Arguments of Opponents of Religion

might argue that after discovering the natural causes of events and phenomena, there is no need to account for them by assuming the existence of a God or some other supernatural force. This argument can be expressed as follows: “If a rainbow is caused by the refraction of the sun’s rays as they fall on raindrops, it is wrong to say that they are a sign of God in the sky.” Atheists might remark: “If events are due to natural causes, they are not due to supernatural causes.” Atheists would say that from the study of the universe, it has come to be known that all the events here follow the determined laws of Nature. Hence, to explain them, there is no need to posit the existence of any unknown God because known natural laws explain these events. In my view, the best answer to this argument is the one that American biologist Cecil Boyce Hamann gives: ‘Nature does not explain; she is herself in need of an explanation.’ This means that Nature or ‘The Laws of Nature’ cannot be the final explanation of such phenomena because the question still arises: “Who or what made Nature and the Laws of Nature?” Analyzing this argument, I would like to conclude that science, which seeks to provide explanations only for the laws of Nature, cannot replace religion because it would need to discover the ultimate and absolute explanation, which it is not in a position to.