Why Science Does Not Disprove God

Why Science Does Not Disprove God

Book - 2014
Average Rating:
Rate this:
Analyzing the theories and findings of such titans as Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin, a renowned science writer and mathematician demonstrates in multiple ways that science has not, as yet, provided any definitive proof refuting the existence of God.
Publisher: New York :, William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers,, [2014]
Edition: First edition
ISBN: 9780062230591
Branch Call Number: 215 ACZ NVD
Characteristics: viii, 294 pages : illustrations ; 22 cm


From the critics

Community Activity


Add a Comment

Dec 14, 2017

This is by a famous mathematician who hobnobs with nobel scientists whose names you will instantly recognize in this book.
He is at some pains to make clear that his purpose is not to prove God, merely to show that despite their bludgeoning with the prestige of science, that atheist scientists have not in fact dis-proven God.
I found his arguments reasonable but somewhat moot, secondary, even occasionally silly.
Example: atheist scientists claim that the bible's references to historical events are all rubbish, so Aczel devotes a whole chapter proving otherwise. Point to Aczel, but so what? Such verification neither proves nor disproves God. To draw an extreme parallel: if Hitler was right about one subject it doesn't prove he was good, or bad, overall.
Likewise quantum physics. The claim that the universe can arise from nothing disproves God the Maker, tout the atheists. But anybody can sidestep that argument by saying that God subtends all, It/S/He simply used spontaneous generation from nothing as a tool. So all Aczel's quantum foam rebuttals, while fascinating, and, on the level of the atheist argument, compelling, do not impress.
An at least equally convincing argument would have been to point out that there's more room for God in modern physics than in Newtonian physics (hell is down and heaven is up? nonsense!). Many physicists are cowards, working for institutions, so classify themselves as 'equation jockeys', carefully avoiding thinking about Implications, leaving the field open to loud mouthed ambulatory ego's like Dawkins.
My core reason for rejecting the arrogance of the new atheists is that one cannot prove a negative. You can suggest, very strongly, that the little room with the curtains in front is empty, or contains only a little fraud of a man called Oz, or a mirror, but not that Somebody engineered it as a deception, or, again, a mirror of ones assumptions (GIGO).
If the universe is infinite*, and (as Aczel shows) a part of infinity is also infinite, then not only is everything you can imagine is possible, but must exist, even if Aczel dislikes Everett's many-worlds theory. Aczel also states the extreme unlikelihood of our life-potentiating universe as near proof of divine intervention. I hesitate to say the following, knowing how it looks, but Aczel seems to be a mathematician with a poor grasp of numbers! (Given an infinite number of dice casts, very improbable results will and *must* occur.)
*And how can it not be? Visualize a box- it is present in a larger space, which implies... (ad infinitum! :D )
Page 37 describes an interesting potential transition between animism and science. Again, I do not see how it bolsters his case, but i'm glad to have had the opportunity to know it.
Like most people, he constantly muddles the religious with the spiritual. The religious is, largely, mere covert tribalism (and idolizing emotion), has little to do with the spiritual. Thus, if Einstein remarked that he finally realized he was a jew, i must agree with that royal bastard Dawkins, it does not imply he was spiritual, a 'believer' in a God, much less that ridiculous variant, a personal one.
He's right, he's wrong, he's just silly; but he's always eloquent and fascinating. This is a fine book on the interface of science and religion/non-science.
The purpose of a book is to make you think- this one does, so it's worth the work of wading through it (and the analysis of quantum implications can be a bit dense to those who studiously avoid the subject).

EuSei Apr 08, 2016

Science indeed has not disproved the existence of God (theories are not proof). Nor has science disproved that the existence of God is necessary to explain the universe. Also the concept of “art” is human: we are the ones who might see nests as “artistic”—unless I missed the last finch gallery exhibition? Animals strive to survive; that is no proof of altruism. Reading the book will make more sense of these statements—even if one disagrees with the author’s points. So, I suggest this book both to believers and infidels.


serob Apr 07, 2016

Science versus religion is a very narrow view point on theism and the primary source theories of the universe. Here are links to but one of many alternative theories available to the inquiring mind:



Feb 23, 2016

Newton killed god.
Faulty premise: by definition, gods are supernatural, whereas science studies natural phenomena. However, the God of the remaining gaps becomes vanishingly improbable.
“Irreligion - 2008 A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add up”
by John Allen Paulos
and look up
"confirmation bias"
definitions at:
Science Daily . . . https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm
RationalWiki . . . http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Correctly catalogued in the 200s, Religion, as it is not science.

Dec 10, 2015

The book is flawed. It is correct that science has not disproved God; it is more accurate to say that 'science has disproved that the existence of God is necessary to explain the universe'. The author cites Stephen Hawking stating the above in the book's prologue.
More specific flaws include that only humans have art, consciousness, and altruism. He fails to cite that Bower Birds have artistic nests; that elephants, dolphins, and the apes (including humans) have self-awareness; and that there are many forms of simpler forms of altruism in the animal kingdom such as 'reciprocal altruism' seen in vampire bats.

Apr 27, 2015

This book is odd in that Amir D. Aczel does not talk much at all about proof or God. Why would science try to disprove God anyway? Science has nothing to do with religion except as anthropologists.
The chapter on evolution is very poor. It shows that Mr. Aczel does not understand it at all.
A quote from the book: "I have never heard of an atheist group volunteering to offer comfort to the ill or the distressed." He must not have looked very hard. I found many with a few taps on my keyboard.

Jan 07, 2015

Hmm.....I like how they include negative comments for the book from other news sources on here. Where are the other reviews? Like the ones that might be found on the actual book.

Dec 26, 2014

big pink turn yourself in
big scorpion turn yourself in
big gilbert turn yourself in
big lion turn yourself in
big mark turn yourself in
jenifer turn yourself in
Maggie turn yourself in

Oct 19, 2014

The old, old, old debate about God. This is so tiring now. My only comment is Who Cares? I believe in God and I don't care if there is proof or not. I also believe in Science where there is seldom proof, mostly speculation, and a lot of wasteful research. Both have provided us with a good life. Why is there still this artificial separation between the so called real world and spirituality? Does this do anything to help the world?

Age Suitability

Add Age Suitability

There are no age suitabilities for this title yet.


Add a Summary

There are no summaries for this title yet.


Add Notices

There are no notices for this title yet.


Add a Quote

There are no quotes for this title yet.

Explore Further

Browse by Call Number


Subject Headings


Find it at NVDPL

To Top