Science's search for God

"We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because that is the only way to make progress." (Richard Feynman)

If this is the only way for scientists to make progress, let's help them to make progress.

They present themselves with a fine-sounding statement:

Naturalism is not a prerequisite for the practice of science, but a conclusion of the practice of science. We learn nothing about the universe by importing an additional assumption about God. In other words, naturalism wins because it works.

In practice, however, naturalism is practised as a presupposition within a worldview that excludes idealism:

Methodological naturalism : Science operates according to the principle of methodological naturalism, which means that it seeks explanations based on natural causes and laws without appealing to supernatural elements.

The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that in order for any study of the world to be considered "scientific", it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any divine activity). 

Naturalism is a metaphysical view that denies the existence of supernatural entities. Usually this view amounts to a kind of materialism and therefore it denies the existence of non-material beings such as God. Some scientists hold that naturalism is a necessary condition of science.

Natural science consciously deals only with questions that can be investigated by scientific methods. This limitation does not necessarily mean that natural scientists reject the "supernatural" as non-existent, but it is simply not an object of their investigation.

That statement sounds nice, but the reality is very different. In mainstream science, they seek explanations based on natural causes and laws, because that is the basic position they have taken, as the following statements show. [That some scientists as private individuals believe in God is not a matter for science!]

Geologist Arthur Strahler said the following: “The naturalistic view is that the particular universe we observe came into existence and has operated through all time and in all its parts without the impetus or guidance of any supernatural agency. The naturalistic view is espoused by science as its fundamental assumption.” /6 Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992), p. 3./

Richard Dawkins, during a recent interview about his new book,The God Delusion, proclaimed: “[T]he big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism.” /Gary Wolf, “The Church of the Non-Believers,” Wired (November 2006): 182-193, p. 186./

In The God Delusion, Dawkins is clear that anything supernatural is the object of his attack: “I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.” /Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), p. 36./

At a recent conference on science and religion called Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival, which was held at the Salk Institute in California, Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, said “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.” /George Johnson, “A Free-for-All on Science and Religion,” The New York Times, (Late Edition (East Coast)), 21 November, 2006, sec. 5, pp. F1, F6./

"Most importantly, it must be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved the existence of God, but it cannot be allowed to be considered /presumably/. Even if all the data points to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course, the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that goes beyond naturalism." /Dr. Scott Todd, immunologist, Kansas State University:- The designer is unscientific, even if all the evidence supports it. Todd, SC, correspondence to Nature 401, no (6752): 423, 30 September 1999./

Scott explains it this way: “[S]cience acts as if the supernatural did not exist.” /Scott, “Darwin Prosecuted: Review of Johnson’s - Darwin on Trial”/

View of methodological naturalism more closely we see that the prohibition against the supernatural is both a priori and necessary. It is a priori because she defines science this way: “By definition, science cannot consider supernatural explanations.” /Eugenie C. Scott, „Creationism, Ideology, and Science” The Flight From Reason and Science (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1996), 518. o./ 

And this is necessary because any discipline that rejects this principle is not scientific.

Another reason for excluding the supernatural from science is the argument that claims about supernatural causes are not testable. One interpretation of testability is verifiability. Scott expresses this by saying that "God cannot be put in a test-tube." - Scott accusing Darwin".

According to Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Ecology and Evolution: “Since there is no evidence of any [G]od or supernatural design in the universe, the scientifically-informed conclusion has to be that there is none.” /Massimo Pigliucci, Tales of the Rational: Skeptical Essays About Nature and Science (Atlanta, Georgia: Freethought Press, 2000), p. 21./

Another reason for excluding the supernatural from science is the argument that the supernatural violates natural law.That is, it violates God - to get what he says right.

A statement by Richard C. Lewontin, evolutionary geneticist, is a faithful reflection of their position:

„We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” /Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31./ In essence, mainstream science holds that anything that is not material cannot have a causal effect!

Humanity's testimony of itself

To illustrate the far-reaching consequences of this arbitrary stance of the 21st century scientific elite, consider a well-known example that fits the bill.

"The Voyager-1 spacecraft was launched back in 1977 to explore the Solar System. No man-made spacecraft has travelled further from Earth since then. It's been 25 years since the furthest space image of our planet was taken, showing where we fit in the world.

The image of the Pale Blue dot was taken 25 years ago by the US Voyager-1 spacecraft. It was originally the idea of the famous astronomer Carl Sagan to take a picture of the Earth with a probe designed to study the solar system. Launched on 5 September 1977, Voyager-1 took the photo from the edge of the Solar System, six billion kilometres away, on 14 February 1990.

The photography was done using Voyager-1's imaging equipment, the then active dual-camera Imaging Science Subsystem (ISS). The Pale Blue Spot was photographed with the 1500 millimetre small-angle camera, which has a better resolution than the large-angle cameras and is therefore better suited to photographing a particular area.

Even so, NASA's experts still had a hard time taking the photos. As the mission progressed, the objects faded further and further away from the spacecraft, requiring longer exposure times to photograph them. Voyager-1's cameras were also equipped with eight types of filters that could be placed in front of the optics; green, blue and violet filters were used for the Pale Blue Dot.

In the resulting image, the dot representing the Earth is just one tenth of a pixel - 0.12 pixels to be precise. The band of light above the Earth is caused by the sunlight scattered in the optics, as the Sun and Earth were only visible at a small angle to each other when the photo was taken.

There is nothing else

The godfather of the Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan, wrote a book with the same title. The scientist's basic idea was to illustrate with a photograph how tiny a dot in the universe you are. He spoke at length about it in a speech he gave on 11 May 1996, just six months before his death:

"Look again at that point. That's here. That's our home. That's us. It's everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you've ever heard of, every human being that has ever existed. All our joys and all our sufferings, the confidence of thousands of religions and ideologies and economic dogmas, every hunter and herbivore, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young person in love, every father and mother, every hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morality, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our race, lived there - suspended in the sunlight on that speck of dust.

The Earth is just a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the blood that fills the rivers, shed by generals and emperors in glory and triumph, to become the momentary masters of this fraction of a point. Think of the infinite cruelties inflicted by the inhabitants of one side of the point on the inhabitants of the other corner, scarcely different from themselves, of how frequent the misunderstandings, how strong the desire to kill, how fierce the hatred.

The pretence, our imagined self-importance, the feverishness that we have some kind of privileged place in the Universe, all of this can be called into question in the reflection of this faded light.

Our planet is a lonely point in the all-encompassing cosmic darkness. In the murk of the unknown, in all this vast space, there is no hint that help might come from somewhere to save us from ourselves.

At present, the Earth is the only one capable of supporting life. There is nowhere else, at least for the foreseeable future, to which our species can migrate. To visit, yes. To settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment, Earth is the space we must hold out in.

Astronomy is believed to be a humbling and character-building experience. Perhaps there is no better way to illustrate the folly of human conceit than this distant view of our tiny world. For me, it underlines the responsibility to treat each other with kindness, to cherish and nurture this pale blue dot, the only home we have ever known."

Flying blind in space for 25 years

By 20 November 1980, Voyager-1 had completed its original mission to study Jupiter, Saturn and their moons; astronomers had never before been able to study the two planets at such close range. The spacecraft also photographed other planets in the Solar System, and the 60 images it took enabled astronomers to create a family photo album of the planets:

Voyager-1 is still operational today: it has been in orbit for 47 years, 5 months and 7 days. No vehicle has travelled further from Earth than the probe, which is travelling at 64,000 kilometres per hour. NASA is still using the system today to study the solar wind and distant parts of the solar system, such as the Kuiper Belt and interstellar space.

After taking photos of the planets of the Solar System, NASA shut down the ISS on Voyager-1. These were the last images taken by the spacecraft - it has since left the Solar System." - https://index.hu/tudomany/2015/02/14/ilyen_kicsi_krumplik_vagyunk/

What does the Voyager space probe prove?

Before Voyager 1 and 2 /1977/ explored the outer solar system, Pioneer 10 and 11 /1972-1973/ paved the way.

The Voyager and Pioneer space probes - can prove the existence of a /human/ creator, if we accept the creation as proof.

The Pioneer carries a gold-plated copper disc in its cargo hold, on which various image and sound materials have been placed. The disc is accompanied by a player and instructions for use. And the compilation itself contains recordings, sounds, music (from Mozart to Chuck Berry) and scientific information, as well as a greeting from Earthlings in 55 languages, including Hungarian:

"We send greetings in Hungarian to all peace-loving beings in the universe"

All the creators profess that it is proof of the intelligent beings that we humans are.

In reality, the Pioneer space probe proves nothing!

When the space probe, as a lone but steadfast witness, entered the almost immeasurable distance of a distant, unknown and highly advanced civilisation, it was greeted by the mainstream scientific community with an almost indifferent attitude.

Their philosophy of systems was based on the principle of methodological naturalism, which means that they sought explanations based on natural causes and laws without reference to supernatural elements, thus denying the existence of supernatural entities. The naturalistic view was the basic premise of their science.

For them, the Pioneer spacecraft was a natural formation. Their official view was that the object they observed was created and existed in all its parts without any prompting or guidance from any supernatural forces, and that it was wandering in space without any direction. 

Their approach was to attack anything and anyone that was or was supposed to be supernatural to explain objects of unknown origin. By their reckoning, this was what made their civilization strong and made it unshakably stable and enduring. 

The refutation of any designer was not an agenda for their science, as they could not be allowed to consider such a thing, even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis should be excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. 

The only correct behaviour is to pretend that there is no supernatural /that is, no possible background factor beyond natural causes/! Because science cannot take into account explanations other than natural causes and reasons. Because the objects of such and similar hypotheses cannot be put in a test tube. 

Since the Pioneer space probe (which they considered to be a stray matter formation) was not believed to have a supernatural design, their scientifically sound conclusion had to be that there was nothing behind it. Even the assumption of this must be ruled out! After all, anything that is not material cannot have a causal effect!

Any experience in space and time is an illusion of existence

Look again at that point. That's supposed to be our home. That's us. It's where everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you've ever heard of, every human being that ever existed. All our joys and all our sufferings, the confidence of thousands of religions, ideologies and economic dogmas, every hunter and herbivore, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young person in love, every father and mother, every hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morality, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our race, lived there - suspended in the sunlight on that speck of dust.

But in reality, it's just an illusion. It is the exhaust of indifferent energy stiffened into ever more lukewarm, meaningless matter. That there is love, hugging, caressing, kissing, joy and sorrow, happiness, pain and tears on your cheeks, hunger, satiation, friendship, sunsets on the beach, refreshing conversations, enjoying fine drinks, food, literature that caresses or tugs at the soul, makes you think, cry or laugh, or stories, human destinies rising and falling. In its reality, all this is a disappointing dream, a tinsel scent surrounded by shadows, a vulgar illusion fading into a shred in the wind.

In fact, there is no meaning to anything and what is meaningless is nothing but the illusion of existence. A relentless embedding in a desolate nuclear graveyard, a mere self-delusion.

Our planet is a lonely speck in the all-encompassing cosmic darkness, in the gloom of the unknown. In all this vast space there is no hint that help might come from somewhere to save us from ourselves.

Perhaps there is no better way to illustrate the folly of human futility than in Pioneer's ever more distant portrayal of a tiny world where people are born and die daily, where love, fear, embrace, appreciation of neighbor, protective care of nature, and tearful farewells are all heartfelt, and where one goes on a long but peaceful journey. After all, it is all inexorably reduced to the futile and inexorable ashes of the garbage of space.

"In the time when the keepers of the house shall be shaken, and the strong men shall be broken, and the daughters of the watch shall stand still, because they are shaken, and they that look out of the window shall be confounded. And the doors shall be shut without, when the noise of the mill shall be quieted; and they shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the singing daughters shall be quieted. And they shall fear every mound, and [all] terrors shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall blossom, and the locust shall [with difficulty] drag himself, and the dill shall spring up; for a man shall go to his everlasting house, and the weeping shall go round about the street. Before the silver cord is broken, and the golden bottle is spoiled, and the girdle is broken at the fountain, and the wheel is broken in the well, And the dust is turned to dust, as it was before..." (Ecclesiastes 12:5-9)

Or is it not a futility that we exist?

Could it be that it is only the attitude that is twisting the correct approach to the value and evaluation of existence? And help is embedded in a change of perspective?!

Del Ratzsch, philosopher of science: "[If] part of reality is beyond the natural realm, science cannot arrive at truth without abandoning the naturalism currently followed as a methodological rule." /Del Ratzsch, Science and its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 105./

"A true scientist seeks the truth about nature, not naturalistic explanations." /Dr. Matti Leisola, Professor Emeritus of Bioprocess Engineering, Dean of the Faculty of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Aalto University/

And what is the truth? Does the planet Earth in space and the image of gold-plated aluminium plates with graphic messages on the Vojager and Pioneer plaques bear the same testimony to its supernatural origins? Or are they both merely the imprint of a coloured postcard escaping the causal prison of materialism?

It is claimed, for example, that fossils alone are conclusive of the truth of evolution.

Because what is known about evolution is evident in society; because science has published it for them: For that which is invisible behind self-organization, namely, the power and divinity of matter, is seen from the primordial explosion, being understood by its creations; so that they (the deniers of science) are inexcusable (to intelligent cognition).

But there is another approach, requiring the same level of evidence.

„Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. or the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” (Róma 1:19-20, KJV)

Now what is the truth then?

You are not driving the car, the car is driving you? Did matter create you in its own image, or did God /intelligent supernatural cause/ endow you with intelligent faculties so that you can think rationally and draw sensible conclusions?!

Is it really impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God? Is it not the examination of the intelligence enclosed in matter that leads to the sober insight that can guide anyone? Except science, which is clearly unwilling to make such an examination. Which deliberately denies the supernatural.

However, most natural phenomena are based on properties that occur in complex systems and therefore cannot be explained by reducing the phenomena to the properties exhibited by the individual elements of the system.

Why is water special when it freezes?

Most liquids behave quite simply when cooled (at a fixed pressure): they shrink. A liquid contracts as it cools; because the molecules are moving more slowly, they are less able to overcome the attractive intermolecular forces that pull them closer together. Then we reach the freezing point and the material solidifies, causing it to contract even more because crystalline solids tend to pack tightly together.

Water is one of the few exceptions to this behaviour. As liquid water cools, it contracts as expected until it reaches a temperature of about 4 degrees Celsius. It then expands slightly until it reaches the freezing point, and when it freezes it expands by about 9%. What is the reason for this? Why does ice float on water?

When water freezes into ice, H2O molecules form hydrogen bonds between them and arrange themselves into an open lattice structure. This causes the molecules in the ice to be further apart compared to water molecules. This means that ice is less dense than water and therefore floats.

However, this answer is very superficial because it does not shed light on the real cause. The real reason is this:

Indeed, water has the peculiarity of freezing in a very unusual way. When the waters of seas and lakes cool, the cold water becomes heavier and sinks. This brings the lighter, warmer water to the surface. But when the water temperature approaches freezing, the process is reversed. The cold water becomes lighter and rises.

When frozen, it remains on top of the water. Ice is a good insulator and prevents the water beneath it from freezing, providing shelter for aquatic life. If it were not for this extraordinary property of water, more and more ice would accumulate at the bottom of the water each winter, where the heat of the following summer would be unable to melt it. The water would soon turn into solid ice in most rivers, lakes and even the seas. The earth would soon become an uninhabitable ice planet. To prevent this from happening, the properties of water are what they are. This was arranged for at the time of creation.

Castle and fence without gate?

Let's say you have a piece of land on which you build a castle and furnish it with all the necessary equipment. You surround it with a huge fence to protect it from unauthorized intruders. But you forget to build an entrance gate at one point of the fence. Then what is the point of the castle and all its equipment, since it is useless to you. So you plan and implement a gate anyway!

In the same way, what would be the point of all the life on planet Earth if it were not for the property of water that in winter the ice freezes on the surface of the water and not underneath, which is useful and necessary as a protection for the life. Is this process entirely coincidental? Without it, none of this would make any sense!

Is there no intelligence behind it, which is in fact supernatural?! For this property of water is part of the laws of nature /and various other parameters/ that animate the planet and endow it with the function of purposeful, intelligent functioning.

And when this supernatural is denied by science, because, as it says, it cannot be put in a test tube, is it not undermining its own credibility with this attitude? Because it refuses to infer what Einstein, for example, inferred: 

"In the laws of nature such a high order of intelligence is revealed that the rationality of human thinking and ordering is a pale reflection in comparison!" /Albert Einstein: Mein Weltbild. - published by C. Seeling, Zurich-Stuttgart-Vienna 1953. 21.1/

"The laws of nature show the existence of a spirit far superior to that of man, and to which we must feel humbled by our humble powers." /To Phyllis Wright, 24 January 1936./

"Science can be created only by one who is thoroughly imbued with the pursuit of truth and understanding. But this source of feeling comes from religion. This includes a belief in the possibility that the prescriptions of the world of existence are rational, that is, that they can be reasoned about. I cannot imagine a scientist without this profound belief. This situation can be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." /Albert Einstein, Letters to Solovina, New York, Library of Philosophy, 1987./

Is science blind in the sense that it refuses to accept insights that are not part of its own materialist concept, to explain everything in the light of it?

Do we really learn nothing about the universe from the way we cling to our dismissive assumptions about God? Does science really have to walk in these shoes, to be stuck in this position? Are these shoes not very tight?! Let everyone decide according to their own values and temperament.

Where we come from fundamentally determines where we go. If we come from God, there is only one way back to Him, the way offered by Jesus Christ. God gives it freely by grace as a pledge of His steadfast love.

Hear the call and the direction that speaks to you personally, speaks for you, and speaks clearly! You must become mature enough to make a responsible decision, accepting and grasping the caressing hand of divine grace extended to you, the eternal mantle of infinite peace that covers and protects you for an eternity.

"But reject the vulgar and old wives' tales. On the contrary, practice the attainment of godliness. For the exercise of the flesh is little but the fear of God is profitable for all things, for it contains the promise of both the present life and the life to come." (1 Timothy 4:7-8)

[In other words, pseudo-scientific, materialistic science has very limited utility over the fear of God.]