Do We Really Have To Choose?

[Zadok]

I know it's a long thread, but before I respond to this, kindly review the last couple of pages and tell me where you stand on the mythology/ theology problem.

.......

I believe G-d created all things. I believe the question sought by science is how and the questen sought by religion is why.

Zadok

 

[Quiddity]

Yes, it was intended as a response to the OP. My point was that while science doesn't normally operate with iron-clad, perfect certainty, to whatever extent that we can identify one cause, we exclude all other causes to the same extent.

If we're, say, 90% sure that a particular person's cancer was cured by a combination of chemotherapy and radiation, then we also 90% exclude the possibility that it was cured by other means, such as the placebo effect, antibiotics, diet, "pyramid power", the magnetic fields in the patient's room, some unknown virus that feeds on tumours, or the direct hand of God.

At the population level, we can do statistical tests to come up with confidence intervals. If we find a correlation and a causal mechanism, we might be able to say with 95% or 99% confidence that effect X is caused by cause A... IOW, that 95% or 99% of the behaviour of effect X can be entirely explained by cause A.

I realize that this still leaves a small 4% or 1% gap for other causes, and God could presumably be shoved into it. However, I think at that point, the criteria that we assume for God come into play. I don't know about your theology, but I don't think that many theists I know would say that the God they believe in is afraid of having statistically significant effects on the world or hides from the people who look for him like a divine Polkaroo.

I think it's often missed that God is like an herbal shaman who used/uses matter around him to cure people. In an unorthodox manner mind you, but the fact that someone is cured and can be explained by science simply means they know how God did it.

 

[Magic Man]

Not necessarily, I don't think. Theistic evolution varies wildly on how much God "tweaks."

I would say the theory of evolution doesn't leave much room for God's tweaking.

No, because I agreed to the theological element of intervention. I just don't want to get bogged down by any particular mythology.

Well, as has been said, intervention has evidence against it. And it's not getting bogged down by any particular mythology. Pretty much any form of "general theism" has the same general sort of intervention.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, I don't really think it answers the OP, because it was speaking much more broadly. Conversation drifted into specific examples like curing Mary's cancer, but the OP was about our general understanding of the natural world.

Right - and I was trying to address the idea that there's a god who is active in the world. It raises the question "how would you know?" One way of answering that is by looking for things that wouldn't happen without God's intervention.

Take evolution. There's nothing in it that implies theistic evolution is wrong.

I disagree. I think that the science of evolution allows for the theistic evolution viewpoint, but the science of evolution also suggests that evolution is the result of random forces. This speaks against the idea that evolution is a tool used by a god to reach some desired, preconceived endpoint.

This certainly isn't an absolute rejection of theistic evolution, but it's not "nothing".

There is, to my knowledge, not a single scientific theory that can't be interpreted as the mechanism God used.

IOW, the conflict between Science & Religion is not genuine, but an elevation of the conflict between specific interpretations of the fields.

Well, yes and no. Sure, you can say "______ is the mechanism of God". However, every time you do that, you imply certain things about the nature or character of God. Meanwhile, every actual religion makes claims about the nature or character of god(s) as well. When these two sources make differing claims about the same aspect of God's nature or character, you have conflict.

 

[Storm]

I would say the theory of evolution doesn't leave much room for God's tweaking.

And I say we don't know.

Well, as has been said, intervention has evidence against it. And it's not getting bogged down by any particular mythology. Pretty much any form of "general theism" has the same general sort of intervention.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Why do you say intervention has evidence against it? How would things look different if God were intervening?

Because, honestly, I don't think they would.

 

[Yerda]

Take evolution. There's nothing in it that implies theistic evolution is wrong.

There is, to my knowledge, not a single scientific theory that can't be interpreted as the mechanism God used.

I agree with these two sentences. While scientific theories remain, to me, as the basis of a naturalistic outlook where gods are worse than useless I am fairly sure science is neutral on the issue of whether God "created" evolution, or whether the value of the universal gravitiational constant was God's idea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it's often missed that God is like an herbal shaman who used/uses matter around him to cure people. In an unorthodox manner mind you, but the fact that someone is cured and can be explained by science simply means they know how God did it.

But regardless where in the chain of causality you put God, the same question remains: why do you think God is there and not something else?

Edit: perhaps more importantly, say there was some other situation where God wasn't the one "doing it". How would things be different?

And how do you know they'd be different in the way that you think they'd be?

 

[Magic Man]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Why do you say intervention has evidence against it? How would things look different if God were intervening?

Because, honestly, I don't think they would.

Because every event we have examined we have found explanations for without the use of an intelligent agent.

 

[Quiddity]

But regardless where in the chain of causality you put God, the same question remains: why do you think God is there and not something else?

Edit: perhaps more importantly, say there was some other situation where God wasn't the one "doing it". How would things be different?

And how do you know they'd be different in the way that you think they'd be?

I don't have to inject God in it. It could just be the cosmos doing what the cosmos do. Essentially, we give credit to creator of the cosmos anyhow.

Had He not given the doctor the brain to find it?

That route...

 

[Storm]

Because every event we have examined we have found explanations for without the use of an intelligent agent.

You didn't answer my real question. How would it look different if there were intervention?

 

[Magic Man]

You didn't answer my real question. How would it look different if there were intervention?

We'd be able to see evidence of intervention. When someone asks for something in prayer, they'd get it, for instance.

 

[Storm]

We'd be able to see evidence of intervention. When someone asks for something in prayer, they'd get it, for instance.

Forget prayer for now, we're just butting heads on that one.

How would the fossil record differ if God were involved?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How would the fossil record differ if God were involved?

How would the fossil record differ if God wasn't involved?

 

[Storm]

How would the fossil record differ if God wasn't involved?

Shifting the burden.

I'm not saying it would, I'm saying that science can't tell us whether God's involved or not.

 

[Autodidact]

Can anyone think of a single scientific theory that excludes God?

If you can, please explain why you think it does.

Not qua scientific theory, no. The subject is not part of science, and science can be done equally well based on the assumption that there is, or is not, a God.

There certainly can be scienctific theories that a specific God who has done specific things in the natural, perceivable world does not exist. For example, it is clear that a God-who-flooded-the-entire-world does not exist.

However, there may be theories or maybe a better word would be arguments BASED on scientific data or theories, asserting that there is no God. That wouldn't properly be science, per se, rather sort-of science-based philosophy. That's how I see what Dawkins is doing.

That's how I see it.

 

[Magic Man]

Forget prayer for now, we're just butting heads on that one.

How would the fossil record differ if God were involved?

It depends. It could differ in that it could just not exist. It could differ in many ways.

 

[Magic Man]

Shifting the burden.

I'm not saying it would, I'm saying that science can't tell us whether God's involved or not.

It can beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Storm]

It can beyond a reasonable doubt.

How?? The data says nothing, and the interpretations are subjective.

 

[MSizer]

There is no "if God were involved" so it's impossible to even speculate reasonably. The christians and the muslims of centuries past were thrilled when they discoverd that there were empirical methods (science and math) by which they could discover "the handiwork of god" but they didn't anticipate it would ultimately expose the fallacy that any god was involved at all. People are required to believe that god and science don't clash because they need to resolve the conflict in their mind for psychological reasons IMO. Most humans are psychologically wired up to believe in god, and at the same time, they're rational people, so they have to resolve thieir belief with what they observe impirically. That's IMO one of the reasons we have the gift of cognitive dissonance.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Shifting the burden.

I'm not saying it would, I'm saying that science can't tell us whether God's involved or not.

Science (natural) can tell us nothing about God (supernatural).

All we can see is the absence of evidence of God in our natural world.