Why Science Does Not Disprove God by Amir Aczel

New Atheism is a movement that arose after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Proponents of the movement blame religion for nearly all the violence and disorder in the world, and they aim to eliminate it and any belief in God. Many New Atheism writers call upon science for proofs that there is no God, such as biologist Richard Dawkins and physicist Lawrence M. Krauss. These arguments have been picked up by Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and old-school atheist Christopher Hitchens.

Amir D. Aczel, a mathematician and science writer, argued that these authors misappropriated science for this purpose, sometimes misapplying it, misrepresenting it, or propagating misunderstandings. He presented his arguments in Why Science Does Not Disprove God.

Aczel’s perspective is very scientific, though he respects religion. He accepts the prevailing theories of cosmology that our universe began in the Big Bang. He accepts that evolutionary processes have produced higher and more complicated life forms from simpler ones though natural selection.

Aczel begins by addressing the archeological support for Biblical history. While he does not suggest that there is evidence of Biblical miracles, there is a lot of evidence supporting the historical narratives of the Bible. While New Atheism argues there is no archeological evidence to support the Bible, Aczel shows that there is abundant support for the history described in it.

Another popular argument of the New Atheists is that quantum theory demonstrates that the universe arose spontaneously out of nothing. Aczel describes how quantum theory actually shows that we cannot know some details about the earliest moments of the universe following the Big Bang and that it cannot at all address what was before the Big Bang. No theory of physics supposes it came from nothing. Some argue that it arose spontaneously, but it still occurred in due to physical process in a medium that existed before the universe, which itself raises many of the same questions of origins.

This points to the crux of Aczel’s argument. Science, math, and logic all point to their own limitations. There are huge unanswered, important questions in science, not the least of which is what is consciousness and how it came to be. We may not be able to answer such questions and there is certainly some knowledge that is not accessible to us. New Atheism proponents present science as having firm answers to these questions when it sometimes only has speculation or no real answers at all. Science may someday uncover some of this knowledge, but in can’t uncover all of it.

While he demonstrates that science doesn’t, and cannot, disprove God, he does not suggest that it can or will prove the existence of God. Aczel believes that God may be outside of what can be known through science, mathematics or even the human mind.

Aczel still has a great appreciation for science, and he wants others to appreciate it, too. His argument with New Atheism is that its proponents misuse science and misdirect people. He would rather we engage science for all the great knowledge it can bring us, not coopt it in a crusade against religion or a debate about God it may never be able to answer.

Why Science Does Not Disprove God is not written in a technical style. Most people should be able to understand it even if they have very little scientific education.

If you’re interested in this book, you may also be interested in

A Little History of Science by William Bynum

Copernicus’ Secret by Jack Repcheck

The Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark

Amir D. Aczel also wrote

Chance

Descarte’s Secret Notebook

Aczel, Amir D. Why Science Does Not Disprove God. New York: William Morrow, 2014.

The Invention of Air by Steven Johnson

Johnson, Steven. The Invention of Air: A Story of Science, Faith, Revolution and the Birth of America. New York: Riverhead, 2008.


Joseph Priestly was a man of contradictions. He was an inventive scientist, one of the fathers of chemistry, who somehow clung to an ancient idea his own research undermined. He had the courage to be a heretic, but held on to religious beliefs when many of his peers embraced atheism. He was a proponent of political liberty and the American cause whose views brought him trouble even in America.
Johnson’s Invention of Air is partly a biography of Priestly. It is also an attempt to see how revolutions in ideas occur. Priestly was connected to the scientific, religious and political revolutions of the Enlightenment. As one man’s involvement in all of them suggests, they were not completely separate, nor did the intellectual leaders of the time see them as discreet.

As a biography, the book works well. The sections shift emphasis from science to religion to politics. Though Priestly was a professional clergyman and ostensibly amateur scientist most of his life, Johnson’s framework works well chronologically because of his subject’s shifting emphasis.

Johnson doesn’t hit on a new theory of idea revolutions. He suggests the outlines of one, or maybe the method of discovering it. He finds in Priestly the beginnings of a systems approach to knowledge, especially science, that crosses disciplines and switches from small-scale to large-scale and back again. The model is modern ecological and systems science, which Johnson finds rooted in the coffeehouse meetings of Enlightenment amateurs who the many areas of human knowledge and endeavor as connected and amenable to improvement through reason.

I’m not a great fan of Enlightenment thinking, but I admire that they were serious and that they saw that truth in one realm (science, religion or politics) had ramifications in others. People seem willing to throw up walls and throw up their hands just to avoid the difficulties of struggling with all these things. Science wants to be unfettered from political and religious restrictions, but only thrives in stable and free (political) environments where people see the material world as worthy of study (an essentially religious view). The political freedom we long for needs support from good and available knowledge (science) and institutions that support individual self-government (religion). Religion in particular is walled off from other areas, but scientists and politicians have too readily shrugged off ethics that were based on human sentiment, when they were accountable to no one because no one was stronger.

Stephen Johnson also wrote The Ghost Map.

If you’re interested in this book, you may also be interested in
Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare’s Maps: Empires of Time by Peter Galison
The Science of Leonardo by Fritjof Capra
Steam by Andrea Sutcliffe

The Language of God by Francis S. Collins

In The Language of God, physician and chemist Francis S. Collins considers the compatibility of science and religion. At the time this book was published (2006), Collins was head of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Since 2009, he has served as director of the National Institutes of Health.

Collins is a Christian, but he did not come to the faith until after starting his career in medicine and science. His interactions with patients drew him to consider the spiritual aspects of life. Through this God eventually drew Collins to Christ.

Collins is very much a supporter of science. He readily calls people of faith to task for damaging their own cause through ignorance of science or abandonment of reason. A true god won’t be damaged if we come to a better knowledge of his creation.

Science, however, is hardly able to answer all of humanity’s important questions. It isn’t designed to do that, and sometimes it simply cannot do it.

In exploring the issue, Collins considers several potential stands on religion. He finds atheism impossible to defend. His own former agnosticism was something he could hold to so long as he did not seriously delve into the questions of existence, human life and ethics. He argues that theism is the most reasonable belief, though it may take a few more steps to get from theism to Christianity.

He also gives some attention to the idea of how we can live peaceably with science and religion. He has plenty to find in history. The seeming antagonism between science and religion, which he attributes mostly to proponents of extreme views on both sides, is a relatively new phenomenon. Historically (and currently) many scientists were people of faith and the church was a supporter of scientific discovery. He finds model of harmony between science and religion going back to St. Augustine.

Collins addresses this book to both believers and nonbelievers. To both he argues that belief in God is rational, and that faith is complementary to science.

If you’re interested in this book, you may also be interested in

The Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis

Copernicus’ Secret by Jack Repcheck

The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot

The Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark

Why Science Does Not Disprove God by Amir Aczel

Collins, Francis S. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press, 2006.

Unimaginable by Jeremiah H. Johnston

What would the world be like if Christ had never come and the Christian church had never been create? New Testament scholar Jeremiah J. Johnston imagines it would be a bleak place. He describes why he thinks so in Unimaginable.

Johnston contrasts the Christian worldview, and its results, with cultures where non-Christian worldviews were dominant. The first of these is the pre-Christian era, especially Greek and Roman culture in the centuries shortly before and after the ministry of Jesus Christ. The second is the 20^th Century political regimes that opposed Christian mores if not religion altogether: Nazism, Fascism and Communism. Adolf Hitler and Bonito Mussolini imagined a return to a pre-Christian, pagan age of Aryan or Roman dominance. The Communists were opposed to any religion; the state operating on behalf of the workers was the dominant force. These movements in some ways were reversions to the morals that predated Christian influence.

The gods of Greece and Rome were immoral characters who had little concern for humanity. The Caesars, god-kings, were largely selfish and self-aggrandizing. In contrast, the Christian God proclaimed His love for people. He demonstrated his benevolence in Jesus, son of God and king of kings, who lived a humble life of service and sacrifice.

Life was cheap in ancient Greek and Roman culture. For instance, babies who were diseased or deformed, or simply girls, were often abandoned to die. In contrast, Christians believed that human life was inherently valuable.

Women were not considered equal to men in pre-Christian times. In contrast, women were present at the major events in Jesus’ ministry and were often acknowledged in the New Testament for their leadership in the early church.

Women were considered of little worth in the ancient world. In addition, slavery and racism were common in the in the Greek and Roman Empires. The superiority of some people was considered plain, and it was appropriate for them to dominate, control and enslave lesser people. Jesus taught that there was no meaningful difference between races (Jews or Greeks), free men and slaves, or the sexes.

There was not religious freedom in the Roman Empire. The Jews were tolerated because of the antiquity of their religion, but others were required to worship the major Roman gods and to acknowledge the divinity of Caesar. Christians were considered atheists for their refusal to acknowledge Roman gods.

Johnston describes an opening of the door in the late 19^th Century to anti-Christian ideas and morals. Philosophers and scientists of the time such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Friederich Nietzche and Sigmund Freud were committed to a materialistic view of the world. Humans were not special creations; they were simply sophisticate animals that arrived from the same undirected happenstance that brought for every other thing without purpose. Religion and morals were inventions of people, not revelations from a higher authority.

These influencers, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not, challenged Christian morals. They opened the door to devaluing human life, devaluing women (Nietche was explicit about his belief that women were inferior to men), justifying racism with science along with subjugation of “lesser” races, and the elimination of religious freedom, or even individual freedom. The likes of Hitler, Mussolini and Josef Stalin put these ideas into practice, leading to impoverishment, oppression, and death for millions of people.

Some would lay a lot of suffering at the feet of Christianity. Johnston argues that Christianity has alleviated a lot of suffering and paganism and atheism have much greater sums of human misery on their accounts.

If you’re interested in this book, you may also be interested in

The Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis

Better for All the World by Harry Bruinius

IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot

The Language of God by Francis S. Collins

Maus by Art Spiegelman

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek

War Against the Weak by Edwin Black

The Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark

Johnston, Jeremiah H. Unimaginable: What Our World Would Be Like Without Christianity. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2017.