"I believe in science, I don't believe in God"

[Rival]

I tend to think this belief is their soul's reaction to knowledge acquired, not the absence of a soul.

Only G-d can destroy a soul, I'm sure.

 

[ChristineM]

God knows.

Does he/she/it??? Any evidence to back up that statement?

 

[dybmh]

"God" = the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Therefor, EVERYTHING is evidence of that source.

respectfully, this conclusion doesn't make sense to me.

If God is a mystery, then doesn't evidence diminish the mystery thus undermining God? It seems to me that if God is a mystery, then evidence is lacking by definition.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Does he/she/it??? Any evidence to back up that statement?

It was a rhetorical statement.


But I do believe in God, for the record. The evidence is all around us imo, but not admissible in any court I’ve ever stood in.

 

[dybmh]

Only G-d can destroy a soul, I'm sure.

I'm not sure; If a soul can be destroyed, I agree. But it's still an "if" for me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"God" is what science is studying.

It would depend on your definition of God. Science studies what can be perceived around us in the natural universe.

 

[Rival]

I'm not sure; If a soul can be destroyed, I agree. But it's still an "if" for me.

This is useful resurrection of the dead - Can a soul be destroyed to non-existence? - Mi Yodeya (stackexchange.com)

 

[metis]

"God" is what science is studying.

Baruch Spinoza used "Nature" as another name for God, and Einstein said that he believed in "Spinoza's God".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure; If a soul can be destroyed, I agree. But it's still an "if" for me.

I do not know much about the nature of the soul even though I believe I have one.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The only time I have ever heard this nonsense is from theists creating a strawman.
Perhaps you can be the very first theist in all of history to present where this nonsense is presented by science itself?

I think you make a great point, however it is a commonly pressed political agenda. First look at the recent rash of so called communist countries. The USSR pressed the belief that all people could be united through science and rejection of religion. Similarly China presses for faith in the state and rejection of religion. This is also somewhat a political agenda of various actors around the world who see religion as a problem. Have you played the recent Civilization VI game? In it religion is simply another form of warfare and is sinister. Whose decision was it to push that idea?

I also only here this nonsense from theists creating strawmen.
Perhaps you can present a list of those who actually believe this?

Politicians mostly, but it also comes from spoiled teenagers and bored rich time wasters. Most everyone else is too busy to waste time on it. Then there are also those influenced by the political agenda who are less evangelistic, unless they want their party to notice how evangelistic they are. Then of course there are the usual people who've been hurt by churches or religions, or who feel outcast. We tend to be skeptical.

Yes, "scientism" is clearly an idea on the rise. It's the secularists new religion. But it's not that these 'believers' think science has all the answers, it's that they believe science is the only process by which we humans can get any "real" answers.

Its mostly political I think. When people see religion as a problem they look for alternatives, and they may attempt to claim Science is an alternative though it actually is not an alternative.

The concept that science has all the answers has been growing in the secular world.

I think that it is mostly political. I don't think that the idea is growing in the secular world or is a result of permitting secular laws and secular freedoms. Its really a function of the failures of the churches. Painful as it is, the truth is that the churches failed in many ways. They failed to oppose racism and in many cases enshrined it. They failed to oppose slavery. They failed to oppose child labor. They attempted to outlaw alcohol. They helped instigate wars. They tried to suppress Science fearing that it was too secular.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

'God' is the 'source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is'.

... you assume.

 

[ChristineM]

It was a rhetorical statement.


But I do believe in God, for the record. The evidence is all around us imo, but not admissible in any court I’ve ever stood in.

Yes i know it was rhetorical. Hence my answer

You are welcome to your beliefs and i am sure you offer me the same. To me evidence should be falsifiable.

 

[Viker]

I don't believe in science. I believe science because it makes it's self believable.

 

[leroy]

I

I believe in science, I don't believe in God"



.

What can I say:

The atheist/secular/skeptic community made a good job in advertising and promoting the idea that science and God are contrary ideas.

 

[ChristineM]

What can I say:

The atheist/secular/skeptic community made a good job in advertising and promoting the idea that science and God are contrary ideas.

Have they? Or do they simply recognise the science required falsifiable evidence which religion has not got

 

[Viker]

advertising and promoting the idea that science and God are contrary ideas

Where? Have they really?

I doubt it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

When a person believes the physical, the material, is all that exists, I contend they lose their soul. I'm not referring to their eternal soul, even though that is obviously forfeited as well. I'm referring to their soul now, that which makes them human and separates them from mere animals.

So, do you feel that animals believe that "the physical, the material, is all that exists?" Meaning - you think we're separated from the animals only by our ability to believe that there is more to existence than the materials of the universe? Or are you saying that animals don't have souls from the start, and just having this "soul" is what you believe separates a human from other animals?

Both of those things are super-duper dumb, by the way. Just out and out moronic. So... I guess just pick one, I'll write you off entirely, and then you can continue superciliously high-fiving your fellow Christian believers or whatever it is you do in your free time.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I can see why some feel that way, I used to feel that way, too.

The concept that science has all the answers has been growing in the secular world.

Science is based on the scientific method, a process by which truth is discovered, including objective observation, testing, hypotheses, etc. To those who boast in the scientific method, I say, "Big deal. I've never known anyone who didn't."

Science is invaluable and helps us measure and quantify physical matter and energy. But I can't order three pounds of justice at the grocery store or a half-gallon of love and righteousness at the gas station.

When a person believes the physical, the material, is all that exists, I contend they lose their soul. I'm not referring to their eternal soul, even though that is obviously forfeited as well. I'm referring to their soul now, that which makes them human and separates them from mere animals. The soul is that part of us that stands in awe of a starry night or the ocean waves, that is moved by beautiful art or music, and that is inspired by selfless courage or loving self-sacrifice.

I thank God for awakening my soul, redeeming and restoring it. Per the Bible, anyone who trusts Jesus has eternal life--and a soul that is alive and well.

May I point out that it was primarily religious institutions that ran the residential schools in Canada that basically stole children from their families to "get the Indian out of them." And who buried them by the hundreds in unmarked graves with no notification to their families when they died. Did their religion give them their sense of "justice?" The slave owners in the US south were almost all Christian -- did their Christianity provide them with their sense of love and righteousness? Or how about the almost entirely religious-based efforts to trample on the rights and even the dignity of LGBT people? Love? Righteous?

I do not have a soul, but I crave the starry night, and I'm enough of a pianist to play very beautiful music.

(My list could grow arbitrarily long, including the depredations of missionaries the world over, and the bonfires made of heretics, but I'm sure you get my point.)

 

[George-ananda]

I think it is unfortunate that many in our society look at belief in science and belief in God as contradictory things.

And I think in the 21st century the word 'God' needs to be given a broader definition in colloquial use. In previous centuries the word 'God' was equated with the father figure God of the Bible. Today, many believers think more broadly.

 

[metis]

May I point out that it was primarily religious institutions that ran the residential schools in Canada that basically stole children from their families to "get the Indian out of them."

Much the same in Australia and the States.