Why do scientists hate God?

Post Reply New Topic

Why do scientists hate the idea of God? They strongly object to God as an explanation for anything. They'll accept pretty much any explanation as long as it's not God. They just absolutely hate the possibility of God. Scientists should quit objecting to God.

Can I suggest that you look up the definition of science.

To be a good scientist you need to propose hypotheses that can be tested.

These are based on previously proven theories, a foundation of knowledge.

Can anyone perform a test to prove that any god(s) exist?

You're really generalising it. Plenty of important scientists in history have had a strong faith in a divine creator.

With regard to modern scientists, most just don't have the time because they're too busy with their activities and they make up an excuse regarding this lack of interest, which could be anything and it won't matter if it contradicts itself because the people who want to hear the said views expressed already agree with the idea a priori. They don't necessarily manifest it in abrasive way though, but the loud ones make their existence known well beyond their area of expertise.

Because God isn't an explanation to anything. It's a handwave, the ultimate one. And handwaves don't belong in science.

It's not that scientists object to the idea of God, it's that the idea of God is antithetical to science. Science only works with proofs and testable, falsifiable hypotheses (i.e. statements that can be tested through experiment and can possibly be rejected as not fitting the data). God isn't a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, so it doesn't belong in science.

It's that simple. If you don't get it, you don't get science. And if you don't get science, you've got no business telling scientists what they should or shouldn't object to.

I am going to assume you are being serious.

Most scientists do not hate God. Many are theists themselves, many simply don't care. Even Richard Dawkins is fine with people having personal belief.

As neilson says, scientists have to test their predictions. This means they have to rely on material evidence. Unless God is still making a measurable impact on the world, there is no way science is going to show that He exists. If He is interfering in the world, by healing people, for example, then science may one day come to accept that... though so far miracles are completely unreproducible so that seems unlikely.

Anything that can explain everything, including contradictions, actually explains nothing. It has no explanatory power at all. In order for something to have explanatory power, you must be able explain why something is the way it is and not any other way, therefore true explanations have to exclude some possibilities and there has to limitations. God did it as opposed to evolution is not an explanation for life on earth because it doesn't explain why we see what we see in nature.

"Hate" is the wrong word. "Laugh at" is closer to the truth.


Because there is no empirical evidence for God's existence.


No, they'll accept pretty much any explanation that can be demonstrated to be valid.


No, they simply refuse to waste their time and funding on something that can not be demonstrated to be true.


Why? To many scientists, God is simply an unsubstantiated myth, and believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.

Do you want people to stop thinking, as well?

That isn't true. There is empirical evidence for God, just like there is for Lamarkian evolution, astrology, homoeopathy, and vaccines causing autism. It just isn't very good evidence, and certainly isn't proof.

Some people are just angry atheists.

Why do the religious hate the idea that there is no God? They strongly object to God's absence as an explanation for anything. They'll accept pretty much any explanation as long as it allows God to exist. They just absolutely hate the possibility of Godlessness. Religious people should quit objecting to God's nonexistence.

It's just a illogical explanation. To explain how is it possible, for example, that human beings exist, you create an almighty entity.

This way you have solved the problem about how to explain human beings... and in exchange of it, you have created the problem of explaining almighty entities!

There was a time when science and God were not seen as being as incompatible as they do today. It should be noted that Sir Isaac Newton, for all his fundamental contributions to modern Western science, was also a theologist. The church was actually instrumental in the foundations of science, because it was from theology and philosophy that the structure and the most basic ground rules for the scientific method arose. Science originated as a way of observing and celebrating the intricacies of the Creator's grand design.

However, inevitably, Western science came to a crossroads when it was finally realized that, if science is to be based on reproducible, empirical truths, whether God exists or not is an irrelevant question. He is not observable, and therefore, you could say he was sheared from the scientific process by Occam's razor-- because He cannot be proven or disproven, His presence in scientific observations generally only complicates scientific explanations for phenomena.

This is not to say that there aren't scientists who are people of faith-- but the entire point of science is to search for empirical, objective universal truths that do not require an imposition of one person's faith on others.

Refusing to accept God as an explanation is not hate. It's scientific. There is no acceptable way that an unproven and unprovable hypothesis can be accepted as a scientific truth. If there is a God, if he is a truth, then science will show it through experimentation and verifiable truth, leaving no other, more logical explanation.

Science is unbiased, or should be. Scientists look at what is in front of them, analyze it, and form a conclusion. They question. They test. They reason. Religion demands that we take the word of someone else, a priest or a holy book written two thousand years ago or a mullah or a bhikku or whatever, rather than to test and question. And invariably, every one of these belief systems demand that you take it on faith that theirs is the only acceptable answer. It is inherently emotional. it is inherently biased.

The Bible has never been peer-reviewed, and under scrutiny for it's veracity, comes up as dead wrong most of the time in it's description of historical events. A scientist will tell you that based on its virtually universal inaccuracy, the Bible can't be accepted as truth. The theologian will tell you that it's allegorical, or literally true and what we can prove is flawed, because God likes to %$^& with us, he will provide basically any explanation regardless of logic and observable truth. The scientists demands facts, and his opinions change as the facts unfold. The theologian bends facts to suit his opinion.

A better approach than asking why scientists refuse to accept God is to look inward. Why is it so important to you that your personal deity be universally accepted as truth? Why is it so important that scientists stop pushing, stop testing, stop asking? Why is the search for verifiable truth so very offensive? If you are secure in your own faith, wouldn't it be better and more trusting and faithful in God's plan to be confident that the search for truth with lead back to him? Ask yourself the hard questions, rather than silencing those who do.

"God" is usually just a euphemism for "something we cannot understand, but accept it is out of our realm of understanding". This is anathema to science. Scientists are *never* satisfied with this sort of answer. Hence why they consider "God did it" an extremely lazy and ultimately harmful explanation, as it discourages further investigation and therefore blocks the expansion of knowledge

Which God?

Definitely not Thor. Thor destroyed the ice giants. Proof? I haven't see any ice giants around, have you?