9 of 38

Write now Article Tools

There is an eerie connection between the scientists of modern society and those from earlier periods that promoted religion. Both have been seeking to explain the unknown. The major difference between the two eras is that the scientists have learned from their predecessors that reasons do exist and can be identified. Without those previous developments, we would still be promoting the arguments of the bygone periods, that is, that because we do not understand why things have occurred, they must have been make by a greater being.

As men and women began to ask more questions and seek more reason, the scope for investigation has snowballed to the extent that everything in the universe should be questioned. From the brilliance of Leonardo da Vinci to the curiosity of Charles Darwin and the incredible Albert Einstein, we have learned to investigate and research. The result of this research is that we have learned to obtain and understand why things occur and have been able to provide proof of the results.

Those that advocate a god as the reason cannot, in my mind, provide any such proof for their arguments. One example is the ongoing debate concerning the origins of the human species on this planet. While science has been able to identify, using carbon dating, that our predecessors lived many tens of thousands of years ago and with DNA testing that, we are related to other species. Religious advocates often reject these proven facts and continue to argue that their god simply created the earth and life that exists on it.

While the theories relating to the formation of the Universe are yet to be proved, they have also not been disproved. It is an ongoing project for scientists. The alternative argument, put forward by the supporters of religion, simply say that such could not have happened without a greater being, could not have come from nothing and must have been created at some time. It could not have been around forever. When Nicolaus Copernicus argued that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe, he was accused of being blasphemous. We have since proved that Copernicus was correct. I simply ask this question of those that support the religion argument. If your god created the Universe, who created your god? If no one created your god, what was he doing for eternity prior to the creation of the universe? I see these as questions without answers. Arguments that cannot be proven.

One of the greatest downfalls of the religion argument is that fact that there is not one, but several. If one is correct, the others must be wrong. Which one is correct? Is it the Judaism/Christian/Muslim idea of one god? Is it the beliefs of Buddha? Are the believers of Hinduism all wrong? They cannot all be correct. Having said that, it does not suggest that religions are bad. All religions have developed various cultures that can benefit societies, advocating peace and the caring for others, particularly those that can be defined as being less fortunate. They may have their places in society, but they have not proved that their god exists.

The rejection of god by scientists is supported by the basic concepts of science. Something that is not proven can be a hypothetical theory. Evidence is required to prove that theory is fact and others, using scientific principals must verify the evidence. At best, religion may be a theory, but there is no scientific proof to support the theories. Only stories handed down from other era, when less information was known.

Learn more about this author, Eric J Taylor.
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!