Lack of Verifiable, Falsifiable Evidence

The second major reason for disbelief is the complete lack of hard evidence. The idea of the “god of the gaps” is a compelling one. What we see is that were science sheds knowledge and light on natural processes and the logic of the universe, god is often removed. Populations used religions to explain the biodiversity of life, origins of our universe, even things like why celestial bodies follow certain patterns. This is not unique to Christianity. When there is a better explanation, religion is no longer required.

In terms of evidence for religion, I have not found anything which cannot be explained by natural and physical phenomena. While some situations may be highly improbable, in an infinite universe over large spans of time the improbable become highly likely. This applies to the origin of life, natural selection, and can even explain the origins of the universe.

I have reviewed theories and logic which would align religion with facts and observations of our natural world. While many are possible, my issue with these is that they start with the assumption that the religion is true, then create arguments based on that possibly false belief. For example, one could explain a young earth if we stated that the laws of physics may have been different hundreds of years ago. While I find these more interesting and defensible than outright rejecting evidence and observable phenomena, it is also true that almost anything can be justified, and almost nothing can be disproven. Just like there is no way to prove that an invisible, untouchable gardener does not exist in your backward, there is no way to prove that any religion is false. Used as the foundation to many conspiracy theories, there can always be an explanation.

I agree that not all things can be tested. For example, we may never know what happens after death. We may never detect a soul on any technology existing now or ever. I also agree that there are things which we can’t yet explain. However, I have faith that science will eventually prevail.

Some posit that while everything can be explained by the physical laws of the universe, God is who set those laws and who coordinates the grand orchestra which makes up our universe. While this theory is one which I most agree with, I would still assert that a universe which arises from nothingness and chance is a simpler explanation than a universe which requires a grand entity to create and govern all aspects of it.

If the question is whether the existence of a god is more likely given our current knowledge of all the laws and processes which the universe follows, or if all of this can be explained by particles given the space and time to test out infinite combinations until a universe like ours exists, I would side with the latter.

Series Navigation<< The Problem of EvilThe Convenience of Religion >>

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
blog comments powered by Disqus