Is science interested in finding God ?

[PureX]

I disagree. At the risk of lapsing into semantics there is a difference between not believing in something and believing something does not exist.

Most people who believe in science believe god does not exist.

Those people have effectively replaced their idea of God with their idea of science. And they are still confusing faith with belief.

 

[cladking]

Those people have effectively replaced their idea of God with their idea of science. And they are still confusing faith with belief.

I guess that's true. How ironic.

 

[MikeF]

We are on the brink of extinction and will be lucky to exist at all in just the next century.

I don't know your theology, so let's look at your comment from a generalized Abrahamic point of view (if you agree that's possible). For the Abrahamic religions, why would being on the brink of extinction matter? Isn't that their entity's plan. an apocalyptic end to this world we inhabit? My impression is that all an Abrahamic follower need do is keep to the tenets of their faith, faithfully, and they will be taken care of. In fact, it seems the sooner this is all over, the sooner one gets to begin a glorious eternal life. From an Abrahamic perspective it would seem gnashing teeth over impending extinction would be wasted energy.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is science interested in finding God ?

Has science explored if religion is a part of evolution of humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

Those people have effectively replaced their idea of God with their idea of science. And they are still confusing faith with belief.

I just wonder if evolutionary theory proposes that religion and the idea of God entering human consciousness is part of the process of evolution.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I just wonder if evolutionary theory proposes that religion and the idea of God entering human consciousness is part of the process of evolution.

Science, including evolution, has nothing to say at all as to whether god exists.

However, humankind's inclination to religion is definitely an evolved trait. Evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson speaks of group selection in favor of religion, that religion is adaptive in many ways, such as that it help created cooperative groups (and we know that cooperative groups out compete non-cooperative groups every time). He is really one of the movers and shakers at present. You can read more about his ideas here:

David Sloan Wilson's Group Selection Theory of Religion: Analysis and Possible Christian Responses - Christian Scholar’s Review

Evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson has put forward a functional theory of religion which holds that religious belief and practice are “good” for believers in biological terms. In his view, religious beliefs are attached to reality via this benefit, even though they are fictional in a...

christianscholars.com

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Is science interested in finding God ?

It used to be.
Isaac Newton recognized that a Higher Power was necessary to explain many of his discoveries.

Regarding our solar system, in his Principia Mathematica, Newton declared: “Though these bodies [planets] may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws… This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”


Does science accept this explanation today? Nope.

Even tho the mainstream explanation — “through accretion” — has no solid evidence supporting it.

 

[McBell]

Does science accept this explanation today? Nope.

That is simply because replacing "I Do Not Know" with "GodDidIt" is not an answer to anything.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That is simply because replacing "I Do Not Know" with "GodDidIt" is not an answer to anything.

But if scientists say they don’t know, then it’s philosophy. I.e., guesswork. Not science.

 

[McBell]

But if scientists say they don’t know, then it’s philosophy. I.e., guesswork. Not science.

Gonna need me some chest waders to continue this discussion......

 

[PureX]

I just wonder if evolutionary theory proposes that religion and the idea of God entering human consciousness is part of the process of evolution.

Yes, they do think that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they do think that.

Must be. But I'd love to hear that from an evolutionist. Are you a believer in the theory of evolution as the way life came about after, of course, the supposed abiogenesis? (I want to make my question as clear as possible. )

 

[YoursTrue]

Gonna need me some chest waders to continue this discussion......

I'm thinkin' we'd have to go into the statistics, or probabilities again. While I do not agree with @SavedByTheLord's stance on everything she interprets from the Bible, I do realize her questions are very good about evolution. Instead of answering those questions I notice evolutionists make fun of her and those they call "creationists" without offering any reasonable explanation. Now once a person comes to a dead stop trying to figure how it all came about, there are not too many turns a person can make after that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science, including evolution, has nothing to say at all as to whether god exists.

However, humankind's inclination to religion is definitely an evolved trait. Evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson speaks of group selection in favor of religion, that religion is adaptive in many ways, such as that it help created cooperative groups (and we know that cooperative groups out compete non-cooperative groups every time). He is really one of the movers and shakers at present. You can read more about his ideas here:

David Sloan Wilson's Group Selection Theory of Religion: Analysis and Possible Christian Responses - Christian Scholar’s Review

Evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson has put forward a functional theory of religion which holds that religious belief and practice are “good” for believers in biological terms. In his view, religious beliefs are attached to reality via this benefit, even though they are fictional in a...

christianscholars.com

OK, so you say that humans evolved by "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" of dna into believing religious concepts. So it must be genetic, eh? Thanks btw for that. Therefore it follows according to the theory that it's "natural"? by the laws of evolution ("natural selection") to be true (that it's naturally evolved.)
Of course you can't thank evolution for anything good and you can't blame evolution for what you might consider good or bad, and thanks for your thoughts about that.

 

[McBell]

I'm thinkin' we'd have to go into the statistics, or probabilities again. While I do not agree with @SavedByTheLord's stance on everything she interprets from the Bible, I do realize her questions are very good about evolution. Instead of answering those questions I notice evolutionists make fun of her and those they call "creationists" without offering any reasonable explanation. Now once a person comes to a dead stop trying to figure how it all came about, there are not too many turns a person can make after that.

You will need to read through all of @SavedByTheLord's threads.
@SavedByTheLord's questions have been answered multiple times by multiple members,

It is not everyone elses fault that @SavedByTheLord does not understand and or does not like the answers they were given.

So now, since @SavedByTheLord has taken to ignoring all answers given, nor are they the least bit interested in learning anything, there is nothing left for anyone to do but use them as entertainment.

Which appears to be working out well for @SavedByTheLord's ego.
They have already stated that "suffering for the lord" is great.
apparently even if said "suffering" is all in their own head.

 

[YoursTrue]

Those people have effectively replaced their idea of God with their idea of science. And they are still confusing faith with belief.

Well, of course the ancient Greeks who might have toyed around with the idea of creation or how things came about, did not believe in the God of Israel, and they mainly had their own gods that now I see evolutionists say genetically evolved by the rule of survival of the fittest and natural selection. So who can argue with that? After all, according to evolutionism, it's a LAW. Set of course by the incontrovertible and irreversible law of -- evolution. Can't reverse or turn that around now, can we?
In contrast,
The faithful man Job reasonably asked,
"If a man dies, can he live again?
I will wait all the days of my compulsory service
Until my relief comes. You will call, and I will answer you.
You will long for the work of your hands." (Job chapter 14)

 

[YoursTrue]

You will need to read through all of @SavedByTheLord's threads.
@SavedByTheLord's questions have been answered multiple times by multiple members,

It is not everyone elses fault that @SavedByTheLord does not understand and or does not like the answers they were given.

So now, since @SavedByTheLord has taken to ignoring all answers given, nor are they the least bit interested in learning anything, there is nothing left for anyone to do but use them as entertainment.

Which appears to be working out well for @SavedByTheLord's ego.
They have already stated that "suffering for the lord" is great.
apparently even if said "suffering" is all in their own head.

ok, I must have missed or did not see explanations of any scientifically based responses. Other than quoting perhaps scientists or theories without giving explanations based on factual matter that relates and/or makes sense. I'll keep that in mind though next time I see a "scientific" response to her questions, other than -- 'it happened by evolution.' I've moved on somewhat into a new query, which evolutionists can't really argue over, since now it seems religion per the human strain of life came about by evolution. Evolutionists really can't argue about that -- therefore -- according to evolution, if the concept of religion and therefore God came about by genetic circumstance, I'll let you figure the rest. Have a good one.

 

[PureX]

Must be. But I'd love to hear that from an evolutionist. Are you a believer in the theory of evolution as the way life came about after, of course, the supposed abiogenesis? (I want to make my question as clear as possible. )

Life forms clearly evolve, as we can witness this for ourselves. The exact mechanisms, however, are still not fully understood. For example, what degree mutation plays relative to the degree selection plays, and how to explain some of the apparently quick and dramatic changes in the record as we know of it. Also, abiogenesis is still very much in question. Though I know of no reasonable alternative theory at the moment.

I am not a believer in things that I can't know to be so because I see no logical reason why I should make such presumptions. So I don't "believe in" evolution, or God. I simply recognize the logical possibility of both, and accept that as a mere human, I don't get the right to claim to know how or why life came about. Or what it even means to claim that God exists.

Fortunately, however, this unknowing allows me to choose to trust in whichever of these possibilities I would hope to be reality even though I can't know it to be so. And I can choose to live accordingly. This is faith. So I choose to place my faith in the existence of a benevolent creator God, and in the evidence and logic of evolutionary theory. As I see no reason to consider these possibilities to be mutually exclusive.

 

[YoursTrue]

Life forms clearly evolve, as we can witness this for ourselves. The exact mechanisms, however, are still not fully understood. For example, what degree mutation plays relative to the degree selection plays, and how to explain some of the apparently quick and dramatic changes in the record as we know of it. Also, abiogenesis is still very much in question. Though I know of no reasonable alternative theory at the moment.

I am not a believer in things that I can't know to be so because I see no logical reason why I should make such presumptions. So I don't "believe in" evolution, or God. I simply recognize the logical possibility of both, and accept that as a mere human, I don't get the right to claim to know how or why life came about. Or what it even means to claim that God exists.

Fortunately, however, this unknowing allows me to choose to trust in whichever of these possibilities I would hope to be reality even though I can't know it to be so. And I can choose to live accordingly. This is faith. So I choose to place my faith in the existence of a benevolent creator God, and in the evidence and logic of evolutionary theory. As I see no reason to consider these possibilities to be mutually exclusive.

What does bring my mind to focus is when it is written, " Let us make man in our image." Thus man was different in God's mind and making from the apes, fishes, and other created life forms.

 

[PureX]

What does bring my mind to focus is when it is written, " Let us make man in our image." Thus man was different in God's mind and making from the apes, fishes, and other created life forms.

Yes, humans are extraordinarily different from all other life forms in terms of cognitive awareness. And it is one of those inexplicable evolutionary leaps I mentioned above.