Matt Fradd

Has Science Disproved God?

Editor’s Note: This guest post is from Matt Fradd, a Catholic apologist and speaker who has a sweet Australian accent. He’s a convert from Agnosticism. In this blog he gives the reasons why science and God can co-exist – they don’t cancel out each other. If you want to learn more about agnosticism, atheism, and Matt, check out the video about his conversion story at the end of the blog.


No, science has not disproved God and it is not within the ability of science to do so.

Science is a method that one can use to discover information about the natural world. It, however, has nothing to say about that which cannot be scientifically observed or tested.

Examining God's material creation using a method which, by its very nature, is limited to the material universe cannot provide evidence against the existence of an immaterial God.

Even if science were to exhaustively describe the physical universe, it would still leave the question: Why does the universe and the laws that govern it exist?

The view that science can or should provide the answer to every question is known as scientism. It claims that we should not accept as true anything that we cannot prove scientifically.

This view is incorrect. There are a variety of things that the natural sciences cannot prove:

  1. They cannot prove the laws of logic or mathematical truths. The natural sciences presuppose logic and math, but it cannot prove them.
  2. They cannot prove metaphysical truths, like the reality of the external world or that the universe did not simply spring into existence five minutes ago with the appearance of age, including our memories of a past that never happened. These are rational beliefs, but they cannot be proven scientifically.
  3. The scientific method cannot prove or disprove statements of an ethical nature. Science cannot show whether helping a starving child is good or whether Nazi scientists in concentration camps did anything evil. Good and evil cannot be measured in a laboratory, and so moral principles lie beyond what science can prove. That includes a principle used in science itself: 'It is wrong to fake your research findings.

So there are things that are worthy of belief that science cannot prove, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, metaphysical truths, and ethical truths.

There is also this fact: If scientism is true then one should refuse to believe anything that cannot be scientifically proven. But this would mean that one should not believe scientism itself unless it can be scientifically proven.

Can it?

No, because the claim 'You should not believe anything unless it is proven by science' is a philosophical claim that you cannot verify by experiment.

It expresses a value judgment … what one should choose to believe … and that puts in in the realm of ethics and morals, which we have already seen that science cannot verify.

Without the ability to do an experiment verifying or falsifying the truth of this moral claim, there is no scientific proof.

That means that scientism is not only false, it is also self-refuting, because it cannot meet its own test.

Categories: My FaithTheologyWho Is God?

Tags:, , ,

Matt Fradd

About the Author

After I experienced a profound conversion to Christianity at World Youth Day in Rome in 2000, I have committed myself to inviting others to know Jesus Christ and the Church he founded. This year I expect to speak to upwards of 100,000 teens and young adults about the Catholic Church and what she teaches. I have been married to my wife, Cameron for almost 8 years. Cameron and I have four children and we live in North Georgia. In my free time, I enjoy surfing, studying philosophy, going out on date nights with my beautiful wife and wrestling my kids on the bed (I’m still undefeated). MattFradd.com