Science vs Religion and Arguments for God’s Existence

The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification. The rest of us are expected to defend our prejudices. But ask a religious person to defend their faith and you infringe ‘religious liberty.’ (Dawkins, 45)

Throughout history, mankind can be observed spending a great deal of time and effort on practices and ideas to explain the world around them. The origin of religion is unknown for certain and although it may seem the belief in God, particularly Theism, to be instinctive, “the idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture” (Marsh, 356). From our childhood we grow accustomed to the behaviors of those around us, specifically religious. As we age, we engage more or less in the customs practiced throughout our upbringing. It’s no wonder the majority share the same religious beliefs and tendencies of their parents, “most of us almost never question the things that we came about to believe in, not even the most implausible ones, for which we know we have not an iota of proof” (Anghel, 19). Lack of evidence is sufficient to spark a strong concern that religion is the surrender of knowledge. Thereby, while it is impossible to prove the non/existence of God, it is best to accept nonexistence rendering scientific evidence as truth.

In the ongoing debate between science vs religion I find myself drawn to the former. As a citizen of the United States I’ve come to realize the incredible amount of freedom we possess: the freedom of religion, the press, and free speech (just to name a few). However, I fear as individuals we are disabling the greatest freedom of all, the power to think. Science is the progression of new thinking and the ability to accept defeat while having the perseverance to try again. Religion is the vacuous alternative to scientific reasoning. People must understand “that ‘X is comforting’ does not imply ‘X is true’” (Dawkins, 20). Scientific theories proven false will not be in vain so long as humans possess the power of curiosity and the courage to pioneer, developing new and improved theories. This paper will aim to promote science as higher good by visiting and refuting numerous arguments for God’s existence.

What led people to the idea of an invisible, intelligent power? The 16th century Scottish philosopher, David Hume, proposed an answer in his influential essay, Natural History of Religion, published in 1757. He concluded that religious ideas were the product of passions created from human psychological reaction to the environment. “Man is overwhelmed by the most acute “passions” generated by an unpredictable world in which he has to live” (Anghel, 23). The passions consist of ordinary affections of human life: the concern for happiness, self-preservation, the desire for food, the terror of death, and various other innate matters. These do not result from a survey of the works of nature, but concern the events of life influenced by ceaseless hopes and fears. Hume connected the links to construct:

Agitated by hopes and fears…, especially the latter, men scrutinize, with a trembling curiosity, the course of future causes, and examine the various and contrary events of human life. And in this disordered scene, with eyes still more disordered and astonished, they see the first obscure traces of divinity. (Hume, 25)

This logic states that from passions to reason the phenomenon of religion was created. Hume classified religion to be “a secondary, conscious, reaction to a primary, unconscious, propensity.” He further argues that religion, is not an “unescapably human trait” (Hume, 13). Religious beliefs illustrate a response, not the response to human tendency. This strengthens the case opposing religion, thereby belief in God, to be innate. To restate this paragraph simply, religion is created within the mind as an answer to things which it cannot understand.

The realization that the belief in God is not innate strengthens the case of his nonexistence. If God designed the human mind why did it take so long for humans to develop theistic concepts and beliefs? Why would, if God created us, leave such an important fact to chance by the abuse of man? These questions may help to explain the multitude of differing religions throughout history. They result from the fact that religion is generated from passions to reason. As “the mind rises gradually from inferior to superior” mankind is able to uncover mysteries of the natural world (Hume, 15). Without answers, the mind turned to invisible, intelligent power for explanations. Think back to the Ancient Greek’s, their polytheistic religion, vast numbers of Gods each with almighty control of their realm of the natural world. Through scientific observation and studies as time progressed, mankind was able to uncover mysteries of the natural world, filling the God voids. “The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.” (Ralph Emerson, Dawkins, 51) What was orthodox is mythology. As the mind advanced so did imagination and cognitive thinking and mankind was able to conceive of a single omnipotent God instead of many.

The change from polytheism to monotheism is considered as progressive improvement. It is not apparent as to why, nevertheless, some consider this to be self-evident of God’s existence (Dawkins, 56). It is really quite funny when you examine the logic, the disbelief in many gods inversely related to the existence of one god. I can’t comprehend anyway in which this statement is true. It lacks observation and, if proposed as a priori, is of even lesser value than it’s widely accepted epitome, the Ontological Argument, which I will later refute. Nevertheless monotheism or theism is practiced within orthodox religions of our time and will be the target of further disproof.

The belief in God was most assuredly used to answer one of the greatest challenges confronting mankind throughout the ages, to explain the apparent design of nature. It is a wonder how everything came about to be how it is. Trees take in our carbon dioxide waste and use sunlight to produce energy for themselves in turn releasing the oxygen needed within our lungs. Predators are exceedingly well at catching their prey in the same way their prey excel in escaping. The Earth itself is at just the right distance from the sun at every point throughout its orbit to maintain the presence of water in liquid form. These miracles of life appear to be the product of design much like the inner workings of a pocket watch, although artifacts are the product of design by a creator. This influences a temptation to apply the same logic to the natural world generating the idea of an intelligent supreme being who created all that we know.

The above argument held great validity throughout most of mankind, resulting, by default, from lack of a (better) answer. Observe, biologically speaking, how every organ within every species is good at what it does. Wings are good for flight, eyes are good for sight, ears are good for sound, etc. Why is it that every animal and every organ within that animal is good at what itdoes? Why is there such a vast diversity of life on Earth? And how did life originate? The first sciences were incapable of conceiving rational explanations to these questions and in turn labeled the phenomena the workings of God. It is at these mysteries Darwin presents himself on scene.

The 19th century English naturalist and geologist, Charles Darwin, established evolution, the theory that all species of life have descended from the same ancestors through gradual progression over time. Nature is guided not by chance or by creation of a supreme being, but by a process known as natural selection. From simple beginnings life evolves, passing on the best traits for survival and reproduction to the offspring and eliminating any trait of waste. Darwinian evolution elegantly allows the process by which nature evolves from “simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity,” a concept in which all other scenarios is impossible (Dawkins, 188). The process of evolution eliminates the need for a creator thereby corroborating the nonexistence of God.

The theory of evolution has held strong for over 150 years, yet there are many still who refuse to believe it’s reality. I am not sure where this denial stems from, possibly from the lack of learning of evolution as the theory is never properly addressed in public schools. Nevertheless, returning to the designer hypothesis, evolution is a more plausible solution to the development of life compared to the belief that God created life. This is true not only from the evidence supporting evolution, but also from the problem created by God himself. It is ridiculous to insert God into the spot of ‘designer of the universe’ because the question can then be asked who created God. And God in his infinite, omnipotent power would be a very complex organism in which case it would take an even further complex organism to create God and further still to create this designer and so on forever ad infinitum. I cannot put into words the absurdity of this loophole better than Richard Dawkins:

The temptation [that God is the designer] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. (Dawkins, 188)

Evolution further represents a plausible solution concerning the development of life compared to the belief that God created life in that it has confirming evidence. The evidence is every living species and every organ within that individual organism can be traced back to simpler designs, reduced if you will. Charles Darwin was well aware of this which led him to conclude that if there was found to be an exception to this rule the whole theory of evolution would be falsified. He makes no matter to hide the reality of this, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (Darwin, The Origin of Species). It takes the discovery of just one complex organ which cannot be simplified to satisfy the criterion needed to falsify the theory of evolution. This ‘irreducible complexity’ was thought to be exemplified by observing a wing. At first glance, a wing seems to meet the requirements of irreducible complexity, for what is the purpose of half a wing? This is where the process of gradual evolution is needed. For although 50 percent of wing is not sufficient for flying, it is still better than no wing at all. Half a wing could save a birds life by softening the fall from a tree. And 51 percent of a wing could save it from a slightly taller tree. Darwin himself gives another paradigm of possible irreducible complexity illustrating the improbability of the eye through natural selection:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

But here again, half an eye is better than no eye. A blurry image depicting edges is better than no image at all, and, over time, the eye will evolve increasing in complexity and improving its functions. In summary of irreducible complexity, the point was not only to show substantial evidence for the theory of evolution, but also to show how scientists are aware of the criterion of which theories may be falsified and willing to accept the evidence if any emerges. Science does not hold the same dogmatic principles upon which religion thrives.

The overview of evolution illustrates how science relies upon evidence to support its arguments, a quality many a posteriori arguments for the existence of God claim to possess. A posteriori arguments rely upon inspection of the world, the process in which evidence is discovered. This would appear to make arguments of this category valid, however, many a posteriori claims rely heavily upon personal experiences as evidence. Those who claim to have seen the image of God with their own eyes, heard his voice within their head, or felt his touch upon their skin are claiming his existence through personal experience. “This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But is least convincing to anyone else” (Dawkins, 112). Throughout the country, individuals in asylums claim to hear voices in their heads ordering them what to do. The difference is that they don’t claim the voice(s) to be that of God and as a result are determined to be ‘mad’ or ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional.’ I could profess to have seen an invisible, intangible unicorn with equivalent proof as any believer claiming to have seen God, yet I’m doubtful I’d convince a fraction of those convinced by my opponent. The difference between my unicorn experience or the experience of those in asylums compared to those claiming to have witnessed God personally is the amount of people claiming the story. “Clearly there is sanity in numbers…, and so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are” (Dawkins, 113).

Many claim the Bible to be evidence of God’s existence, the proof originating from Jesus’ claim to be born the son of God. “Historical evidence that Jesus ever claimed any sort of divine status is minimal,” regardless, there are still four possibilities for why he would stake such a claim: he is either right, as so many believers believe, insane, a liar, or honestly mistaken (Dawkins, 116). And throughout history, us humans have been wrong far more than we’ve been right. This does not prove Jesus to be wrong nor does it prove him to be right, the point is to promote new thinking, enlightening all possible angles enabling critical thinking. Although I lack hard evidence to refute the Bible in its entirety, I challenge anyone, those who believe in this book more so, to examine the overwhelming similarities between the stories written of Jesus in the Bible compared to pre-established Mediterranean religions contemporary of the Old Testament.

Moving away from arguments that are backed by facts and evidence we approach the a priori arguments for God’s existence. These type of arguments have no observable evidence, but instead use logic and, in many cases, fancy word play to prove their point. The Ontological Argument is the most famous of the a priori arguments that tries to prove the existence of God. It was first proposed by Saint Anselm of Canterbury in 1078, and revisited by numerous philosophers throughout the centuries, relying on a contradiction to prove the existence of God. The argument states it is possible to conceive a perfect being upon which nothing greater can be thought. This being does not exist in the real world, therefore it is less than perfect (the contradiction) therefore God exists, as goes Anselm’s argument:

Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater. (Anselm, Dawkins, 104)

Anselm, obviously, used this argument as proof of God’s existence, however, numerous others have slightly modified the argument to prove God’s nonexistence. In reality, it is wrong to make either conclusion from an argument designed by “dialectical prestidigitation” (Dawkins, 108). Further still “it is easier to feel convinced that [the ontological argument] must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies” (Bertrand Russell, Dawkins, 105). As this paper is arguing for science in the debate vs religion, the ontological argument should be condemned to deep suspicion as it reaches such a grand conclusion without a trace of data from the real world.

In closing, the aim of this paper was not to demean the morals of religion, nor did it, but to promote science as higher good by visiting and refuting numerous arguments for God’s existence. In earlier times, the sciences were unable to postulate explanations for life’s diversity, and in turn, the confused mind submitted God as creator, but now evolution has presented a most tenable solution for the development of life through natural selection. It is also inadequate when observing life’s uncertainties to propose God as the solution as it is now understood that the psychological interactions between humans and the environment account for this extrinsic temptation. Science is tangible, observable, and reasonable, backed with substantial evidence wherein which religion depends on dogmatic principles and blind faith. Lack of evidence is sufficient to spark a strong concern that religion is the surrender of knowledge. Thereby, while it is impossible to prove the non/existence of God, it is best to accept nonexistence rendering scientific evidence as truth.

Works Cited

Anghel, Alexandru. “The Natural Origin Of Religion: David Hume And Contemporary

Theories.” Scientific Journal Of Humanistic Studies 5.8 (2013): 19–26. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.

Darwin, Charles. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

London: John Murray.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print.

Hume, David. (2007), The Natural History of Religion, T. Beauchamp (Ed.), Oxford,

Oxford University Press

Marsh, Jason. “Darwin And The Problem Of Natural Nonbelief.” Monist 96.3 (2013):

349–376. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.