Science justifies, not disproves, the idea of God?

[Nullasalus]

I’m a lover of technology, personally. I was barely ten years old when I was trying to sneak into my brother’s room and play a game or two on his Apple IIe. The prospects of quantum physics, simulation, computation, space exploration, and otherwise entice me. And, despite the ongoing creationism v evolution v ID v TE v whatever debate, I cannot help but belief that modern scientific advances support the case for theism - because with every new fundamental discovery, we justify the centuries-old theistic claim that we live in a rational universe that shows the hallmarks of a Creator.

Now, before I go on about this, I want to give a link to someone else who thought that the state of man’s scientific and technological capability indicated something about the universe: Good ol’ Bertrand Russell.

cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/what_is_the_soul.html

Particularly relevant:

Our desires, it is true, have considerable power on the earth’s surface; the greater part of the land on this planet has a quite different aspect from that which it would have if men had not utilized it to extract food and wealth. But our power is very strictly limited. We cannot at present do anything whatever to the sun or moon or even to the interior of the earth, and there is not the faintest reason to suppose that what happens in regions to which our power does not extend has any mental causes. That is to say, to put the matter in a nutshell, there is no reason to think that except on the earth’s surface anything happens because somebody wishes it to happen.

With this in mind, a few comments, and questions.

1. Since Russell wrote this in 1928, we’ve put a man on the moon, a rover on mars, satellites and space stations in orbit around earth, discovered the apparent age of the universe, and right now we’re about to put online a Large Hadron Collider which will allow us to create, in a controlled environment, some mind-boggling interactions. We haven’t yet ‘done anything to the sun’, but we’ve harnessed the power of nuclear fusion. As for ‘mental causes’ and the rest of the universe, while I don’t want to upset any physicists among us, the delayed choice experiment in principle does quite a job of hinting at the relevance of the mental in our universe.
2. Since the development of computers, we now realize that in principle, it would be possible to create a simulation of an entire universe with an appropriately powerful computer. Questions about whether we’re living in a simulation, or whether a computer could truly ‘have’ a soul or consciousness, are beside the point: We’ve now have some strong evidence to support the idea of a being creating what would for all practical purposes be a/the universe.
3. One common criticism of theists is the claim that the belief in God causes theists to stop investigating the world through science, shrug their shoulders, and say ‘God did it’. But in this article we have Russell, while praising science, implying limits to our abilities that we have long since (and greatly) surpassed, in order to claim how hopeless he believes man’s existence truly is.

So I have these questions for my fellow theists in this forum.

1. Do you think the advances of science and technology, taken as a whole, bolster the case for belief in God, diminish it, or have no effect?
2. What seems more likely to impede human progress - a belief that God is responsible for the creation and sustaining of the universe, or a belief that no matter what we do morally or intellectually, we are individually and collectively doomed?
3. When there are advances in science and technology, do you think this reflects a supreme mind being behind existence? Do you consider it incidental? Why or why not?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Looking over the scientists I know, and know about, I can’t say that I see that their religious beliefs (or lack of them) produce a detectable difference in their enthusiasm and competence in learning more about the universe.

Maybe it’s that way for non-scientists. But we don’t do it to make things better; we do it because it’s fun.

 

[Nullasalus]

Looking over the scientists I know, and know about, I can’t say that I see that their religious beliefs (or lack of them) produce a detectable difference in their enthusiasm and competence in learning more about the universe.

Maybe it’s that way for non-scientists. But we don’t do it to make things better; we do it because it’s fun.

Well, you can be an atheist and not believe humanity is doomed - Ray Kurzweil and the transhumanists come to mind (though I’m not sure if Kurzweil himself is an atheist) as examples of atheists who can, oddly enough, believe in a kind of real salvation. Obviously in those cases, that specific question wouldn’t apply.

 

[I_like_Mike]

Well, you can be an atheist and not believe humanity is doomed - Ray Kurzweil and the transhumanists come to mind (though I’m not sure if Kurzweil himself is an atheist) as examples of atheists who can, oddly enough, believe in a kind of real salvation. Obviously in those cases, that specific question wouldn’t apply.

And you can believe in God and believe if left to our own devices then humanity is most certainly doomed.

Science is about falsification. That is not saying science is a lie. It means testing to see if something fails. General relativity has stood up very well because it passes all the tests within the limits that apply to relativity. If general relativity was wrong, provably wrong it is a win for science because now there is an option for a better idea.

One can have a religious belief and one can have a scientific opinion. They are not the same. Science is not about belief, it can’t be or else scientists would stop trying to work out why things work.

Religion is about belief. It gives stability and order because people need stability and order even though they will tell you that freedom is above all. Belief is giving a good reason for living and when the time comes the faith to die in the certain knowledge of new life.

They are two completely different areas but do not need to be like opposing armies. It is like the Monty Python movie “The Meaning of Life”. Reason two was that men should wear more hats. Put your science hat on, your best science hat and study the human teaching of science. Put your faith hat on and believe that for God nothing is impossible, that is what the angel told Mary.

If you choose to make it a war then it is just another stupid human thing that people do, things that we all do and did not need to do.

Michael.

 

[Nullasalus]

If you choose to make it a war then it is just another stupid human thing that people do, things that we all do and did not need to do.

Make it a war? I’m saying the exact opposite here - that, despite all the talk about the ‘conflict between science and religion’, there is no war. That if anything, truly understanding what we’ve discovered with science will on the whole enhance our beliefs.

And before anyone says that belief and science are utterly distinct - keep in mind that the Church historically argues that one can come to know God through reason. I am not discounting the value of personal revelation, or feeling, or experience. I’m saying that when we look at the world (and that involves looking at what science says about the world), there is much there to bolster faith. And that claims of ‘science and faith conflict’ are on the whole misleading.

Maybe I’m in a minority here, as a Catholic who both loves the details and discoveries of science, yet relates knowledge to faith. Which is fine too - not everyone needs to share that interest.

 

[I_like_Mike]

(snip)
Maybe I’m in a minority here, as a Catholic who both loves the details and discoveries of science, yet relates knowledge to faith. Which is fine too - not everyone needs to share that interest.

I wish there were more like you Nullasalus, those who see that both compliment eachother even though the approach is so very different. I am currently on the science forums where I am arguing against both the large particle accelerators. CERN and Tevatron.

In that instance there are two conflicting scientific theories. One is general relativity that says what goes into a black hole does not radiate out and Hawking radiation that says it does.

The upshot is if the micro black holes do not yield their contents almost immediately then they will settle toward the centre of the earth accumulating mass. Until in a black hole merger with the coordinate singularity at the earth’s core the micro black hole will get ejected as the black hole boundary is stripped from it.

This may result in anything up to a mountain the size of Mount Everest having a percentage of the speed of light tearing its way back to the surface from below. It is a hypothetical. But when scientists speak of negligible risk I like to point out that that is one of them.

Particle accelerators have recreated conditions similar to what would have been a few trillionths of a second after the big bang. I also like to point out that knowing conditions just one trillionth of a second after the big bang represents negligible gain.

We find out later this year.

 

[MindOverMatter]

1. When there are advances in science and technology, do you think this reflects a supreme mind being behind existence? Do you consider it incidental? Why or why not?

As you know, i believe in God and I think Scientific discovery gives us good circumstantial evidence for Gods existence, especailly in the “observer-universe” aspect. One example would be; The universe appears to be set up for intelectual observation and scientific discovery. Now; while this doesn’t prove the existence of God, it does make me wonder why Mathematics works so well, considering that we just so happen to be able to grasp its principles as personal obsevers. Its as if a language was prepared for us in order to understand the universe. Is it a coincidence that, how a universe works, can be graped by the existence of an intellect? It seems as if we are suppose to exist and understand; as we could have easily existed in a universe that made no sense at all. Also; “desires” seems to fit in well with a universe that intended for us to be here. For instance; why should an arrangement or a mathematically logical pattern of anything, such as atoms, give rise to desires? Does this not presuppose a person? Desires correponds logically to our mental states and actions. Whats the likely hood of those two actualities existing in the same universe!!?

The only thing that Bugs me in science is why God would use evolution as a means of creation. While i don’t disbelieve in evolution, i don’t get the point of it? Maybe he just likes everything to conform to logical and mathematical priciples; who knows. But thats not a scientific qeustion; that a theological one.

Anyway, this is just some of the things that i think that quantum physics and new scientifc discoverys inspires me to believe. Have you been watching “soul-search” (the hunt for the human soul) on tv? The British Scientist “Penrose” was talking about the limitations of science concerning the “human-mind” and that the answers might lie in quantum physics. And their building a quantum Computor!! weird.

 

[Nullasalus]

The only thing that Bugs me in science is why God would use evolution as a means of creation. While i don’t disbelieve in evolution, i don’t get the point of it? Maybe he just likes everything to conform to logical and mathematical priciples; who knows. But thats not a scientific qeustion; that a theological one.

Oddly enough, I more and more see the value of creation through evolution. For one thing, it makes utter sense when looking at how God worked in the bible - through a long-term unfolding. God isn’t recording as have created absolutely everything in a single earth-day second. Instead it was a progressive creation, even in the most literal (Which, of course, I don’t subscribe to) reading of Genesis. We didn’t have sin enter the world and then instantly Christ is there - we had unfolding of humanity, developments, prophecies, etc. And when Christ came, He didn’t give us every secret of the universe on command and act as a genie - he gave us (among many other things) the golden rule and a church, which procedurally reflected upon those teachings, absorbed and developed other modes of thought, etc.

Putting the problem of evil aside as it relates to evolution, the value I see in life unfolding through the ways we’ve discovered is considerable. We achieve understandings and ideas about things that occurred long before we were aware of them through archaeology, biological research, etc. Nowadays we accomplish things that, once upon a time (And that can mean ‘100 years ago’) would have been regarded as miraculous.

So for me, I’m kind of Leibnizian in my outlook. I have no question why anything unfolded the way it did.

 

[I_like_Mike]

The only thing that Bugs me in science is why God would use evolution as a means of creation. While i don’t disbelieve in evolution, i don’t get the point of it? Maybe he just likes everything to conform to logical and mathematical priciples; who knows. But thats not a scientific qeustion; that a theological one.

Genesis let there be light. The WMAP satellite images of the temperature variation in the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) there are slight variations, that is why we exist. If it had been and stayed totally uniform there could have been no clumping of matter … so no stars and no planets and thus no us. From a scientific point anyway.

From the teachings that man is the purpose of creation the scientific evidence is that we started in imperfection. That to me says a lot about humanity being the culmination of all that is imperfect. If one looks around it is not so hard to believe and for me even more important to believe that perfection is God.

About a month ago a small scientific team in the Netherlands captured an electron or more like the interference pattern of an electron in a pulsed light at pico second frequency. Given that the Michelson and Morley experiment looked for the same interference pattern I am highly surprised that more was not made of this finding as proof of an aether around the atom at least and by association evidence long awaited of a godlike connection.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I am highly surprised that more was not made of this finding as proof of an aether around the atom at least and by association evidence long awaited of a godlike connection.

Forgive me for my ignorance, as you probably thought that i would have knowledge of what your talking about. But what is this aether and what connection does it have with God?