Science is screwing up the battle for America's minds.

[Kimstu]

@lekatt

I pointed out in my other post that technically science is neutral to God. Just takes away life after death which is not neutral to religion. Take away life after death and God is meaningless.

Leaving aside the theological question about whether the absence of a doctrine of life after death makes God “meaningless”, I think you’re wrong about science “taking away” life after death.

Like the concept of a supernatural Deity, the concept of supernatural immortality or post-death existence is not contradicted or disproved by science.

It’s simply that there exists no scientific evidence for either of those concepts. And you wouldn’t expect there to be, because science is, as others here have pointed out, a tool for producing materialist explanations of natural phenomena.

The NDE research that you seem to be so upset about is simply indicating that life after death is not a natural phenomenon. That is, there is no scientific evidence for it, any more than there is scientific evidence for God, souls, or miracles. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or that science can deny it or disprove it, as a supernatural phenomenon, in any way. It simply means that it is not a scientifically valid hypothesis.

@lekatt

Probably don’t need to provide evidence of NDEs, most everyone knows millions of people have experienced them.

Sorry, but that’s not good enough for scientific evidence. After all, “millions of people” have also experienced seeing ghosts or elves or extraterrestrial aliens or other things which are not accepted scientifically.

That doesn’t mean that ghosts or elves don’t exist in some supernatural way. It just means that no scientifically adequate evidence of them has ever been produced.

I always think it’s rather sad when religious people resent science, or call it “anti-religious”, because its theories don’t support their cherished doctrines. Aren’t you supposed to believe your doctrines on faith, because you have a personal, divinely manifested, conviction of their truth? Why would you even expect that a purely naturalistic/materialistic epistemological tool like science would or should confirm supernatural beliefs in any way?

Why can’t you just say “Well, I know that life after death is a fact, but science isn’t capable of detecting it because it doesn’t fall into the category of ordinary material phenomena.” A statement that’s honestly faith-based, sincere, and absolutely incapable of being disproved scientifically. What could be better?

Seems to me that any religious faith that demands confirmation of its doctrines from materialistic, non-theistic scientific theories must be pretty insecure and feeble. Why indulge in all these conspiracy theories about how “skeptics” and “atheists” must be somehow perverting science because they aren’t giving you the “scientific proof” you yearn for? Why not just respect science for the useful but limited tool that it is, and believe what you believe irrespective of whether science confirms it?

[JRDelirious]

@rwjefferson

The question was whether (as far as it goes) this definition is accurate. I believe you will find that most that use the word God, credit God for existence.

Science or religion can be used either to unify of divide. It is your choice how you use your words.

r~

But the problem, as I suggested, rw, is that this conception of The Divine is itself unsatisfying to those who are believers in a Deity imbued with the attribute of personality, variously known as YHWH, Allah, Ormuzd, Vishnu, etc. They would not be satisfied with the mild “ceremonial Deism” of The Divine being just “that which makes things be the way they are”.

And many (whose set overlaps but does not coincide with the above), like our own lekatt or the RCC’s Cardinal Schönborn, will take science to task for not acknowledging what they consider evidence for the spiritual or God when analyzing their data. Thing is, science being a naturalistic-materialistic epistemology, it won’t incorporate the alternative “another possibility is that a spiritual phenomenon, beyond our capability to quantify or describe or link with our 4 known natural Forces, took place” into a findings report. It would be meaningless in its context. Which aggravates those like lekatt and Schönborn who’ll say: “Hey, but aren’t you supposed to be about describing reality? My experience of [the spiritual/God’s designs] is REAL! Account for it!”

[rwjefferson]

@DSeid

Can’t say I agree with the definition or even understand it.

Is it not your belief that “In the beginning, God created the Universe”?

Rightly or wrongly, people tend to look upon scientists as those that would deny the existence of God; that science is based on the non-existence of God. In reality, we are all seeking the truth about God; about that force (by whatever name) that is existence.

If we can agree that God exists, at least by this definition, then it is easier to see that science can only deepen our understanding of God; that science can be trusted.

The question was “How is science screwing up the battle for America’s mind?”. This is not a highjack. This is my observation.

I Am
r~

[Fiveyearlurker]

@rwjefferson

In reality, we are all seeking the truth about God; about that force (by whatever name) that is existence.

If we can agree that God exists, at least by this definition, then it is easier to see that science can only deepen our understanding of God; that science can be trusted.

I’m not seeking the truth about god, so “we are all” is not true. To me, that there is a deity is certainly a valid hypothesis. It is entirely untestable, which does not invalidate it, but makes it a hypothesis not worth worrying about as there’s nothing I can do to either prove it or disprove it.

So, I just live my life. If there’s a god, so be it. If not, oh well.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@rwjefferson

The question was whether (as far as it goes) this definition is accurate. I believe you will find that most that use the word God, credit God for existence.

Do you mean that most people that use the word “God” credit God for the existence of everything? Or do you mean that most people that use the word “God” credit God with Itself existing?

If the latter, then we’re still at the “apple” stage: most people that use the word “apple” credit apples with themselves existing. That doesn’t mean that “existence” is a sufficient definition for “apple.”

If the former, then I disagree with the “most.” I use the word “God,” but I don’t credit God with existence. Furthermore, I believe most people understand what I mean when I say “God doesn’t exist.” They may disagree, but not because what I’m saying is incoherent; rather because they believe that existence is one property God has, just like existence is one property that apples have.

Compare to two other sentences:
“Mammals aren’t animals.”
“Mammals aren’t mammalian.”

Most people disagree with the first sentence, but not because it’s incoherent; rather, because mammals can be demonstrated to be animals.

Most people disagree with the second sentence, but they disagree on a definitional basis: being mammalian is by definition a property of a mammal, and saying that mammals aren’t mammalian is incoherent.

If I say “God is not godly,” that’s incoherent. If I say, “God does not exist,” that is not incoherent.

Therefore, “existence” is not a sufficient definition for God; nor is it a necessary definition for God. A nonexistent God may be reasonably discussed by almost every speaker of the English language.

I reject your definition.
Daniel

[Jon_the_Geek]

@Fiveyearlurker

If my first hypothesis is true, well, then ordinary evidence will probably suffice. And, chances are that the axiom was correct all along.

But how do you know when a hypothesis is true, and thus stop going down your “list” of possible hypotheses? We both know that’s not how science works. We stop at the simplest hypothesis that we can’t eliminate, and assume it’s true until we can eliminate it and replace it with something better.

For example, for years scientists observed the orbit of Mercury very carefully, with the working hypothesis that Mercury’s orbit could be predicted with Kepler’s laws and Newtonian gravity. But it couldn’t. There was something wrong with the calculations, making it impossible to predict Mercury’s position several orbits into the future. However, nobody could come up with another hypothesis about how the planets’ orbits work that wasn’t eliminated faster than using Kepler’s laws, so classical physics held. Then Einstein came up with another explanation, which has been able to predict Mercury’s orbit to today (and, so far, it seems likely that it will work for any time in the future), as well as predicting all of the other gravitational effects we know of and a plethora of new things Kepler and Newton never thought about. But we still haven’t proven that Einstein was right. The hypothesis that Mercury’s orbit can be explained using relativity (along with all of the other hypotheses constructed from relativity) just hasn’t been disproven.

But why do we stop at Einstein’s explanation? Could it not be that Mercury’s orbit is governed by Newton’s and Kepler’s laws, but slightly tweaked by that dastardly Coyote the Trickster God (or, of course, any other supernatural being; maybe it’s Star Trek’s Q playing a trick on us, or of course maybe it’s the God of Abraham)? Since we don’t move on to those possibilities as the best explanation, I think I’m in the camp that Occam’s razor is an axiom of science, but stated in a slightly different manner than is normally used, something like “the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is the one we should go with until proven wrong.”

But back to something more related to the OP…

Is there anything that can be done to encourage our schools (through our legislatures) to teach science (as in the scientific method), rather than a collection of facts? More on topic for this message board, do other posters think it would be a good thing to do, or have better ideas?

[rwjefferson]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Do you mean that most people that use the word “God” credit God for the existence of everything? Or do you mean that most people that use the word “God” credit God with Itself existing?

The former.

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I don’t credit God with existence.
I reject your definition.

What do you credit for your existence?

r~

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@rwjefferson

What do you credit for your existence?

I don’t understand your question. Depending on what you mean, the answer might be “particles,” or it might be “I don’t.” Can you explain what you mean?

Daniel

[Bricker]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I don’t understand your question. Depending on what you mean, the answer might be “particles,” or it might be “I don’t.” Can you explain what you mean?

Daniel

What’s before now?

And before that?

And before that?

At some point, it seems to me we reach the Uncaused First Cause.

That’s what you should credit with your existence.

I call Him “God.”

[Fear_Itself]

@Bricker

At some point, it seems to me we reach the Uncaused First Cause.

That’s what you should credit with your existence.

I call Him “God.”

Why not skip the middleman, and simply call the Universe and all that is in it the Uncaused First Cause? God is not really necessary if you can only explain him/it as the UFC.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

At some point, it seems to me we reach the Uncaused First Cause.

That’s what you should credit with your existence.

I call Him “God.”

Ah, okay. I call it, “I dunno, but from what I understand, the Big Bang looks likely.”

My problem with calling it “God” is that the word “God” comes with all kinds of (to me) strange baggage–note that you called the Uncaused First Cause “Him,” implying both sentience and masculinity. I see no indication that the Uncaused First Cause has either of these traits, but they’re extremely commonly assigned to “God.”

Daniel

[Bricker]

@Fear Itself

Why not skip the middleman, and simply call the Universe and all that is in it the Uncaused First Cause? God is not really necessary if you can only explain him/it as the UFC.

Because that requires me to assume that the Universe, and all that is in it (which is a tautology, by the way, since “universe” refers to a world that contains everything that exists) has always existed. I reject that model.

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Ah, okay. I call it, “I dunno, but from what I understand, the Big Bang looks likely.”
My problem with calling it “God” is that the word “God” comes with all kinds of (to me) strange baggage–note that you called the Uncaused First Cause “Him,” implying both sentience and masculinity. I see no indication that the Uncaused First Cause has either of these traits, but they’re extremely commonly assigned to “God.”

I agree that God is not masculine (or feminine), but since English lacks a gender-neutral pronoun, Him is more useful and widely-understood than, say, ip.

I don’t necessarily agree that God is not sentient, although I suppose it depends on precisely what you mean by “sentient.” I contend that while we cannot know how God thinks, there is a process there that is best modelled by the word “thinking,” although it is of a different order than what we do when we “think.”

I acknowledge that the objective evidence for that conviction of mine is slight.

[tomndebb]

@Bricker

At some point, it seems to me we reach the Uncaused First Cause.

That’s what you should credit with your existence.

I call Him “God.”

And yet, Stephen Hawking has proposed that the Big Bang is a singularity that may not have a cause. This is certainly counter-intuitive to me, but until I can break his math, I am not in a position to declare that it cannot be so.

Now, Dr. Hawking does not proceed from his hypothesis to a declaration that there is no god, (although my memory is that that is his personal belief), but if he is correct, there simply is no First Cause.

[Fear_Itself]

@Bricker

Because that requires me to assume that the Universe, and all that is in it … has always existed. I reject that model.

And yet you can accept the model of a God which has always existed. Curiously inefficient.

[rwjefferson]

You are a prophet, Dseid, my observation did indeed lead to a hijacking.

Yet, is this not proof of my conjecture? When “scientifically based” individuals argue against a reasonable and obvious definition, “science” becomes the antithesis of truth in the mind of the religious.

Very much like the zealots that give religion a bad name.

r~

[tomndebb]

When “scientifically based” individuals argue against a reasonable and obvious definition, “science” becomes the antithesis of truth in the mind of the religious.

What “reasonable and obvious definition” has been put forth or argued against? Your definition has not even been adequately explained to me (and I am a theist, Christian division), and I certainly do not find a definition of god as “The force of existence” to be either obvious or reasonable. If anything, it would be a first try at a deist definition of divinity, but it stands outside definitions of god that would include Love, Transcendance, Relationship, or other definitions that might be put forth by theists, animists, Buddhists, or others who see the Divine in the world. (Pantheists might accept your definition, but I know too few to be sure.)

[rwjefferson]

@tomndebb

What “reasonable and obvious definition” has been put forth or argued against?

This is not a"complete definition" of God. I do not know of any human that is capable of that.

This is the very basic definition. Again, do you not believe that “In the beginning, God created the universe”?

If you do, the definition (as far as it goes) holds.

r~

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Jon the Geek

But how do you know when a hypothesis is true, and thus stop going down your “list” of possible hypotheses? We both know that’s not how science works. We stop at the simplest hypothesis that we can’t eliminate, and assume it’s true until we can eliminate it and replace it with something better.

Two hypothesis that are not mutually exclusive can certainly be true. In practice, I know to stop moving down my list and ceasing experiments to prove a particular hypothesis once I have a publishable unit……

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@rwjefferson

This is not a"complete definition" of God. I do not know of any human that is capable of that.

This is the very basic definition. Again, do you not believe that “In the beginning, God created the universe”?

rwjefferson, meet Odin, the primary God of Norse mythology. Odin’s the son of Bor, son of Buri, licked free from the ice by the great cow Audhumla. Odin didn’t create the universe; is Odin not a god?

rwjefferson, meet Ra Atum, the primary God of Egyptian mythology. Ra was born from the primeval waters, rising above them on a lotus blossom. Although his masturbatory ejaculation created the remaining Gods, Ra Atum did not create the universe; is Ra Atum not a god?

rwjefferson, meet Marduk, chief among all the Mesopotamian gods. Marduk killed his grandmother, the dragon Tiamat, the mother of all. Is Marduk not a God?

It is true that according to JudeoChristian stories, God created the universe; but this is hardly a universal requirement for Godhood. Nor, I’d venture, is it a sufficient definition. If you became convinced that the Cosmic Egg, the singularity that exploded into the Big Bang, really was the start to everything, would you start calling that singularity “God”?

I wouldn’t: there’s a big difference between a singularity and a sentient, omnipotent, omnipresent being that is aware of humanity.

As near as I can tell, any entity that lacks sentience, omnipotents, omnipresence, and an awareness of humanity is pretty far from the JudeoChristian conception of God. As such, since your definition does not include any of those features, it is insufficient to distinguish the JudeoChristian god from other entities; and it is overspecific if we do not limit ourselves to the JudeoChristian god.

Daniel

[Bricker]

@tomndebb

And yet, Stephen Hawking has proposed that the Big Bang is a singularity that may not have a cause. This is certainly counter-intuitive to me, but until I can break his math, I am not in a position to declare that it cannot be so.

Now, Dr. Hawking does not proceed from his hypothesis to a declaration that there is no god, (although my memory is that that is his personal belief), but if he is correct, there simply is no First Cause.

And if he’s wrong, then there is.
Right now, I’m going with “He’s wrong.”