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

[jonathan180iq]

Ah, Pool Table Guy, how I've missed thee.

Faith and Science aren't mutually exclusive. These deep dives into how one disproves the other is such a needless waste of mental ability.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.
I totally agree with you, here. Materialism as a philosophy devalues and dismisses the very (metaphysical) things that make us special and significant existential beings.

Can't help but disagree with you here. I hold no "metaphysical" notions because there's no reason for me to do so. But I do not "devalue" nor "dismiss" things that you attribute to metaphysical (i.e. immaterial and/or spiritual) sources. I think they are just as special and significant as you do -- I just happen to think that they, too, have their origin in the physical.

 

[Kooky]

@BilliardsBall
Would it blow your mind if I told you that I don't actually believe in either of these two?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@BilliardsBall
Would it blow your mind if I told you that I don't actually believe in either of these two?

Prefer a Tarot deck?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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.

wonderful op. thank God for your awakening. a wonderful thing to hear.

a person who thinks science has all the answers is the same as the person who thinks their religion has all the answers.

in one important way.

they will both get disappointed.

the Lord will never disappoint.

 

[ecco]

@

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.

Nice strawman. I guess you have to go there.

Reading about tens of thousands of women in Europe being burned at the stake provides answers into the mindset of people under the influence of religion. No science needed.
Hearing about the religiously influenced science deniers avoid life saving COVID vaccines provides answers into the mindset of people under the influence of religion. No science needed.

I totally agree with you, here. Materialism as a philosophy devalues and dismisses the very (metaphysical) things that make us special and significant existential beings.

Are you referring to materialists like these very religious people...
Jimmy Swaggart
Kenneth Copeland
Jim Bakker
Peter Popoff

 

[ecco]

We can start anywhere we like, using whatever tools we have. it's ALL "of God". Science is a process for exploring physical functionality. Start with a physical observation, speculate on the functions that might be causing it, and devise a test to see if they are.

Religious people (not scientists) have been trying to find evidence for god since long before "GOD" and Jesus. Results to date: Zip, Zero, Zilch, Nada, Nothing.

But they still run around saying things like: "Thank you, Jesus, for that beautiful sunrise". I guess they think god blew the sands off the African desert just to make a pretty sunrise for them.





ETA: Right after I posted, someone came along and proved my point

That's one way of looking at it. Another is to say that God shows up everywhere, is always present, but seldom recognised or acknowledged.

Uh huh.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Provide the evidence for god and science will study that evidence. As it stands science studies the natural world for which there is evidence. If you want to believe that the natural world is god then that's your belief, not the belief of science.

excellent point.

it is possible those studies are being done.

i have heard some psychologists speak about what they were seeing when treating schizophrenia. is it possible that schizophrenia is caused by a close connection between the spirit world and the suffering individual?

also, study of indigenous peoples has revealed a close connection to the spiritual. these people did not live in a hyper materialistic world like we do.

perhaps modern humans have too much connection to materialism?

perhaps most scientific study is done to enhance the material experience?

that’s where the money is.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

Sorry, evidence should be what now? Falsifiable?

 

[ecco]

Science cannot speak of things which are non-material, nor does it have any answer
whatsoever to the questions
1 - how did the universe come into existence?
2 - why did the universe come into existance?

Neither do religions. What they have are beliefs and speculations. Ten religions, fifty beliefs and speculations.

Science cannot speak of things which are non-material, nor does it have any answer
whatsoever to the questions
3 - why am I here?

Scientifically speaking, you are here because your father schtupped your mother. See, science does have answers even if you think otherwise.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Religious people (not scientists) have been trying to find evidence for god since long before "GOD" and Jesus. Results to date: Zip, Zero, Zilch, Nada, Nothing.

But they still run around saying things like: "Thank you, Jesus, for that beautiful sunrise". I guess they think god blew the sands off the African desert just to make a pretty sunrise for them.

If the entire result of humanity's collective search for God were nothing, religion would have been abandoned long ago. What you mean is, religious people have come up with nothing that means anything to you. Which is your prerogative, and fair enough.

But what qualifies you to dismiss as nothing, beliefs and experiences which are held to be of great value to those who view the world differently to you?

 

[osgart]

That isn't quite right to attribute immorality to a religious mindset, nor a scientific mindset. Religion doesn't make people do anything. It's the qualities of the characteristics of individuals that use either for inhumane purposes.

One Christian practices non judgmental tolerance. Another the sword of truth. Which christian is actually christian comes down to each individual.

The idea that labels and identifications by group is the cause of anything is superficial. The quality of the individual will determine what they gravitate towards. Whether it be to use science as a violent weapon, or to use religion to create false dichotomies in society for selfish gains or powers, it's all up to the individual.

The concept, or idea made me do it is just a bad argument to make.

 

[blü 2]

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.

That's because you're dealing with abstractions, something the human brain has evolved to use widely. If you've ever seen an infant in the arms of its carer, you'll very usually see the carer instinctively speaking motherese, and the infant looking at the carer's face, and where the carer points, and imitating what the carer says when pointing ─ "car", "plane", "doggy" ─ with the result that the infant learns from all these "doggy" examples the abstraction "dogness", the ability to identify a dog it hasn't seen before.

"Justice" is based on the human judgment "just" and arises from our evolved like of fairness. Someone deals with someone in a manner the observer thinks is fair, proper, just, and from this example of "justness" we get the abstraction "justice".

We get the abstraction "love" in an analogous way, from examples we judge to be loving.

Our mathematical objects ─ numbers, lines, planes, e, π &c ─ are equally abstractions. You can't count, for example, until you, the observer, have made a judgment: what do I want to count, in what field do I want to count it? How many billiard balls in Chicago? How many hens in the barn?

And that's also why you never see uninstantiated love, justice or 2s running around in the wild. They're all abstractions from instances we judge to be loving, just, paired, and so on.

"God" (as a "person") is not an abstraction but a concept without a real counterpart ─ you can't point out God in the real world, because God is only found in individual brains.

And in every brain God is different, just as all the gods in all the cultures of the world are different, just as the Christian God can be triune or not, require an intermediary Jesus or not, keep Sunday rather than Saturday holy or not, and so on through the thousands of Christian sects.

 

[epronovost]

If the entire result of humanity's collective search for God were nothing, religion would have been abandoned long ago. What you mean is, religious people have come up with nothing that means anything to you. Which is your prerogative, and fair enough.

That's a bit of a strawman there. Religion and theology have never produced anything that it initially set out to do and provide. It didn't provide any sort of accurate information on the nature of the the world nor did it provide definitive answers to existential questions of the human condition like why do we suffer; why are we there; what's the purpose of life, etc. Religion is basically complex systems of superstitions, myths, rituals, folk tradition and a institution with a more or less complex and influential power structure. It did produce a lot memes (in the scientific sense of the term).

 

[Link]

Anyone who doesn't see God it's because their actions are for other then him. Those who seek to see God will see his light and his signs will become evident to them and they will see that he is one God.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

That's a bit of a strawman there. Religion and theology have never produced anything that it initially set out to do and provide. It didn't provide any sort of accurate information on the nature of the the world nor did it provide definitive answers to existential questions of the human condition like why do we suffer; why are we there; what's the purpose of life, etc. Religion is basically complex systems of superstitions, myths, rituals, folk tradition and a institution with a more or less complex and influential power structure. It did produce a lot memes (in the scientific sense of the term).

you didn’t mention all the suffering in the world that has resulted from man made religion

 

[leroy]

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

The arguments typically provided for the existence of God are usually testable and falsifiable

For example the Kalam cosmological Argument argument can be falsified is any of the 2 premises is proven wrong.


In the other hand I am not aware of any falsifiable argument for atheism .are you?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

That's because you're dealing with abstractions, something the human brain has evolved to use widely. If you've ever seen an infant in the arms of its carer, you'll very usually see the carer instinctively speaking motherese, and the infant looking at the carer's face, and where the carer points, and imitating what the carer says when pointing ─ "car", "plane", "doggy" ─ with the result that the infant learns from all these "doggy" examples the abstraction "dogness", the ability to identify a dog it hasn't seen before.

"Justice" is based on the human judgment "just" and arises from our evolved like of fairness. Someone deals with someone in a manner the observer thinks is fair, proper, just, and from this example of "justness" we get the abstraction "justice".

We get the abstraction "love" in an analogous way, from examples we judge to be loving.

Our mathematical objects ─ numbers, lines, planes, e, π &c ─ are equally abstractions. You can't count, for example, until you, the observer, have made a judgment: what do I want to count, in what field do I want to count it? How many billiard balls in Chicago? How many hens in the barn?

And that's also why you never see uninstantiated love, justice or 2s running around in the wild. They're all abstractions from instances we judge to be loving, just, paired, and so on.

"God" (as a "person") is not an abstraction but a concept without a real counterpart ─ you can't point out God in the real world, because God is only found in individual brains.

And in every brain God is different, just as all the gods in all the cultures of the world are different, just as the Christian God can be triune or not, require an intermediary Jesus or not, keep Sunday rather than Saturday holy or not, and so on through the thousands of Christian sects.

reminds me of a Josh Turner song:

I might not know what love is, but I know what it aint

 

[epronovost]

you didn’t mention all the suffering in the world that has resulted from man made religion

All religions are man made and it's not exactly pertinent. When people commit atrocities in the name of a religion or a political ideology for that matter, they don't believe they are causing untold suffering. They believe they are righteous and that the pain they cause the the death they sow is smaller than the good they make by those same action. You see an innocent woman burning on a pyre, they see a monster who can only be stopped from hurting others by her death. Of course, from a rational point of view, you are correct and they are not, but they will not accept this, not only because it goes against a cherish belief, but also because it would wreck their self esteem.

 

[McBell]

In the other hand I am not aware of any falsifiable argument for atheism .are you?

you want falsifiable evidence for lacking belief in god?

AND you want to be taken seriously?