Cris

That is probably more accurate than you realize. If evidence was ever discovered for souls or even gods, then that would constitute knowledge and knowledge is the realm of science and at that point religion would become redundant.

Religions can only survive when evidence is absent.

Raithere

if there were evidence for the supernatural then science would have to accept it.


The above quotes were taken from two, what I consider, heavyweights of religious debate. Although I agree with much of what these two members articulate, I am a bit at odds with their opinion of how evidence for gods will change the way we perceive science and religion. I am of a mind to think that science, as we know it, would become redundant if hard evidence was discovered indicating the existence of gods. Religion would most likely flourish as a result of this discovery.

I apologize in advance to both Cris and Raithere if I've taken their quotes out of context.

Therefore, I invite everyone to provide their insight as to what they think would happen to science and religion if hard evidence was discovered for the existence of gods.

Would science become redundant or flourish with this new knowledge ?

Would religion become redundant or flourish with this new knowledge ?

Q,

Superb question.

One thing is for sure, theists would suddenly turn around and embrace science. I'm sure they are in favor of it, as long as it gives them the answers they want to hear.

Science would not be hurt in the least if evidence supporting religion were found, since evidence is scientific! I don't see how a scientifically-realized conclusion can damage science. If anything, any scientific evidence of that type would be welcomed with open arms. But I find it hard to believe that there will ever be scientific proof of god...

Religion is already flourishing WITHOUT have a logical, scientific base; can you imagine how much MORE it would flourish if theists had a valid argument??! :D .

Cheers

If the first smallest shred of evidence for "souls" was discovered, it would spark a new area of scientific research. I doubt it would be called a soul by anu other than religious nutters. Most likely we'd give it some nifty bame like bio-McGuffin Energy or something, and no doubt we would eventually tie it into otehr established theories.

Does this mean science merely forms an explanation to cover its arse? No. It means that, like gravity, it is something which has been with us all along but which has a perfectly natural explanation which has nothing to do with gods and elves and dragons.

Unfortunately, the religious nutters would say "See? This is PROOF of god!" Of course they wouldn't have any evidence linking this energy to any such fairytale creatures, but tehy'd say it anyway.

I think we'd be in the same spot we're in now, just with something else to argue about.

Nebula

I don't see how a scientifically-realized conclusion can damage science.

Perhaps I have over-simplified the conclusion in my mind and have not thought enough about the implications. However, that is why I began this thread.

My conclusion is based almost solely on the concept that if hard evidence was discovered indicating that gods definitely existed, then there would be only one answer to most, if not all, scientific questions.

And no matter what question you may wish to formulate, the answer would eventually be grounded with only one conclusion; God did it.

I am constantly asking myself - is the answer over-simplified ? Is there a myriad of levels of thought I'm not connecting with here in my conclusion ?

We most likely would continue the rigor of science to expand our technologies, but that is not the case in point.

Science would continue to flourish while religion would be redundant.

That is the paradox.

Religion relies on the lack of evidence or proof.

Okay (Q) thanks, and sorry for the gross mis-understanding :).

Science would become redundant, but there could still be purpose to it. We may know the ultimate cause, but we can still study and observe stuff to let us know how things work.

Kinda like this: you know the motor is responsible for powering your car, but there are still questions about how it does so...

Of course, it would place a finite limit on the things we could discover.

fadingCaptain

Religion relies on the lack of evidence or proof.

True, but remember that science does not answer the question why something works, but instead, how something works. If God exists, then the question of how anything works is answered.

(Q): Not necessarily, I still think the "how" would be left open. Having proof that God exists doesn't mean he's running the entire show. We could know, for example, that God designed gravity and still examine how god's gravity works.

Although it would seem kind of pointless, being that the function such knowledge would provide would be enabling us to modify nature. But, since he created it, God could always change it back.

Cris

Thanks! :)

Please help me to understand why I might be wrong in my conclusion.

Or right.

Nebula

Not necessarily, I still think the "how" would be left open.

Good point. But would you, for example, want to become a scientist who was searching for answers on how the universe worked. Your interest in the subject could wane dramatically if you already knew the ultimate answer.

Why bother taking measurements when you know the measurements mean nothing since those measurements are determined by an omnipotent entity. What would be the point ?

Science is that branch of study which seeks to observe, discover, and understand the nature and principles that govern our the universe, our world, and ourselves. The result of this process is a systematic categorization of knowledge with the goal of predicting and manipulating events according to discovered natural laws. Science has shaped our lives dramatically. Because of science we now have great medical knowledge. We can travel in jets, automobiles, and trains over great distances. We can harness rivers, predict storms, and use the power of the atom. By picking up a phone we can talk to almost anyone in the world. We can see anywhere on the planet via television and even gaze upon the surface of the moon and Mars. Like a giant flood gate that has been opened, what is flowing through its doors is a wonderful technology of helps, advancements, relaxation, amusements, security, answered questions, and hope. To some, though, science has become a god.

To the Christian, science is merely that branch of discovery that categorizes, discovers, and utilizes the knowledge woven into the fabric of the universe by a Sovereign, All Powerful, and Omniscient, Creator. Science is not the end of all things, but merely one of the means by which man may glorify God. This is because God is the creator of all that is. He has hidden the treasures of his ominous glory in the very universe in which we exist. The power in the atom, momentum, energy, mass, time, etc. are all creations of God and, therefore, under his authority. The more the Christian learns of these things, the more He can glorify God. Science must be subservient to Him, not the other way around. Science is not God's replacement.

I agree that some Christians are opposed to science. Perhaps they feel threatened by science and it's discoveries, I don't know for sure. However, I personally embrace science and technology when used morally and to better humanity.

><>

Inspector

The problem with your conclusion is that although God may have "hidden the treasures of his ominous glory in the very universe in which we exist," why do these so-called treasures resemble more of a natural occurrence of things as opposed to divine intervention ? In other words, He made sure not to provide any evidence whatsoever of His existence within these occurrences of nature.

".......why do these so-called treasures resemble more of a natural occurrence of things as opposed to divine intervention ? In other words, He made sure not to provide any evidence whatsoever of His existence within these occurrences of nature."
-------------------------------

Q, what I like most, and respect, about you is your uncanny ability to get to the root of all things. This is a fine question and is open to different interpretations. I could, of course, offer biblical commentary to answer this question, however, I won't unless someone specifically requests such information. Additionally, I am not sure that these evidences should be considered 'hidden', as if to imply some form of trickery by God. I would also have to disagree with your statement that there is not ANY evidence to be found in nature. Perhaps the evidence is abundant, yet, we simply classify them as other things.

><>

Q,
True, but remember that science does not answer the question why something works, but instead, how something works. If God exists, then the question of how anything works is answered.
That is because the question of 'why' is irrelevant. 'Why' always leads to 'how' which is the appropriate question. Newton asked why the apple fell. This led to how the apple fell. He should have simply asked how the apple fell in the first place.

What I am trying to say is that even if evidence that there is a god was discovered....it would answer how. For example, it would not answer 'why' there is a god. People inappropriately ask 'why' and this leads to religion. But the question is unanswerable and irrelevant in the first place.

Originally posted by (Q)
I am a bit at odds with their opinion of how evidence for gods will change the way we perceive science and religion. I am of a mind to think that science, as we know it, would become redundant if hard evidence was discovered indicating the existence of gods. Religion would most likely flourish as a result of this discovery.I think it would depend entirely upon what we discovered. If all we discovered was some power or source, some scientific particular that would necessitate the existence of God, I think things would stay pretty close to the way they are except that religion would have concrete ground from which to assert God but still have no better rational as to what God is or wants.

Or perhaps we might discover a message from God written into the very fabric of physics... into the fabric of the Universe. Such as Sagan suggests in Contact (you have to read the book they don't touch this issue in the movie). Then it would depend on what the message was that was written there.

There are any number of possibilities, so I think it's rather difficult to say. If we "discovered" God, maybe he'd actually start talking to us as if we knocked on the door and he let us in... or maybe he'd continue to remain hidden and inscrutable, leaving us with pretty much the same guesses as we have now.

Who knows.

~Raithere

Both would flourish. Science, naturally, flourishes with new knowledge. Religious ideas, taken as a concept, are quite flexible in the sense that people will invent religions out of anything. Take the EBE/Alien-seed theory. I'm usually surprised at how frothing and religious that crowd can be at times.

Sure, we might see the end of the religious structures we know of today, but humans being as they are, they will continue to invent religion until that critical piece of knowledge comes to them which renders the religious function unnecessary to them.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I think the religious are addicted to the mystery of it... Take love for example. When it was a mystery everyone was content writing poems and painting art about it. But once it was explained to be chemicals in the brain everyone got really edgy on the subject. Alot of people were saying, in some way or another "How dare you explain love!?!?". Personally I don't see why explaining love makes it any less beautiful...

Beauty in clarity.

I'd say people get upset about the nature of love because they feel that the chemical explanation leads to deterministic perspectives. By some courses, it does.

However, the scientists are addicted to the mystery as well. The scientific method, technically, is quite unnecessary. Escherichia coli (http://familydoctor.org/handouts/242.html), quite frankly, doesn't give a rip about the scientific method, and it prospers and flourishes.

Humans are compelled toward a mystery.

Science can quantify the processes that determine how you feel, but it cannot quantify how you actually feel. That is entirely subjective, and a mystery unto itself. To ask why I feel a certain way, at some point, becomes as empty an issue as why humans exist.

Think of science and art.

Science can quantify much about sound. But it can't reproduce it quite right. A properly-made vinyl record with a clean needle and good speakers will sound better than the CD version of the same album. Why? Because the vinyl is broadcasting the soundwaves; the CD is trying to reproduce and translate them. 24-bit sounds good, but there's a long way to go.

There is an analogous value there, but not much else for this discussion.

We can quantify the devices of people's feelings all we want, but until we understand that process ....

If people are addicted to the mystery, what critical element is missing that leaves their psyche so at ease that it seeks surrogate comfort?

Is it really a phenomenon restricted to theistic religious belief?

Ever met a New York Yankees fan? Generally speaking, they're intolerable bastards. But think about college and pro sports. There's much there that is religious, and it often looks much like a religion.

Hell, Safeco Field in September--it truly looks like a House of the Holy. Few things in the world tweak my mindset as quickly as a beautiful evening, late in the summer, when the light hangs in the air and the players glow larger than life. Hearts break, souls are mended, and there is a full complement of factions; there are the seriously-intellectual, the statisticians; there are the fairweather fans, in Christianity we would call them "Sunday" or "Holiday" Christians; there are the fundamentalists, who cuss at and spill beer on children. And then there is the poisoned scourge of the Earth; we call them Yankee fans.

Sounds a little like religion to me.

Should I delve into politics for illustration?

An idea I can't quite get to sit still: there's something odd about the atheistic rejection of religion. It really does seem to be the labels that bug them. People are happy to go through the same processes, they just don't want to do it for God.

This is well and fine, but it really does sound like people are focusing too much on labels and not on substance.

It's Hockey Night in Canada! (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/hnic/index_trad.html) and you can even get the hymnal (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/hnic/index_trad.html).

A question for Canadians ... what day of the week is Hockey Night? I thought it was Wednesday, but that would be way too convenient for me if it was.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa;

Wow, someone else believe that records sound better than CDs. :D. Groovy. Also, HNIK is a Saturday Night tradition here in canada.

... bloody Sabbatarians. ;)

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Humans are compelled toward a mystery.
I agree... But when do we stop focusing on the mystery and start creating one?
People are happy to go through the same processes, they just don't want to do it for God
DAMN RIGHTS! I live my life very morally, and don't steal when no one's looking. Not cause God is actually watching, cause I am. I am the only God of my life. I take responsibility for what I do, make my own decisions, and deal with the consequences.
This is well and fine, but it really does sound like people are focusing too much on labels and not on substance.
This is true. But as an athiest, the label I often have stamped on me is frustrating, just the same as theists probably get sick of the label they often have stamped on them. Not giving you an excuse really, just a reason.

Inspector

I would also have to disagree with your statement that there is not ANY evidence to be found in nature. Perhaps the evidence is abundant, yet, we simply classify them as other things

Perhaps, but everything which has been discovered so far indicates that there is nothing outside the realm of natural occurrence which might suggest divine intervention. In that case, we would need to categorize all natural occurrences as divine intervention.

God most likely would not allow us to examine our world rationally and logically if He thought for a moment it would lead us to conclude that He didn't exist. And of course, that is where much of scientific discovery is leading us.



Raithere

Who knows.

I liked your examples, although they are subtle in context and would be open for interpretation and further examination.

Perhaps if the discovery of God were more along the lines of a 'diamond bullet through the middle of your forehead' type of discovery. In other words, He might appear before everyone announcing His existence in a dramatic, almost biblical, brimstone and fire entrance and then go on reiterating our purpose to Him.

Would that kind of evidence facilitate a paradigm shift for science and religion ?



Tiassa

Both would flourish.

Interesting. Do you think they might combine forces and work towards common goals or remain at odds with one another in an attempt to undermine ?

Originally posted by tiassa
Science can quantify much about sound. But it can't reproduce it quite right. A properly-made vinyl record with a clean needle and good speakers will sound better than the CD version of the same album. Why? Because the vinyl is broadcasting the soundwaves; the CD is trying to reproduce and translate them. 24-bit sounds good, but there's a long way to go.While I agree with much of what you said, I must address the fact that the vinyl recording system was developed by science as well. The difference lies not in the fact that CDs were developed by science but the fact that the digital resolution of CDs is detectible to the human ear. If the resolution were beyond that of human hearing we would detect no differene (if there is such a point of focus that is). The question is whether the Universe is analog or existence occurs in discrete packets. From what we know it may, in fact, be quantized (quantum theory) however, this could simply be a limitation of our ability to detect phenomena beyond a certain point.

Question; is infinite reduction a concept that applies to reality or is there an inherent limitation?

Not much time today to go beyond this simple point but I thought I'd bring it up.

Happy Turkey Day!

~Raithere

Do you think they might combine forces and work towards common goals or remain at odds with one another in an attempt to undermine ?(Q)

Religion will eventually fall in line. It can't help it. Christianity, for instance, must adapt or disappear. Over the next couple generations the challenge for Christians will be to adapt so that Christianity is able to match social progress. At present, as we see with the HIV crisis, American teen-pregnancy crisis, and the Creationist assertion, that Christianity is not prepared to deal reasonably with the world. Christians across the nation and around the world are struggling to deal with new data despite their doctrinal challenges. In 1992, in a vital political campaign in Oregon, homosexuals could not have preserved their most basic civil rights without the open endorsements of various church bodies, including Catholics, Quakers, Lutherans, and a particular strain of Baptists. Sure, the vote was still strong against gays, but it is obvious that some have figured out how to make new conditions (e.g. acceptance or at least tolerance of homosexuality) work within the confines of their own faith. Of course, many people are at odds with their churches one way or another, which blurs the lines between faiths as various Lutherans hop over to the Episcopals, and Baptists might join the Missouri Synod. But in the long run, hard-hearted Christianity will become, like the Latin mass, a mere curiosity.

Islam is a different problem; it's 600 years younger than Catholicism and right on schedule. 600 years ago, Christians were murdering people in droves for their faith, living under theocracies and wrangling between warlords. I tend to think Islam can modernize in certain ways; there are obviously Muslims who function just fine in modern society.

About the only thing I can guarantee of religion in 500 years is that Sufism will be stronger than ever. The more real information they get hold of, the better.

Raithere

True, but the latest-greatest from science (e.g. CD's) is not the greatest. Progress is not always progressive.

Still, I think the point holds, but thank you.If the resolution were beyond that of human hearing we would detect no differene (if there is such a point of focus that is).Quickly, for the hell of it: I don't remember any of the names here, but a story I picked up from Mojo or Tape Op (I can't remember which) is about a recording engineer who had a problem with three of the channels on his board. He tried to fix it, couldn't get it figured out, but he was the only one at the session who was hearing it. He called the manufacturer. They sent out a tech. All diagnostics checked out okay. This did not make sense; he knew what he was hearing. So he called the board's designer, a guy whose name escapes me, referred to as the "father of the modern soundboard". The old man came out to see his baby, and agreed that something was not right. Despite the instruments, two exceptionally qualified people now disagreed with the scientific result. So the old man took the board back to his lab where he hooked up more sensitive gear and sought out the problem.

Surely enough, the closer examination revealed the tiniest distortion only in those three channels that occurred well beyond the human range of hearing.

It's a cool story, I guess, if you record a lot. But what is more applicable here is the lesson we learn from science: what we do not hear has a tremendous effect on what we do hear.

Beyond that, I'll think on the question. Tryptophan for everyone!

thanx,
Tiassa :cool: