4 of 38

Write now Article Tools

The whole conception of God is based on belief; it doesn't have to be justified, nor does it have to be proved. 'God' is conceived of as being a supernatural being that is above and beyond the material world. He, she, or it exists in people's minds, whether or not there is or has ever been a God in a palpable sense.

This could be seen to be at odds with the scientific community, who prefer to formulate a hypothesis before testing it to prove that it is correct or otherwise. When they manage to develop their own laws or theories it is then up to their scientific peers to falsify or disprove their theories before going on to create their own. Nothing is set in stone, and so it is possible to challenge anything and everything. There are scientists who still manage to believe in God, and so they must be able to make a distinction between the two areas of their life which would seem to be so contradictory.

People who believe in God do so even though there is no evidence of the existence of a God, and in fact much evidence to suggest that the world was not created in seven days by a supreme being and that man was not created in the image of God. Believers are prepared to ignore evidence which fails to support their beliefs because they if they have always defined themselves in terms of their faith, and have been moulded and influenced since they were children by their belief in God, why would they suddenly turn around and automatically renounce their faith?

Instead, some people prefer to ignore evidence which seems to contradict the existence of God and to take religious scripture as the word of God, following a fundamentalist approach to life. Others decide to incorporate certain proven scientific facts into their lives without feeling that it clashes with their faith. It certainly helps that religious scriptures are often full of contradictions, themselves, and are very much open to interpretation.

If those who believe in God are free to reject evidence which seems to contradict the possibility that such a being ever existed, why shouldn't scientists be able to reject evidence which would seem to prove that there was indeed a supreme being? In theory, scientists could ignore such evidence, but in reality science is based on a pursuit of truth.

Scientists formulate theories in the hopes that they can improve people's lives, and also perhaps with the less noble ambition of being able to go one better than their peers. If one scientist found proof of God, it is unlikely he or she would be able to keep it to themselves for very long, because science is based on being able to replicate experiments and confirm or disprove the theories being perpetuated by others.

Most scientists, though, would probably prefer to put their time and energy into carrying out research which will have practical applications, and so are hardly likely to go hunting for proof of a God in the first place.

Learn more about this author, Michelle Wilkinson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Why do scientists reject evidence of God?
We want to hear your view. Write now!