God vs. Science

[cloudyday2]

I know that the majority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews accept science's theories about the origins of life on Earth, the origins of the universe, etc. Most religious people rely on science to solve their practical problems too. If they are sick, they go to the doctor. God becomes like a sprig of parsley decorating a plate while science becomes the edible food.

Naturalism is the belief that everything is exclusively physical. Science is built on methodological naturalism which means accepting that naturalism is 99.999% of the explanation for everything. Scientists can be religious, but only if God is merely a garnishment.

Quantum mechanics says that particles are probability waves punctuated by events that momentarily localize them (sorry to any physicists who might cringe at my bad understanding ). So some randomness is part of nature. This randomness may or may not be real. There is an interpretation of QM that imagines hidden variables to make nature deterministic, but there are other interpretations that make nature non-deterministic.

... Anyway, is it possible for God to exist and yet never appear as an essential ingredient in any scientific theories? The randomness in QM provides a big lever for hidden variables to exert some influence without detection, but if this influence is part of a goal that humans can comprehend, wouldn't this be measurable? Like if science could say that God should want a probability wave to collapse into a particular event, and we measured that collapse consistently, what would that mean? (I forgot to mention Maxwell's demon - partly because I don't understand it - but it might be a consideration too.)

I know my ideas are rambling. Any thoughts? (I didn't mention the pantheistic and panentheistic religions, however, I believe science makes them into a frivolous garnishment too.)

 

[fatboys]

I know that the majority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews accept science's theories about the origins of life on Earth, the origins of the universe, etc. Most religious people rely on science to solve their practical problems too. If they are sick, they go to the doctor. God becomes like a sprig of parsley decorating a plate while science becomes the edible food.

Naturalism is the belief that everything is exclusively physical. Science is built on methodological naturalism which means accepting that naturalism is 99.999% of the explanation for everything. Scientists can be religious, but only if God is merely a garnishment.

Quantum mechanics says that particles are probability waves punctuated by events that momentarily localize them (sorry to any physicists who might cringe at my bad understanding ). So some randomness is part of nature. This randomness may or may not be real. There is an interpretation of QM that imagines hidden variables to make nature deterministic, but there are other interpretations that make nature non-deterministic.

... Anyway, is it possible for God to exist and yet never appear as an essential ingredient in any scientific theories? The randomness in QM provides a big lever for hidden variables to exert some influence without detection, but if this influence is part of a goal that humans can comprehend, wouldn't this be measurable? Like if science could say that God should want a probability wave to collapse into a particular event, and we measured that collapse consistently, what would that mean? (I forgot to mention Maxwell's demon - partly because I don't understand it - but it might be a consideration too.)

I know my ideas are rambling. Any thoughts? (I didn't mention the pantheistic and panentheistic religions, however, I believe science makes them into a frivolous garnishment too.)

I think that pure science does not conflict with pure religion. Science is always changing as their understanding increases. They have theroies that they try to prove to be true. My brother who is a scientist says that there are absolute in science. When they add two chemicals together in the same amounts you will have the same results every time. But that does not mean that all of science has the same absolutes in all things. If there is a God he would be an absolute in all things. Never changing or a perfect being having all knowledge. He applies pure science in how he creates because he knows all the laws of science and how they work. If a person could live long enough to gain all the knowledge there was in science what would they be?

 

[LoAmmi]

It's been said before, but I'll say it again here. Science describes the how, religion describes the why. I have no problem seeing science as important in explaining the how of things or science giving us amazing breakthroughs in medicine and also believing that G-d is, ultimately, behind everything.

 

[Soyeong]

The inability for us to predict something does not mean that randomness is part of nature.

 

[RevelationTestament]

I know that the majority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews accept science's theories about the origins of life on Earth, the origins of the universe, etc. Most religious people rely on science to solve their practical problems too. If they are sick, they go to the doctor. God becomes like a sprig of parsley decorating a plate while science becomes the edible food.

My understanding of God has changed over the years. I see no conflict between the Bible and science - only a conflict in how traditional Christianity has interpreted it, and science - which I believe has led to many abandoning Christianity. I see Genesis 2-3 as teaching godly principles, and not temporal science. Man seems to understand it all too literally - but I believe there was no literal tree standing in the form of the tree of knowledge or the tree of life - those are spiritual symbols being used by God. While I'm on the subject, I will also say I don't accept the general theory of the big bang either. There are many conflicts within this theory that don't seem to get told. For instance many galaxies are simply moving too slowly to have come from the area of the supposed big bang. So astrophysicists have come up with various theories to try to make these observations fit into the Big Bang theory. Nor do I believe the Bible even tries to describe the creation of the Universe, but simply the earth and maybe the Milky Way Galaxy.

Naturalism is the belief that everything is exclusively physical. Science is built on methodological naturalism which means accepting that naturalism is 99.999% of the explanation for everything. Scientists can be religious, but only if God is merely a garnishment.

Scientists are merely trying to understand how things work so that we can reproduce them or design things to work within the framework of nature. I don't see how this relegates God to a garnishment. I believe God designed genetics, our DNA, etc so that things occur according to His design. I see no conflict between a belief in God and the process of natural selection at all for instance.

Quantum mechanics says that particles are probability waves punctuated by events that momentarily localize them (sorry to any physicists who might cringe at my bad understanding ). So some randomness is part of nature. This randomness may or may not be real. There is an interpretation of QM that imagines hidden variables to make nature deterministic, but there are other interpretations that make nature non-deterministic.

Not sure of your point here. There is a predictability to things because they follow physical laws which science seeks to understand. But my decision to hold my hand to the right or to the left, cannot be predicted by science because my spirit is not understood by science and does not necessarily follow physical laws.

... Anyway, is it possible for God to exist and yet never appear as an essential ingredient in any scientific theories?

Sure. We don't even know if God exists within our dimension. We might be like the flat dot on a flat page which can't see the 3 dimensional person holding the page from the bottom...

The randomness in QM provides a big lever for hidden variables to exert some influence without detection, but if this influence is part of a goal that humans can comprehend, wouldn't this be measurable? Like if science could say that God should want a probability wave to collapse into a particular event, and we measured that collapse consistently, what would that mean? (I forgot to mention Maxwell's demon - partly because I don't understand it - but it might be a consideration too.)

I know my ideas are rambling. Any thoughts? (I didn't mention the pantheistic and panentheistic religions, however, I believe science makes them into a frivolous garnishment too.)

According to heavenly Father, if we saw Him in His fullness, we would die, so He sent Christ to be His revelator/agent. If we understand Jesus Christ, we should be better able to understand the Father.

• Acts 17:29
  29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
  

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I know that the majority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews accept science's theories about the origins of life on Earth, the origins of the universe, etc. Most religious people rely on science to solve their practical problems too. If they are sick, they go to the doctor. God becomes like a sprig of parsley decorating a plate while science becomes the edible food.

Naturalism is the belief that everything is exclusively physical. Science is built on methodological naturalism which means accepting that naturalism is 99.999% of the explanation for everything. Scientists can be religious, but only if God is merely a garnishment.

Quantum mechanics says that particles are probability waves punctuated by events that momentarily localize them (sorry to any physicists who might cringe at my bad understanding ). So some randomness is part of nature. This randomness may or may not be real. There is an interpretation of QM that imagines hidden variables to make nature deterministic, but there are other interpretations that make nature non-deterministic.

... Anyway, is it possible for God to exist and yet never appear as an essential ingredient in any scientific theories? The randomness in QM provides a big lever for hidden variables to exert some influence without detection, but if this influence is part of a goal that humans can comprehend, wouldn't this be measurable? Like if science could say that God should want a probability wave to collapse into a particular event, and we measured that collapse consistently, what would that mean? (I forgot to mention Maxwell's demon - partly because I don't understand it - but it might be a consideration too.)

I know my ideas are rambling. Any thoughts? (I didn't mention the pantheistic and panentheistic religions, however, I believe science makes them into a frivolous garnishment too.)

You, like many atheists, suffer from the inability to understand what "supernatural" means. Not entirely your fault as you have been bombarded with Atheist propaganda that seeks to confound the issue to the advantage of atheism.

You correctly identify that science is based on naturalism. What you fail to do is understand is that God (and much of what is related to God) is not "natural" but rather "supernatural". The prefix "super-" means "above", i.e. God is "above" nature, "above" the laws of nature and the natural world.

To say that "God is a sprig of parsley or garnish" to science indicates a misunderstanding of (and probably an attempt to deride) God and/or religion. It is not necessary for science to be corroborated by spiritual matters, nor vice versa.

The Supernatural is what influences the natural, not the other way around. To look for any "evidence" that is natural which would "prove" the Supernatural is logically impossible. We believe what science teaches because it's the best way to understand the natural world. We also know that science is very often wrong and constantly changes its conclusions, because it is imperfect.

The argument you put forth is hackneyed and irrational - I thought we were done with these kinds of attacks on religion but, alas, apparently the disdain lives strong on the side of the atheists.

 

[lost999]

You, like many atheists, suffer from the inability to understand what "supernatural" means. Not entirely your fault as you have been bombarded with Atheist propaganda that seeks to confound the issue to the advantage of atheism.

You correctly identify that science is based on naturalism. What you fail to do is understand is that God (and much of what is related to God) is not "natural" but rather "supernatural". The prefix "super-" means "above", i.e. God is "above" nature, "above" the laws of nature and the natural world.

To say that "God is a sprig of parsley or garnish" to science indicates a misunderstanding of (and probably an attempt to deride) God and/or religion. It is not necessary for science to be corroborated by spiritual matters, nor vice versa.

The Supernatural is what influences the natural, not the other way around. To look for any "evidence" that is natural which would "prove" the Supernatural is logically impossible. We believe what science teaches because it's the best way to understand the natural world. We also know that science is very often wrong and constantly changes its conclusions, because it is imperfect.

The argument you put forth is hackneyed and irrational - I thought we were done with these kinds of attacks on religion but, alas, apparently the disdain lives strong on the side of the atheists.

Great post.

I don't think science conflicts with God at all; with religion, maybe, but not with God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I know that the majority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews accept science's theories about the origins of life on Earth, the origins of the universe, etc. Most religious people rely on science to solve their practical problems too. If they are sick, they go to the doctor. God becomes like a sprig of parsley decorating a plate while science becomes the edible food.

Naturalism is the belief that everything is exclusively physical. Science is built on methodological naturalism which means accepting that naturalism is 99.999% of the explanation for everything. Scientists can be religious, but only if God is merely a garnishment.

Quantum mechanics says that particles are probability waves punctuated by events that momentarily localize them (sorry to any physicists who might cringe at my bad understanding ). So some randomness is part of nature. This randomness may or may not be real. There is an interpretation of QM that imagines hidden variables to make nature deterministic, but there are other interpretations that make nature non-deterministic.

... Anyway, is it possible for God to exist and yet never appear as an essential ingredient in any scientific theories? The randomness in QM provides a big lever for hidden variables to exert some influence without detection, but if this influence is part of a goal that humans can comprehend, wouldn't this be measurable? Like if science could say that God should want a probability wave to collapse into a particular event, and we measured that collapse consistently, what would that mean? (I forgot to mention Maxwell's demon - partly because I don't understand it - but it might be a consideration too.)

I know my ideas are rambling. Any thoughts? (I didn't mention the pantheistic and panentheistic religions, however, I believe science makes them into a frivolous garnishment too.)

As a Christian I have no expectation, ever, to discover God in a mathematical equation, under a microscope, or through a telescope. I expect science to consistently deal with entirely naturalistic phenomenon and find naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomenon.

My belief in God is not a sprig of parsley on an otherwise finished dish; it's a holistic approach to the cosmos. Science explains the phenomenon, how it works, what causes it, etc; I comprehend that fact as being part of the cosmos which God has ordained.

God does not exist in the gaps; God exists in the details. A usual example I use is sexual reproduction. We know how babies are made, and the entire process from coitus to conception to birth is fully explained naturalistically and it is entirely accurate. So then when I read the Scripture that says, "I formed you in your mother's womb" or when I believe that God created me in the womb I am not suggesting a process independent of the natural process, I am understanding that God is at work within the natural process. That is not a scientific statement, but a faith statement.

There is a tendency to take "the natural" and "the supernatural" and divide them, saying God's domain is the "supernatural"; thus anything that can be understood naturally must exclude God. This isn't how people of faith have historically understood things. A classical theistic (at least Christian theistic) understanding is a twofold understanding of God as both transcendent and immanent. The transcendence of God means God is not part of the universe, He is sublimely above, beyond, and entirely other from all things. The immanence of God means there is no place God is not, there is no hiding from God, for example the Psalmist writes, "Where can I go from Your Spirit? Where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into the heavens You are there, if I make my bed in the depths you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn or go to the furthest reaches of the sea even there You will lead me, even then Your right hand shall take hold of me."

Thus for a person of faith the answer is not it's either science or God; but rather it is both. Nature as explained by science is a perfectly accurate and completely comprehensive understanding of the cosmos; but through faith we comprehend the God whose wisdom and power is behind, beyond, and through all things.

I know that the beautiful Cascade mountain range I grew up near was formed through ancient tectonic forces, thrusting the earth upward. I also have no trouble looking at those same mountains and confessing that God has raised up the mountains and created their immense beauty.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

It's been said before, but I'll say it again here. Science describes the how, religion describes the why. I have no problem seeing science as important in explaining the how of things or science giving us amazing breakthroughs in medicine and also believing that G-d is, ultimately, behind everything.

I've heard that explanation too, but I don't buy it. When science can predict how nature behaves without invoking God, doesn't that suggest that God is not influencing the natural world today? If science can predict your decisions several seconds before you are aware of making those decisions (which experiments have apparently demonstrated) then doesn't that suggest that we humans are much more like biological robots than we would like to admit?

Of course, on the other side of the argument, science cannot predict how a probability wave will collapse into an event. Ultimately everything is made of quantum particles, and in chaotic systems this random effect can trickle-upwards, so that science cannot predict everything about those chaotic systems. Human brains are probably somewhat chaotic systems, so science can only predict some things about our behavior.

 

[cloudyday2]

The inability for us to predict something does not mean that randomness is part of nature.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Can you expand on that a little?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've heard that explanation too, but I don't buy it. When science can predict how nature behaves without invoking God, doesn't that suggest that God is not influencing the natural world today?

That is a possible assumption, but if one believes in God what would be the reason for arriving at that conclusion?

If one believes in God, it would seem to make more sense to conclude that a God who is revealed to be active within the world is not exiled from the world through natural knowledge of the world.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

I think that pure science does not conflict with pure religion. Science is always changing as their understanding increases. They have theroies that they try to prove to be true. My brother who is a scientist says that there are absolute in science. When they add two chemicals together in the same amounts you will have the same results every time. But that does not mean that all of science has the same absolutes in all things. If there is a God he would be an absolute in all things. Never changing or a perfect being having all knowledge. He applies pure science in how he creates because he knows all the laws of science and how they work. If a person could live long enough to gain all the knowledge there was in science what would they be?

 

[LoAmmi]

I've heard that explanation too, but I don't buy it. When science can predict how nature behaves without invoking God, doesn't that suggest that God is not influencing the natural world today? If science can predict your decisions several seconds before you are aware of making those decisions (which experiments have apparently demonstrated) then doesn't that suggest that we humans are much more like biological robots than we would like to admit?

Not really.

Let's assume for a minute that we are, in fact, computer programs living within a giant computer program. Just because we are able to predict how things are supposed to behave, since things will behave according to their code, does that mean that a programmer didn't originally design it to work the way it does?

I would imagine those experiments are able to detect the biological processes that we go though when making a decision and seeing which way it's going to go. I still would believe that we are making that decision.

 

[cloudyday2]

That is a possible assumption, but if one believes in God what would be the reason for arriving at that conclusion?

My question would be: if science could predict everything in nature perfectly (including the "free will decisions" of humans), wouldn't you conclude that natural world is completely detached from any supernatural worlds that might exist? That would mean humans do not have souls or spirits and God no longer has a relationship with this world. God would be at most a clockmaker who abandoned the clock.

Of course quantum mechanics threw a monkey wrench into the clockwork universe idea, but there are some things that science can predict like clockwork. Also, if humans have a relationship with God, wouldn't that mean humans know something about God's goals? If humans know God's goals, wouldn't it be possible to test if these goals are being achieved in ways that can't be explained by a totally naturalist view? Too often we make excuses for God's behavior (the Lord works in mysterious ways...). If God has a relationship with humans, then we ought to be able to detect him scientifically IMO - even if God acts only through the randomness in QM. If I continually win at the slot machine after promising to give all the winnings to the local mosque, wouldn't that be suggestive that God exists? If we never see anything like this happening, then wouldn't this suggest that God is inert or non-existent?

If one believes in God, it would seem to make more sense to conclude that a God who is revealed to be active within the world is not exiled from the world through natural knowledge of the world.

I don't see where God is revealed to be active within the world.

 

[cloudyday2]

Not really.

Let's assume for a minute that we are, in fact, computer programs living within a giant computer program. Just because we are able to predict how things are supposed to behave, since things will behave according to their code, does that mean that a programmer didn't originally design it to work the way it does?

Yes, deism is an acceptable belief, because the deist God is only involved in creation. Deist god puts the universe on the shelf and forgets about it forever. But Judaism is not deism, right? Christianity and Islam are not deism.

I would imagine those experiments are able to detect the biological processes that we go though when making a decision and seeing which way it's going to go. I still would believe that we are making that decision.

Someday we might be able to model the human brain accurately enough to predict human behavior. That might be even more persuasive.

 

[LoAmmi]

Yes, deism is an acceptable belief, because the deist God is only involved in creation. Deist god puts the universe on the shelf and forgets about it forever. But Judaism is not deism, right? Christianity and Islam are not deism.

No it isn't. But that's not what I'm discussing. In my mind, it isn't a state of constant interference where we shouldn't be able to predict things. The processes of the Universe are setup to be predictable, are setup to be basically self-sufficient if that makes sense. In fact, the few times that direct intervention happens, it would be just like the programmer making a small change to something that we wouldn't even be able to detect.

 

[LoAmmi]

Someday we might be able to model the human brain accurately enough to predict human behavior. That might be even more persuasive.

Creativity might be the part you will never be able to explain with pure biology. Soup or salad might be easy to predict, but reading a novel isn't something predictable.

 

[cloudyday2]

Thanks, @RevelationTestament, for some reason I can't quote your post.

What you said here was particularly interesting to me:

According to heavenly Father, if we saw Him in His fullness, we would die, so He sent Christ to be His revelator/agent. If we understand Jesus Christ, we should be better able to understand the Father.

Imagine we humans are entirely natural. We don't have a soul, but our brains imagine a soul. If we see God the Father, that would mean seeing that we ourselves do not actually exist. Our sense of self is a delusion. This would be similar to death.

 

[cloudyday2]

No it isn't. But that's not what I'm discussing. In my mind, it isn't a state of constant interference where we shouldn't be able to predict things. The processes of the Universe are setup to be predictable, are setup to be basically self-sufficient if that makes sense. In fact, the few times that direct intervention happens, it would be just like the programmer making a small change to something that we wouldn't even be able to detect.

The computer simulation is an interesting analogy. A programmer can attach a debugger and single-step, change variables, etc. A programmer can change the code and give the universe a fresh start. A programmer might also leave some state information from previous runs of the universe (like upgrading the OS without disturbing the data on the hard disk). People inside the simulated universe may or may not have ways of detecting.

 

[cloudyday2]

BTW, I don't know what I think on the question in the OP. I'm hoping this discussion might give me some ideas. In other words, I'm not pushing a particular view; I am only trying to highlight the problems. Theists have a duty to define exactly how God can fit into science instead of simply claiming there is no conflict. (IMO)