Do many scientists try to find "substitutes" for God?

[MarcoPolo]

It is a very curious circumstance that materialists, in an effort to avoid what Laplace called the unnecessary hypothesis of God, are frequently driven to hypothesize the existence of an infinity of unobservable entities. We saw this before…with the speculation that an infinite time preceded the Big Bang. We saw it again…, with the idea that the first living thing might have arisen by chance if the universe is infinitely large and has an infinite number of planets. We see it now, in the idea of a large and possibly infinite number of domains or universes. We shall encounter it once more…with the so-called many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory. It seems that to abolish one unobservable God, it takes an infinite number of unobservable subsitutes.
-Dr. Stephen Barr, Modern Physics, Ancient Faith, p. 156-7

So what do you think?

And are those who insist that ID is unscientific nonsense pointing to an “unobservable” God guilty of hypocrisy if they accept as science other theories that have unobservable characteristics?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I don’t know for sure but it does seem like it at times. They’ll deny it, probably. Many scientists believe that for science to be science, it must only pursue natural explanations. Therefore, they have to come up with all sorts of ways of trying to explain away the apparent design in the universe. Since the universe has a beginning, they propose that there is some kind of natural phenomenon that produces an infinite number of universes. We got lucky and ours had all the right conditions for life. Never mind asking what created the natural phenomenon that produces an infinite number of universes.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

G. K. Chesterton pointed out thatn when a man ceases to believe in God, he does not cease to believe. He will believe in almost any alternative. This is not limited to scientists. Note the avid belief in UFOs, paranormal, etc.

 

[Blizzard_Wolf]

Well, I’m an undergraduate not a proper scientist, but I do do a lot of work in the science labs, so I hope that this will be helpful.

The scientists that I know and work with don’t try to find substitutes for God, and neither do I. We don’t often bring up theology or philosophy at all, because out in the field and in the labs, we’re more concerned about getting samples and running the data than discussing such matters. But when we find things that are truly awesome and amazing, which could be as simple as a sunray glistening off the ice on our equipment or as complex as the a discovery about liver enzymes, we are in great awe of nature. Now some of them are atheists, I know, but most of them haven’t said anything about their beliefs, and I know some are Christian too. Those of us who are Christian attribute this wonderous beauty and complexity to God himself, and even the atheists are in awe.

So no, I don’t think that we try to find substitutes. I think we try to understand more about the world around us, and if that leads us to God, all the better.

 

[Abbadon]

It is a very curious circumstance that materialists, in an effort to avoid what Laplace called the unnecessary hypothesis of God, are frequently driven to hypothesize the existence of an infinity of unobservable entities. We saw this before…with the speculation that an infinite time preceded the Big Bang. We saw it again…, with the idea that the first living thing might have arisen by chance if the universe is infinitely large and has an infinite number of planets. We see it now, in the idea of a large and possibly infinite number of domains or universes. We shall encounter it once more…with the so-called many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory. It seems that to abolish one unobservable God, it takes an infinite number of unobservable subsitutes.
-Dr. Stephen Barr, Modern Physics, Ancient Faith, p. 156-7

So what do you think?

And are those who insist that ID is unscientific nonsense pointing to an “unobservable” God guilty of hypocrisy if they accept as science other theories that have unobservable characteristics?

Well in the “eyes” of the knowledge base that is science. God is merely a bad hypothesis. It’s not like all those other theories come forth as if some giant reasoning to dismiss god.

Things like big bang and multiverse theory and countless “unobservable” theories are just that, they are hypothetical possibilities. It doesn’t make them true, there is data however that supports it to an accuracy of say 70% for multiverse and 80% for Big bang (I just made that up) down the line we will have more data and people will solve more of the problems and we will reach a conclusion in the end which might not even be the big bang thoery. Currently there are like what 12 multiverse theories? People will continue to test and try until they are as close to 100% as they can be however throughout all science you can never reach 100% certainty in anything. At anytime in the future our understanding and knowledge can change.

There is no need for faith. You can prove it wrong if you come up with a better theory and truly support your claim with findings in it’s relevant field/s. The test data is then attempted to be replicated by others or seen not to be fraud by others and there just like it happened a decade ago the model of the atom changes. We can’t see an atom yet but we can hypothesis characteristics from other observed phenomenon and data…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is a very curious circumstance that materialists, in an effort to avoid what Laplace called the unnecessary hypothesis of God, are frequently driven to hypothesize the existence of an infinity of unobservable entities. We saw this before…with the speculation that an infinite time preceded the Big Bang. We saw it again…, with the idea that the first living thing might have arisen by chance if the universe is infinitely large and has an infinite number of planets. We see it now, in the idea of a large and possibly infinite number of domains or universes. We shall encounter it once more…with the so-called many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory. It seems that to abolish one unobservable God, it takes an infinite number of unobservable subsitutes.
-Dr. Stephen Barr, Modern Physics, Ancient Faith, p. 156-7

So what do you think?

And are those who insist that ID is unscientific nonsense pointing to an “unobservable” God guilty of hypocrisy if they accept as science other theories that have unobservable characteristics?

I’m not sure what you mean here. ID is scientific nonsense at least so far. It has yet to provide any testable means of proof or any predictive claims that can be tested. I really am not particulary interested in how scientists who choose not to believe in God come to that conclusion, or remain in it. They have no valid statement to make regarding theology as far as I’m concerned and simply speak as any human being.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I don’t know for sure but it does seem like it at times. They’ll deny it, probably. Many scientists believe that for science to be science, it must only pursue natural explanations.

That is what defines science however, an explanation of the natural world. It is not designed to explain the supernatural world. That is the job of philosophy and more particularly theology.

Therefore, they have to come up with all sorts of ways of trying to explain away the apparent design in the universe. Since the universe has a beginning, they propose that there is some kind of natural phenomenon that produces an infinite number of universes. We got lucky and ours had all the right conditions for life. Never mind asking what created the natural phenomenon that produces an infinite number of universes.

Actually, science does not address the issue of what came before the Big Bang except by scientific analysis. I’m not what you conceive of as “apparent design” . In fact it was a science book that opened my eyes to the possibility of God in the first place. It was about cosmology and quantum physics. The author stated that (and I paraphrase) “It is unlikely that we will ever pierce beyond the Big Bang. For those who believe in God, there is more than enough room for him here.” Believe it or not that’s what changed me from being an agnostic. I certainly could not believe Genesis was true factually historically, but I was looking for God and by gosh I found him, thanks to science!

 

[Orogeny]

So what do you think?

Well, unlike Dr. Barr, I don’t pretend to speak for all materialists, specifically because I wasn’t designated to and because I’m not one. However, this might be true for some, but I doubt that it is true for all or even most.

And are those who insist that ID is unscientific nonsense pointing to an “unobservable” God guilty of hypocrisy if they accept as science other theories that have unobservable characteristics?

No. ID isn’t science because of what it is, not because there are other branches of study that may or may not be science. ID fails on it’s own.

Peace

Tim

 

[drafdog]

Scientists are no more likely to be materialists than anyone else. The issue is not the philosophical question of the existence of God, but the philosophical intent of the work of inquiry. The scientist and the theologian are not inquiring into the same thing. The theologian is looking for a personal source of existence, while the scientist looks to the existing world and seeks to understand how it behaves. This is not an exercise in negating the existence of God; it is merely an acceptance of creation a priori.
In other words he says “Here is the world. How does it work?”

Matthew

 

[Sarpedon]

Things like big bang and multiverse theory and countless “unobservable” theories are just that, they are hypothetical possibilities. It doesn’t make them true, there is data however that supports it to an accuracy of say 70% for multiverse and 80% for Big bang (I just made that up) down the line we will have more data and people will solve more of the problems and we will reach a conclusion in the end which might not even be the big bang thoery. Currently there are like what 12 multiverse theories? People will continue to test and try until they are as close to 100% as they can be however throughout all science you can never reach 100% certainty in anything. At anytime in the future our understanding and knowledge can change.

There is no need for faith. You can prove it wrong if you come up with a better theory and truly support your claim with findings in it’s relevant field/s. The test data is then attempted to be replicated by others or seen not to be fraud by others and there just like it happened a decade ago the model of the atom changes. We can’t see an atom yet but we can hypothesis characteristics from other observed phenomenon and data…

You acknowledge that we cannot reach 100% certainty in science. Therefore, we are forced to use faith (in a non-religious sense) to fill the gap between our level of certainity and 100%. Science involves making educated judgements about what is true, which involves some degree of faith.

 

[Dameedna]

Intelligent Design IS ‘unscientific’ nonsense.

There is a reason the global scientific community rejects it completely and only gives it attention because it draw’s time, energy and money away from the pursuit of natural truths.

At the end of the day if you want to pursue the scientific rules of ID, then you will be open to any medication, engineering feat and psychiatric diagnosis belogning to the realm of the “god of the gaps”. It is an extremely dangerous place to be.

To try and explain, say you were going to study a medication that will cure asthma. In the global scientific community your study will not just be based on what YOU prove to work, but will also be based on the very real possibility of “side-effects”. They will be looked for.

According to the ID way of thinking, If no “bad effects” have been “proven” then the medication must be perfectly fine.

It is the “god of the gaps” theory. It is EXTREMELY dangerous to go down this path. You have to LOOK for the gap, you have to LOOK for what is wrong with your theory. An honest scientist will work harder at proving themselves wrong, than proving themselves right. You don’t say “Well look at that, we’ve just cured asthma and can’t see anything bad happening…Awesome!!”. People see and believe what they want. You Must “prove” something not just by evidence of itself, but you must show there is no “other” cause for the cure, and you must show there is no detrimental effect. In other words, you MUST follow the scientific methods, or else you will create a cure that can kill.

ID does not do this. It say’s to science “You cannot explain explain, therefore our theory/belief must be true”. Based on what? A book? IE you cannot “prove” this asthma medication doesn’t work bad, therefore it must be good. Time and Time again, scientists have found the gap. And it’s a good thing…it’s the reason you have the medicine you do, the bridges you drive on, and the airplanes you travel on. Science, isn’t about belief, or filling the gaps. It cannot afford to make the same mistakes ID does.

Hope that makes some kind of sense.

Do individual scientists try and find a substitute for God? You will have to ask the individual. But if you come from a world of belief, you will not comprehend one that does not include belief. Many scientists(ie many athiests) , spend more time thinking about the bacteria under their toenails than they do about God. You don’t waste your time on something that doesn’t exist, they are ONLY concernd with what does exist and is provable.

Don’t waste your time on ID. If you need a God of the Gaps, then you live in the same world I do. You require proof. When that gap is filled, what will you be left with?

 

[Sarpedon]

According to the ID way of thinking, If no “bad effects” have been “proven” then the medication must be perfectly fine.

The Creator question is an either-or situation, though. Either the universe is created or it is not (unless you do not believe in the law of non-contradiction, which all scientists do). Your example is not, however (as I understand it). A medicine can help you, harm you, or do neither. If you cannot prove any harmful side affects, then the medicine is probably either neutral or helpful. Proving the absence of harmful side affects does not prove it helpful, because that is not the only option. That’s not the case with the Creator issue. If you can prove that the creator cannot not exist, then he/she/it must exist. If you can prove that the creator cannot exist, then he/she/it must not exist.

Practical science is about belief and judgement. No theory or law can claim to be absolutely true (no possibility of error), so we are forced to chose (based on supporting evidence) to believe in theories in order to construct a body of scientific knowledge.

For example, we don’t really know how an atom is constructed. The evidence seems to support that the quantam-mechanical model is correct, rather than the previous model that was believed in. Still, we don’t really know, because we can’t see atoms. What do chemists do with this dilemna? Do they throw up their hands and give up trying to advance in the understanding of matter? Of course not. They believe, based on supporting evidence, that the QM model is correct, and thus build knowledge off it. If science does not contain belief, then our body of scientific knowledge is quite small indeed.

 

[mschrank]

Well in the “eyes” of the knowledge base that is science. God is merely a bad hypothesis.

Many scientists believe that religion is simply bad science. Abbadon has it right.

This is wrong because:

A) “Religion” means nothing. Primitive animism, believing that popcorn exploded because of a little devil getting hot inside the piece of corn, might be made obsolete by science, but I do not see how Darwin’s theory of evolution contradicts say, the Gospel of Mark or Ephesians. To equate the superstitions of savages to the Judeo-Christian tradition is not only begging the question but intellectually dishonest.

B) Building on that, the Bible does not try to explain the world, it tries to explain the heart of man, and the truely objective hard sciences have little to say on that. I am purposefully excluding evolutionary psychology and other ‘out there’ subjects. I read the other day that marriage was invented in 100,000 BC(E… of course) when a couple of proto-humans got hungry. I wouldn’t bet my life on it, but it keeps with the humean thrust of the whole arguement- that it’s materialistic so its more probably than God endowing a Man with a soul.