Why Science Has No Need of God and What This Implies

Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749 – 1827) is remembered as one of the greatest scientists of all time. He's referred to as the French Newton or the Newton of France. When Napoleon had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his discourse on the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter, he is quoted as saying: "I had no need of that hypothesis." That best describes science. It doesn't need that hypothesis. That's how science should work too, for if science is to work at all it shouldn't depend on the God-hypothesis. More importantly, if there is a God who intervenes in our world then science cannot work at all. We can see this quite easily by contrasting sectarian pseudoscience with science itself. The implications should be obvious.

When it comes to sectarian pseudoscience a very important question is which God-hypothesis should be used? Science, real science, is not sectarian. Whenever you see sectarian pseudoscience that is not real science. How can we tell it from real science? That should be easy. No one but people within a particular sect agrees with it. That's why it is sectarian pseudoscience in the first place. For once we allow science to become sectarian then any God and any religion will do.

Here are a few examples of sectarian pseudoscience:

Scientology pseudoscience (click on the timeline).

Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion pseudoscience.

Mormon archaeological pseudoscience.

Mormon genetic pseudoscience.

These are only a few examples. What motivates sectarian pseudoscience? It comes from the particular religious sect itself! It's nothing more than cognitive bias run amuck. We all see this when it comes to other religions. Christians don't see this when it comes to their own sectarian pseudoscience. They were raised to believe the Bible even though it was written in a pre-scientific superstitious era. So now as adults they must find ways to defend it no matter what the cost. To do so they must create their own sectarian pseudoscience even though there are at least seven ways science debunks Christianity.

Agreed? You should! If not you operate by double standards. Why then the double standards?

In fact, as I mentioned, if there is a God who intervenes in our world then science cannot work at all, and this, more than anything else, is why scientists should not adopt a God-hypothesis.

The very basis of science is predicated on a non-miraculous world order. Since science is possible a miracle working God doesn't intervene. I have written about this with regard to meteorology. If God sends the rain then exactly how does he do this when meteorologists can predict weather patterns and storms? It is therefore not possible that God sends a particular storm on one city or farmland. For God would have to intervene in the natural order of things, and if he did that very often the science of meteorology would not be possible. Meteorologists could not predict weather patterns and storms at all.

Scientists do not detect these kind of divine miraculous interventions in any of their areas of expertise. It goes for meteorology. It goes for all the other sciences. The very fact that neurologists can detect brain malfunctions and correct them is predicated on the non-miraculous workings of the human brain. The very fact that modern medicine can detect illnesses and heal bodies is predicated on the non-miraculous workings of the human body. The list goes on and on and on. Science itself would not be possible if there were a miraculous intervening God.

Agreed? You should! Otherwise throw away your cell phone, tablet, and laptop. Forget about your oven or microwave or toaster. Forget about trains planes and automobiles. Don't bother with rocket science either. The only reason you rely on this technology is because you think science works. All you need to do is ask why it works and you'll see it is predicated on the non-miraculous working of the natural world.

This world looks exactly like one without a miraculous intervening God in it. And if there is no detectable miracle working God in our world, then we must seriously consider two implications.

First, since God doesn't presently intervene in the natural ordering of the world then it is exceedingly probable there was never a miracle working God who created the universe in the first place. The science of evolution itself is predicated on the non-miraculous workings of natural selection through time. Evolution must be unguided by an invisible divine hand in order for that science to exist in the first place, something professor Jerry Coyne argued better than me. No wonder the evidence has convinced so many people that after a century and a half of debate the debate is now consider over. Evolution is a fact. The only thing left to do is educate more people about it. Remember, it took a long time for Copernican cosmology to gain acceptance too. The church took a big hit from denying a heliocentric solar system just like the church will take an even bigger hit from a worldwide acceptance of evolutionary science.

Believers conjure up images of a group of mad atheist scientists who clandestinely meet to devise ways to destroy religion. But this is most emphatically not the case at all. They just do science and let the results speak for themselves, sorry about YOUR luck! Most scientists started out as believers in God anyway. We know this by the demographics themselves given the numbers of people who believe in God. It was the evidence and the scientific enterprise itself that changed their minds.

Second, since God doesn't presently intervene in the natural ordering of the world it is exceedingly probable he just doesn't exist at all. If looking for and not finding unicorns, Hobbits, the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot is strong evidence that they don't exist, then looking for and not finding God is equally strong evidence that he doesn't exist either.

Agreed? You should!