Why can't science be God's work? (1 Viewer)

[Zebulon]

This is an extrapolation of another thread, but I think should be allowed to be it's own discussion.

Why can't science be religious?

Why can't evolution be God's hand at work? Why can't the creation of the universe come from the Big Bang? Why can't all the beauty of the observable universe be both scientific AND religious??

I honestly don't think the scientific community would have a problem with this. I for one, LOVE the idea that everything in the universe MEANS something. I don't believe in God, per se, not as humans have interpreted him, but the idea of something greater than myself giving the universe some underlying order... that's cool by me!

Can the scientists here see themselves working with this? Can the religious amongst us see God's hand in science?

 

[Mikkel]

I consider myself an Atheist, and I don't have a problem with what you're saying. I don't think the desire to give order to your surrounding universe is a bad or unnatural thing. I get annoyed when people say that science is incorrect because they take excerpts of religious texts literally. The lessons we learn from Adam and Eve are important, but to believe that man was created in that exact way is a slap in the face of science.

 

[Comrade Brian]

I'm an Atheist too.

But maybe you couuld combine the two, 'God' created the monkey which evolved into man. An almost already human monkey that is.

 

[Zebulon]

I'm an Atheist too.

But maybe you couuld combine the two, 'God' created the monkey which evolved into man. An almost already human monkey that is.

How about "A higher power created the rules, and everything has unfoled as it should since then." ?

That pretty much sums it up. Occam's Razor is a wonderful thing. :mrgreen:

 

[Alex]

This is an extrapolation of another thread, but I think should be allowed to be it's own discussion.

Why can't science be religious?

Why can't evolution be God's hand at work? Why can't the creation of the universe come from the Big Bang? Why can't all the beauty of the observable universe be both scientific AND religious??

I honestly don't think the scientific community would have a problem with this. I for one, LOVE the idea that everything in the universe MEANS something. I don't believe in God, per se, not as humans have interpreted him, but the idea of something greater than myself giving the universe some underlying order... that's cool by me!

Can the scientists here see themselves working with this? Can the religious amongst us see God's hand in science?

Many scientists will not mix religion with science because there is no empirical evidence that religion is accurate, it is based only on faith. There is evidence however that science (specifically evolution) is accurate. Science is based on empirical evidence, religion is not, so there is no rational reason to mix them.

 

[Alex]

How about "A higher power created the rules, and everything has unfoled as it should since then." ?

That pretty much sums it up. Occam's Razor is a wonderful thing. :mrgreen:

To say that a higher power created the rules is to imply that there was a plan for creation. In fact, creation of life happened by very random circumstances.

 

[Connecticutter]

How about "A higher power created the rules, and everything has unfoled as it should since then." ?

This implies that God lives in our timeline and therefore created the universe "before" the universe existed. I believe in God, but I don't think that God lives and changes on a "timeline" as we do.

In terms of religion, I don't think that the stories in the bible are useless. Religion isn't really a substitute for science, and I believe in applying the scientific method whereve possible. Religion is more like philosophy, which deals with questions that are beyond science.

 

[Zebulon]

To say that a higher power created the rules is to imply that there was a plan for creation. In fact, creation of life happened by very random circumstances.

Actually, life exists due to very SPECIFIC circumstances, right down to the very fabric of the universe. Alter the physical laws of this universe, even slightly, and life here could not exist. Some even argue that life exists BECAUSe of the laws of the universe, that's it's inescapable with the laws of physics we have as an extrapalation. It's THAT tied in.

I'm not saying that their needs to be a "plan" for creation. I'm simply saying that the addition of a "creator", whatever that might be, does nothing to undermine the scientific beauty that is the universe we live in.

Why can't the physical laws of this universe BE God?

 

[Alex]

Actually, life exists due to very SPECIFIC circumstances, right down to the very fabric of the universe. Alter the physical laws of this universe, even slightly, and life here could not exist. Some even argue that life exists BECAUSe of the laws of the universe, that's it's inescapable with the laws of physics we have as an extrapalation. It's THAT tied in.

The circumstances may be "specific" but they were still random. There was no plan to create those specific circumstances. They just all fell into place on their own. It is because of the physical laws of this universe that we do exist the way we do. We adapted to those laws and the laws of nature. The laws came first and we fit ourselves into them through adaption and evolution. A different species may have existed before us (or at the same time) that could not adapt to them and they went extinct. It is because we were able to adapt that we exist today. If the laws were different there could be a completely different group of species existing if any at all.

I'm not saying that their needs to be a "plan" for creation. I'm simply saying that the addition of a "creator", whatever that might be, does nothing to undermine the scientific beauty that is the universe we live in.

Why can't the physical laws of this universe BE God?

I think that what you are trying to state here is that a god does not have to be the spiritual entity that many believe to exist. The laws of the universe could be called a god. In the sense that a god does not control our destiny or our fate, this could be true. In the sense that a god is not watching over us, this could be true. In the sense that a god does not send us to a heaven or a hell, this could be true. In the sense that there are inevitable periods of unconditional love being lacked, this could be true. To believe that the laws of the universe are a god would mean dealing with the idea that life in general has no certain direction or certain meaning, and is randomly occurring. It would also require people to accept that there is nothing after death and that there is no complete and unconditional love throughout their entire life. These ideas are a problem for most people to accept, that is why most will not believe it. People need answers, guidance, and certain direction. They need to feel that someone or something always loves them unconditionally. A spiritual god fills these voids.

 

[Connecticutter]

The circumstances may be "specific" but they were still random. There was no plan to create those specific circumstances. They just all fell into place on their own.

My problem with this statement is that you seem to be saying it as scientific fact. The circumstances of the existance of everything is not really a scientific question, as there are an infinite number of things for science to explain before coming to any conclusion about it. The question of "why" is mostly left to philosophy and religion.

I happened to see a poster with a quote I liked just a few hours ago:

"Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

 

[Alex]

My problem with this statement is that you seem to be saying it as scientific fact. The circumstances of the existance of everything is not really a scientific question, as there are an infinite number of things for science to explain before coming to any conclusion about it. The question of "why" is mostly left to philosophy and religion.

I happened to see a poster with a quote I liked just a few hours ago:

"Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

Anything can be a scientific question. The collecting of evidence proves or disproves it.

"Why" is the perfect question to ask in science. For example: "Why do some humans have curly hair and some have straight?" This can be answered using a scientific method. "Why do some people have blue eyes and some have brown?" This can be answered applying the scientific method to genetics.

Science works in the sense that it is a continuous process. It has no problem being wrong and correcting itself in order to get closer to obtaining the answer to any question. We are getting closer and closer to understanding where life came from because of this.

 

[Dezaad]

Those on the thread with spiritual bent, combined with a scientific mind, might consider Pantheism. Reportedly many scientists have dabbled with the idea.

The mind makes mistakes, however, when it involves itself with religion. We do tend to become attached to our pet religious ideas, and these easily become the basis of a priori notions.

On the other hand, I just read a fascinating article in Scientific American about the nature of consciousness, and the research that is in it's infancy with regard to how it arises. One Scientist/Philosopher is postulating that consciousness is a fundamental law of the Universe. This notion could certainly lead into Pantheistic quarters if it starts to be borne out. Not in our lifetime though, I'm afraid

 

[Connecticutter]

Anything can be a scientific question. The collecting of evidence proves or disproves it.

"Why" is the perfect question to ask in science. For example: "Why do some humans have curly hair and some have straight?" This can be answered using a scientific method. "Why do some people have blue eyes and some have brown?" This can be answered applying the scientific method to genetics.

Science works in the sense that it is a continuous process. It has no problem being wrong and correcting itself in order to get closer to obtaining the answer to any question. We are getting closer and closer to understanding where life came from because of this.

I wasn't refering to all questions beginning with "why". I was mainly talking about the questions of why all this exists. Even if we think we answer that question, there will be another "why" question that follows it - followed by an infinite number of whys.

In general, I think I would agree with you on the applications of the scientific method.

 

[Hume]

God can't be in science because there's no proof he exists. Everything accepted as scientific fact has been hypothesized, tested, and proven. The notion that something purely based on blind faith should be counted amoung proven fact because of public beleif is a weak one.

 

[nkgupta80]

the idea of some higher force can exist, and can somewhat be speculated through logic. However, going any further in defining God is doing so without any possible proof. When one says that God is loving, or creates a mythology around their God, or gives God human emotional characteristics, that is totally unprovable.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

the idea of some higher force can exist, and can somewhat be speculated through logic. However, going any further in defining God is doing so without any possible proof. When one says that God is loving, or creates a mythology around their God, or gives God human emotional characteristics, that is totally unprovable.

I don't think the belief in God can be explained logically.

I'ts a matter of faith.

 

[Hume]

the idea of some higher force can exist, and can somewhat be speculated through logic.

No, it can't. There is no proof of a higher force existing. There is no shred of evidence to prove the existance of God, nor is there any place where God might explain a flaw in logical evolution theories.

However, going any further in defining God is doing so without any possible proof. When one says that God is loving, or creates a mythology around their God, or gives God human emotional characteristics, that is totally unprovable.

And as such it as no place in science or science class, end of story.

 

[SPIG]

:mrgreen: wow!!!!

THIS CHAT ROOM IS AWSOME!!!

i have read alot of yall's posts and i am deaply pleased at the level of intelegence and understanding that each of yall have...

what i want to throw out there are a few theories..

1st theory, in life (and this is scientificaly proven by me) nothing is made just once...to better understand this i will explain to you that i am going to trying to get to the point where you understand that there is more than one universe...
i dont think the universe goes on forever...i think that i have seen enough to know that everything dies once it is created....am i wrong?????
]if i am wrong then please let me know...but from what i have seen...everything dies (eventually)...maybe it takes soooo long for some things to die , that from a human perspective...we think that hey ...maybe some things dont die...not true...everything dies and is reused somehow...

SO...we see that everything on earth dies...but this phenomenon occurs all throughout the universe...planets die SUN's die...solar systems die when the sun dies...eventually Galaxies die too...so...

Will the universe die? eventually...i think it will only if it has boundries ...

but some people think that the universe goes on forever...hahahahahaha
DO NOT LIMITE THE IMAGINATION

but i can not prove anything....anyways ...

FINALY...if the universe has boundries(which means it is an object "a huge one" and it will eventuallly fade away or "DIE"

Also, if there is one universe... where are the others?...



This is a theory....so i would like all readers to try to tell me ways of correcting my theory, give me ideas of how i can better communicate my thoughts. thank you!
:mrgreen:

 

[nope]

I have a GEO hat home don't know if you know this magazin.
There was an articel about the Big Bang Theory.

There was a time scale of the universe.
First the explosion than radiation -> Quarks.. -> Atoms -> Stars (now) -> some red thing i forgot -> at last all ends in the black holes -> this balck holes radiate some kind of energy in an extremely small amount. but scientist believe that after a very long time even the black holes disapears and just the energy remains. -> maybe after this there is another big bang.

I don't find the book anymore, there were much more detail in it.

If the Theory is true the Univers dies too.