God should be kept out of scientific Questions

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t believe that God is a scientific question, and neither do I believe that the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a scientific Question either. Therefore I think that science and God should stay out of each others way.

You cannot prove Gods existence with science, and science cannot in principle determine whether its reasonable or not to believe in God.

The attempts to bring intelligent design in to the science classroom is really not good, and it makes us look desperate.

Anybody want to challenge my position?

 

[buffalo]

I don’t believe that God is a scientific question, and neither do I believe that the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a scientific Question either. Therefore I think that science and God should stay out of each others way.

You cannot prove Gods existence with science, and science cannot in principle determine whether its reasonable or not to believe in God.

The attempts to bring intelligent design in to the science classroom is really not good, and it makes us look desperate.

Anybody want to challenge my position?

Yup - I will challenge.

The broad definition of science - pursuit of knowledge. Now why limit this pursuit of knowledge?

Since God is truth anything in the universe is essentially a subset of this truth.

ID the science is a pursuit of evidence of design. This design is quantified by looking at the odds of something being designed.

Modern science by its own definition is limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Empirical science is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Our reasoning must be informed by truth. One can reason very different results of data by their worldview. There needs to be a true north if you will to guide our reasoning.

 

[Areopagite]

Yeah, if you mean science as in “study of physical/material existence” (which is a newer use of the word) then you’re right. If you mean science as “an organized body of knowledge” (which is a how the word has been used in the majority of history) then you’re wrong. Obviously, philosophy and theology are organized bodies of knowledge and they obviously study God (or study the question of God, at the very least).

So I agree with you or disagree with you depending on how you use the word “science.”

 

[Prophesy]

I don’t believe that God is a scientific question, and neither do I believe that the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a scientific Question either. Therefore I think that science and God should stay out of each others way.

You cannot prove Gods existence with science, and science cannot in principle determine whether its reasonable or not to believe in God.

The attempts to bring intelligent design in to the science classroom is really not good, and it makes us look desperate.

Anybody want to challenge my position?

“Why is there something rather than nothing?” and “Is the world intelligible?” are scientific questions in so as they are the presuppositions that science has at it’s foundation, even though empirical science cannot answer them. Science and God shouldn’t be divorced, science is the act of trying to understand God’s creation.

-Prophecy

 

[JohnDamian]

I don’t believe that God is a scientific question, and neither do I believe that the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a scientific Question either. Therefore I think that science and God should stay out of each others way.

You cannot prove Gods existence with science, and science cannot in principle determine whether its reasonable or not to believe in God.

The attempts to bring intelligent design in to the science classroom is really not good, and it makes us look desperate.

Anybody want to challenge my position?

I would only challenge it on two grounds; that is the definition of “science” as Areopagite has already pointed out; and the claim that Science cannot prove Gods existence.

Whilst it is true that we cannot necessarily state that God is determinable by scientific method; we cannot make abitrary claim that is is impossible to demonstrate God with science. We can only say at the present it seems unlikely we will be able to demonstrate God’s existence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yeah, if you mean science as in "study of physical/material existence" (which is a newer use of the word) then you’re right. If you mean science as “an organized body of knowledge” (which is a how the word has been used in the majority of history) then you’re wrong. Obviously, philosophy and theology are organized bodies of knowledge and they obviously study God (or study the question of God, at the very least).

So I agree with you or disagree with you depending on how you use the word “science.”

I mean modern empirical science. The old way of using science does not seem to be acknowledge any more.

 

[DCNBILL]

Is theology not a science?

If God created all, did He not create all science?:yup:

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“Why is there something rather than nothing?” and “Is the world intelligible?” are scientific questions in so as they are the presuppositions that science has at it’s foundation, even though empirical science cannot answer them. Science and God shouldn’t be divorced, science is the act of trying to understand God’s creation.

-Prophecy

Lol. You are confusing philosophical or meta-scientific questions with scientific questions. If Science cannot in principle measure the validity of a statement, the it is not a scientific Question. Metaphysical truth is a prerequisite for science (at least it ought to be), but that doesn’t mean that metaphysical statements are questions that can be approached through scientific analysis.

Thanks for posting.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I would only challenge it on two grounds; that is the definition of “science” as Areopagite has already pointed out; and the claim that Science cannot prove Gods existence.

Whilst it is true that we cannot necessarily state that God is determinable by scientific method; we cannot make abitrary claim that is is impossible to demonstrate God with science. We can only say at the present it seems unlikely we will be able to demonstrate God’s existence.

You think that Gods existence can in principle be measured through the scientific method?
How so?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Lol. You are confusing philosophical or meta-scientific questions with scientific questions. If Science cannot in principle measure the validity of a statement, the it is not a scientific Question. Metaphysical truth is a prerequisite for science (at least it ought to be), but that doesn’t mean that metaphysical statements are questions that can be approached through scientific analysis.

Thanks for posting.

Logic is a metaphysical analysis that can be often proven using the scientific method, does that branch of thought measure up to your scientific standards?

Plus, it is somewhat silly to make the statement that God should be kept out of ANYTHING. Our lives are to be filled by Christ for it is no longer I who lives, but Christ in me. If that is true, then there is, quite literally, no way for God to be kept out of anything.

Now, to make presuppositions regarding the outcome of an empirical analysis based upon your belief in what God would do is simply hubris and bad science. Heck, discovery of DNA turned Watson (or Crick, I cant remember which… might have been both) to Christianity.

FSC

 

[tafan]

I believe St Albert the Great, a really good priest and early scientist, had some good writings on this topic. When looking for a scientific answer to a natural problem, we should not look for the supernatural, but the natural first. However, that does not mean there should be a complete line between the two. In particular, religion should be a guide to science in both how answers are achieved (ie ethical cases) and even in whay problems are in most need of a solution. Also, there is nothing wrong with using reason and philosophy (very much affected by religion) to arrive at an answer that science cannot provide. This should actually be encouraged, as it has a much longer history with mankind and it exalts our mental gifts. The idea that we can only know what we observe is one of many unfortunate results of the enlightment age.

 

[buffalo]

The distinction is empirical science. Today, modern science reasoning encroaches into the philosophical area.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Logic is a metaphysical analysis that can be often proven using the scientific method, does that branch of thought measure up to your scientific standards?

Logic is not a physical object. The scientific method cannot prove a metaphysical absolute. It is the study of physical reality, not the principles upon which it is based.

Plus, it is somewhat silly to make the statement that God should be kept out of ANYTHING. Our lives are to be filled by Christ for it is no longer I who lives, but Christ in me. If that is true, then there is, quite literally, no way for God to be kept out of anything.

Context is a useful word in these sorts of debates. Yes, God should be involved in our lives, this doesn’t mean we should promote falsehood. If the scientific method is the study of physics, then the question of Gods existence is not relevant to the subject.

Now, to make presuppositions regarding the outcome of an empirical analysis based upon your belief in what God would do is simply hubris and bad science. Heck, discovery of DNA turned Watson (or Crick, I cant remember which… might have been both) to Christianity.

That does not mean that the scientific method is capable of proving Gods existence. Calling me silly won’t convince me of that either.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I believe St Albert the Great, a really good priest and early scientist, had some good writings on this topic. When looking for a scientific answer to a natural problem, we should not look for the supernatural, but the natural first. However, that does not mean there should be a complete line between the two. In particular, religion should be a guide to science in both how answers are achieved (ie ethical cases) and even in whay problems are in most need of a solution. Also, there is nothing wrong with using reason and philosophy (very much affected by religion) to arrive at an answer that science cannot provide. This should actually be encouraged, as it has a much longer history with mankind and it exalts our mental gifts. The idea that we can only know what we observe is one of many unfortunate results of the enlightment age.

I agree with this. I think it supports my position.

 

[buffalo]

Logic is not a physical object. The scientific method cannot prove a metaphysical absolute. It is the study of physical reality, not the principles upon which it is based.

Context is a useful word in these sorts of debates. Yes, God should be involved in our lives, this doesn’t mean we should promote falsehood. If the scientific method is the study of physics, then the question of Gods existence is not relevant to the subject.

That does not mean that the scientific method is capable of proving Gods existence. Calling me silly won’t convince me of that either.

How about this?

If God is absolute truth
and science is the pursuit of truth
then…

 

[Prophesy]

Lol. You are confusing philosophical or meta-scientific questions with scientific questions. If Science cannot in principle measure the validity of a statement, the it is not a scientific Question. Metaphysical truth is a prerequisite for science (at least it ought to be), but that doesn’t mean that metaphysical statements are questions that can be approached through scientific analysis.

Thanks for posting.

I’m not confusing anything. Science presupposes that the world exists, therefore the question is relevant though unanswerable empirically.

-Prophecy

 

[MindOverMatter2]

How about this?

If God is absolute truth
and science is the pursuit of truth
then…

Science is the pursuit of physical truth as defined by its method of investigation.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Logic is not a physical object. The scientific method cannot prove a metaphysical absolute. It is the study of physical reality, not the principles upon which it is based.

The scientific principle cant prove a physical absolute either. Look at the amount of information on Gravity and the various materials (theoretical and hypothetical) that contradict it. Or superconductors that in some circumstances completely defy old scientific maxims of electrical conductivity. Or non-newtonian fluids.

“Science” is a good way to come up with reasonable suppositions for what will occur in a certain set of circumstances. But it is far from perfect. And I say that as a microbiologist/molecular biologist so I have some training in this.

Context is a useful word in these sorts of debates. Yes, God should be involved in our lives, this doesn’t mean we should promote falsehood. If the scientific method is the study of physics, then the question of Gods existence is not relevant to the subject.

Your statement was not that “we should not attempt to scientifically prove God’s existence” it was that “we should keep God out of scientific questions”.

That does not mean that the scientific method is capable of proving Gods existence. Calling me silly won’t convince me of that either.

I apologize if you took my statement as saying that YOU are silly. What I was doing was calling your premise silly. A better word would have been argumentative or contentious I suppose. Sorry for that.

FSC

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m not confusing anything. Science presupposes that the world exists, therefore the question is relevant though unanswerable empirically.

-Prophecy

It is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical question. Gods existence is not a scientific question; its a philosophical question. That science is grounded upon philosophical beliefs, is irrelevant to the fact that the scientific method is designed to investigates physical reality in its particularities.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Science is the pursuit of physical truth as defined by its method of investigation.

No, that is YOUR definition of science.

the definition of science is

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a quest for knowledge undertaken in a systematic fashion. That knowledge could be anything from God, to the fundamental nature of light, to what makes leaves green/yellow/orange/whatever.