• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Claim: "Understand science well enough, and it'll lead to God"

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
A meme I encountered online recently claimed that science leads to atheism at a basic or intermediate level of understanding, but to theism at a very advanced level of understanding.

I doubt the validity of this claim in general, as there are many eminent scientists who are atheists.

However, I can appreciate the subtlety of this claim in some respects. An advanced understanding of science may expose the limits of human knowledge and prompt one to either (1.) acknowledge the uncertainty, or (2.) invoke God or a creator as an explanation for the unknown.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Science and theism are separate but it is possible but not necessary to see the hand of divinity in the elegance of the laws of the universe.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
A meme I encountered online recently claimed that science leads to atheism at a basic or intermediate level, but to theism at a very advanced level.

I doubt the validity of this claim in general, as there are many eminent scientists who are atheists.

However, I can appreciate the subtlety of this claim in some respects. An advanced understanding of science may expose the limits of human knowledge and prompt one to either (1.) acknowledge the uncertainty, or (2.) invoke God or a creator as an explanation for the unknown.

Thoughts?
Science dosent work that way.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Understand science well enough and it will lead to a better understanding of the domain of science.
Certainly for some, but I don't think necessarily so
Science and theism are separate but it is possible but not necessary to see the hand of divinity in the elegance of the laws of the universe.
Science dosent work that way.

When I delved into studying scientific topics myself, I was inspired by a personal experience that illustrated a particular dilemma.

There is a famous quote by Nietzsche that goes something like this: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

The quote is not about science, but as I study cosmology and other subjects, I sense a resonance with that idea. It is... that you may eventually reach a stage of thinking where you acknowledge "There is so much that we still don't know." and "Some of this may be wrong as some theories seem to clash with other theories" and at that point, it triggers a revelation where you either accept that "There is so much that I don't know. There is so much that we don't know." and remain confident in your beliefs as you reflect on them, sometimes reinforcing them, or you are so overwhelmed by the magnitude of that insight, that you attribute that insight to someone or something else... like saying "There is a God, and an intelligent designer." rather than saying "I don't know" in lieu of this metaphorical black hole that has invaded your thinking.

All of these thoughts occurred to me as I studied cosmology before. But, I did not assign that responsibility to a God upon that revelation. I simply recognized the boundaries of human comprehension.

So, I think the notion of science leading to God, for me is a "No, but on the other hand..."
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
The quote is not about science, but as I study cosmology and other subjects, I sense a resonance with that idea. It is... that you may eventually reach a stage of thinking where you acknowledge "There is so much that we still don't know." and "Some of this may be wrong as some theories seem to clash with other theories" and at that point, it triggers a revelation where you either accept that "There is so much that I don't know. There is so much that we don't know." and remain confident in your beliefs as you reflect on them, sometimes reinforcing them, or you are so overwhelmed by the magnitude of that insight, that you attribute that insight to someone or something else... like saying "There is a God, and an intelligent designer." rather than saying "I don't know" in lieu of this metaphorical black hole that has invaded your thinking.
That can only happen if you didn't study religion before. Theism has the same problem as cosmology, only much worse. There is much more doubt about what is said about gods than there is about cosmology, and what's worse is that cosmology tries to gain more knowledge with systematic study and theology doesn't.
Who jumps from science to belief because science doesn't know so many things, jumps out of the pan and into the fire.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
A meme I encountered online recently claimed that science leads to atheism at a basic or intermediate level of understanding, but to theism at a very advanced level of understanding.

I doubt the validity of this claim in general, as there are many eminent scientists who are atheists.

However, I can appreciate the subtlety of this claim in some respects. An advanced understanding of science may expose the limits of human knowledge and prompt one to either (1.) acknowledge the uncertainty, or (2.) invoke God or a creator as an explanation for the unknown.

Thoughts?
God and concepts of God are more connected to consciousness, than to test tubes and pH meters. The Science of Consciousness is not very advanced to untangle the inner instruments needed to sense God. I believe science and religion can meet, with consciousness the medium that both use. Both use the same tool to sense what they sense; inner and outer senses.

One main problem for science, in terms of inner sight, is the black box of statistics. Let me demonstrate. Statistical Medical Science says that cigarette smoking increases the odds of lung cancer. What does that mean in terms of cause and effect? Does it means everyone who even smokes a single cigarette, is 100% certain to get cancer? Or does it mean some people will get cancer at different amount of cigarettes, but we do not know who, how many or even when? This claim sounds official, but it is very fuzzy and therefore not very pin point objective. The ghosts of black boxes, depends on our emotions; fear, to help its theories come to sort of subjective focus; cause and effect simulation. I am scared therefore it works.

As a contrasting alternative, say I declare that if you throw a ball in the air, the ball will fall back to the earth. I may then ask, does this mean even a tiny balls or just vey large balls? Does it mean anyone can throw ball in the air, or does it work; official, if only scientists can thrown the ball? Does it mean in the morning or night, winter or summer? Does it mean in the Eastern, western, northern or southern hemispheres? It means in all cases, at any earth surface and in the air scenario, at time or any place, That theory is very objective, since it fits all cases and is a sure thing. No fear is needed to pretend, so I will go along.

If you were to draw these two science theory scenarios, as circles, on a larger fixed circle of all options, how would you draw each scenario? The gravity and ball circle would fill the enter space. While the cigarette circle would be much smaller, and it does to fit anywhere, in just one place. It has to be plotted as range of fuzzy thinner or dashed circles, all over the place, adding to one smaller full circle of uncertainty and odds. This a contrast of the type of theory that results; sharply defined and **** poor accuracy. If science is not up to the game, it cannot find God, since consciousness gets harder to target, than a one trick pony like cigarettes. The fact science cannot see God is due to fuzzy dice science, not yet up to the task, due lack of a genuine focus. Healing starts with acceptance, getting beyond denial.

I already developed the Physic needed to make this bridge, but science is too nearsighted and blurry eyed; black box subjective, to see. This does not allow for the needed consciousness objectivity, but only allows for self fooling simulation of objectivity.

Here is the needed science theory to get the eyes into focus so we can see. We live in space-time where the physical reality we see is limited to relationships, where space and time are connected, a certain way, like two children in a three legged race. This tether makes the two variables limited to each other, with optimized running of the three legged race of space-time, only if they both are coordinated. If they do not coordinate, then they will fall and lose the race. Below is an analogy with happy children. The laws of physics are all connected to the proper three legged race style. While speculated things will fall short if they, are not possible in space-time, since time or space were not properly coordinated; too much of one side or not enough of the other.

images
sddefault.jpg


Picture if we were to cut the tether of the three legged race of space-time, so the two connected people, can now each move independent of the other. Without the limitations of the tether, the little girl on the top left-right, could run even faster than her partner, while here partner could stay on th allowing their disconnected team to do even better. This is the little girl below.

images


This theory has also been demonstrated in the lab, with an effect called quantum coupling, where two particles can coordinate in time, independent of distance. Below is diagram of the record being broken, again and again, connected to quantum coupling in optic fibers. In each case, the two particles coordinate in time, independent of distance; (d=0 and t=x.) with no three legged race tether.

csm_Weltrekord_Quantenverschraenkung_Slider_2bfc0a3b85.jpg


The God affect is where time and space are not connected, to which the human brain can attach; consciousness. Humans can make artificial things not a natural part of space-time; would not appear naturally by natural space-time laws. But where space and time are not connected it can bend space-time, by adding extra time potential or extra distance potential; bridges to the future.

ponte.jpg
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Replace the monotheist "God" with a more inclusive theology, and sure.

Studying the sciences is absolutely what led me to contemporary Paganism and polytheist theology. And my religion was the primary driver behind doing post-graduate study in the sciences.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Who jumps from science to belief because science doesn't know so many things, jumps out of the pan and into the fire.
Precisely. As science is methodical, patient, and never jumps evidences to any rapid conclusion, but rather links evidences together in a chain to properly establish any finding and discovery.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
A meme I encountered online recently claimed that science leads to atheism at a basic or intermediate level of understanding, but to theism at a very advanced level of understanding.
Where science leads is entirely dependent upon the individual.
I was already an atheist. Science led me only to more science.
And making some money with it.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I am not a scientist of any stripe, nor do I ever claim to be. However, any time I have ever studies science, I am brought again to my knees by the pristine and pure nature of it, by the order, by a total lack of chaos.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Born with rose colored perceptions, science removed those, and revealed that physical reality is cold, totally indifferent, and of a brutally savage nature with regards to biological life. There's no harmony, nor moral justice and truth in nature. The animals must fend for themselves in a desperate, wild, brutal battle against starvation, hunter/prey, and fierce elements. Science and engineering is responsible for every convenience of life.

I enjoy philosophy and the moral progress of human beings, but the idea of God is nothing but an extreme point of view, with no rational, logical basis in reality. Perhaps one day science will begin to understand that there are moral cause/effect objective facts to existence, and then we'll be able to live more virtuous and come up with far better institutions of charity then is currently available. Science will eventually teach us how to cope, and solve problems of the human nature, not the fantasy that is God. Science is the powerful double edged sword that makes safety, and danger. There's no guarantees in reality.
 

Balthazzar

N. Germanic Descent
A meme I encountered online recently claimed that science leads to atheism at a basic or intermediate level of understanding, but to theism at a very advanced level of understanding.

I doubt the validity of this claim in general, as there are many eminent scientists who are atheists.

However, I can appreciate the subtlety of this claim in some respects. An advanced understanding of science may expose the limits of human knowledge and prompt one to either (1.) acknowledge the uncertainty, or (2.) invoke God or a creator as an explanation for the unknown.

Thoughts?
Understand God well enough and it'll lead to science?
 
Top