God and Science

[Strathos]

Well, of course you could try to investigate it, but if it works like I suspect it does, not very many useful insights would be gleaned from the observation.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

How many scientists drowned trying to figure out how Jesus walked on water?

 

[ForJesusChrist]

I prefer to accept the fact that God can preform miracles we are only humans we don't need to know everything.

 

[Radagast]

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

As Christians, we are committed to believing in several specific miracles. Being outside the laws of nature, those are rightly answered with "God did it."

But I think this question would probably have been better asked in one of the "Christians only" areas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many scientists drowned trying to figure out how Jesus walked on water?

None. that was figured out long ago.

 

[Strathos]

Here's an analogy: Miracles are like a cheat code in a computer game. They bypass the normal rules of the game (universe) and allow otherwise impossible things to happen. What science does is more like playing the game within the established rules. Both methods can lead to success/benefits, but someone who can't use the cheat codes has to settle for the latter.

 

[lesliedellow]

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

Most Christians would leave open the possibility of the miraculous, in which something happens contrary to the normal course of nature and is therefore not open to explanation by a science which presupposes that nature is completely regular.

Mostly however, they know from experience, or through education, that God has ordered the universe so that it behaves in a completely regular way. The role of science is in essence to make note of those regularities (such as the force of gravity always being proportional to the product of the two masses), and then use them to make predictions about what will happen in the future, or to construct hypotheses, more or less well supported, about what happened in the past.

Nothing about that procedure is contrary to theistic belief.

In the specific case of Evolution, which I suppose is what you might be thinking of, most theists would see it as a process ordained by God.

 

[Mainframes]

Here's an analogy: Miracles are like a cheat code in a computer game. They bypass the normal rules of the game (universe) and allow otherwise impossible things to happen. What science does is more like playing the game within the established rules. Both methods can lead to success/benefits, but someone who can't use the cheat codes has to settle for the latter.

And in the end the person who completes the game without having to resort to cheating ultimately has a far more wholesome and constructive experience......

 

[AV1611VET]

As Christians, we are committed to believing in several specific miracles. Being outside the laws of nature, those are rightly answered with "God did it."

AMEN!

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's an analogy: Miracles are like a cheat code in a computer game. They bypass the normal rules of the game (universe) and allow otherwise impossible things to happen. What science does is more like playing the game within the established rules. Both methods can lead to success/benefits, but someone who can't use the cheat codes has to settle for the latter.

Who makes the rules though?

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

Not following the time honored method of ageing, we imagine
it is not an observable process.

 

[variant]

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.

If I were there, the experiment I would preform would be to be sober and taste the substance to see whether or not it was wine.

If the event happened in the first place as told, putting water into old wine skins might give you a colored diluted red mixture that could easily be mistaken for wine if one was already drunk. They were out of wine so I am guessing they were already drunk.

Since, we know that when people at a party are fed non-alcoholic beverages, will appear drunk because it is what is expected, a similar thing may have happened at the party.

A miracle is something unexplained, not necessarily something supernatural.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the event happened in the first place as told, putting water into old wine skins might give you a colored diluted red mixture that could easily be mistaken for wine if one was already drunk.

Except they were stone waterpots.

John 2:6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

So far SETI hasn't come up with anything. I'm guessing they won't.

 

[variant]

Except they were stone waterpots.

John 2:6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

The pots would have been for the water, wine was served in skins (drawn out), it would have been obvious it was not wine if it had been left in the water pots, they were for the purification.

John 2:7

Jesus said to them, Fill the water pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8And he said to them, Draw out now, and bear to the governor of the feast. And they bore it.

I also have my doubts as to the Jews using firkins.

 

[AV1611VET]

The pots would have been for the water, wine was served in skins (drawn out), it would have been obvious it was not wine if it had been left in the water pots, they were for the purification.

John 2:7



I also have my doubts as to the Jews using firkins.

Were you there?

 

[variant]

Were you there?

No, but the story doesn't say it was wine in the stone pots as you said.

Wine in the time was typically mixed with water sooo the question is how he got the color right for my interpretation to be plausible.

 

[Strathos]

And in the end the person who completes the game without having to resort to cheating ultimately has a far more wholesome and constructive experience......

Which is why it's pointless for scientists to try to study miracles.

Who makes the rules though?

God. That's why He can break them when He wants to.

 

[JohnSerew]

I think that if you want to really understand this problem, you have to take the human aspect into account a little bit more. This is how I see it.

In essence what you say is right. If you use god as an explenation, you are at a dead stop. But I think that in situations where that happens, people aren't interested in the first place. It's like saying: why is the sky blue? Because of light particles. Those who are curious about an explenation will keep looking further even though they believe god is somehow behind it. The context is only different; what mechanism did god design to make this happen?

For a lot of people who arent interested in science, god is perfectly fine. I think it goes wrong when you are killing curiosity in children by saying that god made it happen like that without including the scientific knoweledge in that specific area.

In the end, those who are christian scientist, are the ones who put god in the background and see him as the one who came up with the plan. They are just trying to find out how it all works. In the end you end up with the same answers as long as you are scientifically correct because even if you know all the answers, you can still claim god made it happen.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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 don't know about the natural world, but the idea of deities definitely inspires art and literature.