This is from a book Stephen Hawking wrote where one chapter is dedicated to the question Is there a God?
In the chapter he gives a lot of specifics that are logical and easy to understand (even if you’re a failed physicist like me) as to why he doesn’t believe there’s a God but he summarizes with this:
It’s my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no god. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in an afterlife is just wishful thinking. There is no reliable evidence for it, and it flies in the face of everything we know in science.
Hawking makes sure to say throughout the chapter the he isn’t preaching. He’s faced backlash for his statements about God before and insists he’s not telling people what to believe.
But how do you go about having the conversation of “science is explaining more and more of what God is used to explain, and religion is seeming less and less… realistic” without coming off as threatening?
Hypothetically, say that scientists all but prove that there is no afterlife, or there is no God – will all religious groups keep practicing as normal?
Religion is something I think about a lot, specifically that billions of people are believing something that isn’t real (even if one is right, the others wouldn’t be). That fact seems so happily ignored by everyone.
Science shouldn’t even be trying to ‘prove’ there is no God, etc. You can’t prove a negative (math is an exception). It’s a badly formed question. You can’t prove no God anymore then no Leprechauns, no Orcs, no Invisible Dragons, etc.
Instead, you accept the null hypothesis: No Orcs, Dragons, Gods, etc until we are shown evidence otherwise. The evidence should be an experiment that is repeatable by anyone.
You may be interested in watching the YouTube channel ‘The Atheist Experience’ which likes to go down these rabbit holes.
That said, I agree, no matter how much we can show that no God is necessary for this universe, people will still believe in this big daddy figure who will keep them safe and help through trouble. It’s like having a warm blanket around you. It’s a comforting feeling, but doesn’t really help.
I guess that’s the counter-point. On an individual level, people could say that comforting feeling DOES help even if it’s based in something that’s not true, whether it makes them more compassionate, gives them a sense of purpose, etc. Like you say though, I just couldn’t see myself believing something without any evidence, even if I wanted to. And on a macro level religion seems to be used for more harm than good.