Why do people doubt the existence of god

Even particles popping into existence in the quantum foam have an explanation for their existence namely, the laws of quantum physics even if they have no specific cause. If our choices were wholly explained for example, by our brain activity there would be no free will. What about the eternally existing chain of universes? Imagine you stumble across a perfect statue of yourself.

I doubt it. The literature on the cosmological argument is vast. Intelligent, well-informed adults can be justified in believing different things. Two physicists might disagree over a correct fundamental physical theory. And both can be justified, even though they have the same body of information to hand. Indeed, they can be justified even though at most one of them is right.

Sometimes rational trains of thought can lead us astray — such is life. Politics also shows that non-experts can similarly disagree. Liberal democracy is founded on the idea that voters make sensible, justified decisions when they vote. This is not unusual — it characterises a lot of New Atheist debates. If you want data to support this, at least for U. Christians, go here. So is it our duty as atheists to refute those arcane theological arguments, or to prevent instead the harm done by religion?

To me, the latter course is preferable. Theology is the only academic discipline where people get paid not to investigate their beliefs, but to rationalize them. As Burkeman argues:. Yet prominent atheists display an almost aggressive lack of curiosity when it comes to the facts about belief. I had to look up Victor Meldrew , who turns out to be a BBC sitcom character known for being a curmudgeon—though he had every right like me to be curmudgeonly. And does Burkeman realize that I spent several years reading theology before I decided that it was a mind-numbing and largely worthless exercise?

The process is never ending. I can think of three ways to construe that:. This is the way scientists would settle an argument about existence claims: by adducing data. But Darwin put paid to that one in The philosophical argument that is most tricky, or hardest to refute: in other words, the argument for God that has the greatest degree of sophistry. This used to include the Ontological Arguments , which briefly stymied even Bertrand Russell.

But nobody can see that Bear, for he is the Ursine Ground of Being: ineffable and undetectable even though his Bearness permeates and supports everything. Without that Bear, the universe could not function, much less exist. Scientific questions aka hypotheses are framed in ways so that they can be confirmed or disproved by evidence. If the evidence shows that the hypothesis is wrong, the hypothesis must be reframed and tested again or rejected.

They can also be based on faith and typically involve supernatural forces or entities. Where do we come from? What happens when we die? Do science and religion agree on anything? We paired scientists and religious experts and asked them to tackle these big questions in a small space. Important note: This was filmed pre-Covid, when conversations in small spaces were actually still possible! Yes, and they focus on different kinds of questions.

For example, science is a powerful tool for understanding and explaining the mechanisms and dynamics of the physical universe. Pitting science and religion against each other makes both less able to contribute to a more meaningful experience of the world.

Scientists hold a wide range of positions about religion. Many scientists who believe in God, either as a primordial creator or as an active force in the universe, have written eloquently about their beliefs. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul. Theologians and other people of faith have a variety of perspectives on science. Some theologians have proposed critically important scientific ideas and undertaken scientific exploration.

And for centuries the Vatican has maintained an astronomical observatory and has appointed a scientifically trained chief astronomer. They accept evolution as a foundational concept in science while also believing in God. The Clergy Letter Project has collected signatures from more than 12, religious leaders from different faiths in support of a letter that advocates the teaching of evolution.

From to , the Vatican Observatory was headquartered in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo above , about 15 miles outside of Rome. Light pollution led the Vatican to relocate the observatory to much darker skies more than 6, miles away in Tucson, Arizona. In the Clergy Letter Project, different religions explain their perspectives on evolution via letters.

For example, the letter from Christian clergy reads:. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.