What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Science Does Not Disprove God
The renowned science writer, mathematician, and bestselling author of Fermat's Last Theorem masterfully refutes the overreaching claims the "New Atheists," providing millions of educated believers with a clear, engaging explanation of what science really says, how there's still much space for the Divine in the universe, and why faith in both God and empirical science are not mutually exclusive. A highly publicized coterie of scientists and thinkers, including Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, and Lawrence Krauss, have vehemently contended that breakthroughs in modern science have disproven the existence of God, asserting that we must accept that the creation of the universe came out of nothing, that religion is evil, that evolution fully explains the dazzling complexity of life, and more. In this much-needed book, science journalist Amir Aczel profoundly disagrees and conclusively demonstrates that science has not, as yet, provided any definitive proof refuting the existence of God. Why Science Does Not Disprove God is his brilliant and incisive analyses of the theories and findings of such titans as Albert Einstein, Roger Penrose, Alan Guth, and Charles Darwin, all of whose major breakthroughs leave open the possibility� and even the strong likelihood—of a Creator. Bolstering his argument, Aczel lucidly discourses on arcane aspects of physics to reveal how quantum theory, the anthropic principle, the fine-tuned dance of protons and quarks, the existence of anti-matter and the theory of parallel universes, also fail to disprove God.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published July 9, 2013
184 people are currently reading
1,091 people want to read
About the author
Amir D. Aczel
35Ìýbooks151ÌýfollowersAmir Aczel was an Israeli-born American author of popular science and mathematics books. He was a lecturer in mathematics and history of mathematics.
He studied at the University of California, Berkeley. Getting graduating with a BA in mathematics in 1975, received a Master of Science in 1976 and several years later accomplished his Ph.D. in Statistics from the University of Oregon. He died in Nîmes, France in 2015.
He studied at the University of California, Berkeley. Getting graduating with a BA in mathematics in 1975, received a Master of Science in 1976 and several years later accomplished his Ph.D. in Statistics from the University of Oregon. He died in Nîmes, France in 2015.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 105 reviews
March 8, 2017
I had always desired that someone wrote such a book - a response to the New Atheists.
I had read some of the books by New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc). To tell you the truth I was mostly offended by their lopsided arguments against God. Their arguments were mostly against organized religions. Organized religions are human institutions and naturally they cannot escape human errors and vices. But can we claim non existence of God basing our arguments on such aberrant happenings? Certainly NO.
The problem with New Atheists was that they claimed the opposite and even had taken recourse to Science to ratify their claim. I was not fully trained in science. So it was here I felt the hump.
But Amir Aczel, a physicist and a mathematician in writing this book has done a great service to me and people like me. He categorically proves that science has not disproved the existence of God. His style is very engaging and provocative. His strength is in narrating the great scientific developments in a language understandable for any lay reader. His arguments are from all fields of science - physics, cosmology, natural science (evolution), cognitive science, mathematics, and logic.
Here is the conclusion by A. Aczel:
And religions have their flaws, as all human institutions do. But God - a power well outside our ability to comprehend, transcending the creation of the universe we see around us - may well exist, and science has not, and will not, disprove it.
In so many ways, the same impulse to know the world and our place in it is at the roots of both science and spirituality. Both are attempts to illuminate the mysteries of our world and expand our vision of the greater whole.
I had read some of the books by New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc). To tell you the truth I was mostly offended by their lopsided arguments against God. Their arguments were mostly against organized religions. Organized religions are human institutions and naturally they cannot escape human errors and vices. But can we claim non existence of God basing our arguments on such aberrant happenings? Certainly NO.
The problem with New Atheists was that they claimed the opposite and even had taken recourse to Science to ratify their claim. I was not fully trained in science. So it was here I felt the hump.
But Amir Aczel, a physicist and a mathematician in writing this book has done a great service to me and people like me. He categorically proves that science has not disproved the existence of God. His style is very engaging and provocative. His strength is in narrating the great scientific developments in a language understandable for any lay reader. His arguments are from all fields of science - physics, cosmology, natural science (evolution), cognitive science, mathematics, and logic.
Here is the conclusion by A. Aczel:
And religions have their flaws, as all human institutions do. But God - a power well outside our ability to comprehend, transcending the creation of the universe we see around us - may well exist, and science has not, and will not, disprove it.
In so many ways, the same impulse to know the world and our place in it is at the roots of both science and spirituality. Both are attempts to illuminate the mysteries of our world and expand our vision of the greater whole.
May 9, 2014
There have been a good few attempts to counter Richard Dawkins' best selling The God Delusion, but I think this is one of the more interesting, as it's written by a mathematician and physicist turned science writer, who certainly knows a lot more about physics than Dawkins.
What Amir Aczel sets out to do is to look at the claims made by the likes of Dawkins which attempt to use scientific arguments to 'disprove' the existence of God and to counter those, and on the whole he is quite successful. I ought to stress what he doesn't do - and could never do - is in any sense 'prove' the existence of God. As Aczel says towards the end 'In this book I have not proved the existence of God in any shape or form, and this has obviously not been my purpose. What I aimed to do was to argue - convincingly, I hope - that science has not disproved the existence of God.'
Aczel approaches this task with a lot more science than I recall Dawkins using. Along the way we get summaries of quantum theory, cosmology, evolution, the mathematics of infinity and more, all used to show the flaws in the 'science disproves God' argument. These have to be fairly rapid summaries - there are plenty of better books covering each subject in detail - but might be helpful to give context to those who aren't familiar with the scientific theories that get thrown around in these kind of arguments.
There's a degree of subjectivity, inevitably, but for me Aczel makes three quite strong hits. He shows the weakness of the anthropic principle as a way of deriving anything (something most scientists are perfectly well aware of), he makes the multiverse interpretation of quantum theory as a way to explain the strange 'tuned' nature of our universe look a bit silly, and most interestingly for me he demolishes the negative aspect of the 'God of the gaps' argument.
This is essentially a suggestion that the tendency of non-fundamentalist religious believers to accept scientific theories that contradict early religious teaching results in God being just responsible for 'the gaps' left behind by the science, making the God concept more and more pointless. Although Aczel doesn't use this terminology, I think he nicely demonstrates that the current position is more 'science of the gaps' - almost all the big questions like how could a universe start from nothing, why do the charges of the electron and quarks balance out the way they do, how did life start, what is consciousness and how did it emerge are still left to be answered. Science does a wonderful job, but frankly we've only managed the easy bits.
So, quite an interesting book that successfully demonstrates the emptiness of much of Dawkins' argument. However, on the down side, it isn't as readable as a Dawkins book, some of the history of science is too simplistic (we get the good old myth that Giordano Bruno was burned to death 'for believing that the sun was a star and that the universe contained other civilisations' which is utter tosh), and it suffers from being a negative book, constantly attacking Dawkins et al, which gets a bit tedious after a while.
I have always argued that the only scientific viewpoint on God is agnosticism rather than atheism, as atheism espouses a belief without evidence, but in the end that's all this book can and does deliver. Science doesn't disprove God - case closed. So what it does in its own right is limited, but I do think it is useful in highlighting the way the opposite attempts from the 'new atheists', as typified by Dawkins, to show that science can somehow manage this impossible feat is flawed and hollow.
What Amir Aczel sets out to do is to look at the claims made by the likes of Dawkins which attempt to use scientific arguments to 'disprove' the existence of God and to counter those, and on the whole he is quite successful. I ought to stress what he doesn't do - and could never do - is in any sense 'prove' the existence of God. As Aczel says towards the end 'In this book I have not proved the existence of God in any shape or form, and this has obviously not been my purpose. What I aimed to do was to argue - convincingly, I hope - that science has not disproved the existence of God.'
Aczel approaches this task with a lot more science than I recall Dawkins using. Along the way we get summaries of quantum theory, cosmology, evolution, the mathematics of infinity and more, all used to show the flaws in the 'science disproves God' argument. These have to be fairly rapid summaries - there are plenty of better books covering each subject in detail - but might be helpful to give context to those who aren't familiar with the scientific theories that get thrown around in these kind of arguments.
There's a degree of subjectivity, inevitably, but for me Aczel makes three quite strong hits. He shows the weakness of the anthropic principle as a way of deriving anything (something most scientists are perfectly well aware of), he makes the multiverse interpretation of quantum theory as a way to explain the strange 'tuned' nature of our universe look a bit silly, and most interestingly for me he demolishes the negative aspect of the 'God of the gaps' argument.
This is essentially a suggestion that the tendency of non-fundamentalist religious believers to accept scientific theories that contradict early religious teaching results in God being just responsible for 'the gaps' left behind by the science, making the God concept more and more pointless. Although Aczel doesn't use this terminology, I think he nicely demonstrates that the current position is more 'science of the gaps' - almost all the big questions like how could a universe start from nothing, why do the charges of the electron and quarks balance out the way they do, how did life start, what is consciousness and how did it emerge are still left to be answered. Science does a wonderful job, but frankly we've only managed the easy bits.
So, quite an interesting book that successfully demonstrates the emptiness of much of Dawkins' argument. However, on the down side, it isn't as readable as a Dawkins book, some of the history of science is too simplistic (we get the good old myth that Giordano Bruno was burned to death 'for believing that the sun was a star and that the universe contained other civilisations' which is utter tosh), and it suffers from being a negative book, constantly attacking Dawkins et al, which gets a bit tedious after a while.
I have always argued that the only scientific viewpoint on God is agnosticism rather than atheism, as atheism espouses a belief without evidence, but in the end that's all this book can and does deliver. Science doesn't disprove God - case closed. So what it does in its own right is limited, but I do think it is useful in highlighting the way the opposite attempts from the 'new atheists', as typified by Dawkins, to show that science can somehow manage this impossible feat is flawed and hollow.
November 23, 2015
I read The God Delusion almost immediately after having finished this book. Pretty much all that this author has to say against Richard Dawkins' writings are just re-questionings of what Dawkins has already tackled - either indisputably, or satisfactorily enough, or has only inserted as one among many possible explanations to something and has admitted to not being qualified enough to answer it himself.
Although, admittedly, the questions posed are very interesting, thought-provoking and undeniably challenging.
The problem with this book is the 'God' it addresses and defends is the deist God. And the 'God' that the atheists refute is the religious Big Brother version, the old sky-daddy with a morbid obsession over what we humans do naked. This book too explicitly refutes that notion of God, which is what the New Atheism movement is predominantly doing. So this book, in effect, is defending what nobody is attacking, i.e the deist God, or the germ of creation... the origin of the universe, if you will.
The worst feature of this book is the recurring 'hey guys, look, this man was an awfully clever scientist who made awfully smart discoveries in science and was also religious!... gee, ain't that great?' parts that follow after the author talks about a scientist's contributions to science.
It was an interesting read, nonetheless. Shame, that an interesting account of the progress of scientific thinking and physics had to be adulterated with smatterings of apologist nonsense.
Although, admittedly, the questions posed are very interesting, thought-provoking and undeniably challenging.
The problem with this book is the 'God' it addresses and defends is the deist God. And the 'God' that the atheists refute is the religious Big Brother version, the old sky-daddy with a morbid obsession over what we humans do naked. This book too explicitly refutes that notion of God, which is what the New Atheism movement is predominantly doing. So this book, in effect, is defending what nobody is attacking, i.e the deist God, or the germ of creation... the origin of the universe, if you will.
The worst feature of this book is the recurring 'hey guys, look, this man was an awfully clever scientist who made awfully smart discoveries in science and was also religious!... gee, ain't that great?' parts that follow after the author talks about a scientist's contributions to science.
It was an interesting read, nonetheless. Shame, that an interesting account of the progress of scientific thinking and physics had to be adulterated with smatterings of apologist nonsense.
August 31, 2016
Short version: I want to believe Aczel's arguments. However, some of the inaccuracies in nonscientific areas made me wonder if he was trustworthy in the science.
Full Review
THE GOOD
Aczel devotes chapters to quantum theory, string theory, probability, chaos theory, and much more. Each time, he examines the New Atheists' claim, explains the scientific theory involved, and then shows where the logic of atheists' claims falls short. In so doing, Aczel quotes other scientists, some believers and some what we might call "friendly" atheists, to show that the loud claims of the New Atheists are far from being universally acclaimed by the scientific community.
In each case, he logically shows that a zealously pursued agenda is sullying the beauty of pure scientific truth.
I especially liked the way that Aczel didn't strive to "recruit" scientists to his cause. He simply would point out when a fair minded scientist was leaving open the possibility that science didn't have every fact locked down and God locked out. This was often really helpful in showing the methods of New Atheist scientists who were determinedly tweaking interpretations to support their own agenda.
THE BAD
"But wait," I can hear you thinking. "Anyone who punches holes in the reasoning of so many atheists in order to stand up for the idea of God must have a vested interest. Right? Surely he's Christian."
Good news, everyone!
Aczel is so far from being a Christian or even a theist, as far as I can tell, that he just tosses out shallow sound-bytes of pop-history "everyone knows" about religion and, indeed, European history. A lot of the time it's unspecific, inaccurate, and pounds the church whenever possible for being closed minded. So no need to worry that he's on our side and just sticking it to the (science) man for the sake of his faith.
I'm not gonna lie. If you know about religion and history, you are going to do some serious eye rolling. And possibly have to struggle to not get insulted over some of Aczel's unthinking simplifications.
In many ways I enjoyed Aczel's early chapters about the development of science and religion. His comments about the rise of nature cults as people noticed more cause and effect prompted me to think of God using that way to speak to the earliest people through his creation, nature. I liked that image. However, I often struggled to give Aczel the benefit of the doubt, such as when he linked the Virgin Mary to fertility goddess worship. Perhaps, I thought, he was completely leaning on anthropological thinking in these instances.
My assumption was ruined by the next paragraph when he said that Catholic saints "resemble the Greek and Roman pantheons—each saintÌýwith powers and a specialty similar to a god." A good anthropologist would know that is not how Catholic saints were viewed in the past or present. (I can't help that we all seem to know some random Catholic lady who treats St. Francis just the way Aczel mentions. That lady? She's in the same state as Richard Dawkins. Uninformed. I expect more from a book like this.)
I also expect more than this unthinking historical gloss from a book like this.
Historians like Paul Johnson, Regine Pernoud, and others have pointed out lately that what "everybody knows" about the Renaissance, the Dark Ages and the Middle ages is often quite wrong. When only the Renaissance guys are left to define how things fall out, guess who's going to come out smelling like roses? In fact, this is well enough known that pop culture sites like Cracked have been telling us about it (, ).
THE QUESTION
And that brings us to the bad news. With such unthinking inaccuracies, can we trust the science?
That is a question only other unbiased scientists can answer. And I'd love to hear from some because, I admit, I wanna believe.
Aczel makes a great case for shallow, inaccurate, and tweaked science being used by the New Atheists. I didn't get the feeling that Aczel is out to get religion. I just felt that he didn't care enough about the religious side of the story to look any deeper. I really wish that someone, anyone, who cared about religion and history had taken a look at this book before it went to press.
I am trusting that Aczel's stated goal of restoring scientific integrity is one that he cares passionately enough about to treat these subjects with integrity about details. After all, his peers are going to be zinging him about this book if they don't agree.
On that basis, I am recommending it as a way to understand the false claims that are being made by people with atheist agendas. As a course in logic, it is superb and that is also a good reason to read it.
NOTE: This was a free review book. I think we can all agree I didn't let that fact influence my review.
Full Review
THE GOOD
The purpose of this book is to defend the integrity of science.Amir d. Aczel, mathematician and science journalist, was on stage listening to prominent biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins when he decided he'd had enough of hearing atheists misuse mathematics and science for their own agenda. The result is this book which examines the New Atheists' claims that scientific progress has proven God does not exist.
Aczel devotes chapters to quantum theory, string theory, probability, chaos theory, and much more. Each time, he examines the New Atheists' claim, explains the scientific theory involved, and then shows where the logic of atheists' claims falls short. In so doing, Aczel quotes other scientists, some believers and some what we might call "friendly" atheists, to show that the loud claims of the New Atheists are far from being universally acclaimed by the scientific community.
In each case, he logically shows that a zealously pursued agenda is sullying the beauty of pure scientific truth.
I especially liked the way that Aczel didn't strive to "recruit" scientists to his cause. He simply would point out when a fair minded scientist was leaving open the possibility that science didn't have every fact locked down and God locked out. This was often really helpful in showing the methods of New Atheist scientists who were determinedly tweaking interpretations to support their own agenda.
THE BAD
"But wait," I can hear you thinking. "Anyone who punches holes in the reasoning of so many atheists in order to stand up for the idea of God must have a vested interest. Right? Surely he's Christian."
Good news, everyone!
Aczel is so far from being a Christian or even a theist, as far as I can tell, that he just tosses out shallow sound-bytes of pop-history "everyone knows" about religion and, indeed, European history. A lot of the time it's unspecific, inaccurate, and pounds the church whenever possible for being closed minded. So no need to worry that he's on our side and just sticking it to the (science) man for the sake of his faith.
I'm not gonna lie. If you know about religion and history, you are going to do some serious eye rolling. And possibly have to struggle to not get insulted over some of Aczel's unthinking simplifications.
In many ways I enjoyed Aczel's early chapters about the development of science and religion. His comments about the rise of nature cults as people noticed more cause and effect prompted me to think of God using that way to speak to the earliest people through his creation, nature. I liked that image. However, I often struggled to give Aczel the benefit of the doubt, such as when he linked the Virgin Mary to fertility goddess worship. Perhaps, I thought, he was completely leaning on anthropological thinking in these instances.
My assumption was ruined by the next paragraph when he said that Catholic saints "resemble the Greek and Roman pantheons—each saintÌýwith powers and a specialty similar to a god." A good anthropologist would know that is not how Catholic saints were viewed in the past or present. (I can't help that we all seem to know some random Catholic lady who treats St. Francis just the way Aczel mentions. That lady? She's in the same state as Richard Dawkins. Uninformed. I expect more from a book like this.)
I also expect more than this unthinking historical gloss from a book like this.
When this great culture [Greek civilization] declined and the Western world sank into the Dark Ages, Scripture assumed the role of the explanation of truth, and freethinking was shunned. This mode of thought continued through the late Middle Ages, when except for the development of crude notions about medicine ... there were few attempts to pursue science. Deviations from established belief were not tolerated in a culture dominated by the church and Catholic Monarchs. Simply put, the "order of things" was not up for debate.Right. Albert the Great who helped develop experimental science, Roger Bacon (a friar) who helped develop the empirical scientific method, all those Catholic universities and scholars and scientists. Pfft. Forget about them!
Historians like Paul Johnson, Regine Pernoud, and others have pointed out lately that what "everybody knows" about the Renaissance, the Dark Ages and the Middle ages is often quite wrong. When only the Renaissance guys are left to define how things fall out, guess who's going to come out smelling like roses? In fact, this is well enough known that pop culture sites like Cracked have been telling us about it (, ).
THE QUESTION
And that brings us to the bad news. With such unthinking inaccuracies, can we trust the science?
That is a question only other unbiased scientists can answer. And I'd love to hear from some because, I admit, I wanna believe.
Aczel makes a great case for shallow, inaccurate, and tweaked science being used by the New Atheists. I didn't get the feeling that Aczel is out to get religion. I just felt that he didn't care enough about the religious side of the story to look any deeper. I really wish that someone, anyone, who cared about religion and history had taken a look at this book before it went to press.
I am trusting that Aczel's stated goal of restoring scientific integrity is one that he cares passionately enough about to treat these subjects with integrity about details. After all, his peers are going to be zinging him about this book if they don't agree.
On that basis, I am recommending it as a way to understand the false claims that are being made by people with atheist agendas. As a course in logic, it is superb and that is also a good reason to read it.
NOTE: This was a free review book. I think we can all agree I didn't let that fact influence my review.
June 10, 2014
Distinguished mathematician pulls the science rug out from under New Atheists.
Professor gives New Atheists a failing grade in science.
Science historian sends New Atheists back to the drawing board.
I can't decide which sentence would make the best lead for this review. In this book, Aczel, the math PH.D. and prolific science author, takes on New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Lawrence Krauss to task for misusing science to advance their ¨God is not real¨ message.
Aczel's position is basically, ¨I know science. Science is a friend of mine. You're no scientist.¨ He writes chapters on archaeology, the Big Bang, quantum physics, the pre-Big Bang ¨nothingness,¨ the multiverse, probability, chaos, the anthropic principle (he's not a fan), evolution, consciousness, and infinity. In every case Aczel finds that the New Atheists misunderstand or misapply science to push their anti-God agenda. Aczel's position on God's existence is agnostic. He does not take a position that science proves the absolute reality of God. But following the rules of science he must admit that science does show that there could be a God.
Some of my favorite passages from the book include the following . . .
¨So while it is ignorant and unscientific to fail to recognize that evolution is a powerful principle that often explains what we see in the biological sphere, it is equally unjustified to assume that evolution is a perfect theory that explains everything. A theory that cannot produce excellent predictions of future outcomes and phenomena is not a complete theory.¨
¨Science is dispassionate, rational, a logical search for facts and truths abut nature and the universe around us. It is the pursuit of the laws of nature, with no agendas to push for any philosophy about who created these laws. But the New Atheists, who claim to speak for science, are more like religious evangelists bent on converting us to their narrow point of view that God does not exist.¨
¨This notion of emergence is one that has been addressed in philosophy, but never explained well by science. We don't know how a universe emerged. We don't know how from chaos and fuzziness and unworldly behavior of the quantum, the structured universe of macro objects we see around us came about, with its causality, locality, and definiteness -- none of which are characteristics of the quantum realm. We don't know how self-replicating life emerged from inanimate objects. And we don't know how and why and at exactly what point in evolution human consciousness became a reality. The inexplicability of such emergent phenomena is the reason why we cannot disprove the idea of some creative power behind everything we experience around us -- at least not at our present state of knowledge.¨
¨We think of the universe as governed by strict logical laws, but in fact quantum theory, and ideas in pure mathematics, are not based only on logic. (German genius mathematician Georg) Cantor's work was governed by psychology almost as much as logic. It is here that we see the human mind transcending the rational and the straightforward. Our minds are based on essentials that go beyond the mechanistic and the evolutionary: they have something extra that allows them to do amazing things that computers, and dogs, and monkeys, cannot. I believe that this mysterious extra element inside our brains -- such as the ability Cantor possessed for dealing with the immense concept of infinity -- is related to the divine.¨
¨We don't fully understand what space is made of, and what the elements of physical space are and how they are stacked together. We don't know the level of infinity of the real line and whether the mathematical line has the properties pf physical space. We don't know how space and time were created. We don't know what time really is. We don't know what caused the Big Bang. And we don't know who or what created God. What we do know is that the universe did not come out of the void all by itself: something preceded the Big Bang, and that ¨something¨ is unreachable to our science and may well remain so forever. We know that by strange and mysterious mechanism all the constants of nature turned out to be exactly as they need to be for life to emerge, and the alternatives to a divine control that effected these incredibly unlikely conditions are no more likely than is the existence of God.¨
Professor gives New Atheists a failing grade in science.
Science historian sends New Atheists back to the drawing board.
I can't decide which sentence would make the best lead for this review. In this book, Aczel, the math PH.D. and prolific science author, takes on New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Lawrence Krauss to task for misusing science to advance their ¨God is not real¨ message.
Aczel's position is basically, ¨I know science. Science is a friend of mine. You're no scientist.¨ He writes chapters on archaeology, the Big Bang, quantum physics, the pre-Big Bang ¨nothingness,¨ the multiverse, probability, chaos, the anthropic principle (he's not a fan), evolution, consciousness, and infinity. In every case Aczel finds that the New Atheists misunderstand or misapply science to push their anti-God agenda. Aczel's position on God's existence is agnostic. He does not take a position that science proves the absolute reality of God. But following the rules of science he must admit that science does show that there could be a God.
Some of my favorite passages from the book include the following . . .
¨So while it is ignorant and unscientific to fail to recognize that evolution is a powerful principle that often explains what we see in the biological sphere, it is equally unjustified to assume that evolution is a perfect theory that explains everything. A theory that cannot produce excellent predictions of future outcomes and phenomena is not a complete theory.¨
¨Science is dispassionate, rational, a logical search for facts and truths abut nature and the universe around us. It is the pursuit of the laws of nature, with no agendas to push for any philosophy about who created these laws. But the New Atheists, who claim to speak for science, are more like religious evangelists bent on converting us to their narrow point of view that God does not exist.¨
¨This notion of emergence is one that has been addressed in philosophy, but never explained well by science. We don't know how a universe emerged. We don't know how from chaos and fuzziness and unworldly behavior of the quantum, the structured universe of macro objects we see around us came about, with its causality, locality, and definiteness -- none of which are characteristics of the quantum realm. We don't know how self-replicating life emerged from inanimate objects. And we don't know how and why and at exactly what point in evolution human consciousness became a reality. The inexplicability of such emergent phenomena is the reason why we cannot disprove the idea of some creative power behind everything we experience around us -- at least not at our present state of knowledge.¨
¨We think of the universe as governed by strict logical laws, but in fact quantum theory, and ideas in pure mathematics, are not based only on logic. (German genius mathematician Georg) Cantor's work was governed by psychology almost as much as logic. It is here that we see the human mind transcending the rational and the straightforward. Our minds are based on essentials that go beyond the mechanistic and the evolutionary: they have something extra that allows them to do amazing things that computers, and dogs, and monkeys, cannot. I believe that this mysterious extra element inside our brains -- such as the ability Cantor possessed for dealing with the immense concept of infinity -- is related to the divine.¨
¨We don't fully understand what space is made of, and what the elements of physical space are and how they are stacked together. We don't know the level of infinity of the real line and whether the mathematical line has the properties pf physical space. We don't know how space and time were created. We don't know what time really is. We don't know what caused the Big Bang. And we don't know who or what created God. What we do know is that the universe did not come out of the void all by itself: something preceded the Big Bang, and that ¨something¨ is unreachable to our science and may well remain so forever. We know that by strange and mysterious mechanism all the constants of nature turned out to be exactly as they need to be for life to emerge, and the alternatives to a divine control that effected these incredibly unlikely conditions are no more likely than is the existence of God.¨
February 2, 2022
A book that debates many new atheist claims in good faith and gives the reader a look into how science (especially quantum physics) has often been abused by philosophical agendas of staunch atheists. One of the only books with the intersecting topics of science and spirituality I’d recommend to serious atheists and theists alike.
March 22, 2022
... because it can't.
March 5, 2018
Why Science Does Not Disprove God, written by Amir D. Aczel, who appears to be a respected scientist himself, does exactly what the title suggests. “I have not proved the existence of God in any shape or form, and this has obviously not been my purpose�, writes Aczel in his last chapter. “What I aimed to do was to argue—convincingly, I hope—that science has not disproved the existence of God.� Aczel does this by taking apart the arguments of a group of scientists and intellectuals he calls “New Atheists� and demonstrates that science and mathematics have not, and may never be able to, prove that there is no God or that there cannot be a God. He notes again in his last chapter, “As we have seen through our discussion of mathematics, physics, cosmology, biology, genetics, brain and cognitive science, and evolution, science has severe limitations when it comes to determining the existence of God. Mathematically, it has been proved definitively that there are always facts within any mathematical structure that will remain forever outside our understanding, outside our knowledge, outside our reach�. We are unable to explain even conceptually simply properties of physical constants needed for life to occur in the universe. This is a huge failing of science�.� Ultimately, for me, Aczel’s book demonstrates that there are cogent, rational, believable, reliable, and difficult to refute (he says impossible to refute) arguments against the ability of science and mathematics to prove that God does not or cannot exist.
This book is very accessible to the average, if well-educated, reader. I am a social scientist by training and vocation, having spent 34 years as a university professor training and teaching undergraduate, masters, and doctoral students and publishing dozens of scholarly articles. I struggled to understand some of his discussion of, for example, quantum physics, but he made it and other arguments as accessible as he could for his readers.
I am also a Believer in God, in my instance, a Christian with membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka, Mormons. I stand with those scientists whom Aczel notes are “leading scientists� (I am certainly not one of them but can stand with them) and dispute the claim of the New Atheists that “the vast majority of prominent scientists are not religious.� My own religion is not anti-science. Indeed the current leader of my faith is a respected scientist who has noted at the dedication of a life-science building at a university owned and operated by the church that: “This university is committed to search for truth and teach the truth. All truth is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether truth comes from a scientific laboratory or by revelation from the Lord, it is all compatible.� He further noted that: “Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both.� The New Atheists seem to imply, according to Aczel, that the very best scientists are not religious and therefore us common folk are foolish to adhere to any faith in a God. This demonstrates a lack of understanding in the diversity, richness, and depth of religions world-wide.
Whether a believer in God or a budding “New Atheist�, intellectually curious readers will find this book informative, thought-provoking, and highly readable.
This book is very accessible to the average, if well-educated, reader. I am a social scientist by training and vocation, having spent 34 years as a university professor training and teaching undergraduate, masters, and doctoral students and publishing dozens of scholarly articles. I struggled to understand some of his discussion of, for example, quantum physics, but he made it and other arguments as accessible as he could for his readers.
I am also a Believer in God, in my instance, a Christian with membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka, Mormons. I stand with those scientists whom Aczel notes are “leading scientists� (I am certainly not one of them but can stand with them) and dispute the claim of the New Atheists that “the vast majority of prominent scientists are not religious.� My own religion is not anti-science. Indeed the current leader of my faith is a respected scientist who has noted at the dedication of a life-science building at a university owned and operated by the church that: “This university is committed to search for truth and teach the truth. All truth is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether truth comes from a scientific laboratory or by revelation from the Lord, it is all compatible.� He further noted that: “Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both.� The New Atheists seem to imply, according to Aczel, that the very best scientists are not religious and therefore us common folk are foolish to adhere to any faith in a God. This demonstrates a lack of understanding in the diversity, richness, and depth of religions world-wide.
Whether a believer in God or a budding “New Atheist�, intellectually curious readers will find this book informative, thought-provoking, and highly readable.
April 26, 2021
I think some of the finer details went over my head, but overall it was easy to read and made a good case.
April 26, 2017
This book is basically about the unacknowledged cognitive biases of various "New Atheists," and what basic physical processes are unknown to science or perhaps cannot be known. My review can't really do the book justice, so I recommend reading it yourself.
Commenting on a book like this tends to draw a lot of troll comments, so let me start with other books I've reviewed that were either cited by the author or helpful in understanding this book:
Black Holes and Baby Universes (Stephen Hawking)
The Universe in a Nutshell (Hawking)
The Grand Design (Hawking)
The Hidden Reality (Brian Greene)
The Fabric of the Cosmos (Greene)
The Elegant Universe (Greene)
The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins)
Letter to a Christian Nation (Sam Harris)
Arrival (Andreas Wagner)
The Misbehavior of Markets (Benoit Mandelbrot, polymath and apparently friends with Aczel. Chaos theory.)
Not cited but helpful:
The Trouble with Physics (Lee Smolin, arguments against the cult of string theory from a quantum loop gravity physicist.)
The Accidental Universe (Alan Lightman, physicist armchair philosopher who is critical of Hawkins but has his own logical fallacies.)
Randomness in Evolution (John Tyler Bonner, slime mold biologist who argues natural selection is far less important than randomness.)
First Life (David Deamer, mix of astrophysics and biology)
Can a Darwinian be a Christian? (Michael Ruse, philosopher asking questions of consciousness and such.)
I Don't Believe in Atheists (Chris Hedges, also debated Hitchens and Harris; familiar with Aczel's arguments.)
The Quest for Meaning (Great Courses lectures by Dr. Robert H. Kane based on his book The Significance of Free Will. A history of philosophy that also asks what "values" are and has a response to postmodernists who argue nothing has objective value.)
The Reason for God (Tim Keller)
Reasonable Faith (William Lane Craig)
Aczel has a Masters in Mathematics with a PhD in Statistics and an interest in physics, having written books on the discovery of the Higgs Boson among other things. He can explain every issue below much more lucidly than I can, but the book is addressed to the same lay audience that the New Atheists write to. Aczel debated Dawkins and found his misuse of mathematics and lack of training in logic disturbing. He's also dialogued with Andreas Wagner and engaged in a TV interview review of one of Brian Greene's books, which went sour when Greene got evasive with his answers on string theory and a multiverse or would not concede Aczel's point. Aczel has similar problems with Harris' and Lawrence Krauss' books, finding outright errors. Krauss boasts that quantum mechanics gives the reason for the universe's existence but Aczel shows that quantum mechanics "says no such thing." He notes Richard Feynman never claimed such a thing (and claimed those who claim to understand quantum mechanics do not understand quantum mechanics).
On the origins of the universe and string theory, Greene, Hawking, and others fall back on "well, the math says so, so I trust the math." (Aczel's work was written before Greene's later work, The Hidden Reality, positing that we are probably just zeros and ones living in a video game like The Sims, or maybe a video game inside another video game, infinite regression.) These cosmologists put a lot of faith in ideas that are impossible to test and therefore, by definition, not actually science. (Hawking, for example, in The Universe in a Nutshell admits it would take a Hadron collider larger than the entire universe to test aspects of string theory.)
What bothers Aczel is that Krauss and Dawkins can believe we are all just randomly assembled molecules yet make claims about truth and morality. If we are just randomly assembled particles that will again be scattered, how can a Dawkins or Krauss say it's wrong if I scattered his molecules before the synapses in his brain might personally desire them to be scattered. Philosophy matters (see Dr. Kane's lecture series above).
The author, born in Israel, pivots to specific issues dealing with religious artifacts, giving a brief history of religion. He seems to be of no particular religious bent himself, but rather argues that religion has been a central part of man's history and a motivating factor for examining and explaining surroundings. He takes issue with Hitchens' claim that there is "no proof" that any of the stories of the Bible happened, walking through a list of plenty of archaeological finds from Old and New Testaments ranging from Jericho to Pontius Pilate, showing that these historical places and people were discovered by archaeologists after after skeptics had long claimed they were fiction.
Aczel gives examples of how Krauss and Dawkins quote scientists like Gould and Einstein's thoughts about the possibility of a God out of context in an attempt to reinterpret them as more militantly atheist than the context could possibly allow. They apparently feel some obligation to be apologists for previous scientists who were not militant atheists. He gives little time to the idea of a multiverse, noting that physics who do real science believe in a Big Bang, a beginning. The multiverse cannot be tested and by the definition of science Krauss and Dawkins state their belief in must be relegated to the metaphysical. He is on good grounds with other physicists in this regard.
The author also makes important points about uncertainty, which Dawkins seems to believe can't exist. Science is a constant process of hypothesizing and testing. There are a lot of facts taught about the universe in the 1950s that are no longer believed true today, and some of what we "know" will also be proven. Hence, we all need to be epistemologically humble.
Aczel is also friends with Benoit Mandelbrot, the father of fractal geometry, and discusses chaos theory; small changes can have very far-reaching consequences that are difficult to predict. To quote Sardar and Abrams, chaos is: "the occurence of aperiodic, apparently random events in a deterministic system. In chaos there is order and in order there lies chaos. The two are more interconnected than we ever thought before." Chaos entails uncertainty. A process like evolution or the expansion of the universe might appear deterministic, but it involves events that cannot be predicted and feed back on the deterministic process.
Further, Aczel goes into the anthropic principal-- the universe exists the way it does because we are here and able to observe it. He looks at the various cosmological constants for our universe for which no one can explain why they are fine-tuned as they are. The multiverse believer will simply say this universe is one of an infinite number and we just happen to exist such as in order to see it. But, again, the multiverse is of the realm of metaphysics and not actual science. One ignores the fine-tuning argument with some difficulty.
As a mathematician, the author is disturbed by the flippant use of infinity by various parties arguing against God. Once you inject infinity into an equation, you can prove whatever you want. Similarly, non-mathematicians like Dawkins use the word "nothing," as in "the universe came from nothing" in a way that deceivingly does not mean the null set-- the state of absolute nothingness. Rather, they mean a state where a certain level of radiation exists or some other conditions. This is also problematic, it allows them to dodge the question of how something could possibly come from nothing-- they don't mean the same "nothing" that a philosopher would. Anselm solved the problem for the theist-- God is the ultimate necessary being. Aczel also critiques Dawkins use of stats, giving concrete examples from Dawkins books in which he makes elementary errors.
Aczel turns to Darwin, the theory of natural selection, and the Darwinism purported by many New Atheists. Evolution can explain processes that we see but, unlike theories in physics, can make no predictions and thus is an incomplete theory. Scientists still lack a mechanism to explain why and how evolution occurs. For example, how and when did cells realize that light and sound waves contained valuable information, such that they developed mechanisms to receive and process that information? (If Darwinist John Tyler Bonner is correct and it has much more to do with randomness than most Darwinists give it credit for, then imagine the odds that you can see, hear, and taste today.) I read an article last week that scientists have discovered plants-- non-sentient beings-- are able to sense vibrations of water and this is why they grow their roots to and through pipes.
How did those cells get lucky enough to sense this, store that trait in their DNA and pass it to ancestors? Aczel is no believer in the young earth of Ken Ham, but seems to argue that these lucky processes evolved us to today in a much shorter time than would seem possible. (Remember, the metaphysical idea that we're in just one of an infinite multiverses has no proof and no ability to be tested. Besides, it leads back to the problem of the New Atheists defining morality.)
One of the final problems Aczel examines is the idea of consciousness. What is it, where does it come from? What are the implications for artificial intelligence? I read an article last month about how leading scientists still don't understand consciousness and how the brain is still able to do some processes better than the most advanced AI. A computer program consists of algorithms and choices based on probability. Consciousness, however, involves senses, emotions, chemical reactions, etc. Every book I've seen on the human mind has an author marveling at how much scientists still don't know. Aczel basically adds reasons people should be skeptical of the promise of artificial intelligence.
A good scientist recognizes that "some truths are unattainable." Aczel's book makes foolish all those who preach that they alone are not fools.
The book is better than my review. 4 stars.
Note, in reviewing this book I discovered the NY Times obituary for Aczel from 2015.
Commenting on a book like this tends to draw a lot of troll comments, so let me start with other books I've reviewed that were either cited by the author or helpful in understanding this book:
Black Holes and Baby Universes (Stephen Hawking)
The Universe in a Nutshell (Hawking)
The Grand Design (Hawking)
The Hidden Reality (Brian Greene)
The Fabric of the Cosmos (Greene)
The Elegant Universe (Greene)
The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins)
Letter to a Christian Nation (Sam Harris)
Arrival (Andreas Wagner)
The Misbehavior of Markets (Benoit Mandelbrot, polymath and apparently friends with Aczel. Chaos theory.)
Not cited but helpful:
The Trouble with Physics (Lee Smolin, arguments against the cult of string theory from a quantum loop gravity physicist.)
The Accidental Universe (Alan Lightman, physicist armchair philosopher who is critical of Hawkins but has his own logical fallacies.)
Randomness in Evolution (John Tyler Bonner, slime mold biologist who argues natural selection is far less important than randomness.)
First Life (David Deamer, mix of astrophysics and biology)
Can a Darwinian be a Christian? (Michael Ruse, philosopher asking questions of consciousness and such.)
I Don't Believe in Atheists (Chris Hedges, also debated Hitchens and Harris; familiar with Aczel's arguments.)
The Quest for Meaning (Great Courses lectures by Dr. Robert H. Kane based on his book The Significance of Free Will. A history of philosophy that also asks what "values" are and has a response to postmodernists who argue nothing has objective value.)
The Reason for God (Tim Keller)
Reasonable Faith (William Lane Craig)
Aczel has a Masters in Mathematics with a PhD in Statistics and an interest in physics, having written books on the discovery of the Higgs Boson among other things. He can explain every issue below much more lucidly than I can, but the book is addressed to the same lay audience that the New Atheists write to. Aczel debated Dawkins and found his misuse of mathematics and lack of training in logic disturbing. He's also dialogued with Andreas Wagner and engaged in a TV interview review of one of Brian Greene's books, which went sour when Greene got evasive with his answers on string theory and a multiverse or would not concede Aczel's point. Aczel has similar problems with Harris' and Lawrence Krauss' books, finding outright errors. Krauss boasts that quantum mechanics gives the reason for the universe's existence but Aczel shows that quantum mechanics "says no such thing." He notes Richard Feynman never claimed such a thing (and claimed those who claim to understand quantum mechanics do not understand quantum mechanics).
On the origins of the universe and string theory, Greene, Hawking, and others fall back on "well, the math says so, so I trust the math." (Aczel's work was written before Greene's later work, The Hidden Reality, positing that we are probably just zeros and ones living in a video game like The Sims, or maybe a video game inside another video game, infinite regression.) These cosmologists put a lot of faith in ideas that are impossible to test and therefore, by definition, not actually science. (Hawking, for example, in The Universe in a Nutshell admits it would take a Hadron collider larger than the entire universe to test aspects of string theory.)
What bothers Aczel is that Krauss and Dawkins can believe we are all just randomly assembled molecules yet make claims about truth and morality. If we are just randomly assembled particles that will again be scattered, how can a Dawkins or Krauss say it's wrong if I scattered his molecules before the synapses in his brain might personally desire them to be scattered. Philosophy matters (see Dr. Kane's lecture series above).
The author, born in Israel, pivots to specific issues dealing with religious artifacts, giving a brief history of religion. He seems to be of no particular religious bent himself, but rather argues that religion has been a central part of man's history and a motivating factor for examining and explaining surroundings. He takes issue with Hitchens' claim that there is "no proof" that any of the stories of the Bible happened, walking through a list of plenty of archaeological finds from Old and New Testaments ranging from Jericho to Pontius Pilate, showing that these historical places and people were discovered by archaeologists after after skeptics had long claimed they were fiction.
Aczel gives examples of how Krauss and Dawkins quote scientists like Gould and Einstein's thoughts about the possibility of a God out of context in an attempt to reinterpret them as more militantly atheist than the context could possibly allow. They apparently feel some obligation to be apologists for previous scientists who were not militant atheists. He gives little time to the idea of a multiverse, noting that physics who do real science believe in a Big Bang, a beginning. The multiverse cannot be tested and by the definition of science Krauss and Dawkins state their belief in must be relegated to the metaphysical. He is on good grounds with other physicists in this regard.
The author also makes important points about uncertainty, which Dawkins seems to believe can't exist. Science is a constant process of hypothesizing and testing. There are a lot of facts taught about the universe in the 1950s that are no longer believed true today, and some of what we "know" will also be proven. Hence, we all need to be epistemologically humble.
Aczel is also friends with Benoit Mandelbrot, the father of fractal geometry, and discusses chaos theory; small changes can have very far-reaching consequences that are difficult to predict. To quote Sardar and Abrams, chaos is: "the occurence of aperiodic, apparently random events in a deterministic system. In chaos there is order and in order there lies chaos. The two are more interconnected than we ever thought before." Chaos entails uncertainty. A process like evolution or the expansion of the universe might appear deterministic, but it involves events that cannot be predicted and feed back on the deterministic process.
Further, Aczel goes into the anthropic principal-- the universe exists the way it does because we are here and able to observe it. He looks at the various cosmological constants for our universe for which no one can explain why they are fine-tuned as they are. The multiverse believer will simply say this universe is one of an infinite number and we just happen to exist such as in order to see it. But, again, the multiverse is of the realm of metaphysics and not actual science. One ignores the fine-tuning argument with some difficulty.
As a mathematician, the author is disturbed by the flippant use of infinity by various parties arguing against God. Once you inject infinity into an equation, you can prove whatever you want. Similarly, non-mathematicians like Dawkins use the word "nothing," as in "the universe came from nothing" in a way that deceivingly does not mean the null set-- the state of absolute nothingness. Rather, they mean a state where a certain level of radiation exists or some other conditions. This is also problematic, it allows them to dodge the question of how something could possibly come from nothing-- they don't mean the same "nothing" that a philosopher would. Anselm solved the problem for the theist-- God is the ultimate necessary being. Aczel also critiques Dawkins use of stats, giving concrete examples from Dawkins books in which he makes elementary errors.
Aczel turns to Darwin, the theory of natural selection, and the Darwinism purported by many New Atheists. Evolution can explain processes that we see but, unlike theories in physics, can make no predictions and thus is an incomplete theory. Scientists still lack a mechanism to explain why and how evolution occurs. For example, how and when did cells realize that light and sound waves contained valuable information, such that they developed mechanisms to receive and process that information? (If Darwinist John Tyler Bonner is correct and it has much more to do with randomness than most Darwinists give it credit for, then imagine the odds that you can see, hear, and taste today.) I read an article last week that scientists have discovered plants-- non-sentient beings-- are able to sense vibrations of water and this is why they grow their roots to and through pipes.
How did those cells get lucky enough to sense this, store that trait in their DNA and pass it to ancestors? Aczel is no believer in the young earth of Ken Ham, but seems to argue that these lucky processes evolved us to today in a much shorter time than would seem possible. (Remember, the metaphysical idea that we're in just one of an infinite multiverses has no proof and no ability to be tested. Besides, it leads back to the problem of the New Atheists defining morality.)
One of the final problems Aczel examines is the idea of consciousness. What is it, where does it come from? What are the implications for artificial intelligence? I read an article last month about how leading scientists still don't understand consciousness and how the brain is still able to do some processes better than the most advanced AI. A computer program consists of algorithms and choices based on probability. Consciousness, however, involves senses, emotions, chemical reactions, etc. Every book I've seen on the human mind has an author marveling at how much scientists still don't know. Aczel basically adds reasons people should be skeptical of the promise of artificial intelligence.
A good scientist recognizes that "some truths are unattainable." Aczel's book makes foolish all those who preach that they alone are not fools.
The book is better than my review. 4 stars.
Note, in reviewing this book I discovered the NY Times obituary for Aczel from 2015.
December 25, 2014
After reading the majority of this incredibly easy read in a single day (I have about two chapters left) I feel as though the best way to describe this book in a phrase is "hindsight's 20/20." I found the book to be far more compelling than I originally anticipated, and while I concur with the general premise, the author does little to convince anyone of it. The arguments within really rely upon a fundamental fallacy that by correlating historical examples with modern phenomenon, we can validate theories. A stunning example of this rather simple-minded fallacy is when the author compares early human's basic appeals to spiritual forces with the modern knowledge of the forces of physics (such as the weak force). While it may be comforting to make this claim, it is simply an impossibility that is founded only on our modern knowledge and ability to look into the past. These correlations which pop up throughout the book prove nothing and only show the author's flawed attempt to reconcile correlation with causation--a common mistake, granted, but I expected more from someone with so much academic clout.
The book left me wanting more. Every chapter was filled with quotes and detailed quips that showed the author's incredible ability to draw upon a pool of well developed knowledge. However, he only wades into shallow waters, never venturing to flesh out his claims. Consequently, he often falls prey to the exact same things he criticizes. He opines deeply, overwhelming with facts, statistics, and data only to conclude little more than rushed opinions pulled form seemingly nowhere. His logical progression is weak, and although his foundational data often seems grounded, his conclusions aren't. I was often waiting for stunning conclusions and new concepts, but was let down every time as he trailed off into subtle nods and winks toward religious fantasies as if he were leading us down a mystery novella.
At least one chapter dealing with archeology and the Bible is an entire straw man argument. He claims to be countering atheistic arguments disputing the archeological evidence for Biblical stories, but he never actually refutes the exact atheistic arguments that are commonly made. Instead, he cites historical and archeological facts that no one beyond a few extremists has ever disputed. It's well known that the various nations and factions and kings of the Bible were quite real. Atheists often take no issue here; rather the dispute deals more with events such as the "great flood" or Herod's "slaughter of the innocents": There is no evidence for these (and many other cornerstone) events. Saying that because David was a real king with an actual legacy the Bible is therefore true is false; all this does is show that the various authors of the Bible had knowledge of the cultures about which they wrote. Anyone can write nonsense fiction incorporating real societies and celebrities, and doing so adds no truth to the narrative. Aside from admonishing in various places literalists, the author never once directly counters these atheistic arguments about the historical veracity of events within the Bible.
Building upon that, I wish Aczel would stick to what he knows best: Science. The history here is fine for basic background, but he draws upon his flawed understanding of it far too often for a book about science. Claiming that science does not disprove god because historically, it grew out of religious studies serves no purpose.
All in all, I was impressed with the scope, but disappointed in the depth. This is a valiant attempt, but not one that will stand in court. It does little to forward this argument beyond perhaps raising it to a more level headed plane...which, come to think of it, probably isn't such a failure after all.
The book left me wanting more. Every chapter was filled with quotes and detailed quips that showed the author's incredible ability to draw upon a pool of well developed knowledge. However, he only wades into shallow waters, never venturing to flesh out his claims. Consequently, he often falls prey to the exact same things he criticizes. He opines deeply, overwhelming with facts, statistics, and data only to conclude little more than rushed opinions pulled form seemingly nowhere. His logical progression is weak, and although his foundational data often seems grounded, his conclusions aren't. I was often waiting for stunning conclusions and new concepts, but was let down every time as he trailed off into subtle nods and winks toward religious fantasies as if he were leading us down a mystery novella.
At least one chapter dealing with archeology and the Bible is an entire straw man argument. He claims to be countering atheistic arguments disputing the archeological evidence for Biblical stories, but he never actually refutes the exact atheistic arguments that are commonly made. Instead, he cites historical and archeological facts that no one beyond a few extremists has ever disputed. It's well known that the various nations and factions and kings of the Bible were quite real. Atheists often take no issue here; rather the dispute deals more with events such as the "great flood" or Herod's "slaughter of the innocents": There is no evidence for these (and many other cornerstone) events. Saying that because David was a real king with an actual legacy the Bible is therefore true is false; all this does is show that the various authors of the Bible had knowledge of the cultures about which they wrote. Anyone can write nonsense fiction incorporating real societies and celebrities, and doing so adds no truth to the narrative. Aside from admonishing in various places literalists, the author never once directly counters these atheistic arguments about the historical veracity of events within the Bible.
Building upon that, I wish Aczel would stick to what he knows best: Science. The history here is fine for basic background, but he draws upon his flawed understanding of it far too often for a book about science. Claiming that science does not disprove god because historically, it grew out of religious studies serves no purpose.
All in all, I was impressed with the scope, but disappointed in the depth. This is a valiant attempt, but not one that will stand in court. It does little to forward this argument beyond perhaps raising it to a more level headed plane...which, come to think of it, probably isn't such a failure after all.
September 29, 2014
This is a very well written and researched book that gave me more background on quantum physics, as well as many other aspects of science, than I ever imagined (and truthfully, some went over my head). As the author points out, this book wasn't written to prove there IS a God, but rather why science does not disprove an existence of God. It reminded me of a movie from 2008 called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" in which scientists all over the world were blackballed for discussing the possibility of intelligent design. I was alarmed by that notion and didn't see why it was such a big deal. And I always wondered how now more than ever we have such hatred spewed by the likes of people like Richard Dawkins who seem hellbent on proving there is no God. I was comforted in learning that I wasn't imagining all this hatred, and that Dawkins' followers (labeled as the New Atheists) continue to grow. That's why a book like this is so important and geared towards people who truly have the open minds.
Overall, the book is not overly long and can be quite an entertaining read. Aczel does a more than adequate job in writing about complex scientific theories and making them understandable to the common man. My only criticism as some have pointed out in their reviews is the author might not have the deepest understanding of theology being a mathematician. But I didn't see the unnecessary jabs that others mentioned. Quite frankly, when you are taking the approach of showing why science does not disprove God, than science should be at the forefront, which it most certainly is (I found the explanation of set theory in mathematics and how it applies to this question particularly interesting). I'll end with the author's last 3 sentences in the book: "But the pursuit of truth should not be driven by zealous agenda. Nor should it overreach and speak with righteous authority where it's on unsolid ground. That's not science - and let's not allow those who falsely invoke its name to diminish us."
Highly recommend!
Overall, the book is not overly long and can be quite an entertaining read. Aczel does a more than adequate job in writing about complex scientific theories and making them understandable to the common man. My only criticism as some have pointed out in their reviews is the author might not have the deepest understanding of theology being a mathematician. But I didn't see the unnecessary jabs that others mentioned. Quite frankly, when you are taking the approach of showing why science does not disprove God, than science should be at the forefront, which it most certainly is (I found the explanation of set theory in mathematics and how it applies to this question particularly interesting). I'll end with the author's last 3 sentences in the book: "But the pursuit of truth should not be driven by zealous agenda. Nor should it overreach and speak with righteous authority where it's on unsolid ground. That's not science - and let's not allow those who falsely invoke its name to diminish us."
Highly recommend!
October 10, 2020
+1 because it's well written with a lot of fascinating explanations.
-1 because the author lacks any good understanding of the theory of Evolution. It even goes on to say that Evolutionary theory makes no predictions. He should think about that the next time he gets a flu shot.
-1 because the author invokes the god of the gaps argument in basically the whole book.
-1 because the author writes a book assuming that the onus of proof is on the New Atheists to disprove the existence of God. Even if everything in this book was true, Science also cannot disprove the existince of Russell's Teapot, The Invisible Dragon in my Garage, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That in itself is not sufficient reason to believe in it.
-1 because the author fails to even mention that the authors he targets (such as Dawkins, Harris, etc) make a clear distinction between a deist/pantheist God, and a personal theist God that people pray to. Even if there was a God who created the universe, how do we go from that to knowing anything about the God? If the author agrees that we cannot (as he mentions only at the very end of the book, as a brief disclaimer), then why not clearly tell his target audience that this provides absolutely no justification for any of their religious notions of God, or whether he answers prayers, cares about what you do in your bedroom, and so on?
A fitting example of either deliberately missing the point or having an unbelievably high cognitive bias towards preserving belief.
And by the way, another -1 for implying the atheists don't think there's anything awe inspiring and grandiose about the universe. But it seemed unfair to give the book 0 stars.
-1 because the author lacks any good understanding of the theory of Evolution. It even goes on to say that Evolutionary theory makes no predictions. He should think about that the next time he gets a flu shot.
-1 because the author invokes the god of the gaps argument in basically the whole book.
-1 because the author writes a book assuming that the onus of proof is on the New Atheists to disprove the existence of God. Even if everything in this book was true, Science also cannot disprove the existince of Russell's Teapot, The Invisible Dragon in my Garage, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That in itself is not sufficient reason to believe in it.
-1 because the author fails to even mention that the authors he targets (such as Dawkins, Harris, etc) make a clear distinction between a deist/pantheist God, and a personal theist God that people pray to. Even if there was a God who created the universe, how do we go from that to knowing anything about the God? If the author agrees that we cannot (as he mentions only at the very end of the book, as a brief disclaimer), then why not clearly tell his target audience that this provides absolutely no justification for any of their religious notions of God, or whether he answers prayers, cares about what you do in your bedroom, and so on?
A fitting example of either deliberately missing the point or having an unbelievably high cognitive bias towards preserving belief.
And by the way, another -1 for implying the atheists don't think there's anything awe inspiring and grandiose about the universe. But it seemed unfair to give the book 0 stars.
August 29, 2019
The central premise of this book is that the new atheists propose that science disproves God, and such a premise is seriously flawed: they do not propose that it does not exist, they propose that there is no reason to believe in God. While you can find that these new atheists may say statements like “god does not exist�, you will find that they acknowledge that such statements are just meant to be bombastic and that they would actually say that they do not have any reason to believe in a god and have reasons to think that religious claims are completely baseless.
The author does a good job in demonstrating that science does not disprove God, but I do not think that such a proposition is in the very least controversial. In addition, the author does point out that one should not just swallow the claims of Lawerence Kraus because there are serious problems with his claims.
From here, the author does not develop any of the arguments in favour of his “god� and religion, and just recounts the usual arguments that everyone has heard and seen before. For example, in order to counter the claim that religion is harmful the author states that atheists have also done “bad things�. To me, such comments do not in the very least impress me as they do nothing to improve upon previous arguments for God and against “neo-atheism�. Therefore I recommend that people avoid this book and look for a good argument in support of God and religion elsewhere.
The author does a good job in demonstrating that science does not disprove God, but I do not think that such a proposition is in the very least controversial. In addition, the author does point out that one should not just swallow the claims of Lawerence Kraus because there are serious problems with his claims.
From here, the author does not develop any of the arguments in favour of his “god� and religion, and just recounts the usual arguments that everyone has heard and seen before. For example, in order to counter the claim that religion is harmful the author states that atheists have also done “bad things�. To me, such comments do not in the very least impress me as they do nothing to improve upon previous arguments for God and against “neo-atheism�. Therefore I recommend that people avoid this book and look for a good argument in support of God and religion elsewhere.
February 6, 2023
Received this book recently as a gift, and I'm deeply interested in the dialogue between science and faith, so figured I'd give it a read. I'll start with the positive. It's decently written, very digestible...I finished it in a day. The author is clearly most comfortable in the history of contemporary science and does a solid job of explaining leading problems in physics and math and addressing the inadequacies of the New Atheists' efforts to use "science" to "disprove" God. This makes the middle and later sections of the books worthwhile.
However, there are a number of serious problems and failures with the book. The first among them is that the author, Aczel, seems to lack any real knowledge of philosophy or theology, and more broadly, does not display a breadth of knowledge of the history of thought more generally.
To the first point: without fail, the New Atheists repeatedly and egregiously transgress their genera and cannot help making philosophical claims that they parade as "science." The more serious way to refute these claims is to show that they are philosophically invalid, illogical, or theologically ignorant. The author takes us through intricate analyses of contemporary scientific points, when one can literally refute almost every single argument in a single sentence: one cannot, in principle, disprove by any empirical method the existence of a spiritual, i.e., non-physical, non-material Being that is completely and wholly outside of the realm of created being and is in no way dependent upon it for its existence.
I love learning about advances in contemporary science, and think we should pursue truth wherever we can find it, but this is a philosophical argument and as such does not depend upon any empirical evidence whatsoever, and once you understand it, and once you understand what serious Christian theologians mean when they use the term "God," that's really all you need to understand why all of the New Atheists' claims about "disproving God" through "science" are dead in the water from the outset.
The bottom line is that they make unproven, a priori philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality (the most basic assumption being that being itself is reducible to matter and it's smallest parts), and it's absolutely essential to understand this point clearly before getting tangled up in contemporary scientific arguments. This is not to say that the author's analyses of contemporary scientific arguments about the beginning of the world are not valuable. It's just that his argument would be much more forceful and effective if he clearly and explicitly articulated this deeper point, and even more importantly, made room for such philosophical arguments as knowledge. There is a strong undercurrent in the work--rooted, ironically, in modern philosophical errors--that what ultimately counts as knowledge, properly speaking, lies in the realm of either math or science.
The best work refuting the New Atheists--and it's also wickedly clever and acerbic--is Edwards Feser's "The Last Superstition." Aczel could really benefit from trying to engage the more profound philosophical and theological arguments Feser puts forth in his book.
Perhaps the biggest failure with this work is that while Aczel's book purports to defend science, it completely gives away the game to the New Atheists by uncritically accepting the anachronistic and false historical narrative of the “Church against science.�
While the author's knowledge of the history of contemporary science seems solid, his understanding of the history of thought in the ancient and middle ages, as well as the modern scientific revolution and it's relation to the Church, is woefully inadequate and shallow.
The author labels Aristotle as “unscientific.� This is absurd and almost comically anachronistic. The Greeks did not make—indeed could not even conceive of making—the modern distinction between “science� and “philosophy.� The word science in both Greek and Latin, just means "knowledge", and the Greeks were simply in pursuit of knowledge, wherever they could find it. The author shows a shocking ignorance with respect to Aristotle’s corpus and does not seem to understand that Aristotle’s philosophical insights, in both metaphysics and natural philosophy, can remain valid, even while some of his ideas in what we would now call biology or astronomy are not entirely correct. Is the author even aware of how many “scientific� works Aristotle authored? Is he aware of how profoundly and critically scholars such as Aquinas and the Muslim philosophers engaged with the thought of Aristotle in the Middle Ages? To dismiss Aristotle the way the author does so quickly and summarily in this work is just silly and betrays a clear bias.
A serious engagement of Aristotle's thought, specifically Aristotle's hylomorphic understanding of the human person as a composition of body (matter) and soul/mind (form, and in this specific case, spiritual form) would address several "scientific" problems the author brings up in his book: Roger's Penrose's "three worlds" (the physical word, the human mind, mathematics) and his discussion of the problem of human consciousness, but that would take us too far beyond the space of this review.
Finally, the fact that the author repeatedly positions the Church as the “enemy of science� in the late Middle Ages and Early Renaissance by merely appealing to the tired anecdotal account of the Galileo affair, and repeatedly speaks about the Church's "literal interpretation" of scripture as problematic, demonstrates how little he seems to grasp: 1.) the Church’s rich theological and scriptural tradition, 2.) the properly understood relationship between faith and science, and 3.) the broader historical narrative of the scientific revolution. This latter point is especially disappointing given that the author purports to be an expert in the history of science.
The scientific revolution is due both in fact and in principle to the Catholic Church, or more generally speaking, to the Christian faith. It is precisely because Christians believed the world--and everything in it--was created by an Intelligence, that it could be therefore be investigated and understood as rational. This fundamental belief is what lays behind the founding of the great universities in the Middle Ages. It is also a fact that virtually every revolutionary scientist the author cites was either educated at one of these universities or sponsored by the Church in some way. Pope Paul III and other high ranking prelates sponsored the work of Copernicus (which is why he dedicates "The Heavenly Bodies" to him), and the same was true of Galileo, and many others as well. Descartes was educated by the great mathematician and Jesuit Christopher Clavius. The Galileo affair is WAY more subtle and nuanced than the author acknowledges, Galileo asserted as facts multiple ideas that were false, and his several of his contemporaries, such as Tycho Brahe, agreed on this point. One could go on and on. The simple "Church against science" narrative is trite, lazy and mostly false.
The author repeatedly asserts that the Church's "literal interpretation" of scripture contradicts science. Which Church is he talking about? The tiny segment of hard-line Creationists out there? The Church's interpretation of scripture since Jerome, Origen, Augustine, et al., has been incredibly sophisticated and anything but literalistic in its interpretation. Most of the early Church fathers even understood that the Jews themselves did not interpret Genesis in a literalistic way, and had an understanding of the differences in literary form. The smug comments of the so-called "Brights," who ask questions like, "Do you really believe there was a talking snake?" only serve to manifest their complete ignorance on this topic. This kind of thinking is unworthy of any serious scholar.
Bottom line: anyone seriously interested in the relationship between faith and science should look elsewhere for wisdom and insight. Look for works by Stanley Jaki, John Polkinghorne, Stephen M. Barr, Ian McGilchrist, Dan Toma, Wolfgang Smith, and the many other serious scientists who have a much more profound understanding of both philosophy and theology and the history of scientific thought.
However, there are a number of serious problems and failures with the book. The first among them is that the author, Aczel, seems to lack any real knowledge of philosophy or theology, and more broadly, does not display a breadth of knowledge of the history of thought more generally.
To the first point: without fail, the New Atheists repeatedly and egregiously transgress their genera and cannot help making philosophical claims that they parade as "science." The more serious way to refute these claims is to show that they are philosophically invalid, illogical, or theologically ignorant. The author takes us through intricate analyses of contemporary scientific points, when one can literally refute almost every single argument in a single sentence: one cannot, in principle, disprove by any empirical method the existence of a spiritual, i.e., non-physical, non-material Being that is completely and wholly outside of the realm of created being and is in no way dependent upon it for its existence.
I love learning about advances in contemporary science, and think we should pursue truth wherever we can find it, but this is a philosophical argument and as such does not depend upon any empirical evidence whatsoever, and once you understand it, and once you understand what serious Christian theologians mean when they use the term "God," that's really all you need to understand why all of the New Atheists' claims about "disproving God" through "science" are dead in the water from the outset.
The bottom line is that they make unproven, a priori philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality (the most basic assumption being that being itself is reducible to matter and it's smallest parts), and it's absolutely essential to understand this point clearly before getting tangled up in contemporary scientific arguments. This is not to say that the author's analyses of contemporary scientific arguments about the beginning of the world are not valuable. It's just that his argument would be much more forceful and effective if he clearly and explicitly articulated this deeper point, and even more importantly, made room for such philosophical arguments as knowledge. There is a strong undercurrent in the work--rooted, ironically, in modern philosophical errors--that what ultimately counts as knowledge, properly speaking, lies in the realm of either math or science.
The best work refuting the New Atheists--and it's also wickedly clever and acerbic--is Edwards Feser's "The Last Superstition." Aczel could really benefit from trying to engage the more profound philosophical and theological arguments Feser puts forth in his book.
Perhaps the biggest failure with this work is that while Aczel's book purports to defend science, it completely gives away the game to the New Atheists by uncritically accepting the anachronistic and false historical narrative of the “Church against science.�
While the author's knowledge of the history of contemporary science seems solid, his understanding of the history of thought in the ancient and middle ages, as well as the modern scientific revolution and it's relation to the Church, is woefully inadequate and shallow.
The author labels Aristotle as “unscientific.� This is absurd and almost comically anachronistic. The Greeks did not make—indeed could not even conceive of making—the modern distinction between “science� and “philosophy.� The word science in both Greek and Latin, just means "knowledge", and the Greeks were simply in pursuit of knowledge, wherever they could find it. The author shows a shocking ignorance with respect to Aristotle’s corpus and does not seem to understand that Aristotle’s philosophical insights, in both metaphysics and natural philosophy, can remain valid, even while some of his ideas in what we would now call biology or astronomy are not entirely correct. Is the author even aware of how many “scientific� works Aristotle authored? Is he aware of how profoundly and critically scholars such as Aquinas and the Muslim philosophers engaged with the thought of Aristotle in the Middle Ages? To dismiss Aristotle the way the author does so quickly and summarily in this work is just silly and betrays a clear bias.
A serious engagement of Aristotle's thought, specifically Aristotle's hylomorphic understanding of the human person as a composition of body (matter) and soul/mind (form, and in this specific case, spiritual form) would address several "scientific" problems the author brings up in his book: Roger's Penrose's "three worlds" (the physical word, the human mind, mathematics) and his discussion of the problem of human consciousness, but that would take us too far beyond the space of this review.
Finally, the fact that the author repeatedly positions the Church as the “enemy of science� in the late Middle Ages and Early Renaissance by merely appealing to the tired anecdotal account of the Galileo affair, and repeatedly speaks about the Church's "literal interpretation" of scripture as problematic, demonstrates how little he seems to grasp: 1.) the Church’s rich theological and scriptural tradition, 2.) the properly understood relationship between faith and science, and 3.) the broader historical narrative of the scientific revolution. This latter point is especially disappointing given that the author purports to be an expert in the history of science.
The scientific revolution is due both in fact and in principle to the Catholic Church, or more generally speaking, to the Christian faith. It is precisely because Christians believed the world--and everything in it--was created by an Intelligence, that it could be therefore be investigated and understood as rational. This fundamental belief is what lays behind the founding of the great universities in the Middle Ages. It is also a fact that virtually every revolutionary scientist the author cites was either educated at one of these universities or sponsored by the Church in some way. Pope Paul III and other high ranking prelates sponsored the work of Copernicus (which is why he dedicates "The Heavenly Bodies" to him), and the same was true of Galileo, and many others as well. Descartes was educated by the great mathematician and Jesuit Christopher Clavius. The Galileo affair is WAY more subtle and nuanced than the author acknowledges, Galileo asserted as facts multiple ideas that were false, and his several of his contemporaries, such as Tycho Brahe, agreed on this point. One could go on and on. The simple "Church against science" narrative is trite, lazy and mostly false.
The author repeatedly asserts that the Church's "literal interpretation" of scripture contradicts science. Which Church is he talking about? The tiny segment of hard-line Creationists out there? The Church's interpretation of scripture since Jerome, Origen, Augustine, et al., has been incredibly sophisticated and anything but literalistic in its interpretation. Most of the early Church fathers even understood that the Jews themselves did not interpret Genesis in a literalistic way, and had an understanding of the differences in literary form. The smug comments of the so-called "Brights," who ask questions like, "Do you really believe there was a talking snake?" only serve to manifest their complete ignorance on this topic. This kind of thinking is unworthy of any serious scholar.
Bottom line: anyone seriously interested in the relationship between faith and science should look elsewhere for wisdom and insight. Look for works by Stanley Jaki, John Polkinghorne, Stephen M. Barr, Ian McGilchrist, Dan Toma, Wolfgang Smith, and the many other serious scientists who have a much more profound understanding of both philosophy and theology and the history of scientific thought.
March 8, 2025
An argument against Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists, written from the perspective of what seems to be Deism.
4 stars instead of 5 because Aczel, while defending belief in God, actively tries to dismantle belief in the God of the Bible. But I appreciated his thorough, clear description of what science can and cannot know, and how knowledge of God is well outside the realm of science - and well outside the realm of attack from the New Atheists.
From page 147:
“The immensely complex configuration of the forces, masses, ratios, charges, and all other numerical specifications of the universe had to have been determined to such a staggeringly precise level that to assume it happened "by chance" or through the anthropic principle seems futile. Perhaps some great force of creation set the parameters for our existence to the exacting standards required for life to evolve. Chance alone is virtually impossible to have played a role, since, as noted earlier, the odds against a universe with life and intelligence are at most one to a number that has 1 followed by 10 raised to the power 117 zeros (based on the requirements of only one of the parameters!) � the odds are so staggeringly high against our existence that even talking about probability and chance in this context is unpro-ductive.�
4 stars instead of 5 because Aczel, while defending belief in God, actively tries to dismantle belief in the God of the Bible. But I appreciated his thorough, clear description of what science can and cannot know, and how knowledge of God is well outside the realm of science - and well outside the realm of attack from the New Atheists.
From page 147:
“The immensely complex configuration of the forces, masses, ratios, charges, and all other numerical specifications of the universe had to have been determined to such a staggeringly precise level that to assume it happened "by chance" or through the anthropic principle seems futile. Perhaps some great force of creation set the parameters for our existence to the exacting standards required for life to evolve. Chance alone is virtually impossible to have played a role, since, as noted earlier, the odds against a universe with life and intelligence are at most one to a number that has 1 followed by 10 raised to the power 117 zeros (based on the requirements of only one of the parameters!) � the odds are so staggeringly high against our existence that even talking about probability and chance in this context is unpro-ductive.�
November 2, 2020
Okay, I'm going to have to read this one again. Better yet, get a dead tree copy so I can mark it up. Aczel is not what you would call a devout Christian - throughout the book he talks about how science disproves the Bible because of the physics-bending events included (my take: God invented physics, so why shouldn't he be able to break the rules when he wants? But I digress...). However, he does believe that there is a design in the universe and therefore a designer, and this puts him in a unique position to write this book. It's not a "Look at all the science in the Bible" kind of book. Rather, Aczel takes on the intellectual dishonesty, mental gymnastics, and number fudging that the New Atheists (I call them Evangelical Atheists) use to prop up their position that science has proven the non-existence of God. Aczel, like Hawking at one time, is in this Unknowable Creator camp, and he discusses with some relish why the anthropic principle, multiple universes, and infinity (among other things) don't hold up to the staggering odds of our existence - or even the review of some of their peers. Interesting stuff.
January 13, 2021
And I agree... Solid, sound, arguments and interviews.
Blurb: "veteran science journalist Amir Aczel profoundly disagrees and convincingly demonstrates that science has not, as yet, provided any definitive proof refuting the existence of God.
Based on interviews with eleven Nobel Prize winners and many other prominent physicists, biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists, as well as leading theologians and spiritual leaders, Why Science Does Not Disprove God is a fascinating tour through the history of science and a brilliant and incisive analysis of the religious implications of our ever-increasing understanding of life and the universe. Throughout, Aczel reminds us that science, at its best, is about the dispassionate pursuit of truth�not a weapon in cultural debates. Respectful of both science and faith—and argued from the perspective of no single religious tradition".
Blurb: "veteran science journalist Amir Aczel profoundly disagrees and convincingly demonstrates that science has not, as yet, provided any definitive proof refuting the existence of God.
Based on interviews with eleven Nobel Prize winners and many other prominent physicists, biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists, as well as leading theologians and spiritual leaders, Why Science Does Not Disprove God is a fascinating tour through the history of science and a brilliant and incisive analysis of the religious implications of our ever-increasing understanding of life and the universe. Throughout, Aczel reminds us that science, at its best, is about the dispassionate pursuit of truth�not a weapon in cultural debates. Respectful of both science and faith—and argued from the perspective of no single religious tradition".
June 7, 2020
A polemic intended to address the New Atheists belief that there is no God. Aczel proceeds to merely prove with a wealth of intellectual weapons why science does not disprove God, proving himself a formidable foe to Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris etc..
4.3/5.
4.3/5.
September 19, 2017
Why Science Does Not Disprove God
Amir D. Aczel
2014
The renowned science writer, mathematician, and bestselling author of Fermat's Last Theoremmasterfully refutes the overreaching claims the "New Atheists," providing millions of educated believers with a clear, engaging explanation of what science really says, how there's still much space for the Divine in the universe, and why faith in both God and empirical science are not mutually exclusive.
A highly publicized coterie of scientists and thinkers, including Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, and Lawrence Krauss, have vehemently contended that breakthroughs in modern science have disproven the existence of God, asserting that we must accept that the creation of the universe came out of nothing, that religion is evil, that evolution fully explains the dazzling complexity of life, and more. In this much-needed book, science journalist Amir Aczel profoundly disagrees and conclusively demonstrates that science has not, as yet, provided any definitive proof refuting the existence of God.
Why Science Does Not Disprove God is his brilliant and incisive analyses of the theories and findings of such titans as Albert Einstein, Roger Penrose, Alan Guth, and Charles Darwin, all of whose major breakthroughs leave open the possibility� and even the strong likelihood—of a Creator. Bolstering his argument, Aczel lucidly discourses on arcane aspects of physics to reveal how quantum theory, the anthropic principle, the fine-tuned dance of protons and quarks, the existence of anti-matter and the theory of parallel universes, also fail to disprove God.
A system cannot prove (or disprove) something from outside the system, however it may raise questions of how did the system got there?
Page 1: The thesis of this book: that science has not provided any proof of the existence of a creator of some kind must necessarily be false.
2: Richard Feynman: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics�
3: My book on Peking Man, The Jesuit and the Skull�.
5: Science is about the objective pursuit of truth and we should be very skeptical when “science� is invoked to further someone’s socio cultural agenda
The purpose of this book is to defend the integrity of science.
17: Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC) believed that life came about by chance and that there is no supreme being�.
His contemporary Democritus, who proposed the first hypothesis that the universe is made of something like atoms�
18: Monarchs and church, atheists were often persecuted�
Giordano Bruno was burned to death in Rome in 1600 after Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for believing that the sun was a star and that the universe contained other civilizations.
20: Scripture was never meant to be read literally. The original Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament are elegantly poetic.
21: The Catholic Church, for one, historically adopted such literalism and unyieldingly defended it in the face of scientific discoveries and theories about the movement of the Earth, famously persecuting Galileo and many others for maintaining the nonbiblical heliocentric view.
EN: Books, Catholic, Orthodox, Islam…resist Change�.
23: These deities were abstractions of what very early humans had learned about the universe surrounding them…Venus figurines�
27: The rise of agriculture on Earth is a true marvel…in at least two separate locations, Jordan Valley in the Middle East and the coast of Ecuador around 11500 years ago.
29: …people learning from nature, which is something that can well be identified as a rudimentary kind of science.
38: Early Christians adopted the image of a six pointed star, representing the joining together of Jesus’s Greek initials, I and X. It was this image that later became the Star of David.
41: St. Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430)…worried about the question of what God was doing before he created the universe. Time itself was created when God made the universe�.
42: Collyridian sect (4th C) revered Mary as the mother goddess of antiquity�
48: And already in the second century AD the Talmudic sage Hillel the Elder famously summarized the message of the Old Testament in one sentence: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man; this is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary.�
50: The biblical Abraham was born in the city of Ur in Mesopotamia�.
60: Dead Sea scrolls date from the 3rd C BC to the first C. AD�
66: Ptolemaic model works�.but it is wrong
67: Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation of a phenomenon is probably the correct one.
68: 1543, Copernicus published landmark book: On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres.
72: EN: First memories? Or First Dummies
Offering opinions through the mouth of Simplicius the simpleton in the dialogue� (Did Galileo write the first Dummies book?)
Galileo: “The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics�
76: Pascal’s wager:
77: 1637, Descartes published, The Discourse on the Method�.
78: 1661, Leibniz, De Principio Infividui which dealt with the ideas of individuals and totality.
80: Isaac Newton (1642-1727): groundbreaking science and contemplating the most difficult religious ideas.
EN: How long were 6 days? Where they of equal length or where they just as long as they needed to be?
89: Leon Foucault to prove that the earth moved…Foucault’s pendulum �.
93: for example the order of appearance of living things on the earth described in Genesis is not in disagreement with evolution
94: Chapter 5: Einstein, god and the Big Bang
104: But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convince that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. ~ A. Einstein
123: 2+ 2 + 4* * sort of. 2 what + 2 what? Where are they?
125: Chapter 7: The Universe from Nothing deception
EN: Does P use energy?, therefore idea or energy not nothing�4 elements plus spirit�.
126: Pair of particles � yin/yang duality�.
138: Chapter 8: And on the eighth day, God created the Multiverse
148: Chapter 9: Mathematics, probability and God
149: Mathematics is not physics.
152: Roger Penrose’s three worlds
� The physical universe
� The Human mind
� Mathematics
Science has limitations�
166: You can prove almost anything, if you assume an infinity of other universes�.
167: saying monkey can type Hamlet
� In which world?
� Would it be useful here?
� Hamlet is in the dictionary
� The genius is in putting it in order, now, on a timely, usable basis
169: Chapter 10: Catastrophes, Chaos and the limits of Human knowledge
174: EN: Life follows Life
Chapter 11: Between God and the Anthropic principle
EN: Rounding error?
EN: A day for god is 24 hours?
EN: 190: The Gods Themselves � Asimov
Chapter 12: The Limits of Evolution
Chapter 13: Art, Symbolic Thinking and the Invisible Boundary
Chapter 14: Engaging the Infinite
226: Barber of Seville paradox: The barber of Seville is known for shaving all the men in the city who do not shave themselves. So does the barber shave himself?
Chapter 15: Conclusion: Why the “Scientific� argument for Atheism Fails
244: Why is the fine structure constant � which governs all the electromagnetic interactions in the universe � equal to about 1/137?
248: Evolution can tell us how animals and species move through time � how creatures advance up the ladder of life � but it does not explain the immensely improbable appearance of life and intelligence and consciousness
Amir D. Aczel
2014
The renowned science writer, mathematician, and bestselling author of Fermat's Last Theoremmasterfully refutes the overreaching claims the "New Atheists," providing millions of educated believers with a clear, engaging explanation of what science really says, how there's still much space for the Divine in the universe, and why faith in both God and empirical science are not mutually exclusive.
A highly publicized coterie of scientists and thinkers, including Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, and Lawrence Krauss, have vehemently contended that breakthroughs in modern science have disproven the existence of God, asserting that we must accept that the creation of the universe came out of nothing, that religion is evil, that evolution fully explains the dazzling complexity of life, and more. In this much-needed book, science journalist Amir Aczel profoundly disagrees and conclusively demonstrates that science has not, as yet, provided any definitive proof refuting the existence of God.
Why Science Does Not Disprove God is his brilliant and incisive analyses of the theories and findings of such titans as Albert Einstein, Roger Penrose, Alan Guth, and Charles Darwin, all of whose major breakthroughs leave open the possibility� and even the strong likelihood—of a Creator. Bolstering his argument, Aczel lucidly discourses on arcane aspects of physics to reveal how quantum theory, the anthropic principle, the fine-tuned dance of protons and quarks, the existence of anti-matter and the theory of parallel universes, also fail to disprove God.
A system cannot prove (or disprove) something from outside the system, however it may raise questions of how did the system got there?
Page 1: The thesis of this book: that science has not provided any proof of the existence of a creator of some kind must necessarily be false.
2: Richard Feynman: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics�
3: My book on Peking Man, The Jesuit and the Skull�.
5: Science is about the objective pursuit of truth and we should be very skeptical when “science� is invoked to further someone’s socio cultural agenda
The purpose of this book is to defend the integrity of science.
17: Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC) believed that life came about by chance and that there is no supreme being�.
His contemporary Democritus, who proposed the first hypothesis that the universe is made of something like atoms�
18: Monarchs and church, atheists were often persecuted�
Giordano Bruno was burned to death in Rome in 1600 after Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for believing that the sun was a star and that the universe contained other civilizations.
20: Scripture was never meant to be read literally. The original Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament are elegantly poetic.
21: The Catholic Church, for one, historically adopted such literalism and unyieldingly defended it in the face of scientific discoveries and theories about the movement of the Earth, famously persecuting Galileo and many others for maintaining the nonbiblical heliocentric view.
EN: Books, Catholic, Orthodox, Islam…resist Change�.
23: These deities were abstractions of what very early humans had learned about the universe surrounding them…Venus figurines�
27: The rise of agriculture on Earth is a true marvel…in at least two separate locations, Jordan Valley in the Middle East and the coast of Ecuador around 11500 years ago.
29: …people learning from nature, which is something that can well be identified as a rudimentary kind of science.
38: Early Christians adopted the image of a six pointed star, representing the joining together of Jesus’s Greek initials, I and X. It was this image that later became the Star of David.
41: St. Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430)…worried about the question of what God was doing before he created the universe. Time itself was created when God made the universe�.
42: Collyridian sect (4th C) revered Mary as the mother goddess of antiquity�
48: And already in the second century AD the Talmudic sage Hillel the Elder famously summarized the message of the Old Testament in one sentence: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man; this is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary.�
50: The biblical Abraham was born in the city of Ur in Mesopotamia�.
60: Dead Sea scrolls date from the 3rd C BC to the first C. AD�
66: Ptolemaic model works�.but it is wrong
67: Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation of a phenomenon is probably the correct one.
68: 1543, Copernicus published landmark book: On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres.
72: EN: First memories? Or First Dummies
Offering opinions through the mouth of Simplicius the simpleton in the dialogue� (Did Galileo write the first Dummies book?)
Galileo: “The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics�
76: Pascal’s wager:
77: 1637, Descartes published, The Discourse on the Method�.
78: 1661, Leibniz, De Principio Infividui which dealt with the ideas of individuals and totality.
80: Isaac Newton (1642-1727): groundbreaking science and contemplating the most difficult religious ideas.
EN: How long were 6 days? Where they of equal length or where they just as long as they needed to be?
89: Leon Foucault to prove that the earth moved…Foucault’s pendulum �.
93: for example the order of appearance of living things on the earth described in Genesis is not in disagreement with evolution
94: Chapter 5: Einstein, god and the Big Bang
104: But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convince that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. ~ A. Einstein
123: 2+ 2 + 4* * sort of. 2 what + 2 what? Where are they?
125: Chapter 7: The Universe from Nothing deception
EN: Does P use energy?, therefore idea or energy not nothing�4 elements plus spirit�.
126: Pair of particles � yin/yang duality�.
138: Chapter 8: And on the eighth day, God created the Multiverse
148: Chapter 9: Mathematics, probability and God
149: Mathematics is not physics.
152: Roger Penrose’s three worlds
� The physical universe
� The Human mind
� Mathematics
Science has limitations�
166: You can prove almost anything, if you assume an infinity of other universes�.
167: saying monkey can type Hamlet
� In which world?
� Would it be useful here?
� Hamlet is in the dictionary
� The genius is in putting it in order, now, on a timely, usable basis
169: Chapter 10: Catastrophes, Chaos and the limits of Human knowledge
174: EN: Life follows Life
Chapter 11: Between God and the Anthropic principle
EN: Rounding error?
EN: A day for god is 24 hours?
EN: 190: The Gods Themselves � Asimov
Chapter 12: The Limits of Evolution
Chapter 13: Art, Symbolic Thinking and the Invisible Boundary
Chapter 14: Engaging the Infinite
226: Barber of Seville paradox: The barber of Seville is known for shaving all the men in the city who do not shave themselves. So does the barber shave himself?
Chapter 15: Conclusion: Why the “Scientific� argument for Atheism Fails
244: Why is the fine structure constant � which governs all the electromagnetic interactions in the universe � equal to about 1/137?
248: Evolution can tell us how animals and species move through time � how creatures advance up the ladder of life � but it does not explain the immensely improbable appearance of life and intelligence and consciousness
May 31, 2015
Review title: What science isn't
Aczel sets and completes a simple challenge in this book well described by his title. He doesn't try to prove that God exists, or that science and religion are different and non-intersecting but equally valuable spheres of knowledge. He simply shows that based on current science and mathematical principles God can not be proven to be non-existent.
While written in direct and acknowledged response to Richard Dawkins and other "New Atheists", Aczel doesn't craft his argument around point by point refutation of their arguments that God is not only dead but never existed. Rather he goes to the source--the scientific and mathemantical principles of cosmology, infinity, anthropism, and quantum physics to show how these leading edge and sometimes bizarre and puzzling theories and equations do not disprove God.
Notice his use of the phrase "do not": while the reader might conclude that these theories "can not" or "never will" disprove God, Aczel does not use those phrases. While I suspect he might lean in that direction in the near term, he lets the science and math speak for itself, and there are some pretty powerful theoretical limits to what these tools of the human mind "can know" today.
He is no friend of Christianity or the polar opposites and special targets of Dawkins and crew, creationists, but neither is he dismissive of any faith or belief in God as a creator or intelligent force in, outside, or pre-existent of the universe. He also doesn't use the "separate but equal" argument, which I have always found demeaning to both religion and science and as stupid and despicable as the same argument applied to civil rights.
In fact, his main line of argument reminds me of Paul's early declaration of the scientific evidence in favor of God (Romans 1:20):
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
How much of God and creation remain--despite man's vast knowledge and discovery about the world from the quark to the universe--invisible, eternal, divine, and unknown, even when clearly seen. By showing us the invisible, eternal, and divine outside the reaches of science, Aczel may help us more clearly see.
Aczel sets and completes a simple challenge in this book well described by his title. He doesn't try to prove that God exists, or that science and religion are different and non-intersecting but equally valuable spheres of knowledge. He simply shows that based on current science and mathematical principles God can not be proven to be non-existent.
While written in direct and acknowledged response to Richard Dawkins and other "New Atheists", Aczel doesn't craft his argument around point by point refutation of their arguments that God is not only dead but never existed. Rather he goes to the source--the scientific and mathemantical principles of cosmology, infinity, anthropism, and quantum physics to show how these leading edge and sometimes bizarre and puzzling theories and equations do not disprove God.
Notice his use of the phrase "do not": while the reader might conclude that these theories "can not" or "never will" disprove God, Aczel does not use those phrases. While I suspect he might lean in that direction in the near term, he lets the science and math speak for itself, and there are some pretty powerful theoretical limits to what these tools of the human mind "can know" today.
He is no friend of Christianity or the polar opposites and special targets of Dawkins and crew, creationists, but neither is he dismissive of any faith or belief in God as a creator or intelligent force in, outside, or pre-existent of the universe. He also doesn't use the "separate but equal" argument, which I have always found demeaning to both religion and science and as stupid and despicable as the same argument applied to civil rights.
In fact, his main line of argument reminds me of Paul's early declaration of the scientific evidence in favor of God (Romans 1:20):
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
How much of God and creation remain--despite man's vast knowledge and discovery about the world from the quark to the universe--invisible, eternal, divine, and unknown, even when clearly seen. By showing us the invisible, eternal, and divine outside the reaches of science, Aczel may help us more clearly see.
June 24, 2014
I found this book pretty amazing. The only reason I didn't give it 5 stars was that the author at times went over my head and lost me. However, for most of the book, it made a lot of complicated issues in terms of the subject matter to be quite understandable.
Basically, all this book is is a basic attack on the Dawkins-esque types of the New Atheist movement that essentially overstep the science that they say they are proponent of and try to corral them in by showing where they are making mistakes.
Richard Dawkins is the main poster boy for this movement and has constantly written thinsg that essentially in his mind prove that there is no God. However, what Amir Aczel is doing is a simple rebuttal of all of this. One thing to note here, he's not doing this to promote a young earth creationist theory, he just, IMO, trying to keep science real, and do what it does best. Which is find out facts about the natural world we live in and find out how things happened, how the world formed, etc... He's not promoting God in any way shape or form other than basically to say that the likelihood of all this universe and the life that exists on this planet goes so far beyond basic probability that it's mind0boggling.
I would definitely recommend this book to pretty much anyone with an open mind and willing to listen to all sides of a story or I guess theory might be a better word.
Basically, all this book is is a basic attack on the Dawkins-esque types of the New Atheist movement that essentially overstep the science that they say they are proponent of and try to corral them in by showing where they are making mistakes.
Richard Dawkins is the main poster boy for this movement and has constantly written thinsg that essentially in his mind prove that there is no God. However, what Amir Aczel is doing is a simple rebuttal of all of this. One thing to note here, he's not doing this to promote a young earth creationist theory, he just, IMO, trying to keep science real, and do what it does best. Which is find out facts about the natural world we live in and find out how things happened, how the world formed, etc... He's not promoting God in any way shape or form other than basically to say that the likelihood of all this universe and the life that exists on this planet goes so far beyond basic probability that it's mind0boggling.
I would definitely recommend this book to pretty much anyone with an open mind and willing to listen to all sides of a story or I guess theory might be a better word.
February 10, 2015
This book stands out by its clearly stated mandate: to show that science has Not proved the non-existence of God. In doing so, the author traced the contours of major fields in science namely physics, mathematics, statistics, neuroscience, archeology, anthropology and biology, to demonstrate that the erroneous acclaims from the New Atheist camp for "God does not exist". Of course, the first question is what is God. This is where the major ground zero problem. The God in Scripture and Churches is also overlapped with the Deistic God of Spinoza or Einstein, or a generalized form of spiritual entity.
Science has done much to clean out the old musty attic of human's religious experience from the old texts and antiquated practices. Scientists have pushed the frontier of human knowledge to an extent that is unimaginable by our ancestors. Yet, in modern times, the question of God largely lies in the human consciousness of sacredness -- sense of morality, justice, beauty and the particularly felt "agape" love. Of all the natural and social science combined, we could not explain the frequent if not all-present experience of our consciousness in the moments of sacredness, then we must agree with the author's premise -- there is no proof that God exist, yet there is no proof to God's non-existence.
This book is easy to read, sufficient details to flesh out his point. His writing style is more journalistic than scholarly.
Science has done much to clean out the old musty attic of human's religious experience from the old texts and antiquated practices. Scientists have pushed the frontier of human knowledge to an extent that is unimaginable by our ancestors. Yet, in modern times, the question of God largely lies in the human consciousness of sacredness -- sense of morality, justice, beauty and the particularly felt "agape" love. Of all the natural and social science combined, we could not explain the frequent if not all-present experience of our consciousness in the moments of sacredness, then we must agree with the author's premise -- there is no proof that God exist, yet there is no proof to God's non-existence.
This book is easy to read, sufficient details to flesh out his point. His writing style is more journalistic than scholarly.
December 2, 2014
What I like best about this book is how Amir D. Aczel makes his premise using what science has the ability to tell us, unlike other authors who make their case apologetically, or using philosophy.
Overall I think it does a good job of showing how the New Atheist movement is being rather religious itself much like the young earth creationists by misusing or representing what science is telling us to forward their own religious and utopian dreams.
For myself I also like how he only summarizes the science to do with, quantum theory, string theory, probability, and chaos theory etc., because so many other books I’ve read on these subjects have gone over each thoroughly making the book a much more concise read. This may be a negative about the book for those who have not been exposed to the science beforehand.
Also, if you believe in a young earth, or hold to a strictly literal and specific interpretation of scripture then you probably won’t like some of the implications of this book either.
I also like the fact it shows you can be an intelligent intellectual person and still have a reasonable scientific basis for a religious element in your life.
Overall I think it does a good job of showing how the New Atheist movement is being rather religious itself much like the young earth creationists by misusing or representing what science is telling us to forward their own religious and utopian dreams.
For myself I also like how he only summarizes the science to do with, quantum theory, string theory, probability, and chaos theory etc., because so many other books I’ve read on these subjects have gone over each thoroughly making the book a much more concise read. This may be a negative about the book for those who have not been exposed to the science beforehand.
Also, if you believe in a young earth, or hold to a strictly literal and specific interpretation of scripture then you probably won’t like some of the implications of this book either.
I also like the fact it shows you can be an intelligent intellectual person and still have a reasonable scientific basis for a religious element in your life.
April 6, 2016
It is always interesting to see how a scientist defends faith. In Aczel's case he relies heavily on his area of expertise, mathematics. But mathematics is one of those areas few people who are not mathematicians can follow. Aczel does a fairly good job explaining the what mathematics contributes to the question of the existence of God, but most readers will need to take his word for it.
When Aczel turns to other issues such as biology and cosmology, his observations are not particularly new. But the point he repeatedly makes is that those who use science to disprove God, as does Richard Dawkins, both misunderstand the science they use and misuse the science they know.
One point Aczel does make is that the anthropic principle is more significant in the debate than many assume. It virtually eliminates the possibility of natural origins - unless infinity is invoked. But that is another topic and one Aczel does a great job of explaining.
When Aczel turns to other issues such as biology and cosmology, his observations are not particularly new. But the point he repeatedly makes is that those who use science to disprove God, as does Richard Dawkins, both misunderstand the science they use and misuse the science they know.
One point Aczel does make is that the anthropic principle is more significant in the debate than many assume. It virtually eliminates the possibility of natural origins - unless infinity is invoked. But that is another topic and one Aczel does a great job of explaining.
August 21, 2015
Superb arguments from Amir Aczel, a mathematician and science writer. His point: science have limitations, it cannot possibly know what happened before Big Bang. Thus, it simply cannot disprove nor prove the existence of God. It's forever to remain outside the reach of science, or mathematics.
June 1, 2019
This book was a step beyond my understanding of science. Aczel makes a convincing argument but I don't know enough to detect errors in his logical.
September 25, 2023
"Why Science Does Not Disprove God" by Amir D. Aczel presents an intriguing exploration of the relationship between science and religion. However, there are several shortcomings and critical points to consider:
1) Despite the title, the book doesn't effectively justify religious stories or provide a comprehensive explanation of the concept of God. Instead, it primarily engages in a debate between new atheism and science. This approach may disappoint readers looking for a more robust defense of religious beliefs.
2) A significant drawback is the author's failure to clearly define what is meant by "God." Without a precise description of the concept, it becomes challenging to convey the book's objectives or effectively argue for or against the existence of God.
3) The book critically dissects science and atheism but somewhat glosses over the examination of the God hypothesis. This discrepancy in analysis leaves readers questioning why the same level of scrutiny and logical analysis isn't applied to the concept of God.
4) The first half of the book focuses on archaeological, anthropological, and historical evidence of human belief in God, along with references to scientists like Newton who held religious beliefs. While these sections highlight the prevalence of religious beliefs, they don't necessarily provide compelling evidence for the existence of God.
5) The author attempts to argue that gaps in scientific knowledge, such as those found in quantum theory, suggest the potential existence of God. However, the argument that "we don't know" should be interpreted as evidence for God is challenged, as throughout history, human understanding of natural phenomena has evolved from attributing them to deities to scientific explanations.
6) The book suggests that religious texts should be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally. However, the challenge lies in convincing devout believers to adopt a metaphorical interpretation of their sacred texts, as this may not align with traditional religious teachings.
7) While the book provides an interesting perspective on the intersection of science and religion, it may not be the most effective tool for theists looking to argue against atheism. To do so, they would likely need to reevaluate their existing religious beliefs in light of scientific knowledge and develop a new theological framework that aligns with scientific understanding.
In summary, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God" offers a unique perspective on the relationship between science and religion but falls short in certain areas, including the clear definition of God and the level of scrutiny applied to religious beliefs. It may serve as a starting point for exploring these complex topics but may not fully satisfy those seeking a comprehensive defense of religious faith in the face of scientific advancements.
1) Despite the title, the book doesn't effectively justify religious stories or provide a comprehensive explanation of the concept of God. Instead, it primarily engages in a debate between new atheism and science. This approach may disappoint readers looking for a more robust defense of religious beliefs.
2) A significant drawback is the author's failure to clearly define what is meant by "God." Without a precise description of the concept, it becomes challenging to convey the book's objectives or effectively argue for or against the existence of God.
3) The book critically dissects science and atheism but somewhat glosses over the examination of the God hypothesis. This discrepancy in analysis leaves readers questioning why the same level of scrutiny and logical analysis isn't applied to the concept of God.
4) The first half of the book focuses on archaeological, anthropological, and historical evidence of human belief in God, along with references to scientists like Newton who held religious beliefs. While these sections highlight the prevalence of religious beliefs, they don't necessarily provide compelling evidence for the existence of God.
5) The author attempts to argue that gaps in scientific knowledge, such as those found in quantum theory, suggest the potential existence of God. However, the argument that "we don't know" should be interpreted as evidence for God is challenged, as throughout history, human understanding of natural phenomena has evolved from attributing them to deities to scientific explanations.
6) The book suggests that religious texts should be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally. However, the challenge lies in convincing devout believers to adopt a metaphorical interpretation of their sacred texts, as this may not align with traditional religious teachings.
7) While the book provides an interesting perspective on the intersection of science and religion, it may not be the most effective tool for theists looking to argue against atheism. To do so, they would likely need to reevaluate their existing religious beliefs in light of scientific knowledge and develop a new theological framework that aligns with scientific understanding.
In summary, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God" offers a unique perspective on the relationship between science and religion but falls short in certain areas, including the clear definition of God and the level of scrutiny applied to religious beliefs. It may serve as a starting point for exploring these complex topics but may not fully satisfy those seeking a comprehensive defense of religious faith in the face of scientific advancements.
July 5, 2021
True to the title, the book does little to argue for an existence of a god, just that science can't fully disprove it. While the author feels that he is opposing atheists, I know few atheists who don't also feel agnostic or deistic, but use the term atheist when it comes to the idea of knowing a personal god that will deal judgement based on actions, level of worship, sacrifice, and abstaining from thought crimes.
He mentions the anthropic principle and discusses how atheists assert authority on things they cannot know but then assumes things such as observed laws needing a lawgiver.
The author has or uses very little understanding of evolution. He points out peacock tails and acts of altruism and asserts that no one has any good theories on why these things exist. He also attempts to compare one field of science with another with a short list of quantum mechanics vs evolution. He makes the point that evolution shouldn't be trusted because it is not mathematical and because it has an inability to predict species thousands of years into the future. Biologists can't fully predict what will happen in a petri dish in 12 hours, this doesn't disqualify biology as a science or diminish it. Evolution has made many predictions such as age of the earth later verified by forms of dating, depths of various excavated lifeforms, the existence of transitional fossils, predicted resistance in infectious diseases to treatments, insects resistance to pesticides and changes with GM crops, and changes to insects like the peppered moth where it was expected that the light colored genes would emerge dominant after pollution is cleaned.
His observations on human differences from that of the animal world lacks the clarity and research like that of Jared Diamond who show that most hallmarks of humanity have animal origins or at least convergence.
All in all, this book gives more compelling arguments than do most religious arguments, but the conclusion is more of an agnostic or deist one, one that is already shared by a majority of those that identify as an atheist.
He mentions the anthropic principle and discusses how atheists assert authority on things they cannot know but then assumes things such as observed laws needing a lawgiver.
The author has or uses very little understanding of evolution. He points out peacock tails and acts of altruism and asserts that no one has any good theories on why these things exist. He also attempts to compare one field of science with another with a short list of quantum mechanics vs evolution. He makes the point that evolution shouldn't be trusted because it is not mathematical and because it has an inability to predict species thousands of years into the future. Biologists can't fully predict what will happen in a petri dish in 12 hours, this doesn't disqualify biology as a science or diminish it. Evolution has made many predictions such as age of the earth later verified by forms of dating, depths of various excavated lifeforms, the existence of transitional fossils, predicted resistance in infectious diseases to treatments, insects resistance to pesticides and changes with GM crops, and changes to insects like the peppered moth where it was expected that the light colored genes would emerge dominant after pollution is cleaned.
His observations on human differences from that of the animal world lacks the clarity and research like that of Jared Diamond who show that most hallmarks of humanity have animal origins or at least convergence.
All in all, this book gives more compelling arguments than do most religious arguments, but the conclusion is more of an agnostic or deist one, one that is already shared by a majority of those that identify as an atheist.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 105 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.