Does God Exist - the case for reconciling the scientific with the divine

[PETRUS]

http://life.salon.com/2011/10/02/how_science_and_faith_coexist/

As a both a scientist and a humanist myself, I have struggled to understand different claims to knowledge, and I have eventually come to a formulation of the kind of religious belief that would, in my view, be compatible with science. The first step in this journey is to state what I will call the Central Doctrine of science: All properties and events in the physical universe are governed by laws, and those laws are true at every time and place in the universe.

*snip*

Next, a working definition of God. (As a scientist, I must define my terms.) For the purposes of this discussion, and in agreement with almost all religions, God is a being not restricted by the laws that govern matter and energy in the physical universe. In other words, God exists outside matter and energy. In most religions, this Being acts with purpose and will, sometimes violating existing physical laws (i.e., performing miracles), and has additional qualities such as intelligence, compassion and omniscience.

Tucking these axioms under our belt, we can say that science and God are compatible as long as the latter is content to stand on the sidelines once the universe has begun.

*snip*

Finally, I believe there are things we take on faith, without physical proof and even sometimes without any methodology for proof. We cannot clearly show why the ending of a particular novel haunts us. We cannot prove under what conditions we would sacrifice our own life in order to save the life of our child. We cannot prove whether it is right or wrong to steal in order to feed our family, or even agree on a definition of “right” and “wrong.” We cannot prove the meaning of our life, or whether life has any meaning at all.

*snip*

As another example, I cannot prove that the Central Doctrine of science is true.

[Boojatta]

1. If you recommend that we read the article, then you should give more than merely a title and link.

If you aren't recommending that we read the article, then you should provide some clue about why you are posting the link.

[PETRUS]

2. thanks

Added some text on edit. I'm new to this and didn't think of that, but once you pointed it out, the value of doing so was obvious.

[Boojatta]

3. Thank you.

In hindsight, it was a mistake for me to post in the thread to make my recommendation when I could have instead sent you a private message. On the other hand, others might have learned from both of our mistakes.

[Jim__]

4. Interesting essay. I took 2 main thoughts away from it.

The first is that the Central Doctrine of science may well be true; but I doubt if any human will actually ever know. Our brains evolved to solve the problem of surviving on earth. There are bound to be aspects of the universe to which we are completely blind.

The second is that one of the most enjoyable parts of human life is seeking answers to questions. If we could ever know the anwers to all of our questions, I'm not sure there would remain much point to living.

[Kurmudgeon]

5. Ants declare that Men do not exist, because they can't perceive that Men are not Ants

An Ant can walk all over your toe and have no idea what you are other than just another bump in the landscape.

[stopbush]

6. But ants didn't invent men, while men did invent god.

[Kurmudgeon]

8. That's merely an assumption.

[cleanhippie]

11. No it's not and you know it.

He who claims that a god exists has the burden of proving that claim to be true. Neither you nor anyone else has ever proven that claim, so it stands to reason that man DID, in fact, create god.

[cleanhippie]

7. Not entirely true. Ant DO perceive humans and other animals, as they DO react to them.

What they don't perceive is themselves

[Kurmudgeon]

9. As Men react to God's Creation and no doubt act towards God without seeing..

Men perceive themselves too much, and too little else.

[cleanhippie]

10. Again, not true at all. I have never reacted to "gods creation". Ever.

Because god is a figment of imagination and has not been proven to exist, how can anyone react to it?

And I notice that you did not respond to the topic at hand which is whether ants perceive humans, which they do.

[Deep13]

14. a priori

You assume that god created it with no basis in fact for the assumption. That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And if humans are more concerned with humans than they are with god, that makes perfect sense. Humans are real.

[Deep13]

13. That analogy only works because we know men exist.

So you example presupposes the existence of what it is trying to prove.

And if ants could observe and think--which they can't--they would have real evidence for the existence of men (and women too, if you want to include the other half of adult humanity). Not least of which is that ants can see and smell us.

[darkstar3]

15. Presumption on your part, and ignorant of the idea of the boot and the magnifying glass.

Ants have direct evidence of the existence of humans, so your analogy falls flatter than it would have if it were merely presumption.

[Deep13]

12. Disagree with the premise for two reasons.

A god that does nothing after creation isn't really a god. That's deism, which was the extent to which most skeptics could reject religion before they understood how Darwinism could cause complex life to emerge from simplicity.

Second, to be compatible with science, the hypothesis has to arise from the evidence. Right now there is no evidence suggesting god, nor is there any observed phenomena that requires god as an explanation (keeping in mind that a presently unknown explanation does not necessitate a resort to the divine.)

[struggle4progress]

16. The author seems to me to misunderstand the significance of the Central Doctrine of Science

that he states

I think he states it correctly. And I find it unobjectionable -- in fact, it seems to me the sine qua non of scientific work: one assumes one can improve and better piece-together our existing intellectual charts of the material world. Why would anyone try to make the effort to improve those intellectual charts, if one did not think it could not be done? In fact, the proper scientific response to a claim, that our existing intellectual charts cannot be improved and better pieced-together, is simply that the claim has nothing to do with the scientific enterprise

On the other hand, I reject the philosophical view that one must take this Central Doctrine of Science as determining the alpha-and-omega of human experience