science missing god?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by scifes, Jul 22, 2010.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    What do you mean "does science accept statements"? Science worked out that this happens. Yet to be accepted as science (or even to call a halt to the project) it needs to be conclusively shown to OTHERS.

    You're misinterpreting. It happens, but is still required to be shown to others. And "sometimes more consistent" Er, run that by me again...

    Oh right, because everyone knows tha all companies run on scientific methods...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Way off-course. Whatever your point was meant to be.

    Who said anything about "perfectly"? If the engineer can't back up his statement then the CEO won't listen to him. In other words despite his feelings the chances the project will go ahead.
    All experience does is give you a chance to be given the time to back up your gut feeling.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Matthew Brady Registered Member

    Numbers were likely originally conceived as a way of differentiating between different quantities of any given unit. And there clearly IS an empirical, or scientific if you prefer, basis for the existence of varying quantities of units.

    If I can see that one object that is 3 meters high, and another that is 4 meters high, then I have a clear empirical basis for saying that they differ in their physical height, and therefore have a legitimate basis for quantifying that difference.

    Granted the numbers themselves are concepts conceived by the human mind. But then, what we regard as a human is a concept conceived by the human mind, or any other object or indeed abstract notion, including the concept of God. Concepts devised by the human mind are how we understand and interpret the world, and communicate our understanding with others

    No, we dont assume variations in quantity, we observe variations in quantity. Numbers are our way of conceptualizing that, but what the concept refers to is real and verifiable, not assumed. Things clearly do differ in magnitude, scale and quantity. We have to have some way of talking about this, hence numbers.

    All people hold many ideas outside of what can be logically reasoned from the physical evidence, such as moral ideas, or other abstract, subjective notions. Its just that some of us think that when it comes to objective beliefs about the real world, we should stick to what can be logically inferred from the physical evidence, or at least when this is not the case, acknowledge that we are speculating and not pretend that we have any good basis for certainty, something the religious are in the habit of doing.

    In so doing, what we gain is the benefit of knowing that although our ideas about objective reality arent likely to be perfect, they do represent the best understanding of objective reality that we van obtain with the limited information available to us. Such knowledge is far more valuable than what we miss out on, namely a fantasy about some magic man in the sky, or any other baseless superstition.

    This is true. We have only a limited perception of the natural world, and only limited powers of reasoning to interpret what little we do perceive of the world. This fact is hardly a reason to indulge unsupported fantasies however. (With regard to art and pleasures, these are very much subjective realms, and a different matter entirely).

    It is the Endeavour of science and the scientific method to maximize what we can perceive of the world and bring and apply the most rigorous and logical reasoning to interpreting what is perceived. This is a worthy aim in my view, and not to be denigrated and cast aside in favour of comfortable delusions.

    Your pseudo philosophy hardly started out impressively, but this is just total gibberish. No one believes the world is literally just music, and certainly no one eats it. Well, they may consume the physical paper on which the music is written, but somehow I dont think this is what you had in mind.

    When people claim to "live and breath music" or something similar it is a METAPHOR, not a literal statement. All it means is that music is important to them. To try and argue that music can therefore be used as an alternative means of understanding the world in place of science is absurd. If you want to understand the objective reality of the real world, music is no substitute for science. Arts and science are two separate realms, they cannot be treated as alternatives to each other, as you seem to be suggesting.

    Except that i doubt anyone on this forum understands his life solely through science. We all understand life through a variety of concepts, many of them totally subjective. Its just that some of us recognize the value of reason and evidence with respect to understanding the objective reality of the natural world.

    Well to claim the existence of God is to make a very specific and literal claim about the natural world, which is either objectively true or objectively false. It is therefore a matter that lies very much in the realms of physical evidence and science, so the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence to recommend the existence of God (not to mention plenty of evidence to actively disprove many of the claims that specific religions make) should be a fairly serious cause for doubting his existence, in the same way that a complete lack of evidence is a good reason to doubt the existence of the Biker Mice from Mars. Actually, the Biker Mice from Mars are more plausible than God, as they arent claimed to have supernatural powers, but I digress. But invariably, the to the religious mind, such trivial concerns as evidence dont seem to matter.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Parmenides Registered Senior Member

    I think the truth, looking at the history of ideas, is that the relationship between science and religion is complex. I don't think it can properly be argued that science from its beginnings has tried to 'eliminate' God. This in my view grossly distorts the relationship between science and religion.

    The beliefs scientists have in terms of religion seems to depend more on how prevalent religion is in the wider social culture. In the time of Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus, virtually everyone in Europe believed in God and was a member of the Christian religion. Galileo was a baptised Roman Catholic, which was part of the reason why the church authorities took action against him (as a baptised Catholic he was subject to the jurisdiction of the church). Kepler was a Protestant. At the time in Europe religion was a very powerful cultural force, and even if the great scientists of the time did not rely on religion to justify their science, there are references to God which pop up quite a few times in their works (particularly Kepler who seemed a bit too involved in mysticism) which would not appear in any serious science textbook today describing their theories.

    It should be noted though that with the end of the medieval period, serious thinkers tended to demote God in favour of human reason as the arbiter of truth. This can be seen in the reliance on scientists in the Renaissance and Modern period on human reason, experience and mathematical analysis in favour of blind adherence to tradition to work out the universe, and in philosophy by the attempts of thinkers like Descartes to base knowledge on human subjectivity rather than participation in the wisdom of God, even though theism remained a powerful influence on many of these thinkers. None of the great scientists in the Modern period had a hostility for theism, though they were sometimes unorthodox (Newton for example denied the doctrine of the Trinity, fundamental to Christianity).

    The existence of numbers and physical laws which seem to be mathematical in nature and independent of the human mind is a deep puzzle. There have been many sophisticated attempts to explain the nature of mathematics by philosophers of great distinction, and scientists have been puzzled by how 'unreasonably effective' mathematics seems to be in describing the universe. Indeed, Galileo, Kepler and Newton believed the mathematical nature of the laws of nature indicated its creator was also rational, in the sense God's wisdom in creating the universe was basically mathematical. The apparent timeless nature of mathematical objects and truths has a Platonic appeal to many, but it is not the only possible explanation. There have been attempts in the 19th and 20th centuries by some very distinguished philosophers, logicians and mathematicians to make sense of the true nature of mathematics. The subject is too complex to go through here, but you can find accessible books on the subject in any decent bookstore.
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kajalamorth The Doctor Registered Senior Member

    Same thing with the alphabet. Our language. Numbers are a way to measure. We created words to speak.

    Some only believe in religion. Aren't they missing out on something also?

    no one outlook of reality of complete or perfect, whether it be a form of art, some animalistic instinct or pleasure, a philosophy, some religion, or science.

    Go back in time and say that to bethoven and Mozart. You will realize we are all disrespectful towards our beliefs. People need to assimilate others. Humans need everyone else to believe in what they believe.

    Same with music. Music is as old as man could play instruments and could sing(You need to be able to speak to sing correct?) That statement is flawed. Music and Science is what makes us human.

    Science in my belief is the law of the universe. Not all scientist want to bury the belief of god.

    I doubt god would care. Why would he create a universe and create life if he is always going getting in the middle of our events? Why create sapient(Sentient means to feel...) life if you wont let it stand on its own feet?

    And whats with these "science freaks" I believe in science I also believe that something needs a creator to be created. So just because I believe in science it doesn't mean I do not believe in god. Take that stereotype out of your mind.
  8. M00se1989 Banned Banned

  9. pluto2 Banned Valued Senior Member

    Stephen Hawking says that God is not needed to explain the universe (Richard Dawkins says the same thing, just in a different way).

    Besides there are too many different Gods and religions. Why would a real God not communicate directly from his heaven that he is the real one and that all the others are fakes? Or why would he not smite all the fakes?

    Beliefs in gods exist for biological, anthroplogical, sociological and political reasons that, despite the claims of their adherents, have nothing to do with the actual existence of these supernatural entities.
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2010
  10. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    maybe he did and didn't tell us..
    maybe he did and the universe was the result..

    lol..that was just tongue in cheek..don't take it too seriously..

    ppl quote science for disputes against god because in science 1+1 will always equal 2..its an attempt to solidify any commands god presents so as not to be susceptible to any one mans will..which in itself is justifiable as ppl have used god throughout that ages to force their will, not gods.
  11. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    science missing god?

    I should hope so.
  12. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member


    How many petals does a flower have? Just because we attribute appellation, doesn't mean that numbers do not exist.

    If god is ever to be found (in reality), he will be found in "Science". You are weighting the meaning of the word "Science" with your very statement. Check the etymological root of the word.

    We all are a blend of influences (pretty obvious stuff) and I am sure at such a forum as this you will find more than one topic/subject, blend of person and outlook on the Universe. Science itself attempts to categorize to understand (You indeed are following/faltering along the same path

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Science and religion both seek to explain our environment. One uses evidence to build up a plausible picture; the other guestimates on a basis of mind.

    Science needs us.
    Music needs us (dna music; heard any?)
    It's all relative.
  13. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Jung's model of archetypes implies that religion is based on instincts. We're born with instinctive beliefs, so they feel more true than anything we acquire later through learning or reasoning.
  14. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Alas Fraggle Rocker, I am not well versed in philiosophical scripture and instead tend to expunge my own philosophy so I cannot go into as much detail on Jung as I am sure you could.

    I don't buy-into the idea that we are born with the propensity toward religion though I do think the propensity is hardcoded into the genes. Only through possible effections like physical weakening and our genomes interacting with environments does a, shall we say, spiritual phenotypic expression of needs to seek out god, forgiveness, community creep in. The so-called 'finding (of) God'. Well I found god (a belief/theory) and found that God's interest (if he/she/it exists) would not be alligned to Man's limited wonts and desires. And would be more focused on the success of the universe; hardcoding already built into the fabric of the universe.

    The human physical/mental and spiritual experience and our ability to find meaning where there is little did allow religion to flourish.

    Go back three thousand years to a hypothetical scenario:
    One group of 10 settlements are peaceful and trade among each other.
    A second group of 10 settlements not only trade goods but also spiritual belief and a common religion is founded.
    The peninsula that both groups share suffers a severe drought one summer and the crops fail.
    Which grouping survives?

    This is indeed natural selection, but as to the genetic feedback resulting from suchlike scenarios. These types of pressures effect on the genepool is a very interesting field of study I would imagine (I wouldn't know as this is all my own ponderings).

    What is an instinct in a human. Is it something we cannot deny?
    Can a man keep his hand in a fire if he wants to?

    Conscious thought is malleable and though I do think the weakness of humans can give an individual the propensity for religious belief. One will only find the belief that oneself is capable of uncovering. Most people are fed tradition and are trapped by its routine, and their own propensity for routine.

    I for one have never been trapped by routine and have evolved my own theory of how the universe ad infinitum could work.

    This post could go on forever I feel, so gonna cut it short. . .

Share This Page