Does science make belief in God obsolete?

I am going on vacation and won't be able to respond ( hears cheer from the phins crowd) until next week. Taking the wife on a little camping trip to celebrate our 24th anniversary.

You all take care.

 

You face the same problem because they dont accept your "truth" that comes from your God. In the end all we have in practice is a relative truth, I'm just more honest about it.

What seems dangerous to me is one side believing they have an absolute truth, that all humans should obey, and the other side believing that they too have an absolute truth. Why does there need to be a truth that all must accept? We arent organized into a world society so why is it necessary for us to all agree on one thing? Though liberal society has placed a common thread through all Western countries, that is a function of contracts and societal norms.

There is an interesting book by a Professor at Notre Dame called After Virtue by Alisdair MacIntyre. It's all about how the Enlightenment made truth relative and the need to return to a world with absolute truths/morality. It's an interesting book, and an interesting critique of Modernity, but I obviously disagree with his conclusion

 

Have a nice vacation.

 

i feel that i need to apologize to you for that, i have been sick this past week and i rattled that off without really thinking about it. i am quite sure that your life is very uncomplicated.

i don't think that. you misunderstood. there are differences and subtleties even amongst the various sects of Christianity. even if you and i sat side by side and studied the Bible equally, you and i would not come away with the exact same meaning or feeling. nobody experiences anything exactly the same. so what i understand to mean one thing you may not. what we end up with is similarities and understandings of basic ideas. no one can know for sure what a writer meant by what has been written for certain.

but you do think the Bible is literal, you have said as much in your posts. you have also posted verses and taken them out of the context of their stories to make your point. i don't think you even know you do it. you present as if your interpritation is THE interpritation without discussing those little nuances or contexts.

i have no desire to have you change your beliefs, that isn't my mission. but it takes two or more appossing ideas that are willing to acknowledge the the others point in order to have a discussion. you don't have to accept my view and i don't expect it. but do not dismiss me because i do not follow the Bible in a manor that you do.

which one truth is true?

why? we see it every day in court rooms. witness' who experienced an event do not share the same facts quite often and yet they are all truths from their view. the idea that the Bible represents Gods view but we all experience the Bible in different ways, which understanding is the correct truth?

i think you are placing too much emphasis on individuals policing each other. the idea should be that the individual concerns himself with himself and then your notion of absolute morality from within would hold. until then, with all the "moralities" that exist in this reality all we have in common are societal contracts or agreements. with all noise of people saying their understanding of what God meant, it's no wonder our society and the world, for that matter, we are as confused as we are.

i mean you no disrespect so if you feel that i have disrespected you, then i apologize. i come from a world that does not see things as you have been taught. there are no simple answers to some of these questions and, as i am concerned, there are several potential answers.

 

"I am going on vacation and won't be able to respond ( hears cheer from the phins crowd) until next week. Taking the wife on a little camping trip to celebrate our 24th anniversary.

You all take care."

enjoy your time together.

 

In the end that is the only thing we can practice is the relative proof. If we lived in a world where there was a God who came out and spoke his truth with clarity that all can understand and blindly follow such a truth, then humans could have some idea of absolute truth. However we do not live in a world such as that. The only way humans can understand "truth" is within themselves. It is how we are made. Everything we do is a translation of the world around us. Aboslute truth might exist in the "world of god", it does not come close to existing in the world of man

 

it seems to me that we are in a perfect example of that right now. being a military force in the middle east obviously does not set well with the citizens of the regions. they, obviously believe that their truth from God is THE truth. they bring their Jihad to us and we take our Democracy to them. oil and water.

 

Untrue.

There can be more than one deity. That would make multiple truths.

The only reason you say this is because you think your way is the only way.

 

Dolphan7:

It does not appear that anyone on here is trying to sway your beliefs. I hope that is obvious. However, you have contradicted yourself in a number of ways on this discussion.

I think that, first and foremost, you need to realize in our language there is a clear and distinct difference between the words "fact" and "faith". They are not interchangeable.

FACT: something that actually exists; reality; truth

FAITH: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

The above are dictionary definitions. Now those are nouns, the verbs that go with those are "know" and "believe". These are not truly interchangeable either. Facts can either be known or not known. Faith can either be believed or not believed. You cannot cross these, without polluting the words' actual, literal meaning.

Now, there is nothing to say either sets of words are more important or significant than the other, unless they are used in certain contexts. Those contexts generally involve science or religion. So depending on one of those contexts, the use of these words is not always valid. The words "belief" or "faith" have no real bearing on matters of science. There definitions are absolutely counter to the concepts of science. But in the same way, the words "facts" or "know" have no real bearing on matters of religion. There definitions are also absolutely counter to the concepts of religion. Now these are words, and because of that, they can be used in both science and religion, but again the context is important. What we are really dealing with here is the vanity of man. Man, wants everything it believes to be fact, and everything it knows to be believed. If, Man, could see that the two are separate, then these silly debates, could end, because the great thing about these words, is that their definitions don't cancel each other out. It is very possible, and frequently true, for someone to know a fact, yet believe the opposite. Hell, we wouldn't need a judiciary branch of the government if that wasn't the case.

Which is why, your posts IMO, have been so contradictory. You are arguing matters of faith with people arguing matters of science, you're simply confusing the two. You'd claim your faith is fact, and scientists believe in their facts. Just as red and blue are both wavelengths of the visible spectrum, religion and science are both ways to explain things. However, when you combine the two, you get something that resembles neither, you get purple. The problem with this purple, is that you have neither pure blue nor pure red. You have neither pure science nor pure religion. Yet, the world needs both. Without pure faith, the world has no concept of hope, and without pure facts, we'd never know if those hopes are achieved.

Everyone should believe what they want, regardless, of what other's believe or even what science says. However, the reverse is true, as well.

 

Einstein once said "My sense of God is my wonderment of the Universe", I think he realized, as he said later on in life I believe, that the more scientific understanding he gained about the universe and grand scheme of creation, the more convinced he was that there had to be a God who created it.

 

I just wanted to join in with that gff said...I have been reading this thread this evening...and I am amazed at the depth and civility in trying to understand such a difficult topic.

Simply amazing, you are all to be commended.

 

Wow...I wish I had been part of this discussion from the beginning, but maybe by commenting now..it might stir up more discussion.


The original question posed was" Does Science make belief in God obsolete?

First...Im not a believer....or a non believer..."Im a not know'er right now'er" I wouldnt say Im agnostic...because they believe there inherently is no way of knowing...and I would never agree to that statement. Which segways nicely into why in no uncertain terms....could Science ever make God obsolete...at least at I see it.

Science is what?

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

or

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation

Im sure everyone knows what the Scientific Method is..right?

"A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"

So...therefor...someone as myself, who is trying to collect data about God, through observation, experimentation (praying, meditating, questioning to see if I actually get a response I can believe in hy heart) formualting and testing of a hypotheses...


This is a process I think many "not know'er right now'er" have undertaken...and such Science has in fact made the concept of God never more relevant than now....


Hope that at least makes some sense....as it is being written on "fumes" @ 4:30 in the morning on the last day of a 4 day night shift!!!!

 

Not to take away from the science part but I offer the following picture in contrast to take in the "wonder of it all."



There is so much beauty out there, so much more than we can ever hope to see and feel; much less understand.

 

Now that is truly where love originates....

 

"When science finally appears over the crest of the mountain, it will find that religion had been sitting there all along"

 

Not to sway to one end too much over the other but who's to say that both cannot really coexist?

Why can't it be that (I know some will laugh) but like in the movie 'The Matrix', why can't there be a set of 'rules' for this universe which were or were not created by God and its just that God works within those rules?

For example, the parting of the red sea...seems impossible that it can happen and yet science has proven in labs that it can be done to a body of water....only thing is that in the bible it was done to a much larger body of water....again...God working within the 'rules' created by him or 'the universe' itself.

Its mans own arogance which wants to prove that one side is 100% right and the other 100% wrong IMHO.

As always we need to remember that science 'fact' is usually said to be 'theory'....the 'Theory' of evolution, the Big Bang 'Theory'...thing is scientists who view these as 100% 'facts' and refuse to look beyond are the ones that are as guilty as the Catholic Inquisitors in impeding progression. Same goes for Priests who are bent on throwing the 'pop up out of nowhere' faith based bible views as 100% 'fact'.

For example, sure its fine if you believe that God can do everything that the bible says but why can't you believe that he just does it in a manner that works within the 'rules' of his own universe? Like a computer program, it has its rules and limitations and he works within them to accomplish what needs to be done. He can do them better than anyone because either:

A. He created the rules to begin with and hence is more skilled with them than anyone as the originator of the 'rules' (or program so to speak) should be.
B. He's been working with them for who knows how long to the point that he's mastered them and knows how to get accomplished what he needs to get done.

There are many, many things we still need to learn....Dark Matter and Dark Energy being just the very, very tip of the iceberg in what could teach us how to accomplish (or how he managed to accomplish) the things he's done and accomplished long ago....ie. we are learning new and more interesting things and new theories are poping up each and every day...its when people decide that one side is 100% right or wrong that we will all lose as thats when knowledge stalls...we must keep an open mind at all times and always keep searching for knowledge...

 

The one thing science can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt are the experiences of faith.

 

Faith has a lot to do with god and spirituality in general. If science can't prove this wrong then they can't make God obsolete. And by God I don't necessarily mean the christian god. Put whatever name or face to it as you wish. The idea is not to get caught up in the signpost but what it means. And even then what a thing is named "ie. Door" is not all it is nor all it does.

 

so the title of the thread is "does science make belief in God obsolete?". If "you can't ask science to prove the existence of God" then science doesn't make the belief in god obsolete.

If I believe in god (which i do) of faith X then science can't prove that god is obsolete because to me it is not. it doesn't matter from a scientific perspective. it's more of a personal perspective. that's what i mean. they can't make it obsolete on a personal level.

 

personally, I dont see any similarities between the two. There is nothing in science that disproves religion or the existence of God and quite frankly doesnt even attempt it. The best science can do is come up with its own theories of creation which still dont disprove that someone or something started the process. Its like explaining a television set without bothering to question who created it

 

Admittedly I went by the thread title alone. I hadn't read the question.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I don't think one negates the other.

Think of it this way.

I think it's possible for the spirit to get things moving. It created the world. It could have done whatever it wanted but what it did was set the world in motion. Think of it as a snowball building up steam going down a hill.

It starts a snowball at the top of an epic hill. The snowball is very small. It gives it a push down this hill (creation) and over time the snowball evolves into a bigger or different snowball. Meanwhile chunks of snow are flying off this one main snowball creating their own mini snowballs while it's rolling along. Their energy is only enough to carry them so far but they have evolved in their own right.

Does that make any sense?

And yes. I just alluded creation of the world to a person shoving a snowball down a gigantic hill.

 

I always thought Galileo had it right, he held that science and religion were not enemies, but rather allies-two different languages telling the same story, a story of symmetry and balance . . . heaven and hell, night and day, hot and cold, God and Satan. Both science and religion rejoiced in God’s symmetry . . . the endless contest of light and dark.

Also, if you have ever read Dan Brown's Fiction "Angels and Demon's" I have loved this passage:

and this one:

my personal favorite:

 

Science and religion can not work together until they can both agree on evolution. This will never happen because of Adam and Eve.

 

I dont know, I think the Creation (Big Bang) answer is more important to their mutual understanding then the Evolution (out of the ooze vs. hand of God) argument.

Stories about Noah, Adam & Eve, etc are simple explanations to attempt to grasp the unknown...they are parables in the truest sense.

To me, we have all evolved, we have watched as other living organism evolve....seems to me, it all starts with the initial creation. Anti-Matter is the key, and the existing research at CERN is clearly breaking new ground to get to the central point of the matter. (no pun intended).

 

When I was force fed the bible during sunday school growing up, i dont remember anyone from the church prefacing the views of their religion as an opinion. Religion is the bully in the science vs religion debate. I'll play by the rules when both sides agree to be fair.

I think the science vs religion debate is a fairly simple one to solve. Let's look at the body count of both parties. Many wars have been fought in the name of religion. Countless lives taken for this cause. But how many wars are started over science? Science saves lives everyday. Modern medical technology is the work of science. The problems in the middle east are the work of religion. I don't know about you, but I would rather believe in something that saves lives, than something thats inspires people to murder.

IMO.

 

You only need to look at the 20th century when the Nazis and Communists killed millions upon millions in the name of science. Racial science with the Nazis and economic science with the Commies

 

Beat me to it - and lets not pretend all the animal testing is anything other then MANs attempt to use science and "to hell" with the consiquences....or the Tuskegee experiments, etc.

This shouldn't be a debate between Religion vs. Science what kills more or body count, etc...heck, you would have to included the ATOM Bomb - or for that matter many weapons of war - yes, though many wars started with Religious intentions - we certainly use Science to accomplish their task.

So, once again, in my view, Science and Religion are joined at the hip in many many ways.

 

The Atom bomb wasn't used in the name of science. My point was that religion creates reasons to fight. Science may be a tool used in those fights, but not the reason behind the fight.

 

The Manhattan Project was pure science at its core.....it was science regardless of its use. Same with Tuskegee, Same with the makeup industry, food, agriculture, etc, its all still science. Doesn't matter if the cause is a weapon, syphilis, beauty, additives, or crops in the field.

Its not about the reason of something, per this thread, its about that once again Science and Religion are so close - hand in hand - in so many if not all things...even War!

Religion, in and of itself, doesn't create reasons to fight, any more than weapons of science do....Man does! They have learned to use anything at their means to rally behind, religion has been a crutch to that endeavor, so has having the BIGGEST GUN, etc, neither are more or less the real culprit.

Religion just has followers, or at least more, than SCIENCE and the bigger weapon, specifically.

 

EDIT: nevermind. talking about this issue will only make me angry. i choose to abstain.