Science and The Belief in God

[M.Dancer]

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/colli...tary/index.html

Scientically, this fellow is no slouch, and no literal interpreter either. He easily it seems balanced his faith with reason, discarding what is catagorically not true against what is rationally and emotionally fits.

[Figleaf]

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/colli...tary/index.html

Scientically, this fellow is no slouch, and no literal interpreter either. He easily it seems balanced his faith with reason, discarding what is catagorically not true against what is rationally and emotionally fits.

Rationally and emotionally ?!?!? Yeah, right, that's excellent science. --Not.

It's too bad this chap's emotions have led him into the folly of thinking science and religion can mutually accomodate. What kind of religion is still a religion and not science, if you accept that the science can at any time supercede the religion? And that question can turn around the other way too.

It may be possible for a human mind to believe that it believes both at the same time, but it's not possible to be correct in that belief, by the very nature of the two.

[Remiel]

I have a hard time understanding why anyone would think that God and science are incompatible concepts.

This is certainly a guy I think I would enjoy having a conversation on theology with, to compare differences and similarities of our conclusions.

Figlieaf - I am not sure of the definitions, but if you differentiate between the singular belief in a God and actual codified religion, you would see that while science may be at odds with religion, it is not at odds with God.

[Charles Anthony]

I have a hard time understanding why anyone would think that God and science are incompatible concepts.

-- because somebody might be jealous of God. Such a jealousy would be impossible to overcome. It would be easier to deny the existance of God and thus, one's jealousy would be limited to physically attainable goals.

Figlieaf -

Spelling error reported.

[Slavik44]

Although personally for all intents and purposes I am an Agnostic I don't see there as being a big issue between the existance of God and evolution, as long as person acknowledges that God is outside the realm of scientific understanding, and is not trying to skew science in the name of literally interpreting the bible or any other religous holybook. I suppose Collins may be able to do this with Science.

Unfortunately I think he runs into a number of issues when talking about his faith. For instance he talks aobut how science was unable to answer certain questions, he then lists off some of them. That is like saying hockey plays are unable to score fieldgoals and therefore it is not a true sport. He was asking philisophical questions in a field that is concerned with a scientific process, that while it may contribute to the study of philosophy, it is not philisophical, and is not interested or concerned with providing people with philosophy.

He also possess a number of presuppositions, such as who created the world. It could very easily have been what, it could very easily just have been a process, we just don't know. But the absence of a concrete answer is not evidence to say God did it, it is just the absence of a concrete answer, it is not grounds for a conclusion, certainly not scientific grounds for a conclusion.

Likewise he talks about how one could build a strong case for the existence of God on purely rational grounds...shortly thereafter he is saying reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. This is not a consistent, clear, or SCIENTIFIC message.

It must also be mentioned that he brings up Jesus Christ and says that there is strong historical evidence concerning the Life of Jesus. This simply is not true, as far as I know we have no primary records written about Jesus during the time in which he is thought to have lived. I am not saying that Jesus did not exist, but that to suggest that we have strong historical knowledge about Jesus' actual life is nothing but a falsehood.

He says he doesn't take Genesis literally, but what about the other 60+ books? Does he take them literally? It is one thing to maintain your faith in god and accept scientific evidence of the natural world.

However, he goes beyond this, by picking a specific God, and a specific book, and obviously following, atleast some of, its tenets. He attempts to conform it to his scientific understanding of the world, by building his own bible, through ommiting the literal interpretation of certain parts. But you could do that with any religion, so why this one? Apparently becase he saw three strands of frozen water in the wilderness, that is not science.

Lkewse saying its complicated god must have done it, is not science either. He is basically saying our DNA is complicated, it must have come from God, it must be a part of Gods plan. Although his views are more rational than what I would call Bannana Creationism I would say they have a similar relation and ancestory rooted in a desire to find God in places he may not be. Of high importance is the fact that he avoids making any sort of true testable hypothesis on the existance of God, which must be demanded for this to be science and god.

[Figleaf]

Figlieaf -

Spelling error reported.

[Figleaf]

Figlieaf - I am not sure of the definitions, but if you differentiate between the singular belief in a God and actual codified religion, you would see that while science may be at odds with religion, it is not at odds with God.

Good point. I would agree with differentiating belief in a 'God' from a belief in the tenets of a religion, and I can also see how one might believe in some definitions of 'God' (not religion) and still be consistent in a dedication to science.

[DarkAngel_]

Lkewse saying its complicated god must have done it, is not science either. He is basically saying our DNA is complicated, it must have come from God, it must be a part of Gods plan. Although his views are more rational than what I would call Bannana Creationism I would say they have a similar relation and ancestory rooted in a desire to find God in places he may not be. Of high importance is the fact that he avoids making any sort of true testable hypothesis on the existance of God, which must be demanded for this to be science and god.

i agree with your reasoning, that his prognosis was false... but lets humor his expectations, what are the scientific possibilities in our current state, to there being a deity?

and what is the likeliness of us knowing his intent, complexity, and domains of worship. (such as virtue, enlightenment, and reproduction)

i'll tell you! in most causes, he is called omniscient, but the 'uncertainty principle' kicks that out of the water, though, it could have loops of which both can be known without passing the moment in non-linier time... (cause you cant know what an atom is doing, and its exact position at the same moment.) though, that would mean more subatomic particles are present, and they have free radical properties... i don’t know... maybe, but the odds of one planet, in one solar system, being made by one deity, and 'unknowingly guided' in destiny, is very imposable, though very slightly possible, and the interaction plus stillness of activity in our world, that is not world-widely super natural, and unexplainable, is proof in-of-itself... basically, god has a very unlikely chance of existing as we worship and define him... the declaration of a god in existence is irrational, unless we find a part of science that tie's existence with a controlling, or influential source. (but then i could say god is gravity...lol)

some say he does not have omniscience… weird, then he would have to be watching us from a close distance, which is also bull in my opinion, because that would mean he is not ‘creator and seer of all’ get my point? As well they say he governs the heavens and earth, tough if u look at it, we are a part of the heavens, and the devil controls hell, well then black holes are hell. Though both would have to have a proving point, which they do not, and other religions hold close the same believe in celestial divinity… science is not worship, it is doubt with an open mind. (or should be)

as well, the facts, or scientific data deduced by math and logic, point out we are not that far yet, as to point out the existence of a god. so how the hell can the church be ahead of science, if we keep blowing there skewed believes out into the ocean, (as well the church did not create the I-pod, shuttle, pen, paper, scarf, car, or our economic system.)

maybe im putting faith in science, but no! I doubt everything they say, I look into it myself, and if one day I have a lab, I’m going to investigate every corner of our bounds! But until the day science proves the existence, or nonexistence of a god, us scientists will continue to learn, instead of put faith in the old age tradition of following cultural tie’s, fighting any opposition without end, and indoctrinating our kids at bible class and school so they will continue the legacy of fighting evil, as well as heretics, as we are ‘evil’ too right? and believing what has yet to be proven or disproven…

[Figleaf]

BTW, excellent post, Slavik.

[August1991]

Einstein, Science & Belief in God:

"Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of free thinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression."

...

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Link

But Einstein was a determinist too who famously said that he did not believe that God played dice with the universe.

[gc1765]

"What is the meaning of life?"

Better yet, what is the meaning of God?

"Why does mathematics work, anyway?"

Why shouldn't it?

"If the universe had a beginning, who created it?"

Better yet, who/what created God?

"Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?"

Because if they weren't, we wouldn't know about it, since we wouldn't be here. This article on the Anthropic Principle can probably explain it better than I could (although I haven't read the entire thing so don't quote me on that)

"Why do humans have a moral sense?"

Evolution

"What happens after we die?"

We decompose

[ScottSA]

"What is the meaning of life?"

Better yet, what is the meaning of God?

"Why does mathematics work, anyway?"

Why shouldn't it?

"If the universe had a beginning, who created it?"

Better yet, who/what created God?

"Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?"

Because if they weren't, we wouldn't know about it, since we wouldn't be here. This article on the Anthropic Principle can probably explain it better than I could (although I haven't read the entire thing so don't quote me on that)

"Why do humans have a moral sense?"

Evolution

"What happens after we die?"

We decompose

This, unfortunately, pretty much plumbs the depths of understanding of the general lightweight atheism of secular society. It's all pretty much based on radical positivism, and hilights the conceit that we are privy to the definitive epistemology of everything. It helps avoid deeper questions and questions of the spirit, so it serves its purpose I suppose, but it's hardly clever.

[Figleaf]

This, unfortunately, pretty much plumbs the depths of understanding of the general lightweight atheism of secular society. It's all pretty much based on radical positivism, and hilights the conceit that we are privy to the definitive epistemology of everything. It helps avoid deeper questions and questions of the spirit, so it serves its purpose I suppose, but it's hardly clever.

Oh yeah. And what do you have to contribute that can shed any light on the issue?

[Catchme]

Einstein, Science & Belief in God:

Do you believe in God? ...The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

But Einstein was a determinist too who famously said that he did not believe that God played dice with the universe.

Thanks for the awesome link august, I had not read that portion of Einstein's thought. Issac Newton,'s science was directed to proving the existence of God, not denying the existence of God. Not many scientists today, like to admit this though. He felt there was no incompatibility between God and science.

IMO, the 1st law of thermodynamics proves what "God" is, in this system at least. An indestructable force, that enlivens all things equally. It is ALL things, in a state of unconditional being, yet not being, as far as the human mind can perceive it. The energy that enlivens all things, cannot be created, nor destroyed, only transformed, truly that is what omniscience, omnipresent, and omnipotent, is, is it not?!

Ascribing gender, and human attributes to the term "God", does a great disservice to humanity. It creates an inconsistency in thought and action. For example, we understand as humans, creation of another something, requires 2 gender types, even if it exists in one organism, yet we are expected to believe we were created by a 1 gendered being. Just this one abhorrent misconception, regarding God, has a whole host of other negative societal consequences.

It has been postulzated over the ages, by some, those nihilists who believe in the destruction of everything, and being swept up in the rapture, so to speak, actually have no knowledge of, or belief in, what some call God, and are in fact, looking for proof.

[BC_chick]

This, unfortunately, pretty much plumbs the depths of understanding of the general lightweight atheism of secular society. It's all pretty much based on radical positivism, and hilights the conceit that we are privy to the definitive epistemology of everything. It helps avoid deeper questions and questions of the spirit, so it serves its purpose I suppose, but it's hardly clever.

Conceit? At least positivism has logic behind it. How about the "conceit" of an irrational belief system which is based on dogma and blind faith, which thrives primarily in today's world simply by attacking its opponent's inability to answer everything?

[Parrot]

Science and Spirituality can exist hand in hand. There are certain questions that Science is just not equipped to answer. I don't think that science is the right tool for understanding everything about the universe. As much progress as it makes I don't think that it will ever be able to adequately explain away beauty, love, and all the stuff that really make up the heart of what we are.

Obviously science can say that many of our emotions have a certain element of being defined by electro-chemical reactions in the brain. And many people take that to the conclusion that that's all we really are, a bunch of electro-chemical reactions. I don't buy that, because no matter how much you try and put all these electro-chemical reactions into tidy little boxes, you've done absolutely nothing to explain or even address the experience of them.

Obviously there's something more to us that actually experiencing these effects, they're not just happening in a vacuum. I don't believe that science will ever fully explain that. And you can say that's just an example of "the god of the gaps", but I don't think it is.

I think that there are elements about who and what we are that can only be even addressed (even if only to a small extent) outside of the rigid framework of pure science.

The problem, I think, comes when religion tries to make claims that it is not equipped to make. Ideally, religion and spirituality should be more about forming a personal relationship with the spiritual aspects of your life. It should not be about absolute truth and dogma. That's when things get ugly.

[Figleaf]

Well said, Parrot.

[ScottSA]

Science and Spirituality can exist hand in hand. There are certain questions that Science is just not equipped to answer. I don't think that science is the right tool for understanding everything about the universe. As much progress as it makes I don't think that it will ever be able to adequately explain away beauty, love, and all the stuff that really make up the heart of what we are.

Obviously science can say that many of our emotions have a certain element of being defined by electro-chemical reactions in the brain. And many people take that to the conclusion that that's all we really are, a bunch of electro-chemical reactions. I don't buy that, because no matter how much you try and put all these electro-chemical reactions into tidy little boxes, you've done absolutely nothing to explain or even address the experience of them.

Obviously there's something more to us that actually experiencing these effects, they're not just happening in a vacuum. I don't believe that science will ever fully explain that. And you can say that's just an example of "the god of the gaps", but I don't think it is.

I think that there are elements about who and what we are that can only be even addressed (even if only to a small extent) outside of the rigid framework of pure science.

The problem, I think, comes when religion tries to make claims that it is not equipped to make. Ideally, religion and spirituality should be more about forming a personal relationship with the spiritual aspects of your life. It should not be about absolute truth and dogma. That's when things get ugly.

I agree 100%. Not long ago I read The End of Faith by Sam Harris, in which he lambasted every religion under the sun as a compilation of the most ridiculous inanities anyone could think of, and then out of the blue concluded that there is in fact a God, or a spirit universe of some kind, and listed all kinds of scientific experiments which point to it. Quite a startling thinker.

[Parrot]

I agree 100%. Not long ago I read The End of Faith by Sam Harris, in which he lambasted every religion under the sun as a compilation of the most ridiculous inanities anyone could think of, and then out of the blue concluded that there is in fact a God, or a spirit universe of some kind, and listed all kinds of scientific experiments which point to it. Quite a startling thinker.

That does sound at least like an interesting position to take. I do appreciate interesting dichotomies. I might just read that book.

I highly doubt that any of those experiments you mention are in any way conclusive. But it sounds fascinating nonetheless.

[ScottSA]

I agree 100%. Not long ago I read The End of Faith by Sam Harris, in which he lambasted every religion under the sun as a compilation of the most ridiculous inanities anyone could think of, and then out of the blue concluded that there is in fact a God, or a spirit universe of some kind, and listed all kinds of scientific experiments which point to it. Quite a startling thinker.

That does sound at least like an interesting position to take. I do appreciate interesting dichotomies. I might just read that book.

I highly doubt that any of those experiments you mention are in any way conclusive. But it sounds fascinating nonetheless.

Of course they're not conclusive. They are interesting in the fact that they at least apply scientific principles, or at least the principles of rationality, to spiritualism. I'm not sure it's a match made in heaven, but it's an attempt. In fairness, Harris leans more toward eastern philosophy in his attempt to make the case for the existence of the spirit as opposed to pure mechanism. The most compelling hypothesis I've heard is the idea that the brain is a tool, while the spirit is a traveller who utilizes the tool while here. I'm personally convinced that the totality of human existence is not contained within a few year's lifespan, but it's real hard to make that case from within a framework of rationality.

[newbie]

I agree 100%. Not long ago I read The End of Faith by Sam Harris, in which he lambasted every religion under the sun as a compilation of the most ridiculous inanities anyone could think of, and then out of the blue concluded that there is in fact a God, or a spirit universe of some kind, and listed all kinds of scientific experiments which point to it. Quite a startling thinker.

I think that's dead on.

[M.Dancer]

I don't bother looking for proof of god even if it were possible to prove or disprove God...besides, what point would there be for faith if all that was required was proof?

Let Thomas seek proof, I will settle for internal (eternal?) truth and not worry what others might think.

[DarkAngel_]

wait... im either confused or not getting this strait...

so religion and science work together? looking at it, one can match and drop all day, but philosophically, they are different (too different) to work hand and hand.

through science one can say "god could exist" does religion use that ground? no! they say "GOD DOES EXIST"

without any form of prove that can be scientifically deduced or experimentally founded. see? unless the people saying so are... different from the church (which ive seen being very uncommon at least in stubbornness)

if you are please tell me, do you question unfounded, unproven, and almost phantom beliefs?

if so i applaud you.

[Figleaf]

... concluded that there is in fact a God, or a spirit universe of some kind, and listed all kinds of scientific experiments which point to it.

I'm skeptical. What sorts of 'scientific' experiments point the a spirit of universe?