Why debating the existence of God is pointless
In case you missed it, a few days ago Bill Ney (the Science guy) debated Ken Ham (the Christian guy?). This was a Creationism vs Evolution debate that took place at the Creation Museum of Petersburg in Kentucky and was aired live on YouTube. As the debate progressed and finally ended, the internets went outrageous over who had won. In my humble opinion, in a debate like this, there are no winners. This isn’t the first time a debate has taken place between science and religion, and it will certainly not be the last.
First of all, in case it is not obvious, I am a theist that believes in the existence of one God. Therefore, this article in its very existence is biased. However, I do invite those who are atheists to consider the points made here.
Let me start with an analogy. Human brains are the most complex and complicated entities that exist. We have not yet been able to fully comprehend and understand the physical functioning of the human brain. We know it exists because we can cut open a skull and see it. Then there’s the human mind. We know it exists but we do not have a proof for it. We simply cannot cut open a brain and see a mind inside it. Similarly, we cannot prove the existence of a conscious or a subconscious or morality etc.
Now let’s go a step further. Human beings have developed computers and supercomputers that can do great things in a matter of short time. However, no matter how complex or powerful a supercomputer may become, it can never prove the existence of a human mind. The most it can do is prove its own existence through its functioning and allude to an existence of the one who created it (the human being).
When we consider God, and if you are an atheist, for the sake of this argument, assume that there exists a God. A God so powerful that created everything with merely a single command “Be.” A God so great that has created the human being with its powerful brain and a powerful mind. IF we were able to prove the existence of God and find out everything about Him including His beginnings and what not, that in itself disproves His power and might.
So it is pointless to attempt and debate the existence of God. As a theist, a believer, I know God exists because I can’t prove His existence.
Proof Does Not Guarantee Success
Also, let’s assume we were able to prove His existence to Bill Ney or Richard Dawkins or Neil deGrasse Tyson, do we really think that these individuals will become believers?
“Indeed, those who disbelieve – it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them – they will not believe. God has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.”
Even if we were to present a live miracle in front of them, they will attempt to discredit the miracle through scientific explanations. No matter what we do, it is a lost cause. Let’s just stop with these silly debates and focus on more important matters.
What’s More Important Than This?
To me, we can use God’s guidance to find answers to questions that science cannot answer. As a student of Psychology, my goal should be to look through divine texts and prophetic traditions, and find answers to questions like Who are we? What is our purpose? What is morality? Where does psychopathology initiate from? What can we do?
Only through this route, we may be able to find a common ground between science and religion. As Allama Iqbal has stated:
“Classical Physics has learned to criticize its own foundations. As a result of this criticism the kind of materialism, which it originally necessitated, is rapidly disappearing; and the day is not far off when Religion and Science may discover hitherto unsuspected mutual harmonies.”
(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam).