Scientific models: adjustment or validation?

Latest post in my blog on popular science:
Scientific models: adjustment or validation?


Dear Manuel,

What is the current view of astrophysicists in re the relationship between the Big Bang Theory and God. Is it that the Big Bang disproves God or is reconcilable with the existence of God or what?


The creator of the Big Bang theory (Georges Lemaître) was a Catholic priest, but when Pope Pius XII identified the Big Bang with divine creation in one of his speeches, Lemaître told him that he shouldn’t do that: science cannot prove or disprove God, and associating faith with a scientific result is dangerous, as scientific results are always provisional. Pius XII learned the lesson and in his future speeches never again said that.

The Big Bang can be considered as an inkling of God’s existence, but never as a proof. But it put atheists on the defensive, for they thought that this theory forced them to accept God, and they have been trying since to escape from that. The multiverse theories are one way. They can’t see that whatever theory they concoct, it would still be compatible with God’s existence and creation. I referred to their last attempt in the previous post in my blog:
Is there energy in the cosmos?


OK, now what about those atheists who say that the Big Bang Theory, if true, refutes the existence of God?

I think Manuel addressed that. It does not, anyway. It is not
possible to refute the existence of God. One cannot prove a
negative. And claims of "no evidence of God’s existence"are also
false. Those who claim these things are in fact showing they have
a faith in atheism…

Carolyn in OZ

Carolyn is right. Science cannot prove the non-existence of God (or of anything). Existence can be proved by showing the object in question, non-existence is unprovable. Those atheists who say that the Big Bang proves that God doesn’t exist (or as they say, that He is unnecessary) show their ignorance in the most basic tenets of philosophy. In fact, they are the same I addressed in my previous post.


I think the problem arises in that people confuse actual science with what I’ve seen called scientism, the (inherently non-scientific) belief that science can explain everything–or, put differently, that anything that can’t be explained by science doesn’t really exist. I recall that we’ve discussed that in the past. Here are some earlier discussions:

There’s no inherent conflict between science and religion, or even between science and Christianity. Scientism, on the other hand, contradicts the central truth claim of pretty much every religion.

I agree with you.