Does science really disprove god

I know we are all tired of Covid19 news and or bike falls so we will do something different today. The author of this post says no but I want to argue that science doesn’t set out to prove or disprove god. The results from science studies only seem to make god unnecessary as a causative agent.

I want to begin by agreeing with the author that

None of the points I’ll make here is intended to provide absolute certainty; no amount of mere reasoning could do that — whether for or against God

though I think this makes the case for god already weak from the beginning. For all that is claimed for god, the evidence for god should be such that there is little doubt of its existence. You know like the sun.

The author says next

[…]over the years I’ve gradually become more and more confident that belief in God best explains the most important aspects of our lives — areas like science, morality, and meaning. Again, not 100 percent confidence, but much more than I think is warranted by the evidence for atheism.

and it is this evidence that we would want to consider in this post and see how it holds up. Maybe by the time we are done reading, Mary will be convinced to become a bible carrying, tithe paying evangelical :).


But hasn’t science — surely an impressive source for what we know — shown that there’s no God, or at least that God is unlikely?

is a strawman.I don’t think this can be a scientific conclusion. Generally we know scientists to say their findings are provisional and can change depending on new evidence. Since there is no known way of studying existence of god (given gods belong to that class of beings that we only have claims of others for their existence) no scientist in their right mind would say my experiment proves there is no god.

Cosmologists have attempted to answer the question of how/where did the universe come to being and there answers I think, without a doubt, beat “and god said let there be“.

We are told, well science has explained much, but not given us ultimate answers. From the horse’s mouth pen

Suppose that all these theories are entirely true. Surely an all-powerful being like God could have made the universe using the very objects and workings described by these theories. If there were a God, he could have easily guided natural selection and made sure that there were the genetic variations needed for the right evolutionary paths. He also could have created an enormous number of universes by way of quantum fluctuations, making sure that at least one of these universes resulted in us. There’s no necessary inconsistency between belief in God and our current scientific theories.

To which I respond that there is also no contradiction in arguing that the scientific explanations make god unnecessary.

At this point, I wonder why this author even set about to write this post. He writes,

These theories could never explain themselves, even in principle; that’s not in their job description. Scientific laws simply aren’t in a position to answer “Why these laws?” Moreover, our theories are about how the stuff of the universe behaves (whatever that stuff ultimately turns out to be), and not about the ultimate origin of the stuff itself.

which I think undermines the whole object of this thesis. If the conclusion is that science can’t tell us about the ultimate stuff, why then bother?

We are then asked

In any case, given all that we know today — given what science has told us — how can you be so confident about your atheism?

and my simple response is that all religions (that I am aware of) as far as I can tell have failed to demonstrate that their god is real, is necessary and that theirs is the right religion.

And finally Christianity and the bible make an appearance. I am surprised it took so long.

I wish I had more space and time (or spacetime) to discuss, but for now I’ll say this: the actual teachings and purpose of the Bible are more amenable to contemporary science than you might think.

Yeah. Like Jonah eating the fish, or the goats jumping over sticks and changing colour or Jesus walking on water. I know. I know. These are all compatible with the best science results we have from science. Who is to doubt.

And what good is an apologetics post with posing the question of meaning or morality?

One is the nature of morality. What would a purely human-grounded moral code imply for my everyday life if I took this idea seriously? Another is the meaning and purpose of life itself. Why get out of bed in the morning? Why choose the life goals I do, and why pursue the relationships I do, particularly if the universe and its contents (including us) are just going to end in what physicists call the “heat death”? And if this is the whole story, is that a problem?

Have a science-y day, won’t you?


About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

39 thoughts on “Does science really disprove god

  1. Neil Rickert says:

    Wow! A huge strawman.

    No, not your post. The post you were responding to is a strawman.


  2. Tish Farrell says:

    In recent times we’ve been overrun with media speak that ‘the science is settled’ – whether it relates to computer models of infection rate projections or to climate change. All this notion does is shut off debate. At its worst it becomes divisive and we find ourselves consigned to camps: deniers or believers. And then things start getting very nasty. Religious doctrine seems to give many the certainty (faith) they crave in order to get on with their lives/make sense of their existence. Wherever religion is not serving people’s security purposes like this, ‘settled science’ appears now to be filling the gap. The understanding that science is always provisional appears to be becoming more and more unacceptable to the majority. And to me that is the really worrying think i.e. more than trying to use science to prove the existence of god. It leaves the rational thinker with no refuge.

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      I agree,Tish. There is a big group of people who think science has settled stuff. They forget that all science is provisional even if it gives us the best explanation we have currently

      Liked by 2 people

  3. john zande says:

    Science simply demonstrates that “God” is a really, really bad hypothesis.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. “Why get out of bed in the morning?” Why, as an atheist, this is a simple question to answer: To eat Christian babies, ya sum’bitch, why else! This dude is a hot bag of gas! He needs a pin stuck in ’em to release some of it.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. basenjibrian says:

    inspired: After you have retired from your position as Maximum Leader of the World, may I suggest you take up writing? I am thinking specifically a Cookbook “To Serve Christian Babies”. It will be a best seller, for sure.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. basenjibrian says:

    None of these apologists answer the question: Why YOUR God? Even more precisely: Why YOUR PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF YOUR GOD? It is just automatically assumed.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Arkenaten says:

    ]over the years I’ve gradually become more and more confident that belief in God best explains the most important aspects of our lives —

    Sorry, Mak, I nodded off after reading just one sentence.
    Can you summarize?


  8. At first blush, it looks like you found another dressed up god-of-the-gaps argument. You have my sympathies for having read it.

    The trope in the post you found is one I’m familiar with. It tries to present the gaps as reasonable. It’s like saying you can trust me because I haven’t hit my caps lock button while typing this sentence.

    I think I need whiskey now.


  9. shelldigger says:

    I was not tired of bike falls! But I suppose a tired bike could fall. I’ll be here all week folks! Don’t forget to tip the waitress!

    I only have one question about the post. Why would anyone who already has all the answers be asking so many damn questions?

    Science probably can’t rule out gods entirely as there will always be things we do not know or have ample evidence for, but it sure answers the questions I have in a much more logical way. That and there is evidence aplenty for the the things science has shown us.

    Gods have no evidence whatsoever save for the believers insistence they are real. What’s the saying? The invisible and the non existant sure look a lot alike…

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      Oh yes, it is important to tip both the bike and the waiter!

      Science has no business with the gods. If a scientific result shows god is unnecessary as an explanation, i would almost say that was a secondary thing to the study. How would one test that god is when no one can say what god is?


      • shelldigger says:

        All kinds of people can “say” what god/s is, they just have a hard time showing it.

        But yeah, science need not waste its time on gods. Just keep doing science, the rest will work out. When gods become discoverable we can have a look at them.


  10. You can say Science disproves God because till date, science couldn’t produce a “theory of everything” unlike God whom we can connect to everything around us. But at the very same time we can’t prove the connection of God with anything we associate it with.


  11. dolphinwrite says:

    Every person that says science and the bible don’t work together don’t really understand science and more than likely, haven’t read the bible. Even Einstein, an incredible scientist, realized creation. Most honest scientists, if they follow the rabbit trail of reason, come to a point where they realize. Many scientists are Christians. Over the years, having studied science, I was amazed the level of understanding in the bible.


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s