This Bank Holiday weekend is often referred to as “Whitsun”. In truth, it has
not been, except by coincidence, for more than four decades. Whitsun, or the
Pentecost, refers to the moment, seven weeks after Easter Sunday, when the
Holy Spirit supposedly descended on the Apostles and other followers of
Jesus – as set out in Acts, 2. It should, therefore, like Easter, be a
variable, rather than a fixed, date in the calendar. In 2008 it would have
been celebrated by a day off a fortnight ago. Bank Holidays were set like
this until 1967 when the arrangement was replaced by a new Spring Bank
Holiday at the end of May. This has not stopped it being referred to as
Whitsun, much as some people in London still refer to where they live as
Middlesex. It is a strange way to treat the Almighty.
God has, I suspect, bigger things on his mind, however – such as whether we
believe in Him at all. A brilliant series of 13 short essays published by
the John Templeton Foundation (at www.templeton.org/belief)
offers different responses to the question: “Does science make belief in God
obsolete?” The appeal of this slender volume is threefold.
The first part of its charm is the unexpected nature of many of the answers.
Although about half of the contributors are in the “Yesish” camp, only one
(Professor Victor Stenger) is willing to state unambiguously that: “Science
has not only made belief in God obsolete. It has made it incoherent.”
Some of those whose opinions might have been considered predictable turn out
not to be. Professor Robert Sapolsky is an outright “No”, because: “Despite
the fact that I am an atheist, I recognise that belief offers something that
science does not.”
Yet Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, answers both “No, and
Yes”, because although he contends that the knowledge acquired by science
makes belief in God “more reasonable than ever”, a reductive “scientific
mentality” has, he says, “helped push the concept of God into the hazy
twilight of agnosticism”. This is a brave concession from him.
The second element of the book’s appeal is the data that comes with some of
the responses. Thanks to Christopher Hitchens (his answer was “No, but it
should”), I have learnt that our species is no more than 200,000 years old
and was on the edge of extinction 60,000 years ago, when the population
seems to have fallen below 2,000. This triggered a massive exodus from
Africa. He also notes that “the Andromeda galaxy is on a direct collision
course with our own, the ominous but beautiful premonition of which can
already be seen with a naked eye in the night sky”.
There are other surprises. Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy (his answer, “Not
necessarily”) says: “Smarter humans go for smarter Gods. Anthropomorphic
representations – such as Gods with octopus arms – are a bit out of fashion
today but they were enormously popular just a few centuries ago”. Michael
Shermer (his answer, “It depends”), meanwhile reveals that a survey of
American scientists in 1916 showed that 40 per cent of them believed in God.
A similar study in 1997 came up with the same figure.
The third point of interest of this book is perhaps the most fascinating –
namely the responses of eminent scientists who replied “No” to the question
because they are committed Christians.
William Phillips is a Nobel laureate at the University of Maryland and a
well-regarded physicist. His accumulated work has led him to see “a universe
that, had it been constructed differently, would never have given birth to
stars and planets, let alone bacteria and people. And there is no good
scientific reason for why the universe should not have been different”.
Jerome Groopman, Professor of Medicine at Harvard, latches on to the limits of
science and its lack of moral precepts. There are, he says, “no Ten
Commandments in thermodynamics, no path to righteousness and charity and
love in Euclidean geometry or atomic physics”.
Keith Miller, a professor at Brown University and an expert in – and
passionate advocate of – evolution (and something of a scourge of the US
“Intelligent Design” lobby), has articulated all the same that: “The
categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is natural and
therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. But God is
not and cannot be part of nature. He is the answer to existence, not part of
existence itself.”
These scientists receive reinforcement from a senior biblical scholar. Keith
Ward, ordained in the Church of England and also a canon at Christ Church,
Oxford University, examines more deeply what is meant when it is asserted
that science has developed a complete and whole explanation for the universe
that would render God redundant. To have even an abstract model
necessitates, he rightly asserts, concepts such as many space-times, or of
this space-time as “a 10 or 11 dimensional reality that dissolves into
topological foam below the Planck length”.
He could have taken aim at string theory, too, which assumes that something
essentially unobservable exists because it is the only means by which a
massive inconsistency in scientific thinking can be resolved. So 11
dimensions rather than three? Invisible “string”? How different is that from
a faith in a divine entity?
Others will read this dialogue and come to a wholly opposite conclusion. That
is the joy of this exchange and enterprise.
One rather hopes that, if there is a God, our capacity to engage in serious
debate as to whether He is there and what He is would itself be the ultimate
tribute to Him (or Her).
All that need be said about the Templeton Foundation, the Templeton prize, and its publications has been said by Richard Dawkins. Anybody who thinks this foundation offers any kind of objective contribution to the God/Science discussion hasn't examined its history.
Peter Curran, Kirkliston,
James Caan:"So it is less irrational to harbour a belief that's only supported by an ancient text ...."
No: God proves his own existence to the genuine truth seeker. With almighty power He gives objective knowledge/proof. The OED idea of 'faith' - "Belief without knowledge" is non-christian.
Marlin Ragman, Leatherhead, UK
Victor:"The essences of the debate lies in the maturity/security of a human mind."
The essence of the debate lies in whether or not it is resonable to believe in a God. Your statement presumes not, but their is no proof of that. Since God could prove his own existence it IS reasonable.
Marlin Ragma, Leatherhead, UK
Victor "The essences of the debate lies in the maturity/security of a human mind."
The essence of the debate lies in whether or not it is resonable to believe in a God. Your statement presumes not, but their is no proof of that. Since God could prove his own existence it IS reasonable.
Marlin Ragman, Leatherhead, UK
The essences of the debate lies in the maturity/security of a human mind. As long as the mind remains immature and insecure then it will gravitate to a belief that magic is real, a God is real etc., etc. ad nausea. The only way out of the nauseous quagmire is mental cognitive maturity/security.
Victor Jean Ouellette, Burlington, ON, Canada
Greg Lorriman: "True atheism (belief that God does not exist) is irrational as it is unproven that God does not exist. "
So it is less irrational to harbour a belief that's only supported by an ancient text over a wealth of hard evidence suggesting otherwise?
James Cann, London,
As often as those who misuse religion are criticized, when will legitimate scientists begin to criticize atheists and those with other agendas who misuse science, claiming it says things it does not say?
Jim, Washington, DC, USA
Bill:"... human ego has great difficulty accepting it just another animal....Science proves it."
And quite how does it do that, Bill?
Atheists scientists are desperately trying to invent multiverse theories because without such the probabilities support an intelligent creator.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Science is perfectly affable and passes judgement on no-one. The problem of compatibility does not lie with science but in the ego-centric tenets of religious belief. The fragile human ego has great difficulty accepting it just another animal, however remarkable. Science proves it. So, tantrums.
Bill, Glasgow,
God cannot be part of the Universe .. If He were, He'd be subject to change, limited, imperfect and in need of explanation.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Science is something like evolution constantly expanding and improving on itself. And as life today is considerable different from that a million of years ago so will science be in a million of years to come. So the presence proof or disproof of God will be obsolete a million of years to come.
Mien, Buffalo, USA
What would it take to prove God exists? Lack of suffering, no poverty or disease, justice for all, etc? If God does what we want him to do, we'll believe? It's absurd to look at creation and not assume a creator. Religions are debatable, not the existence of a Creator.
Joel, Ponca City, OK, USA
anthropologic questions raised by tradition make the debate necessary. God has a place in the story of man. Dawkin's spaghetti monster is a straw man argument. Believers and atheists must learn to play by each other's rules, atheists cannot rule out the essential parts of arguments by belittling.
thomas, Los Angeles, U.S.
Does science make belief in God obsolete? No, actually it is science that makes science obsolete. As Science revises its theories constantly with new discovery, the Eternal Constant who created it all becomes more & more awesome. Science does not know love, but our creator is Love, UNCHANGING!
Eric Means, Denver, Colorado
Considering science and creativity, science actually confirms the existence of God. Human creative ability and talents reflects a creative gift deposited by God, the Creator. However, counterfeiting by the human race is the source of current problems afflicting mankind. www.upgradeyourtalents.com
Joseph Rhoda, London, UK
Science by definition applies only in the physical, temporal universe perceptible to humans. An eternal God by definition transcends the temporal universe. Therefore the question of coexistence between God and science is specious.
Max, Lynnwood, USA
The answer is obvious.
Charles Blandford, Kaneohe, USA
Cameron:"Anyone can see that reiligion is simply a way for the greedy to extort the weak and the desparate by offering 'love' and another chance at life."
This may be true of tricksters, but plenty of religious are sincere, and their sincerity is made apparent by the explicit vow of celibacy.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
For centuries groups have claimed that human knowledge had the answers to life, however the science they believed fell as more science came to disprove it.
God has existed forever and science will never be able to disprove him, It has been left to each of us to prove God, and it ever will be.
Freddy Cowden, USA, World
Albert Einstein is said to have expostulated "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is its faithful servant. We have evolved into a culture that discounts the gift, and exalts the servant." I think on this whenever I encounter the debate between science and faith.
J Wert, Cheltenham, USA
Clive:"There's a good reason the religious talk about "belief" in God(s) and that's because it has no basis in any real events. "
We know because God reveals himself to those who sincerely persue truth. True belief is to know, as also is true faith (which is also to assent to the revelation).
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Nevertheless, the search for "the meaning of life" as expressed through (currently) unprovable scientific theories continues to consume untold billions of research dollars that are not then available for more mundane efforts of developing new sources of energy, food or basic medical breakthroughs.
Glenn Sherman, Las Vegas, USA
Julia:"......And if there are no gods, such debate is pretty much a total waste of breath"
His statement is hypothetically provable if a God were to prove his own existence. Whereas yours is entirely unprovable and therefore a total waste of breath.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
There's a good reason the religious talk about "belief" in God(s) and that's because it has no basis in any real events.
As such it's as valid as belief in UFOs, Santa Claus etc.
You can believe, science can't disprove, but it's just stories.
Like "The Life of Pi" - just a great story
Clive, Surrey,
Why are we even having this debate in 2008. Let us debate instead "has science rendered the 6 armed flying monkey-pig obsolete?"
David Hope, York,
Reading all the "definitions" of God, the answer is for some yes, for others, no. But science is incompatible with religion. It has proved time and again the lies of the organised religion yet people still believe. Believe in God if you must but not in religious text used to control you!
Matt, Antibes, France
If you don't know the answer to hard questions, it doesn't mean you should make up an explanation, particularly when the explanation is 3 letters long.
Anyone can see that reiligion is simply a way for the greedy to extort the weak and the desparate by offering 'love' and another chance at life.
Cameron, Glasgow,
What is incompatible with science is an interventionist god of any sort. For intervention, the evidence should be there, and it is not. So the established faiths' conceptions of god are incompatible with science. Other forms of god might be possible, and that is what many people seem to be saying.
Steve, Altrincham,
Does anybody here believe for a second, that our utterings have any significance whatseoever? Is anybody going to be swayed in his opininon after reading any of these positings? The answer, obviously, must be a resounding NO. The concept of God is as meaningless as this discussion.
N Monrad, Amsterdam, Netherlands
The fact that whole universe cannot be explained by science without string theory or 11 dimensions, which assumes that something unobservable exists (Being their excuse for how the inconsistency in scientific thinking can be resolved) is the same as believe in God. We cannot prove either
Mike , Taunton, England
The arrogance of man will never accept the possibility of someone who possesses a higher intelligence.
L. Glen Robbins, Papillion, Nebraska, USA
Andrew Corr's love of science may be God-like. That doesn't imply that science is a god.
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK
Brian said it would help if someone could say what God is. A definition that helps me is: "The great I AM; the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-acting, all-wise, all-loving, and eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love; all substance; intelligence." (Science & Health - Mary Baker Eddy)
Tony L, London, UK
Ever heard of the Anthropic Principle? Google it. I agree however that String Theory is at present simply an abstraction. But that's how science works; a theory that cannot be falsified will eventually be thrown away. Religion has no such escape clause.
James Lynch, London, UK
From above: "I should think another two decades of science's amazing advances will finally put an end to belief among the thoughtful."
In the late 1880's, at the height of the industrial revolution, a call to close the Patent Office was made since "man has now invented all he could invent."
A Meucci, Silicon Valley, California
The real barrier to the belief in God is not science it is organized religion.
Walter, Los Angeles, USA
Acknowledging that science cannot explain life, Richard Dawkins was asked, "then were did life come from"? He said from outer space"! The great scientist would rather believe in space aliens than in God! Science confirms the existence of God. Watch him say it on 'EXPELLED'.
Deane Pradzinski, Highland, California, USA
Wish it were as easy as choosing coke over pepsi or vis a verse.
Dan , Council Bluffs,
Objectively, science does not disprove the existence of God. It does not even disprove Christianity, as much as some would like it to. True science only stands firm on that which is proven, and for everything else it says "maybe" or "we think, but get back to us when it's proven".
Jim, Washington, DC, USA
After many years of studying science and working in a number of scientific fields I have come to the conclusion, or more belief, that God and the universe we see and experience are one and the same entity. That is the universe is a living organism of which we are a part of.
Stuart, Glasgo,
As a student of science for many years, I have never seen any proof at all for the existence of any gods or other spiritual beings. Religion is the largest fraud ever inposed on the human race.
Dave Herndon, White Stone, VA, USA
I cannot believe in God. BUT I believe that others can believe in God; I believe in charity; I practice both charity and empathy because both are natural to me as a rational human being. I don't believe a rational disbelief in God makes me evil. God is but an interesting (terrifying) tale. End.
Tiggy, London, England
Atheists usually argue against religion. But the real argument is whether or not science has satisfactorily explained a universe without a Creator, or answered the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Belief in a Creator without the encumbrance of religion is rational.
CWWJ, Dallas, USA
Science looks at reality and seeks to understand it by using rational and logical methods.
Religion makes irrational claims and assumptions, and produces imaginary figures to be bowed down to and appeased through ridiculous, repetitive rituals.
Take your choice.
alan, germany,
It is not science versus God that is the problem.The existence, or not, of a supreme being cannot be proved. The problem lies in the doctrine of Organised religions, much of which is provably invented and not always moral or ethical. Scientists and atheists support goodness and morality and ethics.
Keith, Rayleigh, England
Men of God, like Newton and Darwin, have given us a hope of truly understanding the universe we have. All this study of nature shows no need for intervention from outside to create all of its wonders.
A God who intervenes is inevitably driven into the shadows of prehistory , from whence he emerged.
Dan, StL Missouri, USA
'if there is a God, our capacity to engage in serious debate as to whether He is there... would be the ultimate tribute to Him'.
If you like. And if there are no gods, such debate is pretty much a total waste of breath.
julia, london,
Religion makes for bad science and science makes for bad religion. Science asks the question "How" and Religion asks the question "Why", the great scientists of history have understood this and realized that good science doesn't disprove God any more than good religion doesn't disprove science.
Jeff, Chicago, USA
Recognition of the existence of God would not be the ultimate tribute, Honor, Worship, and Obedience would be the ultimate tribute. One always has a choice to believe in the created or the creator and only a creator who ultimately loves his creation would allow such a choice of his creation.
Brad Lindblad, Hastings, Nebraska, US
Man has to have faith in something to survive be it religion or science!
If God's the creator explain the Duck Billed Platypus?
The Bible,etc are all based on unproved events many years ago written by who exactly & why has religion been used to control the masses over the years is that gods will?
N Morgan, Stockport, UK
You are asking can that which no basis but faith in certain auithorities get along with that which by its nature questions everything.
Isn't the answer pretty clear?
I should think another two decades of science's amazing advances will finally put an end to belief among the thoughtful.
JOHN CHUCKMAN, Toronto, Canada
Kenneth Miller.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that ... from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved."
--Charles Darwin
Mary, Wakefield, US
Reductionism is the essence, in fact the requirement, of atheism. Consciousness requires much more than reductionism, specifically the immaterial mind (soul). All you have to do to believe in God is see with your eyes and not let human failings be used as an argument against HIs existence.
Bruce Buff, Brooklyn, USA
It should be pretty obvious to anyone that God exists as a monumental (mostly mental) tribute to man's ability to wander around the metaphysics of ego-centric fantasies. Out "there" is unbridled chaos, a lot like human life. If a God actually did design us and our mentalities, certification beckons.
John P, Westcliff on sea, United Kingdom
God is an insurance policy against the terror of there being no God.
He therefore must be a human concept, as only humans are capable of conceiving something as bizarrely unnatural as insurance.
Raphael Vassallo, Ta' Xbiex, Malta
PaulM: I believe in God because he has proven his existence to me directly, as he does with all who sincerely ask "please reveal yourself, God", a prayer impossible to an atheist. Your definition of atheist is closer to agnostic. True atheists believe that God does not exist (OED).
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
The problem with all of the foregoing conversation is that the debate is framed by a linguistic sleight-of-hand: it is not "science vs. religion" but two opposite religious theories (theism and atheism) interpreting the phenomena of nature.
This interpretation can change. Remember Anthony Flew!
JMR, PhD, Boise, USA
As an atheist I see no contridiction in science, big bang et al.and a belief in God.What we give over in our growing understanding to divine creation comes from faith which one does or does not have.If one sees beauty in nature fine,but dont look past the suffering of those created in His image.
robert everitt, wolverhampton,
Science and religion are two sides of the same coin. It's interesting to see some of the random, self-serving assumptions people take about God while staking sides in the "great debate." I just keep waiting for the day when this debate is less like Job's friends. Science is the study of God's order
Scott Smith, Morning Sun, USA
God is pure being and cannot therefore be studied by science, only experienced in total humility. Science can explain that which exists but never understand how things could exist. The best science will ever do is subjectively infer what had to have happened.
Phil, Bath,
However, if we do find a theory of everything, be it string theory or whatever, it will be encapsulated in the ultimate laws of nature. A God concept may then be inescapable if we question why the laws are the form they are. But, that is the realm of metaphysics, not science.
Dick, Durham, UK
If you seek Him, he will be found by you.
sharon, Wheaton, Illinois, US
A universe that had a beginning could just as easily have never come into existence. When science can provide an answer as to Why the universe exists, I'll behappy to stop believing in a Creator God.
peter, miami, usa
Only a fool would think that any combination of unthinking atoms could produce life. Only a fool would think that simple on/off switches (neurons) could produce awareness. Only a fool would ever consider that there is a GOOD God. But an intelligent person might well wonder about the existence of Satan.
Robert, Eastbourne, UK
"And there is no good scientific reason for why the universe should not have been different"
There is a very good reason. If it were different we would not be here to debate it. If God did create the universe why did he create "his people" to occupy a speck with in it for a blink of its history?
Matt, Antibes, France
Greg Lorriman: I presume you also believe in Father Christmas, unicorns, the tooth fairy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster because you cannot prove they do not exist.
Atheists do not seek to disprove the existence of God. They just refuse to join the faithful in their fantasy.
Paul M., Reading, UK
who'd have thought it? religion still playing such a big part in the world, despite the education, despite the science. its not all bad, though (said with a wink) - we like the debate
Tristan Roper, auckland, new zealand
Interesting article. The point is that science and faith address entirely different questions - one the how, the other the why. Only the narrow-minded and reductive think that faith or science answers all types of questions.
Alex M, London,
It should be obvious that since raw consciousness can't be smelled, tasted, seen, felt or heard, our senses could never detect it, even if it surrounded us all our lives.
The only tool to detect it is consciousness itself. Like love, spirituality can never arise in the lab, only in the brain.
iain carstairs, bedford, uk
God must exist, otherwise there wouldn't be any atheists.
Roger, Adelaide, Australia
All I see in nature and science suggests to me that there is an intelligence at work. What form that 'God' takes is open to debate.
Those who disbelieve make me smile. Something as incomprehensible as the Big Bang theory is put forward as fact, and yet the beauty and order of creation is just chance
Dudley Holley, Thorpe Bay, UK
Reading Hyms of Rig Veda and Gita I am more and more of the belief that what the scriptures meant and what we interpret is different.
The parellels between string theory and Vedas is so strong for me that I either have to shun Quantum physics or God. I prefer to shun the later.
Dr.A.Mohan.Rao, Wirral, Cheshire, United Kingdom
Humans have invented or imagined many and various gods. They are all fairy tale entities and they are no longer required. Those familiar with the evidence and have the intelligence to understand it can see that life has evolved and flourishes without the need for supernatural intervention.
Jiohn Sutton, Rochester, UK
We, and therefore science, only has one tool to address this question - logic. Logic may not be the only 'language' of God.
Kevin, Leeds,
David Katz, Berkeley, United States, if you really work in the field of theoretical physics you know your 'war' between different factions of physicists is peaceful and will ultimately be decided on evidence and the testing of predictions based on these theories, that is why it is not 'religious'.
PJ, Chinnor, Oxon
The abortion industry and the experimental genetics lobby convinced the English parliament last week that they represented "science". However "science" is the sum of current evaluation of the environment in which the human mind seeks understanding. For moral orientation find a philosophy of life.
Augustin , Lausanne, Switzerland
Dick, Durham. You hit the nail on the head. Faced with evidence, the religious redefine the personal, interventionist god of their holy books into a vague and undetectable 'god of the gaps' then crow about how science can't 'disprove' the undefined.
PJ, Chinnor, Oxon
it's just a coicidence that the higher the literacy rate, the lower the propensity in a society to believe in gods. And also it's a coincidence that miracles came in the time before scientific method and video cameras. and the bible was not edited by people for political ends. idol worship is great.
Educated and aware, London,
True atheism (belief that God does not exist) is irrational as it is unproven that God does not exist. Christopher Hitchens is less rational than a chicken.
Hypothetically an almighty God could give objective proof of his existence to each individual (if asked). Science is purely subjective.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Science and religion have one thing in common: the so-called best 'practicioners' get paid well and are accorded 'influence' as a result.
Scientists and God-squadders both tell little porkies when it suits. But there are quite clearly defined limits as to WHERE, WHEN and HOW they tell them.
Rhys Jaggar, Leeds, UK
Our Creator enabled us with the ability to understand the nature of the creation, to manipulate the creation to improve our quality of life. Life is not about perfection,it is about how people chose to interact given freedom of choice: blaming the Creator for our poor choices ignores accountability.
Farrukh, Woking,
The difference between the non existent gods and ourselves would be greater than that between say a human and an ant. Therefore any higher being would actually just ignore us.
Keith Bentham (rev), Wigan, uk
We all have fanciful thoughts; but repressive aspects of religion are nasty. Religious thinkers have always shown themselves happy to modify and change their belief to obtain and preserve earthly power over real people. When scientists do same they're eventually uncovered as frauds.
Ricardo Vallekas, Colchester,
With all the conflicting religions claiming they alone know what God is thinking if nothing else he must not only have an excellent sense of humour but also be several eons ahead of current scientific thinking.
Simon Marshland Marshland, Bath, UK
The idiocy of atheists lies in thinking (and I use the term generously) that because they can question a moral God, they can prove the non-existence ( a hard task) of a 'Gott an Sich' Whose existence may just turn out to be incomprehensible to our limited dimensional scope. So there.
Eugene, heidelberg, germany
Scientists, unlike religious zealots, don't try to convert people to atheism.
Anyone believing he alone has access to God's mental processes is deluded.
It is sick to preach that the world is only 5,000 years old.
It is impious to say man was created in God's image.
Why should science bother?
Venise Alstergren, Melbourne 3142, VICTORIA, Australia
Do you think God punished all those Chinese for not believing in him ?
Or was that one of his "mysterious ways" ?
Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK
Either there is an ultimate life force ( GOD ) or there isn't.The various faiths are only a human issue and have very little significance in the scheme of things.It would take a lot of faith to believe that there isn't a life force.The space craft now on Mars may find some answers.
stephen hulton, eure, france
God is love
Chioma , Danbury, England
David Katz of Berkeley -
Such arguments as science provokes between its different factions are about provisional truths, not "eternal ones". The latter are the province of religious debate and religious wars, and as such are worse than fatuous.
David Ambrose, Menerbes, France
Surely its by far the best bet for us all to believe in the manifest ingenuity of the obvious creator of"god" - i.e the human race?
Bob, Essex, England
I am confused as to which of the one true gods we are talking about. The new pope reckons everyone else but his lot are right, so is it his one? Or is it, perhaps, one of the many others.
I'm told gods do exists but if they can't stop 200,000 violent, random deaths in Asia, what good are they?
Derek Smith, Brighton, UK
Science thinks of itself as being able, with the passage of time, to answer all the questions raised by the existence of the universe.
Historically science has consistently demontrated that its former beliefs are either fundamentally wrong or in need of modification.
Time is not infinite !
Stephen Green, Correns, France
Questions like 'why are we here?' are hard to answer because we always look for 'meaning'. Maybe there is no reason. Unsatisfying as this answer is, it seems much more likely than the one of some supernatural Being creating a world of creatures who merrily kill each other and planet they live on.
Tim Jessey, Hong Kong, China
Some of us find scientists helping religious beliefs whether they are positive or negative in their religious outlook. However, specially educated and experienced people normally add very little to the average human insights and argumentation in these matters.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Belief in God is based on the presumption of life after death. To date I have yet to come across a single piece of evidence proving life after death. The gift of life is godliness itself, so enjoy it, because man has created god.
Benjamin Alvares, Mumbai, India
When I was a child I was told God is love. I love science. Therefore, to me, science is God. Does that sound rational?
Andrew Corr, Burton On Trent, England
Dick from Durham
You certainly don't need a concept of God to be a "humanist, spiritual, moral and caring" person. But you do need a God concept if you want a logically consistent reason for being these things
volov, auckland , new zealand
We are all part of the univere and science cannot explain everything and everything cannot explain science.At one time we all believed that Charles Darwin was right until someone came up with the mutation theory.String theory is interesting but there is far more to it than we might initially imagine
stephen hulton, eure, france
If there is a divine entity, what makes anyone so sure that it is concerned with what happens here on Earth? Since logically the void beyond our observable universe is infinite, any such entity may be involved in other things far far away, leaving this world to get on with it as best it can.
David Cunard, Los Angeles, United States
Science is limited by matter, and that is a big limit. Say God is each one of us, then if you do not know who you are very little can be accomplished. When we speak of God we mean our spiritual side which is senior to anything else.
Giancarlo, London, England
i believe, through faith, God literaly exists. I believe the Bible literally true. If there seems to be conflict between what God has revealed in the Bible, and what science theorizes or postulizes, then either there is something we don't yet undestand about the matter, or the "science" is wrong.
Terry L. Walker, Ladson, SC / USA
Science is predicated on randum number theory. If we assume like Newton that nothing is really random then everything is pre-ordained. With pre-ordination comes an over riding direction or spirit. A million meaningless deaths on the Somme so no, but 10 billion babies laughing say yes!!!
JohnW, Oldham,
I believe God, no matter what religion, has no problem with science. It is the men who present themselves God's representatives oppose scientific engagement because it may dismantle their view of the universe. The more scientists dig, the more complex it gets and questions multiply.
Maqbool Qurashi, Leesburg, FL, USA
Let's start by defining what we mean by God. I would be greatly helped if someone could say who or what he is! There seem to be many interpretations from different cultures, who demand 'faith' and no argument and discussion. In certain circumstances, you will still be put death (even today).
Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines
It is an inescapable logic that if God is unobservable then He is not within the realm of science and He therefore cannot be tested or investigated, period.
The concept that “He is the answer to existence and not part of existence itself” makes sense and simply axiomatic.
Oladeji N. Gabisi, Hamilton, Bermuda
Scientific theories are constantly proposed, tested by observation, revised by newer observations, tested again and then used to predict other phenomena in the universe. Divine faith is something you have to take on blind trust. It is what it is because a book written centuries ago says it is so.
Mark Hardaker, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Generally science has material limits, while God, Religion, Spirituality, awareness of who one is has no limits and can exert command over matter and all sciences put together. Example: cell of memory discovered, only you don't know what to do with it and failure ensues.
Giancarlo, London, England
The dimensions of string theory in additional to the 4 of our space-time, are, surely, by definition, super-natural, so the supernatural does exist. What the supernatural dimensions contain we may never know, but they may contain god(s).
Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Having worked in the field of theoretical physics, all I can say is that 'religious wars' go on between different factions of gravitational physicists: it's string theory vs its nearest competitor, a theory called loop quantum gravity, complete with fiery USA v Iran style rhetoric...
David Katz, Berkeley, United States
It depends on what is meant by God. Although there seems to be no evidence for an interventionist God, punishing evil and rewarding good, Science itself has its mystery, in particular, that the laws of Nature are beautiful! Also, is a God needed for one to be a humanist, spiritual, moral and caring?
Dick, Durham, UK
God is the sum total of all knowledge. There is no contradiction between science and God. God is the yet unanswered question. Every level of intelligence will set itself a question it cannot answer. As intelligence progresses, it will anwer that question but ask itself a question it cannot answer.
Kara Swart, London, UK
The difference between a theory of invisible "strings" in 11 dimensions and faith in a divine entity is that the former will not be accepted until it passes some empirical tests and then only provisionally. It will never inspire anyone to kill those who don't.
Brent Meeker, Camarillo, California, USA