Some say that scientists should have an “open mind” on whether God exists.
Here is a thought experiment. Suppose that a strange thing starts happening. Some people gain the ability to levitate. They can float in the air without any support, violating all laws of physics as we know it. Suppose also that only some people are capable of this, not all. We do not yet know which of us has this abiliy.
An “open minded” scientist decides to tackle the problem. He tries to use the normal scientific method. He collects as much data as possible. He tries to see a pattern in them. He thinks up hypotheses and generate testable predictions. He tests those predictions. Is it something in those people’s genes? Can those people do it in some places and not others? Perhaps Newton’s equations need to be modified in some interesting ways?
It is a scientist’s job to look for patterns. Claims for God’s existence rest on anomalies. The argument is usually that phenomenon X cannot be explained by physical laws; hence it is a “miracle”, an indication that He exists.
But a scientist cannot accept such an explanation. An anomaly is an enemy to be defeated – by an explanation. Search for an explanation for levitating people can either be scientific, or it can lead you to God. It cannot do both. Even if it turns out that existing physical laws have to be abandoned and new ones found, as long as you do it scientifically, you are reducing the need for God’s existence.
Suppose that it turns out that the strange phenomenon does not fall into any pattern and does not yiel? even to an explanation that involves “meta-laws” sitting on top of physical laws.
The open minded scientist accepts defeat in this case. Does he have to accept God’s existence then?
No he does not. There are phenomena in nature that don’t fall into a deterministic pattern. It is not possible to determine an electron’s location. Science hasn’t given up, or started believing that God runs quantum mechanics.
It has got by by defining itself around these phenomena.
Randomness does is not evidence for God’s existence. The only plausible proof of God’s existence would be if there is some indication that there is a “purpose” or “method” in this randomness.
But if there is a method and we could see it, we wouldn’t attribute that method to God would we? We would state it as a law, like Newton’s laws, or as a theory, such as Einstein’s theory of relativity.
So neither randomness nor order can really be taken as evidence for an anthropomorphic (human-like) God.
If God really wants us to believe in Him, He had better stop His annoying habit of revealing Himself in strange ways. The only proof of His existence that science can really accept is the one that wouldn’t require the scientific method. God can simply insert the axiom “God exists” in the minds of all scientists. Then there wouldn’t be need for proof or speculation
