[lutusp]

I wish people would use the word "nature" instead of "god" in public lectures and writings, to avoid seeming to lend credence to revealed religion. Insiders know exactly what Einstein meant by the word, but the problem is not insiders.

[michaelsbradley]

Can you expand a little bit on that line of reasoning?

It seems to me reasonable to say that the physical sciences can, for example, lend very little or no credence to the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the long expected Messiah of the Jews, i.e. because a judgment on the matter seems rather outside their scope.

But let's consider a different claim: that the existence of God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason.

To develop the idea we might reasonably consider whether any of the loftier domains of the physical sciences, e.g. physical cosmology, can tell us anything about God's existence. Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J.[1] (among others), has been writing[2] and speaking articulately on the subject for a number of years, and a fair bit of his material is freely available online[3].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(priest)

[2] http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions...

[3] http://www.magiscenter.com/video-clips-and-more/

[lutusp]

> Can you expand a little bit on that line of reasoning?

Yes, certainly. Einstein was called out on his frequent allusions to god in his public talks and writings, and under some pressure he finally described how he saw god and religion.

Einstein said that his references to god were in fact with respect to Spinoza's god, an abstract god who played no part in human affairs and that bore no resemblance to the god religious believers picture. In other words, nature -- not a judge, but a morally neutral environment.

> But let's consider a different claim: that the existence of God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason.

But that's not possible without evidence. Let me explain the difference between a scientist's attitude toward issues of fact, and a religious believer's attitude.

To a religious believer, a claim is assumed to be true until evidence proves it false. To a scientist, a claim is assumed to be false until evidence proves it true -- the exact opposite.

Why do scientists take this position, formally known as the null hypothesis? Because it's the only rational way to address issues of evidence. Let's take Bigfoot as an example -- to a nonscientist, Bigfoot exists until his nonexistence is proven. But disproving Bigfoot's existence requires proof of a negative, which is an impossible evidentiary burden.

Bigfoot could be hiding under some rock on a distant planet, therefore proving his nonexistence is not possible, therefore Bigfoot exists. Therefore everything exists -- UFOs, fairies, a teapot orbiting out in space in Bertrand Russell's famous argument on this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot), and god -- all without a shred of evidence.

Imagine if law adopted a religious outlook -- people would be guilty of any crimes they were unable to prove they didn't commit. But law (at least in modern times) adopts an approximately scientific attitude toward evidence, usually codified as "innocent until proven guilty."

This is the real meaning of the chasm between religion and science, and it's not a trivial one.

> To develop the idea we might reasonably consider whether any of the loftier domains of the physical sciences, e.g. physical cosmology, can tell us anything about God's existence.

Very easy to answer -- without evidence, no such claim can be sustained. Full stop.