How Scientists Can Believe in God

Are all true scientists destined to become atheists? The answer is no, or at least that doesn't seem to be the case judging by statistics.

On May 2nd, 1956, acclaimed theoretical physicist Richard Feynman gave a lunchtime talk at the California Institute of Technology. The relation between science and religion was on the docket that day. To organize his thoughts, Feynman wove what may be a familiar story:


A young man, brought up in a religious family, studies a science, and as a result he comes to doubt -- and perhaps later to disbelieve in -- his father's God.  Now, this is not an isolated example; it happens time and time again. Although I have no statistics on this, I believe that many scientists -- in fact, I actually believe that more than half of the scientists -- really disbelieve in their father's God; that is, they don't believe in a God in a conventional sense.

Feynman's words prompt a key question: Are all true scientists destined to become atheists? The answer, I believe, is no, or at least that doesn't seem to be the case judging by statistics.

Still, how is it that faith and science can co-exist? According to Feynman, the answer to this question lies in recognizing the limits of science:

I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible.  And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God -- an ordinary God of religion -- a consistent possibility?     

Feynman responds to his query:

Yes, it is consistent.  Despite the fact that I said that more than half of the scientists don't believe in God, many scientists do believe in both science and God, in a perfectly consistent way.  But this consistency, although possible, is not easy to attain...

Here, Feynman is in agreement with other notable scientific minds, including Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein. Where evidence is lacking, concrete proof cannot be attained. Thus -- at this time -- we cannot conclude that God exists, but we also cannot conclude that God does not. 

But that still doesn't answer how scientists can believe in both science and God. Ruminating further, Feynman returned to his example of the young scientist, whose skepticism is now flourishing:

What happens, then, is that the young man begins to doubt everything because he cannot have it as absolute truth.  So the question changes a little bit from "Is there a God?" to "How sure is it that there is a God?" This very subtle change is a great stroke and represents a parting of the ways between science and religion.

From this parting of the ways, an opening is presented for scientists to reconcile their work with their faith. That opening is uncertainty. Firmly in the realm of science, uncertainty -- essentially acknowledged ignorance -- is the scientist's key to a legitimate belief in God:  
 

If they are consistent with their science, I think that they say something like this to themselves: "I am almost certain there is a God. The doubt is very small." That is quite different from saying, "I know that there is a God." I do not believe that a scientist can ever obtain that view - that really religious understanding, that real knowledge that there is a God - that absolute certainty which religious people have.

Admitting uncertainty not only bridges the divide between science and religion, but also -- I believe -- can do the same when applied to a great many of life's seemingly perpetual disputes.        

I think that when we know that we actually do live in uncertainty, then we ought to admit it; it is of great value to realize that we do not know the answers to different questions.

Car culture and suburban sprawl create rifts in society, claims study

New research links urban planning and political polarization.

Pixabay
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Canadian researchers find that excessive reliance on cars changes political views.
  • Decades of car-centric urban planning normalized unsustainable lifestyles.
  • People who prefer personal comfort elect politicians who represent such views.
Keep reading Show less

How to split the USA into two countries: Red and Blue

Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.

Image: Dicken Schrader
Strange Maps
  • America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
  • Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
  • Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Keep reading Show less

NASA astronomer Michelle Thaller on ​the multiple dimensions of space and human sexuality

Science and the squishiness of the human mind. The joys of wearing whatever the hell you want, and so much more.

Flickr / 13winds
Think Again Podcasts
  • Why can't we have a human-sized cat tree?
  • What would happen if you got a spoonful of a neutron star?
  • Why do we insist on dividing our wonderfully complex selves into boring little boxes
Keep reading Show less