Science, God, and the Boundaries of Human Inquiry

Can science definitively prove or disprove the existence of God? This question has long been at the heart of philosophical and scientific debates. In this exploration, we delve into the limitations of scientific inquiry and the nature of methodological naturalism, while also discussing beliefs about God and their relationship to scientific truth.

The Limitations of Science: Methodological Naturalism

The concept of methodological naturalism is central to modern scientific practice. This principle, also known as materialism, posits that scientific investigations should only consider natural, observable, and testable phenomena. According to Paul Lucas, proponents of naturalism rely on this universal adherence because it ensures scientific work remains empirical and objective. However, this does not mean that science inherently denies the existence of God.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity. This is a fundamental limitation. As stated by Stephen Jay Gould, scientific laws function under the assumption that the will of God sustains them. Similarly, Dr. Eugenie Scott puts it succinctly, saying that both "God did it" and "God did not do it" are not scientific statements. Instead, beliefs about God must come from beyond the scientific realm.

The Origin and Nature of Laws

Historically, the laws that govern the universe were established long before the existence of mankind. Science merely observes and documents these phenomena rather than creating them. This observation raises the question: Who wrote the laws of science? From a scientific perspective, these laws are independent of human dictates and exist independently of human consciousness.

According to Christian theology, the laws of nature were established by a Creator. This Creator, referred to as Jehovah, is responsible for all aspects of existence, from the creation of gender for procreation to the writing of the ten commandments. Jesus Christ followed and fulfilled these commandments, distinguishing Himself as a divine representative on earth.

Absence of Evidence: The Case Against Gods in Science

Absent any verifiable evidence for the existence of gods throughout human history, the absence of evidence can be considered evidence of absence. This logical conclusion is based on the principle that if something is observed repeatedly and consistently, its absence in a particular context suggests its nonexistence.

From a logical standpoint, a statement can be proven false if a contradiction can be shown. In the case of claims about gods, if a statement cannot be both true and false (by definition), it can be declared false if disproven through logical contradiction. This is how scientific inquiry operates, often eliminating hypotheses that do not align with empirical evidence.

Atheism and the Scientific Method

Atheism, as a belief system, describes individuals who do not believe in the existence of any gods. It is a descriptive term rather than a prescriptive one. As such, atheism inherently exists as a stance without needing to be proven true or false. This is akin to stating that the absence of a unicorn in a particular field of study does not require a proof of absence, rather it is an observed absence.

Science does not concern itself with proving or disproving the existence of any of the 330 million gods recognized by human cultures. Its focus lies in observing and understanding natural phenomena, and thus, it has not observed any gods. This is not a failure of scientific method but rather a limitation of what can be scientifically observed and tested.

In conclusion, while science operates within the bounds of methodological naturalism, it cannot definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. Beliefs about God remain outside the purview of scientific inquiry, and as such, they must be approached from a different epistemological perspective.