» » Why Science Does Not Disprove God

Why Science Does Not Disprove God download epub

by Amir Aczel


Epub Book: 1348 kb. | Fb2 Book: 1607 kb.

Amir Aczel combines scientific credibility, stylistic elegance, and argumentative vigor in Why Science Does Not Disprove Go. In Aczel, Richard Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists face a formidable opponent.

Amir Aczel combines scientific credibility, stylistic elegance, and argumentative vigor in Why Science Does Not Disprove God. What’s more, he’s right. RABBI DAVID WOLPE, Sinai Temple (Los Angeles); author of Why Faith Matters).

Start by marking Why Science Does Not Disprove God as Want to Read . In this much-needed book, science journalist Amir Aczel profoundly disagrees and conclusively demonstrates that science has not, as yet, provided any definitive proof refuting the existence of God.

Start by marking Why Science Does Not Disprove God as Want to Read: Want to Read savin. ant to Read. Why Science Does Not Disprove God is his brilliant and incisive analyses of the theories and findings of such titans as Albert Einstein, Roger Penrose, Alan Guth, and Charles Darwin, all of whose major breakthroughs leave open the possibility- and even the strong likelihood-of a Creator.

In Einstein, God, and the Big Bang, a colorful chapter of his new book, Amir D. Aczel maintains that Albert Einstein truly . Aczel maintains that Albert Einstein truly believed in God. He points out that Einstein attended synagogue during his year in Prague (1913). Aczel goes on to express strong displeasure with such people as physicist Lawrence Krauss and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (who, in his bestseller The God Delusion, says that Einstein didn’t really mean it ) when they cast Einstein as an atheist in support of their diatribes against religious belief.

But does this vast knowledge base disprove the existence of some kind of pre-existent outside force that may have launched .

But does this vast knowledge base disprove the existence of some kind of pre-existent outside force that may have launched our universe on its way? Related Stories. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang.

In this much-needed book, science journalist Amir Aczel profoundly disagrees and conclusively demonstrates that science has not, as yet, provided any definitive proof refuting the existence of God.

Science was on a roll and, to atheists, must have seemed to be on the verge of finishing off religious belief

Science was on a roll and, to atheists, must have seemed to be on the verge of finishing off religious belief.

Amir D. Aczel was born in Haifa, Israel. He graduated with a BA in mathematics in 1975, and received a Master of Science in 1976.

The renowned science writer, mathematician, and bestselling author of Fermat's Last Theorem masterfully refutes the overreaching claims the "New Atheists," providing millions of educated believers with a clear, engaging explanation of what science really says, how there's still much space for the Divine in the universe, and why faith in both God and empirical science are not mutually exclusive.

A highly publicized coterie of scientists and thinkers, including Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, and Lawrence Krauss, have vehemently contended that breakthroughs in modern science have disproven the existence of God, asserting that we must accept that the creation of the universe came out of nothing, that religion is evil, that evolution fully explains the dazzling complexity of life, and more. In this much-needed book, science journalist Amir Aczel profoundly disagrees and conclusively demonstrates that science has not, as yet, provided any definitive proof refuting the existence of God.

Why Science Does Not Disprove God is his brilliant and incisive analyses of the theories and findings of such titans as Albert Einstein, Roger Penrose, Alan Guth, and Charles Darwin, all of whose major breakthroughs leave open the possibility— and even the strong likelihood—of a Creator. Bolstering his argument, Aczel lucidly discourses on arcane aspects of physics to reveal how quantum theory, the anthropic principle, the fine-tuned dance of protons and quarks, the existence of anti-matter and the theory of parallel universes, also fail to disprove God.


Comments: (7)

Mr_KiLLaURa
A very interesting book. The author is not a Christian.
He admits that he does not like any organized religion. Yet he is very much
opposed to the claims of a kind of extreme atheist that claim that Science
has proved that God does not exist. They claim that all men of science reject the idea
of God. The author shows very clearly that science has not and really cannot disprove the existence of God.
He is a strong evolutionist but admits that there are many things that evolution cannot explain,
like how life came from non-life and the uniqueness of man with his ability to create etc.

He admits that man has personality. If he was created by a God, would not that creator have a personality as well?
If he created a creature like himself, would he not have revealed himself to that creature? The God of the Bible has done that.
He created people in His image and has revealed Himself to them.
Hallolan
The New Atheists have by and large appeared to agree that if they're going to disprove Christianity, they're going to go the route of science. It's a quite strange route really, but it's the route taken because today most people do think scientifically, or at least think that they do. Unfortunately, a lot of people who make science their forte and ignore all the other areas tend to have that show in their argumentation. Richard Dawkins is no philosopher, but that doesn't mean he has no grounds to take on the Thomistic arguments obviously. Victor Stenger isn't a historian, but that won't stop him from talking about the historical Jesus as if he was an authority. In our day and age, the scientists have become the new priesthood. This is not to disparage science, but it is to say that when scientists speak outside of their field on areas they have not studied, we have no reason to take them as authorities.

Aczel will not take them as authorities either and has written a work demonstrating the fallacies in their thinking. When reading the work, it is unclear also what side Aczel falls on. He does not write like a Christian. In many ways, he does not even write like a theist. Still, his main contention is that the new atheists are doing a disservice to the arguments. He knows the material well and has spoken to many of the best scientific minds out there on the topic. Due to his different positions in the area of religion, it will be difficult for opponents of his to play the bias card.

The downside is that the work is largely a defensive work in that sense and thus does not really touch on the positive arguments for the existence of God. Of course, it does have some areas in science that certainly can seem to point to a deity, but at this point the idea of "God-of-the-Gaps" is trotted out. (Strangely enough, the critics of theism never consider they are going with a "naturalism-of-the-gaps.") Of course, Aczel could say that these are positive evidences such as the fine-tuning of the universe, and in that case he would indeed be right. The question is not "What is the best explanation of what we don't know?" but rather "What is the best explanation of what we do know?"

Absent are the great philosophical arguments for the existence of God, which I think are ultimately the way to go. Science can give evidence, but it is not the final authority, despite what many will think and some will think I am attacking science simply by saying that. I instead prefer to think I am giving science its proper field, which is the study of material objects and the material world. The ramifications that one draws from that study are indeed philosophical and the sad reality is that many scientists do turn out to be poor philosophers, but that has never really stopped them from trying!

Ultimately, people who are advocating that science has disproven God are in fact doing science a disservice and limiting people in the field by saying that if you are going to be a serious scientist, you cannot be religious. A lot of great minds who are religious also could be dissuaded from entering the field and who knows what benefits they could bring? From a Christian standpoint, we have too often made it be science vs. religion and when that happens, people will go with whatever they think makes the most important contributions to their lives. Some scientists would be shocked to hear religious people think religion makes the most contribution, but indeed most do. Most think of the morals that they ascribe to their religion and the sense of meaning they find and the wonder of the universe. The scientific view of atheism frankly doesn't offer an appeal to them and sadly they think "If it's science or the Bible, so much the worse for science."

Now I am not of this standpoint as I think it's not either/or but both/and and the problem is a fundamentalism on both sides that thinks because you know something in one field, you know all fields. Having a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology does not qualify you to speak on Aristotelian philosophy or the study of the New Testament. Believing that your Scripture is the Word of God and that you have an infallible and inerrant message does not mean that you are therefore in the right on everything that you speak about. Both sides are making the same kind of mistake. Consider what one Christian authority said on this:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Who said that? Augustine did, about sixteen centuries ago. It still stands today.

Aczel's book will be a good read for those interested in this debate, though at times if you're not familiar, the terminology can get difficult to follow, but it does for the most part tend to be readable. If you're interested in this kind of debate, this is a book you should seriously consider.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
Deeper Waters Christian Ministries
Daron
Especially good in re: mathematics & physics and their relationship. Anyone who thinks science disproves God needs to check this book out.
Trash
Well written by a well respected scientist and mathematician who eloquently and politely explains why science can no more disprove the existence of God than religionists can prove the existence of that Being.
Use_Death
Great detail in demonstrating scientific “facts” are actually scientist’s opinions that are unproven extrapolations from facts. Ever notice how new scientific “fact” proves accepted scientific “fact” wrong.
Shomeshet
There is a need to resolve the riddle of the existence of the physical and spiritual aspects of the universe. Aczel advances us toward understanding the solution
Thetalen
Fascinating read! Although it doesn’t prove God (and the intent to do so was never the purpose of the book), it has helped to expand my belief that there that there is God. So well worth the time to read and ponder!
Interesting perspective.
Why Science Does Not Disprove God download epub
Religious Studies
Author: Amir Aczel
ISBN: 006223059X
Category: Religion & Spirituality
Subcategory: Religious Studies
Language: English
Publisher: William Morrow; 1st Printing edition (April 15, 2014)
Pages: 304 pages