Faith in Creator God is scientifcally acceptablable nowadays?

[Jeshu]

 

[Gene2memE]

A scientist having faith in a creator? Fine. Never been any problem with that - caveats about certain political systems notwithstanding.

A scientist claiming to have found evidence for a creator. Nope. LOTS of problems with that.

Science is necessarily limited to methodological naturalism.
Scientific answers are generally those that make the least assumptions possible.

So, if you posit a creator that is supernatural, beyond time & space and all the other (non) attributes we typically assign it, you're going to run into some dead ends when it comes to science and scientists.

Also, the purpose of Christian apologetics is not to be truthful, but the defence of the faith. Consider that when evaluating the source material - particularly one that quote mines as badly as that one.

 

[SkyWriting]

A scientist having faith in a creator? Fine. Never been any problem with that - caveats about certain political systems notwithstanding.

A scientist claiming to have found evidence for a creator. Nope. LOTS of problems with that.

Science is necessarily limited to methodological naturalism.
Scientific answers are generally those that make the least assumptions possible.

So, if you posit a creator that is supernatural, beyond time & space and all the other (non) attributes we typically assign it, you're going to run into some dead ends when it comes to science and scientists.

Also, the purpose of Christian apologetics is not to be truthful, but the defence of the faith. Consider that when evaluating the source material - particularly one that quote mines as badly as that one.

One of the quotes is that the universe was "fine tuned".
I agree with the data, but "randomites" have a suitable
explanation....it is becasue it worked this time. Else
nobody would be around to observe.

 

[Michael]

I will let others comment on the Evolutionary aspects, but the arguments that are based upon astronomy are somewhat misleading.

Hubble didn't actually "prove that the universe was expanding". Hubble demonstrated that there are other galaxies than just our own, and distant galaxies exhibit a "redshift/distance" relationship. The further away they are, the more redshift we observe.

The *cause* of the redshift phenomenon "could be" related to expansion, in which case the basic arguments in the video may actually apply.

Redshift also "could be" caused by inelastic scattering however, in which case the universe didn't necessarily start with a "bang", and it could be infinite and eternal. If scattering is the real cause would shoot most of the astronomy arguments in the foot.

It's also possible that redshift is related to expansion, but without any "creation ex nihilo" components. In fact even in standard BB theory, the "Something from nothing" claim isn't exactly how it works, or how it *must* work.

 

[Radagast]

A scientist having faith in a creator? Fine. Never been any problem with that - caveats about certain political systems notwithstanding.

According to Pew Forum, 51% of scientists in the USA believe in God or a Higher Power, so yes.

Also, the purpose of Christian apologetics is not to be truthful, but the defence of the faith.

The purpose of Christian apologetics is to defend Christianity by being truthful. Unfortunately, some of the modern "apologetics" out there does not succeed in this aim.

 

[Soyeong]

Faith in Creator God is scientifcally acceptablable nowadays?

Having faith in God is about demonstrating that we trust that God's Word is true, not about believing that He exists. It does make any sense to trust God to exist.

 

[Radagast]

Having faith in God is about demonstrating that we trust that God's Word is true, not about believing that He exists. It does make any sense to trust God to exist.

Believing that God exists is indeed part of Christian faith.

 

[Soyeong]

Believing that God exists is indeed part of Christian faith.

Indeed, the Christian faith refers to the Christian religion, which includes the belief in the existence of God, but having faith in God refers to the specific action of demonstrating that we trust Him.

 

[Radagast]

having faith in God refers to the specific action of demonstrating that we trust Him.

That's an oversimplification. I would prefer this formulation:

Q. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.

 

[Ophiolite]

Science is necessarily limited to methodological naturalism.
Scientific answers are generally those that make the least assumptions possible.

There is a problem with the word "necessarily". The clue lies in the word methodological. We, or rather the scientific community, decided - at a relatively late date - to take an approach that excluded the supernatural not because it was "wrong", but because it was decided that it would be more practical to exclude it. Hence a presumption of naturalism would lie at the heart of the method: methodological naturalism.

We changed the approach once, it could be changed again if it were felt appropriate.

 

[Radagast]

We, or rather the scientific community, decided - at a relatively late date - to take an approach that excluded the supernatural not because it was "wrong", but because it was decided that it would be more practical to exclude it.

Really? What conference made that decision?

In fact, science has always dealt with naturalistic causes, because those are the ones that scientific methods identify. This does not rule out supernatural causes from existing, but the whole doctrine of "miracles" presupposes that supernaturally-caused events are very rare. That led to a form of methodological naturalism very early on. However, religious scientists have never accepted philosophical naturalism.

 

[Mobezom]

There's a difference between methodological and ontological materalism. Science operates under the former, but not the latter. Methodological materialism holds that non-material assumptions must not be made; science needs to operate based on evidence and testing, and is therefore by definition methodologically naturalistic. Ontological materialism holds that all that exists is material; many, but not all, scientists are ontological materialism, although that doesn't matter for the science.

 

[Ophiolite]

Really? What conference made that decision?

Yes really. And please, leave the derogatory tone in your backyard, don't bring it to this forum.

The decision was not made at any conference, as I think you well know, but evolved as thinking changed and the scientific method developed. A book would be needed to do justice to the events and personalities involved.

In fact, science has always dealt with naturalistic causes, because those are the ones that scientific methods identify. This does not rule out supernatural causes from existing, but the whole doctrine of "miracles" presupposes that supernaturally-caused events are very rare. That led to a form of methodological naturalism very early on. However, religious scientists have never accepted philosophical naturalism.

Newton.

 

[Michael]

FYI, there never was a time, nor will there ever be a time, where it will be scientifically unacceptable to believe in God.

 

[Mobezom]

*ugh*

Science doesn't say anything about personal beliefs. If you scientifically evaluate those beliefs as claims, then science might very well say "nope, not enough evidence," but not-scientific doesn't mean wrong or not okay.

 

[Speedwell]

*ugh*

Science doesn't say anything about personal beliefs. If you scientifically evaluate those beliefs as claims, then science might very well say "nope, not enough evidence," but not-scientific doesn't mean wrong or not okay.

I'm beginning to wonder of this creationist preoccupation with science isn't based on the hope that they can use it to shove their particular deity up our noses.

 

[Strathos]

What do you mean "scientifically acceptable"? As in, acceptable for a scientist to hold that belief? Of course it is.

 

[Mobezom]

What do you mean "scientifically acceptable"? As in, acceptable for a scientist to hold that belief? Of course it is.

He's asking if there is scientific evidence for a God yet, if the God Hypothesis has been upheld, as far as I can tell. (Spoiler - nope, there isn't.)

 

[Chriliman]

Isaiah 43:19
"See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland."

These new and fresh discoveries will help many come to faith in God. Even though we can objectively see His handy work we still must have faith in Him and trust His goodness, that he is for us and not against us.

Love the video btw, very informative and interesting!

 

[Radrook]

I need no blind irrational faith to conclude that an ID exists. Nature itself offers compelling evidence that a mind was involved. Examples?

1. DNA
2. Intracellular biological Nano machines
3. The Fibonacci sequence

Romans 1:20 ►
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.