Why do people agree to the statement you cannot be a scientist and believe in God?

Answer 1

Answer

Despite some believing that you cannot be a scientist and believe in God, the statement is utterly wrong and there are many scientists - including myself ( a Christian AND a scientist!!) who utterly disagree with it!

Most of the truly great scientists throughout history believed in God and most still do. Isaac newton, Galileo, Kepler, Faraday, and many others were all Christians.

Some people believe that you cannot be a scientist and believe in God and would agree with the statement above. This, however, needs a little unpacking. The reasons that they cite are primarily based on just a few areas, notably

1. Evolution vs what it states in Genesis, and

2. The problem with suffering in the world.

There are other minor concerns, of course, but when questioned, most would agree that these two are the stumbling blocks against a faith based life.

1.

Firstly, science does not give us definite answers. Jocelyn Bell (the discoverer of pulsars - who is also a Christian) once said that science is not definite simply because throughout history scientific thought and 'laws' have had to be adapted - or even backtracked completely - as new evidence comes along. As a case in point, through observation it was categorically 'known' that all the stars that were in the sky were in our neighbourhood - until Hubble and others discovered red shift and realised that there were other galaxies than our own much further away. Similarly Hoyle discovered categorically that the universe had always been here and always would be - until Wilson and Penzias discovered the background radiation of the Big Bang and the 'Steady State' theory, as it was called, was shelved and disregarded.

Those who believe science demands 'proof' are wrong. The only science where absolute proof is possible is mathematics. All other experimental and observational science is based on gathering evidence for and against, making judgements on that evidence, and then formulating an 'answer' until something different, or more refined comes along because of better observation. Those who agree with the statement in the question have a misconception about the reliability of science; they regard it as absolute, which it is not. Therefore they regard the belief in God as purely blind faith-based without evidence - again, which it is not.

The recent discovery of the Anthropic Principle - thanks to better cosmological observation - shows that the universal constants set down at the Big Bang are conducive to life being allowed to exist, with even the most minor fluctuations in these basic constants meaning that life would not exist. Professor Russell Stannard, a particle physicist (and also another Christian!) once stated that 'the universe has bent over backwards to enable us to exist... it is as if the universe knew we were coming). Even the most hardened atheistic scientists have seen this reluctantly as possibly some sort of design within the fabric of creation.

2.

Creationists in the US have done more harm than good with their insistence that Genesis should be taken absolutely literally. Most Christians regard Genesis as did the ancient Jews themselves; a Hebrew allegorical poem that reveals great truths and hidden morals, but which cannot, and should not be taken literally. Yet Creationists still maintain the literal translation of Genesis despite it flying in the face of all reasonable evidence of an evolutionary process. Thus, when critics of religion (and that includes some scientists) see the folly of this stance, they regard nit just Creationists as crackpots, but all believers as crackpots, which I find not just simplistic and silly - but also offensive.

3.

Thirdly, there is the problem of suffering in the world. To this, there are no easy and glib answers, and rightly many who look to science as the panacea of all suffering cannot then reconcile that with a God that allows it. However, we must remember that the vast majority of suffering in this world is not a result of God. God is easy to blame as he doesn't answer back. perhaps, though, with regard to suffering we should look to ourselves a little more. Millions are starving in the world not because of God, but because we in the West are greedy and oppress the poor. Thousands died in Haiti not because God caused it but because it is an extremely poor country which the world has forgotten. That scale of death and destruction would not happen in San Fransisco, another earthquake zone, because the US is rich enough to build earthquake-proof buildings and have far better infrastructure. Those dying in Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Iraq and in many other areas across the world are not suffering because of God - but because of humanity's inhumanity to its own species. So let's not blame God for suffering or ask what he's going to do about it. The answer lies fairly and squarely on our own doorstep.

The simple fact is that when studied sensibly and thoroughly, the concept of God is not only seen as logical and sensible, but it is also considered by many scientists as the only real explanation - full explanation - of how things came to be. As stated above, the Anthropic Principle, for example, sets out scientifically the infinitessimally small chance that life should exist, and yet it does not just exist but thrives. This principle, by examining the very basic building blocks of the universe, and the most fundamental of physical constants, points to design rather than chance in the universe.

Finally...

As a rider and corollary of the above, of course, there are some scientists, notably Richard Dawkins, who speak out quite strongly against the belief in God. Yet to those who show equal intelligence as he does, his arguments are flawed and easily countered. Whilst Dawkins' views on evolution and Darwinism deserve some respect, his views on religion are very flawed. Believers (of all religions) do not recognise the 'god' whom he denigrates as it is a god of his own biased making rather than the God of the Christian, Jew, Muslim or Sikh for that matter.