God and Science

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This thread is kind of inspired by the "Is Science a Religion?" thread in E&M (not sure why its there...should be moved in my opinion).


Saying "God did it" to any observed phenomena is ultimately anti-scientific and intellectually lazy, is it not?

Even if I saw Jesus himself turn water into wine, would it not be better to try to understand the process by which he did it? Wouldn't it be better to try to re-create the process while looking at the water under electron microscope? Perhaps watch as the molecules of water become wine molecules. Maybe gain a better understanding of how H2O becomes C2H5OH. Maybe even learn from the process as you see the H's and O reorganize (as well as see the 2 C's, and 4 extra H's pop into existence). If you were to observe the extra atoms popping into existence, it might lead to revolutionizing thinking in quantum mechanics and how large an object can be before it can pop into existence (as very small particles can do in a vacuum). Analyzing how Jesus did it would be a fascinating exercise that, if better understood, could lead to some phenomenal applications.


But, to stare in amazement and say, "Wow, God must have done that!" seems intellectually lazy and leaves you with no explanatory power; it leaves you without any room for progress; it does not further knowledge bet rather leaves you at a dead end of knowledge gathering.

How does God inspire curiosity about the physical world?

 

[Michael]

This thread is kind of inspired by the "Is Science a Religion?" thread in E&M (not sure why its there...should be moved in my opinion).


Saying "God did it" to any observed phenomena is ultimately anti-scientific and intellectually lazy, is it not?

Even if I saw Jesus himself turn water into wine, would it not be better to try to understand the process by which he did it? Wouldn't it be better to try to re-create the process while looking at the water under electron microscope? Perhaps watch as the molecules of water become wine molecules. Maybe gain a better understanding of how H2O becomes C2H5OH. Maybe even learn from the process as you see the H's and O reorganize (as well as see the 2 C's, and 4 extra H's pop into existence). If you were to observe the extra atoms popping into existence, it might lead to revolutionizing thinking in quantum mechanics and how large an object can be before it can pop into existence (as very small particles can do in a vacuum). Analyzing how Jesus did it would be a fascinating exercise that, if better understood, could lead to some phenomenal applications.


But, to stare in amazement and say, "Wow, God must have done that!" seems intellectually lazy and leaves you with no explanatory power; it leaves you without any room for progress; it does not further knowledge bet rather leaves you at a dead end of knowledge gathering.

How does God inspire curiosity about the physical world?

For one thing, he starts by surrounding us with a beautiful planet that sustains our every physical need. Just staring at the stars at night and seeing the Milky way inspires me with awe and wonder. I want to understand *what* God is, *how* God does what he does, and *how* that connection between God and man works from the perspective of physics. For now however I'm content on just experiencing the presence of God within as Jesus described.

 

[lesliedellow]

Even if I saw Jesus himself turn water into wine, would it not be better to try to understand the process by which he did it? Wouldn't it be better to try to re-create the process while looking at the water under electron microscope? Perhaps watch as the molecules of water become wine molecules. Maybe gain a better understanding of how H2O becomes C2H5OH.

Wine contains a lot more than ethyl alcohol, and it would take a lot more than a little organic chemistry to explain something like that. Probably even Richard Dawkins would give up under those circumstances.

But, to stare in amazement and say, "Wow, God must have done that!" seems intellectually lazy and leaves you with no explanatory power; it leaves you without any room for progress; it does not further knowledge bet rather leaves you at a dead end of knowledge gathering.

If they were as mutually exclusive as you pretend, there would be no theistic scientists, would there?

 

[Loudmouth]

Saying "God did it" to any observed phenomena is ultimately anti-scientific and intellectually lazy, is it not?

It's closing a door to any future discoveries.

We could use the ID movement as an example. They claim that God designed life. What research have they done to explore this idea? What research could they do? The answer is none. As soon as you declare that something is the product of the supernatural you might as well lock up your lab and walk away forever.

Take a look at christian universities that adhere to a young earth creationist theology. How many of those universities have an active research program in the biological sciences? How many of those universities are actively testing young earth claims?

 

[Michael]

It's closing a door to any future discoveries.

We could use the ID movement as an example. They claim that God designed life. What research have they done to explore this idea? What research could they do? The answer is none. As soon as you declare that something is the product of the supernatural you might as well lock up your lab and walk away forever.

Take a look at christian universities that adhere to a young earth creationist theology. How many of those universities have an active research program in the biological sciences? How many of those universities are actively testing young earth claims?

There are plenty of 'Christian' universities that embrace the concept of an ancient earth and have biology in their curriculum.

Courses - Department of Biology

How many "scientists" did Stalin kill? (I can play the blame game too)

 

[Dizredux]

To me, the problem with "God did it" is that it explains everything therefore it explains nothing.

"Why is the sky blue?" God made it that way.

"Why is the sky purple?" God made it that way.

"Why is the sky orange with pink polka dots?" God made it that way.

It explains all therefore it leaves no place to go to explore the world in which we live.

Dizredux

 

[Hetta]

This thread is kind of inspired by the "Is Science a Religion?" thread in E&M (not sure why its there...should be moved in my opinion).

Saying "God did it" to any observed phenomena is ultimately anti-scientific and intellectually lazy, is it not?

Even if I saw Jesus himself turn water into wine, would it not be better to try to understand the process by which he did it? Wouldn't it be better to try to re-create the process while looking at the water under electron microscope? Perhaps watch as the molecules of water become wine molecules. Maybe gain a better understanding of how H2O becomes C2H5OH. Maybe even learn from the process as you see the H's and O reorganize (as well as see the 2 C's, and 4 extra H's pop into existence). If you were to observe the extra atoms popping into existence, it might lead to revolutionizing thinking in quantum mechanics and how large an object can be before it can pop into existence (as very small particles can do in a vacuum). Analyzing how Jesus did it would be a fascinating exercise that, if better understood, could lead to some phenomenal applications.

But, to stare in amazement and say, "Wow, God must have done that!" seems intellectually lazy and leaves you with no explanatory power; it leaves you without any room for progress; it does not further knowledge bet rather leaves you at a dead end of knowledge gathering.

How does God inspire curiosity about the physical world?

I agree with you on this because my sense of wonder at the intricacies and beauties of the universe and the workings of the human body have increased - but that is because of the science classes I have taken during the past year. I am awed by the human body - and yet I've walked around in one for 52 years without really thinking about it.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Wine contains a lot more than ethyl alcohol, and it would take a lot more than a little organic chemistry to explain something like that. Probably even Richard Dawkins would give up under those circumstances.

Obviously wine is more than ethyl alcohol, I just used that particular formula because wine involves a ton of different chemicals and I couldn't possibly list them all. Its a simplification for the sake of brevity.

"Give up"? No I wouldn't give up. That's the point I'm trying to make: It would be a fascinating place to be and to be able to explore and study such a phenomenon. Giving up would be the last thing on my mind (and I'm assuming the last thing on Dawkins mind too).

If they were as mutually exclusive as you pretend, there would be no theistic scientists, would there?

This relationship is precisely what I am questioning. How do theists reconcile "God did it" with "science is trying to figure out what happened"?

 

[Michael]

This relationship is precisely what I am questioning. How do theists reconcile "God did it" with "science is trying to figure out what happened"?

Presumably they reconcile it the very same way a child reconciles "Mom did it" with "how did she do that"?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

For one thing, he starts by surrounding us with a beautiful planet that sustains our every physical need. Just staring at the stars at night and seeing the Milky way inspires me with awe and wonder. I want to understand *what* God is, *how* God does what he does, and *how* that connection between God and man works from the perspective of physics. For now however I'm content on just experiencing the presence of God within as Jesus described.

I'll edit your paragraph to remove supernatural agents:

We are surrounded by a beautiful planet that sustains our every physical need. Just staring at the stars at night and seeing the Milky way inspires me with awe and wonder. I want to understand *what* the universe is, *how* does the universe work, and *how* that connection between the universe and man works from the perspective of physics. For now however I'm content on just experiencing the universe as it is.


I feel like this is how most atheists think and, in a practical sense, both you and the atheist are basically doing the same thing, right?

 

[Michael]

I'll edit your paragraph to remove supernatural agents:

There were no "supernatural' agents in my original statement to start with, but you're welcome to see things your way as well.

We are surrounded by a beautiful planet that sustains our every physical need. Just staring at the stars at night and seeing the Milky way inspires me with awe and wonder. I want to understand *what* the universe is, *how* does the universe work, and *how* that connection between the universe and man works from the perspective of physics. For now however I'm content on just experiencing the universe as it is.


I feel like this is how most atheists think and, in a practical sense, both you and the atheist are basically doing the same thing, right?

The primary difference between us seems to be the fact that I embrace and accept my own experiences of God within as "evidence" of God's tangible effect on my life. Atheists apparently do not. In every other sense, my scientific curiosity is identical today as it was when I was an atheist. My love of science began as a child, and it wasn't changed or diminished by embracing atheism, nor by rejecting atheism later in my life.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

There were no "supernatural' agents in my original statement to start with, but you're welcome to see things your way as well.



The primary difference between us seems to be the fact that I embrace and accept my own experiences of God within as "evidence" of God's tangible effect on my life. Atheists apparently do not. In every other sense, my scientific curiosity is identical today as it was when I was an atheist. My love of science began as a child, and it wasn't changed or diminished by embracing atheism, nor by rejecting atheism later in my life.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing your views.

This is kind of inline with my vague sense of God as well. I can't really explain it and I realize its irrational, but I can't shake it. I wasn't raised in a theistic home either, the sense of God came about seemingly naturally by looking at the natural world. I realize how foolish it sounds to an atheist, but alas it is my own experience.

 

[Michael]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing your views.

This is kind of inline with my vague sense of God as well. I can't really explain it and I realize its irrational, but I can't shake it. I wasn't raised in a theistic home either, the sense of God came about seemingly naturally by looking at the natural world. I realize how foolish it sounds to an atheist, but alas it is my own experience.

Phillips Brooks and Helen Keller

Apparently the concept of 'language' itself is not required to experience the presence of God within us all. It's just there and we're hardwired to experience it IMO.

Atheists tend to want to deny the validity of the internal experiences within the brain in terms of it's relationship to an *external* agent. That seems to be the difference between us. My brain is simply one resonating EM field among many, and it's certainly not the biggest, nor the most sophisticated in terms of it's 'wiring'.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How does God inspire curiosity about the physical world?

By posing it in stark contrast against the vast, lifeless, universe. If that doesn't pique your interest nothing will.

 

[Michael]

By posing it in stark contrast against the vast, lifeless, universe. If that doesn't pique your interest nothing will.

However did you decide that our vast universe is "lifeless" anyway (or did you just assume)?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7812631/

 

[OldWiseGuy]

However did you decide that our vast universe is "lifeless" anyway (or did you just assume)?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7812631/

Have you heard something?

 

[Michael]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing your views.

This is kind of inline with my vague sense of God as well. I can't really explain it and I realize its irrational, but I can't shake it. I wasn't raised in a theistic home either, the sense of God came about seemingly naturally by looking at the natural world. I realize how foolish it sounds to an atheist, but alas it is my own experience.

A couple of other points that I should mention is that there are in in fact mathematical models to express the concept of soul, and in fact even some evidence to support the idea from the lab.

Scientists offer quantum theory of soul's existence | News.com.au
Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness -- ScienceDaily

Any "experiences" that I am likely to have of God are going to happen internally. Jesus himself said that the Kingdom of Heaven is found within. Any *physical* connection that occurs, occurs inside of our brain.

It only makes sense than from my perspective that Helen Keller *would* be able to experience God within herself, without anyone handing her any dogma about the concept of God. It's something we simply *feel* inside ourselves and experience inside ourselves. The dogma is actually optional.

 

[Michael]

Have you heard something?

Nothing you haven't already been hearing about for years.

FYI, I'm off for the weekend. I hope everyone enjoys themselves and have a great weekend.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are plenty of 'Christian' universities that embrace the concept of an ancient earth and have biology in their curriculum.

No shinola. I just so happened to graduate from one. That is why I was careful to specify christian colleges who adhered to a YEC theology.

Those christian universities with active research programs in the field of biology teach evolution and do not teach YEC (i.e. God did it). That is the point I was trying to make.

 

[Loudmouth]

Atheists tend to want to deny the validity of the internal experiences within the brain in terms of it's relationship to an *external* agent. That seems to be the difference between us. My brain is simply one resonating EM field among many, and it's certainly not the biggest, nor the most sophisticated in terms of it's 'wiring'.

The fact that something is resonating does not mean it is right.

Also, I would suspect that you require objective evidence just like atheists do.