universe, which we can hardly fathom.

404
RE: Whole Series
Susan von Borstel
05/08/2008
Wouldn't it be useful to outline these great thoughts so the busy, average
person could share their relevations?
RE: Whole Series
Drew Druncan
05/08/2008
It's the wrong question. Why must science take a beating here? Science,
at its core, is the use of observation and memory, not the opposite of
religion. Can it be that the maturation of human beings makes religion
obsolete in an action unrelated to science? Religion is and has always
been social software that acts to help the wild, simple, and fearful among
us interact with less violence and chaos. As we grow, we no longer need
an invisible parent figure that we falsely believe will protect us. We learn
to face reality. We can behave appropriately without the threat of an all-
seeing judge scoring our actions. What we still need is philosophy. We
need personally held beliefs that remind us to look beyond ourselves, to
keep hope as an intellectual choice, and to accept death as inevitable and
natural. These ideas require no mascot.
RE: Whole Series
J. Edward Moran
05/08/2008
It seems absurd to believe that science in the end can and does prove that
God is either obsolete or non-existent. Science has done a wonderful job at
explaining and defining who we are, what we are made of, and the
environment we live in. In fact, I believe that science will continue to do
just that in the future: deliver to us a methodical, logical, and reasonable
understanding of who and what we are.

At some point, by looking deeper into matter, there will come a time when
science will find an end. What I mean by this is that, at one time, an atom
was thought to be the smallest particle. We know today that this is not
true, and just as today there are theories of ever smaller particles, it
seems clear that science will find them. What is not clear and what is not
logical is that there are infinitely smaller and smaller particles. There will
be an end, and it is at this end that the existence of God will seem clear,
as there will need to be an explanation of how this smallest building block
of existence was formed. This does not contradict science but in essence
relies on science to find that end which will become the proof of God.

In this discussion of science and God, I find it interesting to see the

discussion sway into a discussion of religion, as seen in many posts. The
discussion of a higher power should not be rooted in a discussion of
religion, as the use of Bible verses and religious beliefs to prove or
disprove God is circular in nature and has no end. One cannot use the
Bible to try to disprove the existence of God, as the one trying to do so

405
does not believe that it is inspired writings. Nor can one use the Bible to
prove there is a God, because the person they are trying to convince does
not believe it is inspired writings.

I also find it interesting to note that by using logic, as in science, there

must be two sides to any argument. For those that say, "Show me
scientific proof there is a God," I would like to say, "Show me scientific
proof there is no God." My current inability to show you proof there is a
God is only matched by your current inability to show me there is no God.
When science can show me that God does not exist, I will believe it to be
so.
RE: Whole Series
Jo Gibbs
05/08/2008
Yes. If the Bible is the word of God, it is fundamentally flawed. But, of
course, it is the work of men, men with ancient beliefs that were
fundamentally flawed. It is so hard for us egocentric humans to wrap our
minds around the idea that we are an abberation of natural forces on a
speck of matter on the edge of an average galaxy. We are not the center
point, as a Supreme Being might have placed us had he been making us
"in his own image." We had better take care of what we have.
RE: Whole Series
Jean Clelland-Morin
05/08/2008
Belief in a god comes from two basic emotions: fear of death and needing
answers to the possibly unanswerable. If a religious belief helps one to
cope, that's O.K. with me. I just strenuously object to the religious who feel
they have all the answers and that I must think as they do and follow their
rules.
RE: Whole Series
Ron Cooper
05/08/2008
If "God" means the solipsistic notion held by so many believers of an
anthropomorphic creator/controller of the universe, then I find that idea
incoherent and certainly obsolete. A belief in a deity truly consistent with
science must be radically different from the rank-and-file monotheist's
view, and most believers would hardly recognize it.
RE: William D. Phillips
Peter A Smith
05/08/2008
I disagree with Phillips's contention that "a scientist can believe in God
because such belief is not a scientific matter." Everything is a scientific
matter. We may not know the answer to a particular question, but we do
know there is an answer. That answer to date has never included divine
intervention, and there is no reason to suppose it will in the future. You are
a believer who happens to work as a scientist. That is not the same thing

406
as a scientist who is religious.
RE: Whole Series
David Bross
05/08/2008
Science doesn't make belief in God obsolete. God is whatever it is that is
responsible for the existence of the universe. Science is the tool we use to
learn about the universe. For me, the person who says science proves
there is no God is as misguided as the faithful follower who says science is
the enemy of God. In both cases, they are confusing religion with God.

In any debate, whoever is most successful at defining the terms of the

debate often wins. Religion has done an excellent job of framing the
debate so that disagreement with religion is seen as denying the existence
of God. I see things more clearly when I separate God from religion. I
believe there is an intelligence behind the existence of the universe. The
fact that there is such order in something as large as the universe tells me
the universe is not a random occurrence.

What our relationship is with that intelligence, I do not know. At this point I
don't think God is any more aware of our existence than we are of
individual cells in our bodies. However, I believe that one of the strongest
arguments supporting an active relationship with God is the fact that we
have not yet found evidence of life elsewhere in the universe. Maybe we
are something unique. I just don't know. At this point I think I have a better
chance of learning about God by continuing to look and wonder.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Ryan
05/08/2008
Michael Kniffen in his March 7 post below makes a good point about the
"universe coming from nothing." This is something cosmologists accept
today that is tantamount to a theological argument. For they say not only
that it "comes from nothing" in a "God said and IT WAS" kinda way but
that in about three minutes it zoomed out faster than light to a distance of
over 130 billion light years. That would be the entire universe moving
"faster than the speed of light." How can one NOT believe in God after that
kind of confession from cosmologists?
RE: Whole Series
Frank Hernandez
05/08/2008
As Chapman Cohen observed, "Gods are fragile things; they may be killed
by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." Yes, science DOES
make belief in God obsolete. The problem is the number of people who
lack belief in science or are not educated enough--they keep the myth of
God going. God is basically an insurance policy, a "just in case" because of
man's fear of death and the unknown. It is the duty of science to unveil
these unknowns through research and to bring enlightenment to the

407
masses.
RE: Whole Series
Antonio
05/08/2008
It was obsolete at its conception, before science was even an idea.
RE: Whole Series
Marilyn Melzian
05/08/2008
No, unless one is speaking of the god invented by philosophers and
scientists themselves during the Enlightenment. They rejected all religious
teaching about God in the belief that they could know God by reason
alone, and thus conceived of God as first cause or prime mover, which
made their god a part of the universe, supposedly discoverable by reason.
At the same time they tended to insert that god as the cause of things
they could not explain (the "god of the gaps" to which Schonborn alludes).
That philosophical move put Western culture on the wrong track
altogether, because it led to a situation in which it is still assumed by
many (in this discussion, for example) that the reason for faith in God is
primarily to explain the way the world works. But the centrality of the
question of origins only comes in the modern era, with the rejection of the
wider theology of the church.

Contrary to Pinker's argument, belief in God, at least the God of Abraham

and Isaac, the God revealed in Jesus Christ, did not originate as an
explanation of origins. In Jewish and Christian scriptures, God is first
encountered as one who saves, and as one who addresses the question,
How should we live? The earliest traditions in the Bible deal with
deliverance and accountability, and science has in no way diminished the
relevance of those concerns. It is true that those scriptures speak of God
as Creator, but as a backdrop to the more important issues of our
relationship to God in love and obedience and our relationship to others in
love and in service.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Ray Kynion
05/07/2008
I agree with Mr. Hitchens. Being an atheist myself, I can only hope for the
day that science obliterates all of this fairy-tale mysticism. It's high time
the world woke up from its childhood dreams and began to look at things
objectively. The so-called scientists that have accepted the Templeton
Prize are, in my opinion, sell-outs--poor scientists in need of a quick buck.
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Michael Kniffen
05/07/2008
The universe could have come from nothing? Logical error. Please explain
"something coming from nothing." I thought science meant coherent
knowledge. Please help me understand how reality was nothing at one

408
point, no space or matter, and then at one point in "time" just popped into
existence. Science? You don't really believe there was a time when there
was nothing, because you believe there was chaos, some matter that is
eternal. "Extrapolating what we know from modern cosmology back to the
earliest definable moment, we find that the universe began in a state of
maximum disorder." OK, order from disorder--fine. But the question is not
how did existence that was in disorder come to be in order--that is simply
change. The question is, Does science make belief in God obsolete? If you
wish to debate how the older matter changed into the universe, that is a
different topic. You cannot start with nothing--absolutely nothing--and
explain universes popping into being. Out of nothing nothing comes. Did
someone skip science 101?
RE: William D. Phillips
Hal Cohen
05/07/2008
Science is about things we can learn and prove and know. Even if the feats
of the bible could be conclusively proven on a scientific basis, I could
accept it and still believe in a Supreme Being.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Ryan
05/07/2008
Perhaps it helps to break this down into it's component parts. 1. What is
the difference between Darwinian tenets of faith and actual science? How
do the famous junk-science frauds of Darwinism distinguish it from true
sciences, such as mathematics and physics, chemistry, biology, etc.? 2. If
Darwinian evolutionism's untested, untestable stories are excluded from
the general term "science," then does "science" in any way negate faith in
God? 3. Are the conclusions of Dawkins, Provine, Huxley, Darwin AND also
many Bible-believing Christians correct when they all agree that Darwinian
doctrines regarding a naturalistic story for the origin of all species today is
completely incompatible with a most-apparent and direct reading of the
Bible's statement on origins? In my view regarding question 3, the
Darwinists and the Christians are correct.
RE: Whole Series
Wayne Charles Wood
05/07/2008
The universal intelligence is the adhesive that is bonding the strings
together.
RE: Whole Series
Henry Horner
05/07/2008
God is and always has been obsolete. God is a human creation--and did
not, as we are expected to believe, create the human race. Call me an
atheist if you wish. I simply cannot accept the utterly ridiculous premise
that a Godly being created the magnificent universe we see through the
telescope, much less the even greater absurdity that, were such a

409
miraculous being to exist, he'd single out humanity for his special
attention.

Common sense would tell a rational person the mindpower to envision and
create a universe would take far more than a simplistic godly being. A
power able to visualize every minute detail in quadrillion stars, non-stellar
objects, planets, moonlets, etc. would be a super computer rivalling the
physical size of a red giant star.

Add to that the lunacy of a god telling us we collectively have inerited a

portion of original sin, to be expiated through the rite of baptism, etc., that
a newborn infant would suffer eternal damnation were it to die sans
baptism--gimme a break, as John Stossel would say. Sorry friends, but
religion is but an outgrowth of primitive superstition.

I must look at this site and see the other ideas. I found out about this site
by accident, and it should be most interesting to visit from time to time.
RE: Whole Series
Steven Long
05/07/2008
I am curious to know the thoughts of the contributors on the subject of our
release from these earthly bonds. What is "life everlasting"? What do they
think they will be doing ? Will their atoms become a part of some cosmic
stream? What do they expect, since no one can really know.
RE: Whole Series
Bob MacNeal
05/07/2008
Science does not make a belief in God obsolete. The intellectual rigor
required to have an understanding of science renders the mythology
spawned from the literal interpretation of sacred texts like the Koran or
the bible logically implausible, if not somewhat irrelevant to intelligent
discourse. The more we learn in science, the more there is to learn.
Recognizing how things unfold in scientific discovery, experiencing the
sublime presence of complexity and simplicity, and pondering our own
genesis from the most primitive life make us feel small and make some of
us sense something larger than life, something that could be called, for
lack of a better term, God. The pursuit of science is in a sense the
incremental pursuit of the ultimate unknown, which to some could be God,
but who knows?
RE: Whole Series
Debra Moore
05/07/2008
Everything that science proves helps to prove the existence of God.
Science and religion are not enemies.
RE: Michael Shermer
Joe Heer

410
05/07/2008
Shermer says: "Any sufficiently advanced Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence
would be indistinguishable from God," because "a sufficiently advanced
ETI could even create a universe" and if "we did not know the underlying
science and technology, we would call it God."

Several of my favorite scriptures address this very subject: "I am the Lord
thy God, I am more intelligent than . . . all [other intelligences]"; "the Lord
[saw] the intelligences that were organized before the world was";"one
among them . . . was like unto God, and he said to those who were with
him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these
materials, and we will make an earth whereon these [other intelligences]
may dwell." ([] = my editing)

In other words, a sufficiently advanced pre-Terrestrial Intelligence (God)

did exactly what Shermer suggests and created "a universe, stars, planets,
and life." The key question is not whether such advanced intelligences
exist--even anti-God activist Richard Dawkins has conceded the
possibility--but how we interact with those intelligences. It is foolish to
assume that there are no interactions just because we can't measure
them. Our inability to explain dark matter and energy, the mysteries of
quantum coherence ("spooky actions at a distance"), and even the more
concrete experiments on the measurable medical effects of prayer, clearly
demonstrate that there are many interactions in our universe, including
fundamental laws of nature, that we don't really understand at all.

Shermer claims that advancing science makes God "obsolete" because we

can get to the point where we understand the "science and technology"
that a God-like being uses to accomplish its purposes. As a both a highly
religious person and a lab-based scientist, I find myself seeking exactly
that knowledge for different reasons: I want to gain the knowledge and
understanding that God has so that I can grow to be like him and
participate more fully in the wonderful work of creation that I am a part of.
Perhaps someday I will find the term "God" obsolete, but only because I
have replaced it with something more close and personal, like "Father" or
"Friend."
RE: Whole Series
Lisa G. Leming
05/07/2008
In Eastern cultures, the Middle Path is prized above all else, that is, the
avoidance of pitfalls of extremes of either material or spiritual egotism.
The proof of God (like love) is subject to each individual's experience or
criteria. In some of the less structured Eastern paths, as well as the higher
and more abstract branches of Islam and Christianity (Sufism, Christian
Mysticism, etc.), faith is more of an open-heartedness and experiencing
God as your own Self as well as your environment (other persons as well
as non-human beings). So it is in our best interest (as in the "selfish gene")

411
to treat others kindly and respectfully when we realize that they have no
existence apart from us. All things are connected, as it were.

This "realization" is the goal of the serious seeker. I Am God or We are

God, which is pretty much the ultimate step in taking complete
responsibility for one's own predicament (as well as the world's). In an
ideal world of realized souls, everyone would see the benefit of kindness
and compassion to all.

What goes up must come down (or back to you) is a physical and spiritual
law, like gravity. This rule or law can also be found in religions and is a
recognized fact of both the natural and the spiritual worlds. In fact,
quantum physics in the last few years has come closer to the ancient
metaphysics than anything else, recognizing the nature of the universe
(thought), the flexibility of time/space (time slows down and speeds up in
space), as well as the artificial nature of "matter" and "energy." In short, if
you realize that matter and energy are all made of the same stuff
(thought), then you can walk on water.

Richard Dawkins is a biologist but also a fundamentalist in that he does

not really look beyond his particular field (material science, chemical
reaction, biology) or even delve deeply into metaphysics or phenomena,
preferring to explore (very superficially) the last few hundred years of
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is neither a spiritual quest nor a
scientific inquiry. Extreme science and secularism is just as diabolically
flawed (pointless vivisection, anti-religious communism, materialism,
capitalism, genetic manipulation, lethal weapons) as the well-documented
crimes of organized religion.
RE: William D. Phillips
Gregory Konakis
05/07/2008
Phillips writes: "A scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a
scientific matter." My comment: Statements of faith--the evidence of
things unseen and the substance of things hoped for--exceed the
limitations imposed for objective investigation and therefore cannot be
scientific matters.

"God loves us and wants us to love one another. I cannot think of anything
that could prove that statement false." Phillips also cannot think of
anything that could prove that statement true.

"Some might argue that if I were more explicit about what I mean by God
and the other concepts in my statement, it would become falsifiable. But
such an argument misses the point. It is an attempt to turn a religious
statement into a scientific one." No, it is a request that Phillips make his
religious statements credible to nonbelievers.

412
"There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement."
This is true; otherwise there would be no poetry or religion.

"Non-scientific statements are not worthless or irrational simply because

they are not scientific. 'She sings beautifully.' 'He is a good man.' 'I love
you.' These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value."
Phillips is conceding that statements of faith are subjective, equivalent to
saying: "She sings beautifully," etc. And since statements of faith are
subjective, they are not within the purview of scientific investigation and
verifiable as objective and universally true. It is true that non-objective
statements can be of great value, but they can also be great injurious
errors. "Science is not the only useful way of looking at life." Science is the
only way to objectively understand the universe. Poetry and religion give
the universe the significance or absurdity it intrinsically lacks.

"Many good scientists have concluded from their observations that an

intelligent God must have chosen to create the universe with such
beautiful, simple, and life-giving properties. Many other equally good
scientists are nevertheless atheists." Atheists: killjoys, people who are
blind to what theists see: the Creator in His creation.

"Theism and atheism are positions of faith." This is true. The faith of
theists consists of the evidence of things unseen and the substance of
things hoped for. The faith of rational thinkers consists of the evidence of
things seen and the substance of things yet to be discovered.

"I believe in God because I can feel God's presence in my life." The
presence in Phillips's life is his own, which he misidentifies and deifies as
God.

"A majority of the people I know have no difficulty accepting scientific

knowledge and holding to religious faith." The majority of mankind profess
religious faith to reassure themselves they will continue existing when
they are dead.
RE: Whole Series
Lane Haygood
05/07/2008
Anyone who thinks that empirical investigation and theorizing can have
any bearing on a metaphysical proposition is committing a category
mistake. Science, loosely defined as the set of doctrines that proceed
according to the scientific method and create testable theories that are
confirmed or falsified by observation and experimentation, can reveal,
potentially, all that humans can know about the world in which we live, the
world of experience. But the concept of a supreme, supernatural being is
closed to scientific investigation. It is necessarily metaphysical, belonging
to that branch of philosophical investigation that seeks to understand the
nature of reality and man's relation to it.

413
Metaphysics is by definition a-scientific (not anti-scientific or non-scientific,
but belonging to a realm of inquiry that does not, and cannot, adopt the
methods and practices of the sciences). This does not mean that
metaphysical inquiry is free to contradict scientific inquiry, or that the two
are mutually exclusive. Each can and should inform the other, but we
should recognize the limitations placed on human reason to reach truth
through either form of inquiry, and what truths belong solely to each
realm.

Thus, if there truly is an answer to the question of divine existence, it is

not science but philosophy that will provide it. I would worry less about
proving abstract desiderata such as whether God exists and concern
myself with investigation of the concept of god, what it means and how it
changes human society and understanding of the world. The metaphysical
status of God is irrelevant next to the broader question of the historicity
and situation of the concept of God within the human psyche.
RE: Whole Series
Anna Grabowski
05/07/2008
For those who understand science, yes, the god idea is obsolete, as in "no
longer used" and "no longer useful." Some may cling to it because of
wishful thinking or youthful indoctination. Those religions with which I'm
familiar are silly and distasteful, and they make people behave worse, not
better. Life is too short and beautiful to waste it by worrying about
mythical creatures; the reality of the universe is awesome enough without
imaginary friends or rulers. I think that most people would happily let go of
religion if it were not for social reasons. Where I work and live, there is a
tyranny of religion (small-town Tennessee). People have their whole
identity based on it. Religion is also a big business, with prestigious and
sometimes lucrative jobs. So even though religion should be obsolete, it
probably will hang on as long as there is ignorance of science. And as long
as there are people ignorant of science, there will be institutions and
individuals ready to fill in the gap with superstition, magic, and religion.
RE: Whole Series
BJ
05/07/2008
I don't know what God is, but certainly science is not a refutation of God.
In a strange way, it is a confirmation. In an infinite universe there may be
lots of evolved Gods, at least from our perspective.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas Conway
05/07/2008
The answer to the question depends on what God or whose God is the
subject. It is certainly a subjective question, but let's take the God of
Abraham as an example. This type of god belongs in the same realm as

414
Zeus, Thor, and many other gods in mythology.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Gilbert Adams
05/07/2008
Stephen Jay Gould's notion of non-overlapping magisteria is incomplete:
the magisteria of science and belief (intentionally distinguished from
religion) are not only non-overlapping, they are also abutting, like the land
surface of an island and the water surface of the sea surrounding it.
Science has to do with what we know, or think we know, by logical
observation and analysis. Belief has to do with what we do not (yet) know,
like what happened at the Big Bang, or what we can never know (in the
scientific sense), like how our souls are related to the souls of the
departed.

Just as it is a mistake to believe something that is demonstrably false, it is

a mistake to posit that just because we cannot observe and analyze
something rationally, it does not exist. The true scientist recognizes three
classifications in this regard: (1) proved (but still open to advances in
science, such as Newtonian gravitation, updated after hundreds of years
by Einstein); (2) disproved, such as the geocentric view of the universe;
and (3) not (presently) open to scientific analysis. As science develops,
some matters of belief can be shifted into the magisterium of science, and
our beliefs mature accordingly.

The believer should not try to use scientific method to convince the
unbeliever of extra-scientific theories, and the non-believer should not try
to use science to convince the believer that extra-scientific matters are
illusory. They are just not scientific, and for this reason less structured and
usually more difficult to have a dialogue about.

A parable: someone tells me that inside a locked room, inside a locked

cabinet, there is a pair of socks. I may or may not believe that I was told
the truth, but I can not prove scientifically to myself or to someone else
that the socks are there. It is just as unscientific to assume they are not as
to assume they are. Unproved is not proved, nor is it disproved. Among
those who believe that there is a pair of socks, a talmudic discussion could
take place on the color of the socks. They cannot be observed and
analyzed, but who is to say that the color is meaningless? Some people
may base their conduct on their belief as to the color. Those who see no
purpose in such a discussion can opt out of it. But if there is a pair of socks
there, they do have a color; and that color does not depend on anyone's
belief. And it can not be totally excluded that the color might make a
difference somehow, sometime.

As scientist or as believer, one must have a certain degree of humility:

neither geocentricists nor Newtonians had a monopoly on the truth.
RE: Whole Series

415
John
05/07/2008
Today we know that each individual continues to evolve during his own life
time. There is a similar relationship in the way mankind keeps evolving
and changing this world we live in. I enjoy living in an age of
enlightenment, where clearly it is the heterogeneous weaving together of
science and the achievements of the human spirit that continually
increase each person's life time and quality of life the world over. It might
be that God created the sciences to prove that he exists, and it is our best
interest to discover how he did it.
RE: Whole Series
Michael D'Emidio
05/07/2008
Leo (on 5/5) wrote: "I truly feel sorry for atheists." Me too. I guess you
would describe me as an atheist. I understand that science has revealed
that man created god--and not the other way round. This conclusion and
its gut-wrenching consequence fit beautifully with an earlier faith-based
error: geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. The realization that the earth
revolves around the sun wasn't blasphemous, although it was taken as
such by the religious authorities; it just was. Same here: there is no god,
we just are--maybe not a comforting conclusion but the truth, and the
sooner we realize this the sooner we will be able to perfect our fragile
civilization.

Though this is the fact of the matter, you have to feel sorry for us atheists
because even after the plain vanilla truth is so obviously revealed, we are
still conscripted to society's faith highway, trying to survive in the right
lane while the myriad believers try to run each other off the road in their
attempts to make supreme--and then politically useful--that which doesn't
even exist. We atheists are the innocent victims (along with millions of
others who have perished for being on the other side of men of god)
because of this absurdist nightmare insisted upon by the same authorities
who brought you geocentrism.

We atheists are stuck trying to make a better world with what exists, and
we have to compete with powerful faith-based interests that throw theistic
sand in our eyes and then laugh while civilization flounders (and has
floundered for at least 2000 years). Leo, I trust you feel sorry for the poor
Athenians too. Can you imagine their grief at seeing how little we have
progressed after their noble adventure?
RE: Whole Series
Charles Bingham
05/07/2008
God is a conclusion without any supporting premises. The history of
religion is the same story told again and again with different names--the
same formula.

416
RE: Whole Series
Scott Arledge
05/07/2008
It is a flawed question from the onset. It is not whether science makes God
obsolete but whether the interpretation of science makes God obsolete.
For example: when we look at geological formations around the world, we
find billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water. Some
interpret this evidence as direct support for a recent Biblical flood, while
others say it is evidence of sediment laid down over billions of years. The
science is irrefutable that there are billions of dead things buried globally,
and no objections occur at this point. The argument only occurs as the
science is interpreted and models are created. All sides agree on the
"science" in view, but they have very different interpretations. So the
question should be restated: "Do modern models, ideas, and hypotheses
as presented and understood by man make God obsolete?"
RE: Whole Series
Andre Ryland
05/07/2008
This just continues the tired argument. The idea that the god of today
would become obsolete because of science says that the questioner
doesn't understand the reason for god, who exists because of the power of
the Word and its use by the god-users who use it. Take away the power of
the Word, and there will no longer be the excuses used by the users to
explain what they cannot. Science is the seeking and understanding of
what is--not of that which is not.
RE: Whole Series
Joe Claxton
05/07/2008
No, it doesn't. Science is the meta-language used by God to educate and
develop our awareness of our unique identity as a species. Art is the
subtext of that same meta-language. Learning the ABC's of creation is only
the beginning. God is not dead, just listening.
RE: Whole Series
Robert F. Brown
05/07/2008
Compared to the age of the universe, mankind is in its infancy. We know
hardly anything about the truth. Atheistic scientists are as dogmatic and
narrow-minded as was the early church. Intelligent design could be God
creating two things: matter with all its potential and gravity. We're
gradually learning the how of the universe through science, but the why is
beyond our ken.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Richardson
05/07/2008
Loved the essays. We are Unitarian Universalist, so this debate is at the
heart of our beliefs. The best seminar I have been to in 25 years as a UU

417
was in Atlanta on science and religion. We had professors from Emory,
Georgia Tech, etc. Thank you so much.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Bob Ryan
05/07/2008
Ken Miller writes, "I am often challenged by those who assume that IF
science can demonstrate the natural origins of our species, which it surely
has, then God should be abandoned." IF science can show (with lab
expermients) that all living species could have originated from natural
causes alone and in fact did originate from purely undirected random
natural events alone, THEN the "Creator God" of the Bible is pointless. It
would be like saying "The God of NaCl precipitant."
RE: Whole Series
Forrest McCollum
05/07/2008
I don't see the relationship. I am not sure that science can prove
everything, but by definition, beliefs are unproven. Which begs the
question, "Does a scientist believe anything?" I think not. I doubt that
(clinically sane) "true believers" truly believe.
RE: Whole Series
Yayati Patel
05/07/2008
If God created the universe, who created God? Or if the "Big Bang" created
the universe, what created the "Big Bang"? Neither side clearly wins. And
you're forced to go into crazy, beautiful metaphysics. I'm sure both sides
are humble enough to say they don't have all the answers. Also, what
constitutes proof is different for a scientist and a spiritual person.

The discussion of Science vs. God often fails to look at it from an Eastern
perspective. The question, while being universal, has taken on a different
and larger light in the Western/Christian world, and brings along with it
motivations and scars from Western/Christian history and perspectives.

Empirically speaking, there have been many saints, rishi, and other people
who have claimed to experience God. While accounts vary (as do scientific
experiments), there is a great commonality. A true scientist, before saying
God does not exist, should conduct the experiment in earnest himself and
follow the experimental procedure/steps as dictated by those who have
achieved God or Enlightenment. And of course there is going to be science
behind the universe. There can be no existence without limits & laws. If I
threw a ball and it went anywhere, then that would not be existence. Laws
for existence do not negate God. The travesties of religion also do not
negate God. Does free will not itself confound an atheist scientist? For all
the reasons that God does not exist, neither should free will.
RE: Stuart Kauffman
Bob Ryan

418
05/07/2008
Kauffman is correct in his observation that we would need to seriously
dumb-down the Bible's God to get to a marriage between the belief in
Darwinism and the belief in some other kind of "god." As he writes, "The
schism between science and religion can be healed, but it will require a
slow evolution from a supernatural, theistic God to a new sense of a fully
natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the
natural universe. This healing may also require a transformation of science
to a new scientific worldview with a place for the ceaseless creativity in
the universe that we can call God. We must 'reinvent the sacred,' but it is
dangerous: it implies that the sacred is invented. For billions of believers
this is Godless heresy."

But how many of the world's major religions are touting the claim: "we
made this stuff up, now give your life to it"? As much as this might seem
to be the case from the point of view of an agnostic or atheist, that is not
how it works in real life. You don't get to maintain your role as a major
world religion with such claims to total fabrication for the sake of
"compromise."
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Yayati Patel
05/07/2008
It depends on how you define God. We cannot give God the same
limitations and biases we give ourselves. God is omnipresent, omniscient.
Whether the "world" is a small village or the universe, the amount of
information it contains is always infinite.
RE: Whole Series
Bob Ryan
05/07/2008
Those who say "yes" are using a definition of religion in agreement with
atheist Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins and with modest-atheist-
agnostics like Darwin and Huxley--a definition that fits with the majority of
Bible believing Christians in America. Give credit where credit is due.

All the respondents use a definition for science that appears to assume
that the junk-science methods of Darwinism (Piltdown, Simpson's horse
series, Archaeoraptor, Haeckel's "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny,"
Nebraska man) are science, when in fact they are merely a belief system
with science co-opted. I prefer to follow the data where they lead--the
model used in the lab in physics, biochemistry, etc. I also prefer the
defintion of God found in the Bible. So far, they do not contradict.
RE: Whole Series
John Buchanan
05/07/2008
There is no reason why scientific fact and theory and faith in God cannot
and/or should not coexist within the mind of a free-thinking person. I have

419
seen many reasons to believe, as I do that science provides insight into
the ways of God. Divisiveness and ulterior motives in this very basic
matter are counterproductive to the purpose of the human species. Any
observer of the natural world and/or thinker upon the ways and intent of
God should, I think, be able to agree upon the simple concept that all
structures throughout the universe, from the biological to the subatomic
and astronomical, appear to have defined roles. The roles in biology
appear to be based on tools supplied to particular species. I cannot help
but see that the role of the relatively weak, slow, defenseless homo
sapiens is to use our one specialty: intellect.

To continue the division into sometimes literally armed camps of "Science

vs. Religion" is like the left and right hands of the same man or the two
hemispheres of one person's brain fighting one another. If you "experts"
want to leave a valuable legacy to the future, be the generation that
finally lays down its differences and comes together. You have far more in
common than it might be comfortable for many of you to believe.
RE: Jerome Groopman
Maggie Hahn
05/07/2008
Thank you so much for your commentary on science and God. It's very
refreshing to see a scientist explain religious faith with such clarity. I
believe that in the end neither scientist nor lay person can claim to have
all the answers. We learn so much every day as we use intelligence to
further technology and knowledge. However, each time we learn
something new, that also can bring new questions to the equation.

As a person of faith, I embrace science fully, since it is my belief that God

created everything in the first place. It is often the "despised" religious
beliefs that make our world remotely tolerable to live in. I gathered from
your remarks that, like me, you believe that science does not govern or
direct the heart and make us fit company for each other. For most, it is our
inclination toward a more divine direction that keeps our baser instincts at
bay, thereby bringing out our best.
RE: Whole Series
Randy Strom
05/07/2008
If we take it as given that God exists, he either made science or
understands it well enough to be the causative force in creation. If God
does not exist, science would have great difficulty proving the negative,
and science has no motivation to prove negatives.

It seems to me that the strong opinions some have that the answer to this
question is yes are premature. The actual origin of the first cell has not
been proven to exist spontaneously in the primordial soup of the earth.
The theories about how the cell came to be include extraterrestrial
chance/design (seeding). Some would call this theory a proof of the

420
definition they hold as God (I would not). In any case, the origin of the first
cell and the causative conditions that stimulated the big bang both beg
the questions that have challenged theorists and philosophers down
through the ages. Science would need to mature significantly before a
definitive proof could be given for or against God.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Hunter
05/07/2008
The dynamically growing body of scientific knowledge is contrasted with
the static, anti-knowledge viewpoint of theologians. Yes, without question,
science has and will continue to show religion for the illogical backwater
that it is. Religion is on the table, dying. And I for one could not be happier.
How many wars and conflicts have their root in religious conflict? Many,
including the current problems between Islam and Christianity. How much
bigotry is based in Christianity?

I myself have been an atheist for more then twenty years, and on
numerous occasions I have received nearly violent reactions from
Christians when they hear my beliefs. The way they are always trying to
inject their particular religious beliefs into our politics is despicable.Yes, let
religion die the death it deserves. Let science--which can be tested and
challenged by newer, better ideas--reign.
RE: Whole Series
Wyse
05/07/2008
Here's a sure prophecy: Within the next 100 years, all you doubters will
have met God face to face and will wish that someone would dip the tip of
his finger in water and touch your tongue (Luke 16: 19-24).
RE: Whole Series
Teresa Mitchell
05/07/2008
Science has gradually undermined religion, but in the 21st century a post-
theist spirituality will emerge, supplanting traditional beliefs. A prayerful
atheism will sustain humanity.
RE: William D. Phillips
Mohammed Saleem Awan
05/07/2008
As a physicist, I would suggest that American scientists use God to secure
fame in the media. They never ask themselves a basic question: if there is
no God, what brings the sun from West to East? If you are a dedicated
physicist, then read the Holy Quran. You will find that all humans on this
earth are the index of Almighty God. Science is nothing but a tool to create
comfort for humanity. It does not provide morals, ethics, or mental
satisfaction. My advice is to ask basic questions and consider the true
reality of life/existence versus death. Why it happens? Who is in charge?
Answer: the ALMIGHTY GOD.

421
RE: Whole Series
Peter Gerdes
05/06/2008
Also I wanted to quickly note that even asking whether science disproves
the existence of god is a poor question to ask. It tends to cause the
discussion to devolve into an unhelpful and confusing semantic argument
about what constitutes "proof" (does continued failure to provide evidence
for X constitute a disproof of X?) and what it means for god to exist.

Instead, if we want to have a productive discussion, I think the right

question to ask is "What beliefs about god are justified by our observations
of the world, including historical texts, scientific theories, and the
interactions of the two." The advantage of this question is that it
simultaneously asks for a positive account while emphasizing the fact that
there can be only one theological theory that is best supported by the
evidence. Lumping together religious faiths as opposed to science misses
the vitally important point that our historical and personal evidence can't
support the belief that Christianity and Judaism or Christianity and Islam
are simultaneously true (either the evidence supports the conclusion that
Christ is the son of god or not).

Ultimately, asking if god exists is a fairly useless question. If we are willing

to stretch the meaning of god enough (god is the universe) everyone will
agree. What religious people really are interested in is whether a particular
conception of god is valid (rewarding people for being good, for faith,
providing life after death, not rewarding atheists for failing to believe). I
tend to think the most productive question to ask is what beliefs about god
does our total evidence support, thereby illuminating the fact that we
must either give up the idea that religious facts are really true like
scientific ones or accept the fact that sufficient justification to accept any
one religious belief is sufficient justification to reject contradictory beliefs.
RE: Whole Series
Peter Gerdes
05/06/2008
The question itself is deeply misleading and (unintentionally no doubt)
biased toward provoking a certain sort of pro-theistic emotional response.
Asking whether science has made god obsolete sets things up so theists
feel their core values and feelings are under attack. Rather than asking us
to step back and approach the question of god's existence with our most
thoughtful, least biased attitudes, this question seems to take it for
granted that god exists and then implies that non-theists are suggesting
religious worship and adoration are backwards and unimportant. This
question is the theological equivalent of asking, "Have you stopped
beating your wife."

Of course, if god exists and has the characteristics stipulated by any of the
major world religions, then religion is the most important thing in the

422
world. In fact, one of the reasons I began to question my faith in the first
place was my puzzlement at how little significance even
priests/ministers/etc. placed on religion. If indeed there is something like
the Christian (or Jewish or Islamic) god, theological inquiry should be more
important than scientific study, the conversion (and subsequently higher
probability of salvation for that soul) of one individual should outweigh the
benefits of massive public works, and the study of religious issues should
be vastly more important than any other subjects we might approach in
college.

However, people don't treat their belief in the existence of God the way
they treat their belief in facts of chemistry, physics, or even history. What
makes discussion between theists and atheists so difficult is that atheists
are interested in questions of objective fact about god while theists tend to
focus on the complex nest of feelings and attitudes they have about
religion. This sort of question only serves to further this confusion. It would
be better to ask how you know your religion's beliefs are true while
contradictory religious beliefs of others are false.
RE: Whole Series
Jeff Martens
05/06/2008
If one is honest with oneself, and familiar with Occam's razor, then clearly
religion is a mass deception and does much more harm than good.
RE: Whole Series
Rob
05/06/2008
Yes, science does make belief in god obsolete. Science in the form of
cosmology can explain where the universe came from, and science in the
form of the modern evolutionary sythesis can tell us how it is that we
humans are prey to religious nonsense. The difficulty in abandoning
religious supernaturalism is facing up to the truth about our existence.
However, it is only in facing this truth that we can really begin to
understand that our highest ethical goal must be to make THIS LIFE better
for all life on this planet.
RE: Whole Series
Harry
05/06/2008
Wrong question. Science seeks to address what we "know." Belief is just
that: what we believe. We know NOTHING about God! However, we believe
many things about God.
RE: Whole Series
Serg Barron
05/06/2008
Superb!
RE: Whole Series

423
Tonya Warmbrod
05/06/2008
No, absolutely not! Science and religion must agree. To keep this to the
point and for simplicity: Whether or not we understand, if you have faith,
God does understand and God has a plan. We may have started as
amoebas, apes, etc., but if we did, it was all part of God's plan to be where
we are today. Just think of where we could be in another thousand years!
My spiritual beliefs are based in the Baha'i faith, which centers around the
belief in one God, one unfolding religion, and one humanity. The
agreement of science and religion is just one of the teachings of the Baha'i
faith.
RE: Whole Series
John Read
05/06/2008
My feeling is that science will not displace belief in God. People seem to be
emotionaly wired to believe in the supernatural, as witnessed across
nearly all societies throughout history. We seem to need to believe in
these things (I do not, but that does not seem to matter in the larger
scheme of things). Belief in God seems to be what we do once we stop
believing in Santa Claus. We are addicted to believing in the shadow
world.

One observation, though, on the topic of evolution (which I do believe in):

Would there be a raging debate if evolution were presented without
including humans? If we avoided the study of humans and focused only on
the evolution of other species, would the religious community be up in
arms over this issue? I think not, as this would negate the image most
offensive to religionists, that we are somehow related to apes and
monkeys (the imagery is too much for many to take). Take that away
(which will not happen and should not), and I would bet that the study of
evolution would have all the emotional impact of the study of worms.
RE: Whole Series
Sam
05/06/2008
God was created in the image and likeness of man.
RE: Whole Series
AK
05/06/2008
Regarding Steve Vinson's mention (below) of pantheism: both theism and
pantheism depend on ascribing an external (metaphysical) form to the
universe. Even though pantheism has the good sense to recognize that
only monism makes sense, it still presumes that something is the case
which nothing, except isolated "intuitions" or added interpretations, tells
us might be the case (namely, an all-encompassing Will). Frankly, I don't
think we need to "presume" or "posit" anything outside or over the
universe, not even in order to remain the inspired axiological realists that

424
we are.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Ken Dixon
05/06/2008
Hitchens is so angry-sounding. Instead of coming off as an atheist, he
sounds angry at the God he declares doesn't exist. I feel very sorry that he
fails to see the divine in creation.
RE: Whole Series
James Huebner
05/06/2008
A better question would be: "Did God create man or did man create God?"
RE: Whole Series
Robert Zantay
05/06/2008
No, it doesn't. There is no scientific explanation for how, after the great
extinction of 10,000 years ago (when the mammoths, cave bears, sabre-
toothed tigers, and early man were all wiped out), life came back,
including man. This is the time that the Bible gives for the Adam and Eve
creation story. The Bible does not disagree with evolution; in fact it agrees
with the theory. Every creature after it's own kind. The confusion has been
caused by people who don't understand what the Bible says. It is very
specific about God creating the heavens and the Earth and the Earth being
without form and void. It is after this great calamity that the creation story
takes place. This is actually the second creation.
RE: Whole Series
Miriam Davey
05/06/2008
It all depends. If the purpose of believing in God is to have ultimate power
over others, then the answer is "yes." If the purpose in believing in God is
to serve one's fellow man in a compassionate way, the answer is "no."
Belief in God should be all about faith. No proof of God's existence is
necessary; in fact, it distracts from and interferes with true religion.

Those who require some form of proof that there is God are threatened
when mysteries attributed to God are explained in a factual way, or when
public policy is based primarily on reason, fact, and science, with the role
of particular religious doctrine minimal and advisory only. Those believers
simply want to invent their own fact-based world apart from science. They
don't want religion. They want power, and they are jealous of the power of
science and reason, so they challenge it by trying to redefine and merge
(and ultimately destroy) both. So for them, the answer must be "yes."
RE: Whole Series
Pete Z.
05/06/2008
Why would it? Science can't deliver what belief in god has brought to

425
humanity. Not many people get together on their own time, maybe with
their family, to purposely practice science in a community.
RE: Whole Series
Joseph
05/06/2008
Everything about the universe suggests there is a God--the great
organizer, framer, and executer of the immensities of space. The very
essense of the air we breath, life within man, knowledge we receive daily,
and our very being and attributes are an indication. Anyone who doubts
this fundamental principle doesn't comprehend him- or herself.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Stanley
05/06/2008
Science does not make belief in God obsolete; however, it does require a
rethinking of God. The Jehovah model of God is too small to conform to our
observations of the universe and requires too much tinkering on the part
of God to make the universe run. Einstein's model of God, the sum of all
universal law, does not postulate the existence of a "point" deity--a
singular divine consciousness--but comes closest to a definition of God
that meets our scientific observations. Yet the God of this model is not a
sentient being. As pointed out, the more we learn, the less room for God
remains in the universe, but room still remains as long as we look inward.
RE: Whole Series
Roger
05/06/2008
Perhaps the question should be, "Can science make belief in God
irrelevant?" It cannot prove or disprove anything, but maybe it could be
used to investigate the impact of early childhood religious indoctrination
(brainwashing) on a person's belief in God. Children are taught religion
(often along with creationism) from infancy, and they are generally taught
evolution starting in middle through high school. So it may be no surprise
that in a recent poll, 25% of Americans thought man was both created and
evolved. And it may be no surprise that nearly two-thirds of Americans
want creationism taught alongside evolution. Science has not made belief
in God obsolete, because it cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
But it could be used to help understand why people so persistently believe
in God.

God is nothing more than an image in the mind, an image that was
planted there and nourished from infancy on. No one can prove that God
has materialized in any way, other than in people's minds. If God's image
had not been planted in their minds and nourished over a number of
years, it wouldn't exist. Science has not proved that God's image existed
in the mind before birth, but it might be possible to show that God's image
does not exist in the mind at or shortly after birth. I am an atheist, but I
was raised in a Christian family and community and church. Some form of

426
God's image was planted in my mind and nourished there, but today it
materializes only as a black, meaningless void.

Would I rely on that black, meaningless void to solve any of my problems

or to save any one or any place in the world from some perceived
disaster? No, I would be more inclined to rely on my senses and fortunes
as they are. People pray to God, and He appears to answer some prayers
and ignore others. Perhaps science could be used to show that God's
perceived actions are nothing more than random occurrences. If science
were used effectively, maybe it could be used to make belief in God
obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Lance
05/06/2008
There cannot be one without the other. Science is the divine path to our
creator(s).
RE: Whole Series
Fred Senn
05/06/2008
Wonderful use of advertising and the Internet to provoke engagement on
big issues. I'd be very interested to know how it's working, and how you
measure success. Thanks.
RE: Whole Series
Brent Welch
05/06/2008
I find it odd that so many answer a question that was never asked. The
question nowhere implied religion. When did religion and God become
indissolubly linked? I would argue that God has never damned,
condemned, or harmed; religion has. Religion is a system of belief, an
order of worship. Assuming that all who believe in God worship some
angry, spiteful tyrant is foolishness. Why must I be labeled ignorant simply
because my view of life is more inclusive than physical matter? Science
can explain many hows, but few whys--and that's okay. God or the divine
is the embodiment of the collective good inherent in all of humanity,
coupled with the beauty and intelligent order of nature and science. God is
Love. While I bask in the beauty and innovation of science, it is the
arrogance and short-sightedness of scientists that's bothersome.

As any artist will tell you, myself included, some see the world in types
and shadows, colors and shapes, visual moods. This is the realm of the
spirit or the soul. The aesthetic beauty of art, the transcendence of music,
the brilliance of literature, the raw ecstasy of sensual love; I don't need
science for these. I don't need an experiment (scientific, psychological, or
otherwise) to explain kismet, why I fall in love, nor do I assume most
scientists do. I accept the abstract as valid without completeness, and I
prefer it to science. This doesn't make me an enemy of science but rather

427
an equal partner in the balancing of the human equilibrium.
RE: Steven Pinker
Fr. Bill
05/06/2008
Professor Pinker might want to read Jeremy Waldron's God, Locke, and
Equality: Christian Foundations of Locke's Political Thought before trying to
make too much of the so-called "Enlightenment" views that somehow
saved us from religion. Religion is always in need of reform (what isn't?),
but the idea that the reforms generally have come from "secular" thought
is of dubious historical merit, particularly in the case of slavery.
RE: Whole Series
Ron Rozman
05/06/2008
The bottom line is that, if history is any indicator, the more we learn about
how things work, the less we chalk up to the gods. Religion is but a
leftover from the Age of Magic.
RE: Whole Series
Steve Vinson
05/06/2008
It seems as though this thread takes it for granted that the Judeo-
Christian-Islamic concept of an all-powerful, personal God is the only one
worth considering, and it's that god-concept that is the only "rival" to the
materialistic world view. How about debating the question of whether
there is no transcendant "God" in the Judeo-Christina-Islamic sense, but
that the physical universe itself may be divine--something familiar from
Stoic philosophy, for example, and ultimately based on pantheistic ideas
that go back to the ancient Egyptians? Why the implicit assumption that
only conventional "monotheism" is "real" religion?
RE: Whole Series
Malcolm Rasala
05/06/2008
Intelligence makes God obsolete. Inasmuch as science uses human
intelligence, superstitious nonsense regarding a God/Gods is simply the
deliberate attempt to con people out of money by charlatans and their
weak-brained brothers.
RE: Whole Series
Valerie
05/06/2008
No, it proves the existence of God. God is not a being but a process. The
sciences are the study of how God is manifest. The process is governed by
a series of laws (physics, engineering, chemistry, etc.) such that a carbon
atom can form four covalent bonds and so forth. Act upon or break a law,
and the overall process will respond accordingly. Evolution is the God
process by which creation exists. Humans, being mortal, cannot begin to
comprehend the full magnitude of the complexity of the process, which is

428
eternal. Scientists and engineers therefore will never be able to fully test
or anticipate the repercussions of their creations. God does not make
mistakes. Humanity has yet to recognize and accept the science of spirit,
though there are disciplines available that do. The spirit sciences will
answer the questions that arise from social problems. Please learn to
recognize God for what it really is.
RE: Steven Pinker
Rory
05/06/2008
Given our ability to "divine" cause and effect--in cosmology, evolution,
neuroscience, logical reasons for a moral code--does it necessarily follow
that a God doesn't exist?
RE: Whole Series
AK
05/05/2008
Less present, but not quite obsolete. The temptation for mysticism about
our own destiny, coupled with the possibility of positing arbitrary
metaphysical "skyhooks" upon which to hang that mysticism, means that
references to God are unlikely to become obsolete. However, science
certainly decreases the need to refer to God, particularly in explaining the
internal workings of nature. The epistemological silliness of "skyhooks"
goes to that.
RE: Whole Series
Mitch McGill
05/05/2008
A response to Rick Samuelson: I think I must have deeply misinterpreted
your previous comment. I apologize for that. If you are interested in
chemical evolution, I recommend beginning with a paper called "From
Chemistry to Heredity" by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary. The
article delves into the famous idea of the primitive pizza (as opposed to
the primitive soup) and extends this into the evolution of complex
biological molecules.

I am a biologist (first biochemist, now more of a general biologist), and I

am firmly convinced that evolution is the means by which mankind has
arrived at the present day. My opinion is that evolution makes God
unnecessary. However, I do not believe that it disproves God's existence.
In fact, I profess to be a type of Christian--though not necessarily a type
most would recognize. I believe that science is the most powerful way of
thinking humans possess, but I do not believe it is all-powerful. As I said,
there is a point where science ends and other ways of thinking
(philosophical, theological, etc.) must begin.
RE: Whole Series
James F. Williamson
05/05/2008
No, science has nothing to say. The evidence for the reality of God is not

429
scientific. It is the unspeakable mystery that anything at all exists. Since
the universe is real, it follows that God is not only real, but is both in and
beyond all that exists--the Ultimate Reality. The universe is in God and of
God.

God is beyond everything, including human knowledge. And while we

know that we are made of the ashes of stars, we have no definitive idea
why we, or anything else, exists. Science has nothing to contribute to the
question since there can be no empirical evidence for or against the
supernatural, and God is not subject to measurement or experiment.

Religious systems are inventions of humanity to attempt to frame the

unframeable and to know the unknowable. Since God is beyond human
knowledge, religious claims about the nature of God are suspect. We can,
however, confidently infer one characteristic of God: God's ongoing
creativity. Nothing in the universe is static. Stars, as well as living
creatures, are constantly being born. Evolution continues its march toward
ever-increasing fitness for purpose. Human artists create new works of
astonishing beauty and power. As the Ultimate Reality, God must be the
creative force driving this process of becoming, in which we are active
participants, and which extends back through time and space to the
beginning.

We do not know why we are here, in a world where neither religion nor
science can explain our predicament, where evil often prospers and good
often goes unrewarded. Even in such a world, however, we may be sure
that God is real because of the existence of existence itself, a Mystery
beyond words. We may be confident as well that God's very nature
includes ongoing creative action and that, as a part of the universe, we are
participants in God's unbroken chain of becoming.
RE: Whole Series
Josh Platt
05/05/2008
The great advances in science and technology actually present us not so
much with an affirmation or negation of the reality of the divine, but rather
a tremendously exciting opening in which a radical re-imagining of the
divine is going to come to pass. We are entering an age in which belief is
going to be more like what art was in the early 20th century in the West.
The "God" invoked in this question, and spoken of by the majority of the
respondents, is mostly the all-powerful deity of the Creation, that is to say,
the first creation myth in the book of Genesis, which seems rhetorically
more compatible with scientific reasoning.

Over the next few hundred years, the Western and global relationship with
the deity is going to have to address increasingly the destructive aspect of
the divine as well as the creative, and psychologically we're going to see a
move toward seeing the divine as meeting with human beings not through

430
a special relationship mediated by the super-ego, which will be
increasingly dominated by scientific and technological arrangements.
Rather, the divine is going to start speaking to us through the agency of
the id. Freud's own personal tribal romance aside, psychoanalytic
language is extremely well-suited to negotiating the new place of religion
in a world in which authority is structured around the evolution of
technology rather than the architecture of any Church or belief system.
Such language will find a new life in ecumenical dialogue and theology in
the next century.
RE: Whole Series
Jason Bowers
05/05/2008
For everything scientists think they know about the universe, remember
that at best they only know 4 percent. Ninety-six percent of the mass and
energy in the universe cannot even be accounted for by scientists. To fill
in the gap, they came up with the idea of dark energy and dark matter,
which have never been seen or detected. This is just one example of how
God's creation is more marvelous then we give it credit for. "For since the
creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine
nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been
made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
RE: Whole Series
Susan Tennant
05/05/2008
Thank you for this discussion. It should be more widely promoted in senior-
secondary and undergraduate education circles around the globe.
RE: Steven Pinker
Tom Hughes-Davies
05/05/2008
If species become wiser as they evolve, it is useful to view God as a lady
earthworm might view man: relatively immortal, invisible, and a product of
her imagination. Modifying her natural behavior by hit and miss over
generations will lead to the adoption of many practices that, however
inexplicable and unnatural, increase the chance of survival. Attributing
them to Man increases their persistence, so few earthworm clans will
emerge without some form of worship.

For man, the reason to flee fornication, usury, or pork emerged with the
recognition of AIDS, boom and bust, and Taenia solium. But the
mechanism that led to their early recognition is none the less valid. Its
other teachings may be as true, though seen as unnatural or contrary to
fashion. An hour of prayer or a day of rest and study may be as vital to
survival as honoring one's parents. God may be as real as Man to the
earthworm, or at least as useful as quantum theory.
RE: Whole Series
David E Dillman

431
05/05/2008
Religion has always claimed quantum leaps of understanding about the
universe, its origins, and its Maker, but dispenses with proofs that point to
its own failings, or perhaps more rightly, its "misunderstandings," while
grasping at popular and positive fairy tales and illusions, whether
supported or not by physical evidence. In their essential character,
however, the "illuminated" who have been revered among us have
presented understandings of time, energy, and space that are consistent
among themselves, if not yet fully scrutable by us lesser humans. It is the
bold church mouse that slams open the holy books of time and shouts
forth its finding, scarcely before he has learned to read!

Science has taken the approach that all must be provable, and then
provable once again. This timid church mouse carries a small sample of
the Binder's glue from the Book, to ascertain that it is truly glue, and then
again to ascertain what sort it is. And lacking any better name for that
which was nameless, named the smallest piece of it a "gluon," as if by
naming it, he had created it. And tepidly again, he seeks a scrap of paper
from the Binder's work, to know its character and source, its age and
matter. And back and forth he goes in his quest for incremental truths,
while his bolder brother claims to have the better view from higher in the
pulpit. Every step along the way the timid mouse denies creation of any
sort by Anyone except himself.

What sort of pursuit is this "science," except a self-aggrandized scavenger

hunt by timid mice? The Ink! Whereof the ink? And on it goes. The
penstrokes gain importance for their depth and breadth and style. Each
minute detail becomes a valid pursuit of the timid scientific church mouse
who dares travel only so much farther than its mentor mouse before him.
When one brave but timid mouse has reached the edge of explanation,
and leaped from there onto the pulpit itself by way of his winding studied
path, as Einstein did, he frightens his reverend brother mouse who stares
at words and knows not how his quiet brother came to understand them
without his divine assistance.

And then, as if in escape from some cosmic checkmate, the concept of the
universe is forced to play upon an even higher plane. Spirituality confronts
its unfounded superstitions . . . or not. And Science confronts its limitations
and inconsistencies . . . or not. We are different sorts of mice, it seems.
RE: Whole Series
Fersen
05/05/2008
The notion of science making belief in God obsolete can only be conceived
by a mind that positions science in conflict with religion, and vice versa.
Why is it that there needs to be a contradiction between science and
religion in the mind of many persons? Why is it that they have to discard
one for the survival of the other? The source of this conflict lies in the

432
elements that religion and science have in common. Both rely on faith as
their primordial element of discourse. Both place their faith not only on
past and experienced events but also on these events following a given
line of implications and ramifications that extend into the future, which in
turn will further reinforce or weaken faith on their original understanding.
In both cases the cognitive process is greatly influenced by personal
experiences (revelation, observation, etc.), as perceived by our senses and
filtered internally by our temperament and inclinations. As to how this
process happens exactly and in detail within the human mind, I wish I
could know, yet I very much see God's hand at this.

In any case, this process eventually results a paradigm of reality and a

comprehensive system that can help us explain many of the events that
take place around and within us and that ultimately affect our existence--
God's will working in mysterious ways or just natural laws taking place, our
sinful nature or selfish genes controlling us?

The sole practical purpose of this process seems to be to live with as little
fear as possible. We keep craving security, the security of knowing how
things work around us, because ultimately knowledge provides us with
elements to thread along our lives without feeling as if floating in a void.
This is even plainer to see when this security is ascribed to a higher
intelligence that cares for us.

Ultimately, both science and religion provide us with a structure to our

lives and a paradigm of our existence. As such, there shouldn't be any
conflict between them; rather, they should complement each other.
Science opens many paths of knowledge, yet we must always turn to God
concerning the application of such knowledge in a loving manner. As the
Paul the apostle said: And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all
mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove
mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
RE: Whole Series
Leo
05/05/2008
Science and God will merge just as the rest of the living world will merge,
until God is "the all in all" (1 Cor 15:28). Time in God's realm does not
exist--thank you, Mr. Einstein, for making that clearer. From Ecc 1:9: The
thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is
that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Science will help in opening the Bible. I still can't get over the fact that all
of the matter in the universe we know today was the size of a pea. Isn't
God awesome. I truly feel sorry for atheists.
RE: Whole Series
Darryl White
05/05/2008

433
Science does not make belief in God obsolete--it makes God unnecessary.
Experience makes God obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas Nicholas Skarshaug
05/05/2008
Science may challenge the small neurotic god, one who wages war with a
devil and offers unconditional love to humanity with only the "slight"
condition that if you do not follow a particular religious dogma you will
burn in everlasting hell fire. However, anyone who chooses to recognize a
truly big God--one who is capable of creating a perfect world, the
experiential world, and is not judgmental--should not be threatened by
science. Science is a process of turning uncertainty into certainty and
simultaneously exposing the fact that there is more uncertainty than one
was previously aware of. Every new discovery merely demonstrates how
God created the experiential world in which we all live. Humanity has the
keys when we choose to discover our true nature as consciously creative
beings born in the image and likeness of God-- but not a biped male god
born in our own image and likeness.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Schwartz
05/05/2008
The problem here is that people confuse Aquinas with Buddha. Aquinas
was preoccupied with the primal cause. Science has made that issue
moot. Buddha accepted deities as part of his universe. He never
questioned them. If by God we mean rules and forces that dictate how we
should live, as with Buddha, there is no reason not to accept God. Indeed,
God may well be useful in explaining human ethical behavior.
RE: Whole Series
T. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy
05/05/2008
The raison d'etre of science is to find God. Cause and effect are vital to
science. Who created the universe? Was there a beginning? If there was,
what is the beginning of the beginning? If the universe is ever expanding,
as science suggests, it must have started as an atom or some measurable
unit. If that unit, at the beginning of beginning is God, how did the unit
replicate? What helped it gestate? If the universe, as is commonly
understood, is time and space, how did these come about? If time and
space are two sides of a triangle, the basic mathematical and composite
entity, what is the third side and angle? What is the dark force or black
hole or dark matter that gives content to the triangle? The world knows
only the binaries, but the binaries by themselves do not complete the
triad.

It is, therefore, for science to chase God, even if the chase is useless. If
man were a creature of the creator, the creator would be intelligent
enough not to leave any tracks or to let evolution, which itself was

434
designed to reflect nature, trace the creator of nature itself. And if the
world is an idea, as Hegel said, and by extension the universe is a bigger
idea, an ideating mind is presupposed. Is an ideating mind, then, God? Is
thought God?
RE: Whole Series
John Douglas Andersen
05/05/2008
I just heard about this on NPR. Last night I read an essay on this exact
subject by the Nobel winner Richard Feynman. He writes to an imaginary
panel, and it is perfect for the non-fundamentalist or the scientist. He
basically answers "no" to the question. It's in the last chapter of his book
The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.
RE: Whole Series
Michele
05/05/2008
Any view that looks only at evidence supporting a given theory, ignoring
evidence to the contrary or, worse, manufacturing more theories to
explain what other evidence indicates, corrupts science. Too much of that
has been going on, and these efforts to explain away evidence of God or
Intelligent Design are more and more ridiculous. Believers in God don't
just believe what their "preachers" tell them. Let those who have eyes see
and those who have ears hear. The evidence of God is before our eyes and
ears--unless we're too biased to see, hear, or acknowledge it.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas
05/05/2008
Religion and God hinge on an ancient logic known as the "first cause"
argument, as in "Where did everything come from?" Science has more or
less answered this question, but sadly the answer does not involve any
supernatural intelligence called God. It involves complex systems
emerging out of simple beginnings through incremental changes over a
period of time.

Religion was our first attempt to explain the universe, but it was a dead
end, a blind alley. It's not going to take us another inch forward. The way
forward is the scientific method of collecting data and creating
mathematical models from it.
RE: Whole Series
Dena Leichnitz
05/05/2008
Of course not. In fact, God becomes more evident the more you learn
about science. Science can explain some of the hows, but it cannot explain
the whys; for that you need faith, you need God. Most scientists today hold
some kind of religious belief, which makes perfect sense to me. How could
you look at the structure of DNA with all its intricacies and not be
astounded by the sheer magnificence of God? Evolution, the Big Bang

435
theory--none of that makes any sense when critically analyzed. An
explosion could no more create a perfect, ordered world than throwing
mud at your wall will make it neat and clean.

I am not anti-science, but when we raise science up to the level of God

and bestow all his powers on it, we do ourselves a grave disservice. For
God quenches our very soul, he touches something fundamentally
ingrained in us that nothing else can ever reach. By allowing science to
become Science and thereby a religion in its own right, we not only
downplay God but cut off our greatest source of knowledge. It is through
God's revelation that we have attained the knowledge that has brought us
to where we are today. However, through Man's twisted thirst for power
and conquest, we have corrupted that revelation and used it for evil
purposes. Science without God's morality is nothing but intelligent men
creating barbaric acts within the walls of their laboratories (the Holocaust,
embryonic stem-cell research).

Science must be guided by ethics, and where do we get these ethics? We

get them from God himself. Science and God should never be separated,
for when you do, you get horrific acts of cruelty. No amount of scientific
knowledge or advancement will ever make God obsolete. For how can the
Creator of science ever be obsolete?
RE: William D. Phillips
Gregory Konakis
05/05/2008
Phillips writes that "Many people of faith believe science opposes their
understanding that the universe is the loving and purposeful creation of
God. Because science denies this fundamental belief, many people of faith
conclude science is mistaken. These very different points of view share a
common conviction: science and religion are irreconcilable enemies."

Science does not oppose or deny the belief of people of faith that the
universe is the loving and purposeful creation of God. Individual scientists
oppose and deny these statements of faith. People of faith want scientists
to confirm their statements of faith (such as Intelligent Design), although
scientists have no methodology to verify these assertions. Instead of
acknowledging they are mistaken in expecting what they cannot rationally
expect, people of faith believe scientists are mistaken in failing to confirm
their assertions.
RE: Whole Series
Mani Tadayon
05/05/2008
Self-assured fundamentalists and atheists are both saying the same thing:
"Everything can be explained away by clear-cut formulas." I think that
there is always more out there than we can hope to fathom. A horrible
spiritual void results from materialism: "Only what I can see and touch is
real and important." What about love? Honor? Colorful birds? Rainbows?

436
Daydreams?

Dogmatic religious beliefs are no less narrow: "Only what my preacher

tells me is real and important." The world is even simpler, more stark for
people whose spiritual life begins and ends with a literal understanding of
a specific holy text.

There is always more to the world than we can explain away logically. And
you can try to define or name that "more," but in essence it's all just word
games.
RE: Whole Series
Perry
05/04/2008
I was born and raised in a Catholic family. Both of my parents have
bachelor's degrees in engineering, yet hold a firm belief in God. When
people begin to talk about religion and science in mutually exclusive
terms, it baffles me. In my life, I have had to see both at the same time. To
those who were not socialized as I was, I suggest viewing it like this: We
no longer need God or any other supernatural being/force to describe
natural events. In the modern world, religion is a method to understand
and cope with human behavior, which science can shed light on but will
never fully explain. For those who choose Christianity, the ideas put forth
by Christ do provide comfort in trying times. God should no longer explain
lightning, but I believe God can explain why it is best to forgive someone
for a transgression or to care for the poor.
RE: Whole Series
Richard
05/04/2008
Religion, yes; God, no. Science deals with sequences, cause and effect
(i.e., Hoodbhoy's fluid mechanics or Sapolsky's "A causes B"). It does not
deal with why those sequences exist or why the parts of those sequences
exist. It certainly does not deal with that conscious, massless, causative,
and creative entity labeled God. Darwin titled his opus The Origin of
Species, not The Origin of Life.
RE: Whole Series
Jake
05/04/2008
God asked no one to pick up a test tube. His purpose was to give man
spiritual salvation. His only Son said, "Feed my sheep." But somehow the
men in sheep's clothing have found it honorable to feed themselves at the
sheep's expense. For shame. Science is not the end-all answer to
everthing.
RE: Whole Series
Khalid Brickhouse
05/04/2008
The answer is no. The day that science can explain all the mysteries of the

437
universe is the day that I will truly ponder that question. To think that
science can explain all things is nothing more than arrogance.
RE: Whole Series
Thomas Mandel
05/04/2008
God is a word, and words have the property of isolating this from that. The
word God isolates God from everything else, giving the impression that
God is there and everything else is here. But God is an experience. It is the
notion that God is a thing that leads many to disbelieve. And they are
right. But if one eliminates the words, and then asks what is God, the
answer is that everything is God. But how does one say this? One does not
say it. One can only know it. So, no, there is no God separate from
everything else.
RE: Whole Series
Alexander Hellemans
05/04/2008
It is clear from the many responses to this discussion that the initial
question is flawed. We should first define what we mean by the term
"God." Einstein's God ("God does not play dice") does not point to a
"personal" god; it is a metaphor. He could just as well have said "mother
nature." So the initial question should have been: "Does science make
belief in a personal god obsolete?" Here we have to define "personal": a
god that listens to prayers, who intervenes in the destiny of individual
people, who has anthropomorphic character traits, such as love, goodness,
jealousy, malice (some people surviving catastrophes believe that a god
has saved them while he/she/it allowed many others to perish).

Einstein's statement, "God does not play dice" was in fact a scientific
opinion and not a religious one: he did not accept that in quantum
mechanics certain events are aleatory.
RE: Whole Series
Bibbo
05/04/2008
Most people have a poor understanding of what "faith" is, and this blocks
them from having any. In a way, faith is a blind acceptance of facts
unproved, but it's not contradictory to reason or scientific proof. We
accept the concept of "infinity," but nobody has ever seen something
infinite, and science seems to suggest it's not possible that anything has
an infinite aspect. I think infinity has a god-like characteristic because it's
really not provable or disprovable with the tools our intellect has to work
with. How can we even conceive of the concept of "infinity" unless its a
real thing? If it's real, then prove it, the skeptic or agnostic will say. It's not
against reason--it's beyond reason.

This is the realm of discussion of God. Faith is open to all who want to
believe in the reality of things beyond reason. Einstein's theory of

438
relativity, built upon the physics of his day, is an example of what I mean.
The irony of faith is that the block to accepting it is not intellectual but
willful. Wanting to believe even when you are tortured by doubts of being
hoodwinked or being an old fool (think Mother Theresa) is slowly rewarded
with an "I just know it's so" and great inner joy and gratitude. I believe
most people deep down have enough of a wish to believe that in the final
moments of their lives they take the plunge and say "I choose to believe."
RE: Jerome Groopman
Bill Haines
05/04/2008
In his great essay, Dr. Groopman writes "God is axiomatic or not."
Although God does not intervene in our daily lives in any way we can
easily prove, I think that faith (trust in the historical accuracy of the
account in the Bible) ought to be considered, in part, axiomatic. That is,
God wants us to choose Him based on reasonable evidence and on what is
good.

For example, based on the most recent scientific evidence, the most
rational observation is that the co-ordinated complexity of life is probably
the result of an intelligent design. (There is random chance mutation, but
it usually represents the loss of information.) Also, the more you study
world history, the more you will find that it corroborates the truth of the
Bible. And the ideals taught in the Bible--that we should love one another,
always treat others the way we ourselves would want to be treated--are
obviously good.
RE: Whole Series
Kyle
05/04/2008
What god are we talking about here? Is it the god of the bible, allegedly
all-knowing and all-loving, but meanwhile smiting his creations everytime
he gets a chance? Or is it a god that is the creator of all things, but has no
hand in the everyday lives of humans and other living things on earth?
God seems like something that man made to have someting/someone to
blame for all of man's faults. Or is that the devil?
RE: Whole Series
Rabbi Maurice Lamm
05/03/2008
This is a unique method of triggering thought. The whole series is
stimulating. Indeed, it will form a significant portion of my research for a
new book I'm writing.
RE: Whole Series
Nicholas LiVolsi
05/03/2008
Science actually has one thing in common with God--a searching mind. So
the answer to the question is no. God Is. It can't be described in words. It
just is.

439
RE: Whole Series
Alessandro Machi
05/03/2008
What type of real evidence from ages ago could a present-day scientist
accept as proof of a God or a progeny of God?
RE: Steven Pinker
Purple Girl
05/03/2008
"Faith" still can help to explain the thing science has yet to figure out, if it
ever does. From the single-cell animal to the cosmos, all things are not yet
understood but seem miraculous when some comprehension is obtained. I
am an atheist and do not believe in the "old man," but I do think there are
things far greater then us which cause awe and deserve respect--"Mother
Nature." We are the only species on this earth capable of being stewards
of it--a gift that demands responsiblity, whether mandated by a "god" or
nature.
RE: Jerome Groopman
Jared P.
05/03/2008
Groopman writes that "Tolerance is actually a tenet of my tradition." Yet
the God of the Old Testament orders the killing of children and the death
penalty for a wide variety of "crimes," including blasphemy,
homosexuality, and breaking the Sabbath. It is true that there is "no path
to righteousness" in science, but neither is there one to be found in the
pages of scripture. Wherever Groopman imagines atheists are getting
their morality, he is undoubtedly taking his own beliefs about love and
kindness from the same source, since the fundamental message of his
holy book is obey--or else.

When he invokes the idea that the ancient Hebrews were strangers in
Egypt, he neglects to mention how God dealt with those He did not like at
that time. In the still-celebrated ritual of Passover, God is celebrated for
killing every firstborn child in Egypt. But lo, a miracle!--all the Jewish
households were spared, "passed over."

The metaphysical beliefs of religions, as well as their moral precepts,

belong in the Dark Ages. Acknowledging this fact does not make me, in
Groopman's terms, a "fundamentalist."
RE: Whole Series
Linda Saggau
05/03/2008
I believe all of our scientific discoveries are co-created with the assistance
of universal source energy (God, if you will). Many great scientists,
philosophers, artists, musicians, and thinkers report unexplainable
epiphanies that propel them to new discoveries and developments. It is
likely that these epiphanies come from this source energy or higher

440
consciousness, which is not currently considered "reasonable" by science.
However, I find it conceivable that a scientist (like Einstein) who received
an "aha!" of this nature would attribute it not to her/himself but perhaps to
God or higher consciousness.

A more exciting question is how we individually and collectively define

God. For the most part, our human definitions of God are limiting and
bound to the notion of right and wrong. We struggle with ourselves and
one another to define and limit what cannot be defined and limited.
Perhaps we could all get along better if we released the struggle to define
God and instead accepted that God, like everything else in the universe, is
energy; and this energy contributes to propelling the expansion of the
entire system.

With the aid of this energy and our own divine heads and hearts, we are
empowered to co-create magnificent discoveries. We are also empowered
to use them in the way we see fit. Ultimately, the choice is ours, to use
what we co-create for the greatest harm or to use it consciously for the
greatest good. Perhaps this is where God steps back to see if we make
choices that foster the evolution of our souls and our physical existence or
ones that endanger them.
RE: Whole Series
Nick
05/03/2008
I'm not sure this is a fair question, because science changes and God
doesn't. Science brought us a flat earth, a universe that revolves around
the earth, and countless studies and papers that were disproven over time
by the new revelations of science. To say that "Science makes belief in
God obsolete" would be fine if science was a settled matter, but it isn't.
Even if you were to rephrase the question, "Does current science make
belief in God obsolete?," I would have to say no. The question is, how
complete is our current science? Should the scientific community punch
the clock and go home because all facts are known? If so, we would be
trapped on this flat earth without God.

Saying that God doesn't exist without exploring the WHOLE of an ever-
expanding universe seems preposterous. "Nope, I looked--God's not here,
He doesn't exist." We have greater minds than that--unless the goal is to
disprove God. For the most part, disproving is simply denial surrounded by
facts we summarize as complete and unequivocal. "I've exhausted my
abilities. I can't find God, therefore He isn't." It's not a fair question. How
about "Will God ever be found with science?"
RE: Whole Series
C. Hudson
05/03/2008
My thanks to John Templeton for investing in the big questions. This week
we were discussing the recent detection of releases from blackholes and

441
what effect this might have on the big-bang theory. As almost always
happens, one of my students asked "what about religion, where does that
fit in?" Another student this last week shared that he had been wondering
what it would be like if all the hydrogen atoms in our universe started
lighting up all at the same time so we could really see and understand
everything. (I wondered if that were perhaps a prophetic possibility.) Over
the years many other students have had similar questions and thoughts. It
is amazing what possibilities unfold when students are allowed to think
freely and question their world aside from the constraints of either science
or religion.
RE: Whole Series
Robert L. Oldershaw
05/03/2008
Is it possible that Spinoza, writing in the 1600s, answered the basic
questions about god, nature, man, and their interrelationships, and that
we essentially ignore his answers because they make us uncomfortable?
RE: Whole Series
Jim Corbett
05/03/2008
In my advanced-placement high-school class, I offered that Joseph II, the
Austrian monarch who tried to free the serfs and provide them with land
taken from the Church (which owned over 25% of all land in Austria), was
frustrated when the Church used its access to the peasants to put "Jesus
glasses" on them, with the result that they turned against their own best
economic interests and opposed the monarch. Since then, I've been sued
by a student who claims that I created a classroom "hostile to Christians."
This is the crux of the problem: rational people cannot bring reason to
bear on any question relating to religion without suffering the slings and
arrows of over-sensitive, irrational followers of God. In that respect, all
attempts to bring religion into the public dialogue do little except create
acrimony. If religious people would just go to their "father" in secret, the
naturally divisive nature of religion would be far less damaging to the
commonweal.
RE: Whole Series
Well-tempered
05/03/2008
It does if you are referencing the god of the bible.
RE: Whole Series
Harish
05/03/2008
Science is based on physically verifiable facts. God is based on His
"isness," which is vast and yet verifiable only intuitively. The question begs
to be redefined with more clarity.
RE: William D. Phillips
Gregory Konakis

442
05/02/2008
William D. Phillips writes that "The philosopher and long-time atheist
Anthony Flew changed his mind and decided that he should believe in
God." The following excerpts are from Flew's There Is a God: How the
World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2008). My comments
follow each excerpt:

"For over fifty years I have not simply denied the existence of God but also
the existence of an afterlife. I do not think of myself as surviving death. I
want to lay to rest all these rumors that have me placing Pascalian bets."
(p.2) Flew is a deist. His God is the mysteries and mechanics of the
universe.

"I believe this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have
called the Mind of God. I believe life and reproduction originate in a divine
Source." (p.88) "I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has
proceeded on a purely natural level without any reference to supernatural
phenomena. It has been an exercise in what is traditionally called natural
theology. It has no connection with any of the revealed religions; nor do I
claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that
may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the
Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith." (p.93) Flew's
pilgrimage has been from atheism to deism: from darkness to twilight.

"Einstein renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a

personal God as a denial of God. He did say, though: 'It is a difficult
question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Sigmund
Freud endorsed this view in his Future of an Illusion. I myself would never
engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me preferable to the
lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether one can
ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means
in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.'" (p.100) Einstein didn't want to
contest belief in a personal God because he didn't want to deprive the
majority of mankind of their belief in personal immortality. And he
considered belief in a personal God preferable to lacking "any
transcendental outlook of life" because he thought mankind needed
illusions to keep them pacified.
RE: Whole Series
Karen
05/02/2008
I have been engaged in a dialogue about this for a long time. I was a
neuroscience research assistant and am now a theologian. I think the
discussion is not as urgent for the truly committed biblical literalist, who
has the answer and that's that. It is more urgent for the theologian and
scientist who is engaged with the real world and who reads Michio Kaku
and Brian Greene with interest and some underestanding of the issues
raised.

443
RE: Whole Series
Dmitry Burdein
05/02/2008
The question is so poorly phrased that it becomes completely bogus. It is
like asking, does good reasoning make bad reasoning obsolete? Of course
not. Instead, the focus should be on which view is correct when science
and religion contradict each other.
RE: Whole Series
Krikkit
05/02/2008
"Belief," i.e., faith, isn't predicated on what can be measured, so the
answer is "No, science does not make belief in God obsolete." However, if
you had asked, "Does science make RELIGION obsolete?" then you might
be getting closer to a resounding "Yes," because religious claims can be
disputed with science and other academic disciplines.

Take, for example, the story of Jesus, his divine origin, his death and
miraculous recovery, and his ascent into heaven. We now know that this
was a common epitaph applied to prominent Greek citizens as a way to
honor them. That certainly sheds some doubt on Christian religious claims,
though it doesn't touch on the core of "belief in God" per se.
RE: Whole Series
Glen Reese
05/02/2008
Although we were born into an ancient (possibly infinite) universe
composed of at least 100 billion galaxies, each composed of 100 billion
suns, our brains were programmed by our experience within a tiny fraction
of it, and thus the limitations of our "common sense." In such a large
(possibly infinite) universe, even the most improbable events become
possible, even the formation of habitable planets, the spontaneous
generation of cellular life, and Clemson University. But to comprehend
such concepts, and those of infinite time and multiple dimensions, is not
humanly possible--even though such concepts may be required to explain
the universe.

It's probably inevitable that we turn to the idea of a superintelligent

(possibly infinite) Creator to explain the incomprehensible. It's not a good
argument for God's existence, but a testament to the limitations of our
imagination.
RE: Whole Series
Kyle Arnone
05/02/2008
Commentary by a social scientist--someone who could unravel the social
forces behind the unremitting drive of history--is conspicuously absent
from these debates. How often have you heard someone say, "it was
meant to happen," in reference to destiny--a remnant of the Protestant

444
Reformation, no doubt. Only the social scientist understands the historical
complexity behind these statements. It is a grave oversight by Templeton
not to have included a sociologist or historian.
RE: Whole Series
Lothar Schwabe
05/02/2008
A culture that insists on the absolute supremacy of rationality over the
values that only faith can provide destroys itself. Pure rationality has not
prevented our current environment of economic crises nor has it solved
the problems of hunger and war. We have discounted Christian values to
our own peril. It is also not advisable to let the functions of the right side of
the brain lead our thinking without the checks and balances provided by
the left side of the brain. We must learn to give equal respect to the
functions that are processed on both sides of the brain. A solution is not
found in a confrontation of reason and faith but in a respectful balance of
both. God may still get through to us.
RE: Whole Series
scout29c
05/02/2008
Answer to the question: no, science re-enforces belief in God. Awareness
(science) is God's second greatest gift. Like no other living thing, we know
and understand our presence in this universe, and through scientific
investigation, we will come to know and understand more and more.

Life is God's greatest gift. The more science discovers about the universe,
the more unique life becomes. We have looked and listened and yet no
other sign of life in any form has yet to be found. Worst-case scenario:
There is no God or higher life form of any kind. We are it. There is no other
life in the universe (remember, this is the worst-case scenario). The
coming together of molecules that led to DNA was astronomically unique
and was never replicated anywhere else. If that is the case, then we are
God or will be one day.

We are advancing so fast and space is so vast, we will develop the

technology to intercept the Pioneer spacecrafts long before they reach
anywhere near another solar system. We will develop the ability to live
forever. We will develop the ability to travel through time (whatever that
is). One day we will be able to travel back in time to rescue our ancestors
from oblivion, and you and I will live forever--which God has promised to
us all if we just have faith.
RE: Whole Series
Dr Mark Barratt
05/02/2008
The question is so vaguely worded (why only one god? which god do you
mean? does this god have any characteristics?) that it has allowed the
contributors to define "God" in whatever way suits them, and then to

445
argue from there. Indeed, some of them have made this very point
themselves.

Are we to conclude that faith in "god" is fine, no matter how you define
"god"? Does this mean that the idea of one specific interventionist God
whose approval must be sought on pain of eternal torture is finally off the
table, and god is therefore simply whatever anyone wants it to be? Are we
supposed to think that this is a view accepted by the majority of the
world's population?
RE: Whole Series
Prof. E E Rosinger
05/02/2008
Belief is a concept with a variegated history. Aristotle and (following him)
the Church until a few centuries ago, believed the Earth to be at rest at
the center of Creation. The flatness of the Earth was also quite firmly
believed in for ages, including by any number of sages. Knowledge, as a
candidate for a possibly clearer, firmer, and less corruptible concept than
belief, has its own problems, not least those described by what Karl
Popper called falsification. We may perhaps try other concepts, or even
whole avenues, in order to address and deal with issues usually in the
purview of the concept of belief, or even that of knowledge.

In this regard, there are four questions that may prompt certain mindful
souls along worthy avenues of enquiry: Do you believe that whatever in
Creation which may be relevant to your life is already accessible to your
awareness? If not--which is most likely the case--then do you believe that
it may become accessible during the rest of your life? And if not--which
again is most likely the case--then do you believe that you should
nevertheless try some sort of two-way interaction with all that which may
never ever become accessible to your awareness, yet may nevertheless
be relevant to your life? And if yes--which is the minimally wise approach--
then how do you intend to get into a two-way interaction with all those
realms about which your only awareness can be that they shall never ever
be within your awareness, no matter how long you may live ?

Note: the word "believe" in these four questions was used with its
customary meaning. That, however, need not preclude the possibility that
these question may help one go well beyond whatever the concept of
belief may usually be able to encompass.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Loges
05/02/2008
Science has made obsolete a god like the one in the Bible. However, until
science can answer questions about the infinite nature of time and space
and how life started, God of some kind remains an option.
RE: Whole Series

446
Shelley
05/01/2008
One of the problems with this debate is that the spiritual dimension is
usually portrayed as Judeo-Christian, whereas the scientific perspective is
inevitably assumed to be the European approach epitomized by "great
men of science." Hinduism and Buddhism have no difficulty blending spirit
and science, while many indigenous perspectives embrace a scientific
world view very similar to quantum mechanics. The stark divide between
spirituality and science is only possible when the universe is seen as
materialist, and questions of mind and spirit are presumed to hark back to
an older naive set of religious beliefs that materialist science is believed to
have transcended.

The answer is, quite frankly, we don't know. Spirituality depends on many
things, such as meditation or prayer, religious epiphanies, lifelong cultural
and personal values, etc. Why, within a materialist European scientific
tradition, won't the questions of spirituality go away? In fact, new
discoveries in cosmology and quantum physics seems to suggest that
material and spiritual realms cannot be separated. Creation myths from
Genesis to the Big Bang have surprising similarities.

The European scientific tradition is based on a belief that humans

(although descended from and linked to other living organisms) are
unique, that life on earth is also unique (as far as we know), and that the
universe can be explained through a mixture of experiential testing,
observation, and rational thought. Religious views (within the Judeo-
Christian tradition) depend on a similar set of beliefs. In fact, there is a
very good argument that scientific analysis is derived from religious
experience, from Muslim scientists to Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton.

The incredibly improbable, indeed impossible, chance that we exist at all

in this universe is enough to ground my faith in a consciousness beyond
the human and a transcendant spirit that permeates the Universe.
Whether we call this "God" or not is irrelevant.
RE: Kenneth Miller
Bob Huskey
05/01/2008
"Science itself employs a kind of faith." This draws a specious connection
to religious faith. The "faith" of science, if you insist on using that word, is
accepting observation and understanding the world based on it. The faith
of religion is accepting there is a deity (creator) that we can't observe and,
for far too many, understanding the world based on what others say that
deity said. That is, the whim of other men.

"But God is not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature,
the explanation of why things are. He is the answer to existence, not part
of existence itself." This is where it becomes nonsense. These are

447
undefined, essentially meaningless assertions. Miller seems to be
presuming existence has a "meaning" and god provides that meaning.
That existence has "meaning" is a romantic fallacy. "Meaning" to whom?
Isn't it sweet to imagine humans "mean" something in the universe? Even
the question, "what is our meaning in the universe, what is the meaning of
life?" presumes there is a meaning. It is an ill-formed question. A real
question might be, Is there "meaning" in our existence? But that would
require defining "meaning," and to whom, which extinguishes the
question's value pretty quickly.

The theist, we're told, "seeks an explanation that is deeper than science
can provide, an explanation that includes science, but then seeks the
ultimate reason why the logic of science should work so well. The
hypothesis of God comes not from a rejection of science, but from a
penetrating curiosity that asks why science is even possible, and why the
laws of nature exist for us to discover." Here is more of the same nonsense
about "meaning." To use the phrase the "hypothesis of God" to rhetorically
wrap god into science (scientists test hypotheses) while asserting
elsewhere that god is outside of science is shallow rhetoric that demands
exposure and explanation.
RE: Whole Series
Glen Reese
05/01/2008
As noted by an earlier poster, the concept of God has always been man-
made. (How could it be otherwise?) And science has gradually eliminated
any need for God as an explanation for humankind, the natural order, and
the cosmos that we observe. The data from cosmology, astronomy,
nuclear physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, genetics, etc. support
one consistent story of the gradual buildup of complexity from a Big Bang
about 14 billion years ago. No intervening miracles have been needed;
every layer of complexity appears to evolve from the previous one through
simple, natural laws. As this progression has been explicated by science,
the justification (and need) for God as a supernatural meddler into nature
has gradually disappeared.

But the understanding of this progressive evolution brings us a new

problem, i.e., why did it work so well? It has been noted by several
cosmologists that the universe could not have created us if the
(apparently arbitrary) forces of physics had been ANY different. The
complexity we see is the result of physical laws that are fine-tuned to an
incredible degree. It did not (apparently) have to be this way.

Although recent efforts in science have been directed toward an

understanding of the source of these laws (e.g., string theory, quantum
cosmology), there appears little hope that any verifiable, scientific
explanation will be forthcoming. We are left to hypothesize about infinite
arrays of universes, one of which we are fortunate to live in. In this

448
situation, it seems equally reasonable to speculate that our universe was
set into motion by a very Intelligent Designer. So science has not yet
disproven the God Hypothesis, although most traditional religions have
taken it in the shorts. There is still room for faith, if you're careful about it.
RE: Whole Series
Russ Otter
05/01/2008
Dear Mohamoud (who posted below),

Please read my book, at least the chapters on theology and religion. It is

called Swimming in Cosmic Soup. I have reviewed your comments about
Christopher Hitchens, and I find them very firm and dedicated to your
belief system. I also find Christopher, a gentleman and a scholar, trying to
inform the world about truths that we all have ignored too long. I believe
that the core of god or providence, if actual, would agree with me. A God
would make itself secondary to the essentials of goodness toward all living
things in this life, the goodness that you and I and all of us are in
communion with. We are part of this cosmos together and part of each
other. Physics, or existence itself, makes this so. You are welcome to your
beliefs, as I am to mine. That is integrity, which is essential to be sincere.
But that does not make either of us right. Only goodness makes us right.
RE: Whole Series
Stephen Aja
05/01/2008
Impossible. Science is an empirical enterprise that measures quantifiable
physical parameters, whereas belief in God begins as spiritual exercise.
These are often presented as parallel worldviews. This is not so, and I
contend that the spiritual worldview takes precedence over and subsumes
the physical. Part of the historical problem in projecting spiritual realities
into the physical world has been the attempt to make the Bible a science
text and hence a strict reconstruction of cosmological and geological
history. This could never have been the intention of the Author of the Holy
Writ, for one of the writers declared that through faith (not through
science) we understand that the worlds were framed by God. Being a body
of revealed knowledge, the Bible does not contain details on how the
worlds came into being. Finding out these details is the purview of the
scientific enterprise.

Some so-called creationists speculate that the earth is only 6,000 to

10,000 years old, whereas most scientists assume that the earth is 4.6
billion years old; the former is based on the work of Archbishop Ussher (ca.
1650). Since the latter is based on scientific measurements, the
impression of a conflict is created. However, this is really a misreading of
the evidence. The Genesis account indicates that the sun and the moon
were created on the fourth day. The first three days obviously could not
have been 24-hour days. The sun was not there then! Conceivably, the 6
days of creation were counted on a different frame of reference.

449
Finally, given the vastness of the universe, it is remarkable that our earth,
which is just like a speck of dust in the universe, is the only place where
life exists. Furthermore, a series of fortuitous circumstances (e.g., the
distance of earth from the sun and the presence of a moon that regulates
the inclination of the earth's orbit) combined to make life possible on the
earth. Moreover, our universe is characterized by increasing entropy, and
yet life (which requires some self-assembly and self-organization) evolved
contrary to this increase towards randomness in the universe. These are
arguments for the existence of a Creator who is possibly the God we speak
of, and our detailed understanding of the works of the Creator cannot
contradict faith in Him.
RE: Whole Series
Chris Roach
05/01/2008
Phrasing the question as "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"
seems to focus the discussion on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions,
which picture a big bearded "Guy in the Sky" who takes a direct and
constant interest in the affairs of the people who populate this small and
insignificant planet (and sometimes feels the rather human need to
meddle). Believers in these traditions have made rational arguments over
the centuries to prove the existence of this God (made in the image of
man) and have promulgated myths of creation and miracles to show that
this God takes a personal and active interest in the affairs of man. Science
and rigorously rational thought reveal the hollowness of these sorts of
justifications and engender an urge to dismiss God, since the best of
science and rationality cannot show any proof or even indication of "his"
existence. One can believe, but there is no rational basis for that belief.

The discussion (or at least that part of it that was published in The Atlantic
for May) is about belief and rationality; it leaves out something beyond
either--experience, that is, the direct mystical experience of the Divine. "I
experience, therefore I believe." Most, if not all, religions start with the
ecstatic religious experience of a person, an experience universally
described as becoming one with the universe, feeling love for all
creatures, and knowing this transcendent love as deriving from a source
beyond our comprehension but encompassing everything. Unfortunately,
this person all too often becomes a prophet and speaks of an experience
that is ineffable, demeaning the reality of the experience and creating a
story that will be expanded and misinterpreted by those who follow. Only
Lao Tzu resisted this urge.

The religions of the East, as well as the mystic branches of Judaism,

Christianity, and Islam, give us spiritual practices that can lead to a direct
experience of God, or the Divine, or whatever word you choose to
represent It. Few can reach the ultimate experience, but many can and
have experienced brief glimpses, enough to KNOW and to provide a

450
spiritual and moral structure that enriches their lives.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Mohamoud
05/01/2008
Mr. Hitchens asks if human beings would have believed in God had they
known: (a) that our species is at most 200,000 years old, and very nearly
joined the 98.9 percent of all other species on our planet by becoming
extinct, in Africa, 60,000 years ago, when our numbers seemingly fell
below 2,000 before we embarked on our true "exodus" from the savannah;
(b) that the universe is expanding away from itself even more rapidly; (c)
that the Andromeda galaxy is on a direct collision course with our own

But what if my religion (Islam) does not contradict the above scientific
facts and has continuously taught similar facts for thousands of years, long
before these discoveries were made by modern science? So the answer is,
yes, Mr. Hitchens, because there does exist a group of us who believe in
God even though we are aware of the above facts. And our faith in God did
not become obsolete because science was able to show us the evidence of
what we already believed.

The only question that remains, then, is how can we believe in a creator or
a designer that is (a) very laborious, roundabout, tinkering, and
incompetent and/or (b) extremely capricious, and callous, and even cruel.
Well, I would not say God moves in mysterious ways because, as Mr.
Bizarro Dawkins points out (in a previous post), this argument of Hitchens
really boils down to a rather crude argument from personal incredulity,
and it deserves to be discounted as emotionally charged rubbish.
RE: Whole Series
Michael D'Emidio
05/01/2008
As an attorney, I know the value of a good question. This was a bad
question; the response to which enlightens no one--i.e., the jury of
humankind. A vestigial organ may exist and be "obsolete." A better
question, that would yield a useful answer, is: Has the scientific method
proven that the concept of God is man-made? Then the answer is an
unequivocal yes. I trust that the fence-sitting scientists in these essays
don't engage in such contra-factual faith-based cognitive dissonance when
conducting experiments. Anyone can "believe" whatever they want, but
that doesn't have anything to do with truth or reality--the ostensible goals
of science.
RE: Whole Series
Raymond Dudderar
05/01/2008
This is far more than just "interesting"! It is the defining debate about how
humans will progress with regard to the social contract and morality in
general. Religion has failed us miserably in so many ways. Perhaps reason

451
will succeed--if we give it a chance.
RE: Whole Series
Sterling Cox
05/01/2008
Beyond delightsome, this! Thank you profusely to the Templeton
Foundation. I relish this series and want to suggest live forums too, to
whatever extent and wherever possible. The interactive aspect is the only
thing which, in my opinion, can improve the quality.
RE: Whole Series
Joe Kenny
04/30/2008
Interesting debate.
RE: Whole Series
Gunther Steinberg
04/30/2008
Those with a religious bent and belief must argue for the idea that there is
a god. Reasoning plus inductive and deductive thought will always lead to
the conclusion that there is no god. God was invented in ancient times
when most people were quite ignorant, and those with knowledge used
that idea to gain control and reenforce some of the rules that they wished
to have.

For instance, someone in ancient times seems to have deduced that

trichinosis was associated with the eating of pork. The outlawing of eating
pork by a ruler would be circumvented in times of hunger, but when it
became part of the prevalent belief/religion, the prohibition was more
closely adhered to and prevented widespread illness. And so it is with
most "religious" tenets. They were precursors of rules and laws we have
today in a civilized society and were enforced for the benefit of the
population. Only later did some religions make other rules primarily
related to their own survival and to increase the number of "believers."
The Catholic Church is a fine example of this, with its rules against birth
control, regardless of how much misery and hunger this might cause.
Outbreeding the other faiths is more important.

When rational scientific thought is applied to almost any specific

"religious" rule or belief, it can be readily shown to be faulty. Intelligent
design is a good example, since its defenders cannot answer most of the
scientific and rational questions posed to them. Perhaps God and religion
serve a minor purpose by reenforcing the rules of modern society. But
then many "believers" and church leaders misuse it for their own purpose
and advancement. Some people need blind faith in something to maintain
their sanity in the face of adversity. Others practice a religion because
failure to do so would be "bad for business." For that reason there
probably never will be an atheist President of the US. He would lose all the
faithful and blind believers. But do the "born again Christian" Presidents in

452
the US practice what they profess to believe? Hardly.
RE: Whole Series
Rahmat Aziz
04/30/2008
The idea of god came about because we wanted to feel secure in the
knowledge that we exist forever (fear of death, wanting to be pain-free
and well fed). The idea of the existence of god is faith and cannot be
proven by science. At this point, human understanding and knowledge
have shown with reasonable certainty the processes of human existence
and that we are part of the universe. Old religious ideas are very limiting.
RE: Whole Series
Russ Otter
04/30/2008
We are all created agnostic. Only culture or introspection forms god(s).
This is not to say there is no god, but to say we can never know such a
thing, for the simple reality that we are finite sentient beings. Theology
clearly defines god as omnipotent, therefore infinite. However,
understanding the infinite realm would circumscribe infinity--and it would
no longer be infinite. This is a conundrum, and it explains the advent of
the agnostic, who possesses the only possible truth we will ever actually
know.

God is a concept used in various religions to make sense of the

fundamental unknowns of existence. The concept has also been used to
control societies and institute power. But God is also a good term, in its
best application. It can mean, in more personal and practical theologies,
the exercise of the Golden Rule, which is the essence of a loving not a
wrathful god. It stands irrefutably, indelibly, and infinitely on its own,
without the need for support from culture, religion, or politics. It is
agnostic, theistic, and antitheistic all at the same time, in perfect
sympathetic union. The Golden Rule is Ethics personified, perhaps the god-
gene in us all.
RE: Whole Series
Tom Williams
04/30/2008
It seems to me that it depends on the area of investigation. For the age of
the universe, yes. For some ethical questions, no. Will tomorrow's science
make today's science obsolete? Does Einstein make Newton or Galileo
obsolete? For some questions, yes; for most questions, no. We should
focus on the usefulness of a theory and not its age. But maybe that was
the intent of the original question. Is god still useful? For me, yes, in some
instances.
RE: Whole Series
Steve Maslen
04/30/2008
It seems to me that many of the authors make God into a euphemism for

453
morality or love or the like. The word has certainly been redefined to a
point where it seems meaningless.
RE: Whole Series
Giorgio
04/30/2008
If you believe in God, science helps you to reveal his glory: the Logos who
endlessly generates the creation.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Samuelson
04/30/2008
A response to Mitch McGill (see comment below):

It's interesting to have to explain what I meant by writing that "God (if God
exists) is and must be, before anything else, God the Creator of life." The
idea comes from two lines of thought. The first is the question of whether
life was created by an intelligent designer. It seems to me that it must
have been because I can't imagine just-plain-chemicals creating life on
their own by just undergoing chemical reactions. If you know biochemistry,
you know how incredibly complex the whole DNA-RNA-ribosomes-protein
business is, you know how amazing enzymes are, you know how amazing
the creation and use of ATP are, and you know that most biomolecules are
single enantiomers of chiral compounds. So how could they have selected
from a primordial soup of racemic mixtures, etc.? Not only is life
immensely complex, but it's also so specific. To create a system like life
takes planning and intelligent thought. Anyway, people who discuss
intelligent design ask whether the designer is God. My reaction was--of
course the designer is God. If an intelligence exists that created life, isn't
this what everyone would call God?

The second line of thought is this: What do I know about God? Nothing
except what I can imagine and (mostly) what other people have said and
written about God. God may well be just a concept that people made up.
What did they think this God-concept was? I think mostly two things: (1)
God is to be feared (and therefore worshiped and propitiated) because he
is all-powerful and can control your life. God is the ultimate ruler. He's the
boss, the Lord. (2) God is to be thanked, praised, and loved because he
created you and gives you sustenance. God is the ultimate parent. Now
that we elect our rulers and people (not God) make our laws, the first idea
is not so powerful, but the second still is. If God exists, then God must be
responsible for creating me and everyone else. God is first of all the
Creator.
RE: Whole Series
Gregory Konakis
04/29/2008
The wrong question was asked. The correct question is: Does rational
thinking make belief in God obsolete?

454
RE: Whole Series
Jacob Dink
04/29/2008
I'd like to politely disagree with the general commendation of this panel.
While it's an intriguing question, I think there is a moderate bias in the
answerers towards a religious outlook. Many more scientists here are on
the religious side, which (we know from polls) is not quite an accurate
sample. And there is no non-religious philosopher (like a Dennett).

But I'd like to propose my answer: Yes, belief in theism is very much a
scientific question. Theistic religions makes bold proclamations about the
nature of the world, of man, etc. But these sorts of questions CAN be
explored with science. Once one realizes that theism makes such bold
claims, one must examine such pseudo-scientific, as well as non-scientific,
claims with a rigorous and science-like methodology. For instance, the
poor/moderate historicity of the gospels, coupled with what we now know
(scientifically) about eyewitness testimony and claims of the paranormal,
makes religious accounts (as evidence for the divine) completely crumble.

Once we shift into deism, we indeed leave the realm of science. But deism
is philosophical suicide. We know that consciousness is complex (see
Libet's experiment, for instance-- consciously-willed actions are spaced out
through time and neurons, so there can be no simple quiddity of mind).
Yet God, an omnipotent and conscious creator of the universe, would have
to be unimaginably complex, despite protestations of outdated
theologians. (This is a perfect example of science improving and
augmenting philosophy, which can then delve into non-scientific
questions.) Either God must be complex, and he explains nothing, or we
must reject our notions of simplicity/complexity/mind. But once we do this,
we've rejected the very notions with which we wish to appeal to a God (so
as to explain), and we open the door for any other equally
incomprehensible entity. Instead, we should preserve our knowledge and
understanding and admit: God is obsolete.
RE: Whole Series
Richard Hunter
04/29/2008
The title question should read "gods" rather than "God."
RE: Whole Series
Mitch McGill
04/29/2008
In his post, Rick Samuelson wrote that "God (if God exists) is and must be,
before anything else, God the Creator of life." I am curious to know why he
thinks this. Perhaps he could enlighten me? I agree with his estimation of
the importance of chemistry in this discussion. My original training was in
biochemistry, and it has quite a lot to offer here. That said, I'm a bit
confused by the structure of his comment: he begins with a statement
(that chemistry is relevant to all this), and he follows it with an explanation

455
(because life is chemical). Then he makes a second statement (quoted
above), but he offers no explanation for it. He takes it for granted.

My opinion is that the various sciences (I dislike the establishmentarian

term "science") can amply show that the existence of a God is not an
absolute necessity. But they cannot necessarily show that He/She/It does
not exist. Any attempt to do so is overstepping the bounds of scientific
method. There is a point where science ends and other ways of thinking
begin.
RE: Mary Midgley
Jacob Dink
04/29/2008
"Belief in God is not a judgment about physical facts in the world [but] an
element [of a] worldview, the set of assumptions by which we make sense
of our world as a whole." Mrs. Midgley has put forward a vague argument
resembling the easily discredited (but at least more rigorous) apologetics
of "presuppositionalism." The idea is that everyone has a worldview--a set
of propositions that are taken on faith. In the apologetics form, this
argument then proposes that the Christian God is the only valid grounds
for belief in the most essential premises: inductive reasoning, deductive
reasoning, etc. Mrs. Midgley has decided, in an absurd expression of
pretentious empirical relativism, that all worldviews are just about equally
valid.

But let's not fall into the trap. Human nature is such that we do indeed
have presuppositions--but we can't just choose them inchoately, unless we
lie to ourselves. We have an underlying confidence in the uniformity of
nature (we evolved in such a universe) and thus induction. Similar
accounts can be given for deduction. Now, it's important to note that
whatever these bare-bones faith-claims, worldviews, and presuppositions
are, they will be shared by all. Once one adds additional claims (especially
if they could potentially conflict with these bare-bones claims), the even
ground, the lax empirical relativism of Midgley, is obliterated. God is NOT
an underlying and essential worldview. It is a proposition about existence
within reality. Such propositions can only be explored with our rationality,
and if there is no reason/evidence for them, they should not be assumed.

Scientism is indeed a plausible problem. But the solution should not be

nonsense--the solution lies in both science and rigorous philosophy.
RE: Whole Series
Steve Miner
04/29/2008
Please continue to invest your funds for purposes such as this. What a
wonderful and refreshing approach to dialogue about the issues we face,
as it becomes apparent to even the most postivisitic among us that the
search for immutable laws will, inevitably, lead only to more questions. We
are confronted, then, with a deeply felt void which can never be

456
completely filled by "proof" derived under man's current paradigmatic
limitations.

What if God wasn't just Love but also Life? A new age approaches (some
say it is well past due) which acknowledges what our religous beliefs and
texts have always maintained: there is an intricate beauty and sheer
mystery behind the wonderment of all life on Earth which only our spiritual
side can fully appreciate. Our humanly lived experience and felt
appreciation for our place in the universe should again be allowed a return
to center stage, given its long exile in the wilderness following the
Cartesian split. Without a return to spiritualism (call it religion if you want),
there is little chance the world will be saved from the destructive path
which we currently are following.

The process of removing human values from science has left us

dangerously subject to the fate of having a life less than it can and should
be. It may well be that our saving grace will be the human emotions, of
which our spiritual experience is such a large and important part. Our
native beliefs and, ultimately, a faith in processes clearly greater than
ourselves can save us from great unendurable hardship and loss.

Keep up the great work! And thank the foundation board, please!
RE: William D. Phillips
Jacob Dink
04/29/2008
Dr. Phillips is a bit glib in his characterization of science. Falsifiability is
indeed an essential requirement in scientific theories, and (in a sense) the
scientific method isn't a method we are obligated to apply to our lives. But
another essential attribute of both science and rational thinking in general
is a commitment to evidence and parsimony. These are similar ideas: we
can explain the world without invisible, undetectable fairies, so we don't
believe in them. Fairies are both unparsimonious and unevidenced.

For some reason, Dr. Phillips doesn't seem to think that this applies to a
belief in God. A lack of evidence, aside from vague numinous feelings
(which are more parsimoniously explained by the relevant psychology), is
irrelevant when talking about an important aspect of Dr. Phillips's life.
Perhaps he can claim that the most abstract deistic concept is non-
scientific, but he is being dishonest when (a) he refuses to apply not just
science but even rationality and rigorous thinking to his beliefs and (b) he
refuses to acknowledge the eminent falsifiability of the theistic creator
that he professes belief in. He believes that Jesus was resurrected? This is
very much a claim that could be falsified--and even if it's not already, the
dearth of evidence should be enough to dissuade him from such a belief. If
he were thinking in a rigorous, scientific, and (above all) rational manner
about his life. But apparently he is not. Such compartmentalization in
otherwise intelligent scientists is by no means appalling or unique (and I

457
wouldn't call it a delusion), but it is a bit frustrating and sad.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Jacob Dink
04/29/2008
"Fast-forward to the present...": I think the Cardinal has demonstrated a
respectable grasp of some big philosophical and scientific concepts, but he
draws all the wrong conclusions. Do the intelligibility and teleology that he
describes imply an ontological existence of these things, or just that we
evolved in this world, so of course we can attempt (often successfully) to
understand it? Perhaps we interpret things SO THAT we can understand
them and ASCRIBE teleology to things. It's indicative that this world wasn't
made for us (but we in it) that when we get to the smallest scales of
quantum mechanics we can't seem to comprehend things in an orderly or
sensible manner, because we didn't evolve with these capabilities. In what
way do we find eleven dimensions intelligible or comprehensible?

There has been a veritable litany of theistic worldviews. The Cardinal has
taken the most respectable and (in hindsight) most prescient and
interpreted science so as to fit it. Many religious figures have attempted to
do this: when atoms were king, Newton declared this a demonstration of
God's perfection and rationality. Now non-atoms do the same. So too (for
other religious figures) with circular orbits. And elliptical ones. And now
with a (well, not really) "rational" universe.

Which theistic outlook has been fully vindicated? Cherry-picking (from

both science and religion) can indeed be utilized to accommodate your
worldview. Perhaps we should avoid this and attempt to be more
intellectually honest. The most honest perspective on science and the
order of the universe tells us (a) we're a speck in a not-so-orderly universe
created by the (random) Big Bang and (b) it is untenable to call our
consciousness a simple entity, not a complex emergent phenomenon.
Thus, by trying to attribute to God a (fictional and anthropocentric) order,
we explain something non-existent with something unhelpful.
RE: Whole Series
Dov Michaeli
04/29/2008
Thoughtful articles. What is missing is a direct clash of ideas. By that I
mean having participants comment on and critique each other's articles. I
would love to read Christopher Hitchens response to Mary Midgley and
vice versa. Without this conversation, we are left with the contributors
talking past each other rather than engaging each other in a battle of
ideas. [Please see the debates linked above. -Editor]
RE: Whole Series
Paul Atmajian, M.D.
04/29/2008
Science cannot make belief in God obsolete. By definition, science deals

458
with matter, which is subject to physical evaluation, observation, and
hypotheses. God is spirit and is greater than man can imagine and
understand. Science can have little or nothing to say about God. God
transcends the world we know and see and time as we know it. God is not
testable. Science can strive to understand the handiwork of God and
describe it and use it for man's benefit.

Occasionally, someone educated and typically employed in a branch of the

sciences will venture from their worlds of biology, chemistry, or physics
and comment on theology or philosophy. The best and wisest say "we
don't know" quite a lot. Others with a frequently unknown agenda offer a
comment on God "from a position of science." Some even say that a
particular scientific theory somehow displaces God or negates God, or that
a concept of God is made up by people, or that God does not exist--as
though man could investigate all extents and dimensions of life in the
universe! These folks are dangerous to truth and as silly as an ant
claiming mastery of the Earth.

The downside of the few loud and arrogant "scientists" who opine much
out of their realm is that ignorant folks believe them, echo them, trust
them, and follow them. And so a child can be deceived to believe that
science has indeed made belief in God obsolete. Rather than seek to
understand what may be known of God and about God, the deceived soul
will cease to allow their spirit to seek God. Many don't even ask questions
such as, who made love? Or why is it that tree blossoms are attractive and
smell pleasant? In short, too few bother to ask any number of questions for
which science has no answer, nor can ever have an answer. Schools can
even become places of spiritual and intellectual oppression. A professor
may even deride another's beliefs.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Gene Bammel
04/29/2008
For those of us who have been interested in the science/religion debate for
many years, this conversation is an excellent summary of what has gone
on--and a hint about new directions. Excellent materials!
RE: Whole Series
Kristina
04/29/2008
The premise of this question should immediately prompt another question:
as science has progressed, has belief in god waned? The answer,
unfortunately, is no. In the United States, for example, lip service to what
are supposedly Judeo-Christian ethics has led to eight billion dollars a year
spent on abstinence-only education. The materials in these nefarious and
pernicious programs claim, among other things, that abstinence until
marriage is the expected standard of human sexual behavior, that
homosexuality is unnatural, and that women should be the gatekeepers of
sexuality.

459
Further tendencies in the name of piety include massive amounts of
energy and money expended to prevent consenting adults from marrying
if they happen to be the same gender and to prevent the use of stem cells
to help prolong the lives of the living and ease their sufferings. There is no
evidence that belief in god in this country, anyway, is on the wane, nor
any to suggest that this will change anytime soon.
RE: Whole Series
Terry Cassidy
04/29/2008
The series is thoughtful and challenging, but it makes no demands about
belief. A thoughtful exchange among intelligent and presumably
reasonable people about things we cannot know or understand is
comforting . . . but doesn't change the mystery much.
RE: Whole Series
Leo Daugherty
04/29/2008
This is a wonderful series--just one more thing we owe to the marvelous
Templeton Foundation. I'm teaching a course this summer at the
University of Virginia called "God and Darwin: Friends or Foes?" We're
reading Dawkins, Dennett, Francis Collins, Simon Morris, et al. I'll now add
your booklet. Thanks for including Midgley. She is a hero of mine, though I
disagree with her on many things.
RE: Whole Series
Rick Samuelson
04/28/2008
As usual, many physicists and various sorts of biologists are asked to
comment, but no chemists. Life is a complex chemical system, with the
most complex chemistry we know of in the entire universe. So of all
scientists, it's chemists who should have the best understanding of what
life is and of how it could have arisen. This is important for your question
because God (if God exists) is and must be, before anything else, God the
Creator of life. So the question really is: does science think life was created
by chemical processes happening on their own (unmediated) or by an
intelligent designer/God? If it's the former, science may have made belief
in God obsolete. If it's the latter, then biochemistry is the subject to study
for anyone who wants to try to understand God. But for some reason, it's
always physicists and biologists (neither of whom seem to fully understand
the chemistry of life) who make pronouncements on these issues.
RE: Michael Shermer
Farah
04/28/2008
If an ETI designed us and our universe, then who designed the ETI?
RE: Whole Series
Robert Merrill

460
04/28/2008
Thank you for sponsoring this series. As a recently retired university
professor (geology), I've found an increasing number of students unwilling
to think critically about a wide variety of issues and the number who avoid
the sciences disturbing. This seems to parallel a growing anti-science
attitude in the United States. Your series should help somewhat in this
matter, but I fear too few people will read it and fewer yet, including too
many of our political "leaders," will understand much of it. While much of
the current controversy revolves around evolution vs. creation, its growth
beyond this is what frightens me.

Science differs from religion because it's not revealed truth--you're

supposed to understand it. Unless U.S. citizens begin to reinvest in
education, this country will see its world leadership decline. Thank you for
doing your part to discuss these important issues.
RE: Whole Series
Clifford Stevens
04/28/2008
The existence of God cannot be reached by the empirical sciences
because the senses cannot see, touch, or measure God. The existence of
God is reached by a reasoning process that reaches conclusions in
proportion to the facts. The Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas is not
only the greatest synthesis of theistic knowledge but embodies a respect
for reason and for the reasoning process that brought about the birth of
science in the first place (his teacher, Albertus Magnus, was the greatest
empirical scientist of his day).

In his writings and his debates, Aquinas always showed the deepest
respect for the intellects and arguments of his opponents, and so those
who accept the existence of God as a proven and demonstrated reality
should listen carefully to the arguments and convictions of those who do
not, for in their thinking and objections there is always some grain of truth.
This is Thomas Aquinas's conclusion about God: "There is one first being,
possessing the full perfection of all being, who of the abundance of his
perfection bestows being on all that exists, so that he is proved to be, not
only the first of beings, but also the beginning (or origin) of everything
else." However, when he asks whether the existence of God is self-evident,
he answers that it is not. He recognized that in facing such an all-
embracing and overpowering reality, we are like bats staring into the sun.
RE: Cardinal Schonborn
Thelonious
04/28/2008
I find it fascinating (and ultimately damning) that Schonborn sees this
issue strictly in terms of the Greek atomists vs. Aristotle--clearly he and
the Roman Catholic Church have some catching up to do philosophically.
Can he seriously be arguing that because the universe appears to be
intelligible "all the way down" that therefore there must be a god? Good

461
grief! He ultimately trots out a version of this old chestnut: "Deep down
you're not really happy, are you? One day you'll come around and get
right with god." This is sheer hucksterism.
RE: Whole Series
John Woods
04/28/2008
I congratulate you on making available meaningful discussions on BOTH
sides of these questions. Too often we are restricted to diatribes from one
side or the other.
RE: Whole Series
Jessica Wheat Welton
04/28/2008
This is really interesting and refreshing in its scope. I'm so glad I came
across it in the NYTimes.
RE: Steven Pinker
Amanda H.
04/28/2008
Steven Pinker is reliably spot-on, echoing my own sentiments with
enviable lucidity. Hitchens and Stenger, too, never fail to be spectacular.
How exhausting it must be for the devout of the world to maintain their
pointless compartmentalization. Advances in understanding the world
around us should be furiously celebrated, not guarded against. Who on
earth could envy them their ignorance?
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Manuel Herrera
04/28/2008
I agree with just about everything Hitchens wrote. What surprises me is
the people who don't want to dismiss god for the reasons he stated. To
believe in something so outrageous without any evidence is believing in
nothing less than a made-up story.
RE: Whole Series
Charles Roesch, Ph.D., M.D.
04/28/2008
Of all the millions of scientific experiments conducted, not one has ever
documented supernatural manipulation. There is simply no need to invent
a supernatural deity. In any context other than religion, faith, worship, and
magical thinking are considered pathological. Why do we make the
exception?
RE: Whole Series
Allen Rauch
04/28/2008
This is a valuable and worthwhile series. It compells us to explore our own
beliefs as they pertain to the complexity of life and the cosmos, their
origin, patterns, cycles, and continuity.
RE: Whole Series

462
Michael Ross
04/28/2008
Two types of written material exist: fact and fiction. Without exception,
religions are based on works of fiction, most of them written thousands of
years ago. The Bible and the Koran are no different from Grimms' fairy
tales or Harry Potter's adventures--all works of fiction.

Science is based on verifiable and repeatable experiments or tests. Based

on their results, we have theories and laws that represent reality and allow
us to build a functional technological society. Science is our reality test.
The presumption of God does not pass the reality test. No verifiable and
repeatable experiment has ever been devised to test for the existence of
God or a creator.

The fact that billions of people believe in something does not make it real.
We have only one test for reality, the scientific test, and until such a test
can be done, there is no more reason to believe in God or a creator than
there is to believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
RE: Whole Series
Steven Ryave MD
04/28/2008
A total breath of fresh air. I am so pleased to have found your New York
Times spread this past weekend. Thank you.
RE: Whole Series
David Bridgehouse
04/28/2008
Just a note to thank you for the series. It is, I think, beneficial to all and
particularly to individuals not looking for the usual drivel put out in most
articles today. As a unitarian, humanist, atheist, I relish the reflections of
your writers.
RE: Michael Shermer
Michael Peter Ross
04/28/2008
Shermer's essay, to my mind, is the one most probably true. I have always
thought that the ultimate purpose of an intelligent species would be to
create a universe. The advance of science has shown that there is no need
for a god to explain the existence of the universe. I therefore must
conclude that the only other two possibilities are (1) an ETI or (2) a
multiverse space where universes evolve, and we happen to be in one that
sustains life.
RE: Victor J. Stenger
Ed Bradburn
04/28/2008
Masterly.
RE: Whole Series

463
Albert Sanders
04/27/2008
Science does not make belief in God obsolete unless the belief has
delusional aspects like the denial of reality--that is, denying what is known
to be true. This could be truth of a common-sense nature like one's own
name or it could be truth that has been determined by scientific methods.
Scientific truth is always subject to revision but at any given time is the
closest to reality that we can get. Since science cannot disprove beliefs
but can only determine facts, there is no reason that one cannot respect
scientific methods and hold other beliefs.

I believe, for example, that the USA is the best country in the world. I don't
see how science could determine whether this is true or not, but I do not
feel the need for any such proof. I believe it; it is my faith. If I have faith in
the goodness of my country, why shouldn't someone else have faith in the
existence of God? I see no problem in respecting beliefs that do not
contradict facts--especially if they satisfy those who hold them.
RE: Whole Series
Zamboro
04/27/2008
Hitchens is characteristically well spoken, but I wish he'd include a bit
more scientific meat in his writing. Perhaps it's time he went on hiatus and
hit the books? All that really separates him from the best polemicists is a
better command of science.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Aaron Martin-Colby
04/27/2008
Nice Aristotle reference. It shows he's done his philosophical reading.
RE: Whole Series
Lamar Hunt
04/27/2008
What do we mean by religion? Do those who say that science does not
make religion obsolete really believe the actual statements of religion (for
example, the Christian belief that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth
to Jesus)? If they don't because of what we have learned from science,
then in what way has science not made this aspect of religion obsolete?

If we are to reject the literal statements of religion and simply accept a

misty understanding of the notion of God, then I would hardly call this
religion, in which case science has still made religion obsolete. One cannot
turn to deism in an effort to show how religion is not obsolete. This
misrepresents the vast majority of those who call themselves religious.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
James P. Cornelio
04/27/2008
Christopher Hitchens is the only name most readers will likely recognize

464
here. With a vigor and venom that brook no subtlety of thought, he can't
help attracting hordes of fans. The premise of Hitchens and his acolytes?
Well, if god doesn't realize that my own years on this earth are all that
matters, then let's hate, or at least dismiss, that god, just as we hate (or
dismiss) all those others who interfere with our pleasures.

Leave it to the cleric, Keith Ward, to insert some actual science into this
conversation on god and science. He asks, "How do you picture a
probability wave in Hilbert Space?" Actually, what he should have asked is,
"How, exactly, does that probability wave collapse to shape the dark,
evanescent reality that we experience?" Even without asking that
particular question, Ward helpfully provides the two most prevalent
answers that physicists have offered: (1) There is an infinite number (or,
depending on whom you believe, 10 to the 100th power) of universes out
there. At each quantum juncture since time began (infinite or 10 to the
100th), the universe splits, so that there really is no collapse. (2) Per von
Neumann, et al., our consciousness causes it. Or as Ward characterizes
their theory: consciousness is an ultimate, irreducible element of reality,
the basis of the physical as we know it, not its byproduct.

Hmmm. Before we dismiss god, I think we should really think about how
we want to define god. Personally, Mr. Hitchens, I believe that even you (in
all of your quantum/meta-physical glory) are "more" than whatever
infinitesimally small number of years your body will inhabit this earth. And
the sooner you start proselytizing that faith, rather than undermining the
mindless faith of those who lust after a twisted and cartoonish god-father,
the better.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Bizarro Dawkins
04/27/2008
I found Hitchen's essay particularly incoherent. He makes the sweeping
statement that morality shudders at the idea of God. I've always been
surprised and a little disappointed that some of the greatest minds in the
atheist community attack God's character with the intention of somehow
detracting from the reasonability of His existence. For the sake of
argument they assume God's existence, and then presumptuously claim
that His design is faulty, or that His plan for salvation and redemption
reflects a spirit of malevolence and cruelty.

Apparent amidst all of the faulty exegesis and de-contextualization of

biblical texts is one glaring deficiency in this argument: the God of the
Bible cannot, by definition, be immoral. In order to attack God's character,
one must first assume His existence (for the sake of argument). However,
the God of the Bible is defined not simply as being perfect in the moral
sense; He is defined as the essence of morality itself. In the Biblical
scheme, whatever is moral is whatever is consistent with God's nature. A
god who is not moral cannot be the God of the Bible. Therefore, to say that

465
God is immoral or evil is to say that a being who is the definition of
morality is immoral. Obviously, if one says that God is immoral, one
cannot be addressing the God of the Bible and is merely attacking a deific
construct of one's own imagination.

Hitchen's argument really boils down to a rather crude argument from

personal incredulity, and it deserves to be discounted as emotionally
charged rubbish.
RE: Whole Series
Randy Ping
04/27/2008
Of coarse a bunch of ministers and priests are going to say "no"; it's their
own self-interest on the line. But why would you even ask somebody with
a religious agenda this very scientific question? The same goes for
Hitchens, though, as he is also not a scientist. "God" is humanity's
collective imaginary friend, and it's time to grow up and face the realities
of a scientific understanding.

I was once a very religious person too, but I've since found more accurate
answers to the actual big questions. My own scientific understanding
(while limited, I admit) gives me a much deeper feeling of brotherhood
with my fellow humans than any religion (and I tried a few) ever possibly
could. Religion is a bogus proposition. It tells us to wait until after we are
dead for peace, for justice, for understanding. Religion tells us lies to feed
our vanity: like the lie that man is above nature, that we are more
important than the rest of life on this (or any other) planet. Thanks to
Darwin and the theory of evolution through natural selection, I see all men
as my brothers--and all women as my sisters. We are one race, with no
special "chosen people."

It's time to put the old explanations on the trash heap of history where
they belong. Only then can we begin to have a meaningful sense of
morality, and extend our compassion and our love to all people. Only then
can we accept real responsibility for what we do and how we do it. I am
sick of religion and its lies, its petty hatreds, and its fearful opposition to
the real answers that science offers us.
RE: Whole Series
Marty Stone
04/27/2008
Science and religion are, by definition, concerned with two separate ways
of knowing the Universe. Science teaches one how to think (via the
scientific method), while religion teaches one what to think (via dogma,
magical "thinking," and superstition). As long as there are people who are
comfortable with being told what to think--rather than taking the more
mature approach of learning to think for themselves (which is much less
comfortable but much more enlightening)--advances in science, per se,
will not displace religious belief, or belief in "god."

466
RE: Whole Series
John Shuey
04/27/2008
Interestingly, those among the essayists who support the idea of a god of
one sort or another demonstrate rather convincingly how much of a
human construct god is. If there really were a god, its proper definition,
role, and the like would lead to a consistency of belief. The lack of such
consistency argues mightily for no god.
RE: William D. Phillips
Alexander Hellemans
04/27/2008
Dr. Phillips writes that "Many good scientists have concluded from these
observations that an intelligent God must have chosen to create the
universe with such beautiful, simple, and life-giving properties." If we look
closer at life on Earth--to me a more important part of the universe than
stars or the beautiful mathematics underlying physics--we see a world
where children are born with the HIV virus, where life for billions of people
equals daily suffering, hunger, and disease, where Darwin's survival of the
fittest is a cruel game, where we humans eat other beings that also have
consciousness, where evil ultimately wins, etc. Where is "God's goodness
in the world?"
RE: Whole Series
Barry Pearson
04/27/2008
This question demands identification of what sort of God/gods are being
discussed and whether "obsolete" means "non-existent" or "unwanted."
Obviously, science doesn't alter whether God/gods actually exist, it just
enables us to draw more-informed conclusions. And other factors
determine whether people want God/gods to exist.

As an explanation for the existence and nature of the universe, the

listening/caring/after-life God of Christianity and Islam was obsolete from
the start. (What aspect of the universe did it ever explain?) There was a
plausible case (born of ignorance) for the existence of the sort of god that
"lights the blue touch-paper and stands clear," but science is making even
that sort of god obsolescent as an explanation.

For purposes of wishful-thinking and/or social control, the God of

Christianity and Islam is somewhat immune from science itself. (People
sometimes need something other than the truth.) This God is vulnerable to
other mystical beliefs, and people who need comforting entities (albeit
evidence-free) are adopting other beliefs, such as crystals and the spirit
world. So, while belief in the Abrahamic God decreases in Europe, belief in
those other mystical elements appears to be increasing. They often feed
off scientific terminology, so it could be argued that science is
inadvertently supporting them.

467
RE: Whole Series
D'Arcy
04/27/2008
"Does science make belief in God obsolete?" Yes, indeedy! No need for
any such concept. The philosophers and theologians can argue about the
nature of the supposed supernatural, but they're wasting their time, and
mine, in a futile exercise. How many angels danced upon the rich man's
head as he rode the camel through the eye of the needle?
RE: Whole Series
peter beacham
04/27/2008
The effort to make science ascendant is not a debate between religion and
science but rather an effort to elevate the logico-mathematico and
linguistic learning styles. This misguided attempt is aimed at those who
use kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and other learning
styles. The debate seeks to invalidate intuition or redefine it as a sort of
subconsious logical processsing.

In addition, those in the "science" camp believe that knowledge and

eventually wisdom can be attained through sensory data despite the
limitations of sense data. Sense impressions give a false notion of a
universe of separate objects and forces instead of a homogeneous whole.

A corollary of the insistence on observation as the only criteria for

knowledge is the insistence on knowledge being solely a brain function.
This notion of a neurological/biochemical basis for knowledge and indeed
consciousness is merely a theory and not a well-researched one at that.
There are many other and better theories of consciousness than a
biochemical model. One can easily conceptualize the brain as a passive
screen against which other sources of consciousness display their content
instead of the "science" camp's insistence that the brain is the origin of
knowledge.
RE: Whole Series
Koen van Hees
04/27/2008
Intriguing--and silly--question. The answer can be two-fold: "let's find out"
(scientific reflex) or "of course not" (religious reflex). And basically, that's
as objectively meaningful as you can get on questions like this. As far as I
am concerned, I don't necessarily care, as long as we don't turn back the
clock. We have learned to take the ill to the doctor and the criminal to the
courts. And we have un-learned to put the out-of-the-ordinary to the fire.
This takes away 80% of the traditional use of religion. Let people enjoy the
other 20% as long as that loathsome 80% doesn't come back--ever.
RE: Whole Series
George Bruce
04/27/2008

468
I do not see the dichotomy in the question, "Does science make belief in
God obsolete?" To me a belief in a deity (or deities) does not require proof
of existence; it is a belief that offers spiritual inspiration and comfort.
However, conclusions based on science need to be proven. Psychology
might pose the question, "Did God invent mankind, or did mankind invent
God?" That is a question that none of the thousands of religions in the
world should want to ask, as the scientific answer adds nothing to the
benefit of belief.
RE: Christopher Hitchens
Cheryl
04/27/2008
I have to agree with Hitch that religion persists because of our limited
mammalian brains. We fear death, most of us bow to authority, we are
egotistical, we see patterns in the darkness, and children are susceptible
to early imprinting. So yes science SHOULD show religion and god-worship
to be obsolete, but most of the human race is simply not ready to let it go
or are kept ignorant of alternatives because the status quo profits from
encouraging religious compliance. Religion appeals to the child in us. We
want a "Father" to "make it all better" who will shield us from
uncomfortable realities if we just follow the rules. Mix perpetual infantilism
with claims of divinely inspired reward or punishment and what better way
to justify conquest and silence dissent? No wonder religion is so
ubiquitous!

What bothers me about most of the other "no" statements (and amazing
what a large proportion there are of them) is that they seem to ignore the
fact that religions are blatantly man-made. Whatever kind of pantheistic
force may or may not exist in cosmological terms, this bears no
resemblance whatsoever to any god of the Bible, the Koran, etc. To equate
the two is dishonest and renders the ridiculous prejudices and rituals
inherent in them flawed, rigidly dogmatic, divisive, patriarchal, tribal,
irrational, and egocentric. Hardly divine. Science, with all its wonders,
questions, and debates SHOULD make religious belief seem positively
archaic. But somehow it doesn't.

As human beings, we HAVE to get over ourselves. If we don't evolve, we

will become extinct. Science is the only tool we have. Clinging to ancient
myths will not protect us from comet impacts, disease, or climate change.
Nor will it give us the ability to leave this planet and find a new home.
RE: Whole Series
jhm
04/27/2008
Science is god. The godhead is the embodiment of all that mankind does
not know and the acknowledgment that acquiring the answers is a
daunting challenge.
RE: Whole Series

469
Brian A. Dufrene
04/27/2008
God and what is represented by such an entity provide us with
transcendence, for which we collect, and with which we value, facts.
RE: Jerome Groopman
A. Paul Camerino
04/27/2008
I chose the article by Jerome Groopman on which to comment because it is
the most offensive. He writes that "a believer looks to religious texts for
guidance in what is right and wrong." Who wrote the religious texts? Is he
suggesting that atheists cannot tell right from wrong?
RE: Whole Series
Sri Bimal Mohanty
04/27/2008
Science is all about discovering the interplay of essential qualities which
already exist. When the scientist discovers something, he calls it evidence,
or knowledge. When you extend the limitations of your senses and mind,
with or without external aids, you know more. The fact that man goes on
finding more and more proves that man is constantly overcoming the
limitations of his faculties. Evidence merely represents a measure of the
boundary of that limitation at that point of time. The process of extending
our limitations is the science of Yoga.

Just because we have known this much at a point of time does not mean
that nothing exists beyond our knowledge boundary. This is borne out of
the logic that everything that exists, tangible or intangible, must have a
source from which it flows. The Vedic theory says that nothing can come
out of nothing. Everything preexists in a different state, hidden within its
source, and comes out within our perception under right conditions.
Preexistence is within the source or the seed. Nothing evolves or comes to
cognizance out of emptiness. Even you and I preexisted within our source
or seed, before our present state and form.

This source is the concept behind God or Brahman or the Hiranyagarbha or

whatever name different faiths give it. Everything has flowed and shall
continue to flow from there. When this truth sinks in, even great scientific
minds develop a sense of respect, wonder, and devotion to that source.
The worshipping of God in His myriad aspects is essentially an
acknowledgement of that respect and devotion and gratitude.
RE: Whole Series
Yeo Swee Quan
04/27/2008
No, science is, in essence, a constant search and betterment of
knowledge. Scientific pursuits do not make a belief in God obsolete
because they do not seek to disprove that God exists. If science claims
that evolution is true, then it is equally possible that an organism (superior

470
to that which "evolved" into humans) has "evolved" into God, proving that
God exists. God, therefore, must exist. How and when we find him is a goal
that can only be achieved with the advancement of science.
RE: Whole Series
Alex Antonopoulos
04/27/2008
Yes and no, depending on how you look at God. If you view God only as an
explanation of how the world works, then it is possible for science to make
belief in God obsolete, since science is used as the major form of
understanding the world around you. However, if you see God as a way of
life, or as a guide that can help you reach a new spiritual state, then I
think that God and science become two concepts that can easily co-exist.
RE: Steven Pinker
Donald Jennings
04/26/2008
Steven Pinker is right! Science does not prove or demonstrate that religion
is false--science merely shows that religion is unnecessary to explain
ANYTHING. People who want to believe in God will continue to do so--it's
just that the rest of us don't have to pay any attention.
RE: Steven Pinker
Peter Schaefer
04/23/2008
Steven Pinker is wrong, and science even admits that there is an
unknowable aspect to our present reality. Specifically, the ontology of the
universe before the big bang. Science cannot know that reality because it
cannot observe or measure it. Is that pre-bang reality strictly physical or is
it, perhaps, spiritual? Indeed is it spirit (God) itself? Who knows? Could be.
Alan Watts said that life is God playing hide and seek with himself. Is the
universe the "hide" part? If so then the pursuit of the spiritual realm is the
"seek" part.
RE: Whole Series
Hani Riad
04/22/2008
Having read these in the Atlantic, I would simply wish to thank the
foundation for undertaking this endeavor. These questions are essential to
how we define ourselves.
RE: Whole Series
Mong H Tan, PhD
04/22/2008
No, science does not make belief in God obsolete! Science and religion are
like the two sides of a coin, rationalism and emotionalism. As Albert
Einstein once accurately observed, "Science without religion is lame;
religion without science is blind!"

In other words, we cannot live and/or understand ourselves without both

471
rationality and emotion--the intellectual and the spiritual. In fact, science
helps religious practitioners understand their respective faiths better: with
more insight, healthiness, fulfillment, empathy, consciousness,
compassion, conscience, etc.
RE: Whole Series
Susan Udin
04/22/2008
A ratio of 1 woman to 12 men!
RE: Robert Sapolsky
Nancy Powers
04/22/2008
Professor Sapolsky's cynical answer ("no" religion isn't obsolete; it
provides ecstasy, and science can't do that) is a good illustration of why
Timothy Salter's comment (that scientists have no authority to speak on
the existence of God) is correct. Sapolsky asserts, without data, that
religion is far bloodier and worse for society than science. A breezy
reference to Tourquemada is supposed to convince us.

Religion and science are both misused and abused in the interests of
political goals, but it does not follow that either is intrinsically harmful. By
Sapolsky's logic, atheism is the "hand of blood" dripping darkest in the
bloody 20th century, since the millions killed by Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao
were victims of fanatical atheists. Unlike those ideologies, religious faith is
self-correcting. The Christian church, for example, repeatedly (if at times,
belatedly) recognizes where it has failed to live up to God's laws and seeks
to "sin no more."

Religious faith motivated the abolitionist movement, MLK, and most non-
governmental efforts to address poverty, to respond to disasters, and to
mediate peace processes. Real faith shows itself in altruistic pursuit of the
common good--not in instances of religion misused for political gain. Any
honest discussion of religion's value to humanity must deal with sincere
faith, not aberrations of faith.
RE: Whole Series
Dr. Jim Knapton
04/22/2008
Belief is a failing. It is an inherited human weakness. It does not allow
differing viewpoints to hatch in the mind and take their young place
alongside that which is believed. Thus denied other viewpoints, the mind
becomes blinkered, and its reasoning abilities become impaired because
faith-believing does not tolerate inquiry.

When the belief system is passed on to others over generations, it has the
uncanny ability to grow into a religion. Then, not only does the individual
mind suffer the loss of free thought, so too does the growing religious
community lose its ability to question even the most obvious anomalies.

472
Future generations come to know nothing but their parents religious
beliefs as a paradigm, since it is now codified as written text. Few throw
off the shackles of their imprinting, so the belief perpetuates itself over the
centuries.
RE: Whole Series
Timothy Salter
04/22/2008
An honest scientist would admit that God cannot be made obsolete by any
amount of scientific progress. Belief in God rests on assumptions that are
beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. So, if God cannot be scientifically
investigated, what weight can be given to scientists' speculation on the
subject? Simply proving that primitive believers had an imperfect view of
science does not make God obsolete. Neither does hypothesizing that,
since man "needs" a God to explain the universe (more speculation), God
becomes obsolete when some corner of reality is elucidated by science.
Scientists should stick to science.

As a geologist I take a very distant view of mankind and its activities.

Science is still a new toy, and we are still having fun playing with it. Let's
wait a few thousand years to see what science has really said. During the
many years that I was an atheist, I was often struck by the similarity
between science and religion. Now that I am a believer, I see nothing in
science to make me disbelieve religion or vice versa. The conflict, in my
opinion, is an unsavory hobby for scientists and a living for
fundamentalists. Somewhere between is reality.
RE: Whole Series
David Fagelson
04/22/2008
To continue to foster a belief in a "human" deity is not only ludicrous, but
it borders on arrogant blasphemy. The universe is such a complex entity
that to try and ascribe human intelligence or attributes to it is nonsense. If
by God one means that there may be a force that exists and promulgates
itself, then there might be some validity. However, we are so
anthropomorphic that we have limited this universal force to human form
and given it all the workings of our own egoism.
RE: Whole Series
Mac Curless
04/22/2008
The question should be rephrased: Must scientific research be consistent
with belief in God?
RE: Whole Series
William Cherry
04/22/2008
Do you think God would make a fine instrument such as the brain and then
give it nothing to do?

473
RE: Whole Series
Daniel Liechty
04/22/2008
Belief in God wells up deep from within us as a reflection of our human
need for meaning, purpose, and value. Religion and science conflict mainly
when religious stories are taken out of symbolic context and understood
as literal descriptions. Scientific education provides a great service in
helping us recognize the proper sphere to which religious narratives
belong. This strengthens, not weakens, faith in God.

Modern religion comes into (hopefully creative) conflict with science not in
cosmology or physics, but rather in relation to human technologies, such
as genetics and reproduction, and in relation to social questions, such as
how a society may best allocate its resources and conserve its living
environment. Religion does indeed conflict with scientific investigation if
and when science assumes the ability to pursue its agenda while
bracketing out larger religiously-based perspectives on human meaning,
purpose, and values.
RE: Mary Midgley
John Farrington
04/22/2008
Why not more women and also why not a wider range of religions/beliefs
represented. That said, Mary Midgely seems quite capable of holding her
own!

474
w015

475
476