God vs. Science

[LoAmmi]

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.

And if we assume this programmer has 100% knowledge of the system, how it works, what they can do to influence things, then it isn't impossible to imagine situations where changes made would look entirely natural. But even a big intervention, such as parting the Red Sea (let's not debate if it happened, not the point) would be a one-time event that we could only experience and detect at the time. Later it wouldn't appear that anything really happened.

 

[dlamberth]

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

For Panentheist anyway, its quite the opposite. Science can work fully hand in hand with Panentheism. Not being a Pantheist, I'd rather not comment for them.

.

 

[dlamberth]

Theists have a duty to define exactly how God can fit into science instead of simply claiming there is no conflict. (IMO)

That's true ONLY if we are trying to "make" you see the relationship between science and God. Otherwise I don't think that I have a duty for anything.

.

 

[Soyeong]

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

For instance, a random number generator is not really random because every time you set the seed number to a certain position you will get the same set of numbers. To someone who does not know the seed number it will appear as random, but someone with the seed number will be able to predict the next number with 100% accuracy. We might not yet know how to make predictions on a quantum level or it might even be impossible for us to make a prediction, so it would appear random with respect to us, but it wouldn't mean that randomness is part of nature. If the universe is not necessary, then there is something that is causing it to be the way it is and not some other way. If something can be purely random without anything causing it to be the way it is, then that undermines causality and essentially cuts off the branch that we are sitting on. Thought can't be used to show that the rules of thought are wrong.

 

[RevelationTestament]

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.

Well, there is a spiritual aspect to "seeing" the Father. If we "see" Him or understand Him, we also understand His oracles, which call us to lay down our lives for our brethren - so it is possible that no man can "see" the Father in this sense and live - the "man" dies. At this point I should probably point out that English peoples do not really understand the Hebrew concept of "man." The Hebrew uses at least 4 different words for "man."
If we "see" God, we "see" our nakedness like Adam and Eve, thus, they had to "die." In this sense I do agree that our sense of self is a delusion. We cannot "hide" our thoughts from God. We lie naked before Him. In this sense He is in us, but we are not in Him except to the extent that we live in Christ. Man largely does not understand their oneness.

• Matthew 11:27
  27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
  
  
• Luke 10:22
  22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

 

[RevelationTestament]

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)

That assumes God can fit into our understanding of science, which I was trying to point out is not necessarily the case. God may be bound by the laws of the universe, but that doesn't mean we understand even a tenth of them...
And I do believe that He can manipulate the "natural" events we experience. How He can do that is beyond our understanding I believe.
When I say I see no "conflict" I mean that I see no conflict between God's version of creation in the Bible and man's current knowledge of the universe. I believe the main conflict comes from a literal interpretation of the "six" days of creation. However, the Hebrew word being interpreted as day there, yom, can refer to a long period of time - it really means light as opposed to darkness. The NT teaches that these days can refer to a thousand years - as in the seven seals occurring over a thousand years each for instance. Each thousand years has a period of "light" and a period of darkness or apostasy. The last or seventh seal is His Sabbath when the earth shall be made clean.

 

[single eye]

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 are confused, doctors and scientists do not solve problems, they merely exchange one problem for another. If scientists were serious about health they would be advocating amending farm soil with essential trace minerals like zinc, selenium, iodine, and manganese rather than corrupting our food with toxic chemicals.

 

[cloudyday2]

For instance, a random number generator is not really random because every time you set the seed number to a certain position you will get the same set of numbers. To someone who does not know the seed number it will appear as random, but someone with the seed number will be able to predict the next number with 100% accuracy. We might not yet know how to make predictions on a quantum level or it might even be impossible for us to make prediction, so it would be random with respect to us, but it wouldn't mean that randomness is part of nature. If the universe is not necessarily, then there is something that is causing it to be the way it is and not some other way. If something can be purely random without anything causing it to be the way it is, then that undermines causality and essentially cuts off the branch that we are sitting on. Thought can't be used to show that the rules of thought are wrong.

Thanks, this is a key issue IMO. What does random mean in QM, and can supernatural actors leverage the randomness in QM to achieve their goals without leaving evidence?

I believe "random" in QM means that experimental data from QM passes formal randomness tests ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests ). A shuffled deck of cards with one of the cards missing would not pass a formal randomness test. If God tried to manage nature by making certain outcomes more likely, then I think we could theoretically detect this divine meddling using randomness tests. It all depends how much God tries to do. I would argue that God is limited to being irrelevant in the world if He wishes to remain invisible to science.

 

[cloudyday2]

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

When you say God is transcendent and immanent, I see a problem. Christians believe that a relationship with God is key. This violates God's transcendent attribute, because a relationship is not possible unless both parties are effected by each other.

 

[LoAmmi]

When you say God is transcendent and immanent, I see a problem. Christians believe that a relationship with God is key. This violates God's transcendent attribute, because a relationship is not possible unless both parties are effecteded by each other.

I'll hit my analogy again since I like it. Is the programmer part of the program? I would say no, but if the programmer watched the processes and decided that he cared about something going on and influenced it in some way, that would be effecting each other while still not being part of the program itself.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'll hit my analogy again since I like it. Is the programmer part of the program? I would say no, but if the programmer watched the processes and decided that he cared about something going on and influenced it in some way, that would be effecting each other while still not being part of the program itself.

I would say the programmer is NOT transcendent over the program, because he/she is effected by writing the program. He/she is usually paid, usually gains experience, sometimes enjoys the work, etc.

The trick is where does the relationship end? A programmer who writes a computer game, may or may not play that computer game. A Christian believes that God plays with the universe that He created. God cares if Pac-man survives to reach the next level. God imbues Pac-man with some of His divine character traits as He plays the game. That means God has a relationship with Pac-man and is NOT transcendent over Pac-man. (IMO)

 

[LoAmmi]

I would say the programmer is NOT transcendent over the program, because he/she is effected by writing the program. He/she is usually paid, usually gains experience, sometimes enjoys the work, etc.

The trick is where does the relationship end. A programmer who writes a computer game, may or may not play that computer game. A Christian believes that God plays with the universe that He created. God cares if Pac-man survives to reach the next level. God imbues Pac-man with some of His divine character traits as He plays the game. That means God has a relationship with Pac-man and is NOT transcendent over Pac-man. (IMO)

I would not say that someone who writes something is part of that something. If I build a house, I am not part of that house. My work is part of that house but not me. I don't see there being any problems with viewing G-d as being distinct from and not part of the universe.

Two links for you that might help you with the Jewish understanding:
http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm

http://www.torah.org/learning/basics/nutshell/introduction.html

 

[Shodan]

C.S. Lewis gives an interesting analogy. (I think he was quoting someone else, but I read it in one of Lewis' essays in God in the Dock.)
Imagine two Chinese people going to the theater in London. One of them, with no knowledge of stagecraft or costuming or theatrical production, tries to figure out how the play is staged. The other, with no knowledge of English, tries to figure out what the play is about. The first Chinese person is the scientist; the second is the philosopher. It is clear that what each discovers can illuminate things for the other, but they are seeking different things.
The first Chinese guy wants to know what kind of paint was used on the backdrops. The answer "because the stage hand painted it" doesn't help answer that. So he doesn't consider it in his quest for understanding. Similarly, the second Chinese guy doesn't care how the stage hand held the paintbrush, or what kind of paper the play was written on. He wants to know what the play is saying.
Both are valid approaches to knowledge, but they are asking different questions.
If that makes any sense.

Regards,
Shodan

 

[morningstar2651]

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

It would be necessary for this to be possible for a scientists to be religious without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

My view of deity is something that is probably different from what you're used to hearing and is one that does not reject the truths of science.

Deities are as real as the powers that they personify.

• Aphrodite is as real as love and beauty.
• Athena is as real as wisdom.

These are intangible things that we can all agree exist. We can observe things and classify them as beautiful or classify decisions as wise, but beauty and wisdom aren't observed objectively or directly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and even wisdom isn't recognized until enough people agree that what they observe is wisdom. Vincent van Gogh wasn't viewed as creative until well after his death.

The gods exist within the collective consciousness of mankind - within a shared world of thoughts and abstract ideas - a realm that most certainly extends outside of the natural physical world.

 

[cloudyday2]

It would be necessary for this to be possible for a scientists to be religious without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

My view of deity is something that is probably different from what you're used to hearing and is one that does not reject the truths of science.

Deities are as real as the powers that they personify.

• Aphrodite is as real as love and beauty.
• Athena is as real as wisdom.

These are intangible things that we can all agree exist. We can observe things and classify them as beautiful or classify decisions as wise, but beauty and wisdom aren't observed objectively or directly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and even wisdom isn't recognized until enough people agree that what they observe is wisdom. Vincent van Gogh wasn't viewed as creative until well after his death.

The gods exist within the collective consciousness of mankind - within a shared world of thoughts and abstract ideas - a realm that most certainly extends outside of the natural physical world.

The problem is that this definition allows Santa Claus to qualify too. Santa exists within the collective consciousness of mankind, etc. Of course, at a certain level, there is no conflict between Santa and science - as long as we don't expect Santa to exist outside our imaginations and emotions. I expect more from God.

 

[cloudyday2]

C.S. Lewis gives an interesting analogy. (I think he was quoting someone else, but I read it in one of Lewis' essays in God in the Dock.)
Imagine two Chinese people going to the theater in London. One of them, with no knowledge of stagecraft or costuming or theatrical production, tries to figure out how the play is staged. The other, with no knowledge of English, tries to figure out what the play is about. The first Chinese person is the scientist; the second is the philosopher. It is clear that what each discovers can illuminate things for the other, but they are seeking different things.
The first Chinese guy wants to know what kind of paint was used on the backdrops. The answer "because the stage hand painted it" doesn't help answer that. So he doesn't consider it in his quest for understanding. Similarly, the second Chinese guy doesn't care how the stage hand held the paintbrush, or what kind of paper the play was written on. He wants to know what the play is saying.
Both are valid approaches to knowledge, but they are asking different questions.
If that makes any sense.

Regards,
Shodan

I have to think about that. Sometimes I think the "how" and "why" distinction is not very persuasive.

 

[bhsmte]

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?

How do you define; "pure science" and "pure religion"?

 

[gord44]

The problem is that this definition allows Santa Claus to qualify too. Santa exists within the collective consciousness of mankind, etc. Of course, at a certain level, there is no conflict between Santa and science - as long as we don't expect Santa to exist outside our imaginations and emotions. I expect more from God.

That's just it though. Santa is a good example of what a 'personified' God is in our reality. Santa has a few fail safes in that adults all agree he doesn't truly exist, but the basic idea is the same.

 

[cloudyday2]

I would not say that someone who writes something is part of that something. If I build a house, I am not part of that house. My work is part of that house but not me. I don't see there being any problems with viewing G-d as being distinct from and not part of the universe.

Two links for you that might help you with the Jewish understanding:
http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm

http://www.torah.org/learning/basics/nutshell/introduction.html

Thanks, the "God is one" idea reminds me of Jung (? or somebody else) who believed synchronicities were a result of separate things being connected in the past. I can't remember what that theory is called.

A physicist on another forum pointed-out that the probability wave of particles "located" on Earth actually cover the entire universe. There is a small probability that an Earth particle will cause an event on Mars. Of course there is the quantum entanglement too. Things that seem to be separate in the universe are actually connected apparently.

 

[RevelationTestament]

I believe "random" in QM means that experimental data from QM passes formal randomness tests ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests ). A shuffled deck of cards with one of the cards missing would not pass a formal randomness test. If God tried to manage nature by making certain outcomes more likely, then I think we could theoretically detect this divine meddling using randomness tests. It all depends how much God tries to do. I would argue that God is limited to being irrelevant in the world if He wishes to remain invisible to science.

I believe YHWH doesn't want to be the object of a proof. Otherwise, He would do things differently. He might give each of us a vision and say "follow my commandments." Instead He has servants who sow the seed - it lives in the hearts of some, and they follow. He is a spiritual being which is what Jesus was trying to teach by telling us that like us, He is spirit.