The ultimate and inevitable conclusion about science and religion

[Miles]

Let's project ourselves about 10,000 years into the future. By then we'll have a whole lot more figured out than we do right now. We might have just about everything figured out.

Now, what if we go futher, and say we have all of it figured out? We know all the laws of nature, we have found the theory of theories or whatever it is that theoretical physicists are looking for, we understand our origins completely, etc. And all of it has a natural, scientific explanation. Would there still be a reason to believe in a god or gods or anything supernatural?

Perhaps a better question might be:

If we know everything about our natural world, and our understanding is complete, will there still be a reason to have scientists?




But that's not going to happen. Rest assured, we won't have all the answers, and there will be still be folks trying to understand the bigger (and smaller) picture.

However, I doubt that this will be a threat to believers. As others have mentioned, theists and religious people in general, don't necessarily turn to God for the same reasons that they (many theistic and atheistic alike) turn to science. Not all believe their creator is simply a "God of the gaps".

 

[Socrastein]

But you say creator Mr. K. Why postulate a creator if there is absolutely no need for creation? Just for fun?

 

[enlightenment]

I take it you are not one such person, but the vast majority of theists I have talked to (Maybe it's just where I live?) believe in God because they believe something needs an explanation.

I have found that to be true also, with the exception of some of the Christians here on CF that I have recently talked to...it's been interesting.

I can't think why someone would believe in God other than because they somehow thought that there was evidence or reason of his needing to exist.

That is my reasoning as well, though, as a seeker, and having recently read some very interesting posts, I am definitely open to a god-belief.

I've never heard a good reason.

Me neither.

And therefore, as I have said, belief in God seems to be completely irrational. It is either due to invalid reasoning or personal desire, but either way it is unsupported and irrational.

Seeing as how god is beyond the objective, god-belief seems to stem from personal desire. One theist told me so directly!

As for the OP - perhaps I was mistaken, and enlightenment is the only one who could verify this, but I got the impression from reading the entire context of the post that when he says "There is no God" he means "There is no supernatural entity that is required to explain any phenomenon of the universe".

You are correct. But I also was hinting that, since there was no reason to believe in a creator-god, there was no reason (apart from the sheer desire, emotionalism, etc) to believe in any god at all. It is like you said: "I can't think why someone would believe in God other than because they somehow thought that there was evidence or reason of his needing to exist."

Then you missed the point that the OP and I were discussing spectacularly since neither of us were discussing appealing to the supernatural for anything. We were discussing weather science can be used to exclude the supernatural.

Not quite...but almost. If there is no scientific reason to believe in a god, why god-belief? If there are no more gaps, where's the room for god? Maybe science can be used to exclude god. Why believe in a god that is inaccessible, distant, and irrelevant to the universe (it didn't take part in its creation or affairs)?

Up to that point he is specifically addressing appeals to the supernatural to explain this or that. In his conclusion he states that there is no reason to appeal to the supernatural, for science gives explanations for all the "gaps" where people insert God.

Yup.

So like I said, I think people were missing the point of the OP. I don't believe that enlightenment was saying "Science has proven that God does not exist",

I was hinting at it...

I believe that he was saying "Science has rendered appeals to the supernatural completely unnecessary and irrational".

That was my stronger point, yes.

I could be wrong, and once again only he can verify this, but judging by the context of the post this seems to be what he was saying.

And I have simply been echoing this thought thus far. You must realize if you are not already aware, that there are a great many people (The vast majority in my opinion) who believe in God because they believe he is required to explain something they do not understand. The God of the gaps is the most widespread God so far as I have known.

How true!

The most common response I get from asking people "Why do you believe in God?" is "Where did everything come from?"

That has been my experience as well.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I'm definitely not going to keep pointing out how your accusations of fallacies are flawed, because it seems pointless to do so with someone who thinks that because they scored high on some essays you can't be wrong.

You have missed my point yet again. I don’t think I can’t be wrong, I brought that up only to debunk your accusation that I didn’t understand the topic, not to imply i can’t be wrong.

You seem to have zero desire for a meaningful discussion. You are like any number of other people who debate by going line for line with a remark, never seeing the entire post in context, just seeing it as one statement to attack at a time. I tried to pick out key points of your last post and address them, hoping you'd catch on and do the same, but once again I get the infamous quote a sentence/attack, quote/attack, quote/attack format from you.

You know, that is totally disingenuous my posts may have been formatted in this manner but have none the less been an overall consistent argument. You just can’t seem to understand pr be able to cope with the fact that I don’t agree with you, or the OP. Of course I am interested in a meaningful debate and until you leapt in, desperate to justify atheism as the only option for the right thinking man, the OP and I were managing quite well to have one.

The primary reason to present posts as a quote/rebuttal, quote/rebuttal format is for ease of reference, allowing all participants to follow the debate easily and refer back to the exact part of the post that is being referenced. I find it disingenuous that you would happily use the method yourself then suddenly try to claim that I must have a dishonest reason for using the same format.

You have tried everything possible to cast one form of aspersion or another on me, from calling me pathetic to suggesting a dishonest reason for the format of my posts. That is a strong indication that you are the one not interested in a meaningful debate, just in scoring some points to salve your ego.

I take it you are not one such person, but the vast majority of theists I have talked to (Maybe it's just where I live?) believe in God because they believe something needs an explanation. They think life couldn't have evolved, they think the universe couldn't have been without cause, they think morality is absolute and had to come from somewhere, they think love is impossible without God, etc. My point was that none of these appeals are necessary, because all have natural, rational explanations.

My point is that the debate was not about the necessity of the appealing to a deity but about the inevitability of a conclusion based on science. If you want to have a debate about the perceived necessity of appealing to a deity to explain things then start another thread about it.

Furthermore your experience of theistic is just anecdotal evidence. Its not even convincing anecdotal evidence since you have been posting here for some time now and there are many TEs here who very much do not believe in God just to fill in a gap in explanatory frame work. When was the last time i did that for example? Or any of the other TEs here for that matter?

I can't think why someone would believe in God other than because they somehow thought that there was evidence or reason of his needing to exist. I've never heard a good reason. And therefore, as I have said, belief in God seems to be completely irrational. It is either due to invalid reasoning or personal desire, but either way it is unsupported and irrational.

That depends on your definition of irrational. As a some one with a degree of training in discourse analysis we tend to use the term arational for something that is neither based on not contrary to reason, allowing a more precise understanding. We use irrational to mean abandoning and contrary to evidence. If that is not how you are using the term, if you are using it the way I use arational then I accept the charge, but the tone of your posts was sufficiently disrespectful that I believed you to mean the latter definition and not the former.

As for the OP - perhaps I was mistaken, and enlightenment is the only one who could verify this, but I got the impression from reading the entire context of the post that when he says "There is no God" he means "There is no supernatural entity that is required to explain any phenomenon of the universe". Up to that point he is specifically addressing appeals to the supernatural to explain this or that. In his conclusion he states that there is no reason to appeal to the supernatural, for science gives explanations for all the "gaps" where people insert God. So like I said, I think people were missing the point of the OP. I don't believe that enlightenment was saying "Science has proven that God does not exist", I believe that he was saying "Science has rendered appeals to the supernatural completely unnecessary and irrational". I could be wrong, and once again only he can verify this, but judging by the context of the post this seems to be what he was saying.

I still don’t think I am being clear about the thrust of my argument. Yes you are correct in what you are saying up to a point, the point is he was asserting that science can lead us to make that conclusion and my point is that it can’t because by definition it refuses to let us use it to make any conclusion on the subject.

And I have simply been echoing this thought thus far. You must realize if you are not already aware, that there are a great many people (The vast majority in my opinion) who believe in God because they believe he is required to explain something they do not understand. The God of the gaps is the most widespread God so far as I have known. The most common response I get from asking people "Why do you believe in God?" is "Where did everything come from?"

What evidence do you have for this assertion beyond your anecdotal experience? You see i can throw out the same level of “evidence” because in my experience the majority of theists I know don’t believe in God to fill an explanatory gap. However, I’ve been avoiding saying that because its anecdotal “evidence” and anecdotal evidence isn’t worth anything. So do you have anything else at all to back up your assertion, and even if you do, why does that mean we can make an inductive leap that because a great many people believe in God to fill an explanatory Gap that this is always the case. Inductive leaps like that are not good science or good logic, and again I suggest reading some Popper to get a better understanding of why, since he is far less verbose than I.

And no, I'm not going to address Jet Black or anyone else on the evidence issue. I had misunderstood forerunner and the way he was using the phrase, and now that I understand, I see no reason to press the issue.

That's fine, we just wanted to know that you had realised that you had misunderstood the distinction forerunner was making. We don’t want to rub your nose in it. I asked if you were going to address jet Black not to humiliate you but because up till that point I hadn’t seen any indication that you acknowledged your misunderstanding of forerunners argument. Now that you have done there is no reason, as you correctly point out, to press the issue.

Ghost

 

[Socrastein]

Enlightenment has clarified exactly what the message of his OP was, and it was as I suspected. You seem to have misunderstood him (understandably, due to his wording) and thus misunderstood me. Now that this is realized, your arguments are irrelevent and I suspect you will drop them. (That is not intended to sound mean. I tried to think of a couple ways to reword it nicely, but I didn't know how to without losing simple effectiveness. I'm just trying to say "Well that's settled, let's move on")

Yes, I realize that we are both using different versions of the word irrational. I don't so much care for the word used as I do for the concept being conveyed. I understand what you mean by irrational, and you understand what I mean by irrational. That is good enough, and I doubt you are anymore interested in fighting for who's words are superior than I am.

And you ask for evidence for my personal experience beyond anecdotal evidence. I don't quite know how to present such evidence. My personal experience is that the majority of people I talk to, including in person and online, believe in God because they think something in the universe, or the universe itself, doesn't make sense without Him. I can't give evidence of that, I can only explain that this has been my experience. Enlightenment also echoes my experience saying it has been much the same for him too.

Also, I never meant to say that because a lot of people believe God is required to explain something, that everyone does. I don't know where I conveyed this message, but I did so accidentally for sure. I even specifically said that some people simply believe out of personal desire, which obviously contradicts the notion that I would think everyone believes to fill in gaps.

Thanks for your more succinct and structured post by the way. And I'm sorry if you ever got the impression that I came into this thread to persecute theists like some intellectual Hitler. I live in the state of Idaho in the US, a very rural state that is extremely conservative. I am absolutely swimming in theists, and yet I still have a great many friends. I do not bash or persecute them, but if and when we do get into a discussion on theism or religion, I do point out that I think their views are irrational/arational. This thread is specifically about the irrationality to believing in God when there is no good reason to believe in God, and thus in this thread I have expounded on this point, reitterating the notion that belief in God without evidential/logical support is irrational, mostly to clear up what I saw as misunderstandings of the OP.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I have found that to be true also, with the exception of some of the Christians here on CF that I have recently talked to...it's been interesting.

That is my reasoning as well, though, as a seeker, and having recently read some very interesting posts, I am definitely open to a god-belief.

Me neither.

Seeing as how god is beyond the objective, god-belief seems to stem from personal desire. One theist told me so directly!

Interesting progression of thoughts here. I think there are many different reasons why different people believe in God. It is a far more complex subject that I think we have touched on here.

You are correct. But I also was hinting that, since there was no reason to believe in a creator-god, there was no reason (apart from the sheer desire, emotionalism, etc) to believe in any god at all. It is like you said: "I can't think why someone would believe in God other than because they somehow thought that there was evidence or reason of his needing to exist."

quite...but almost. If there is no scientific reason to believe in a god, why god-belief? If there are no more gaps, where's the room for god? Maybe science can be used to exclude god. Why believe in a god that is inaccessible, distant, and irrelevant to the universe (it didn't take part in its creation or affairs)?[/font]

That's just it, science can’t be used to exclude God, because it has to pass into the metaphysical world to do it. Its simply one of those questions we have to accept that we will never get an answer to. I’m not really very certain why it matters to people. other than we are curious creatures who hate unanswered questions. Oh certainly I understand that there are people who think belief in God is a salvation issue, but I’ve never had much truck with that line of argument. That seems to be an argument from fear, and any deity that demands belief in him for salvations sake then refuses to provide proof of his existence doesn’t sound terribly nice to me.

The problem seems to lie in attempting to use science as a tool to discover the metaphysical truths. Sadly it can’t do that. I appreciate you are a seeker and so are desperately interested in knowing the answers to the question “Does God exist” and I’m sorry but I can’t think of anyway to answer that question either in the negative or the affirmative. You will hear a lot of people say “yes their is and here is the proof” and then present something that falls a long way short of it. Just remember if they claim to have scientific proof of God then its either not scientific or the God they have proven isn’t supernatural. Whether they like it or not its a matter of faith in the absence of evidence, but don’t be fooled into thinking its faith contrary to evidence either, because its a matter we can’t have evidence for or against. Of course we can see evidence that falsifies biblical literalism, but that's not the same.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Enlightenment has clarified exactly what the message of his OP was, and it was as I suspected. You seem to have misunderstood him (understandably, due to his wording) and thus misunderstood me.
Now that this is realized, your arguments are irrelevent and I suspect you will drop them. (That is not intended to sound mean. I tried to think of a couple ways to reword it nicely, but I didn't know how to without losing simple effectiveness. I'm just trying to say "Well that's settled, let's move on")

Lol, that's rather a nice bit of selective reading, since he also mentions he was hinting at exactly what I claimed he was hinting at.

His argument still hinges on the question “can science be used to draw the conclusion there is no God” and my answer is still, no. It can’t be used to draw a conclusion about the metaphysical. However, on his other questions, “Is there a need for God to explain creation”, No, there isn’t. Anyone who believes in God just to answer “where did the universe come from” is ignoring the fact that we don’t really need a supernatural explanation for it. Now before JohnR7 jumps in with a “first cause” I would like to head it off by saying, just becase we don’t yet know does not mean we will never know first cause, and if the universe needs one then God needs one as well.

As for sounding mean don’t worry about it, I think you did a very good job of re-wording it this time, and more succinctly than I usually manage. (You may notice I am terribly verbose at times, its my only real failing )

Yes, I realize that we are both using different versions of the word irrational. I don't so much care for the word used as I do for the concept being conveyed. I understand what you mean by irrational, and you understand what I mean by irrational. That is good enough, and I doubt you are anymore interested in fighting for who's words are superior than I am.

Not in the slightest interested no. I am happy enough with knowing that by irrational you mean “not based on reason” as opposed to “contrary to reason and evidence”. Now I know you don’t mean all theists are insane that's enough for me.

And you ask for evidence for my personal experience beyond anecdotal evidence. I don't quite know how to present such evidence. My personal experience is that the majority of people I talk to, including in person and online, believe in God because they think something in the universe, or the universe itself, doesn't make sense without Him. I can't give evidence of that, I can only explain that this has been my experience. Enlightenment also echoes my experience saying it has been much the same for him too.

Then its anecdotal evidence and nothing more. As long as you acknowledge that its nothing more than anecdotal evidence and don’t try to expand its relevance I am quite happy to leave it at that. My beef is with people who use anecdotal evidence as if it had any broader signifigance.

Thanks for your more succinct and structured post by the way. And I'm sorry if you ever got the impression that I came into this thread to persecute theists like some intellectual Hitler. I live in the state of Idaho in the US, a very rural state that is extremely conservative. I am absolutely swimming in theists, and yet I still have a great many friends. I do not bash or persecute them, but if and when we do get into a discussion on theism or religion, I do point out that I think their views are irrational/arational. This thread is specifically about the irrationality to believing in God when there is no good reason to believe in God, and thus in this thread I have expounded on this point, reitterating the notion that belief in God without evidential/logical support is irrational, mostly to clear up what I saw as misunderstandings of the OP.

I’m not certain my last post was any more structured than the others. As for you being an intellectual Hitler you would have to type in a far more convincing Austrian accent for that. No you did come off as rather militant, but if that was a misrepresentation of your position then fair enough. It could well have been a combination of mistakes on both our parts that gave rise to that impression in my view.

However, I maintain that in answering the thread it is vital to point out that it is not the “ultimate and inevitable conclusion” of science that there is no God. Only that there is no necessity for their to be one, which is as far as a naturalistic argument can legitimately go without violating the principles of the method.

Ghost

 

[Socrastein]

However, I maintain that in answering the thread it is vital to point out that it is not the “ultimate and inevitable conclusion” of science that there is no God. Only that there is no necessity for their to be one, which is as far as a naturalistic argument can legitimately go without violating the principles of the method.

I fully agree

 

[Miles]

However, I maintain that in answering the thread it is vital to point out that it is not the “ultimate and inevitable conclusion” of science that there is no God. Only that there is no necessity for their to be one, which is as far as a naturalistic argument can legitimately go without violating the principles of the method.

Then are you saying that the "ultimate and inevitable conclusion" of science is that there is no necessity for there to be a God?

I agree that science doesn't really deal with the question of God, and as such, there's no necessity to agree that there is one (or that there isn't one!).

However, I don't think that qualifies as an "ultimate and inevitible conclusion", in terms of scientific understanding.


We're free to draw our own conclusions, based on what we think is most likely, given the data we are presented. Personally, I think there's most likely a God (at this belief's root, simply because matter and what it's made of even exists etc.). Some reach a different conclusion altogether. And that's fine. However, it's not a conclusion of science, as God questions are beyond the capacity of true science to answer.

 

[enlightenment]

That's just it, science can’t be used to exclude God, because it has to pass into the metaphysical world to do it. Its simply one of those questions we have to accept that we will never get an answer to.

Why? Because we want to? Because we need to?

I’m not really very certain why it matters to people. other than we are curious creatures who hate unanswered questions. Oh certainly I understand that there are people who think belief in God is a salvation issue, but I’ve never had much truck with that line of argument. That seems to be an argument from fear, and any deity that demands belief in him for salvations sake then refuses to provide proof of his existence doesn’t sound terribly nice to me.

I agree.

The problem seems to lie in attempting to use science as a tool to discover the metaphysical truths. Sadly it can’t do that. I appreciate you are a seeker and so are desperately interested in knowing the answers to the question “Does God exist” and I’m sorry but I can’t think of anyway to answer that question either in the negative or the affirmative. You will hear a lot of people say “yes their is and here is the proof” and then present something that falls a long way short of it.

Tell me about it!!!!!!

Just remember if they claim to have scientific proof of God then its either not scientific or the God they have proven isn’t supernatural.

Yup.

Whether they like it or not its a matter of faith in the absence of evidence, but don’t be fooled into thinking its faith contrary to evidence either, because its a matter we can’t have evidence for or against. Of course we can see evidence that falsifies biblical literalism, but that's not the same.

Ghost

So, why would someone have faith then? That's the part that I don't get.

 

[enlightenment]

Then are you saying that the "ultimate and inevitable conclusion" of science is that there is no necessity for there to be a God?

That's at least one thing I think we have established here in this thread.

God questions are beyond the capacity of true science to answer.

We go where no man has gone before...(or at least, where I have not gone before)... The statements in your quotes are new concepts that I am trying to get my brain around. I'm so used to discussing these things with literalists and fundamentalists...

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Why? Because we want to? Because we need to?

So, why would someone have faith then? That's the part that I don't get.

Why look for love when a buisness like partnership would get you more? Because we as humans have feelings and fulfilling those feelings is what we try to do, whether there is true love or a God doesn't really matter, it is the search for Love or God that matters IMHO.

 

[Socrastein]

Why look for love when a buisness like partnership would get you more? Because we as humans have feelings and fulfilling those feelings is what we try to do, whether there is true love or a God doesn't really matter, it is the search for Love or God that matters IMHO.

Yes, but if a guy convinced himself that his blow-up doll was real and was desperately in love with him, we'd call him crazy. Yet there's no problem with people telling themselves that this omnipresent imaginary friend is real and loves them very much, we just call that faith.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Why? Because we want to? Because we need to?

Because it is a central tenet of science that it does not provided answers to the metaphysical. It has to be, because science can only study the natural. That does not mean it excludes the possibility of things outside the natural, only that science can’t look into those possibilities.

So, why would someone have faith then? That's the part that I don't get.

I am afraid i can’t answer that question for you, if you don’t have faith I can’t explain why others do. I am not even certain I can articulate why I do. Other people who have often (but not, I must add) understand. Now that's not an attempt to dodge your question it is an admission that I am not articulate enough to explain my reasons. (And oh how I hate to admit such a fallibility )

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Yes, but if a guy convinced himself that his blow-up doll was real and was desperately in love with him, we'd call him crazy. Yet there's no problem with people telling themselves that this omnipresent imaginary friend is real and loves them very much, we just call that faith.

Yes but once again you are confusing a proposition we have evidence against with a proposition we have no evidence for either way.

Ghost

 

[Socrastein]

Yes but once again you are confusing a proposition we have evidence against with a proposition we have no evidence for either way.

I could have just as easily given an example that we don't have evidence for or against that people would still consider crazy. Like a man who believes there is an tiny, intangible, magical elf that lives in side his right ear canal? No evidence either way, but that wouldn't stop the vast majority of people from saying this guy is crazy.

Either way, my point is the same. Completely unsupported and unnecessary conjectures are usually seen as silly by most people, except when it comes to God for some reason.

 

[Jet Black]

I could have just as easily given an example that we don't have evidence for or against that people would still consider crazy. Like a man who believes there is an tiny, intangible, magical elf that lives in side his right ear canal? No evidence either way, but that wouldn't stop the vast majority of people from saying this guy is crazy.

Either way, my point is the same. Completely unsupported and unnecessary conjectures are usually seen as silly by most people, except when it comes to God for some reason.

or even just the generic "voices told me to do it"

 

[Socrastein]

or even just the generic "voices told me to do it"

Yes, that's always crazy. But a subtle rephrase into "God spoke to my heart" and the crazy factor is nullified. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Yes, but if a guy convinced himself that his blow-up doll was real and was desperately in love with him, we'd call him crazy. Yet there's no problem with people telling themselves that this omnipresent imaginary friend is real and loves them very much, we just call that faith.

However, we can test the doll and show the love to be imaginary, we cannot test God with any of the current tools available to us.



If you are calling someone who accepts something that cannot be currently tested crazy then you have also called half the scientists in the world crazy and all the theoretical physicists. And since you probably believe that you exist you must be crazy too since we cannot test that.

 

[tryptophan]

I don't think there is any scientific reason to believe in God, but I do think that one can come to a belief in God from personal experience or thought. I don't think that it is inevitable that science will state that belief in God is counter to sense. I think that for some people, belief in God is something inherrent in them. Whether that belief comes from God himself or just some basic physiological thing is a point for another thread.