+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Logic, Metaphysics & Philosophy (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-80.html)
+--- Thread: No God, No Science? (/thread-4171.html)
Pages:
1
2
No God, No Science? - Zinjanthropos - Sep 9, 2017
Why is it important for believers to prove God exists?
My first instinct would be to say that they don't wish to be a believer anymore. Then again no one likes to be wrong, no one wants to waste an investment of time and effort, there's the vindication factor (I'm right and you're wrong attitude) or is it like George Harrison once sang in a song....I really want to know/see you Lord. Just a sampling of reasons I'm sure.
Read on another forum of one person who believed in God because there are some things science can't detect. If this is an underlying theme for theists then aren't they seriously hurting their chances of ever proving God. By that I mean taking science out of the equation. I think and I could be wrong but essentially theists then must rely on one thing, the mind (logic and reason), something I think would have already been in use if only to formulate beliefs. Therein lies the crux IMHO, did belief spring from the very logic and reason one uses to prove it and if so, is it flawed from the get go? Is it like trying to row a boat while dragging anchor? You can move forward without realizing the reality of the situation, the anchor is holding you back.
I do think one can positively compare the search for God proof with scientific endeavour. Scientists are trying to prove a belief everyday but they rely on evidence and informed opinion to formulate hypotheses/theories. They are willing, as Lawrence Krauss once said, to throw into the garbage any old ideas/beliefs they once held as soon as something comes along that disproves them.
RE: No God, No Science? - elte - Sep 9, 2017
Just some thoughts. Being wrong isn't as bad if there isn't a consequence. I see going on an often disquieting conflict between human need for both truth and superstition.
RE: No God, No Science? - Zinjanthropos - Sep 9, 2017
(Sep 9, 2017 02:03 PM)elte Wrote: Being wrong isn't as bad if there isn't a consequence.
This would be rationale for belief in a god? Judge, jury and executioner for life's misdeeds required? I think you're saying that without a god and an afterlife there can be no value placed on human life, it would be worthless and subject to all kinds of unpunished ill treatment.
RE: No God, No Science? - elte - Sep 9, 2017
What you're saying or at least an afterlife reward aspect making the world struggle worth it, and I was thinking a lot like living is such a hard thing on social and self-aware minds that having apparently untrue superstitious beliefs can help more than hurt people in coping.
RE: No God, No Science? - Ostronomos - Sep 9, 2017
(Sep 9, 2017 12:51 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Why is it important for believers to prove God exists?
My first instinct would be to say that they don't wish to be a believer anymore. Then again no one likes to be wrong, no one wants to waste an investment of time and effort, there's the vindication factor (I'm right and you're wrong attitude) or is it like George Harrison once sang in a song....I really want to know/see you Lord. Just a sampling of reasons I'm sure.
Read on another forum of one person who believed in God because there are some things science can't detect. If this is an underlying theme for theists then aren't they seriously hurting their chances of ever proving God. By that I mean taking science out of the equation. I think and I could be wrong but essentially theists then must rely on one thing, the mind (logic and reason), something I think would have already been in use if only to formulate beliefs. Therein lies the crux IMHO, did belief spring from the very logic and reason one uses to prove it and if so, is it flawed from the get go? Is it like trying to row a boat while dragging anchor? You can move forward without realizing the reality of the situation, the anchor is holding you back.
I do think one can positively compare the search for God proof with scientific endeavour. Scientists are trying to prove a belief everyday but they rely on evidence and informed opinion to formulate hypotheses/theories. They are willing, as Lawrence Krauss once said, to throw into the garbage any old ideas/beliefs they once held as soon as something comes along that disproves them.
You raise an interesting question about reason vs belief and how they are important to how we perceive the external. The aim of reason is objectivity while belief is simply irrational.
RE: No God, No Science? - C C - Sep 9, 2017
(Sep 9, 2017 12:51 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Why is it important for believers to prove God exists?
I've never quite grokked why they want to "prove" the conception in the context of science (or why the importance of having it affirmed by science).
An ultimate deity is supposed to be prior in rank to Nature. God as a principle that makes nature possible in the first place or at least fills that slot / role within the human need for causes (or in this case, a nested hierarchy of provenances rather than the time-arranged, unfolding causes and effects).
Rather than God being yet another changing, relationally inter-dependent resident of Nature (the latter existing representatively as external appearances, the technical descriptions of a system or convention, etc -- as a rock or tree does).
I guess it results from an Abrahamic religion's dependence upon recorded narratives (Bible, Koran, Torah, etc) and deeming them more than instructive metaphor. They desire those events to at least be archeologically valid (regardless of their violations of physics).
- - -
RE: No God, No Science? - Ostronomos - Sep 9, 2017
C C
(Sep 9, 2017 12:51 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Why is it important for believers to prove God exists?
I've never quite grokked why they want to "prove" the conception in the context of science (or why the importance of having it affirmed by science).
An ultimate deity is supposed to be prior in rank to Nature. God as a principle that makes nature possible in the first place or at least fills that slot / role within the human need for causes (or in this case, a nested hierarchy of provenances rather than the time-arranged, unfolding causes and effects).
Rather than God being yet another changing, relationally inter-dependent resident of Nature (the latter existing representatively as external appearances, the technical descriptions of a system or convention, etc -- as a rock or tree does).
I guess it results from an Abrahamic religion's dependence upon recorded narratives (Bible, Koran, Torah, etc) and deeming them more than instructive metaphor. They desire those events to at least be archeologically valid (regardless of their violations of physics).
- - -
An ultimate deity that configures itself as reality is indeed prior in rank to nature, and the goal of science is neverending if it is to evolve towards such a deity.
You are correct to say that God is not an inter-dependent resident of nature such as the phenomenologicallly observed external appearances of nature.
And I like how you ended with this part: "They desire those events to at least be archeologically valid (regardless of their violations of physics)." We must train ourselves or discipline ourselves to some degree to avoid the pitfalls of delusion.
Will, a definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_%28philosophy%29
RE: No God, No Science? - Syne - Sep 9, 2017
(Sep 9, 2017 12:51 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Why is it important for believers to prove God exists?
My first instinct would be to say that they don't wish to be a believer anymore. Then again no one likes to be wrong, no one wants to waste an investment of time and effort, there's the vindication factor (I'm right and you're wrong attitude) or is it like George Harrison once sang in a song....I really want to know/see you Lord. Just a sampling of reasons I'm sure.
Read on another forum of one person who believed in God because there are some things science can't detect. If this is an underlying theme for theists then aren't they seriously hurting their chances of ever proving God. By that I mean taking science out of the equation. I think and I could be wrong but essentially theists then must rely on one thing, the mind (logic and reason), something I think would have already been in use if only to formulate beliefs. Therein lies the crux IMHO, did belief spring from the very logic and reason one uses to prove it and if so, is it flawed from the get go? Is it like trying to row a boat while dragging anchor? You can move forward without realizing the reality of the situation, the anchor is holding you back.
I do think one can positively compare the search for God proof with scientific endeavour. Scientists are trying to prove a belief everyday but they rely on evidence and informed opinion to formulate hypotheses/theories. They are willing, as Lawrence Krauss once said, to throw into the garbage any old ideas/beliefs they once held as soon as something comes along that disproves them.
I don't think it's an inherent drive of most believers. It's a general reaction to skeptics. Just like climate scientists calling skeptics "deniers" as if they were heretics or something. Scientists could just let the science speak for itself, but against opposition, it seems to be human nature to push back...even to the extent of emotional/irrational arguments.
Science cannot prove god because anything proven by science automatically falls under its purview in the dichotomy between science and religion. IOW, science could only subsume god as "mere science" rather than prove god as something beyond mundane science.
Considering science itself was build on the belief that god created an orderly world where things could be tested for consistency, it seems a bit silly to arbitrarily divorce science from the beliefs that developed it.
RE: No God, No Science? - Zinjanthropos - Sep 10, 2017
Thing is, if a theist proves God then he/she is no longer a believer. Unless they replace belief in God with a belief in the proof, I would think the title of theist has to go. Would faith in God also disappear? I'm not sure what that would do to some holy book verses that say there's a reward for faith. I think God proof will require an entire scripture rewrite. Irony is that proving God probably disproves scripture.....cool
I trying to think of an occasion in history where a theist religion was forced to abandon faith because they thought god was proven.....would anyone here know of one?
RE: No God, No Science? - Syne - Sep 10, 2017
Again, science cannot prove god.