A Scientist reflects on Religious Belief

[Jeremy E Walker]

Q. Can the existence of God be proved?

Answer:

I should say not with the same type of certainty that we ascribe to statements such as "the earth is in orbit about the sun at a mean distance of 93 million miles, making a complete journey in 365.25 days," or "genetic information is coded in long protein strings of DNA that, in cells of a particular individual, replicate during mitosis, and in reproduction unite with DNA from another individual to produce the hereditary similarity of progeny with their parents, etc." The enormous success of modern science is undeniable in producing such facts, which have a strong ring of certainty, and this success simply cannot be ignored.

Proofs of the existence of God have always been of a different kind-a crucial point to be understood by those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method. God can never be proved to them for that reason (Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God.) Science illumines brightly, but only a part of reality.

The classical proofs of God by Anselm and by Aquinas via natural theology do not give the same type of satisfaction as proofs of propositions arrived at by the method of science. To the modern mind they seem contrived. Nevertheless, they were sufficient for Pascal to finally approach his certainty in God's existence by preparing his mind for God's necessity, if the world is to make ultimate sense. After that preparation, he simply could then abandon the God of natural theology and of the philosophers, and could at last will himself to faith by leaping across the abyss, from the edge of reason on this side of the chasm. For those who have experienced this way to God, I would say that God's existence has been proved beyond doubt for them.

- Dr. Allan Sandage

Allan Rex Sandage (June 18, 1926 – November 13, 2010) was an American astronomer. He was Staff Member Emeritus with the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California.[2] He is best known for determining the first reasonably accurate value for the Hubble constant and the age of the universe. He is also the discoverer of the first quasar.

Awards:

Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy (1957)
Eddington Medal (1963)
Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1967)
National Medal of Science (1970)
Henry Norris Russell Lectureship (1972)
Elliott Cresson Medal (1973)
Fellow of the Royal Society[1]
Bruce Medal (1975)
Crafoord Prize (1991)
Gruber Prize in Cosmology (2000)

Allan Sandage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bhsmte]

Q. Can the existence of God be proved?

Answer:

I should say not with the same type of certainty that we ascribe to statements such as "the earth is in orbit about the sun at a mean distance of 93 million miles, making a complete journey in 365.25 days," or "genetic information is coded in long protein strings of DNA that, in cells of a particular individual, replicate during mitosis, and in reproduction unite with DNA from another individual to produce the hereditary similarity of progeny with their parents, etc." The enormous success of modern science is undeniable in producing such facts, which have a strong ring of certainty, and this success simply cannot be ignored.

Proofs of the existence of God have always been of a different kind-a crucial point to be understood by those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method. God can never be proved to them for that reason (Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God.) Science illumines brightly, but only a part of reality.

The classical proofs of God by Anselm and by Aquinas via natural theology do not give the same type of satisfaction as proofs of propositions arrived at by the method of science. To the modern mind they seem contrived. Nevertheless, they were sufficient for Pascal to finally approach his certainty in God's existence by preparing his mind for God's necessity, if the world is to make ultimate sense. After that preparation, he simply could then abandon the God of natural theology and of the philosophers, and could at last will himself to faith by leaping across the abyss, from the edge of reason on this side of the chasm. For those who have experienced this way to God, I would say that God's existence has been proved beyond doubt for them.

- Dr. Allan Sandage

Allan Rex Sandage (June 18, 1926 – November 13, 2010) was an American astronomer. He was Staff Member Emeritus with the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California.[2] He is best known for determining the first reasonably accurate value for the Hubble constant and the age of the universe. He is also the discoverer of the first quasar.

Awards:

Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy (1957)
Eddington Medal (1963)
Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1967)
National Medal of Science (1970)
Henry Norris Russell Lectureship (1972)
Elliott Cresson Medal (1973)
Fellow of the Royal Society[1]
Bruce Medal (1975)
Crafoord Prize (1991)
Gruber Prize in Cosmology (2000)

Allan Sandage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sounds a lot like Francis Collins, who also states God can not be verified through objective verifiable evidence that is used in science.

One would need to use another method, to support the existence of a God, which would involve subjectivity. Which, people are certainly free to do.

 

[Paradoxum]

The classical proofs of God by Anselm and by Aquinas via natural theology do not give the same type of satisfaction as proofs of propositions arrived at by the method of science.

Anslem's ontological argument is completely useless.

Aquinas at least has arguments worth considering.

To the modern mind they seem contrived. Nevertheless, they were sufficient for Pascal to finally approach his certainty in God's existence by preparing his mind for God's necessity, if the world is to make ultimate sense. After that preparation, he simply could then abandon the God of natural theology and of the philosophers, and could at last will himself to faith by leaping across the abyss, from the edge of reason on this side of the chasm.

Is anything significant said here?

Some clever guy thought there were reasons to believe in God (good for him?), and then he went beyond the evidence and made stuff up?

For those who have experienced this way to God, I would say that God's existence has been proved beyond doubt for them.

If something hasn't literally been proven by evidence or rational argument, it hasn't be proven beyond doubt. If you think feelings are proof, you are ignorant.

 

[bhsmte]

Anslem's ontological argument is completely useless.

Aquinas at least has arguments worth considering.



Is anything significant said here?

Some clever guy thought there were reasons to believe in God (good for him?), and then he went beyond the evidence and made stuff up?



If something hasn't literally been proven by evidence or rational argument, it hasn't be proven beyond doubt. If you think feelings are proof, you are ignorant.

Even Aquinas's arguments are flawed and contain assumptions, the assumption that it has to be God.

Here is the thing though, even if one gave Aquinas's arguments merit, the Christian still has all their work ahead of them, because the argument, could be for any type of God, including a universal God who is not personal and does not interact at all with life in the universe. The realities of the world, would align better with a non-personal God, IMO.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Q. Can the existence of God be proved?

Answer:

I should say not with the same type of certainty that we ascribe to statements such as "the earth is in orbit about the sun at a mean distance of 93 million miles, making a complete journey in 365.25 days," or "genetic information is coded in long protein strings of DNA that, in cells of a particular individual, replicate during mitosis, and in reproduction unite with DNA from another individual to produce the hereditary similarity of progeny with their parents, etc." The enormous success of modern science is undeniable in producing such facts, which have a strong ring of certainty, and this success simply cannot be ignored.

Minor correction: DNA is composed of strings of nucleic acid, not protein.

Proofs of the existence of God have always been of a different kind-a crucial point to be understood by those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method. God can never be proved to them for that reason (Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God.) Science illumines brightly, but only a part of reality.

What circular reasoning?

The classical proofs of God by Anselm and by Aquinas via natural theology do not give the same type of satisfaction as proofs of propositions arrived at by the method of science. To the modern mind they seem contrived. Nevertheless, they were sufficient for Pascal to finally approach his certainty in God's existence by preparing his mind for God's necessity, if the world is to make ultimate sense. After that preparation, he simply could then abandon the God of natural theology and of the philosophers, and could at last will himself to faith by leaping across the abyss, from the edge of reason on this side of the chasm. For those who have experienced this way to God, I would say that God's existence has been proved beyond doubt for them.

- Dr. Allan Sandage

This is perhaps the most interesting section. Sandage all but admits that the classical arguments given in support of theism are contrived - a mere stepping stone from which believers then make the leap of faith toward their particular conception of God (e.g., Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.) This is in keeping with what we generally observe in apologetics. Believers appeal to the classical arguments as proof of God, but their actual beliefs go far beyond what those arguments purport to establish. Even believers are not satisfied by the "God of natural theology and of the philosophers," because that God scarcely resembles the God they actually believe in. Sandage captured this nicely, even if he did not intend to.

 

[Gladius]

Worst so called "scientist" I have ever read.

".......those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method...."

No true scientist rejects either:
1) the scientific method
2) the natural world (or natural theology, whatever that is)
3) empirical evidence

Delusional astronomer more like.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Interesting that we're never told by what other means results can be obtained. (If by authority, then by what means did the authority obtain the results--regression. If by revelation, then by what mean does one know the source.)

 

[Received]

Sounds a lot like Francis Collins, who also states God can not be verified through objective verifiable evidence that is used in science.

One would need to use another method, to support the existence of a God, which would involve subjectivity. Which, people are certainly free to do.

Science most definitely involves subjectivity, just a more rigid and firm subjectivity. Both with the philosophical assumptions underpinning science, and (especially) the theories that tie facts together.

 

[Paradoxum]

Even Aquinas's arguments are flawed and contain assumptions, the assumption that it has to be God.

Here is the thing though, even if one gave Aquinas's arguments merit, the Christian still has all their work ahead of them, because the argument, could be for any type of God, including a universal God who is not personal and does not interact at all with life in the universe. The realities of the world, would align better with a non-personal God, IMO.

I'm not saying Aquinas is right... just that he is better than Anselm's ontological argument.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Minor correction: DNA is composed of strings of nucleic acid, not protein.

Minor correction correction. He never states that DNA is composed of strings of protein bro. He says:

"genetic information is coded in long protein strings of DNA.."

He is speaking about the strings of protein that replicate during mitosis. These protein stands contain DNA. So you got it backwards.

What circular reasoning?

Ohh....the kind of reasoning that goes something like this:

God cannot exist because the only things that exist are natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

This is perhaps the most interesting section. Sandage all but admits that the classical arguments given in support of theism are contrived

He does?

Where?

Believers appeal to the classical arguments as proof of God,

This is incorrect. Some believers do. Some do not. In fact there is debate among apologists as to what means are best for demonstrating the intellectual capaciousness of Christianity.

So some do and some do not.

I use them depending on who I am speaking with and know they are efficacious in their intended use because I have seen atheists persuaded by them.

but their actual beliefs go far beyond what those arguments purport to establish. Even believers are not satisfied by the "God of natural theology and of the philosophers," because that God scarcely resembles the God they actually believe in. Sandage captured this nicely, even if he did not intend to.

This is correct. Our beliefs go beyond what our arguments intend to establish. That is where faith comes in. That is why we view faith as integral and necessary.

For the arguments are like clues, or bread crumbs if you will, leading to a reality above and beyond what can be known or apprehended via empiricism.

For the Christian, having faith in God is first and foremost an exercise in humility. For we confess we are incapable of knowing God in a saving way unless He first disclose Himself to us and that, being wholly unworthy of Him doing so, we acknowledge that unless He be gracious and merciful to us, we would be altogether undone.

The proud man cannot live by faith, but he lives by what he considers to be "his own" abilities. He thinks that if he reads enough, studies enough, and acquires enough worldly knowledge, that he will as a result, know all that he needs to know. Such a man may spend years in the academy and possess many degrees, but because he is proud, God resists him. The lowly peasant or farmer who by faith, apprehends God, knows more than the learned scholar because the lowly peasant is taught by God Himself and cares little for the superficial pronouncements of men.

 

[FireDragon76]

Worst so called "scientist" I have ever read.

".......those scientists who will only accept results that can be obtained via the scientific method...."

No true scientist rejects either:
1) the scientific method

Positivism is self-refuting, since the premise is not empirically verifiable.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Positivism is self-refuting, since the premise is not empirically verifiable.

I love your style FireDragon76.

And yes, logical positivism is literally, dead.

It has been for several decades.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Anslem's ontological argument is completely useless.

Aquinas at least has arguments worth considering.



Is anything significant said here?

Some clever guy thought there were reasons to believe in God (good for him?), and then he went beyond the evidence and made stuff up?



If something hasn't literally been proven by evidence or rational argument, it hasn't be proven beyond doubt. If you think feelings are proof, you are ignorant.

Tell me, what are some of the things you believe in and hold to be true that you cannot prove?

 

[variant]

Even Aquinas's arguments are flawed and contain assumptions, the assumption that it has to be God.

Interestingly he knew this when he constructed them.

I don't think the current brand of Christians understand this.

 

[Gladius]

Tell me, what are some of the things you believe in and hold to be true that you cannot prove?

Whilst the question wasn't addressed to me, it was nonetheless a challenge I accept.

There is nothing I hold to be true that I have no evidence for. You will need to define 'prove' for me before I can confirm whether I can do that though.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Minor correction correction. He never states that DNA is composed of strings of protein bro. He says:

"genetic information is coded in long protein strings of DNA.."

He is speaking about the strings of protein that replicate during mitosis. These protein stands contain DNA. So you got it backwards.

Protein is composed of amino acids, not DNA. DNA is composed of nucleic acid. Either way, what he is said is not factually accurate. Neither is your correction.

Ohh....the kind of reasoning that goes something like this:

God cannot exist because the only things that exist are natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

I'm not sure that this is what Sandage was saying.

He does?

Where?

Read the section closely.

This is incorrect. Some believers do. Some do not. In fact there is debate among apologists as to what means are best for demonstrating the intellectual capaciousness of Christianity.

So some do and some do not.

I use them depending on who I am speaking with and know they are efficacious in their intended use because I have seen atheists persuaded by them.


This is correct. Our beliefs go beyond what our arguments intend to establish. That is where faith comes in. That is why we view faith as integral and necessary.

This raises the question of why the arguments are even necessary if you are going to believe by faith anyway. If faith is good enough, then arguments are unnecessary and superfluous.

For the arguments are like clues, or bread crumbs if you will, leading to a reality above and beyond what can be known or apprehended via empiricism.

They don't appear to be very good clues. People with the same clues nevertheless end up believing in very different gods.

For the Christian, having faith in God is first and foremost an exercise in humility. For we confess we are incapable of knowing God in a saving way unless He first disclose Himself to us and that, being wholly unworthy of Him doing so, we acknowledge that unless He be gracious and merciful to us, we would be altogether undone.

The proud man cannot live by faith, but he lives by what he considers to be "his own" abilities. He thinks that if he reads enough, studies enough, and acquires enough worldly knowledge, that he will as a result, know all that he needs to know. Such a man may spend years in the academy and possess many degrees, but because he is proud, God resists him. The lowly peasant or farmer who by faith, apprehends God, knows more than the learned scholar because the lowly peasant is taught by God Himself and cares little for the superficial pronouncements of men.

I consider it much more arrogant to pretend to have knowledge than to humbly concede that one doesn't know.

 

[KCfromNC]

Positivism is self-refuting, since the premise is not empirically verifiable.

Philosophers sit around and giggle that they've found some word-games which "refute" things. Scientists eradicate diseases and put robots on Mars. Guess which one seems more impressive.

 

[sarxweh]

Philosophers sit around and giggle that they've found some word-games which "refute" things. Scientists eradicate diseases and put robots on Mars. Guess which one seems more impressive.

Science was started by philosophy, and inescapably requires a philosophical approach.

A telescope is never "just a telescope" (thank you Mr. Clinton)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Philosophers sit around and giggle that they've found some word-games which "refute" things. Scientists eradicate diseases and put robots on Mars. Guess which one seems more impressive.

I disagree with this. The antecedents of those remarkable accomplishments can be traced back to philosophy. Though there are some areas of philosophy that clearly warrant your criticism, it would be unwise to taint all of philosophy in this way IMO.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Protein is composed of amino acids, not DNA. DNA is composed of nucleic acid. Either way, what he is said is not factually accurate. Neither is your correction.



I'm not sure that this is what Sandage was saying.



Read the section closely.



This raises the question of why the arguments are even necessary if you are going to believe by faith anyway. If faith is good enough, then arguments are unnecessary and superfluous.



They don't appear to be very good clues. People with the same clues nevertheless end up believing in very different gods.



I consider it much more arrogant to pretend to have knowledge than to humbly concede that one doesn't know.

Arguments are used as evidences or clues pointing to God. Some people are unwilling to believe something unless there is evidence for that something. I and Alister McGrath, C.S. Lewis, Allen Sandage, John Polkinghorne, Malcolm Muggeridge, come to mind.

And I agree with your last statement.