Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

I'm starting to really see that this is like the situation where you ask 10 lawyers for their thoughts on a case and get 11 opinions; it seems that if you ask 10 people "Is there a god and if yes then describe it" you get 11 answers, but those 11 answers all get lumped together into "proofs that god exist" (even though they are 11 different gods and proofs) and those 10 people all get umbrella'd under "believers" (in what, I don't know, certainly not the same thing).

If you argue that god exists, and god is the basal consciousness of spacetime, you must understand that you are not beleiving in the same god that most of the world is, and in some very real sense you are an atheist when it comes to the major ideas of god.

This is a language issue . . . I'm going to ponder on how to approach this in general. I think it comes down to really insisting on nailing the definition at the start of the conversation and simply focusing on epistemology; "Ok, so you've defined god for me very specifically, and interestingly we now see that you and your friend are actually NOT believers off the same thing, as you thought. Now I'd like to ask how it is that you know that this is the case?"

 

It is not a concern for someone who has room for God in science that the majority of theists in the world have a different belief in God(s).

Neither does it have to be an issue that God can not be proved. Well, it can be made into a case of study of course, like with some subjects in theorethical physics, but that there is no absolute proof yet and perhaps never will be does not mean there isn't any room for these subjects and concepts at all.

I don't see it as there is a real useful purpose for slapping on such a label anyway. Then we would be making it only more a language/semantics issue. But anyway, it seems to me that the agnostic label could be just as fitting for these people But I mean it when I say it holds little purpose to slap these labels on people by default. Especially when we're talking about non specific people/hypothetically. As it often comes down to the details wether someone fits an atheist, theist, agnostic etc. etc. label best.

 

And every bit of scientific data can be explained metaphysically/spiritually as well depending on who you are talking to. Just stating that you can explain something away logically means zero to me, and proves nothing. You're throwing Logic into the same realm as the religious throw God into...as some almighty and irrefutable truth to all things known and unknown. Logic is only responsible for one side of our brain. It's not the end-all, be-all.

 

The funny part about this is, we are all humans part of the same life and the same species on the same planet...arguing about something that literally matters zero in the long run. If you truly believe in the afterlife or God, then none of this matters. If you truly are an atheist and believe in no afterlife, then none of this matters. Once you're dead, and even while you're alive, this debate is meaningless.

 

I kind of disagree about that it matters nothing. Yes, it can be argued that in the end nothing matters at all but wether something matters to someone or not is simply subjective.

I would say, while we are still alive things we care a lot about do matter and are not meaningless. It is why you made certain threads, and it is why mr Writer keeps doing what he does in threads about faith, God, religion etc. etc. Sure, after we are all gone none of it matters anymore (unless someone rereads it and thinks hey this matters/is meaningful to me! Highly unlikely, although it definitely makes it apparent that writing down and spreading our thoughts we find important can be meaningful and matters to others too. What about debates and thoughts of philosophers of centuries ago ), but the fact is we are not dead and actively bothering each other with our stances, because.... right

 

I agree but when talking about something regarding something that is post-life, there's really not much use in debating it. Scientists will never have the proof that they would need for God or the afterlife, unless they start studying NDE's more closely. Religious folks will always just reference their holy books for their truth and leave it at that. This is a debate that has existed for as long as humans have and will continue to exist. No Scientist will ever be able to have definitive proof that God is or isn't real, as there are too many different definitions to what God even is, and religious people are just stubborn about their theologies.

And once you're dead, you're going to just get whatever it is that you're going to get, whether it is an afterlife or not. We don't even know that the post-life experience is the same for each individual. For all we know, depending on the way they see the world, some people may experience an afterlife, another may experience no afterlife, another may be in a limbo state, another may be in a hellish state, another may be in a heavenly state, and the next may be in some state that is inconceivable to our current experience.

In other words, when it comes to death, it's silly to speculate what happens next. Even scientifically.

 

Then there is you. Speaking of confirmation bias, "scientific truths are held to a much higher standard than common beliefs," When did science develop a double standard? How are common beliefs completely irrelevant and outside the realm of science? That there are common beliefs means that they are legitimate terms of study. Common belief is a statistical accounting. To ignore on purpose is no less ignorant than to ignore by mistake. Just because you are scientifically inclined doesn't mean you are wise. It's alright in your terms to use science in manufacturing cosmetics to beautify a face but not alright to use science to examine the process of beautifying the inner space, evidently because it can't be seen. I call that a rather shallow application.

 

Then why debate a post life aspect. There are enough living aspects to examine. There is enough trouble in this day. Plus there are things to examine after death like decomposition. There is also the effect that death has on the consciousness of the living. Although there are a multitude of takes on the proportions of god they all have things in common. One thing though theology is not the scientific method. There are many competing theological models. Taxonomy does use scientific method. Taxonomical classification relies on features in common.

 

To complicate the issue many people pay lip service to belief and really haven't examined in detail what they actually are devoted to. I see devotion to money and personal image as the predominate mover no matter what people say they believe. You say we need to fix gods form in order to discuss it but this idea of popular form in itself provides no detail. That is they may say they believe god is a personality in the sky but they can't tell you what he looks like. Is he six foot two for example. That is because it exists in their minds as only a vague impression.

Also being the question of whether god is suitable subject for science we don't single out a particular form for study as the god phenomena takes many forms. It would be like singling out ice to put through the paces in an effort to understand the proportions of water.

 

Notice that none of my points have anything at all to do with the afterlife or what happens after this life; I'm concerned about this life, and the effect that religion and in particular faith based thinking has.

I think you should think about your statement that religion literally matters zero in the long run . . . religion has shaped our human world, and is one of the most important topics in human culture. All the art that has come out of it; all the wars; all the meaning and happiness; all the sorrow and emptiness; nations born and died on religious grounds; entire ethnic groups as well.

This isn't a "live and let live, let's just sweep it under the rug" topic. Religion, even today, is the most powerful lobby controlling the government of the country you live in China. Don't plug your ears to this or you won't hear the Jehova's knocking (hopefully just jehovas, and not a more sinister knocking).

Science is studying how to improve the inner space; psychology is a whole field that has that as one of its goals, and the study of mindfulness in neuroscience is another.

I also wouldn't lump all religious belief as "beautifying inner space", it seems to me that for most people religion is not a project consciously aimed at improving inner space, it is a credos to swear allegiance to for certain social benefits.

There's a difference between belief in god, and belief in belief in god. More people have the latter than the former, and they get counted as the former as well.

A large chunk of those who profess belief in god are actually atheist or agnostic, but they believe that there is a cultural norm to uphold in belief in god.

Hell even Mother Teresa told the pope explicitely in a letter that she simply couldn't believe in god. After all, it's not really a choice what you believe or don't believe. You only believe if you're convinced, and the position of my atheism is "still waiting to be shown the money and getting the distinct feeling that there's nary a penny in any of your pockets".

 

I see a huge difference between "god" as you describe it and "God", who is a supernatural being.

 

So those are scientific disciplines useful for studying the phenomena of god. Is it your point that science is already studying it?

I don't it was an example for comparison. However you can't tease apart social benefit from the perception of benefit to the inner landscape. Some religions state exactly what the path is for. The stated purpose of christ teaching for example is to develop ease of being. Buddhism the end of suffering. Every one is about achieving some harmonious accord with life.

I absolutely agree with you that people in the largest degree aren't aware of their own motives and obviously this is part of the phenomena that could stand scrutiny. You ask for the penny in the pocket, do you even know what you are looking for? What is the negotiable currency of godliness? Perhaps trust, honesty, tolerance, gentleness, joy, defenselessness, generosity, patience, and consistency?

 

So as a Scientist do you plan on disproving the existence of God in order to rid the world of religion? How do you plan on doing this? I agree that religion is mostly bullshit, but i simultaneously feel that it serves a purpose towards human's humanity, strength to keep living even in hard times, their Spirituality, etc. As long as there are humans, the world has never been and will never be without Religion and Spirituality.

And I thought you weren't subscribing to the notion that there are elites, religious and otherwise, that are lobbying and controlling the world around us. Why are you suddenly about this?

 

This isn't true. If you're 100 percent convinced, then there's no reason to believe. Both the religious and the atheistic both don't have the proof that God does or doesn't exist, so they have their beliefs in place of it. Atheism isn't lack of belief.

What makes your distinct feeling in your gut any different than the distinct feeling in the gut of a Hindu that Shiva is real or for a Christian that Jesus is our savior? Your atheism is no different, other than your asking for proof regarding something that is in theory not of this world. If God is hypothetically real, then your demanding for physical evidence is totally irrelevant to something that would be "Supreme" and completely transcendent of matter and anything within our imagination in this world.

 

Not God, happiness. Are you now equating the two? I thought god is that which we invoke. Now god is happiness? My head hurts.

Not currency of godliness, currency as metaphor for reason to believe in god. Not godliness itself, whatever that is defined as (varies between religions). In the context of showing me why I should believe in a particular god, and using the saying "show me the money", in that sense i don't "see any money".

Disproving the existence of which god? The one in the old testament or the one in the Quran? The one in the Bagavad Gita or the one in the Book of Mormon? The one in the Sioux tradition or the one in the Mik'Mak tradition? The pantheon of greek gods or the pantheon of roman gods? The one that fits your needs, for this conversation, today, defined as you will to be as strong as possible in this debate, or the one that you pray to in the quiet of your own vulnerability?

Which one have you decided exists, Chinacat?

Spirituality I can agree, Religion I can't. Perhaps you are not aware that it is possible to be deeply spiritual and not believe in the existence of a diety?

There's a difference between believing that the Catholic Church has power, that Evangelicalism in the US dictates electoral outcomes, and believing that the world is ruled by transdimensional lizard people who have secret meetings to control banks through the jews and leave little hints on money. One is an observation of well known facts, spoken about plainly on primetime television, the other is conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately for you that is exactly what the dictionary definition of atheism is. Google "definition of atheism". It's right in the word: a(no)theism(belief in personal god).

Perhaps this will clear it up for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I am not a "strong atheist" fyi. Although my hunch tells me that that position is ultimately correct. For the sake of intellectual honesty I cannot adopt it entirely.

Then of what use is this concept of God? You can't then use it to explain anything. You can't say "X, Y, and Z are because God exists", and then when I ask to see your proof, reply "How dare you ask for proof! Obviously God is beyond the imaginings of mere mortal minds such as ours"; in that case you must retract any and all statements you have made regarding any and all properties or interactions of and with this "god" concept.

If this is your position then you have agreed with those who feel that God, in fact, has no place in science. It is as amorphous and volatile and undefined a concept as any.

 

Disproving the existence of which god? The one in the old testament or the one in the Quran? The one in the Bagavad Gita or the one in the Book of Mormon? The one in the Sioux tradition or the one in the Mik'Mak tradition? The pantheon of greek gods or the pantheon of roman gods? The one that fits your needs, for this conversation, today, defined as you will to be as strong as possible in this debate, or the one that you pray to in the quiet of your own vulnerability?

Which one have you decided exists, Chinacat?

I can't say which ones exist if any. However, there are such things as archetypes, which i feel have a reality to them, and which play themselves out through various forms of Gods. I can also admit that the universe is way too vast and infinite for me to determine whether any of these gods exist or not.








Spirituality I can agree, Religion I can't. Perhaps you are not aware that it is possible to be deeply spiritual and not believe in the existence of a diety?

I am well aware of this as I am one of those people. Or in other words, i don't worship any specific deity. It's not my place to declare whether these deity's actually exist in some realm of the universe or not. I simply know that i don't know for certain.




There's a difference between believing that the Catholic Church has power, that Evangelicalism in the US dictates electoral outcomes, and believing that the world is ruled by transdimensional lizard people who have secret meetings to control banks through the jews and leave little hints on money. One is an observation of well known facts, spoken about plainly on primetime television, the other is conspiracy theory.

I am open-minded to Reptilians existing, and i'm equally open-minded to them not existing. I'm not really sure, but i definitely never said anything about them. You're putting words in my mouth.

On another note, why do you even pay attention to primetime telivision or gobble up what they spew to you?



Unfortunately for you that is exactly what the dictionary definition of atheism is. Google "definition of atheism". It's right in the word: a(no)theism(belief in personal god).

Perhaps this will clear it up for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I am not a "strong atheist" fyi. Although my hunch tells me that that position is ultimately correct. For the sake of intellectual honesty I cannot adopt it entirely.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

It is the disbelief in a God. Not a lack of belief. There is a difference. It is also the doctrine that there is no deity. You believe that there is no deity, in other words.


Then of what use is this concept of God? You can't then use it to explain anything. You can't say "X, Y, and Z are because God exists", and then when I ask to see your proof, reply "How dare you ask for proof! Obviously God is beyond the imaginings of mere mortal minds such as ours"; in that case you must retract any and all statements you have made regarding any and all properties or interactions of and with this "god" concept.

If this is your position then you have agreed with those who feel that God, in fact, has no place in science. It is as amorphous and volatile and undefined a concept as any.

actually this is why i said it's silly to make the debate in the first place. It's always going to be a subjective thing to each individual, not this x, y, and z left-brain calculation.

Do you have any proof that there are interdimensional beings out there? I'm guessing no, correct? Does that have anything to do with whether they are real or not?

Yes, you're right, i agree that there might not be a place for God in Science. However, that has nothing to do with whether God actually exists or not.

 

No. Not current creators. I can sympathize with deism and agnosticism and cede that those two have potential but claiming a creator traditional or faceless(no specific name or denomination) is still a little nonsensical. The claim that is made is that conciousness can exist without material being but this is something that has not been seen. It's similar to claiming that there is a square circle which is impossible to exist. I think that god and religion are much of what alchemy is to chemisty. The "creator" argument has been used to explain virtually everything andmuch of it has been demystified and explained. I feel like the "creator" still give people hope to exist with out their own bodies( the afterlife, which religion has no monopoly on so it's not unreasonable) but one can still hold those thoughts with out a creator.

 

Only you can say if you are happy. I say god is that which we invoke as an axiomatic beginning to further reasoning. You are absolutely devoted to your own verdicts unless you fundamentally change your mind. When studying the phenomena of god or religion you have to account for the reason it exists, that is the theoretical result. If such and such is so we should see this result. Happiness or joy is one advertised result so such a measure could be used and you would have to account for before and after.

I wouldn't try to convince in the context of believing anything. And i said you don't know what you are looking for in terms of substance. The substance is a change in a persons subjective/perceptive state.

AS I said before what a person is actually devoted to and what he says he believes in may not be the same. Further in the case of christ teaching it is more rare than not to find a substantial example by definition as many are called but few are chosen, or choose to listen. To achieve a profoundly liberated sense of self is a rare thing. Christ teaching and buddhism, those I am most familiar with are liberation technologies, the truth sets you free.

So there is one question does god work and another is god essential.

I've briefly touched on ways of testing efficacy and on the subject of what is essential i would say nothing needed is missing but not all things are helpful, helpful being a matter of timing and desired aim.

 

The picture changes a little when you add man as inheritor in kind of powerful creative impulse. That picture implies an appreciation for responsibility and sincere reflection on your choices in having the power to create worlds or atmospheres and share them with others. We are so impressive as to be in danger of self destruction for not being careful where we shit.