Can science disprove God?

It really irks me when theists claim that science can’t disprove God. To me, saying that is like saying that science can’t disprove the existence of unicorns. It demonstrates an ignorance for how scientific proof works.

The only way to prove that something isn’t true is to look for proof that it is true. Finding none, we can reasonably conclude that whatever we were trying to prove does not exist. This is what science has done for God. We have naturalistic explanations for everything that God was created to explain: creation of the universe, good and evil, the mind (“soul”), natural events such as earthquakes, etc. It’s simple logic: When you have two possible explanations, you go with the one which makes the least egregious assumptions. This is called Occham’s Razor. So what assumptions do each of these theses make?

The naturalistic thesis makes the assumption that our powers of observation, experience, and reason are reliable sources of knowledge. This is why the scientific method is known as “rational empiricism”: it combines the best elements of rationalism and empiricism. The theistic thesis, on the other hand, makes the opposite assumption: we can’t know anything based on reason and experience. Sure, the universe seems to be 14 billion years old and operating on laws which were formed naturalistically in the first few milliseconds of existence, but that’s all really a big hoax perpetuated by an all-good creator-god. Which of these assumptions is more egregious?

Furthermore, absence of absolute disproof does not qualify as proof. It’s called Russell’s teapot, yo. Read it.

What would qualify as absolute disproof, anyway? A note from God saying, “Sorry, dudes; don’t really exist”?


2 thoughts on “Can science disprove God?

  1. There’s validity though as you say to the idea of not having absolute disproof, but yes absolute disproof is a nigh impossible thing hah. After all, you might disprove that there are no unicorns by observations on Earth, upon which I outlandishly say “but what about unicorns anywhere?”. Good luck looking throughout the cosmos for one.

    I think since the idea of God is so nebulous (in a material sense) and the above point, it’s just worth ceding that “indeed, I can’t not disprove it beyond a shadow of a doubt” and instead focus on “but I have no reason to believe in it until you show me.” It seems the only way to move on. Goodness knows both sides are going to nitpick each other over semantics otherwise. :/

  2. Science has already disproved the literal translation of the Bible, so now the Christian God has to alter it’s definition to stay relevant. It will likely keep altering until there is nothing left to alter.

Leave a Reply

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s