A scientist’s take on God
Ever listened to a debate about whether God exists or not? Such debates are, more often than not, heated and quite quickly become emotive contests. I say, you can’t use your thoughts about the negative as proof that something doesn’t exist. A true scientist will never say there’s no God for at least four reasons:
1. No branch of advanced science studies the question “is there a God?” There’s no funding for that. Our “proofs” or “disproofs” are therefore mere speculations, no different from those of primeval man.
2. Science is niche-area oriented, meaning a physicist focuses on a narrow area of physics, a chemist on a narrow area of chemistry, and so on. There’s no time to a serious scientist to study that question during their career, measured in Earth years.
3. Science is largely empirical, meaning that it is driven experimentally, in the context of points 1 and 2 above. How then does one design an experiment to detect “God”? How then can you prove that the entity who typed this comment is actually a human being an not a A.I. bot?
4. An accomplished scientist will always be of humble character upon realizing that the more they study a question, the more they see deep, intelligent design and how little they yet know about the thing. We can hardly construct our ancient ancestry from prehistoric bones, and yet somehow we opine voraciously about a subject matter that we have no handles (bones) of?
I’m a published scientist and I think I appreciate these aspects better than most.
1. No branch of advanced science studies the question “is there a God?” There’s no funding for that. Our “proofs” or “disproofs” are therefore mere speculations, no different from those of primeval man.
2. Science is niche-area oriented, meaning a physicist focuses on a narrow area of physics, a chemist on a narrow area of chemistry, and so on. There’s no time to a serious scientist to study that question during their career, measured in Earth years.
3. Science is largely empirical, meaning that it is driven experimentally, in the context of points 1 and 2 above. How then does one design an experiment to detect “God”? How then can you prove that the entity who typed this comment is actually a human being an not a A.I. bot?
4. An accomplished scientist will always be of humble character upon realizing that the more they study a question, the more they see deep, intelligent design and how little they yet know about the thing. We can hardly construct our ancient ancestry from prehistoric bones, and yet somehow we opine voraciously about a subject matter that we have no handles (bones) of?
I’m a published scientist and I think I appreciate these aspects better than most.
Comments
Post a Comment