A Question for Theists and Non-Theists

[underthesun]

It's no problem! I've had to do the same.

No, it doesn't necessarily make it wrong but it does make it questionable and if the person who had the experience doesn't do whatever they can to verify it, especially if it's an extreme claim, then what guarantee is there that it's a valid experience to begin with. And no, I think that all extreme claims, regardless of source, need to be validated. We're all aware that there are cars on the road. If someone makes a claim that there are invisible, intelligent cars on the road that are just waiting to run over the unsuspecting pedestrian, that requires evidence because it's an extraordinary claim.​

But who gets to decide what is classified as an 'extreme' claim, and therefore what requires validation? Where is the line?

Sure, they can do that but they'd be wrong. I'm not just talking about the name for a particular bird in a different language, but if you point at a cat and call it a dog, that's not cultural differences, that's just plain error.​

I understand your point, but I was trying to specifically make an analogy in response to your "why is it God and not Zeus" argument. So, in that case, it is just about cultural differences, not something being a different species. ...I don't know that I explained myself well. Do you understand what I am trying to get at?

Yet most don't have an experience that directly points to the divine, they insert the divine into it as an ad hoc explanation. It's like people saying "God helped my sports team win today!" There's no need whatsoever to insert God into that claim, one team played better than the other, there's no evidence of supernatural intervention whatsoever. In your example, if the individual were to actually check out the event rationally, to examine it critically, then they could come to the real solution instead of having to make something up to fill a hole in their own knowledge.​

I have to agree on the sports team commentary; I've never completely understood beliefs such as that. I can understand someone having the belief that their god helped them achieve the best they personally could be, but I can't wrap my head around the whole victory thing.

You're right, of course; had an individual taken a closer look, they could find the child in the tree. But not all scenarios have such clear-cut and obvious answers. What if they approached and saw the kid jumping down from the tree and running off. They've no way to know why the apple fell. My point was simply to show how things are not always how they seem, even if the assumption is hugely logical, and that sometimes, we simply cannot know for certain.

I've yet to meet a theist, and I've met thousands and thousands over the years, who didn't beleive for emotional reasons. Even if they do have fear, they are still comforted that there's some imaginary sky daddy watching over them, protecting them, taking them off to a happy afterlife, etc. I'm not saying all atheists are rational, certainly some of them are not and I'm just as critical of them, moreso in fact.​

I'm happy to hear you aren't of the opinion that all atheists are rational. But I still think you are only looking at a specific kind of theist. There are plenty that do not believe in a protective or omniscient deity who watches over them; there are plenty that do not believe in an afterlife; there are plenty that do believe in an afterlife but spend their days fearing death and believing they are off to hell.

I beg to differ. All options are not equally probable. If you're driving down the road and you see something you can't explain, magic is not equally as probable as a natural explanation. As a rational explanation, the supernatural is the last place you go, not the first as many theists seem to think.

It all depends. If it's a common occurrence, there's really no reason to question what it was if it's something that happens all the time. However, we're not talking about common occurrences here. If, to change your example, an apple fell out of the tree, stopped three feet from the ground and hovered, should people just assume that gravity is broken today and continue on? Or should people stop to examine the real cause of this strange event?​

Some might argue that magic is a natural explanation; it would depend on what you consider to be 'magic'. But I know this isn't the conversation we're having. The use of the word 'supernatural', and the opinion of all religious/spiritual things as irrational skews your argument, though. You think it is rationally the last assumption because you find it irrational. There are plenty that find it completely rational, so they don't use it as a last assumption. They're doing the same thing you are, in that way.

I was talking about a common occurrence, actually, so I don't see the need to change the example. What a lot of people consider to be divine intervention are common occurrences, not extraordinary events of things hovering. Very very few theists would ever claim to have experienced something such as that. And besides, you wouldn't stop to examine the apply falling (and hitting the ground -- not the hovering scenario) (and, most likely. I don't actually know what you'd do, personally) because it's a common occurrence to you. To some, divine intervention is a common occurrence. If you wouldn't stop, why should they?

Because most theists don't. They don't care if the Abrahamic god actually exists because they already assume, a priori, that it does. It's an assumption, arrived at by faith, not a conclusion, arrived at by reason and critical thinking. And while they may say they have evidence that is convincing to them, that doesn't make it good evidence that should convince anyone. We're trying to objectively evaluate claims in a world where it is commonplace for theists to not only try to convince others that their god is real, but they make the claim, constantly, that their god actually exists, performed miracles, etc. and therefore they ought to get special treatment and special privileges, ought to get their beliefs enshrined in law, etc. Yet the second that anyone says "hey, let's take a closer look at these beliefs you're touting", they freak out.​

But perhaps it is a conclusion that they arrived at by reason and critical thinking. Perhaps they have thought through different possibilities and arrived at the one that makes the most logical sense to them. Certainly, there are many theists that haven't, but there are also many that have. I agree with you about those that are not willing to waver in their beliefs; I find that mindset to be presumptuous to the extreme.

That's because squares and rectangles don't have definitions that are mutually contradictory. Squares and circles do. A square must have right angles and straight sides. A circle cannot have any angles or straight sides. Anything that is one, cannot be the other by definition.​

I think... we got ourselves a bit confused here. My point was actually that squares and rectangles are not mutually exclusive; I don't think divine and deity are mutually exclusive. I think they're rectangles and squares. I apologize for not making that belief clearer.

But they VERIFY their theories. They take their cases to court and lay out the evidence before a jury of their peers. There is a defense team that tries to tear apart that evidence and whichever side does the best job, wins.

Because it's not evidence. In the above courtroom scenario, you couldn't tear it apart and have everyone accept the conclusion of the best supported side. It doesn't work that way.​

Evidence quite simply means 'grounds for belief'. Just because it isn't enough evidence for you to believe does not mean it isn't enough for someone else, and that certainly does not mean that it isn't evidence.

And even in courtrooms, very rarely does everyone accept the conclusion of the best supported side. As I'm sure you're well aware, a jury deciding doesn't make the conclusion any more correct. That verification doesn't necessarily do any good.

Absolutely you can. You can hook someone up to an MRI and measure the complex brain chemistry that demonstrates love, hate and all other emotions. It's not that difficult, although you have to have some pretty expensive machinery to do it, but medical science has been able to do this for quite some time.

So now quantifiably and critically prove that any gods exist.​

All other emotions? Things like trust, as well? I still find that hard to believe that it could prove beyond anyone's doubts. Things like that rely on faith that the subject involved is actually thinking about what they're asked to think about. I assume they are much more reliable than polygraph tests, but I still find it hard to believe that there are no possibly ways to deceive the machines. And even if you don't deceive the machines; can you quantify things like that? Are they not still subjective?​

 

[nazz]

Then where are the cases that it's not?

In your blind spot

 

[Cephus]

But who gets to decide what is classified as an 'extreme' claim, and therefore what requires validation? Where is the line?

I'll go for any claim which is doubted, to be honest. If you want to doubt there are cars in the street, it's quite easy to demonstrate.

I understand your point, but I was trying to specifically make an analogy in response to your "why is it God and not Zeus" argument. So, in that case, it is just about cultural differences, not something being a different species. ...I don't know that I explained myself well. Do you understand what I am trying to get at?

Yet I'm not concerned about culture, I'm concerned about truth. The idea that people in one culture can claim X, people in another culture can claim Y and people in a third culture can claim Z does nothing to demonstrate that the base for claims X, Y and Z are actually true. I don't really care what label you put on it, I care if it's actually so. The problem is, each culture comes up with a completely arbitrary and separate set of characteristics for their supposed deity, none of which is demonstrable. So who is right? Not all can be true, but all can be false. Why should we accept any of them as true until they're demonstrated objectively?

I have to agree on the sports team commentary; I've never completely understood beliefs such as that. I can understand someone having the belief that their god helped them achieve the best they personally could be, but I can't wrap my head around the whole victory thing.

It's an unfortunate fact that there's a lot of "God is on our side" nonsense that goes on in everything from sporting events to national elections to wars. And you know something? The other side is saying the same thing! I guess God was both for and against your team at the same time!

You're right, of course; had an individual taken a closer look, they could find the child in the tree. But not all scenarios have such clear-cut and obvious answers. What if they approached and saw the kid jumping down from the tree and running off. They've no way to know why the apple fell. My point was simply to show how things are not always how they seem, even if the assumption is hugely logical, and that sometimes, we simply cannot know for certain.

And in those cases, you say "I don't know" and move on. You don't get to simply invent a fanciful explanation because you want one.

I'm happy to hear you aren't of the opinion that all atheists are rational. But I still think you are only looking at a specific kind of theist. There are plenty that do not believe in a protective or omniscient deity who watches over them; there are plenty that do not believe in an afterlife; there are plenty that do believe in an afterlife but spend their days fearing death and believing they are off to hell.

We're all people, not all people are rational. However, not all belief systems are rational, some are inherently irrational and therefore those people who hold to those belief systems, at least in so far as that particular belief, are irrational. Sorry to say, I think that puts all theists into the irrational camp.

Some might argue that magic is a natural explanation; it would depend on what you consider to be 'magic'. But I know this isn't the conversation we're having. The use of the word 'supernatural', and the opinion of all religious/spiritual things as irrational skews your argument, though. You think it is rationally the last assumption because you find it irrational. There are plenty that find it completely rational, so they don't use it as a last assumption. They're doing the same thing you are, in that way.

Oh, I'm sure some people are convinced that what David Copperfield or Penn and Teller do is actual magic. It's not. People who think it is have something wrong with them. And no, the supernatural is the last place anyone ought to go because it is a wholly untestable claim. You should exhaust all rational explanations first, and even then, just admit that you don't know, instead of making up an explanation out of whole cloth, just because you wish you knew. That's all the supernatural is, it's an invented explanation that really tells us nothing.

I was talking about a common occurrence, actually, so I don't see the need to change the example. What a lot of people consider to be divine intervention are common occurrences, not extraordinary events of things hovering. Very very few theists would ever claim to have experienced something such as that. And besides, you wouldn't stop to examine the apply falling (and hitting the ground -- not the hovering scenario) (and, most likely. I don't actually know what you'd do, personally) because it's a common occurrence to you. To some, divine intervention is a common occurrence. If you wouldn't stop, why should they?

I wouldn't stop to examine the falling apple because falling apples (and other things) are a common occurrence that we all experience every single day. We have an explanation for it already. We know how it operates. We can test it whenever we want, and in fact, science labs do continue to test gravity every day. Your statement that divine intervention is a common occurrence to anyone is unjustified, no one can demonstrate at all that divine intervention *EVER* happens. They might believe it, they cannot prove it. Some people might say that ghosts are a common occurrence because they *BELIEVE* in ghosts. Heck, Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, believed strongly in fairies, he was taken in by a scam in fact. Should his assertion that fairies are a common occurrence convince anyone else that he's right? I don't think so.

But perhaps it is a conclusion that they arrived at by reason and critical thinking. Perhaps they have thought through different possibilities and arrived at the one that makes the most logical sense to them. Certainly, there are many theists that haven't, but there are also many that have. I agree with you about those that are not willing to waver in their beliefs; I find that mindset to be presumptuous to the extreme.

Then they ought to be able to lay out their reason and critical thinking for others to evaluate, yet they can't. In fact, for those people who have tried to explain their thinking to me, there's always, without exception, some point in their process where they take a massive leap of illogic from "this happened" to "therefore God". Faith, by it's very nature, is unreasonable and non-critical.

I think... we got ourselves a bit confused here. My point was actually that squares and rectangles are not mutually exclusive; I don't think divine and deity are mutually exclusive. I think they're rectangles and squares. I apologize for not making that belief clearer.

Sorry, I was going back to the original claim. You're right. Not all rectangles are squares but all squares are rectangles. I just see no point in calling something that is not divine a deity. There are plenty of primitive tribes around that worship real statues or monuments that we can prove, for a fact, are real. However, I don't think any of us would call these statues gods, even if that's what they're worshiped as. In reality, those statues represent the gods, they are not the actual gods. Otherwise, they're just worshiping a hunk of stone, not a god.

Evidence quite simply means 'grounds for belief'. Just because it isn't enough evidence for you to believe does not mean it isn't enough for someone else, and that certainly does not mean that it isn't evidence.

That's why I'm quite adamant and specific about "objective evidence". If you're just going to reduce evidence to anything that anyone happens to find convincing, then everyone has evidence for everything. Drunks have evidence for pink elephants. Drug users have evidence for their hallucinations. The insane have evidence for what they see and hear. That doesn't mean any of those things are actually real, these people have just been convinced, through some means or another, that their delusions are actually so That really doesn't answer the question of reality though, does it?

As I'm sure you're well aware, a jury deciding doesn't make the conclusion any more correct. That verification doesn't necessarily do any good.

It determines which side wins and which side loses and while I might agree that it's not definitive in revealing fact, at least it's an open forum where people get to evaluate both sides. It's not like faith where it's personal and nobody else says "wait, this makes no sense."

All other emotions? Things like trust, as

well? I still find that hard to believe that it could prove beyond anyone's doubts. Things like that rely on faith that the subject involved is actually thinking about what they're asked to think about. I assume they are much more reliable than polygraph tests, but I still find it hard to believe that there are no possibly ways to deceive the machines. And even if you don't deceive the machines; can you quantify things like that? Are they not still subjective?

I don't know that trust is necessarily an emotion, it's more like a conclusion, based on past experience. Getting back to love, science can even determine what kind of love the individual is feeling, be it romantic love or maternal love. They're getting to the point where they can even read people's minds and detect what they're thinking. Far too many people vastly over-estimate human consciousness and think it's something magical. It's not. Consciousness is just an emergent property of the brain.

 

[desideraht]

I think the only thing that would make me believe in God is if I died and there was something after.

 

[Sir Doom]

Nope, I'm responding to things written in this thread. If you'd like to take this to a whole different thread, by all means, start one and I'll move any "problematic" arguments there.

Let me rehash the conversation we've been having since you don't seem to remember it.

First, the OP asks:

For Theists what it would it take for you to stop believing in God?

Then I answer:

It would have to be demonstrated to me in a compelling way that life on Earth was not the result of a divine creator. This is probably only possible if life on Earth was the result of a non-divine creator.

Then you respond to my answer with:

And since that's what all the evidence shows...

Then I present a question based on what you've said:

All of the evidence shows that there is a non-divine creator? I think you misread me.

Then you answer with:

No, it shows that there is no need for a creator at all, the evidence shows that life can arise and evolve quite naturalistically.

You respond with this answer because you have pre-conceived notions about what God is and are projecting those onto me. I have not stated anything about the divine whatsoever, with the exception of my answer to Wilemena's specific question. But you, unable to resist the urge to flaunt your atheist dogma, must attempt to switch this from a conversation about what would make you change your mind into what makes you think it in the first place. Which I resist, since that's not the point of the thread as far as I can tell. Actually, the thread topic is stated pretty freaking clearly.

In any case my answer is this:

The fact that a creator is not necessary isn't a compelling reason for me to stop believing in god. I understand that it is a compelling reason for you. I have no arguments against that conclusion and no desire to debate it.

See how this is my polite way of telling you I'm on to you?

If there happened to be a creator that was not divine, however, this would most definitely be a compelling reason for me to stop believing in god. Which is why I stated that in my first post.

This is a restatement of my previous position. Outlining more clearly a specific scenario within which I would abandon theism. You know, the point of the thread.

To say, "It wasn't god, it just happened on its own." is nowhere near as good an argument as "It wasn't god, it was those guys..." I'm sure you can at least agree with that.

Then I try to find common ground on a logical basis.

So, what do you do, next?

But that's not the way rational people operate. You haven't presented a compelling reason to believe in a god to begin with. You don't just start believing in anything and everything and stop when you find a reason to, you don't believe in anything and only start believing when you have good, rational, critically-evaluated evidence that it's actually so.

If you have no objective evidence, you shouldn't believe in the first place.

You ignore the fact that I conceded this argument and instead call me irrational.

What do you mean by "divine" and how would you demonstrate divinity? See, this is another massive, massive problem that's shared by pretty much all theists. They simply define their deities into existence. They claim there's a god, then they assign all kinds of characteristics, wants and desires to this supposed deity without ever demonstrating that it's so. How do you know that your deity is "divine"? How did you come by this information? Where did you get this data? How did you verify it? In reality, it's just what makes you feel good, you're not really concerned if it's true or not, so long as you get that emotional buzz.

You soap-box against 'theism' as if that carries any more information than 'atheism' does.

I'm saying you can fill in the blank with anything, using your way of thinking. "It wasn't god, it was unicorns!" "It wasn't god, it was leprechauns!" It works for anything. Whereas you're interested in getting an emotional high from your beliefs, whether they're true or not, I'm interested in the truth. If we don't know how something happened, then we should admit we don't know. Not knowing is not license to just make something up.

You ignore the logical deduction that I'm stating and instead conflate one part of it into something ridiculous.

So, after that I just start making fun of you. You resist by pretending to outline the 'main points' which is basically just a rehash of that last post of yours that I repeated here. None of which has anything to do with what I said in my answer to the OP. So don't tell me you are responding to what I'm saying. You barely seem to know what it is.

No, and if you don't like it, you can just stop responding. I was pointing out that various claims made by theists weren't logically valid in the first place. You're free to disagree and you can start a discussion, as apparently you have, or you can simply not respond and think whatever you'd like. The idea that on an open discussion forum, people shouldn't respond to what's said is absurd.

The idea of this thread (unless I miss my guess) is to talk about the reasons we might abandon our current ideology, not how logically valid the other person's original beliefs are to begin with.

And lets not forget who responded to whose answer. Are you talking to me or am I just the vehicle for your grand-standing? Do you have a problem with what I've actually said or what I actually believe? Or is it just 'general theism' that you have a problem with? Because I don't pretend to speak for all theists, in fact I intend only to speak for myself and what I actually believe. Not that you'd bother reading it.

 

[nazz]

Then you answer with:
Quote:
No, it shows that there is no need for a creator at all, the evidence shows that life can arise and evolve quite naturalistically.

Yeah, and I asked what that evidence was and got no answer. For a person who is supposed to be all about evidence he's a little short there. Unless science has demonstrated natural abiogenesis while I wasn't looking.

 

[Quintessence]

Yeah, and I asked what that evidence was and got no answer. For a person who is supposed to be all about evidence he's a little short there. Unless science has demonstrated natural abiogenesis while I wasn't looking.

I'm pretty sure it has.

But honestly, it should be a moot point. The only explanations science can forward are empirical and naturalistic; it's one of its limitations (as well as a strength). Science cannot point to non-empirical, non-naturalistic explanations even if alternative explanations are plausible. If it does, it's guilty of being pseudoscience, not true science. On the flip side, it's just as bad to posit that science is the be-all and end-all of truth given its limitations. IMHO, any scientist worth their degree avoids both pseudoscience and scientism, as both are non-science at best, anti-science at worst. Drives me positively nuts when I see either, and I'm not sure which one annoys me more. It depends on my mood, I think.

It's also a moot point for those of us who don't adhere to a transcendent god-concept that puts a massive wedge between gods and nature. For some of us, reality/nature/universe is the gods. But as usual, theological diversity gets ignored in favor of fixating on classical monotheism as if it's the only way to conceive of the sacred...

 

[Cephus]

The only explanations science can forward are empirical and naturalistic; it's one of its limitations (as well as a strength).

The issue isn't that science is limited to naturalistic explanations, it's that naturalistic explanations are the only ones that have been actually demonstrated to exist. Saying that's a limitation is absurd. Science deals with reality. The supernatural has never been shown to be real. If it ever is, science will consider it. Until then, there's no demonstrable difference between something that cannot be detected and something that doesn't exist.

 

[nazz]

I'm pretty sure it has.

I'm pretty sure it hasn't. I am sure I would have heard of it. Because atheists would be shouting it from the rooftops as another nail in the god-of-the-gaps' coffin.

But honestly, it should be a moot point. The only explanations science can forward are empirical and naturalistic; it's one of its limitations (as well as a strength). Science cannot point to non-empirical, non-naturalistic explanations even if alternative explanations are plausible. If it does, it's guilty of being pseudoscience, not true science. On the flip side, it's just as bad to posit that science is the be-all and end-all of truth given its limitations. IMHO, any scientist worth their degree avoids both pseudoscience and scientism, as both are non-science at best, anti-science at worst. Drives me positively nuts when I see either, and I'm not sure which one annoys me more. It depends on my mood, I think.

Yes, I agree and have the same reaction.

It's also a moot point for those of us who don't adhere to a transcendent god-concept that puts a massive wedge between gods and nature. For some of us, reality/nature/universe is the gods. But as usual, theological diversity gets ignored in favor of fixating on classical monotheism as if it's the only way to conceive of the sacred...

I'm not sure how that follows. Abiogenesis happened. It just a matter of how (natural or supernatural). But a pantheistic deity could just as well be responsible as a transcendent one. Or some form of deity that would be neither.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Science deals with reality. The supernatural has never been shown to be real. If it ever is, science will consider it.

I don't get that. How could science consider or study the supernatural?

 

[Cephus]

I don't get that. How could science consider or study the supernatural?

It would have to be demonstrated to actually exist first. If you're going to define it out of the realm of evaluation, then clearly, it cannot be studied, but then again, there's no point in thinking it's actually real either.

 

[Quintessence]

The issue isn't that science is limited to naturalistic explanations, it's that naturalistic explanations are the only ones that have been actually demonstrated to exist.

I thought as much: you adhere to scientism. Understand that the above claim is a philosophical ontology, not science.

I'm pretty sure it hasn't. I am sure I would have heard of it. Because atheists would be shouting it from the rooftops as another nail in the god-of-the-gaps' coffin.

The theoretical groundwork is there. T'was part of my undergrad coursework. This site provides some decent overviews. At any rate if "atheists" (in quotes, because I don't think this is necessarily an issue of atheism) think the only point of acknowledging the gods is to explain naturalistic phenomena, they're kidding themselves with such a painfully simplistic understanding of theology and religion. This, unfortunately, is extremely typical..

I'm not sure how that follows. Abiogenesis happened. It just a matter of how (natural or supernatural). But a pantheistic deity could just as well be responsible as a transcendent one. Or some form of deity that would be neither.

Well, basically I was trying to point out that for some, you have situations where the "supernatural" is simply not recognized. All reality is understood as natural, including the gods. This means calling something a "naturalistic explanation" is exactly the same as calling something a "divine explanation." The matter of how is irrelevant: it was natural/divine either way because these things are the same, not distinct.

 

[Sir Doom]

I think the only thing that would make me believe in God is if I died and there was something after.

I wonder if the perfect afterlife wouldn't manifest a god for those that want one and none for those that don't?

 

[LuisDantas]

I wonder if the perfect afterlife wouldn't manifest a god for those that want one and none for those that don't?

So in that respect it would be just like life?

 

[nazz]

The theoretical groundwork is there. T'was part of my undergrad coursework. This site provides some decent overviews. At any rate if "atheists" (in quotes, because I don't think this is necessarily an issue of atheism) think the only point of acknowledging the gods is to explain naturalistic phenomena, they're kidding themselves with such a painfully simplistic understanding of theology and religion. This, unfortunately, is extremely typical.

I'll try to check that out when I have time. I was aware there was ideas out there. But so far no one has replicated abiogenesis from scratch to my knowledge.

Well, basically I was trying to point out that for some, you have situations where the "supernatural" is simply not recognized. All reality is understood as natural, including the gods. This means calling something a "naturalistic explanation" is exactly the same as calling something a "divine explanation." The matter of how is irrelevant: it was natural/divine either way because these things are the same, not distinct.

Ah, okay, I got it.

 

[Sir Doom]

So in that respect it would be just like life?

Indeed.

 

[The Boogeyman]

What would it take for you to change your mind?

For Theists what it would it take for you to stop believing in God?
For Non-Theists what would it take for you to start believing in God?

I don't know. I just don't know. I am not strong in my faith. So I guess some kind of empirical evidence showing that there is no God(s). What that evidence is, Is yet to be determined.

 

[hoytbk]

I have always questioned religions, more in the last few years. to make me belive I would have to see some kind of proof, some real miracle that cannot be explained by science, or the fact that the human body is an amazing thing.

 

[Windwalker]

I have always questioned religions, more in the last few years. to make me belive I would have to see some kind of proof, some real miracle that cannot be explained by science, or the fact that the human body is an amazing thing.

What seems to me as an odd thing is to saying if something can be "explained by science" this somehow means it's not God. I'm curious why "explained by science" is interpreted to mean "explained away by science"? Is this what science does, explain away what is understood in the human spirit as God?

How does understanding how things work explain away God? How does science validate or invalidate God? What's going on there?

 

[philbo]

What seems to me as an odd thing is to saying if something can be "explained by science" this somehow means it's not God. I'm curious why "explained by science" is interpreted to mean "explained away by science"? Is this what science does, explain away what is understood in the human spirit as God?

How does understanding how things work explain away God? How does science validate or invalidate God? What's going on there?

Where something is ascribed to God, especially when used as corroboration for existence of the same, or for affirmation of belief, then a natural (or "scientific", if you prefer.. though sometimes merely statistical) explanation does mean that the use of that act to provide evidence for a deity is unfounded.