Skip to comments.Book review: ‘Why Science Does Not Disprove God’ by Amir D. Aczel
Posted on 04/14/2014 3:39:00 PM PDT by neverdem
In Einstein, God, and the Big Bang, a colorful chapter of his new book, Amir D. Aczel maintains that Albert Einstein truly believed in God. He points out that Einstein attended synagogue during his year in Prague (1913). He repeats several famous Einstein utterances mentioning the Deity: Subtle is the Lord, but malicious he is not and I want to know Gods thoughts the rest are details. And he quotes from a letter the great physicist wrote to a little girl in January 1936: Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man.
Aczel goes on to express strong displeasure with such people as physicist Lawrence Krauss and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (who, in his bestseller The God Delusion, says that Einstein didnt really mean it) when they cast Einstein as an atheist in support of their diatribes against religious belief...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Science can’t ‘disprove’ God for the same reason it can’t ‘disprove’ anything: Science uses inductive proofs, which are incapable of providing absolute proofs or disproofs. Inductive proofs can only show the probability that a theory is true or false, with said probability never being zero and never bing 100%.
with said probability never being zero and never bing 100%23.375%?
When my kids were growing up and they brought home this “Big Bang” stuff from school, my response was that the big bang was in the Bible - in Genesis.
It was the beginning of the first day...
A Jewish philosopher named Nachmanides deduced the big bang from the Torah about 800 years ago, but, then, the Jews were always a little bit ahead of the rest of us.
Aczel is has written some excellent books. They usually pertain to math and science and are written in a manner that even the those who are not geared towards math and science can understand them.
The existence of God or truth in values are beyond the purview of science.
[The most persuasive evidence of God, according to the great philosopher and psychologist William James in his landmark book The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), is not physical or objective or provable. It is the highly personal transcendent experience.]
Take on step toward God and he will take two steps toward you.
Lying comes naturally to liberals. That Dawkins is taken seriously tells you just how vacuous the elites really are. Dawkins presents a simpleminded, one sided argument and it’s considered intellectually robust.
I like being on the side of truth.
Exactly. Every sincere believer has had a very personal experience with God. Often it is something that cannot be directly testified, because it is so specific and personal that it wouldn’t relate properly to anyone, but the unique you.
Wow, the guy is incredibly prolific:
I particularly like this one:
From the comments on the book:
Amir Aczel is a professor of statistics whom the IRS treated badly during an unnecessary and unjustified audit. For example, the IRS auditor repeatedly telephoned Aczel at his home before dawn, depriving Aczel, his wife and small baby of sleep. Wanting to avoid such a nasty experience in the future, Aczel used his statistical skills to detect the rules that the IRS uses to choose taxpayers to audit.
He used a super computer to compare thousands of audited income tax returns with thousands of other returns which were not audited. The result is this fascinating book. It explains 14 rules for avoiding an IRS audit.
The scientists always seem to fall into the mutiuniverse theory. Why is easily understood. By its very nature the theory cannot be proven. So grant money can flow forever and the physicists need never actually prove anything. A good deal if you can get it. Never ending income without ever having to actually accomplish anything.
Psst. Multiuniverse theory is theology.
Consensus IS science-Algore said so.
I know not a few microbiologists who are serious believers. It turns out that the more you study a cell, the more difficult it becomes to believe that it is a random consequence, Darwin's "irreducible complexity" if you will.
God is a conscious entity. Since science knows nothing of consciousness, it knows nothing of God.
I do not believe that we are the highest form of consciousness in the universe.
There is plenty of room for the existence of God, and no proof that God does not exist.
Dawkins tries to use science to "prove" his preexisting atheism. That cannot be done, any more than science can "prove" the existence of God. Science is about observing the physical world, and trying to come up with the most logical and consistent theories to explain it.