Why Science Can’t Ever Disprove the Existence of God

Steve Rainwater, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0

Given the ruminations of Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, one might have thought that the absolute limit of scientistic arrogance had been reached. But think again. Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology, was quoted in a few years ago asserting that “science” is on the verge of providing a complete understanding of the universe — an explication, it goes without saying, that precludes the antiquated notion of God altogether.

Before addressing the God issue specifically, let me make a simple observation. Though the sciences might be able to explain the chemical make-up of pages and ink, they will never be able to reveal the meaning of a book; and though they might make sense of the biology of the human body, they will never tell us why a human act is moral or immoral; and though they might disclose the cellular structure of oil and canvas, they will never determine why a painting is beautiful.

And this is not because “science” is for the moment insufficiently developed, it is because the scientific method cannot, even in principle, explore such matters, which belong to a qualitatively different category of being than the proper subject matter of the sciences. The claim that “science” could ever provide a total understanding of reality as a whole overlooks the rather glaring fact that meaning, truth, beauty, morality, purpose, etc., are all ingredients in “the universe.”

But as is usually the case with scientistic speculation, Carroll’s thought is designed, above all, to eliminate God as a subject of serious intellectual discourse. The first and most fundamental problem is that, like Hawking, Dawkins and Dennett, Carroll doesn’t seem to know what Biblical people mean by “God.”

With the advance of the modern physical sciences, he asserts, there remains less and less room for God to operate, and hence less and less need to appeal to him as an explanatory cause. This is a contemporary reiteration of Pierre-Simon Laplace’s rejoinder when the Emperor Napoleon asked the famous astronomer how God fit into his mechanistic system: “I have no need of that hypothesis.” But God, as the classical Catholic intellectual tradition understands him, is not one cause, however great, among many; not one more item within the universe jockeying for position with other competing causes.

Rather, God is, as Thomas Aquinas characterized him, ipsum esse, or the sheer act of to-be itself — that power in and through which the universe in its totality exists. Once we grasp this, we see that no advance of the physical sciences could ever “eliminate” God or show that he is no longer required as an explaining cause, for the sciences can only explore objects and events within the finite cosmos.

To demonstrate the relationship between God and the universe more clearly, it would be worthwhile to explore the most fundamental argument for God’s existence, namely the argument from contingency. You and I are contingent (dependent) in our being in the measure that we eat and drink, breathe, and had parents; a tree is contingent inasmuch as its being is derived from seed, sun, soil, water, etc.; the solar system is contingent because it depends upon gravity and events in the wider galaxy. To account for a contingent reality, by definition we have to appeal to an extrinsic cause.

But if that cause is itself contingent, we have to proceed further. This process of appealing to contingent causes in order to explain a contingent effect cannot go on indefinitely, for then the effect is never adequately explained. Hence, we must finally come to some reality that is not contingent on anything else, some ground of being whose very nature is to-be.

This is precisely what Catholic theology means by “God.” Therefore, God is not one fussy cause within or alongside the universe; instead, he is the reason why there is a universe at all, why there is, as the famous formula has it, “something rather than nothing.” To ask the sophomoric question, “Well, what caused God?” is simply to show that the poser of the question has not grasped the nettle of the argument.

Now Carroll seems to acknowledge the probative power of this sort of argument of first instance, but he makes the common scientistic mistake of identifying the first cause with matter or energy or even the universe itself in its endlessly fluctuating rhythms of inflation and deflation. But the problem with such explanations is this: they involve an appeal to patently contingent things or states of affairs. Energy or matter, for example, always exist in a particular modality or instantiation, which implies that they could just as well be in another modality or instantiation: here rather than there, up rather than down, this color rather than that, this speed rather than that, etc.

But this in turn means that their being in one state rather than another requires an explanation or an appeal to an extrinsic cause. And the proposal of the fluctuating universe itself is just as much of a non-starter, for it involves the same problem simply writ large: how do you explain why the universe is expanding rather than contracting, at this rate rather than that, in this configuration rather than another, etc.?

Finally, a cause of the very to-be of a contingent universe must be sought, and this cannot be anything in the universe, nor can it be the universe considered as a totality. It must be a reality whose very essence is to-be and hence whose perfection of existence is unlimited. As I have tried to demonstrate in very short compass, philosophy can shed light on the existence of God so construed.

The one thing the sciences cannot ever do is disprove it.

Originally posted on Word on Fire

[See also: When God Cured an Amputee: The Astonishing Miracle of Calanda]

[See also: The Miracle that Led “Obi-Wan Kenobi” to Convert to Catholicism]

Comments

comments

31 COMMENTS

  1. Hi there! Do you know if they make any plugins to help with Search Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good results. If you know of any please share. Appreciate it!

  2. The other day, while I was at work, my sister stole my apple ipad and tested to see if it can survive a twenty five foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now broken and she has 83 views. I know this is totally off topic but I had to share it with someone!

  3. My friends and I certainly like your website and find many of your articles to be exactly what I’m seeking. Do you offer people to post information for you? I would not mind creating a post on Arvind Pandit Kansas or even on some of the topics you’re posting about on this website. Awesome place!

  4. I’m now not sure the place you’re getting your info, however great topic. I must spend a while studying much more or working out more. Thanks for fantastic information I was searching for this info for my mission.

  5. I’m impressed, I have to admit. Genuinely rarely should i encounter a weblog that’s both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you may have hit the nail about the head. Your idea is outstanding; the problem is an element that insufficient persons are speaking intelligently about. I am delighted we came across this during my look for something with this.

  6. Hi! I’ve been following your website for some time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Huffman Tx! Just wanted to mention keep up the fantastic work!

  7. I am really interested to understand what site platform you’re using? I’m experiencing some minor safety challenges with the most recent website on likes for instagram so I would like to find a thing much more safe. Are there any recommendations?

    • Hi would youu mind letting me know whhich webhost you’re
      working with? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 completely different
      internet browsers and I must say this blolg loads a lot faster then most.
      Can you recommend a good hosting provider at a fair price?
      Thanks, I appreciate it!

  8. Our LGV (Large Goods Vehicle) HGV training is based in East London, and our LGV/ HGV courses are taught by qualified DVSA LGV & HGV trainers. LGV was formerly known as HGV, where it used to be referred to as HGV Class 2 (now called LGV Category C) and HGV class 1 (Now called LGV Category C+E).

  9. Good day! This is my very first reply on your site so I simply wanted to give a quick hello and tell you I really enjoy reading your blog posts. Can you recommend other websites that go over free tv streaming? I’m likewise pretty curious about that! Thanks!

  10. I am actually enjoying the theme/design of your information site. Do you run into any web browser compatibility situations? A number of the website visitors have lamented regarding my personal injury compensation website not working the right way in Explorer but appears awesome in Safari. Do you have any advice to aid repair that problem?

  11. I discovered your website website on yahoo and check several of your early posts. Keep the top notch operate. I recently additional encourage RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking toward reading far more from you finding out at a later date!…

  12. It was amazing to read this info and I feel you are absolutely right. Inform me in the event that you’re thinking of pokemon go new game, that’s my main expertise. I am hoping to see you in the near future, take good care!

  13. I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you create this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz respond as I’m looking to design my own blog and would like to know where u got this from. cheers

  14. Helklo this is somewhat of off topic but I was wondering if blogs use WYSIWYG edjtors or
    if you have to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have nno coding know-how soo I wajted to get guidance
    from someone with experience. Any help would
    be enormously appreciated!

  15. Somebody essentially help to make critically posts I’d state. This is the first time I frequented your web page and up to now? I amazed with the analysis you made to make this actual publish incredible. Great task!

  16. I actually arrived over here via some other web address about mesothelioma lawsuit commercial and considered I may as well consider this. I like what I see thus now I am following you. Looking towards checking out your blog yet again.

Leave a Reply