Science and God

Disciple

New Member
In the old times, science is a work done only my monks who believed in God. However, most scientists today don't believe the existence of a supernatural being. What is the reason why science and God have been separated today?
 

freeman

New Member
I think many people think that if science needs to physically prove and explain everything. Though not everything can be explained from a petri dish or even meticulous experiments or discoveries. The more we learn and figure out, the more we realize that we have no idea how this world works. That is why science to me points to God, in my mind there is no way this world could have been an accident.
 

JohnQ

New Member
Hasn't the exsistence of God been proven many times before by science too though? I absolutely believe in God and that he gives us brains to help us figure this stuff out to show his awesome power.
 

Tensolator

New Member
That is an interesting question, and scientists who do professs Faith are run out of academia in North America. (See No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein)
 

Rick

New Member
That makes sense. Scientists are some of the most intelligent people in the world but they have no common sense. Leave me out on a tropical island with a scientist and a native and I'd pal up with the native every time. The scientist would starve too death before he analyzed what was in the coconuts we had to eat.
 

Georgetown

New Member
Well Disciple, my theory is de-evolution. The more we get away from nature, the more we get away from ourselves. The more we get away from ourselves, the less sense we make to ourselves and the world around us.Thus, we are devolving, not evolving.
 

jason

Seanchaí
Staff member
That is an interesting question, and scientists who do professs Faith are run out of academia in North America. (See No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein)
Einstein, while not professing any certain religion did believe in a Supreme Being. After reading The Lost Symbol, I have looked into Noetics. While not exactly like the book, I think it comes the closest to combining science and religion.


Hasn't the exsistence of God been proven many times before by science too though? I absolutely believe in God and that he gives us brains to help us figure this stuff out to show his awesome power.
I could never figure out why some people laugh when you say you believe in a higher power, but yet they can believe that all matter, energy and everything else around us was small enough to be the size of less then an atom before the big bang.
 
G

Gary

Guest
The Lost Symbol was a great book....

I always get into the science vs. religion conversation somehow. I respond to the argument with astronomy. The big bang seems to always be the best analogy.


Parallel universes exist. Black holes are proof of that. Matter gets sucked in and explodes out the the other end... (big bang)....

If the big bang created the universe (not god or a supreme being), Then WHAT pray tell created the matter that was compressed to the size of a pin head and exploded in the first place? What created the void(s) we call universe?

Something greater than ourselves.... The architect of the universe... Even the vatican has an observatory, and has declared that astronomy is no longer heresy.... There must be something to that...
 

emarsh

New Member
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama
 

JakeNiehaus

New Member
I'm a student of philosophy studying at a small school here in Indiana. This same question appears numerous times throughout the semester and here is my thought on it.

Before there was biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics, there was philosophy. That's not to say that these weren't areas of interest to the inteligencia of the time, but it was all considered to be under the umbrella of philosophy. Through it's logical reasonings and systems of questioning/doubting, the thinkers of the time were able to use what I'll call 'philosophical inquiry' to come to conclusions in these various fields of study.

Then, there was a split between science and philosophy. I'm purposely being obscure about the time frames right now as I'm not 100% confident as to their exactness. Anyway, that split left two major branches of study: philosophy and natural science. My thought on this is that while philosophy had heretofore dealt with these matters adequately, people started to want more concrete answers to the undertakings of nature, biological process and the like. I think they felt that if they distanced the realm of the "physical" (namely, that study which lends itself to explain the physical phenonema they were questioning) from the realm of the "metaphysical" (which dealt with issues of the soul, ethics, virtues etc...) they would be better off. Which, it makes sense when viewed in the proper light that the issue of whether or not a soul exists is different than explaining why everything falls towards the center of the earth.

Then, numbers were taken out of the realm of the Aristotelian forms and brought into the realm of logical utilities. Now, we have three branches of study: philosophy, natural science and mathematics. All of which began under the umbrella of philosophy.

Fast forward a few years to the enlightenment, or the time of modern philosophers such as Descartes, Hume, Berkeley and Kant. Most of these men were very religious but became deeply disconcerted about making God responsible for everything. While not taking God completely out of the picture, they, more or less, tried to take a load off his shoulders and give explanations to such things as Causation in a more secular voice. Take Descartes for example.

Descartes was educated at the Sorbonne, one of the finest schools of the time and, coincidentally, one of the most strict Theological schools as well. After his education was complete, Descartes began his 'project of doubt.' He was concerned with what we could know that was strongly doubt resistant or completely indubitable. Among his three major things that could not be doubted was the existence of A God. He never specifies that it's a Christian God. Some people who are unable to read his works (namely, The Meditations) without taking their biased blindfolds off simply take this fact for granted. Descartes God is neither New Testament nor Old. He/She is not from the Koran or the Dhammapada, it is simply a beneficent, omniscient and omnipotent BEING who contains infinitely everything we contain finitely. Descartes also relies on God to be the gaurantor of the external world. Since he is a BOO (beneficent, omniscient, omnipotent) God, he would not fool us, according to Descartes, and make us believe there was a world external to us. This is a testament that at the advent of modern science, God still played an important part in explaining the world. While he may not be the reason everything gravitates to the center of the earth, he is the cause of everything that does so.

The point I'm trying to get at with my discussion of Descartes is that when science and religion really began to branch off from each other, it was more of a separation of one thing into two. Just as natural science and mathematics stemmed from philosophy, science and religion branched off for much the same reasons. They were two independent fields of study/inquiry and it was during the Enlightenment period that this point was really driven home.

I don't completely agree with the strict secularization of the sciences that we are presented with today. However, I do feel there needs to be a dividing line between the two. There are countless innovations and technologies that would have never been discovered if science was contained strictly in the theological realm.
 

emarsh

New Member
Personally I think that the secularization of science is a necessity. Science does not say there is no God, science does not say that there is a God. The problem with science and God is that if empiricism is the measure of science then there is no room for supernaturalism or anything that is not rooted in empiricism. If you make even one exception for "miracles" then you have just turned the entire scientific framework on it's head. If one supernatural event is allowed, then why not a million? Either science is based on a clinical observations of the world that we live in or it is not.
 

JakeNiehaus

New Member
Empiricism vs. Rationalilsm. Round II

Personally I think that the secularization of science is a necessity. Science does not say there is no God, science does not say that there is a God. The problem with science and God is that if empiricism is the measure of science then there is no room for supernaturalism or anything that is not rooted in empiricism. If you make even one exception for "miracles" then you have just turned the entire scientific framework on it's head. If one supernatural event is allowed, then why not a million? Either science is based on a clinical observations of the world that we live in or it is not.
I understand the need to be a strict empiricist in order to conduct/prove/disprove scientific principles. But, at the initial stage of any scientific undertaking scientists across all disciplines start with theories. Until these theories are proven, they are not empirical. If we consider quantum physics to be science, by the definition offered previously, we are being contradictory. Much of this field of study is purely theoretical but, at the same time, is given much credibility in the scientific community.

Also, what about the unexplained events that happen in the realm of science. These phenomena can be considered to be a type of "secular miracle" as they are unexplainable by any previous empirical observation and, most often, cannot be repeated in a lab or any other environment.

I don't doubt the need for empirical observation, but I don't think it's an ABSOLUTE necessity. I think it is at best sufficient, but not necessary for scientific inquiry.
 

Dilly

New Member
I think that perhaps as science evolves it takes away from mysteries of the universe that were formerly credited to God or God's will. Think about how the church originally decreed that the Earth was the center of the universe and later science disproved that theory. I am not saying there is or isn't a god, but perhaps man's image of God is deteriorating because it has been man that typically has defined God. As we lose faith in what we thought we knew, we lose faith in ourselves and thus God and put our beliefs more into provable theories through science.
 

emarsh

New Member
Jake,

Just a few thoughts in response to your comments and questions.

Empiricism (Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) really isn't about proof, it's simply about observation. So when I say that science must be rooted in empiricism I just mean that it must be rooted in that which can be observed. Of course there is much that we can not observe with our own eyes and that must be observed indirectly, either with machines or by making a prediction and observing if that prediction was wrong.

Also, I don't feel that the word proof is really appropriate when discussing the scientific method. Proofs are more mathematical things. Science is about proposing explanations for things, trying arrive at predictions based on those explanations and then testing those predictions. If the prediction is wrong then that might mean that the test was bad or that the explanation (hypothesis, theory) was bad. The more predictions that test successfully the more the explanation is accepted.

Quantum theory is a great case in point. Some really bright guys came up with that crazy theory, which truly makes no intuitive sense, but the more they tested it the more it panned out. I read somewhere that quantum theory has turned out have made the most accurate predictions of all the sciences, yet one failed prediction and it will have to be reevaluated and at the very least the theory will have to be adjusted to account for the observations. (Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

As for unexplained events, something any scientist can say (and any worth his salt will say) is "I don't know." The creation of the universe falls into that category. While the scientific community is not as religious as the population in general, there are many members who subscribe to a faith and many who may believe that God created the universe. However that is faith and science is science and if they are true professionals they will separate what they may personally believe and what the scientific method can demonstrate. Also, there are plenty of "this might have happened" ideas but ultimately we are at the "I don't know" stage of many, many different questions.

Of course one can say that God is responsible and that may well be true. But science by it's definition really can't comment on that. So science has to settle for "I don't know." Of course the problem with assigning the answers of the "I don't knows" to God is that at some point we might be able to say that we do know and that diminishes God. (God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Eric
 

Windrider

Plus-sized tuxedo model
Years ago, I read a book by Richard Feynman, a physicist and one of the best teachers of his time. In it, he discussed scientists belief in God. The thrust of his thoughts were that before we can have a meaningful discussion we must define our terms. To Feynman, there are two definitions of "God", the God of order and the God of miracles.

Feynman, as a scientist, believed in the God of Order. This God created the rules by which the universe operates and His glory can be seen in the seach for these thruths.

Feynman had very little patience for those who believed in the God of Miracles. This belief was in a God who could violate the laws of Nature on a whim and intercede in people's lives based on petition and prayer.

Just something to think about...
 

Winter

I've been here before
I'm Jewish and my religion plays an important part of my life and on the other side I am also an anthropologist with a beliefe that the scientific method is also important. But I see no conflict between the two at all. I take the position of the great Rabbis:

Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote, that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because the science was not fully understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.
 
I'm Jewish and my religion plays an important part of my life and on the other side I am also an anthropologist with a beliefe that the scientific method is also important. But I see no conflict between the two at all. I take the position of the great Rabbis:

Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote, that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because the science was not fully understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.
My beliefs are important to me, too. As a child of a Jewish father and a Southern Baptist mother, as well as te result of my own "spiritual searchings", I am unconvinced that God does not exist. I also feel that my concept is not the only correct one either (i.e. I believe that "everyone is right"). At the same time I adore learning about the sciences and truly respect Stephen Hawking (although I disagree with his atheism but he has a right to believe what he believes and he is as right as I am).

Winter, thank you for sharing Maimonides' words! I think that the same should be said of every VSL! Also much of the "creation" portion of the Bible, in my opinion, is God's attempt to explain complex theories to a group of people who just figured out how to irrigate crops and build permenent shelters in a way that the could understand it. Again, this is my personal interpretation.

For the members of the Scientific community who feel that belief in a Supreme Being is somehow a bad thing then might I suggest reading "Why God Won't Go Away" (I forget the author's name). Basically, the author explains that we're genetically programmed to believe in God. It is a good read and it goes into deeper detail than this forum would allow.
 

Duncan1574

Lodge Chaplain & arms dealer
Interesting, as I was popping my handful of pills this morning, I was thinking, to people 200 years ago what I just did to stay healthy would have been the stuff of a shaman. Take is herb and fell better.
I visited the well of the Chalice in the UK, where Joseph of Aramathia hide the Holy Grail when he travelled to the UK. The water is said by the ancients to cure many ils. It secret? Iron, the water is loaded with it.

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction:
  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
  3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
 
Top