Why scientists don believe in god

Second, copies of these molecular groupings had to show variation, so that some were better able to take advantage of resources and withstand challenges in the environment than others. Third, the variations had to be heritable, so that some variants would increase in number under favorable environmental conditions.

Scientists who study the origin of life explore which sets of chemicals could have begun replicating themselves. Even if a living cell could be made in the laboratory from simpler chemicals, it would not prove that nature followed the same pathway billions of years ago.

The history of science shows that even difficult questions such as how life originated may one day be answered as a result of advances in theory, the development of new instrumentation, and the discovery of new facts. But examining or explaining the purpose of the universe falls under theology or philosophy. True or False: Scientists are not religious. Culture of science. Does science disprove the existence of God? Ready to take the quiz?

Tell me more about the differences between science and religion. Learn More. So they are different ways of understanding the world? Are scientists religious? Do religious people see a role for science in explaining the world?

Can people who are religious accept evolution? Credit H. How do they explain their acceptance of evolution? Why is evolution so important? Can science explain the origins of life on Earth?

How are scientists studying the specifics of the origins of life? Know it all? Prove it. Science is unable to explain the purpose of the universe because c. And eventually, the highly complicated double-helix molecule, the life-propagating DNA, would be formed. Why did everything we need in order to exist come into being? How was all of this possible without some latent outside power to orchestrate the precise dance of elementary particles required for the creation of all the essentials of life?

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined.

The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence. The scientific atheists have scrambled to explain this troubling mystery by suggesting the existence of a multiverse—an infinite set of universes, each with its own parameters.

In some universes, the conditions are wrong for life; however, by the sheer size of this putative multiverse, there must be a universe where everything is right. But if it takes an immense power of nature to create one universe, then how much more powerful would that force have to be in order to create infinitely many universes? So the purely hypothetical multiverse does not solve the problem of God. The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God.

Lacking convincing scientific evidence to the contrary, such a power may be necessary to force all the parameters we need for our existence—cosmological, physical, chemical, biological and cognitive—to be what they are. Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by.

Contact us at letters time. Digitally generated image showing volcanic eruptions during formation of Earth. By Amir D. Related Stories. God Is Dead. Except at the Box Office. We are naturally prone to infer intelligent design when we see complex structure, which makes creationism more appealing than natural selection. We are intuitive dualists, and so the idea of an immaterial soul just makes sense —or at least more sense than the notion that our minds are the products of our physical brains.

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way. To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules.

Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth. Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood.

People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details.

People defer to authorities not just to the truth of the religious beliefs, but their meaning as well. We believe that we should accept them, and that others—at least those who belong to our family and community—should accept them as well. None of this is special to religion.

Many people who take positions on cap and trade, for instance, have no idea what cap and trade is. Many scientific views endorsed by non-specialists are credences as well. Some people reading this will say they believe in natural selection, but not all will be able to explain how natural selection works.