The topic of God is not directly related to any branch of science, as it is related to philosophy and religion. Nevertheless, I have included here a discussion on science in relation to God. The reason is that some scientists make comments on the existence or non-existence of God. Some atheists also tend to quote science to support their point of view. Theists also sometimes quote science in their arguments. Therefore, I think it is necessary to understand first the nature of science and to objectively analyze its ability to inform us anything about God.    

SCIENCE

Encyclopedia Britannica describes science as, “… any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.” Figure 1 shows the three major branches of science. Physical sciences deal with the inorganic world and are composed of branches like physics, chemistry, astronomy, and the earth sciences. Biological sciences deal with organic things consisting of the study of biology and medicine. Social sciences can also be included in the broad concept of science, which deals with the study of social and cultural aspects of human behavior. Social sciences include topics like anthropology and economics.  

Science started as a branch of philosophy. For a long time, the two pursuits (science and philosophy) were closely intertwined. However, science has now grown up and moved out of the family home of philosophy, and its successes have put its parent in the shadow. Initial scientific theories were philosophical speculations about the fundamental nature of the physical world. They were based more on logic and conjecture rather than observation and experimentation, as the science of today. Science of that time is known as the “Natural Philosophy” which was simply the application of philosophical tools to the natural world. 

The key difference between natural philosophy and modern science is perhaps the emphasis on experimentation in science. Nevertheless, early philosophers established the basis for the scientific attitude. For example, the Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus (624 – 545 BC), who is often considered the first philosopher in the Western philosophical tradition, may also be considered as the first scientist. Thales proposed that water was the fundamental principle from which all things in the universe originated. Later on, increased emphasis on experiment and observation, and the evidence of the senses, have been regarded as some of the central factors in bringing about the scientific revolution. 

Western historians occasionally omit to mention the contribution of early Muslims to the development of science. They tend to discuss Greek scientists and philosophers and then directly jump to Europe without mentioning what happened in between for a large period spanning several centuries. Very few Western historians mention the contributions of Muslim scientists like Al-Beruni, Alhazen, Avicenna, Al-Khwarizmi, Jabir Ibn Hayyan, and Ibn Rushd. Ibn al-Haytham (965 – 1040 AD) known as Alhazen in the West, was an Arab scientist who made the most significant contribution towards the use of experiments in science. His book “Kitab ul Manazir” (Book of Optics) was a major influence on the development of optics in Europe. This work of Ibn al-Haytham had a major influence not only on 13th-century thinkers such as Roger Bacon but also on later scientists such as the astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571–1630 AD). Roger Bacon (1220 – 1292 AD) became a major medieval proponent of experimental science in Europe after reading and being influenced by the translation of Alhazen’s experimental work on optics.

The scientific method today is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. The scientific method is critical for the development of scientific theories. Application of the scientific method typically involves the development of a hypothesis by the researcher, followed by its testing using various techniques. The hypothesis is then modified based on the outcome of tests and experiments. The modified hypothesis is tested again until it becomes consistent with the observed phenomena and outcome of the tests. From such data and the many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses, scientists develop broad general explanations of things or develop scientific theories. 

Science extensively uses mathematics as a powerful tool in understanding a phenomenon due to the mathematical nature of the universe. Being an engineer, I know how important mathematics is in understanding the world around us and using various things present in it for the benefit of mankind. In engineering, we used to have an equation for almost everything we studied.  

Science and God

Science cannot provide proof for the existence or the non-existence of God. The reason is simple. Science does not discuss the topic of God as its focus is on the natural world only, and God is a supernatural concept. Thus, the topic of God is not discussed in any branch of science, like physics, biology, chemistry, or astronomy. I have formally studied science during my initial 16 years of education. I never came across even a single chapter in any science book discussing God. This is because, as defined earlier, science is, a “... system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena ...” And God is not a physical entity like oceans, mountains, stars, planets, animals, and human beings, which are studied in various branches of science.

Thus, science does not delve into the existence of God because its focus is on natural things and it seeks to understand the natural world through observation and experimentation. Whereas the concept of God, as defined by most religions, falls outside the realm of the natural world. Secondly, scientific methods or tools rely on evidence that can be gathered and analyzed. Since God, by definition, is beyond the natural world, scientific methods and tools are not equipped to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Let me explain this point by using another approach. I have already discussed the nature of philosophical questions earlier. I discussed that the questions in the field of science are empirical and therefore can be answered by observation and/or experimentation. I also discussed that mathematical questions are non-empirical questions that can be answered by proofs based on some stipulated definitions or axioms. Whereas certain questions can neither be answered by observations and/or experimentation (science) nor can be answered by proofs from stipulated definitions and axioms (mathematics). Such questions are philosophical questions. The most important philosophical question related to our topic is whether God exists. If yes, what is the nature and attributes of God? Being philosophical questions, these cannot be answered by using scientific or mathematical techniques. Science can, however, only show some signs related to the existence of God to ponder upon. For example, some fields of science, like astrophysics, which explores the origins of the universe, can spark discussions about creation and a potential creator. 

Due to the aforementioned reasons, we can expect to have both theists and atheists among the community of scientists. Thus, we know scientists who believe in God, and we know scientists who do not believe in God. World-renowned scientists like Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei were all believers in God. Whereas, scientists Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Steven Weinberg were non-believers in God. Many scientists, like famous astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, are, however, agnostics. Science does not provide the answer to the question of whether God exists or not. Otherwise, all the scientists would have been on the same page due to some solid scientific evidence regarding God. But science cannot do this. 

If science cannot provide a definitive answer regarding the existence or non-existence of God, then why is it so that some people, including some scientists, are so adamant about quoting science to refute the existence of God? There are many reasons for this behavior. One major reason is that they do not want to believe in God because they are highly dissatisfied with their ancestral religions, with faulty concepts of God and the universe. Some historical reasons for their dissatisfaction with their ancestral religions are discussed in my book “There is no God but Allah” in Chapter 6 under the heading “Clash between Christianity and science”. These people, therefore, are trying their best to use science to refute any concept of religion or God, whether it is right or wrong. In doing so, their arguments are not always very scientific and are sometimes even against logic. Sometimes, they even fail to understand some highly logical counter-arguments, as they do not want to accept any argument that favors God’s existence. They somehow want to get rid of any divine being. 

On the other hand, many scientists see science showing signs of God. Figure 2 shows the cover page of Newsweek magazine, which published an article with the title “Science Finds God”. This article has very well discussed the views of those scientists who think that science points towards the existence of God. The introductory paragraph of the article says, “The achievements of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing number of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God.” This article is available on the internet for you to read. 

Another interesting question about science is whether science is neutral. Or whether people or societies can use science to promote desired beliefs and attitudes.  These are complex questions with two points of view. According to one point of view, science is neutral. This traditional view of science sees it as an objective pursuit of knowledge. According to this view, scientists strive to remove bias through the application of the scientific method, forming hypotheses, testing them through experiments, and revising theories based on evidence. Others consider science not entirely neutral. This view argues that science is influenced by some social factors. One such factor is the scientist himself, whose background, experiences, and even funding sources can shape their questions and interpretations. The other factor that can influence science is the societal values. For example, research priorities may reflect what society deems important, for instance, climate change. Even if science is not entirely neutral, the scientific method helps minimize bias and promotes evidence-based conclusions. However, recognizing these influences allows for a more refined understanding of scientific discovery. Thus, science is an ongoing process that strives for objectivity but acknowledges the potential for bias.

One must also keep in mind that science evolves with time. Thus, science is a dynamic journey of discovery, not a collection of fixed truths. Over time, new observations and experiments lead to fresh discoveries, sometimes even revolutionizing our understanding of the world. Therefore, we know that the "Steady-State Theory" of the universe was abandoned and replaced by the "Big Bang Theory". Scientific theories presented by Einstein challenged many ideas of Newtonian physics. In science, established theories are constantly tested and refined, or even replaced entirely by new explanations that better fit the fresh evidence. This ongoing process of evolution of knowledge ensures science progresses, offering an ever more accurate picture of the universe and ourselves. Science continues to explore the universe, but the existence of God remains a question beyond its scope.