From Ian Smales
Broadstairs, Kent
I fail to see why believing scientists “cannot believe in the laws of
physics if they believe that a god can exist outside those laws”, as Foster
claims. Surely, the definition of God involves the idea that He has to be
outside of any laws which He created? Similarly, although it has been shown that
the Universe might not “need a creator and sustainer”, that surely doesn’t mean
that there can’t be one?
Bishop Paley’s argument from design ceased to be convincing decades before
Richard Dawkins “consigned it to the dustbin”; the current bottom line is that
the existence of God cannot be proved by science or philosophy. However, by the
same token, His existence can (unfortunately for Dawkins et al) never be
disproved.
I fail to see why science and religion must always be at odds—if
science is based on perpetual doubt, how is it that so many scientists think
that God definitely cannot exist? Rather than serving to “puff humanity’s ego”,
surely much of Christianity involves the “depravity” of man and his fundamental
inability to help himself?
Advertisement
Although the “laws of science” have been infinitely useful to humankind, is
anyone bold enough to say that nothing at all could ever exist outside their
remit?
