Our friend Jared has recently been discussing the merits of atheism with some readers of his blog. One of the major points brought up in these discussions is the lack of “imperical evidence” for God’s existence. In other words, theists are unable to produce the type of scientifically verifiable proofs which non-theists require. The problem, in my estimation, is that it is impossible to scientifically prove that God exists. While this may run contrary to some popular Christian ministries’ ideas, I feel that it is, at its core, true. Now, this is not to say that evidence cannot be produced which makes the existence of God possible or even probable, but conclusive, incontrovertible scientific proof, I feel, is not possible.

Before we go any further, it may be helpful to bring out into the open the definition of science we are using for this post: “[A] systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” [source] It should be noted that we are using the 2nd definition simply because it best states the aspect of science we are discussing. You should also note that I’m not denying why I chose this definition, however, none of the other definitions are contradictory with this one.

Now that we have the definition out in the open, let’s continue. Science then, by definition, can only measure and quantify what it can see and reproduce. This means that science is unable to determine forces beyond it’s ability to observe or recreate. For example: Let’s say that a scientist is studying human behavior and witnesses a woman jump in front of a mugger to save another person’s life. All this scientist can record is what the woman actually did he cannot, from the outside, record what the woman was thinking, or why she did it. The scientist, again, from the outside, may lump this action in with others like it and label it the “herd instinct”, or simply an evolutionary adaptation by which we wish to protect others to ensure the propagation of our species. The problem with this, of course, is that the scientist has no idea whether or not there are any internal motivators. It is simply beyond his scope.

I’m sure that discussing this topic in this manner will raise the question: “Aren’t we simply making a special case for non-science and placing God into it?” The quick answer is no. There are many natural phenomenon which are observed by science, but not fully understood. A great example of this is gravity. No one can explain why gravity exists, we simply observe that it does. If there is something causing gravity, we do not know what that thing is. God works in the same manner, we are able to see the effects of his creation, but nothing beyond it. This is obviously a somewhat flawed analogy, but I hope you get my point.

No scientific examination of nature, regardless of its depth, can prove that God (or gods) exists. This is the role of another human endeavor: philosophy. Philosophy attempts to bridge the gap between fact and theory. While some scientists would be hard pressed to admit it, there is a great deal of philosophy contained within the experimental sciences. Particularly those which deal with the big questions. (i.e. origins of the universe, the nature of matter, etc.) Unfortunately, philosophy isn’t science.