If you haven't heard of this debate, it is an open-ended conversation hosted by the Templeton Foundation. Many prominent religious persons, philosophers, and scientists have written essays to respond to the question. See the site here: http://www.templeton.org/belief/

This is a hot topic in our modern culture. Especially with the rise of the theory of Evolution and the proponents of "Intelligent Design". Time Magazine epitomized the debate in its issue where the headline was "God vs. Science".



Though I am by no means a scientist, a respected religious orator, or a philosopher, I am a critical thinker. Here's my attempt to throw in my two cents into the debate.

Answer: Both yes and no.

The question "Does science make belief in God obsolete" itself assumes a number of things that we needn't necessarily accept as true. In fact, I argue that these presumptions are in fact false, and we cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion unless we address these assumptions in our argument. The assumptions are:
1) Science and God are mutually exclusive. That is belief in science, is a non-belief in God
2) Belief in God is a subjective opinion rather than a statement about objective reality. That is, belief in God is more similar to "I think ice cream is good" rather than to "Matter is composed of atoms".

    Let us look first and assumption number 2. It is a notion that is very popular in today's modern culture, yet it seems few have stopped to reason out the logical conclusions from holding such a belief. The belief can be summarized in the statement that "what you believe is true for you". Or the equivalent "each person's beliefs are personal and if they work out for them, then it is true for them." In an era of multiculturalism and tolerance, religious diversity and religious tolerance are a value that our society holds high.  Who am I to infringe on the beliefs of others? The view that every belief is equivalent and equally true is the same as assumption #2. In order for every person's belief to be true - and by true I mean it accurately describes reality - then each person's beliefs must in fact NOT describe reality, but instead describe their own internal opinions and wishful thinkings.
    For example, let us bring a Christian into the room. Let us say that this person believes in an omnipotent all-powerful God named Jesus. Fine, that is good for him. Now let us have a Muslim walk into the room. The Christian believes that Jesus is his God, whereas the Muslim believes Jesus is not God. OK...contradictory beliefs but let's keep going. Say, seeing the small gathering a Buddhist walks into the room. She believes in reincarnation, where as the Christian and the Muslim do not. Not to worry, we have 3 contradictions, but that needn't stop us. Realizing there's a party going on a New Ager walks into the room. The a New-Ager believes that we each contain the divine, and all things are god. The other 3 people in the room respectfully disagree. Last, but not least, the Atheist saunters into the room.  According to his beliefs they is no god at all! We start to see the silliness holding this view. In order for the beliefs of each of these 5 people to all be correct - and by correct I mean they accurately describe reality - God would have to be Jesus, not be Jesus, allow reincarnation, not allow reincarnation, instill each person with divine god-ness, and also not do so, and then pop completely out of existence, and into existence...at the same moment!
    Obviously this is untenable - indeed it is illogical. The only each person's set of personal beliefs could be true would be to conclude that there really is no God at all. Instead, each person holds to their own personal set of beliefs and values. And though that set of beliefs and values might help that believer to be a better person, their set of beliefs aren't true in any real objective sense. If that person were to die, their beliefs and values would die with them, and the universe would be the same after that person lived as it was before.

    In this view, religion is merely wishful thinking. A crutch that a person uses to help them get through life. If this is the case - and many people believe this to be the case - then most definitely, science has rendered religion obsolete! Humans have been depending on religion through the eons merely as a coping mechanism. However, in modern times we have new, much better and objective mojo. Science. Who needs wishful thinking and nice sounding truisms when you can depend on the time-tempered, hard, and un-emotional laws of science?
    The answer is we don't!

    Consider the other alternative however. This view of religion we have put forward is the "i think ice cream is good" version of belief. It is subjective, it is opinion, and it can vary from person to person but doesn't necessarily describe the substance of reality in any objective sense. The alternative is that there is a God who is objective, who exists outside the confines of the human mind and exists and has attributes independent of whatever someone might think of it. If something is true of this God it is true no matter what.
    If this sort of God exists, then nothing can make it obsolete. Neither science or any other thing because this God exists of its own accord - not because of human invention. Asking the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete" is akin to asking the question "Does advancements in human physiology make belief in the brain obsolete?" The question is nonsense - the brain as an organ either exists or it doesn't, irrespective of whatever new knowledge of organs we have come by.
    Another important note is that if this sort of God exists, then not all of the 5 people in the room can be right. Perhaps none or some of them can be right, but not all of them.
    Now that we have come to a sensible definition of what we "belief in God" could mean, does belief in God mean that you can't trust in science? And if you believe in science does that mean that you can't believe in God?
    I think that separating God and science is creating a false dichotomy. The two are not mutually exclusive. Science in today's modern world has been elevated to the point of being and end-all of everything. If something is not a scientific statement, then it doesn't hold as much worth as one that is. However, we immediately see that this cannot be the case. I think William D. Philips, who is a Nobel Laureate in physics, is a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said it best:

"...a scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a scientific matter. Scientific statements must be "falsifiable." That is, there must be some outcome that at least in principle could show that the statement is false. I might say, "Einstein's theory of relativity correctly describes the behavior of visible objects in our solar system." So far, extremely careful measurements have failed to prove that statement false, but they could (and some people have invested careers in trying to see if they will). By contrast, religious statements are not necessarily falsifiable. I might say, "God loves us and wants us to love one another." I cannot think of anything that could prove that statement false. Some might argue that if I were more explicit about what I mean by God and the other concepts in my statement, it would become falsifiable. But such an argument misses the point. It is an attempt to turn a religious statement into a scientific one. There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific. "She sings beautifully." "He is a good man." "I love you." These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value. Science is not the only useful way of looking at life."

    Though belief in God and religion has been called "the opiate of the masses", it would be foolish to consider Dr. Philips as uninformed. He is a very smart man. Probably smarter than most of us. Yet he has absolutely no problem trusting in the rigors of science and the power of God at the same time. Why? Because they occupy separate realms. Both are equally true. God is not merely regulated to the non-scientific realm of course (and by non-scientific I mean the physical workd), and God could and I believe does intervene in measurable ways in the physical world. However, the point is, science is science, and God is God, and as they are in different realms, science can no more make God obsolete than any physical thing or idea can.
    One of the biggest protests I have heard against religion is that it is a system of non-knowledge.



    That if you believe in God, then you use God to explain things that you can't understand. I do not think this is the case at all! Perhaps for the weak-minded that might be the case, but any critical thinker will seek out the solution no matter where it leads. Indeed the one who believes in God has a more holistic view of reality. Where as science cannot give answers to all questions (do we have a soul? why is there evil? where do we go when we die?), religion can answer these questions. As opposed to being a knowledge limiter, I view believing in God as a knowledge expander.