A scientific thesis on the existance of god
August 23, 2006I just saw “Contact” for the 3rd or 4th time. Besides the film being yet another example of the excellence of the always attractive and charming Jodie Foster, it also always makes me think.
You see, even though Contact is probably listed as a science fiction film, it actually is not. The film and the novel it is based on, is actually more of a religious story. During the whole story, science and religion are two opposing forces, one excluding the other. However, at the end, it becomes crystal clear that, contrary to what many extremist nutjobs on either side of the coin want you to believe, science and religion are actually not all that different.
In fact, they are one and the same.
And this is my true conviction as well. Religion, as is everything else in this world, is part of science; and science, like everything else, is part of religion. The moment someone states that god (lower-case ‘g’) exists, he or she makes a scientific statement; a thesis which, as do all theses, creates an antithesis (god does not exist). This very question is the same as, for instance, saying that wormholes exist.
Yet, were someone to write a scientific thesis on the existance of god, he or she’s be laughed at, not taken seriously, and sure as hell not be published. But, when you look at all this from a truly scientific point of view, why is that thesis less scientific than, say, a thesis argueing that wormholes exist? Why is the latter considered scientific, but the former is not?
I do not believe in a god (again, lower-case ‘g’). However, I also do not not believe in a god. There is no proof either way, hence, a true scientist cannot take a conclusive stance. Any scientist that does, is or a religious nutjob, or a bad scientist.
There is no proof either way, hence, a true scientist cannot take a conclusive stance.
I’m not sure I agree. All true science is based on a conclusive stance based on facts at hand . True scientists use empirical evidence to test hypotheses. They form judgments based on this empirical evidence. If someting cannot be proven to exist, we must conclude that it doesn’t exist until observable fact suggests otherwise. You can’t believe something AND its opposite.
If it cannot be confirmed that God exists, we cannot assert that he does exist with any certainty. All rules of logic, rules that have existed since Plato and Aristotle, suggest then, that if God doesn’t exist, he must not exist. A scientist would have to concede that he can either prove God’s existence or he can’t. Since you can’t, at least by current scientifically “accepted” truths — “God” must not exist, at least, based on logic rules, as we define him (a conscious, reactive being).
“We are all living on Earth, which is a quark in an atom in a cell of a HUGE giant in a much much larger multiverse.” Do you believe me? Why not? You can’t disprove me. But scientific rules suggest that this is not true, with the expansion of the universe, which doesn’t mimic cell space as well know it. But you can’t DEFINITELY PROVE I’m wrong. Does that mean you must accept my assertion as at least partial truth? Of course not. There’s no evidence to suggest that what I’m saying has any merit, so we start by disbelieving until we can prove it. Now, this is a stretched metaphor, but the meaning is there: you can’t suggest that since I can’t DEFINITELY disprove it, it’s true. But, I can’t prove it’s true in any scientific account, so until then, it must be false. This is the nature of science.
Now, if you are the type that believes that a man falling three stories and living, or a woman giving birth at 60, or even a Virgin Mary shaped grilled cheese sandwich is proof of a higher power, well…. more power to you. But scientifically, if you play by the current scientifically acccepted, observable truths, God cannot exist. THAT is the opinion of a scientist.
Comment by Adam S — August 23, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
Adam is right. Science is all about observation:
“Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions.”
‘Contact’ is not about Religion and Science, it is about Faith and Science. Science tries to observe and prove everything, while Faith simply accepts it as is.
‘Contact’ tried to show that Faith is not completely useless either, even if Science is usually more logical. In the scientific community Foster could not prove anything of what she saw. But she knew that what she saw was real. She was hoping for a leap of faith from her co-workers. And this didn’t come because they were real scientists.
The moral of the whole story was that Faith and Science must co-exist, not that they are the same.
Comment by Eugenia — August 23, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
It was this movie that introduced me to acoms razor, which I fiercely believe in.
Comment by jayson knight — August 24, 2006 @ 5:33 am
>It was this movie that introduced me to acoms razor
It was this movie that introduced me to William Fichtner. ;-)
Comment by Eugenia — August 24, 2006 @ 6:45 am
You misunderstood what I was talking about. I am not trying to say a god does or does not exist; what I was trying to explain is that research into the (non-)existance of a god, should just as well be accepted as science, as, for instance, a research into the existence of black holes or whatever.
I did contaminate this blog entry with my final paragraph, which is very much personal; that much is true. But even that is defendable.
“We are all living on Earth, which is a quark in an atom in a cell of a HUGE giant in a much much larger multiverse.”
As ridicoulous as that may sound, it is actually VERY hard to disprove that our universe as a whole is NOT part of something much larger– indeed, say, that this universe is nothing but a mere cell of something even bigger. I’m not saying I believe in the above, but go ahead, try to disprove it! It is just as hard as proving that our universe is the only universe, and that our universe is the biggest entity. Both are completely unprovable, and hence, both are just as (un)believable. Hence, as a scientist, I am unable to actively advocate either of them.
And I feel the same about this whole god thing (and note, I mean ‘god’ in its widest definition). It is ridicoulously
unbelievablehard (oops) to prove either way, hence, I won’t actively advocate either of them.Comment by Administrator — August 24, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
Might I add that all the above is from a scientific point of view; when I look at it from a completely personal point of view, no, I do not believe in god, supernatural crap, or alien visits. Inmy day-to-day life, if I can’t see, touch, hear, smell, or taste it, it don’t exist, simply put :).
I’m way too down to earth to believe in supernatural nonsense.
Comment by Administrator — August 24, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Personally I think that both religion and science can and should coexist. This is because they address different needs of the human being. Humans also need the kind of spiritual comfort that religion brings, besides scientific knowledge.
The problems begin when one tries to explain or deny the other. And this is happening in the west due to the historical legacy of the Catholic Church and all its protestant spin-offs. Remember, which hunt and inquisition did not happen in India, China or even eastern Orthodox world. People there seem to make a better distinction between the two.
It’s actually sad (and frightening) to see the kind of confrontations that happen in the US regarding this topic.
Comment by Stefan — August 24, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
“god” need not be a conscience entity if to be “god” all you need to do is create the universe; such a “god” could be long “dead” in our terms and still be god, or could be a fundamental force of nature like gravity that has no morality, ego, or conscience thought. Even if “god” must be omniscient and omnipotent and contemporary the act of granting free-will demands “god” never interact with its creation after the creation; interacting and providing proof of god’s existance would deny the very concept of freewill; hence such a being would never provide scientific proof of it’s existance… this does not mean it is not there, and science cannot ever solve the question of god’s existance.
acom’s razor is useless in such a question; no facts can be gathered so there is no real way to decided which is the “most likely” other than gut instict.. aka faith. All people have some sort of religous faith, regardless of how they classify themselves. The faith of those who believe in a specific god’s faith is obvious, but aethiests have just as much “faith” when they believe they know the answer to an unknowable question and believe there is no god.. even agnostics like myself have faith in the concept that the answer cannot be known and therefore should not be answered with any sort of certainty.
For a real understanding of science you must realize it has limits. There are questions that can never be answered under any circumstances, no matter the technology and brain power invested in the task.
Comment by Sean — June 15, 2007 @ 6:32 am
Faith or Science. Well that seems to be the big debate. Well I am agnostic so I guess I am screwed. I am not sure what is out there and if I will ever know. On one side there is faith and well to be quite honest I am not sure if I play for that team. Acom’s razo states: The simplest solution tends to be the correct one. Well if that is correct faith has a very cruel “god” man has lost more lives in the name of “god” then any other motive. Then the other half is science which is so politically charged it can not even rest a sound theory in place with out the political o.k. Hey I liked that movie too but movies are just that Hollywood’s imagination at play. If they were correct about everything I would have a flux capacitor in my DeLorean and be a millionaire.
Comment by Kathleen — December 6, 2007 @ 4:28 am
Lack of evidence for, is not to be taken as evidence against. For example, I can not see the air does not mean there is no air. Thus, lack of evidence for God does not mean he does not exist. To be fair, you may find considerable evidence tending to support the existence of God, and when presenting the evidence perhaps you could develop a hypothesis to test the idea of His existence. This would be proper scientific method, which should be acceptable by anyone claiming to be a scientist.
Comment by George — April 15, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
i am not of the scientific realm, but saw this by accident and thought i would add my lamens comment to this ..there was one part in that movie mr. i dont believe there is a God that makes more sense than anything that has been said…He asked “did/do you love your father”?, she says yes…since love is NOT a tangible entity, one that cannot be touched, or that you can smell OR “scientifically prove” then “she” as a scientist completely contridicted herself. do you remember his answer?….”well, prove it”… you cannot prove love in a tangible way..but it DOES exsist…
Comment by shens — September 11, 2008 @ 8:39 am
hmmm acoms razor,,,,The simplest solution tends to be the correct one.. looking at this from a very “logical” point of view..sit there and really think about it..what WOULD be the simplest solution…….thought about it yet?……the simplest solution to what you are trying your best to disprove or prove..is to leave it alone…no matter how hard you try, no matter how many opinions you have..there will always be the “other side”….i believe, you dont, so acoms razor the simplest solution is to allow each individual to believe as they see fit….does that sound more logicial
Comment by behave — September 11, 2008 @ 9:25 am
you speak of relativity, as though an undecided vote assures you some solace…truth is not contingent upon us; our emotions, afflictions, happiness, motives, and yet you seem reconciled with being a believing unbeliever…quite hypocritical and fearsome I’d say…be an atheist, be of the faithful, but don’t hide behind god OR science for relativity’s sake.
Comment by harley — November 6, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
Unfortunately, with this topic, Occam’s razor can be used in both directions depending on ones point of view and what they consider to be the “simplest” solution.
a) there is a god and he simply snapped his fingers and all was created
b) there is no god and the universe has been naturally stewing for billions of years requiring incredibly complex and random mistakes to allow life to exist and millions more years for that life to evolve to the state as we know it.
I certainly prefer answer b) but it certainly isn’t as simple as a finger snap.
Comment by Raza — June 29, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
As if “Science” is a way of life or a deity!
“Science” is a tool; a great, necessity tool for man that can be upgraded and needs to be maintain and to be respected for the great luxuries and some questions it answers and may answer, but nothing more. Think of it as anything more, as if it is something you have to “believe” in; (”Guys guess what? As of today… I believe in Science / I am a Man of Science. Before I was a mindless idiot like the rest of you, but as of now, I am above! lolololol”) then you truly have a god (lower-case ‘g’) on your hands. (”Man is the measure of all things.”)
I’ll never respect the fool who says “I am a Man of…” rather then “I am a Scientist.”
As of the idea of God, until someone in science (lower-case ’s’) makes the new discovery of what caused that ‘Big Bang’ of light and matter, I’ll always consider the possibility of God’s existence, regardless of religion.
Raza, truly; no offence… but answer A and B are both narrow minded, very similar in terms of meaning, and don’t work. (A: Just cause. B: Just cause.) Why can’t A and B be put together and have something new on the table to consider?
Comment by David — November 25, 2009 @ 2:33 am
well i found that an enjoyable read and have also decided to add my thoughts
i liked the love analogy and i believe that it was a direct reference to god in the movie contact but that’s just my opinion many things cannot be sensed with the five senses infact there are far more i,e if someones standing behind you you can sense it well that’s just one but if you look into it more you’ll find more, radiation cannot be sensed but the waves have an effect on you why do you believe that? apart from the old footage films which could have been doctored what im trying to say is you only know because people say it and i doubt you’ve proved it for yourself , Im sure you have heard of mind over matter ,walking on coals and healing meditations sorry if my thoughts are as erratic as my grammar but im just making points and its late
i dont think of god (lower case g)
as the man in the sky “they” portray in the bible which has been rewritten countless times and has had verses deleted but i believe that god is a natural phenomena that can exist if you accept it looking for reasons that god doesn’t exist stifles the connection you have almost like turning off the light before looking for something the simplest answer is often not the most enlightening and also leaves you thinking you were stupid to answer tc much love peace anonymous
Comment by anonymous — November 26, 2009 @ 2:25 am
Science cannot prove whether a song is beautiful, if a book is good or not or if a painting is a master piece. Science has it’s limits just as humans have their limits. No one truly understands why energy does what is does, we don’t have to understand everything to appreciate it’s virtues.
Comment by John O. — October 30, 2010 @ 7:13 pm