Is science interested in finding God ?

[Dan From Smithville]

They need more than evidence. They need a physical phenomenon of some kind. Otherwise they have no means of investigating the evidence. There's already plenty of evidence, but it's not physical or mathematical, it's logical (philosophical) and scientists can't investigate that.

Wouldn't a physical phenomenon of some kind be evidence? What do you consider to be evidence, then?

Is philosophy evidence for what is philosophized or that people can imagine, construct and believe in a philosophical position? Your basic position seems to be that if it can be imagined, then it is possible for that reason alone and if it is possible, that is evidence that what is believed exists.

You have to show that the imagined is possible. And then show that possibility is actual. Merely supposing the possible doesn't conjure it into factual existence or show that it could be.

Pegasus is an imagined beast, but a 1500 lbs horse would have to have a wingspan that could not be physically supported by what we know as a horse. Certainly not a wingspan in the depictions of the imagined view of a winged horse. A winged horse, were it possible, would look so radically different to achieve the ability to fly, that I can't imagine it would be recognizable as a horse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not all science BUT money and fame is a driver in any capitalist society, so some scientists will be motivated.

I don't think it is limited to a capitalist economy. Power, fame and fortune have yet to find an economic, political or philosophical position that they cannot exist in.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You use this phrase a lot. When "most humans" use the term 'God', do "most humans" consider the term 'God' to be pointing to the "great mystery" as you have so often describe "the great mystery", or do "most humans" see or believe the term 'God', when used, pointing to something else entirely? My impression is that it is the latter case.

That would be my impression too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So science is interested in fame, fortune, and Nobel prizes? I thought it was interested in explaining how our natural world works.

Science must be more ego-driven than I thought.

Science isn't a position of interest in those things, but some of us scientists are interested in some or all of those in varying degrees. And for different reasons.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everyone thinks they're a critical thinker and don't see their own assumptions, axioms, or how definitions affect what they believe. If you are a believer in science then you know for a fact that visions in hallucinations are just as automatically incorrect as philosophy and information from ANYTHING they consider a bad source. It's kindda funny to watch once great scientists get kicked off the list of et als because they are out of style.

I find it amusing to see how those that want others to embrace their personal views as science behave when that doesn't happen. Seems like sour grapes to me.

 

[Little Dragon]

Is science interested in finding God ?

Would scientists be interested in testable and falsifiable information concerning a supernatural controlling entity?
Yes, yes they probably would. I would.
Is searching for the hand of God in the dance of the stars, something scientists do?
Kind of, they speculate on metaphysical questions, like, what if anything, preceded the universe. Questions that are currently beyond the scientific method, beyond all observation, direct or indirect.
Some see a creator God behind it all, like the Great Wizard of Oz.
As for me, I just do not know. I am agnostic, on the basis that I have insufficient evidence about reality, to be even 50% certain about anything, beyond that which is measurable inferable testable observable and quantifiable.

 

[MikeF]

God is the great mystery source, sustenance and purpose of all that it. The labels and concepts that we humans use to represent this mystery will vary, of course, according to our cultural experience of it. That is to be expected. How could it be otherwise? Yet you seem to expect that it shouldn't be like this. That somehow we all should have the same label and cultural experience of this greatest mystery, and that we should be able to "prove it" to each others. Which is quite illogical and unrealistic. And yet this presumption never seem to diminish among anti-theists.

The Tuareg people living in the Sahara Desert ave a dozen different wrds for water, because finding water is life and death for them, all the time. I do not have a dozen words for water because I can't imagine water in that many different forms. Yet the Tuareg people can, and do. Does this mean water is not a "real" experience ... because our experienced, understanding of it, and our labels for of it are so different?

In English there can be many words that all refer to the same thing. For example, there are lots of words to show interest or approval in English: cool, neat, awesome, great, wonderful etc. We can also use the same label and apply it to different things or concepts, for example: cool can represent interest or approval, or it can be a reference to relative temperature.

With this label ‘God’, it seems readily apparent to me that it is this latter case that applies, that we have one label being used to point to many different things. It may represent your feelings or opinions to declare that any use of the label ‘God’ shall be considered to all point to and reference your concept of the same thing, but I am quite confident that such an attitude is not shared by “most people”.

My original comment is a critique on your use of the phrase “most people”, and I see it as a valid one. Among the billions of people on this planet, I think it is more than safe to say many do not share either your sense of mystery nor your concept of one entity to represent it all.

 

[PureX]

Wouldn't a physical phenomenon of some kind be evidence? What do you consider to be evidence, then?

All the information that we have that is related to the question being asked, is "evidence". For example, the fact that we have asked it is evidence that it needed to e asked. So, why did it need to be asked? Knowing this might help infer an answer.

Is philosophy evidence for what is philosophized or that people can imagine, construct and believe in a philosophical position?

Of course. Every question asked contains a part of it's own answer in the reason and the way it was asked.

Your basic position seems to be that if it can be imagined, then it is possible for that reason alone and if it is possible, that is evidence that what is believed exists.

We humans know almost nothing about what is possible or not possible. We humans don't know what exists, what could exist, or what can't exist. And we know almost nothing about what has happened, is happening, or will happen in the future. Though we really like to think that we do. So we fall into this bad habit of simply "believing" what things that we can't actually now to be so. And then we find ourselves havng to defend the things we believe just because we believe them, and in spite of the act that we can't know them to be so. We believe gods exist, or we believe they don't. But in fact none of us knows because we simply do not possess requisite capability.

And as we foolishly try to defend our beliefs, we become more and more self-deluded and antagonistic toward anyone that chooses to believe something different, or contradictory to our beliefs.

You have to show that the imagined is possible.

It's possible if it cannot be proven to be impossible. And given the vastness of our human ignorance, it would be very difficult to prove anything to be impossible.

And then show that possibility is actual.

That would require omniscience. So that cannot happen for we humans.

Merely supposing the possible doesn't conjure it into factual existence or show that it could be.

Nor does it eliminate it from factual existence and show that it can't be. The problem is that we humans are woefully lacking the capacity to do either of those things. So for us, a great many things are possible. Far more that we can even imagine. 96% of what we theorize to physically exist is completely unknown to us. That's a LOT of possibility.

Pegasus is an imagined beast, but a 1500 lbs horse would have to have a wingspan that could not be physically supported by what we know as a horse. Certainly not a wingspan in the depictions of the imagined view of a winged horse. A winged horse, were it possible, would look so radically different to achieve the ability to fly, that I can't imagine it would be recognizable as a horse.

You are blindly assuming that for something to "exist" must mean that it exists physically. And yet a great many things exist metaphysically. Including even ourselves. When we die, no one if going to morn the loss of our physical bodies. Because we were not our physical bodies. We were metaphysical beings living within our own and each other's minds.

 

[MikeF]

There are a whole host of fundamental assumptions upon which much (all?) of science is based. Logic and mathematics obviously. The existence of the kind of natural order that physicists love so much, their "laws of nature". Scientists typically accept these kind of things as givens and doesn't typically inquire into their origin or into why they are as they seem to be and not some other way.

I would disagree with this notion that science, or the endeavor of scientific inquiry is founded on a whole host of assumptions. What we know of anything begins with experience, which is not an assumption in my view, rather, it is simply a reality. What we know of the world then, is reasoned expectation based upon a set of experiences, and what is considered to be known is held, not with certainty, but degrees of confidence. The greater the corroboration, the greater the confidence in the held knowledge or reasoned expectation. So, with your example of the "laws of nature", such physical laws are designated as "laws" as a direct refection of the degree of confidence to which they have been corroborated. They are not simply assumed to be true. Should some corroborated experience conflict with a particular "law", it would prompt a reevaluation of the law to either modify it or replace the law with a new one that incorporates the new information.

As to logic and mathematics, human beings think in abstraction. Abstractions, abstract representations, allow us to think, store information, and communicate what we think about to others. Language, mathematics, and logic are simply abstract systems that facilitate the process of thinking about, storing, and communicating our experiences. They are not fundamental assumptions, simply tools of our own making.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All the information that we have that is related to the question being asked, is "evidence". For example, the fact that we have asked it is evidence that it needed to e asked. So, why did it need to be asked? Knowing this might help infer an answer.

You said, "they need more than evidence, They need a physical phenomenon of some kind" as if those two are mutually exclusive. Are you saying that you didn't mean that to sound that way and consider evidence to be a physical phenomenon of some kind? I still don't know.

Of course. Every question asked contains a part of it's own answer in the reason and the way it was asked.

I'm looking for answers that contain a part of the answer. Is the existence of a philosophy evidence for the subject of the philosophy? I am not arguing that the existence of it is not evidence of something.

We humans know almost nothing about what is possible or not possible.

I do not have the knowledge to make or support such claims.

We humans don't know what exists, what could exist, or what can't exist.

Ok. I can't see that gives you a strong foundation if you concede that you don't know anything.

And we know almost nothing about what has happened, is happening, or will happen in the future.

I definitely can admit that I do not know what is happening in the future or will happen. I'm not sure how something can be in the future and have happened at the same time, but humans have some pretty impressive imaginations.

Though we really like to think that we do.

Sometimes we even demonstrate that we do without even realizing it. I have to keep looking back up at what I posted and what you are responding to. It gets lost in your response.

So we fall into this bad habit of simply "believing" what things that we can't actually now to be so. And then we find ourselves havng to defend the things we believe just because we believe them, and in spite of the act that we can't know them to be so. We believe gods exist, or we believe they don't. But in fact none of us knows because we simply do not possess requisite capability.

I made the statement that "your basic position seems to be that if it can be imagined, then it is possible for that reason alone and if it is possible, that is evidence that what is believed exists". I'm not sure that has been answered yet.

And as we foolishly try to defend our beliefs, we become more and more self-deluded and antagonistic toward anyone that chooses to believe something different, or contradictory to our beliefs.

I see this a lot. Sure. The problem I have is someone that dictates what is and isn't by fiat and rhetoric and little if any evidence or reason.

It's possible if it cannot be proven to be impossible.

I don't know that I have argued against that. Many things are or may be possible that never appear to happen. It is possible that some beautiful, popular and wealthy young female celebrity may suddenly decide that I'm the man for her. Is it very likely? You may be giving me hope here.

And given the vastness of our human ignorance, it would be very difficult to prove anything to be impossible.

Do you ever focus on human knowledge or are you fixated on what we do not know and consider ignorance to mean more than it is? Ignorance can be erased as well as nurtured.

That would require omniscience. So that cannot happen for we humans.

Again, I have to go back an look to see what you are responding to here.

I see. So you claim that in order to demonstrate something you have to be omniscient. I'm not sure how to take this considering you are trying to demonstrate something.

Nor does it eliminate it from factual existence and show that it can't be.

I take it you mean our lack of omniscience and failure to demonstrate what is possible does not mean that the failure renders the possible impossible, only un-demonstrable that it is possible???? Is that possible?

The problem is that we humans are woefully lacking the capacity to do either of those things

This seems to fit with my reading. You see everyone as woefully lacking the capacity to even see they lack the capacity.

So for us, a great many things are possible.

Not if I read you correctly. Of course, you can fall on that as the sword that kills me.

Far more that we can even imagine. 96% of what we theorize to physically exist is completely unknown to us. That's a LOT of possibility.

I'm still not sure that the answer I'm seeking is in this response. 96% is a lot of knowledge for such ignorant beings as us.

You are blindly assuming that for something to "exist" must mean that it exists physically.

Is that blind or is that reasonable? I don't stop camping, because the ghost of alien Bigfoot might capture me for breeding purposes and probing.

And yet a great many things exist metaphysically. Including even ourselves. When we die, no one if going to morn the loss of our physical bodies. Because we were not our physical bodies. We were metaphysical beings living within our own and each other's minds.

I'm not sure this is a good example. What I am crosses into the physical and has evidence for it. The words on this page are physical evidence of me. That my body is merely a vessel for my self it still exists as physical evidence of me and that self. In fact, I only have physical evidence of me. I only have the physical evidence of this forum to determine if you are real or not. What you post is that evidence, but it is not evidence that what you post is correct. Which brings us back to my original questions that don't seem to have been answered here.

 

[MikeF]

Ignorance can be erased as well as nurtured.

Nice aphorism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nice aphorism.

Thanks.

Sometimes I get lucky.

I'm curious about how our ignorance is used as a blanket repudiation of what we have learned.

I see the invention of science as a recognition of our ignorance and the development of the means to cast it aside where possible.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So I'd say that science very much points to the existence of a 'God' (defined in this rather philosophical way as the ultimate Source and Explanation for everything else).

Sure, science is searching for that, the 'Ultimate Source', not excluding 'Absolute Nothing' too. But before science finds that, it will not write its scripture. That is where religions have gone wrong, they have written their scriptures before knowing anything about this 'Ultimate Source', just because someone said so.

 

[MikeF]

Thanks.

Sometimes I get lucky.

I'm curious about how our ignorance is used as a blanket repudiation of what we have learned.

I see the invention of science as a recognition of our ignorance and the development of the means to cast it aside where possible.

I have a similar take. I see the invention of science as a recognition of our fallibility which consequently requires conscious effort to mitigate to make progress in the expanding our collective knowledge and understanding of the world. I see our ignorance as a safe haven for those who need it, to project an artificial construct of reality to meet a subjective personal need. Science continually moves the boundary between the known and the unknown and thus continually encroaches on those artificial constructs causing conflict with, and resistance to, scientific inquiry.

 

[Audie]

Would scientists be interested in testable and falsifiable information concerning a supernatural controlling entity?
Yes, yes they probably would. I would.
Is searching for the hand of God in the dance of the stars, something scientists do?
Kind of, they speculate on metaphysical questions, like, what if anything, preceded the universe. Questions that are currently beyond the scientific method, beyond all observation, direct or indirect.
Some see a creator God behind it all, like the Great Wizard of Oz.
As for me, I just do not know. I am agnostic, on the basis that I have insufficient evidence about reality, to be even 50% certain about anything, beyond that which is measurable inferable testable observable and quantifiable.

Would they? How about mad scramble to
be first to publish on possibly the greatest
breakthrough in science history.

 

[Valjean]

Fame, fortune and a Nobel Prize await the successful scientist, so why wouldn't it be interested?

Because, thus far, there's nothing to investigate. To investigate you need tools, ie: evidence.
Nor is there any indication that there's any evidence to be had; no reason to expect any. If a phenomenon can be explained by X, Y, and Z, why would anyone look for an A?

 

[McBell]

If a phenomenon can be explained by X, Y, and Z, why would anyone look for an A?

They want A to be the explanation
They do not understand X, Y or Z
...
...

 

[gnostic]

The Tuareg people living in the Sahara Desert have a dozen different words for water, because finding water is life and death for them. I do not have a dozen words for water because I can't imagine water in that many different forms. Yet the Tuareg people can, and do. Does this mean water is not a "real" experience ... because our experiences of it, our understanding of it, and our labels for of it are so different?

One thing, I wouldn’t call water, I wouldn’t call water, “God”.

I don’t know the Tuareg language, so I couldn't argue why they have so many names for water, but from what I can understand from what you are saying, there may be different words for water in Tuareg, but I really doubt they were thinking there are many “different forms” to water, as you wrote:

“…because I can't imagine water in that many different forms.”​

I don’t think it is the same thing.

But even then, I wouldn't call water, "God".

God is the great mystery source, sustenance and purpose of all that it. The labels and concepts that we humans use to represent this mystery will vary, of course, according to our cultural experience of it. That is to be expected. How could it be otherwise?

Mystery is just something that is unknown, I would associate any mystery of nature to God.

Your association of God to any mystery is just superstition and really appalling poor logic. I believed that this is referred to as False Equivalence, hence a logic fallacy, where people make interpretation of two completely different things as if they were similar because of very superficial resemblance.

Do science know everything to know about the planet Earth or about the Sun?

Of course not. There are still some unknown properties about either, but to associate the unknown to God, is simply sloppy reasoning.

It would just be as bad if I associate fairy being the cause of flowers blooming, or stork carrying babies to parents, or that Zeus, Thor or Indra cause lightnings and thunders. If you don't know something, then study botany, or human biology, or meteorology.

Just call mystery, "mystery" or "unknown". Don't put God label in any natural phenomena that we don't understand yet.

They need more than evidence. They need a physical phenomenon of some kind.

The evidence are the observations of the physical phenomena.

There are little differences between the physical phenomena and evidence.

The only differences that I can see, is that evidence are observations in which scientists can acquire information (data) about physical properties of the physical phenomena.

 

[Audie]

Because, thus far, there's nothing to investigate. To investigate you need tools, ie: evidence.
Nor is there any indication that there's any evidence to be had; no reason to expect any. If a phenomenon can be explained by X, Y, and Z, why would anyone look for an A?

It's like the lack of interest in searching for
Batboy.

 

[Little Dragon]

Would they? How about mad scramble to
be first to publish on possibly the greatest
breakthrough in science history.

Weirdest and most unexpected scientific breakthrough in history!