Does Science Piss Off God?

[nige1]

This is fun.

 

At school we were taught that explanations go through historical phases

• Religious, based on superstition and magic.
  
• Philosphical: based on logic and "common sense"
  
• Scientific: theories based on as few hypotheses as possible (Occam's razor) --
  refined by observation and experiment (the Scientific method)-- assymptotically approaching a valid model of reality.
  

Examples...

Thunder - Anger of the Gods - Clouds bangiing together - After-effect of lightning.

Burning - Acceptance by Gods - Giving up phlogiston - Exothermic oxidation

Creationism - Lamarkism - Darwinism.

 

Arguably, String theory is not Physics because so far it is unverifiable. It is merely Natural Philosophy - the old name for that discipline.

 

Fanatical Religion and Patriotism, between them, are responsible for most of the ills of the world. Conversely, a frozen view of "Science" can become a religion for some people.

 

Nevertheless, Religion and Science are compatible. Mendel was a Catholic priest and Experimental scientist "The father of modern Genetics" - no less :)

 

I'm a Roman Catholic because if a Christian God exists, then it behooves us to act accordingly; if not, then what does one more delusion matter, in a world of illusion? As a Pascal Pensée puts it "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing." :) Occam would not approve :P And The Spaghetti Monster may claim discrimination :)

[PassedOut]

I'm a Roman Catholic because if a Christian God exists, then it behooves us to act accordingly;

People say this, I know, but can one actually believe a particular religion on this basis?

[helene_t]

I'm a Roman Catholic because if a Christian God exists, then it behooves us to act accordingly;

People say this, I know, but can one actually believe a particular religion on this basis?

That's what I find strange, too. In retrospect, I sometimes find myself believing in certain things on the basis of convenience, but at the moment I realize that my belief is based on convenience, I stop believing.

[nige1]

I'm a Roman Catholic because if a Christian God exists, then it behooves us to act accordingly;

People say this, I know, but can one actually believe a particular religion on this basis?

Thomas Aquinas would disagree but I don't think you can prove that God exists. Some religions have a verifiable history but if God's existence were verifiable, then belief in Him would be based on Science rather than an act of Faith. The blood of many martyrs, however, attests the strength of Religious belief.

[nige1]

That's what I find strange, too. In retrospect, I sometimes find myself believing in certain things on the basis of convenience, but at the moment I realize that my belief is based on convenience, I stop believing.

It's wishful thinking. It's like making assumptions at Bridge :) If, to make your contract, you need a player to hold certain cards, then you must place the other cards so that your reconstruction is consistent with the bidding and earlier play.

 

Similarly, if you hope that life has meaning and death is not the end of existence (especially if you are old and many of your relatives and friends are dead) then you may rationalize religious belief.

 

This conficts with Occam's (scientific) razor ...

 

"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or

"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

 

but accords with popular superstition...

 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

[PassedOut]

It's wishful thinking. It's like making assumptions at Bridge :) If, to make your contract, you need a player to hold certain cards, then you must place the other cards so that your reconstruction is consistent with the bidding and earlier play.

 

Similarly, if you hope that life has meaning and death is not the end of existence (especially if you are old and many of your relatives and friends are dead) then you may rationalize religious belief.

True, we play our cards based on assumptions about the unseen cards in order to maximize our chances of achieving the goal at hand. But that differs from saying that we actually believe that the unseen cards lie as assumed.

 

Similarly, one can participate in all the rituals and ceremonies of a particular religion in hopes of gaining a promised after-life. But ceremonial participation is not quite the same as a firm belief in the specific claims of a religion.

 

The blood of many martyrs, however, attests the strength of Religious belief.

Acts of martyrdom do indeed provide strong evidence of the beliefs of the martyrs. They don't, however, establish that the beliefs themselves were well-founded. Indeed, conflicting religions and philosophies put forward their respective martyrs.

[kenberg]

 

Nevertheless, Religion and Science are compatible. Mendel was a Catholic priest and Experimental scientist "The father of modern Genetics" - no less :)

 

I'm a Roman Catholic because if a Christian God exists, then it behooves us to act accordingly; if not, then what does one more delusion matter, in a world of illusion? As a Pascal Pensée puts it "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing." :) Occam would not approve :( And The Spaghetti Monster may claim discrimination :(

Folks have been focusing on the second of these two paragraphs, I would like to speak up for the first.

 

I am not religious but I have close friends who are. They are often at least as bright as I am and at least as sensible as I am.

 

I don't care much for the hedge your bets argument in the second paragraph and (I realize I don't know) I suspect it is not the real basis of your faith. That is, I can well imagine a person giving up on that argument but comfortably keeping his faith.

 

 

There are real conflicts: availability of abortion, stem cell research, things like that. Even there, a person's religious beliefs are not a completely reliable guide to his views on these matters. It's not crazy, or rare, for a non-religious person to have some doubts about the wisdom of some modern uses of technology.

 

 

 

However these other issues of intelligent design and such seem to me to stir up trouble where none need exist. There is no reason in the world why a scientist cannot believe that God is behind it all, nor does one have to have scientific training to develop skepticism, and it is a simple fact that many scientists have strong religious beliefs. A religious view of the world, as long as it does not require a six day creation period around 3000 or so BCE (I still prefer BC but I bow to modernity), absolutely need not be in conflict with science.

 

But of course the original post was about Pat Robertson. I see his outburst as doing us all a favor. The Intelligent Design folks were very good at presenting their case as " This is not about religion. Heavens no. We are just interested in seeing that science is taught right. How could anyone say we are advocating the teaching of religion in science class." It was all a scam, and Robertson's outburst made it crystal clear that it was a scam.

[luke warm]

I'm a Roman Catholic because if a Christian God exists, then it behooves us to act accordingly;

People say this, I know, but can one actually believe a particular religion on this basis?

no

[nige1]

People say this, I know, but can one actually believe  a particular religion on this basis?

no

This life rarely affords a sound basis for belief. The towering edifice of Science rests on unproven foundations. For example,

• Occam's razor, at the heart of science.
  
• Most scientific models are Mathematical. Hence based on Set theory and Arithmetic (Gödel has shown that the latter is incomplete or its axioms are inconsistent)
  

Thus, although some seem to have complete faith in Science, IMO, (like Religion) current Scientific models are best treated as working hypotheses. Manifestly, Science has advantages: It is not only predictive but also evolutionary :P When an experiment fails, the Scientist can try to modify his theory to account for the anomaly :P

 

Similarly, IMO you should distrust blind Faith. When shown to be wrong, you should be able to change your views.

[Winstonm]

I'm a Roman Catholic because if a Christian God exists, then it behooves us to act accordingly;

People say this, I know, but can one actually believe a particular religion on this basis?

no

Yes. This action shows even more faith than that of a mustard seed - a seed cannot even say "if".

[barmar]

Similarly, one can participate in all the rituals and ceremonies of a particular religion in hopes of gaining a promised after-life. But ceremonial participation is not quite the same as a firm belief in the specific claims of a religion.

And if there really is an omniscient god, surely he would be able to tell the difference between really believing and just going through the motions. Unless you think that he's satisfied by the rituals, and doesn't really care whether you truly believe. Then again, you have to wonder why we even need all the ceremonies in the first place, since he could just look into everyone's heart to see whether they believe. For instance, would a god need people to stand up and say "I do" at a wedding ceremony to know whether the couple will really love each other and honor their commitment?

 

This basically goes to show that if god is as powerful as he's claimed to be, all the ceremonial trappings are mainly for the benefit of the church and its members, not for god himself.

[luke warm]

I'm a Roman Catholic because if a Christian God exists, then it behooves us to act accordingly;

People say this, I know, but can one actually believe a particular religion on this basis?

no

Yes. This action shows even more faith than that of a mustard seed - a seed cannot even say "if".

i disagree, winston... i don't think there's any faith involved at all

[Fluffy]

This basically goes to show that if god is as powerful as he's claimed to be, all the ceremonial trappings are mainly for the benefit of the church and its members, not for god himself.

The fact that god can know something doesn't mean he is willing to do a tedious research to find it out.

[jdonn]

This basically goes to show that if god is as powerful as he's claimed to be, all the ceremonial trappings are mainly for the benefit of the church and its members, not for god himself.

The fact that god can know something doesn't mean he is willing to do a tedious research to find it out.

You are serious? You think God would have to do tedious research to find something out? Isn't the whole idea of a God that he just 'knows'?

[Fluffy]

of course not, otherwise he could not decide to ignore something, and he is omminiscent remember?

[Edmunte1]

Very interesting posts, thank you everyone for nice ideas. I read some time ago an interesting book about this topic called "Scientific Creationism" by Henry M. Morris, and i recommend it to everyone intrested.

 

I'm not saying that Scientific Creationism is a better theory than Darwin's Evolution Theory, but it's a certain alternative. Many people pointed out that believing in a superior creature has nothing to do with science, but i should remind you that every theory starts from a set of "axioms". Axioms are things that cannot be demonstrated, in other words they are "beliefs". "I believe that through a point you can make only one paralel to another straight line" (one of Euclid axioms).

So in other words, everyone of us has his beliefs, based more or less on his knowledge and understanding of the world, and faith (beliefs) are a part of it. Let's us remember that in time theories modified due to new knowledge and understanding of the universe. Newton's laws were improved by Einstein's Relativity Theory and when Quantum Mechanics appeared everyone tghought it was bullshit. Nowadays The String Theory gains more followers, though it's a certain thing that it will be almost impossible to be proven, so you have to admit its axioms (beliefs), but it's the only theory that can unify the big universe and the small one.

 

Humans are rational beings. They try to organise the universe, they try to give it numbers, laws and theories that can help them in understanding the universe. In other wordds they're trying to give it sense (ration). But they have to start with some initial assumptions, beliefs. I don't know why one of them cannot be that our creator used similar instruments for making different beings

[han]

I'm not saying that Scientific Creationism is a better theory than Darwin's Evolution Theory, but it's a certain alternative.

 

I disagree.

 

Axioms are things that cannot be demonstrated, in other words they are "beliefs".

 

I disagree.

 

Nowadays The String Theory gains more followers, though it's a certain thing that it will be almost impossible to be proven, so you have to admit its axioms (beliefs), but it's the only theory that can unify the big universe and the small one.

 

I disagree at least twice with this sentence, and I doubt string theory affects the daily life of anybody.

 

Humans are rational beings.

 

I disagree.

 

But they have to start with some initial assumptions, beliefs. I don't know why one of them cannot be that our creator used similar instruments for making different beings

 

Just because we cannot prove that something isn't false doesn't mean we have to give it serious thought does it? Let alone teach it in a science class.

[kenberg]

Anyone who claims religion is scientifically based might want to imagine an experiment we could do to resolve the issue of the existence of God. For example, as I was getting interested in science a half century ago there was considerable disagreement between the Big Bangers and the Steady Staters about the evolution of the universe. Thanks to certain scientific measurements, that debate is now more or less over. If the existence of God is really a scientific issue then there must be some sort of experiment or measurement that that could be suggested which, depending on its outcome, would support or disprove the God hypothesis. What is it? No, I don't mean arguments (proofs, he optimistically called them) from Saint Thomas. Those were not decent exercises in logic, let alone science. I mean we think up some sort of experiment, the likely outcome of which is not currently known, which reasonably could be taken to demonstrate the existence of God if it turns out one way and would refute the existence of God if it turns out another way. Just as was done with the Big Bang, Relativity, and a host of other scientific theories. In other words, we do some scientific investigation.

 

So: What experiment shall we do?

 

If you think this facetious, I actually did my own version of it. After my confirmation in 1952 I began moving away from religion. Pat Robertson suggested (see the original post) that bad things might befall the town in Pa that stopped teaching Intelligent Design. Similar suggestions were made about my fate. So I found an isolated spot and spent some time shouting obscenities at God with the goal of testing this out. I tried this several times and when nothing happened I decided that the threats were all bluster. No doubt a more rigorous scientific test could be designed, but I found my experiment convincing enough. If you think I was certain of how this would turn out I assure you that, at the age of 14 and with fire and brimstone indoctrination, I was not at all certain. Perhaps the fires await me. Could be.

 

Anyway, I await the suggestion for how the existence of God, true or false, can be investigated through scientific experimentation

[Fluffy]

all this babling about finding out if god exists by doing something is nuts.

 

If you do something to see if god exists your intention is not to do something, is to see if god exists. And it won't work. You have to really mean it.

 

Intention is very important.

[mikeh]

all this babling about finding out if god exists by doing something is nuts.

 

If you do something to see if god exists your intention is not to do something, is to see if god exists. And it won't work. You have to really mean it.

 

Intention is very important.

How insightful! In order to 'prove' god exists, one 'really' has to believe in god. Impregnable reasoning :) In other words, substitute faith for thinking. Life is so easy when one abandons reason.

[Fluffy]

Real inference is that you should actually believe in him in order to be able to proof he does not exist.

 

But what I actually think is you can't prove he does or doesn't exist, but he can prove it to you if he wills.

[kenberg]

all this babling about finding out if god exists by doing something is nuts.

 

If you do something to see if god exists your intention is not to do something, is to see if god exists. And it won't work. You have to really mean it.

 

Intention is very important.

Oh I meant it! I took my religion very seriously, I came to doubt that it was true, I was strongly warned about the ill effects such doubt might have on the well being of my soul, and I decided to take on the issue directly. The fact that I came to the conclusion that it was not for me is not proof that I wasn't serious about it. I was very serious and my transition from believer to non-believer took place over a number of years.

 

One of the effects of taking it all seriously, I think, is that I am completely comfortable with others who have taken it seriously and have come to different conclusions. I don't care much for people like Robertson who browbeat and threaten in order to impose their views on others, and I am unhappy with someone running for president as the Christian candidate just as I would be if he were running as the Protestant candidate or the Baptist candidate or as the White candidate. Either you want to be president of all the people or you don't. My discomfort is not with their faith but with their attempts to push their faith onto the rest of us who do not share it. I am not at all uncomfortable with, say, John McCain's faith, one of the reasons being that he seems to feel no need to inform me of what it is. Or to ask about mine either, for that matter.

 

My suggestion that we ask for an experiment to resolve the issue was to see if anyone thought that this could be done. You seem to think it cannot, and I agree. I am no more likely to develop a belief in God as a result of a scientific experiment than a religious person would be likely to drop his faith as a result of science. Possibly someone can come up with an experiment that would cause me to rethink this, but I doubt it.

[blackshoe]

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent — it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills."

 

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."

 

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973.

[luke warm]

heinlein was a wonderful author and a clever man, but logic wasn't his strong suit, as his quote above shows

[mike777]

I thought we settled this thread ages ago...NO to the question.

 

I thought it was settled we are godless, souless animals with no more right to plunder the universe's resources or survive than any other replicating virus or selfish gene.

:)