Please leave any comment at the foot of this page.
Do scientists believe in God?
[Al Palmer, Ann Arbor Friends Meeting] 19:00:43:
Martin will bring us out of that silence with his presentation.
[Al Palmer, Ann Arbor Friends Meeting] 19:00:48
Let us now begin the time of silence.
[Martin Barker, Aberdeen Scotland] 19:20:46
Friends. I’ll start with a confession, which is that I knew I was going to be doing this talk this evening. But I really only started putting it together last night. Which is possibly inexcusable. But I think it came together very quickly and well, you can be the judge of how that turned out.
But the point I’m making is that I realized that I’ve been thinking about this probably for most of my working life, this question of, do scientists believe in God?
And this is a spoiler alert, which is the answer is yes. Obviously, we can all go home now because we do realize that, quite evidently, scientists do believe in God.
And I suppose what remains for us to do is to consider why that is the case, or to at least to speculate. There are probably scientists in our group today who may have their own answer to the questions that I’m posing.
The original title, ‘Do Scientists Believe in God?’ is I suppose a more sort of gentle version of the question that I really wanted to ask, which is: ‘How do scientists believe in God?’ or even ‘How on earth do scientists believe in God?’ And but I decided that’s a bit provocative and a bit confrontational and aggressive, so I I’m just keeping it as an open question.
And our job, possibly, well, my job initially, and then hopefully yours, is to try and work out a sensible answer to that question. Do scientists believe in God and is that something that we should be interested in?
I did what many of us do these days. I began to type on Google “Do scientists…” and I only got to the fifth character before the prompt came up ”do scientists believe in God?” So, this is a question that other people are asking, is basically what I’m concluding from that. The fact is that it seems to be a live issue among people who care about belief and also who care about science. And of course, I’m going to suggest they are not mutually exclusive. But they are different ways of thinking potentially, and I think we could be exploring that in the next 20 minutes or so [actually, the talk was longer than this].
Al suggested that I introduce myself. Well, I think you’ve got the message by now that I am a scientist. I initially was a science teacher in schools, and then I became a university teacher, which is what I am now. And during the time I’ve been teaching, in my case, biology, and at the same time being a Quaker I was not so much tortured by the question of, well, is it okay to believe in God? while still being a scientist, for example. But I was curious about it, because I have colleagues, for example, who are firm believers in God. In some cases, evangelical Christians, for example, but who are still scientists.
So, I began to wonder, well, is that a problem for you? And evidently not. I think you can be a scientist, and you can be a believer at the same time. Personally, I find that impossible, which is why I regard myself as a non-theist, and why I’m part of this group among all you wonderful people.
Well, I think you probably, if you’re a scientist, you will know what I’m about to say, and if you’re not, you would recognize the characteristics of science from anything that you have been doing yourself in science or just in your thinking and reading. Which is that scientists often begin with an observation. And sometimes it’s prompt; this observation prompts a query, a discomfort even in their thinking. You know, “I need to know about this thing that I’m observing”.
So, if you want to investigate as a scientist, at least in my discipline, you identify variables. That’s usually quite fun to do, and once you’ve got the variables, you can construct a hypothesis. And, generally, in formal science, you test the so-called null hypothesis. And the outcome of your experiment, it’s going to be either that you accept the null hypothesis or you reject it.
So, and science is really quite clear about this, this is how it works and it’s what is recognized. So, that’s the result of it; what you hope will be a fair experiment. It’s controlled. And then need to make sense of your results. And, of course, this is a never-ending process, which, if you’re cynical, you could argue is what keeps scientists in business. There’s always science to be done. It’s never-ending.
So, another way to characterise science is that it’s rational, it’s repetitive (sometimes even tediously so), it’s cautious, and it certainly is sceptical. And it is restless. And so one description of what science is, by a scientist who is a non-theist, is that it begins with doubt and ignorance. So, in other words, being naïve and almost childlike in our wonder of the world is probably a good way to do your science.
So, when you do your science, as I’ve suggested already it’s a process that is potentially ongoing, either by yourself, your research group, or by others who take up the challenge after you’ve left off.
So, science is iterative and it’s cumulative. And as Steve Jones, a geneticist, who is a non-theist, by the way, suggests that this is like adding a tiny grain to the Himalayas of knowledge. Each little contribution, however small, helps humans to understand their world –and for everyone else as well because obviously scientists have an obligation to share their thinking, their results, with each other. And we are required to do that because everything we do needs to be scrutinized by peer review.
And all that I’m describing so far is not necessarily what you’d expect to do if you believed in God. You just have the belief, possibly. And at this point, I’m speaking with a bit less confidence because I actually don’t know exactly how I’m supposed to believe in God. And I hope that’s an okay thing to say, but this is the position I that probably I’m in at the moment, and I’m okay with that, by the way.
But nevertheless, I recognise the difference between an obligation to consider the possibility of God versus, as it were, the certainty of science. Having said that, I’m about to contradict myself because actually science is not certain, and that is one of the most appealing aspects of it.
So, I want to return to the idea of uncertainty during this presentation, and I hope [that this] will be picked up in the in the discussion as well. It’s a very important in my view, a very important way to understand science. Uncertainty Is almost guaranteed when we do science.
The problem with that, as everyone in this meeting knows, is that that uncertainty is sometimes misinterpreted as being confused. It might be in some cases, but let’s all think about climate change. That’s informed by science, and also by our own observations. All of us can remember the summer that we have just had, or the winter we just had, if you’re from the southern hemisphere, and know that there was something going on, there was something unusual, and possibly very concerning. We call it climate change.
And climate change is informed by the science. There are people who are sceptical about climate change, doubt the science because scientists say “we can’t be sure”.
And for some people, that’s a signal to say, well, there you go then, you don’t have certainty.
If we’re talking about belief in God, we could also say, “I’m not sure”. If you are an atheist, then you can say that with lots of conviction. If you’re a non-theist, maybe a bit less so, and if you’re agnostic, you’re suddenly becoming less certain.
And this idea that the certainty we have in our beliefs, it’s probably what we are dealing with all the time within ourselves and in the interactions we have with others. I’m going to come back to that idea as well because again, it’s a recurring theme in my thinking and hopefully in our discussion as well.
So, we know that in science the null hypothesis is rejected, possibly, or accepted, and we’re using quite a ruthless process for that. Falsification is what it’s called. It sounds a bit brutal, and in some ways it is. In my own discipline, we try to avoid the word ‘proof’, or the concept of proof. I think my colleagues in mathematics and physics, I think they’re more relaxed. They do use that word proof more readily than perhaps the biologists do.
And the reason why we’re reluctant to use that concept of proof is because we should always be humble in our science. We should always think we might be wrong. And if that resonates with Quakers, obviously. You know what I’m talking about. So, I think the certainty we have is probably based on the quality of the evidence we have gained ourselves or has been shared by others.
Now let’s return to the question that I started with: Do scientists believe in God? The answer, of course, is yes. So, that’s accepted, perhaps. Let’s consider what that looks like. So, if you consider a few examples, these are famous scientists from the last maybe 450 years, beginning with Galileo, this is in chronological order. I’ll start with Galileo, and I’ll mention a few other scientists that everyone will be familiar with.
And with each new scientist, and coming in towards the future, the present time, I should say, the certainty of the scientists is probably going to be reduced. They will
be more nuanced in their understanding of their beliefs in God in the context of their science. These are great scientists, and they are very clever people. I’m afraid they’re all men in the examples, and I do apologise for that.
Galileo. A wonderful scientist, although was challenged in various ways. There are various stories about how whether he actually did, in fact, have doubts about his beliefs. But outwardly at least and famously, he used his science as a way of demonstrating the beauty of the universe. And the amazing laws of nature that were revealed in his work. And as he put it, these are laws that have been written by God. This is what God is telling us, and we are getting a sense of that from the work we do.
Isaac Newton, similarly, and slightly more recently, rejoiced in the beauty and the complexity of the world, and of course, as scientists, you get exposed to that, because you’re dealing with it and trying to make sense of it. And Isaac Newton felt that the revelations that he got from his science were, again, evidence of well, he, I think, used the words “proof of a supreme designer”. And so he uses science as a way of demonstrating the magnificence of God, of God’s universe.
Gregor Mendel pretty much invented genetics. And he was a monk. And, quite interestingly, some of us in this meeting now went to Pluscarden [Abbey] in Northeast Scotland. And we met one of the monks, called Father Giles. And I went for a walk with him. And for whatever reason, he said, you know, monks do believe in science. I don’t know why he suggested that I would doubt it but something I said previously to that perhaps prompted him, and that was his cue. And it was a wonderful conversation as we walked past the Abbey. And he said, “don’t forget, Mendel was a monk” and [Mendel] could reconcile his beliefs as a monk with his science and it worked pretty well. And that’s undeniably a good version of how… those two sets of belief can coincide or coexist.
Louis Pasteur. Another example of someone who loved the glory of science as revealed in his work and was happy to very overtly believe in God.
Albert Einstein, a bit more complicated. I think many of you know will know more than me about Einstein’s thinking. But as, at least outwardly, his feeling was [effectively] “you know, there is probably going to be something spiritual out there. It’s not important for my science, but I’m not going to discount it”. I think, is my understanding of how Einstein explained his position as a believer. And I think the confusion is about Einstein is that he did not accept mainstream religion. But he had a much broader and more perhaps coherent understanding of what belief in God could do to help us understand the world.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve had similar discussions about this in previous Creative Conversations. So, the scientists that we’ve mentioned so far, these are clever people and they’re not necessarily deluded. And that’s what we need to remember. So, that is a reality that, for me, at least, makes it quite difficult to understand how they reached their position.
The last example I want to share, and this is a living example in this case, is Francis Collins, who was the director of the Human Genome Project. He actually began as an atheist and became a devout Christian. And my understanding is… that he did not struggle with the idea of science and belief being apparently contradictory. He saw that they were beautiful, dual ways of thinking. And it is said that he was inspired when he worked as a medical doctor. He was inspired by meeting patients who were suffering, maybe at the end of their lives in some cases, in pain. But they were expressing their belief in God and that eased their pain. I think that’s really interesting, and that was enough to convince {Collins].
But actually, Richard Dawkins, who I’m going to also be talking about, obviously, might have the opposite view, using different examples. He would say, “how can a loving God allow pain and suffering to take place, especially in children?” This is something Richard Dawkins does refer to quite often. “How can you accept that?” It is the reality for some people. Suffering that is unmitigated by a belief. Or even if they believe [in God] they can still be suffering.
I think it is fair to say, and this was in the advertisement for this talk, that the majority of scientists are not believers. That’s a majority, but it may not be a huge majority, so it may be about 53%, something like that, are not believers. But then how is that determined, how is that defined? It depends how you ask the question. I think it’s reasonable to say, at least in most societies, perhaps [especially in] most Western societies, perhaps is what I’m really talking about here, that the majority of scientists will turn out to be non-believers in God, or at least very sceptical.
And of course, that is in contrast to [the wider] population. When surveyed, a high proportion of people say, I do believe in God and in some cases, not without any sort of more inference than that. It’s just, “yes, I think God or some spirit is very important to me”. And that is the majority. So, it’s a greater number of people than is represented by the scientists, though we need to try and understand why is that the case? Why have you got differences different proportions of people believing versus non-believing, if you talk about scientists and versus the general public?
So, if we talk about scientists who have declared their position quite clearly, among them, and again, in chronological order, pretty much, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA. And for some people, that was that is God’s work, and this is how Francis Collins, describes his journey. This is… a book that is written by Francis Collins called ‘The Language of God’. And in this, he says, we we need God to be able to make sense of, for example, the genetics that we are all informed by Francis Crick felt that belief in God was a hindrance. It prevented good science from being done, in his opinion.
Richard Feynman, the physicist, embraced scientific uncertainty. He did not have any problems with uncertainty at all. And he was an avowed atheist and very vocal about it. And I’m going to read a quote from him, and I’ll probably read it twice, because I think I would like it to resonate a bit. He said “it is better to have questions that you cannot answer than answers that you cannot question”.
So, in other words, you know, it’s okay to be confused and to want to explore. So, again, that quote is, “It is better to have questions that you cannot answer than answers that you cannot question”. And I suppose, in a sense, that’s a reaction to the constraints of perhaps belonging to a formal faith.
Stephen Hawkins. His position was there is no need for God. There’s so much that we understand already. I think his view [was] that everything can be explained by science, not necessarily all at once. And maybe some of it’s going to take a while. In some of his writings before he died, Stephen Hawking said that the revelations that he had about black holes, for example, was a “glimpse into the mind of God”. And people said, oh, there you go, you are a believer. And he said, that’s just a metaphor. And I think Stephen Hawking was getting a bit carried away at that point, but he was a really firm atheist…. He wrote prolifically about this, which is quite impressive given his circumstances.
Richard Dawkins, who I have mentioned already. You cannot have a Creative Conversation like this without mentioning Richard Dawkins, a biologist, so in a sense, one of my heroes. He’s got he’s done a lot of public speaking, and he is a great speaker and writer. And, my friends, I think he’s difficult to ignore. But of course, he’s quite provocative.
And then finally, Steve Jones, I also mentioned, a geneticist. Now, he as I think I mentioned earlier, does not regard himself as an atheist. He describes himself as a… non-theist. And I think he’s allowing for the fact that maybe there is a possibility (again, we’re back to that idea of uncertainty again) [of God existing].
When I was teaching evolution in the University of Aberdeen, where I work, one students came up to me at the break during the session. I was talking about the evolution of plants. And she said, “Can I just have a quick word? I have to tell you that I don’t believe in evolution.” She was an evangelical Christian. And she had the guts to talk to me about her doubts, and I thought that was wonderful. But she said
“Listen, I want to pass this course and get decent grades. So, for the purposes of that, I will go along with what you’re telling us. But otherwise I just don’t believe it.” So that’s quite interesting.
Before I did university teaching, I was a high school teacher and I wrote a dictionary (again, you won’t be able to see all the details here). This dictionary of biology (that I wrote some time ago now, I suppose) includes a definition of evolution. When I wrote this, I thought, okay, I can write a definition about the formal understanding that biologists have, and the Darwinian interpretation, which is that the diversity of life can really only be explained by natural selection. And in the book, I [added] a little note and I’m just going to read it briefly (because I think we’re coming to the end of time soon): “Evolution is just one explanation of the way in which different species are formed. Special creation is another. Many people throughout the world believe that life was created at a particular time by God and once formed, species do not change”. I thought [that] the publishers would not allow that in. I thought they would ask me to remove that, but it went in. And I’m sort of proud that it’s in there. It’s not my personal belief, obviously, but I am recognising that maybe many of us do have to recognize other people do not have that sense of, I don’t know, doubt about believing in a God.
I hope this conversation so far has been helpful.
[Here, I attempted unsuccessfully to show an optical illusion to demonstrate that, while we might all be looking at the same thing, we see it differently].
And the take-home message, obviously, from that, had it been successful, would have been basically for us to demonstrate that sometimes we see the same things differently.
So, just as I’m heading towards the end here, I do want to include some brief discussion on the idea of the spectrum of belief, which has been sort of implicit in lots of my comments.
We’re starting at one end with a firm, undeniable belief in God, no question. And those are the, obviously, the theists, and could be the fundamentalists as well. And… belief is the big thing there. And I’m not saying ‘belief’ in a derogatory way, by the way, it’s just a description of that end of the belief spectrum. And at the other end is knowledge. And the implication is that those [extremes] are competing with each other, those two ways of thinking.
Atheists believe in knowledge and fact, and if you like, proof. Those are the two extremes. And for both cases, certainty is high at each end of that spectrum. But in the middle, there’s high uncertainty, or low certainty, or however you want to think of it, and that’s where the agnostics are. And many scientists, to be fair probably are agnostics. I don’t go up to a colleague who is a scientist and say, do you believe in God? It’s almost like saying how much do you earn? You just don’t ask that sort of question in polite society. But nevertheless, I am curious, and some [people] declare their position quite vocally, and for others I just try and guess what they’re thinking.
So, the fact that scientists occupy a position, as we all do on that spectrum, is a way to understand where they are currently and where they might be going in their thinking and whether potentially they’re open to further discussion.
So, it’s okay to say I don’t know. Charles Darwin was in that position, as was Carl Sagan. They were agnostics. They said, “I don’t reject anything, but neither do I fully accept. I am undecided”. I think that’s okay. David Attenborough says, “I don’t know”.
And these three scientists that I mentioned have not ruled out the possibility of God.
So, I think I want to leave those thoughts with you. I hope it’s been fairly coherent. But I think… the final point is to say, well, how do people end up believing in God, who are scientists, is how is that possible? And of course, there are lots of reasons, among which are that the world is too chaotic to be explained by science, or that sorry, the world is too orderly and perfect and cannot have been created by chance alone. This is something that many non-theist scientists struggle with, that way of thinking. The probability of things coming together in a particular way to create the world that we now know [is] highly unlikely, but not impossible.
The Big Bang is another explanation. Okay, we can accept Big Bang, but what went before it? [Does there have] to be a God before it? Incomplete evidence for evolution, for example, missing fossils. Cognitive dissonance is another explanation, compartmentalisation, having potentially competing thoughts in your thinking, but not allowing them to conflict with each other.
And then finally… as a scientist, thinking, well, I’ve done all the science I can do, and so have my colleagues, and you know what? There’s so much that I still don’t understand. Let’s just say that’s down to God.
Thank you, friends. Thank you.
[Al Palmer, Ann Arbor Friends Meeting] 19:52:40
Thank you, Martin.
We’re going to open the floor for discussion in just a moment. First, let me remind you that we need you to pay attention to how long you’re speaking. We want to give everybody a chance to talk. Please try to give us the summary of your views, not the whole book.
