Science and God: Can They Co-Exist?

Monday, April 21, 2014

Can science and God co-exist? (Sergey Nivens/Shutterstock)

Can science and God co-exist?

For centuries, science and religion have been at odds, with some fearing that the more scientists uncover, the more religious theories may unravel. But perhaps the complexity and the wonder of the universe doesn't disprove the existence of a higher being at all.

It's an argument that mathematician Amir Aczel makes in his new book "Why Science Does Not Disprove God." He speaks to The Takeaway about the differences between religion and faith, and why an argument that science rules out God may not be based in fact.

"In my mind, I make a distinction between two Gods—the Gods of organized religions, and the Gods of Einstein," says Aczel.

When reflecting on Einstein, Aczel says the world-renowned scientist used to say things like, "Subtle is the lord, but malicious he is not," or "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

"To me, Einstein was, in a sense, a believer in some kind of power behind the universe," says Aczel. "That's the God I'm trying to defend here—not the God of religions."

Aczel says that rather than believing in some sort of creator that planned and designed our universe, he believes more in a God that initiated things and then took a step back.

"It's the second God that I'm interested in," he says. "If you look at what happened in the first second of the universe, or even a fraction of a second, suddenly there's this huge explosion. An explosion doesn't really do anything. Then there's this mass creation through the Higgs [particle]. Why would there be a creation of mass using the Higgs mechanism which is so highly mathematical, so complicated? To me, that thought behind it, that's God."

The precision that was needed to create our universe—some may call it chance while others view it as divine intervention—awes Aczel. In the seconds after the Big Bang, the universe consisted of a hot soup of basic particles called quarks and gluons. A few microseconds later, those particles started to cool and formed protons and neutrons—the building blocks of matter.

"That was exactly what was needed to create matter," he says. "The universe is so fine tuned, there has to be something behind it that made it that way."

Aczel says that religion can learn things from science and vice versa. Until 1929, physicists believed the universe had always existed until Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding. The book of Genesis, on the other hand, contends that the universe was created at a certain point. While Aczel doesn't believe that the universe was created in a matter of days as Gneiss describes, he says it can still provide a lesson.

"Many of the early scientists were religious," says Aczel. "Galileo, his daughter was a nun, and he never really tried to argue that religion was wrong, he just said, 'Look, the Earth rotates.' It's really the literal interpretation of scripture that gets us in trouble. In the 21st century, I'd like to see atheistic scientists really stay on what science is designed to do, which is to understand nature, and not to jump to conclusions that are not warranted. If you look at data, statistically, you can't really disprove that something is beyond the universe. Some people call it God—maybe we should let them do that." 

While it may be the case that science can't disprove the existence of God, that does not make an argument for the existence of God. Aczel says he is not trying—or even pretending to—prove the existence of God.

"All I'm doing is trying to point out that these very well known atheists who claim that science has proven there is no God—that science says so, that the math says so, the equations say so, the physics say so, the biology says so—that's just not true," says Aczel. "But that's where I stop."

Aczel says that he believes in some kind of power that underlies and extends beyond the universe, but stops short of endorsing divine intervention.

"Does that power intervene in our everyday lives? That's hard to think that way because statistics prove that it probably doesn't happen," he says. "I believe there's a consciousness in the universe, and a power in the universe that we have not yet uncovered that you may choose to call God."



Amir Aczel

Produced by:

Ellen Frankman


T.J. Raphael

Comments [43]


I stopped reading shortly after the paragraph about the big bang "explosion". Despite its name, it wasn't an explosion. And it took a long time to form. It seems to me you are not full understanding science. There are other planets out there, some with water, one with all the right stuff to perhaps have diamonds. Our water came from space. It's all out there. You call it god because you can't handle the truth that it just is, it just happened. We just happened. Science and religion can never coexist. To go with science is to go against religion. For all those who are whole heartedly religious knows exactly what that means; to go against the bible is to go against god and you will go to hell.I was brought up with morals without religion. I'm in my late 30s and learning much about the bible and alot more. With all my research I have found that the whole bible is mythical. Science debunked Adam&Eve and Noahs ark&flood ect. Question one, question all. Jesus is hard to see that he even existed due to not much proof and some even have there own proof of his nonexistence. With my recent findings along with many others, the original Jesus is Egyptian and the whole story of the bible is written on the walls of pyramids and statutes. And anyone who knows history, Egyptian gods are mythical. God is mythical. Science is facts.

Sep. 30 2014 07:18 PM
Ed from Larchmont

Of course science and faith are not at odds, they are two faculties in the human person that work together. John Paul II called them the two wings on which mankind flies to the truth. Benedict argued over and over that they are not enemies, but allies, see the encyclical 'Faith and Reason'. And they are crippled without each other.

Jun. 03 2014 08:03 AM
James Demers from New York

Science has never had a need for God, and there's no reason to think it ever will. An almighty God who can do anything and everything has never had explanatory or predictive value, and has never been of use to science.

Every time science has pushed back the origins of things, it's always been a trivial exercise to state that "something had to cause it." Tellingly, that "something" never needs a "cause" of its own ... until Science identifies the something, which is never God, so God gets pushed back into the role of causing THAT. It seems to me that this process is finally at an end.

Today, we have convincing evidence for the Big Bang and an expanding, 14-billion-year-old universe -- and as always, the religious insist that something had to cause THAT. But a God who's somehow "behind" the Big Bang, before there was matter, energy, time or even space itself, is beyond science - neither provable nor disprovable. Believing in such an intelligent entity (and that it concerns itself with our activities) remains purely voluntary. It is, evidently, comforting to some, but the failure of religion to provide predictions or testable explanations is undeniably a permanent feature.

Apr. 23 2014 11:43 AM
TJ Crow from Virginia

Ho-Hum, Takeawayers. It's happened again. Interesting subject perhaps, but an old fashioned philosopher to tackle it. "Einstein's God of the Universe", "God as the Thought Behind the Math", "There must be a Creator because Creation seems so Created". It was quaint I suppose, like browsing through vintage clothing. I know the guy is just flogging a book, but sheesh... Please refresh out philosophical pallets with someone flogging a book about how we can use Recent Advances in Philosophical Science to get over this stupid conversation about atheism.

Apr. 23 2014 11:41 AM
blazh femur from Nassau, NY

Nothing gets science minded people more riled up than a scientist saying maybe there is a God. Haven't some scientists said that the Universe is "information"? Doesn't that imply consciousness? The anthropic principle and the argument "who created God?" are childish. We humans think we're so smart but we're little more than talking chimps. Sure, scientists have discovered and debunked many silly beliefs, but then they conclude that the Universe is nothing but randomly assembled Lego blocks, which rules out free will. Who among the scientists will admit they are an automaton? We are pattern seeking beings and we have a hard time tolerating mystery. Every discovery unleashes more questions. We are all guilty of confirmation bias. We are emotional creatures; not nearly as rational as we claim to be. If we were rational, someone else's belief in God wouldn't be so upsetting.

Apr. 22 2014 12:29 PM
Jean-Pierre V. from Nassau, NY

Yes, the author got at least one thing right. science doesn't disprove the existence of god. And everything that we know today about the nature of charged particles and their interaction in the atmosphere does not disprove the existence of Zeus either. Science doesn't try to disprove your supernatural simplification of your world, it simply give you an alternative way to interpret it. So, that door that you thought a ghost had closed suddenly became susceptible to differences in air pressure. there is one thing however that can disprove the existence of god. The one thing that gave rise to science. The one thing that is bigger than science, RATIONALITY.
You see, god and everything supernatural are not rational. There isn't anything about the supernatural that can be measured, quantified, probed, scanned etc. etc. Some of you reading this, might be saying, duh! Well, that is exactly the point. The rational human would not engage into any futile task to prove or disprove any open-ended idea or concept. The author himself seems to wrestle with parameters for his god, and at times seems to just accept the idea on FAITH. Well, he did make one unsuccessful attempt at rationality by suggesting amongst other things that the universe is too well fine tuned not to have had an intelligent creator. Mmm! May I just ask the author one simple question? If that creator is so skilled at fine tuning, who created the creator? Get it?

Apr. 21 2014 10:59 PM
Aaron from Saint Paul, Minnesota

I made a typing error in an earlier comment (I was typing on my phone!). I meant to say this: " a better use of this thesis might be to inform theists of the actual nature of the statements of _atheists_."

Apr. 21 2014 05:33 PM
sean k from ca

Science doesn't need God. It had no more business concerning itself with such notions than it does with gremlins, death, art or faith. It's not within the scope of its concern.

Religion, however, must address science, because it shows most religious claims that could possibly imply objective ethical values to be demonstrably false.

Apr. 21 2014 05:03 PM
Steve MacIntyre

That was one masterful straw-man segment. Science cannot disprove God. Well, duh! Of course it can't. No reputable scientist ever said otherwise, and if there are news reports claiming the contrary, this segment should have been dedicated to debunking such news reports. Instead, you've validated them.

So what's next? What other straw men are up your sleeves?

Apr. 21 2014 04:59 PM
Ronin (RA-NYC) from NYC

pardon the typos and grammatical errors....the ideas stand for themselves however.

Apr. 21 2014 04:28 PM
Ronin (RA-NYC) from NYC

just as a disclaimer.....I'm an architect

it's a waste of time and mental energy to try to "prove" an idea that cannot be anything else other than an idea. Everyone has their own interpretation of "god" and there have been so many attempts to try to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of "god". So why try? Why not just make up your own mind and not try to convince other people? It's led to wars, domestic violence, the destruction of families, etc. The benefits of religion can outweigh the negative aspects if the idea of "god" could be held as a personal belief and if that belief doesn't depend on other people's approval in order to be valid.

People like architects have a large effect on the world in a very real way. But as an architect, I'm able to distinguish what we as humans apply to ourselves and what we project on our world. There is no religious architecture, there are only man made structures. In the same light, I think the idea of "god" is a reflection of our ability to create, manipulate, judge and the list goes on. Just because we can have a limited understanding of the universe doesn't mean that we can make assumptions on it. Similarly, just because we may be able to conceive the idea of life on other planets, it doesn't mean that it does or doesn't exist. It's just a possibility....or an idea.....just like "god".

I think people talk about these things to stir the pot, make people agree with them and also for financial benefit. The idea of "god" reflects polar qualities of people as "good" and "evil" and nothing my opinion.

Apr. 21 2014 04:23 PM
Caleb from Norman, Ok

Atheism is a rejection of the claim that there is a god.
It is not the claim that there is no god.

As made plain in this lecture given by Richard Dawkins, in his speech
"Science Can't Disprove the Existence of God"

Hitchens never claimed there was no God, he simply said:
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

Pulled from a page on American Atheists titled "What is an atheist?"

"Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Your guest was either arguing with an extremely small and unrepresentative subset of atheists, or is guilty of a straw man argument. Worse than that: the fact that atheism does NOT claim the non-existence of god, could have been immediately and easily discovered. That last quote came from the top search result of a Google Search "What is an atheist?"

Shouldn't we expect that, as a bare minimum, when you write a book, you spend 2 minutes, typing a rock-simple search query into Google.

Apr. 21 2014 04:18 PM
Aaron from Saint Paul, Minnesota


I don't see a claim to scientific proof in your citation, nor did I when I read that book. It is not splitting hairs to call someone out for elevating someone's confidence into a claim for scientific 'proof'. If you wish to attack their confidence, feel free, but don't attack them for making claims that they didn't make.

Maybe if it weren't such a ubiquitous canard of the theist community that scientists are 'certain' or claim 'scientific proof' of the non-existence of god so that they can ignore the actual arguments presented. But that's not the world we live in.

To claim that Dawkins et. al. state that they have 'disproved god', then point at them and call them out for making unfounded claims is plainly dishonest. I don't believe that such a claim exists in their work. Please feel free to show an actual example if you have one.

Apr. 21 2014 04:15 PM
Ezra Barany from Oakland

In the Da Vinci Code-type bestselling thriller "The Torah Codes," one of the main points of the book is how science does prove that God, or at least an all-knowing being, exists. I resisted believing it because I didn't want to believe in God. But the science was solid and not even professional statisticians, referees for the journal Statistical Science, could find flaws in the evidence.

In order for the proof to be valid, there needed to be an observation, an apriori hypothesis, an experiment, a conclusion, and a replication of the experiment confirming the conclusion. The results showed that the chances of there not being an all-knowing being was 1 in 62,500. (That's the conservative result, the initial probability was 1 in 2,000,000.)

The book "The Torah Codes" presents the science in a fun, story-telling way and won 1st prize in the 2013 Mensa awards.

Apr. 21 2014 04:09 PM
Robert Thomas from Santa Clara

John Hockenberry makes a very grave error here, blithely reporting that celebrities such as Penrose or Dawkins has ever claimed "scientific proof" (I never paid attention to Christopher Hitchens).

This is an example of the pernicious effect on public discourse of know-nothing journalism in the service of phony controversy.

Coming from one of our finest broadcast journalists of the last thirty years, it's disheartening.

Apr. 21 2014 04:04 PM
Nancy Schnur from Hawaii

I suggest disbelievers of what Mr. Aczel has to say take time to read either of these two books, "The Sacred Universe" and "Why Religion Matters". They will find there really isn't a need to be on opposite sides.

Apr. 21 2014 04:02 PM
Geoff from Union City, New Jersey

@ art525 from Park Slope

Nothing in science is 100%; we can only approach 100% confidence. When all the evidence points one way and repeated attempts to disprove a theory fail, confidence in an idea approaches ever close to 100%.

'God' is not necessary to explain natural phenomenon and, as I mentioned previously, the existence of a supernatural deity is unfalsifiable and, therefore, irrelevant to pure science.

The reason folks like Dawkins are so passionate and outspoken is because there are very real consequences for untenable beliefs and irrational world-views.

Apr. 21 2014 04:01 PM

It's not that scientists think science disproves "God" but science cannot disprove a negative.

Since "God" cannot be disproved in any conventional sense, it's not worth considering. It's equivalent is a negative which is scientifically and mathematically NULL.

Apr. 21 2014 03:57 PM
art525 from Park Slope

For Aaron from St Paul- Dawkins book is titled- "The God Delusion". And here is a quote from his Wikopedia page- In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—"a fixed false belief". So it seems to me it is splitting hairs to say that he doesn't say it has been proven. He sure sounds pretty confident.

Apr. 21 2014 03:47 PM
Geoff from Union City, New Jersey

The existence of 'god' is unfalsifiable and therefore irrelevant to scientists, but the likelihood of the existence of a supernatural god, including the personal deity of the Abrahamic religions, is so small as to be effectively zero.

The real issue is that the ability or tendency of otherwise rational, reasonable people to twist themselves into mental knots in order to believe something absurd can and often does lead to dangerous and deadly outcomes.

As for the so-called "fine tuning" of the universe (a.k.a. the anthropic principle), it is absurd to believe that the universe was "tuned" with our eventual existence in "mind." This is simply a logical fallacy; putting the cart before the horse. We have evolved the way we have evolved BECAUSE the universe is the way it is. If the universe was any other way, we would have evolved differently.

Apr. 21 2014 03:43 PM
oscar from ny

I've been a servant of the lord since I was a toddler and he communicates with thru absolutely everything ...I van hear his commands thru the radio t.v ppl animals bugs writing reading the weather..for me its like I can see dots in everything and I just connect them..I feel its a simplification a vision a structure

Apr. 21 2014 03:32 PM
Aaron from Saint Paul, Minnesota

I would like to see a citation of where the atheists mentioned by your guest claimed that science proved that god does not exist. I have read significant amounts of material by these authors and do not recall such a claim being made.

This smacks of an attempt to say "oh, you arrogant atheists think science has disproved god" when no such claim has been made, when a better use of this thesis might be to inform theists of the actual nature of the statements of theists.

This is just another obfuscation of the position of reasoning atheists, not an honest advancement of this discussion.

Apr. 21 2014 03:19 PM
Robert Thomas from Santa Clara

To Ed from Larchmont,

As Dan Hild from NYC asks, what investigator has claimed "proof" or "disproof" of deity?

However one interprets talk-show ejaculations made by Hitchens or Dawkins or other celebrities, "scientific proof" or "scientific disproof" remain oxymorons. Scientific inquiry is incapable of either.

Want a "proof"?

Let S be a non-empty finite-sized set of prime numbers.
Consider P, the product of all members of S.
Consider Q = P + 1.
Q must be evenly divisible by a prime number.
Q divided by any member of S must have remainder of 1.
Ergo, there must be a prime number not a member of S.

Now, that's a PROOF.

Apr. 21 2014 03:18 PM
elizabeth from IL from lIlinois

I appreciate your program engaging in this discussion. I think our society would benefit from a more honest and unbiased discussion of the question of existence of something more than what we can see with our human eyes. My questions include: is living this life all there is? what brings meaning to life ultimately? where does one go when a child is diagnosed with a life-threatening disease? if there's nothing beyond this life, then why does death seem so unnatural?
I hope that all people will ask their own questions and not be afraid to imagine.

Apr. 21 2014 03:13 PM
jim from Oregon

Religious lies destroy lives.

Apr. 21 2014 03:12 PM

Here is the bottom line to this subject. If there is a God and if he or she made us in his image, God is flawed and he or she made a great mistake if he or she God made us; the result from time immortal the Gods have and continue perpetuate perpetual wars on beautiful planet earth. In the end if there is an end, we will continue to kill each other in order to prove who God loves most.
Mr. Azel is a very good writer - his Riddle of The Compass is a good read.

Apr. 21 2014 03:03 PM

That was pathetic coverage, & I've come to expect as much from public radio. "Is God real?... 'yes, I got job, ergo God is real'... 'I believe in a universal consciousness for which there is no evidence'... & there ya go folks, thanks for listening." ---It's like you people deliberately neglected the very notion of evidence: you disregarded the evidence *against* deities... hint, it falls along the lines of evidence against other mythological characters... & disregarded the utter lack of positive evidence for the claims that all those people whose views you promoted. Pathetic.

Apr. 21 2014 03:02 PM
Robert Thomas from Santa Clara

Professor Aczel's books for general readers on mathematical topics have been interesting and I've enjoyed reading them.

Aczel is disturbed by the assertions he says have been lately made by "New Atheism" or "New Atheists" that scientific inquiry has "disproved" existence of deity. Exactly who he believes such claimants are and exactly what claims he believes they've made aren't clear. They seem likely to be figures of Aczel's imagination.

"Prove" and "disprove" are predicates appropriate for mathematical tautology and its theorEMs, not for scientific inquiry and its theorIEs, Aczel should surely understand.

From listening to his recent somewhat incoherent interview with Ira Flatow on the _Science Friday_ program, it seems that Aczel's program here is to answer assertions by other investigators that Aczel believes use recent advances in cosmogony to refute the Spinozan panentheistic idea, that the deity is a thing that encompasses and contains the entire universe and is the motivator of the world AND that deity is also infinitely MORE than the universe.

This idea held by Baruch Spinoza in the 17th century is complex and profound but isn't an appropriate hammer to use in this way, in this sort of venue.

Aczel's motivation seems to be that this panentheism is in some way in line with popular understanding of "many worlds" and "multiverse" ideas that are mentioned in naive conversation about modern cosmogony and that they amount to apology rather than refutation for this sort of panentheism.

Thoughtful investigators of the early universe may well be aware of the ideas of Spinoza and those who've thought similarly. But no modern investigator believes that scientific inquiry infringes or can infringe on such ideas. Scientific inquiry can't "prove" OR "disprove" anything; science collects our imperfect observations to either support or refute the implications of our imperfect models of the world.

Apr. 21 2014 02:53 PM
Paul J from Mankato MN

Don't most data graphs have zero as the origin? Can the existence of zero be proven any more than that of God?

Apr. 21 2014 02:53 PM
Daniel from Omaha

While I find much of what Dawkins, et al say to be at least a partially necessary corrective, I agree with Aczel that, essentially, even scientific evidence about reality and the universe leaves plenty of room for mystery. It should be obvious that there's a difference between something that is actually illogical/provably false and something that is essentially “alogical” and essentially outside what we can observe and measure.

With that said, though, I can tell you that the average fundamentalist American Christian is not interested in, as Aczel talks about, "the God of Einstein" or "a consciousness in the universe." To many, such conceptions of God are blasphemous, insulting, and damnably wrong. To me, THAT is where the important contradiction lies- not in the relatively minor differences between the existential conceptions of God of people like Dawkins and Aczel (and many listeners, myself included) but in the differences between these existential conceptions and the, shall we say, less intellectual, often fundamentalist religious beliefs of many people throughout the world. The gap between Dawkins and Aczel is tiny; the gap between them and the vast majority of religious adherents worldwide- whose beliefs are often unhelpful, if not destructive- is something I can't even imagine how to bridge.

Apr. 21 2014 01:56 PM
Eric from Massachusetts

I think the proper question is not "can" they co-exist but "do" they co-exist. Either they do or they don't. It depends on whether God exists.

For my part, I believe in the existence of VERONICA, the Great Mother of us all. We all came from an eternity with VERONICA and upon our deaths we will all enter into a second eternity with her. No one has ever disproved or can ever disprove the existence of VERONICA.

Apr. 21 2014 01:21 PM
Jane from Winter Park, FL

I don't think God is threatened by man's questioning or those who deny His existence. In fact, He gave us the minds to do that very thing; to wrestle, debate, wonder, learn, enter into relationships, to love. Everyone has a faith; whether it's in the One who designed life or it's in the belief there is no God. Only one can be true.

Apr. 21 2014 12:58 PM

Atheists, religious literalists, and everyone in between can happily coexist as long as scientists don't try to "disprove" God, and, crucially, religious literalist do not try to impose ANY aspects of their beliefs on those who do not believe. It's that simple. As long as we stay out of each others' business, it's all fine.

Apr. 21 2014 12:57 PM
Justin from Seattle

I think it is a shame that "faith" took on the meaning, "belief," in addition to the meaning, "trustworthiness" or "reliability." I think it is much more important to "be faithful" than to "have faith." If there is a higher power, and one worthy of our adulation; I think it would far prefer that we be trustworthy than that we believe in the absence of evidence.

Apr. 21 2014 12:43 PM
Lawrence Sutherland from Dallas, TX

Old Western religion: Christianity
New Western Religion: Armchair Empiricism

Apr. 21 2014 12:04 PM
Larry Fisher from Brooklyn, N.Y.

I remember taking a Physics exam and asking God for help once. I passed but felt cheated.

Apr. 21 2014 11:39 AM
Mike from NY from New York

To my knowledge, atheists, and writers such as Dawkins, do not say they have *proof* of god's non-existence. I'm not sure why The Takeaway framed the argument as *proof of god* vs *proof of no-god*. Stephen Hawking (a rather brilliant physicist) has repeatedly said that we have no need of a god concept, meaning that we can explain our reality without god. But this is different from stating that there is absolute proof that god doesn't exist (it's impossible to prove that). Why do we feel the need to prove the non-existence of such an irrational idea? Why is there an assumed equality in the odds of existence and non-existence?

As far as I have read/seen, many atheists (such as myself, though I don't like the label) view gods as equivalent to leprechauns in terms of believability. It is more or less impossible to prove that leprechauns *don't* exist (they could be hiding! or invisible!). But most of us (including the very most religious) choose not to believe in leprechauns without evidence. If someone is going to posit an extraordinary claim, the responsibility is on that someone to convince us of that claim via evidence. This is a basic concept that 99% of us, religious or not, employ in our everyday lives already. Bertrand Russell came up with a wonderfully convincing analogy that builds on this (search "Russell's teapot" on wikipedia).

Apr. 21 2014 10:32 AM
art525 from Park Slope

From what I hear here I agree with Mr Aczel. I found Hitchens and Dawkins arguments incredibly annoying. Their confidence that there is no god is just as ridiculous as those who are completely sure there is a god. My suspicion is that we will never know. And I kinda like that. The need to make sweeping and definitive judgements leaves no room for discovery.

Apr. 21 2014 10:08 AM
Brockway from Ohio

The Bible at Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as “the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.”. The convincing evidence of unseen realities is so strong that faith is said to be equivalent to that evidence. For instance, the existence of created things convinces us that there is a Creator.

Apr. 21 2014 09:44 AM
Ed from Larchmont

The modern atheists are funny - Mr. Dawkins said 'I'm amost 100 % sure God does not exist'. Let me know when you get to 100%. And they spend lots of time and energy constructiong physical theories of how things came to be without God, which are quite lame.

As we see in Robert Frost, the physical world is a mirror of human and spiritual realities. But Robert Frost is working from a much large theme from theology: the created world reflects spiritual realities. Not only does the created world point to God, but it tells us about Him and other spiritual realities.

Apr. 21 2014 09:30 AM
Ed from Larchmont

Of course science can't disprove God - how could God's creation disprove its creator? As it says in Romans 'Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.' (1:20)

But the idea of disproof comes from the idea that ancient people were kind of dumb and just believed in God because they didn't have the science to explain what we see, so they invented God. The idea of materialism goes back to at least Democritis. But the ancients, and moderns, believe in God because they have encountered God.

Apr. 21 2014 09:24 AM
Dan Hild from NYC

Your guest is making a Straw Man argument. Whhich scientist or atheist has claimed to have scientific PROOF that there is no god?

Apr. 21 2014 09:18 AM
Rev. Anissa Glaser-Bacon from Canton, OH

I am so tired of the fact that whenever we have these discussions they assume that Christians struggle with the acceptance if science and faith. Throughout history people of faith - christian, jewish, islamic and beyond - have participated in the advancement of science. Those of us in progressive communities - no matter what tradition - live in the tension between science and faith very amicably. My own denomination, the United Church of Christ, creates science based education materials and devoted a page of its website to scientiic concerns. Lets stop emphasizing, and thus strengthening, the position of those who cannot accept science in faith, and instead celebrate those who do.

Apr. 21 2014 09:17 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.