Is Faith in Science Identical to Faith in God?

[Mr Cheese]

As an afterthought:

If the world is an illusion or a super-computer program, then one of two things will happen eventually:

1. Science will eventually, inevitably, lead to that conclusion, then the natural progression will be to study that computer program/illusion or whatever.

2. Science will never discover the illusion, therefore never conceive it which renders it useless and inconsequential.

Similarly, if the world was created by an all powerful omnipresent, omnipotent God which is too great for us to conceive, either science will find it; or its inconceivability renders it pointless, useless and as having no effect on our perception of the world.

Its already discovered that illusion...

"Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think."

-- Werner Karl Heisenberg

 

[tarasan]

As an afterthought:

If the world is an illusion or a super-computer program, then one of two things will happen eventually:

1. Science will eventually, inevitably, lead to that conclusion, then the natural progression will be to study that computer program/illusion or whatever.

2. Science will never discover the illusion, therefore never conceive it which renders it useless and inconsequential.

Similarly, if the world was created by an all powerful omnipresent, omnipotent God which is too great for us to conceive, either science will find it; or its inconceivability renders it pointless, useless and as having no effect on our perception of the world.

I most certianly see your point Forkie, we must hold onto the fact this this is not an illusion, and yes it would make science mute, but it would also make religion mute as well, that is the similarity I was trying to make, if the bases of all thought is wrong then ultimately both view points fall.

However I would disagree with the premises that you statement you made that if we compare science to an illusion yes, it will become mute, I agree with that Part, but then you, I believe stretch your statement is worng that the same track of reasoning can be seen for God

You switch the meaning, "science is based on reality, if that wrong it falls" with "if science does not prove God then God is irrelevant" the two things dont follow. God the cause of the physical world should take the place of the illusion not Science, after all science is a tool that we have to test, not a cause. Do you agree?

Also if you believe anything about spirituality you beleive that there is something beyond the physical world that can affect us, something immaterial. So how can science test that? and if there is this second part of us, then surely a God being could affect us in that way without any physical proof?

I tried to make my statements quite broad so I hope it isnt disjointed.

so what do you think?

 

[Mr Cheese]

I most certianly see your point Forkie, we must hold onto the fact this this is not an illusion, and yes it would make science mute, but it would also make religion mute as well, that is the similarity I was trying to make, if the bases of all thought is wrong then ultimately both view points fall.

 

[tarasan]

Mr Cheese does the facepalm mean i epic fail? I'm fine about being critques and the like, but I cannot interpret what you find wrong if you dont tell me, I have no way to take back what I said, Im here to learn, so......tell me.

 

[tarasan]

ohh now I see I Read the wrong name..... THAT IS EPIC FAIL XD

 

[Forkie]

Thanks for the reply Tarasan.

What I was trying to say, perhaps not very well, was that a world which we cannot perceive or experience is not important, unless it gets discovered. Therefore, a God that cannot be perceived or experienced is equally unimportant, until it gets discovered.

Where you said something immaterial cant be tested, I agree with that and I think that's what makes it unimportant. We can't and shouldn't test for things that could be, only for things that are.

A good example would be the search for dark matter and dark energy in the universe. It was accepted that the visible matter in the universe was enough to make it work. Then, someone discovered that there is nowhere near enough visible stuff to make it work, so they are now looking for the stuff we can't see, that must be there in order for the universe to work they way it does. The point here is that the dark matter and energy had not been conceived until they realised it had to be there, now they are testing for it. So, it only became important once it was found to be necessary.

This is what I'm trying to get at. If there is an illusion or a God are important, science will find them, if it doesn't, they are not.

If it turned out that the stuff we can't see in the above example turns out to be GOD, then God will be important and the natural next step would be to study how God works. Science cannot concentrate on might be, it can and should only concentrate on what is.

I hope this is a little clearer. I think I've waffled a bit!

 

[Forkie]

ohh now I see I Read the wrong name..... THAT IS EPIC FAIL XD

What happened?!

 

[tarasan]

Thanks for the reply Tarasan.

What I was trying to say, perhaps not very well, was that a world which we cannot perceive or experience is not important, unless it gets discovered. Therefore, a God that cannot be perceived or experienced is equally unimportant, until it gets discovered.

Where you said something immaterial cant be tested, I agree with that and I think that's what makes it unimportant. We can't and shouldn't test for things that could be, only for things that are.

A good example would be the search for dark matter and dark energy in the universe. It was accepted that the visible matter in the universe was enough to make it work. Then, someone discovered that there is nowhere near enough visible stuff to make it work, so they are now looking for the stuff we can't see, that must be there in order for the universe to work they way it does. The point here is that the dark matter and energy had not been conceived until they realised it had to be there, now they are testing for it. So, it only became important once it was found.

This is what I'm trying to get at. If there is an illusion or a God, science will find them, if it doesn't, they're not.

If it turned out that the stuff we can't see in the above example turns out to be GOD, then God will be important and the natural next step would be to study how God works. Science cannot concentrate on might be, it can and should only concentrate on what is.

I hope this is a little clearer. I think I've waffled a bit!

No I believe that what you said was very coherent, very well said indeed.

First thoughts are when you say we shouldnt test for things that could be but rather are, why would we test for them if they are? isnt everything we havnt proved a could be? Wasnt Dark matter a could be until they discovered it, after all they may have just got their math wrong by getting their estimates wrong. Evolution was a might until Darwin was able to find sufficient evidence, Penecilin was a maybe until it was proven, after all it could have been something completely different that killed those bacteria.

Also the God hypothesis is something that is already out in the train of thought, Dark matter was not, I mean people didnt believe in Dark matter, and it didnt influence their lives, God however is something people take a stand on and it does affect their livs. You see where I am coming from?

firstly science will probably never prove God because God is not material and material experiments will only explain material causes. what do you think?

I believe that if we are talking about a kind of God which a Diest holds to, as in he just kick starts everything and then leaves then what you say is very relevant and true, however if we where to assume say that God is a God of relaitonship, or just intervention. After all if this kind ofGod exists then there is a whole new meaning to life, a hope for the afterlife a solid good way to live. If not then 95 percent of the world, me included, are deluding ourselves and wasting our lives.

My thoughts are science will never prove God, but knowing if one exists is all too important.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Forkie]

No I believe that what you said was very coherent, very well said indeed.

First thoughts are when you say we shouldnt test for things that could be but rather are, why would we test for them if they are? isnt everything we havnt proved a could be? Wasnt Dark matter a could be until they discovered it, after all they may have just got their math wrong by getting their estimates wrong. Evolution was a might until Darwin was able to find sufficient evidence, Penecilin was a maybe until it was proven, after all it could have been something completely different that killed those bacteria.

Also the God hypothesis is something that is already out in the train of thought, Dark matter was not, I mean people didnt believe in Dark matter, and it didnt influence their lives, God however is something people take a stand on and it does affect their livs. You see where I am coming from?

firstly science will probably never prove God because God is not material and material experiments will only explain material causes. what do you think?

I believe that if we are talking about a kind of God which a Diest holds to, as in he just kick starts everything and then leaves then what you say is very relevant and true, however if we where to assume say that God is a God of relaitonship, or just intervention. After all if this kind ofGod exists then there is a whole new meaning to life, a hope for the afterlife a solid good way to live. If not then 95 percent of the world, me included, are deluding ourselves and wasting our lives.

My thoughts are science will never prove God, but knowing if one exists is all too important.

What are your thoughts?

But penicillin was never a could be. It was as an 'is'! And it wasn't something different that killed the bacteria. It was always penicillin! It wasn't until it was discovered that it became important. And it was discovered by accident - no one tested it before-hand.

Dark matter was always an 'is', we just hadn't discovered it yet.

Evolution is an 'is'. It has been seen through fossils and DNA testing.

I have my own little philosophy on this that I've always thought about on this subject:

Take the internal combustion engine. The engine has always worked. Since the beginning of space and time, the internal engine was a fully working machine. All that was needed was for someone to put the correct pieces together to see it to be working. The engine does nothing special - it does what the rules and laws of physics and the universe say it must do.

You're right, you cannot test the immaterial, just like Shakespeare couldn't test the engine, he couldn't conceive it, so it wasn't important or explored.

So by my theory: if God exists, he will be found and seen to be working. Maybe in 1000 years time, but he will be there. If he exists, it's simply inevitable.

Until he is found God will always be a 'might be'. If he is found, he will be an 'is', and an 'always was'. Do you see what I mean?! Therefore, by my conclusion, God is not important in the way the world works until he is seen to be working.

Science is a list of accidental discovery. Discoveries are then studied and the very act of studying them reveals, by accident, more information.

 

[Mr Cheese]

This is what I'm trying to get at. If there is an illusion or a God are important, science will find them, if it doesn't, they are not.

:sarcastic

 

[tarasan]

:sarcastic

want to add anything mr cheese?

 

[Forkie]

:sarcastic

Pffft! Poo, that sentence doesn't make sense at all!

I think I was just thinking of two ways of saying the same thing, and ended up combining the two... Unsuccessfully!

 

[Walkntune]

A good example would be the search for dark matter and dark energy in the universe. It was accepted that the visible matter in the universe was enough to make it work. Then, someone discovered that there is nowhere near enough visible stuff to make it work, so they are now looking for the stuff we can't see, that must be there in order for the universe to work they way it does. The point here is that the dark matter and energy had not been conceived until they realised it had to be there, now they are testing for it. So, it only became important once it was found to be necessary.

I don't see it the same way. I think dark matter or energy was important and part of reality wether we see it or not. Gravity was important long before Newton or anyone came along.Reality is reality and it doesn't change because our awareness is changing and doesn't conform to our mind or does it??

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see it the same way. I think dark matter or energy was important and part of reality wether we see it or not. Gravity was important long before Newton or anyone came along.

Not on the cosmic scale. Before Newton (and even after Newton), plenty of people hypothesized that the sort of gravity that describes how objects fall on Earth doesn't necessarily explain the motion of celestial objects in the sky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Gravitational_.C3.A6ther

Reality is reality and it doesn't change because our awareness is changing and doesn't conform to our mind or does it??

Sure, but if it turns out that there's no way for you to know about the things you're claiming, it certainly makes one wonder exactly where you got your information, doesn't it?

 

[Walkntune]

Sure, but if it turns out that there's no way for you to know about the things you're claiming, it certainly makes one wonder exactly where you got your information, doesn't it?

People have enjoyed the benefits of fire long before man understood the chemical processes.
Reality doesn't have to fit into our equations and math formulas to be a benefit.
We are arriving at a point in time now where who really cares how much logic you claim to carry around in your mind.A little 5 year old child can carry around just as much knowledge in a piece of plastic(computer) that fits in her back pocket. Einstein said there will come a time when only intuition can take a leap forward. Only those with wisdom and intuition will be able to step forward.

 

[DarkSun]

People have enjoyed the benefits of fire long before man understood the chemical processes.
Reality doesn't have to fit into our equations and math formulas to be a benefit.
We are arriving at a point in time now where who really cares how much logic you claim to carry around in your mind.A little 5 year old child can carry around just as much knowledge in a piece of plastic(computer) that fits in her back pocket. Einstein said there will come a time when only intuition can take a leap forward. Only those with wisdom and intuition will be able to step forward.

Illuminatus!

 

[AxisMundi]

It seems popular these days to argue that faith in science is identical to faith in god. But is that true? Why or why not?

Such a statement is intended solely to denigrate science and attempt to level the debate playing field.

Science all but eliminates religious style "faith" in the Scientific Method, from first hypothesis to final peer review.

Religious "faith" simply cannot stand up to the Scientific Method.

It forms the hypothesis and then completely ignores every other aspect of the Scientific Method, claiming that the hypothesis is fact without testing or any of the other levels of the scientific process.

 

[Storm]

Such a statement is intended solely to denigrate science and attempt to level the debate playing field.

Science all but eliminates religious style "faith" in the Scientific Method, from first hypothesis to final peer review.

Religious "faith" simply cannot stand up to the Scientific Method.

It forms the hypothesis and then completely ignores every other aspect of the Scientific Method, claiming that the hypothesis is fact without testing or any of the other levels of the scientific process.

And yet some folks tend to go beyond respect for the method to revering our current knowledge with quasi-religious fervor.

 

[AxisMundi]

And yet some folks tend to go beyond respect for the method to revering our current knowledge with quasi-religious fervor.

Example?

 

[Storm]

Example?

Those who say God is disproven are the first to spring to mind.