Science and God

Quote: Dalex64

It is much easier to reason that they all are wrong, and continue to be wrong.
.

And that's exactly why all the 'convert' religions,
Islam, Christianity, and Mormonism, have a 'better
hurry' basis to their dogma. The other religions,
like Hinduism and Buddhism, which embrace
reincarnation, could care less about converting
you. In fact, they don't even want you.

The convert religions can't stand that you don't
believe in their god. That you don't go thru every
day wracked in guilt, wondering if you measure
up. I'll gladly believe in god, just as soon as the
evidence points there. So far, no cigar.

Quote: Dalex64

Another argument, and this one is personal to me and I have no idea how many people in he world agree with me is:
There have been many gods and many religions throughout the course of human history. What makes any of them right?

If I may play Devil's Advocate (not as fun as playing Monopoly, IMO), in pagan times, at least in Europe and the Middle East, this wasn't a question. People worshipped foreign gods as much as their own. One tactic Alexander employed in newly conquered lands was to offer sacrifices to the local gods, in the manner and style used by the locals.

In fact, even monotheistic creeds like Judaism often also incorporated offerings to pagan deities. Old temples have been found with artwork depicting such deities.

Religion didn't become oppressive until it became ideological.

Quote:

There are so many disparate beliefs in the world right now. They can't all be right.

Again, playing Devil's Advocate (delicious irony!), they can.

If we assume the existence of an eternal, omnipotent being, which nevertheless requires something from us lesser mortals, it would make sense to suppose he would require different things from different people. I wouldn't necessarily follow, but it makes sense. Consider the analogy of a pet owner who has both cats and dogs, because she needs different things from her pets.

I don't believe this, but given the initial assumption the conclusion could be argued sensibly.

Quote:

It is much easier to reason that they all are wrong, and continue to be wrong.

And correct, too, according to existing evidence.

Quote: Nareed

Religion didn't become oppressive until it became ideological.

The goddess pagan religions were all
about worshiping, not about ideology.
It wasn't till egghead intellectuals came
along and wanted power that everything
went to hell, pardon the pun. Those
pagans were having way too much fun,
worshiping and not feeling a bit of guilt
in their lives. Can't have that, can't control
people unless you first make them guilty.
Christianity and the ideologues mastered
that.

Quote: Dalex

Gods and religions were created to explain the unexplainable, and bring rules, law, and order to often anarchic societies.

Through our long history, we have discovered the answers to many of our questions, and previously unexplainable phenomena are no longer attributed to God or gods.

What you are describing here is the "god of the gaps". This theology is certainly part of the history of religion and there is a reason it has faded. We know lightning bolts aren't thrown by Zeus. I don't believe in a "god of the gaps" either. God gave us a brain and a beautiful and orderly creation that follows strict rules so that we can figure out the gaps on our own. You'll notice that Jesus didn't come to teach us physics but to be our friend. He came to enter into a loving relationship with us. So while God isn't needed (at least directly) to explore the scientific mysteries of life, He is very much needed to explore the non-scientific ones like; Why are we here? Who are we? Where are we going? Is there a purpose or meaning to my life? How do I deal with suffering? Why am I so good and yet struggle to do good at times? What do I do with my regrets? How can I or should I help the poor and needy? etc., etc. etc.

Quote: Dalex

There have been many gods and many religions throughout the course of human history. What makes any of them right?
There are so many disparate beliefs in the world right now. They can't all be right. Each one supplants the last, and competes with eachother. At the time, they thought they were right. But time and time again they are replaced with others who claim that those people were wrong, and THIS NOW really is right. What if the right one has already come and gone?

It is much easier to reason that they all are wrong, and continue to be wrong.

We don't have to have all of the answers now, and I think it is extremely prideful to think that we do have the answers.

First of all I'd like to point out that your very good objections to good are not at all what Mosca or others would call scientific evidence. Probably because for all of Bob's blustering there is no scientific evidence that would lead one to thinking there is no God. There are some very strong philosophical objections to God's existence, which you are pointing out, but nothing concrete - which is exactly what I am always being asked to provide.

Anyway, I don't know if I follow your logic behind reasoning that all religions are wrong because there are so many. There are lots of answers people give to questions that have a single right answer. Only one of those answers is right, but maybe some of them are very similar or they have parts of them that are true. To discover which answer is the right one we can look at lots of evidence concerning its coherency, theological system, its ability to help people and change peoples lives for the better, miracles, and lots of other things. It would be prideful to think anyone knows God perfectly and has Him locked in a box, He would never allow it. But I think one can say with certainty and confidence that they truly understand God as He has revealed Himself to help humanity.

Quote: FrGamble

We know lightning bolts aren't thrown by Zeus.

That's a very bold statement. Have you seen Zeus not throwing lightning bolts? Do you know every last detail about lightning, electricity and the atmosphere, to be able to say with absolute certainty Zeus isn't involved in some way? Can you prove Zeus/Jupiter did not order the heavens in such a way as to produce lightning?

Quote:

So while God isn't needed (at least directly) to explore the scientific mysteries of life,

I think Mosca is right. You should stop hedging.

Quote:

Probably because for all of Bob's blustering there is no scientific evidence that would lead one to thinking there is no God.

Other than all the scientific evidence gathered over the past 3 centuries or so, no, there isn't any (more).

Quote:

It would be prideful to think anyone knows God perfectly and has Him locked in a box,

When ahs that been an impediment?

Quote: FrGamble

there is no scientific evidence that would lead one to thinking there is no God.

Think about what you're saying here. By that
logic, we could and should believe in everything
we can't prove doesn't exist. That's what people
USED TO DO, it's called

SUPERSTITION!

Santa, Easter Bunny, Bigfoot, Tooth Fairy, anything
we can't prove doesn't exist, should all be believed
according to your parameters. Do you see why god
is in there with all the others? I know you do..

I don't understand what you are trying to do. You can't disprove the unprovable. If evidence can't be backed up with proof, facts, and truth, then it is useless and isn't really evidence at all.

You offer thought experiments and reasoned explainations, but without proof, your conclusions have nothing to stand on. It is wishful thinking.

The people working on string theory have the same problem. They have come up with a belief system used to describe the world around us, but lack the ability to prove that the mechanics required to let it all work.

Once all of the evidence that once pointed to god points somewhere else, what then?

Quote: Nareed

Other than all the scientific evidence gathered over the past 3 centuries or so, no, there isn't any (more).

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make sense. What scientific evidence would lead us to not believe in God?

Quote: Dalex64

I don't understand what you are trying to do. You can't disprove the unprovable. If evidence can't be backed up with proof, facts, and truth, then it is useless and isn't really evidence at all.

You offer thought experiments and reasoned explainations, but without proof, your conclusions have nothing to stand on. It is wishful thinking.

First we have to recognize that our lives are lived and grounded upon things we can't prove yet we believe them. The love of a spouse is not something you can scientifically prove but there is plenty of evidence to suggest to you that you are correct and it is reasonable and right to believe with certitude that she or he loves you. It is not wishful thinking to believe in something you cannot prove if there is a collection of evidence: scientific, historic, philosophical, anthropological, in music, art, and literature, unexplainable miracles, and a vast amount of personal evidence and experiences that make its truth certain. It is the converging probability of evidence that allows one to believe.

You do this in a similar but much smaller way when you eat your food. You don't prove to yourself it is safe to eat first. No, you take in the evidence; it is one of your favorite restaurants, you have been here many times and never had a bad experience, it smells good, looks good, and tastes good - so you believe it is not poisoned. That is a smart move and you have lots to stand on to make that decision, but you don't have proof.

Quote:

Once all the evidence that once pointed to god points somewhere else, what them?

What evidence points away from God?

Quote: FrGamble

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make sense. What scientific evidence would lead us to not believe in God?

I thought "all of it" covered all of it.

But that's a snide and flippant answer, isn't it?

We uncover ever smaller things all the time: cells, organelles, molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, etc. We also uncover ever bigger things all the time: Galaxies, Galactic structures, the expanding universe, etc. Finally we can see, or at least sense (meaning take readings from instruments) further and further back in time.

In all that amazing amount of data, there is no sign of any kind of deity, nor any sign of any need for one.

If there were one fundamental aspect of the universe in stark contradiction to much of the rest, then it would be reasonable to postulate some outside agent making that aspect possible. For example, if you find a very cold ice cube in the middle of he Sahara dessert at noon at the height of summer, it would be reasonable to suppose someone made it and put it there. There is no known combination of local natural factors which could yield ice under such conditions. Though of course there is one very unlikely explanation involving no people at all which might account for it. but I was vague describing the conditions :)