Between Science and Philosophy

[Eastbury]

God is not a dusty history or theology book in the minds of some believers…

God is a daily proclamation that can be contemplated efficiently in science; and mainly in quantum physics.

My questions are: why science is still not used openly as a method and a tool in our quest for the knowledge of God?

Why science is still very much, equal to atheism, at least in the minds of some of us?

And finally, why seeking God is still seen as an act of blind faith rather than a journey of enlightenment where all ways of knowledge are investigated and used?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My questions are: why science is still not used openly as a method and a tool in our quest for the knowledge of God?

Because it is not such a tool.

Why science is still very much, equal to atheism, at least in the minds of some of us?

Because "some of us" are wrong.

And finally, why seeking God is still seen as an act of blind faith rather than a journey of enlightenment where all ways of knowledge are investigated and used?

Because that would be wasted effort.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically, welcome.

The moderators may well wish to move this thread to a more appropriate forum.

 

[HonestJoe]

My questions are: why science is still not used openly as a method and a tool in our quest for the knowledge of God?

Because nobody has presented "God" as a testable hypothesis (and defining something as a "daily proclamation" certainly doesn't cut it).

Why science is still very much, equal to atheism, at least in the minds of some of us?

Ignorance and bias?

And finally, why seeking God is still seen as an act of blind faith rather than a journey of enlightenment where all ways of knowledge are investigated and used?

"God" is seem as all sorts of different things to all sorts of different people. I'm not convinced how appropriate it is for you to suggest that all the people who view the concept in a different way to you are wrong. I also think your definition is stretching the term "God" beyond most common definition, possibly beyond the point that it is useful to use. What you're talking about doesn't seem to be very close to what most people think of when they hear or use the term "God" so maybe it'd be more honest to give it a name of its own.

 

[Knight of Albion]

A very warm welcome to the forum, dear Eastbury.

 

[Excaljnur]

And finally, why seeking God is still seen as an act of blind faith rather than a journey of enlightenment where all ways of knowledge are investigated and used?

I would argue that seeking God can be a journey of spiritual enlightenment. But I see your point that all "ways" of knowledge [seeking] are not used. Just like HonestJoe said, "nobody has presented God as a testable hypothesis." People have been trying to prove the existence of God for as long as there has been doubt that he has existed. However, most conclusions are "if then's". If the universe and everything in it is matter and something that is not matter created it, then God who is not matter created it. Or, if patterns in nature exists so complicated to suggest intelligent design, then God, who is the ultimate designer created them. These are the Creationist and Intelligent Design arguments for God. The biggest problems with them are that the "if" in either of them does not imply the "then" and perhaps we simply do not have the resources to find the answers we are looking for.

I think it is important to understand that there is no justified and verifiable proof for God's existence, or technically against Him, yet. However, there is plenty of justified and verifiable evidence to suggest that he might exist or at least keep Him as a possible cause to many things. But to this same extent, keeping things as possible causes or believing that things might exist is a slippery slope as it provides a pretext to believe in ridiculous things since not being able to prove their non-existence suggests the chance of their existence, no matter how implausible.

 

[DayRaven]

Why science is still very much, equal to atheism, at least in the minds of some of us?

I think this equates to "scientism": the view that science and science alone is the means by which we can comprehend the world. Presumably this would also be accepted by proponents of monistic naturalism.

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you, welcome.

 

[oae]

So people believe in god and become gay? gay=death, but if you give up on your family of course you can. The other side is there is actually women who needs a female guy person. This is why there is a inner view of a shamanistic balance. If you trully want a woman you might become one. But all in all we're the same. Except we take massive control of ourselves. So once you meet someone you might get sexually attracted if you have no limits. So islamistic view is, we're all in shaman state and therefore you can't be close to my woman. So all in all muslims is gods and expect their woman to be jesus to them or you die. So if we stop being jesus we're suddenly going to die. So women come join us and become gods instead. Or you will die in the hands of evil. Ok so don't go attack muslims or invite them, cause then they will rape everyone and we all become gods. That's the parody. The gods of all nations are all shamans with a perspective of god. So we really want their women so we can enslave them. Come on. I hope that lift the barrier between christianity, jews and muslims. We all wared one time in history and it was all religious wars.

 

[oae]

This is interception of reality mechanism and humanity defeat.

 

[Bunyip]

God is not a dusty history or theology book in the minds of some believers…

God is a daily proclamation that can be contemplated efficiently in science; and mainly in quantum physics.

My questions are: why science is still not used openly as a method and a tool in our quest for the knowledge of God?

Simply because science has only ever disproven such claims, it has never once confirmed them. Science has a history of establishing natural explanations for things we used to attribute to the gods, but the reverse has never once happened.

Why science is still very much, equal to atheism, at least in the minds of some of us?

And finally, why seeking God is still seen as an act of blind faith rather than a journey of enlightenment where all ways of knowledge are investigated and used?

That is because in 2000 years of scientific enquiry not a shred of evidence for the gods has ever emerged.

 

[oae]

it's all science and man based.

 

[Laika]

God is not a dusty history or theology book in the minds of some believers…

God is a daily proclamation that can be contemplated efficiently in science; and mainly in quantum physics.

My questions are: why science is still not used openly as a method and a tool in our quest for the knowledge of God?

Why science is still very much, equal to atheism, at least in the minds of some of us?

And finally, why seeking God is still seen as an act of blind faith rather than a journey of enlightenment where all ways of knowledge are investigated and used?

Science has a bias towards naturalistic and physical explanations of phenemonea. It is not explicitly materialist, but begin with the assumption that what can be studied must be observable phenemonea and hence must have some physical presence. This ni-buils bias means that science tends to lean towards atheism, but as scientists believe in free thought they cannot rule out the possibility of "something else" existing. Otherwise Science is not explicitly Atheist (and has only even been in the USSR, but scientists and party ideologues come to heads over this on many occassions).

Welcome to RF. you'll fit right in.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

God is not a dusty history or theology book in the minds of some believers…

God is a daily proclamation that can be contemplated efficiently in science; and mainly in quantum physics.

My questions are: why science is still not used openly as a method and a tool in our quest for the knowledge of God?

it is, 'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

Why science is still very much, equal to atheism, at least in the minds of some of us?

the institution may be biased towards atheist beliefs, but not the method, the results, the truth that wins out in the end. Hoyle v Lemaitre is the greatest example of this.

And finally, why seeking God is still seen as an act of blind faith rather than a journey of enlightenment where all ways of knowledge are investigated and used?

[/quote]

similarly, it's only seen like this from the minority belief system of atheism. atheists have blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself. Theists acknowledge their faith,

 

[Deadtroopers]

Hullo, the 'truth', whatever that is, never wins out in the end in science the quest is open ended and the answers are always provisional. Both Hoyle and Lemaitre have been superceded. All the Gaps appear to be closed. Deal with it.

 

[Bunyip]

it is, 'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo



the institution may be biased towards atheist beliefs, but not the method, the results, the truth that wins out in the end. Hoyle v Lemaitre is the greatest example of this.

similarly, it's only seen like this from the minority belief system of atheism. atheists have blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself. Theists acknowledge their faith,

Atheism is the absence of faith, disbelief is not a faith position.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Atheism is the absence of faith, disbelief is not a faith position.

Dead right. It's a knowledge position.

 

[The Red Shift]

Sorry mate. Exactly where do you see god in quantum physics? God exists alone in the minds of believers.