Science 'versus' God?

[RascalPuff]

Science ‘versus’ God.

It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
"People have attacked me because I do only one thing. But that one thing is to try to figure how the world is put together. The world is incredible, just the fact that you and I are here, and that the atoms of your body were once part of stars. They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together. Anyway," he laughed,"I’m a nut, you know. Crazy."

The poster of the above message added:
Few agree with Carl Sandage, he admits this with his own words. He attempted to theologize science.

If you are making the point that unanimous agreement does not exist, you are correct but this has been known for some time. Astrophysics is a relative new field and theoretical. Attempts to formulate a Theory of Everything (TOE) continue much at the contempt of theists who oppose this.

Intelligent Design will not replace science.
_______________________________

K B Robertson (RascalPuff) wrote:
Your invocation of Carl Sandage and theism launches the endemic rhubarb between theology and science - as though the two issues were stringently antithetical.

Whereas, 'god' is routinely considered as the intelligent designer of the universe since the times preceding and including Pythagoras, to the present; where mathematicians and heuristic scientists daily and openly proclaim to prove the existence of a supreme being. In contrast to your direct implication that it is tantamount to scientific heresy to do so. It is a long and widely known fact that the exemplary Einstein not infrequently - and openly - said that his endeavors included an inquiry as to 'how God thinks'. Due to the nature of what scientists preoccupy themselves with, many are not only non-atheistic, but closer to God than many avid church-goers and pulpit pounders.

The posturing of contemporary practitioners of science is certainly not in league with the 'creationist' schools of thought who glibly speak of a time when an anthropomorphically assembled 'god' snapped 'his' prototypically unimprovable fingers and 'made' a universe and earth, oh, say, several thousand years ago. Thereafter, inhabiting the earth with people, perhaps at a time not long before the Monkey Trials.

Such organized beguilements do not at all parallel the endeavors of men and women in science who are in search of the parameters of the final frontier, aiming to go where no man or woman has gone before. In these circles, the - perhaps inevitable - issue of god emerges only inadvertantly and until further notice in such company, it is regimentally understood that:
God is on sabbatical.
Perhaps after stubbing 'his' irreproachable metatarsal over scientific expeditions in search of a Theory of Everything (TOE).

The debate over the Biblical presentation of the original creation of humanity and Darwin’s Origin of the Species - the adventures of the Bible (many of which continue to prove out as true) and the contrary facts of life - is an argument that may never end. Speaking for myself and no small number of others I find it no less divine or miraculous - no less an ‘act of God’ - that mankind exists and arrived in the here and now (on its way to a future of there and then), by way of an evolutionary process approximately or precisely as Darwinism reveals. The transition from a fertilized mammal egg to embryo to a recognizable human fetus, includes an intermission of the entire process of evolution, not excluding the reptilian feature of gill slits - this is a powerful station for Darwinism, which, in 1950, was pronounced by Pope Pius XII (and other popes since then), as non contrary to Christianity.

Of course these considerations are not unusual in discussions relating to the mystery of human existence and the despair that may accompany an unanswered existential question of whether or not there is a God. A major grist of devout atheism is that ‘believers’ are afraid not to believe in God... That the burden of human consciousness is unbearable without the comfort of a supernatural reason for being.
Whereas, the inescapable fact that inanimate matter organized itself not only to become animate, but to become sentiently self aware is manifest proof of ‘higher power’; a so called ‘intelligent designer’, aka ‘supreme being’. ‘Nature’ by any other name.

Such considerations tend to reverse the question of whether there is or not a God, to a question of how could there not be...

Anti-theism is marooned with the manifest self and others who came into being ‘inadvertently’; without any guidance from a higher power. It would seem in such contemplations that it is much more difficult to be an an atheist, or anti-theist, than to yield to what is apparently the inevitability of intelligent design, so far, beyond the mortal human ability to fully accommodate.
There is the issue of ‘divine intervention’; reasoning that if there is a God, why are terrible events - large and small - allowed to occur in the course of human existence. This question and the disappointment that accompanies it, is based, a priori, on the existence of a ‘personal God’ - a power which insures justice - per individual - in the corporeal world of mortality. Clearly, such expectations of God intersect with superstition.

That perspective leads to what is called ‘victimology’. Where it is reasoned that those who suffer - especially extreme - misfortune, are (invariably) slated to do so by ‘the will of God’, who metes out punishments for trespasses committed in this life, or, in cases applying to the suffering of very young children, those who have sinned in a (reincarnated) life preceding this one (Granted that life is inherently a struggle, and that some suffering is inevitable...). In other words, those who suffer severe misfortune are unsympathetically perceived as being pronounced guilty - with a sentence of punishment passed - by God. Such reasoning is commonplace (and a misapplication of the word, ‘karma’) as it is applied to the destitute masses in the country of India, for example.

In Western culture, these and other dilemmas led to the separation of church from state. The schizoid argument continues, with routine stories of religious ritual and regalia being prohibited and removed from government institutions, for example. While the federal government continues to mint certificates of currency bearing the inscription, ‘In God We Trust’.

Vigilant awareness and defense of scientific method and its practitioners does not go without appreciation in this discussion. - K. B. Robertson

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks once Rp,where did science originate from?Or evolve from?To me it is very simple
the Alpha scientist is God,and the Omega scientist is God,those in between can have all
the credit there egos can absorb!



regards michael.

[r.p.bibra]

Why we bother with the word God, or better still, why at all label anyone as theist or atheist? In the material world, we understand only the projections of ‘matter’, created as the result of human ingenuity. But the material world we observe, or live in, is also governed by inscrutable laws of nature; in case we don not wish to give these laws the name of ‘intelligence’, at least we have to admit, these are by far more efficient and lasting than the human ‘equations/mathematical models, which change so often. The Earth is moving round the sun at the same speed since how long (?). Even though our ancestors had little knowledge about astronomy, but they could predict with absolute precision about the sun’s or moon’s eclipses hundreds of years in advance! Because they had understood about he movements of the solar system with wonderful accuracy! The best course would be to forget about God and concentrate on understanding the mysteries of creation & its material composition. As man understands about the matter, automatically he will know that it is conscious. The scientific fraternity is not going to accept the ‘existence’ of god and why should they? But as soon they ‘discover’ that the matter is conscious, there will no more be any discussion about the existence and non-existence of god.
Why cavil about ‘karmas’? Why we search or seek ‘answers’ beyond the human body’s termination, human miseries, and natural calamities? The material bodies are bound to decay; our station in life is not decided by fate but by ourselves, as it is we who make or mar our fate; similarly natural phenomena are natural, as it is the cycle of nature to create-sustain and annihilate. Love &regards.ls

[mkirkpatrick]

Why we bother with the word God, or better still, why at all label anyone as theist or atheist? In the material world, we understand only the projections of ‘matter’, created as the result of human ingenuity. But the material world we observe, or live in, is also governed by inscrutable laws of nature; in case we don not wish to give these laws the name of ‘intelligence’, at least we have to admit, these are by far more efficient and lasting than the human ‘equations/mathematical models, which change so often. The Earth is moving round the sun at the same speed since how long (?). Even though our ancestors had little knowledge about astronomy, but they could predict with absolute precision about the sun’s or moon’s eclipses hundreds of years in advance! Because they had understood about he movements of the solar system with wonderful accuracy! The best course would be to forget about God and concentrate on understanding the mysteries of creation & its material composition. As man understands about the matter, automatically he will know that it is conscious. The scientific fraternity is not going to accept the ‘existence’ of god and why should they? But as soon they ‘discover’ that the matter is conscious, there will no more be any discussion about the existence and non-existence of god.
Why cavil about ‘karmas’? Why we search or seek ‘answers’ beyond the human body’s termination, human miseries, and natural calamities? The material bodies are bound to decay; our station in life is not decided by fate but by ourselves, as it is we who make or mar our fate; similarly natural phenomena are natural, as it is the cycle of nature to create-sustain and annihilate. Love &regards.ls

Well that about sums it up for me as well.well said there my brother.
regards michael.

[HappytheStripper]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genisis 1.1) .. could he have created two..??

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-22-07.html

How about both science and religion.. for without one.. the other would not survive..

It seems religion is the based on conceptual beliefs and science is the study of these conceptual beliefs..

Scientific evidence supports.. that life on earth and indeed the heavens.. did not come into existence by accident.. Scientific evidence supports.. a series of sychronistic events occuring.. to create that which we know now.. and if you look closely enough.. you can see these events occuring on a daily basis..

There are so many conditions enabling life on earth to exist.. for example.. we have the right kind of sun.. emitting middle of the range radiation.. not too hot.. not too cold.. Our planet is the right distance from the sun.. if we were any closer the seas would boil.. and unlike other planets.. earths' orbit around the sun.. is very nearly circular.. unlike oher planets which have an elliptical (oval) orbit..

Our planet is just the right size.. It is big enough to retain an atomosphere.. and it seems the force of gravity is just right.. movement is with ease.. well for most people or animals.. and earth rotates at just the right speed.. creating that which we observe as time..

Nights do not get too cold.. because of a slow rotation.. also rotation is not too fast.. so as to creat cyclonic weather conditions..

It is with this knowledge and some theory.. the chances of these conditions appearing elsewhere.. are unique.. this is why religions attribute these designs of creation to a creator..

Just a thought.. Ashley

[NotStein]

If you want to learn about religion, go to church. If you want to learn science, go to school. If you want to wreck all of them, demand they be mixed.

[Tina]

Religion - the idea of a "supernatural other" is probably one of humankinds first and certainly the most enduring of our inventions. It has been around longer than the wheel!

But we ask why has Religion persisted in an age of scientific rationalism ?

What both science and organised religion fail to realize is what this idea of "supernatural other" has done to drive our social and technoligical evolution and consequently our survival.

Once man thought of god in the sky - he entered the realm of ABSTRACT THOUGHT. (For example consider the abstractions evident in the design of primative rain making rituals - this is the birth of simulation in science. Primitive methods but not without the science of observation and hypothesis),

Once he began to think of god in the sky he could begin to think of everything else in between. (An never forget Capernicus started out looking at the sky trying to prove God's law and look where it has led us)

Science needs "abstract thought" and religion (whether abide by it or not) has proven to be the most effective means of driving that "abstract thought". The conflict it engenders gets our neuronel firings going at optimum speed . Look at the above quotes! If that ain't thinking...!

Yes Religion has formed the philosophical framework for Politics and Warfare.
But it is within the frameworks of "politics and warfare" that arise culture, social and administrative organisation and technological discovery and invention. And for all religions woes if we have to get off this planet we soon can - I believe we only have religion to thank for that.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

This thread should be renamed "Science 'versus' Nothing?" Then, it would have the ring of its true character argument, since god=nothing... I'm not stating that abstract ideas are not important to science, just the fact that fundamental reasoning of nature and science, must be respected in the end, or we're all dead. The greatest danger, in the world, is faith and belief, trying to overcome, or down-blend science...

Lloyd

[Yeltsin]

This thread should be renamed "Science 'versus' Nothing?" Then, it would have the ring of its true character argument, since god=nothing... I'm not stating that abstract ideas are not important to science, just the fact that fundamental reasoning of nature and science, must be respected in the end, or we're all dead. The greatest danger, in the world, is faith and belief, trying to overcome, or down-blend science...

Lloyd

I have a dichotomy of my own, Science vs. Nothingism, the belief that the Universe came from Nothing.

[Hucknallite]

It seems there are two possibilities for existence. Either:

(1)everything (or something) has been in existence for all eternity
(2)there was nothing and nothing is sufficient for something to come into existence.

(1)is a bizarre idea. What could constitute an infinite period of past time? Wittgenstein once began a lecture by saying '2... 4.... 1 ... 3 finished.' He then claimed to have recited pi backwards. This does demonstrate how incredulous the idea of infinite past time is.

(2)seems even worse. If nothing is nothing then what is it about nothing that could possibly be a cause of something coming into existence?


But there is something we have to consider when we think about origin and how we came to exist, and that is the potential inherent in any prime move. Whether eternal or from nothing, the early conditions contained within them the capability or potential for humanity to come into existence. That means the universe is created or arises with the seed of consciousness within. At the very fundamental level the universe has a spiritual component.

The question is, does any universe that comes into existence have to exhibit that spiritual component or is it possible for a universe to exist which fails to attain spirituality?

If the former, then labeling the universe God is valid (and there is nothing contradictory between science and God), if the latter there is no God.