SCIENCE AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
No Contradiction
THERE is much confusion about Einstein's religious beliefs, in particular about his views on the existence of God. Some think that Einstein was an atheist. Others have a different opinion. An analysis of the various statements made by Einstein about his views will show that Einstein was not an atheist, and was in doubt about the existence of God.
In 1997, Skeptic, a science magazine, published for the first time a series of letters that Einstein exchanged in 1945 with an officer in the US Navy named Guy Raner Jr, on the existence of God. Raner wanted to know if it was true that Einstein converted from atheism to theism on being confronted by a Jesuit priest with the following argument: A design requires a designer, and since the universe has a design, it must have a designer. Einstein wrote back that he had never spoken to a Jesuit priest in his life, but that from the viewpoint of such a person, he was and would always be an atheist. He added that it was misleading and childish to use anthropomorphic concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere and that all we could do was to admire, in humility, the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world as far as we can grasp it.
A design requires a designer, and since the universe has a design, it must have a designer.
Raner replied, asking for clarification of Einstein’s position, “Are you, from the viewpoint of the dictionary, an atheist, one who disbelieves in the existence of a God or a Supreme Being”?
To this, Einstein replied, “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist, whose fervour is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
The view that Einstein holds about the existence of God is the same that almost all scientists hold. They consider themselves agnostics — neither acknowledging the existence of God nor denying it. The subject of scientific study is the material world. The material world is the creation of the Creator. Scientific study is, therefore, the study of God’s creation. A scientist can deny the existence of a Creator, but it is impossible for him to deny the signs of the Creator in His creation. In truth, the physical world contains many incredible realities that are beyond material comprehension. For example, meaningful design, intelligence, purposeful planning, etc. These properties in the physical world are an indirect affirmation of the existence of God.
The subject of scientific study is the material world. The material world is the creation of the Creator. Scientific study is, therefore, the study of God’s creation.
To justify this opinion, one method that we can use is to evaluate whether or not scientific discoveries are in conformity with the concept of the existence of God. This method of establishing a viewpoint can be called ‘verificationism’.
Another argument we can use can be called ‘the principle of compatibility’. This means that if a premise which in itself is not demonstrable is compatible with existing known and demonstrable discoveries, we can accept it as true. If this method is applied to the concept of the existence of God, then the existence of God becomes established.
Acknowledgement of Science
Scientific studies have shown that there exists a high order of
intelligence and planning in the universe. There is incredible harmony
in the universe. These facts have been acknowledged by many world
renowned scientists, such as Sir James Jeans, Arthur Eddington, Albert
Einstein, David Foster, Fred Hoyle, etc. It has been established that the
essence of the universe is ‘intelligence’. In the words of a scientist:
Molecular biology has conclusively proved that the ‘matter’ of
organic life, our very flesh, really is mind-stuff.
In 1927, a Belgian scientist, Georges Lemaitre, proposed the concept of the Big Bang. Further research on his proposal resulted in what is now widely accepted as the model of the universe. In 1965, cosmic background radiation—ripples of microwave radiation found every- where in space with no discernible source—was attributed to the Big Bang. This radiation was the remnant of the Big Bang. On observing this radiation, Joel Primack, an American scientist, observed: 'the ripples are no less than the handwriting of God'.
George Fitzgerald Smoot is an American astrophysicist and cosmologist, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006 for his work on the Cosmic Background Explorer. In 1992, when he announced the discovery of ripples in the heat radiation still arriving from the Big Bang, he said it was 'like seeing the face of God'.
Theory of Everything
Although Albert Einstein was born in a Jewish family, after scientific
study he had become doubtful about the existence of God. A year
before his death in 1954, he wrote a letter to a Jewish philosopher, Eric
B. Gutkind, where he said:
The word God was nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.
What Einstein refers to as ‘human weakness’ is not really a weakness but a characteristic feature of man. This characteristic feature has been aptly described in the following words: ‘Man is an explanationseeking animal.’ This characteristic feature of man is the foundation of all progress. On the basis of this feature, man seeks out an explanation for all things, thereby reaching the great discoveries that make all developments in civilization possible. If it were not for this feature in man, human civilization would have remained in a state of total ignorance.
Science has not proved the existence of God directly, but it would be true to say that Science has accumulated the data to prove the existence of God.
It is said that Einstein spent the last thirty years of his life in a quest to find a scientific answer, but he was not successful. This quest was to find a Unified Field Theory. This was an extremely important scientific quest and is still the subject of scientific research. It is now better known as the Theory of Everything.
What is the Theory of Everything? It is a unified theory that would supposedly give a scientific explanation to all the forces in nature. The 'Theory of Everything' is actually a theory that purports to explain everything.
In 1998, CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, launched a project to build the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a high energy particle accelerator that would enable scientists to study subatomic particles. These particles were the basis of the fundamental laws of physics. Their study would help, so it was felt, in establishing a Theory of Everything. The LHC was built in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and engineers from over 100 countries, as well as hundreds of universities and laboratories, and at a cost over hundred million dollars. It lies in a tunnel 27 kilometres in circumference, 175 metres beneath the surface of the earth on the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland.
A scientist can deny the existence of a Creator, but it is impossible for him to deny the signs of the Creator in His creation.
Almost a century has now passed in the search for this Theory of Everything, or, rather, an explanation of everything, but yet scientists have not succeeded in this. Any scientific formula can never be an answer to such a question.
Missing Link
On the issue of belief in God and Science, a more appropriate statement
could be as follows: Although the God that religion presents as a
matter of faith is not a subject of scientific study, scientific discoveries
are indirectly an academic affirmation of this belief. Science has not
proved the existence of God directly, but it would be true to say that
Science has accumulated the data to prove the existence of God.
In the standard model of Science, there is a missing link. The scientific model explains the ‘action’, but it does not show the ‘actor’. On the other hand, in the model of the universe that the Quran proposes, both the ‘action’ and the ‘actor’ are present. In other words, the Quran explains the cause as well as the causative factor. Where Science acknowledges the ‘action’ (intelligence), then, by extrapolation, there can be no reason for Science not to accept the ‘actor’ (mind).