Carlos E. Gary Prof. Duston Mason
W204700838 12/04/2014
Does Science Refute God?
The debate of whether god exists or not is a millennial old one. Most of human
existence has directly been based on the praise of deities. A lot of advancement has
been attributed to religion. At the same time, religion has impeded technological and
scientific development in many instances. The debate that I chose for this essay is
“Science refutes God.” In this debate there are numerous arguments stated to confirm
or disprove the existence of god on a scientific basis. Ian Hutchinson, an MIT professor
that is against the motion, exposes a point that I think is flawed. He states that belief in
god is often highly rational. My main purpose of this essay is to disprove Hutchinson’s
point with both scientific and social concepts. As humanity has progressed socially, so
has our understanding of the universe. These phases we have been involved in have
been gradual but have allowed us to eventually adopt science as an ultimate tool of
understanding. In this instance, I will provide a rational explanation for which the
existence of god is disproven by science.
Hutchinson proceeds to explain that, “God is mostly not a scientific question, and
so the evidence for God is mostly not scientific.” The argument in itself allocates god
from natural occurring phenomena. Hutchinson would then add that, “human
knowledge, like history or the law, or politics, or philosophy, or literature have no
scientific basis or evidence”. In essence, there is no true correlation between science
and these schools of thought, in the same way science has no basis or evidence in
disproving god. The main purpose of this debate is to that science can disprove god.
Hutchinson mentions that you cannot disprove something that has no tangible evidence.
Carlos E. Gary Prof. Duston Mason
W204700838 12/04/2014
God has no physical qualities ergo we can neither prove nor disprove his or her
existence. The basis for this claim is that we can have an invisible force with no
properties that can actually manipulate objects and occurrences that do have tangible
properties. He lastly refutes that god is not a natural phenomenon or a law of nature to
be established by scientific investigation.
Rational, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “based on facts or
reason and not emotions or feelings.” God or any deity is an intangible and inexplicable
force that has never been proven to exist or been able to define in rational terms. There
are no proven facts or occurrences of such force. Early humanity attributed a majority of
natural phenomena to invisible agents in the world that created these phenomena or
