Is science Agnostic?

[JohnR7]

WORD HISTORY: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven, for example, but rather holds that one cannot know for certain if they exist or not. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn½sis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals—"ists," as he called them—who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870. American Heritage Dictionary

What do you think?

 

[Vance]

Yes, I think science as a discipline is agnostic.

Scientists are agnostic, or atheist or Christian or Muslim, etc, etc, etc.

It is definitely not gnostic, unless you define gnostic as any group which seeks to gain knowledge for greater understanding of the world around them. If you would define it that broadly, then science could be both agnostic (in the definition given in your quote) and gnostic (in the definition I just gave) at the same time.

 

[Arikay]

One thing to correct in the definition is I believe the original term Agnostic Ment one who does not know whether god exists or not (one without divine knowledge, like the gnostics). It only later became a belief that one Cannot know.

Yes, science is Agnostic. It does not know whether god exists or not.

 

[Philosoft]

Well, if part of the definition of "God" is something like, 'unobservable by scientific means,' then I'd have to say yes.

 

[wblastyn]

Yes, science is agnostic, it does not know if God exists or not.

 

[Vance]

Oh, and before you state that calling science agnostic is an insult ot Christian scientists, I think most would disagree with you. Ask Lucaspa, for one.

Regardless of what the particular scientist believes, the study of science simply does not, and properly *can* not, analyze supernatural events or the divine. It is a limited profession with only one role: to study the *natural* world. It is not the arbiter of all truth, just the discoverer of the natural world, and the scientific community as a whole knows that.

What you are confusing "science" with is philosophic naturalism.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Yes, of course it is.

 

[Michali]

It is that science does not yet know if there is a God or not.

 

[Philosoft]

It is that science does not yet know if there is a God or not.

In a sense. Theism has not yet defined "God" or "supernatural" in such a way as to be accessible by the senses, let alone the scientific method.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It is that science does not yet know if there is a God or not.

It might be more accurate to say that science does not care.
Science works regardless of whether God exists or not. It is the study of the rules and principles which govern the universe.

If there is no God, then He did not create those rules, but no matter. The rules exist and they can be studied, and predictions made based on them.

If God exists, and he did create those rules, then since He has not seen fit to change them in any way since we've been here (physics is still physics, chemistry is still chemistry). and the rules can be studied, and predictions made based on them.

 

[JohnR7]

If there is no God, then He did not create those rules, but no matter. The rules exist and they can be studied, and predictions made based on them.

Just what is a rule? Would gravity be a rule? If you throw a ball in the area it most likly will fall back down to the earth.

What then is the difference between the "rules" of science and the promises that God give us in the Bible. His promises are just a dependable as gravity. If we do our part, then we can be sure God will perform His part.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Just what is a rule? Would gravity be a rule? If you throw a ball in the area it most likly will fall back down to the earth.

Precisely. If God exists, he created gravity, and hasn't changed it in any way since humans started throwing things.

I drop a rock 5,000 times, and it falls down and hits the ground the exact same way 5,000 times. Now, God (if he exists) could change gravity so that on the 5,001st drop, the rock falls up. But if God (if he exists) didn't do this the last 5,000 times, do I have any reason to believe He'll do it this time?

Of course not. and if there is no God, then nobody's going to change gravity, so the rock won't ever fall up.

What then is the difference between the "rules" of science and the promises that God give us in the Bible. His promises are just a dependable as gravity. If we do our part, then we can be sure God will perform His part.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not science is agnostic, but I'll answer anyway.

"If we do our part..." Funny how nobody's sure exactly what "our part" is, hmmm? Every denomination, every religion, every belief, every philosophy has its own idea about what "our part" is.

 

[lucaspa]

[/font]

What do you think?

"To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. " SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992.

That pretty well sums it up.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, if part of the definition of "God" is something like, 'unobservable by scientific means,' then I'd have to say yes.

The limitation comes from science, not from the defintion of God. Methodologial materialism -- how we do experiments -- means that we cannot test directly for God.

To get God "observable by scientific means" you have to use the backdoor to get to science. That is, you have to propose a mechanism by which God works. Then you test the mechanism. You NEVER test God. Only the mechanism.

The second quote in my signature goes to that. If you propose that God works by the mechanisms discovered by science, then the mechanism is tested and strongly supported. But did we test God directly? Nope.

 

[lucaspa]

What then is the difference between the "rules" of science and the promises that God give us in the Bible. His promises are just a dependable as gravity. If we do our part, then we can be sure God will perform His part.

Read the book of Job lately?

 

[JohnR7]

I drop a rock 5,000 times, and it falls down and hits the ground the exact same way 5,000 times.

You could never drop a rock the exact same way twice. There are to many variables. Esp. the variable of what you ate for lunch that day. Because that in and of itself will effect your center of gravity.

Now, God (if he exists) could change gravity so that on the 5,001st drop, the rock falls up.

This reminds me of the story of the college professor who would drop a coin on the floor. He said if there was a God, then God could do something to keep the coin from hitting the floor. Then one day, in front of the whole class, the coin does not hit the floor, it gets caught in his pants cuff. It may not be a true story, but it does make a point.

 

[JohnR7]

Read the book of Job lately?

Yes, I read the book. In the latter days of Job were more blessing than there were in the beginning. The Bible clearly teaches us that God will cause all things to work out for the best, for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. That is why, for a Christian, it just keeps getting better and better.

Job 42:12
Now the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; for he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of oxen, and one thousand female donkeys.

 

[LorentzHA]

I would say that, yes, science itself is agnostic, however, this may not be the correct term. (not sure) Inifferent, perhaps would be better.
The people who work in science cover the whole spectrum of religious terminology but science does not take on the beliefs of those who are employed by it. That is what I like about science, it is pure and unbiased. Results must be repeatable and "opinions" do not matter too much. Science is not trying to prove or dispove a God. Science is what it is and does what it does-the findings and results may lead lay people to be swayed one way or another but science studies scientific persuits and the results speak for themselves..although the results are interpreted in a variety of ways. Science does not invlove itself in things like proving the "spiritual" or unseen realms, because they are just that, unseen and speculative. Metaphysics concerns itself with things like this. (My opinion & two cents)

 

[Mainframes]

You could never drop a rock the exact same way twice. There are to many variables. Esp. the variable of what you ate for lunch that day. Because that in and of itself will effect your center of gravity.

Eh? What are you talking about? There is only one variable and that is the height of said rock. This experiment is done at school level using such complicated apparatus as a clamp and retort stand and a stopwatch. The experiment can then be done in different fluids than air and the bouyancy effect can be calculated (air as a fluid will have negligible bouyancy on a rock).

 

[bagfullofsnakes]

The limitation comes from science, not from the defintion of God. Methodologial materialism -- how we do experiments -- means that we cannot test directly for God.

To get God "observable by scientific means" you have to use the backdoor to get to science. That is, you have to propose a mechanism by which God works. Then you test the mechanism. You NEVER test God. Only the mechanism.

The second quote in my signature goes to that. If you propose that God works by the mechanisms discovered by science, then the mechanism is tested and strongly supported. But did we test God directly? Nope.

By testing the mechanism by which god works, I assume you mean "nature", in general?

If so, does god become indistinguishable from nature?

(Which leads me to ask, would you classify yourself as a Deist? Not that it's relevant, just curious.)