BY ERICA GUSTAFSON, OPINION EDITOR
One of the most controversial subjects that get on my nerves is when people state that science has the power to disprove God’s existence. It has been a dispute between scientists, religious figures and other people of all ages. It has been discussed, argued and even fought over on a number of occasions.
I am a Christian woman myself, and this controversy really hits home. Though I do not disregard the impact of science and evolution as a starting player for the world, I am a firm believer in God and my Christian faith.
Surprising as it may be, this subject came up during my Psychology Statistics and Research Methods class here at St. Bonaventure University. Our professor started the semester off by discussing science as a whole and the basic understanding of research methods. He went on a 20-minute tangent about how it is absolutely ridiculous that so many intelligent scientists insist that science shows that God doesn’t exist.
The whole basis of his talk was that the basics of science do not have the ability to prove or disprove God’s existence despite what others think.
In a 2014 Time magazine article, Amir D. Aczel mentions a view held by many scientific researchers stating that “God is simply unnecessary: we can explain all the workings of the universe without the need for a Creator.”
Aczel later ends his argument that science does not disprove God by saying, “Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.”
The Science Behind It also published an interview video where religious experts and scientists talked with one another about this controversy. They talked specifically about the differences between science and religion.
They stated, “Science and religion draw on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations are based on evidence drawn from observing the natural world and conducting experiments. Since these explanations are based on evidence, they can be checked independently by others.”
They continued stating, “Religious beliefs don’t depend only on empirical evidence. They can also be based on faith and typically involve supernatural forces or entities.”
This disputed topic was also the focus of the 2014 film God’s Not Dead, which was written by Hunter Dennis, Chuck Konzelman and Cary Solomon.
Shane Harper portrayed college student Shane Harper, and Kevin Sorbo took on the role of Professor Radisson. At the beginning of the semester, Professor Radisson gave all students in his class a blank paper and told each one to write God is dead on it to “get that out of the way.” The basis of the film is that the two take on a multi-class debate over whether or not God is dead because Shane refused to write it down. This is one of my favorite movies of all time.
The end of this movie completely sums up my overall reason for writing this article. Students all agreed that God does not require them to believe in him, but it is their choice. That was the whole point Shane made. Professor Radisson took away their choice in whether or not they have that faith.
God’s existence is not supported by observations or measurable facts that can scientifically prove he doesn’t exist. That does not mean that everyone needs to believe in him, but everyone has the choice to make for themselves. Science does not prove his existence, but it also cannot disprove him either. That is where faith comes in.
