Explaining God in an Era of Science: Why Theists Argue He Is Needed
Science is an ever-evolving field, always progressing. It doesn’t happen overnight, and yet critics frequently argue that certain phenomena require a divine explanation. Specifically, theists often contend that a supreme being is necessary to explain what science has yet to uncover. This article will explore the perspectives of both sides and argue why theists' insistence on a deity might not be so irrational in the face of unknowns.
The Light of Science
Beliefs in gods or supernatural entities often stem from the fear of the unknown. Much like the monsters under our childhood beds, these entities remain elusive and foreboding. Once the light is turned on, however, such fears subside. This is a metaphor that critics of religion use to mock the theist's reliance on an unspecified support system. They claim that theists are simply afraid of the dark, of the unknown and unexplained.
It is true that science does provide answers, but it also reveals the vastness and complexity of the universe. This discovery is often seen by some theists as a reason to embrace the unknown, where a deity can be found.
Philosophical vs. Scientific Arguments
When non-theists argue that the absence of scientific evidence for a designer is proof that no such designer exists, they miss a crucial point. The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. This is where philosophical arguments, particularly those in the realm of metaphysics, come into play.
For instance, the concept of the finetuning of the universe argues that the conditions for life are incredibly specific and therefore require a designer. This is not a scientific argument but a metaphysical one. The design explanation, known as the Teleological Argument, is an inference to the best explanation. It suggests that the universe’s finely-tuned features are best explained by a divine designer rather than a random, unguided process.
The Sunk Coast Fallacy
The concept of the “sunk coast fallacy” is relevant here. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that because science hasn't yet answered a question, it never will. This is an error because it ignores the advancements that can be made in the future.
A cessation of scientific progress is highly unlikely. In fact, the more we learn, the more questions we uncover. Consider the example of cellular biology. In the early 20th century, it was believed that cells were merely blobs of protoplasm. However, with the advent of molecular biology, we now know that cells contain vast information-coding systems, which deepen our understanding of their origins rather than answering every question.
Limitations of Science
Science is a powerful tool, but it has limitations. It can explain mechanisms and physical laws, but it cannot address deep existential questions or those that cannot be observed physically. Questions about the origins of the universe, the nature of consciousness, and the fine-tuning of the cosmos are beyond the scope of current scientific investigation.
Therefore, the idea that science is the only source of truth is itself a form of belief. Theists argue that metaphysical explanations are complementary to scientific ones. They suggest that there are other indispensable sources of knowledge beyond the physical world, such as logical and ethical reasoning, which cannot be fully explained through science alone.
It is an imperfect world where no single explanation can encompass all aspects of reality. Science is just one tool in our quest for understanding, and metaphysical explanations can offer complementary insights into the mysteries that remain.
Conclusion
Theists argue that in an age of science, the need for a supreme being is not irrational but is instead a rational response to the unknown. While the absence of proof is not proof of absence, the idea of a designer, as proposed in the Teleological Argument, offers a coherent explanation for the intricacies of the universe that current scientific theories cannot.
Whether or not one accepts this argument, it is clear that the discourse between science and religion is complex and multi-faceted. Both have their strengths and limitations, and in acknowledging these, we can have a more nuanced and productive discussion on the nature of the universe and its origins.