Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. ![]() One of these is a version of the problem of evil, while the second is as follows:įurther, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. Footnote 2Īn earlier statement of SEAGA is found in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas when he addresses two objections to the existence of God. Footnote 1 Other arguments that appeal to the success of science in general, even if not quite conforming to SEAGA, can also be found in the literature (see for example Draper ( 2005) and Dawes ( 2009)), although the specific details of these argument will not be explored here. An argument along these lines is often used in the specific case of evolution, see for example Dennett ( 1996) and Draper ( 2008). This argument is very prominent among the so-called New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins ( 2006) and Victor Stenger ( 2008). He isn’t needed to keep things moving, or to develop the complexity of living creatures, or to account for the existence of the universe… Two thousand years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to invoke God as an explanation for natural phenomena now, we can do much better. Over the past five hundred years, the progress of science has worked to strip away God’s roles in the world. This view is expressed by Sean Carroll in a recent article: Essentially, this means that science has explained away, or at least is in the process of explaining away, the need for God and so the argument will be referred to as the science explains away God argument (SEAGA). While the two accounts are not necessarily incompatible, Ockham’s razor suggests that there is no need for two accounts when one will do. The idea is that while it might have made sense to believe in God as an explanation for various features of the natural world before the advent of modern science, this is no longer the case since theistic explanations have been replaced by scientific explanations. Few would wish to claim that science is logically incompatible with the existence of God, but some claim that it undermines the case for God by making theistic explanations redundant. ![]() ![]() The focus of this paper is on this last point: that the success of science in explaining the world around us counts against theism. Alternatively, they might appeal to more general issues relating to science: theists claiming that the laws of nature or the very possibility of science points to a Creator atheists countering that scientific methodology itself and the success of science do just the opposite. Both sides might appeal to specific aspects to bolster their position: theists typically focussing on the big bang or fine-tuning atheists typically pointing to evolution. Theists often appeal to various aspects of science in support of their belief in God while atheists sometimes respond, not merely by contesting this point, but by arguing precisely the opposite: that science undermines belief in God. Science plays a key role in many discussions about the existence of God.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |