Religion and Science
Sam Vaknin
Author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"

There are many kinds of narratives and organizing principles.
Science is driven by evidence gathered in experiments, and by the
falsification of extant theories and their replacement with newer,
asymptotically truer, ones. Other systems - religion, nationalism,
paranoid ideation, or art - are based on personal experiences
(faith, inspiration, paranoia, etc.).

Experiential narratives can and do interact with evidential
narratives and vice versa.

For instance: belief in God inspires some scientists who regard
science as a method to "peek at God's cards" and to get closer to
Him. Another example: the pursuit of scientific endeavors enhances
one's national pride and is motivated by it. Science is often
corrupted in order to support nationalistic and racist claims.

The basic units of all narratives are known by their effects on the
environment. God, in this sense, is no different from electrons,
quarks, and black holes. All four constructs cannot be directly
observed, but the fact of their existence is derived from their
effects.

Granted, God's effects are discernible only in the social and
psychological (or psychopathological) realms. But this observed
constraint doesn't render Him less "real". The hypothesized
existence of God parsimoniously explains a myriad ostensibly
unrelated phenomena and, therefore, conforms to the rules governing
the formulation of scientific theories.

The locus of God's hypothesized existence is, clearly and
exclusively, in the minds of believers. But this again does not make
Him less real. The contents of our minds are as real as
anything "out there". Actually, the very distinction between
epistemology and ontology is blurred.

But is God's existence "true" - or is He just a figment of our
neediness and imagination?

Truth is the measure of the ability of our models to describe
phenomena and predict them. God's existence (in people's minds)
succeeds to do both. For instance, assuming that God exists allows
us to predict many of the behaviors of people who profess to believe
in Him. The existence of God is, therefore, undoubtedly true (in
this formal and strict sense).

But does God exist outside people's minds? Is He an objective
entity, independent of what people may or may not think about Him?
After all, if all sentient beings were to perish in a horrible
calamity, the Sun would still be there, revolving as it has done
from time immemorial.

If all sentient beings were to perish in a horrible calamity, would
God still exist? If all sentient beings, including all humans, stop
believing that there is God - would He survive this renunciation?
Does God "out there" inspire the belief in God in religious folks'
minds?

Known things are independent of the existence of observers (although
the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics disputes this).
Believed things are dependent on the existence of believers.

We know that the Sun exists. We don't know that God exists. We
believe that God exists - but we don't and cannot know it, in the
scientific sense of the word.

We can design experiments to falsify (prove wrong) the existence of
electrons, quarks, and black holes (and, thus, if all these
experiments fail, prove that electrons, quarks, and black holes
exist). We can also design experiments to prove that electrons,
quarks, and black holes exist.

But we cannot design even one experiment to falsify the existence of
a God who is outside the minds of believers (and, thus, if the
experiment fails, prove that God exists "out there"). Additionally,
we cannot design even one experiment to prove that God exists
outside the minds of believers.

What about the "argument from design"? The universe is so complex
and diverse that surely it entails the existence of a supreme
intelligence, the world's designer and creator, known by some
as "God". On the other hand, the world's richness and variety can be
fully accounted for using modern scientific theories such as
evolution and the big bang. There is no need to introduce God into
the equations.

Still, it is possible that God is responsible for it all. The
problem is that we cannot design even one experiment to falsify this
theory, that God created the Universe (and, thus, if the experiment
fails, prove that God is, indeed, the world's originator).
Additionally, we cannot design even one experiment to prove that God
created the world.

We can, however, design numerous experiments to falsify the
scientific theories that explain the creation of the Universe (and,
thus, if these experiments fail, lend these theories substantial
support). We can also design experiments to prove the scientific
theories that explain the creation of the Universe.

It does not mean that these theories are absolutely true and
immutable. They are not. Our current scientific theories are partly
true and are bound to change with new knowledge gained by
experimentation. Our current scientific theories will be replaced by
newer, truer theories. But any and all future scientific theories
will be falsifiable and testable.

Knowledge and belief are like oil and water. They don't mix.
Knowledge doesn't lead to belief and belief does not yield
knowledge. Belief can yield conviction or strongly-felt opinions.
But belief cannot result in knowledge.

Still, both known things and believed things exist. The former
exist "out there" and the latter "in our minds" and only there. But
they are no less real for that.

Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant
Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West
Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician,
Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a
United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and
the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in
The Open Directory and Suite101.

Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government
of Macedonia.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com