Does Science Preclude The Existence Of God?

Here are 8 reasons why science does NOT eliminate the need for the existence of God:

https://reasonsforjesus.com/does-science-preclude-the-existence-of-god-2/

OLAADEGBU:


Does Science Preclude The Existence Of God?

Here are 8 reasons why science does NOT eliminate the need for the existence of God:

https://reasonsforjesus.com/does-science-preclude-the-existence-of-god-2/

By Dr. John Ferrer| The question here is not, "Does science disprove God?"

Science normally addresses natural events in terms of natural causes. Whoever agrees on that (at least approximate) definition of science thereby grants that science doesn't prove or disprove God. It just doesn't address God's existence. It's not the right tool for that job.

Science can, however, address effects in nature which might have supernatural causes. In this way, science could discredit or lend credit to different lines of evidence for God. Remember, "science" is usually a reference to "natural science," and so it addresses natural events and is usually restricted to natural causes.

If we are to connect scientific data to the question of God's existence we need a mediator, like theology, philosophy, or even art. By that understanding, Science isn't the right tool for directly addressing God's existence.

The data we glean from science has to be passed off to other fields to consider how it might best be interpreted if natural events/causes seem unable to account for that data. Science can identify and clarify things that are not explained or cannot be explained by natural causes.

Science can also discredit/falsify some supernatural claims by pointing out sufficient but natural cause for an event. For example, debunking magic tricks and various fraudulent religious claims like spoon bending, levitation, mind reading, etc.

The question at issue here is, not about whether science disproves God, but is more subtle: "Does science preclude God?" This is a more sophisticated question because it allows that God may exist, but to do science we have to assume/believe/conclude he doesn't exist. Doing science makes God-belief impossible, or, at least, does it make God-belief impossible while one is conducting science?

At minimum, this is a question about methodological naturalism–must we deal strictly in natural causes, allowing only natural explanations into the mix whenever we do science? I myself am torn on that question, depending on how one understands "methodological naturalism." At maximum, this is a question about metaphysical naturalism–does the operation or outcomes of science somehow make God's existence impossible? I'm not torn here.

THE SHORT ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS: NO, SCIENCE DOES NOT PRECLUDE GOD'S EXISTENCE. WE CAN CONDUCT SCIENCE AS WELL OR BETTER THAN OUR ATHEISTIC COUNTERPARTS PRECISELY BECAUSE WE ALLOW THAT GOD EXISTS.

In God's existence, there is a sustaining cause for the regular order of nature. Moreover, things like consciousness, purpose, language, and knowledge all have sufficient grounding in a divine mind so that our access to these things is at least broadly reliable for accessing truth.

Were all of these features merely arbitrary outcomes of aimless natural forces, then we'd have little reason to trust our minds, to employ semantic language, or to believe we are dealing in truth and knowledge at all. Science does not preclude God because of the following reasons.

8 Reasons Why Science Does Not Preclude God.

1. We can give natural causes high priority without ruling for or against potentially supernatural causes.

It is entirely possible to do science, giving high priority to natural causes, and when all the known and theorized natural causes are exhausted, settle one's scientific case on a neatly clarified set of sufficient causes which, so far as we can tell, only supernaturalism can satisfy.

WE CAN INFER, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT TESTS HAVE SHOWN THAT EVENT X REQUIRES Y AND Z IN IT'S CAUSAL SET, BUT SINCE Y AND Z ARE STRICTLY CONTRADICTORY IN NATURE AND ARE NOWHERE FOUND TOGETHER, THEN Y AND Z REVEAL A POTENTIALLY SUPERNATURAL CAUSE.

One doesn't have to sacrifice scientific caution, humility, or rigour just because one has adduced a potentially supernatural cause. This sort of conclusion, about Y and Z can be handled with patience, modesty, and a strict adherence to falsifiability criteria–demanding that this theory be subjected to further testing (i.e., find a way to make Y and Z compatible, or show that X can arise without Y and Z).

One does however have to allow that aspects of science can overlap with theology (and of course, all of it overlaps heavily with philosophy). This understanding of science implies that the true heart of science isn’t naturalism (methodological or metaphysical). The true heart of science is curiosity.

If a supernatural event were to happen right in front of our eyes, it seems deeply unscientific to surrender our curiosity and forbid science-minded people from pushing for a satisfactory explanation even if all natural causes fail to account for it.

To be fair, some folks, even theists, are liable to push back against this point, doubling-down on methodological naturalism. Admittedly, this point does not strictly adhere to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism (which says that only natural causes are allowed into one’s scientific explanations) is the normal operating guideline for natural science.

I personally do not think it's necessary for science, but I grant it's functional value to keep people from flying into theological fancy any time they find something presently inexplicable in nature. For those folks who hold fast to methodological naturalism as the strict and exclusive operations of science, there’s a way to make it work with my point.

A person can retain a strict adherence to methodological naturalism for the sciences and still allow for, scientifically inaccessible, supernature. He or she would just have to take off their lab coat, so to speak, and put on their theologian or philosopher cap before discussing any potentially supernatural causes.

The difference between these "soft" and "hard" views on methodological naturalism is that the "soft" version allows that science and theology can overlap but the "hard" version says they don't overlap.

Either way, however, the data of science can still be used in arguments for God's existence. This has been a historical norm for philosophers of religion and theistic apologists across the centuries. Heck, even David Hume, the imminent skeptical empiricist, granted natural theology, that is, nature can provide empirical evidence of a supernatural God.