GOD and science: why is GOD not often mentioned in modern-day scientific discussions?

If anybody observes most of the modern-day scientific literature that has been published throughout history, they would likely come to a sensible and obvious conclusion that science and many scientists—who like citing peoples’ works—have not been leaving much room for discussions about GOD works in their literature or publications.

Most people will perfectly understand that science—as a man-made endeavor—relies only on the five senses to arrive at certain beliefs and conclusions about nature.

On the other hand, GOD—Who will remain eternally invisible—can not be perceived or studied by the five physical senses; rather, He can be perceived by man’s spirit and spiritual senses if man has sufficient faith.

Many scientists—especially physicists—do not even believe in the existence of GOD; they don’t believe that GOD controls natural phenomena and things that they study on Earth and in outer space.

To be honest, it’s not always easy to find a scientist, scientific paper or publication, that discusses GOD. Scientists could believe and idolize GOD, but they hardly relate Him with the beliefs and scientific works they publish in their writings.

Until a few decades ago, many religions opposed a lot of scientific theories which have made nature (GOD’s creation) more understandable to mankind than religion has

About half a century ago, almost around the time of Galileo Galilei, some world Christian leaders vehemently opposed scientific theories and called many scientific practices “witchcraft”.

A few scientists and their beliefs about GOD

Aristotle is probably the first natural philosopher or ancient scientist in recorded history to speak and write about GOD. One could wonder what inspired him to do both!

Aristotle called GOD the “unmoved mover” who created the celestial (spiritual) and terrestrial (physical) worlds which He placed side by side, and in harmony with each other.

Aristotle spoke and wrote about the one Supreme GOD, but didn’t criticize or deny the existence of numerous other gods which the Greeks and other nations popularly believed in, and worshipped.

Sir Isaac Newton—a great scientist whose views should always be taken seriously—believed that GOD is the One responsible for ordering motion and gravity, and coordinating the movement of planets.

Albert Einstein believed so much in GOD, His existence and power to such an extent that he attempted to study and analyze GOD’s thinking.

Sir Isaac Newton perceived and believed that it wouldn’t be possible for the level of perfection behind natural phenomena to exist without guidance and control from a supreme being who created such perfection and harmony.

Sir Isaac Newton believed that GOD placed each universe where they are, and they will remain there forever. He also believed that GOD has been preventing planets from destruction due to the sun’s rays which are very powerful.

Some past studies reported that during the classical period, a few leading physicists studied the circumstances surrounding some declarations related to the existence of a supreme GOD and His involvement in the universe!

According to Laplace’s scientific determinism (the knowledge that natural phenomena obey definite scientific laws), all phenomena in the universe obey laws, and there is always a reason or cause for everything that happens.

However, Laplace did not mention GOD in his scientific works. When asked by French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte why he didn’t mention GOD in his works, Laplace replied by saying he didn’t feel the need to do so.

Hawking—who once let the world know he is an atheist—said that no GOD or supreme being rules the universe, and there is nothing supernatural about the universe.

It seems that although most scientists don’t discuss GOD in their works, some of them secretly saw the need for a GOD Who rules creation—this might still be the case in the present- or modern-day.

It is likely that even though many scientists had secret beliefs about GOD, they didn’t write about the connection between Him and their popularly accepted theories which explain natural phenomena—creations of GOD.

It is quite clear that GOD and the supernatural are difficult to explain because they are invisible or spiritual, and many people do not have the spiritual abilities to perceive, understand or explain how GOD and the supernatural work or make things happen.

And although many scientists don’t believe or discuss GOD in their works, GOD created nature and thus has a role in the behavior of natural phenomena studied by science and scientists.


  • As long as God is left out of the big picture, physicists will not find the elusive theory of everything!

    Liked by 2 people

  • Frank LaManna

    Interesting stuff here, going deep I see. 👍 The answers to the most important questions are out there, science and religion battle for the rights to claim them. You should listen to the Celestine Prophecy, it’s on youtube.

    Liked by 2 people

  • God is a word. Words lead to recursive dialogue. Which leads to belief systems that cannot possibly define reality. I always balk when people discuss what we term God as him. Applying gender to anything that could be considered Godlike always seems patently basic and somewhat arrogant.
    There are two frame references on anything Godlike.
    One, something that exists outside of perception.
    Two, Everything including perception. It’s all God.
    I know the second.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thanks alot for your comment, but actually the basis of this article is not centered on the definition of GOD, as per male or female—nobody in this physical world can ever fathom GOD, no matter how they think about him…humans are imperfect, so definitions of GOD as per him or her are just assumptions which, although is imperfect, still drives the message home.

      this article is rather centered on GOD and why he isn’t considered or mentioned in scientific literature when his works are being studied and written by scientists or science…no matter how we try to describe GOD as humans, we will never get it right till we live in eternity, which is beyond this world.

      and if, for example someone like Jesus, who was so close to GOD, described GOD as “father”—not mother or something else—then what word do you think people would use most to describe “father”—who GOD is actually is to the whole creation? I think “him” would be most appropriate…so whether Jesus or anybody is wrong, is different another discussion…thanks


  • Thank you for clarifying your belief system.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Great post. Interesting too as a recent comment on my own blog was complaining how scientists don’t get any respect anymore. In my OPINION, it’s because of two things. First is hubris. Many of them don’t believe in anything higher than themselves and think that humanity has the power to control and shape everything, and thus should. Genetic Engineering and A.I. both having runaway development with no thought to the long term consequences being the two best examples. The second is that so often their research results are for sale to the highest bidder. How many studies have we seen saying coffee is good, followed by another one a week later saying it’s bad?

    The irony is that there is some science out there that does lend credence to religion. The body losing a fraction of an ounce of weigh at the time of death for example. That COULD very well point tot he soul leaving the body. There’s been scientific studies in China that claim to have found proof of the existence of “chi meridians” also (essentially a second nervous system that carries spiritual energy through the body).

    Regarding an earlier comment… There ARE some good spiritual lessons in “The Celestine Prophecy”. It was all the rage a few decades ago too. Those lessons ARE wrapped in a fictional story though. The give away (for me) was when the author claimed to fly to Machu Pichu. It’s too high for a small plane to reach without an oxygen system (and it would still struggle) and there’s no landing strip there.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I deeply appreciate your detailed comments, meaningful and insightful points…science might have been more miles ahead if they could learn how to believe in things that are higher than their intelligence and ability to perceive.

      Liked by 1 person

      • True. It has to be observable to be provable to them. Didn’t stop them from postulating on sub-atomic particles though. Then again, sub-atomic particles aren’t a higher power than them.

        Liked by 1 person

        • you are right: although subatomic particles and many microorganisms are observable through scientific equipment, they are not a higher power… so scientists should learn to believe in even more invisible things and beings even though they haven’t yet invented tools to see them

          Liked by 1 person

  • 1st john 5:19 tells us why God is left out of alot of things. And tells us the truth about who really is controlling the world today. http://www.jw.org

    Liked by 1 person

  • I often refer to Oxford University professor John Lennox when it comes to science and God. He likes to use the analogy of a Ford motor engine to illustrate the relationship between the two.
    Science attempts to explain how cars are run via the mechanics of an engine. It explains the mechanical processes and how the individual parts make the engine work. With science, one learns that the car runs because of the engine. However, the engine is the brainchild of Henry Ford. We can safely say that the car runs because of him. Without Ford, there is no engine, and without the engine, there is no car. However, if we were to open the car hood and examine the engine, we would not find Henry Ford anywhere.
    Attempting to look for God when studying nature is like looking for Ford under the hood of a car. Nature is God’s brainchild and proof that there is an intelligence behind the scenes creating it all. This is why, in my opinion, science does not talk about God. Science is not in interested in the intelligence who created nature; it is more interested in the nature itself. It is what it is because science can not prove God’s existence, just like we can not prove Henry Ford’s existence just by looking at a car engine. We assume though, upon seeing the engine, that it must have been a product of an intelligent person.

    Liked by 2 people

  • This is an interesting article, and I love how much good-natured discussion it’s generated. Starting with the assumption that God exists and created the universe, I agree with everything you have to say – He is suspiciously absence in scientific enquiry. I suspect this is because a) he is not required to explain the workings of natural (as a previous commenter explained nicely with the Ford engine analogy) or b) the starting assumption was wrong.
    I don’t know whether God exists, or if He adopts a hands-on approach to orchestrating natural phenomena. But if ‘a’ is true, discussing God in scientific literature wouldn’t further our understanding of anything. If ‘b’ is true, and God doesn’t exist, then science is perfectly justified in not considering His influence.
    By augmenting our natural senses, science allows us to investigate aspects of the physical universe that we cannot detect directly. However, because science is limited to investigating the material, physical world, it cannot probe any supernatural component to the universe, if one exists. This is why theological debates rely so heavily on logic and reason, rather than data and statistics. Until empirical studies can be carried out on supernatural forces, I wouldn’t expect God to be referenced in any scientific papers any time soon.
    I applaud those who keep the discussion going though. Everything should be continuously examined and scrutinised to keep our ideas robust and defensible. So thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.