Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
oslove

Are God and scientists incompatible?

381 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

oslove
[...]

Well I'm not a scientist, but I'm very interested in science.

I'm not an athiest - I don't know how I could force myself to believe that a god doesn't exist as an absolute certainty.

I'm not a theist - I don't know how I could force myself to believe that a god does exist as an absolute certainty.

I'd agree that I'm an examiner - I love discussion - especially the open-minded type, that allows for freedom of choice and works towards growth and understanding.

I'd say that if I had to choose between saying that a creator god exists or doesn't, I'd have to say I believe that a creator god exists.

In fact if someone, like you have, asks me if I believe in God, I say yes, but realize that I believe that it's fully possible that a creator god does not exist.

[...]

If you have not noticed, I never use the phrase absolute certainty, as in absolute certainty of God's existence as of non-existence, from the part of respectively theists and atheists.

What I always understand though not always state explicitly, is the certainty that is possible for us humans using carefully our reason and intelligence; so I would suggest that everyone abstain from the phrase absolute certainty in this thread, and instead use the phrase human certainty, the certainty that is the heirloom and also the limited kind of for us humans who are limited in everything though -- some people imagine and conduct themselves as unlimited in everything, or they give the impression to people like myself -- must be my biased way of looking at them and their words and their pretensions.

[...]

Also, I don't "look down" on someone who doesn't believe in a creator god, they have every logical right to do so.

I'm just choosing to believe in a creator god because of what I have seen and felt in my own personal experience.

[...]

You know I really honestly don't look down on people who claim to have a logic to not recognize the existence of God; but I must confess to feel very exasperated with their pure 100% bile-ful hatred of God in writing posts against God in internet forums and also in their books or magazine articles.

I guess it is my bad luck to have only come across such nasty kinds of atheists with a kind of logic to back their denial of God, but I can only guess on what grounds they have to resort to the most rabidly hateful language in dealing with God.

If you very rarely as to never meet such kinds of atheists, then that is your good luck.

[...]

QUOTE (oslove @ Aug 1 2009, 10:06 PM)

Let us right away establish what we agree on, and it is that the physical universe exists, which physical universe is what scientists are working on to understand.

I'd agree the physical universe exists, and that it exists for all of us...

QUOTE (oslove @ Aug 1 2009, 10:06 PM)

Next, can we agree on a concept of God?

For myself God is the maker of everything, the author of order and intelligence in the whole universe of existence, that includes the physical universe.

What about for yourself, what is your concept of God?

I'd agree with your statement.

I'd add that we have free will to choose what we do, within the framework of the choices that he has made available by way of the physical laws of the universe.

I'd also add in that I believe in love, happiness, growth and goodness, and that there is a purpose to the universe and life within it.

Good, that for us two at least if not with others here we are basically of the same big picture when it comes to the existence of the physical universe and the existence of God.

Now we can examine together how the concept of God and the concept of a scientist are compatible or incompatible.

I say God and a scientist, that means God and any scientist worth his salt as a scientist.

In the process we might have to correct ourselves or at least myself as regards my concept of God in particular, and also my concept of scientist in particular.

What do we say, shall we first determine what domain or territory of discourse the concept of God prevails in and what the concept of a scientist.

And I look forward to an enriching and enjoyable experience exchanging views with you, as I hope you have the same expectation.

Oslove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hugh

Points previous to this understood, and thank you for the clarifications.

Now we can examine together how the concept of God and the concept of a scientist are compatible or incompatible.

I say God and a scientist, that means God and any scientist worth his salt as a scientist.

In the process we might have to correct ourselves or at least myself as regards my concept of God in particular, and also my concept of scientist in particular.

What do we say, shall we first determine what domain or territory of discourse the concept of God prevails in and what the concept of a scientist.

And I look forward to an enriching and enjoyable experience exchanging views with you, as I hope you have the same expectation.

Oslove

I'm not sure exactly of your question Oslove...

I think we agree about the existence of God, and what a scientist is and does...

Could you be more specific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
And Mattshark, as you just now say that you are a scientist, then tell me and the readers here in what projects of scientific undertaking are you presently engaged in or in recent past, and what have you published in peer-reviewed magazines.

It is the easiest thing for you to say that you are a scientist; anyone can write that sentence, but that is not enough to really establish on solid grounds your credentials as a scientist.

You are the one saying you are a scientist, so put up your credentials or keep quiet about your being a scientist.

Oslove

Well I have a BSc(hons) in Marine zoology/zoology and I'm just finishing my MSc. Currently working on a paper looking the affects on behaviour of capture and release tagging with Caribbean reef sharks and nurse sharks, this is a cooperative project with Queens University of Belfast and Swansea University using a new multichannel data logger called a daily diary (look up information on this under Rory Wilson and Emily Shepard).

Where as you have a fundamental lack of understanding what science is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Has science proven it understand nature? :no: When science proves it can understand nature then can it attempt to quantify God :yes:

Can it claim the right to state "Look guy's we used our telescopes (circa 1890's)and we cannot find God" he must not exist :no:

Why? Because they are not qualified to make such a claim until the prove they know everything about nature.

Simple, direct and of course may God help us all. :innocent::yes:

Mattshark it is irresponsible to regard science as capable of supporting such an argument, as that of science, in its present condition, capable of offering any opinion about God.

Any thoughts?

It doesn't make any claims about god. That is why it is secular.

No god is falsifiable, henceforth it is no ever going to fall under science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oslove
Well I have a BSc(hons) in Marine zoology/zoology and I'm just finishing my MSc. Currently working on a paper looking the affects on behaviour of capture and release tagging with Caribbean reef sharks and nurse sharks, this is a cooperative project with Queens University of Belfast and Swansea University using a new multichannel data logger called a daily diary (look up information on this under Rory Wilson and Emily Shepard).

Where as you have a fundamental lack of understanding what science is.

What institutions and what public people can vouch for what you say about yourself to convince people that you are a scientist.

I want names and addresses and email accounts for institutions and public people who can vouch for your activities by which you claim to be a scientist.

You keep harping that I don't know fundamentally what is science.

Now, you just tell me what is science to you, or please keep quiet, and do it in not more than a hundred words.

If you cannot or will not tell me and the readers here what is for you science in not more than a hundred words, I will tell you: you don't belong in this thread even though I cannot stop you from sending posts here.

Just in case you want to know what I am, here read my initiating post in this thread:

I am a rational theist.

What is a rational theist? A rational theist according to my self definition as a rational theist is a person who maintains that God can be known with certainty from reason, and I do know God exists for certainty.

What is God for myself? God is the maker of everything in the whole universe of existence, this whole universe of existence includes the physical universe.

If anyone is not sure what I mean by the words I have used and I am using in this post and thread, please just let me know and I will explain to you what I mean.

What is my position on the question "Are God and scientists incompatible?"

My position and I know for certain is that God and scientists are not incompatible, meaning that they are compatible.

What do the scientists here and what do the atheists here say?

And what does everyone else here say?

So, you go now and get the names and addresses and email accounts of institutions and of public people who can vouch for your activities as a scientist by which activities you can convince people like myself that you are a scientist.

And tell me as you claim to be a scientist, what is science for you, or better what is a scientist which you claim to be one, in not more than a hundred words.

If you will not produce satisfactory answers to the two requests above, please don't write here anymore, because you are wasting the time and effort of readers here and the forum's bandwidth.

What will I do with the names and addresses and email accounts of institutions and public people you will if ever produce here?

I will contact them to ascertain from them about your identity as a scientist.

Oslove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
What institutions and what public people can vouch for what you say about yourself to convince people that you are a scientist.

I want names and addresses and email accounts for institutions and public people who can vouch for your activities by which you claim to be a scientist.

You keep harping that I don't know fundamentally what is science.

Now, you just tell me what is science to you, or please keep quiet, and do it in not more than a hundred words.

If you cannot or will not tell me and the readers here what is for you science in not more than a hundred words, I will tell you: you don't belong in this thread even though I cannot stop you from sending posts here.

Just in case you want to know what I am, here read my initiating post in this thread:

So, you go now and get the names and addresses and email accounts of institutions and of public people who can vouch for your activities as a scientist by which activities you can convince people like myself that you are a scientist.

And tell me as you claim to be a scientist, what is science for you, or better what is a scientist which you claim to be one, in not more than a hundred words.

If you will not produce satisfactory answers to the two requests above, please don't write here anymore, because you are wasting the time and effort of readers here and the forum's bandwidth.

What will I do with the names and addresses and email accounts of institutions and public people you will if ever produce here?

I will contact them to ascertain from them about your identity as a scientist.

Oslove

Or maybe you could just get yourself educated in what science actually is. It is not my job to educate you in science if you (like you have been in many threads about evolution) cannot be bothered to actually find out what science. How dare you be so arrogant when you do not even understand the basic principles of scientific research.

And why on earth would I give out my e-mail addresses and details or colleges and tutors to you?

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs
By definition you can't. Science is a study of the material world, god isn't material, hence science remains secular. Scientists can believe what ever they want but you cannot scientifically study a deity.

:tu:

Agreed. I guess I wasn't saying it properly. It isn't that the two aren't compatible it's that they aren't in the same ballpark at all.

I think that it is when one "realm" is forced into the other (god into science) that you have a problem. Almost like using a cake recipe to fix a car.

:)

_________________________________________

BTW Mattshark -

Hubby just took delivery of a saw shark at his work. Got to help transport it and set it up. :) I made him double check that it wasn't a sawfish. :)

*sorry, back to thread*

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
So, you go now and get the names and addresses and email accounts of institutions and of public people who can vouch for your activities as a scientist by which activities you can convince people like myself that you are a scientist.

And tell me as you claim to be a scientist, what is science for you, or better what is a scientist which you claim to be one, in not more than a hundred words.

If you will not produce satisfactory answers to the two requests above, please don't write here anymore, because you are wasting the time and effort of readers here and the forum's bandwidth.

You will demand none of the above. Obviously you did not heed my previous statements regarding the fact that you do not run these forums.

Please refer to the rules here:

5. Moderator action

Unexplained Mysteries is a privately owned web site and as such we reserve the right to remove any post that we deem to be inappropriate, offensive or intentionally disruptive, or to take any action necessary against any member whose behaviour we deem to be inappropriate, offensive or intentionally disruptive. Action taken is done on a case by case basis and is dependant on the nature and severity of the violations, but can include anything up to the banning of the account and IP address.

By using the forum service you agree to the following:

5a. Compliance: You agree to co-operate with the requests of our site staff should you be asked to stop doing something that they deem to be disruptive, inappropriate or in violation of the terms of service.

Please read my PM to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

you could google "What is science" and pick one.

Here is a good link link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oslove
It doesn't make any claims about god. That is why it is secular.

No god is falsifiable, henceforth it is no ever going to fall under science.

*SNIP*

Edited by Lilly
you were asked to stop this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SQLserver
What is a rational theist? A rational theist according to my self definition as a rational theist is a person who maintains that God can be known with certainty from reason, and I do know God exists for certainty.

Here, you go wrong. The core of rationality dictates that we can know NOTHING with certainly. Anyone who claims so is not basing their thought in rationality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
That is the difference between you and me:

For you who claim to be a scientist you insist that a scientist for being a scientist should not concern himself with God.

For me I am telling you that you can keep that attitude for yourself, but you have no business absolutely in defining what is a scientist to the effect that a scientist for being a scientist should not concern himself with God because he is a scientist and working as a scientist.

I am telling you that there are scientists of greater stature and achievement than you will ever be and accomplish, who concern themselves with God even though they are doing science, and they are using science to determine what is the nature of God.

If you don't believe me, then don't; but you still have no business telling people and scientists that a rule of life for them is that they cannot for being scientists concern themselves with God.

And don't bring in falsifiability as a criterion to judge what things are within science and what not, because there are things science take for granted to be humanly certain even though they are not falsifiable.

You don't believe that? What about the human certainty that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and under the same aspect, can you falsify that in order that you can admit it to be within the domain of science?

In which case you are saying that the principle, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and under the same aspect, that principle is not scientific or not necessary in your work as a scientist?

Answer that.

Now, you will tell me that you cannot get what I am talking about.

Well, then go away from this thread, don't waste your time and effort here and the forum's bandwidth.

Oslove

Or you could learn what science is, god has nothing to do with science. You cannot measure god so how can it be scientific. Sorry Oslove you are lacking the basics in scientific understand and your attitude is very unbecoming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle
Or you could learn what science is, god has nothing to do with science. You cannot measure god so how can it be scientific. Sorry Oslove you are lacking the basics in scientific understand and your attitude is very unbecoming.

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof and that requires extra-ordinary science. Science is a tool so as far as secularism; non-secularist can also use tools (though it is true as in the case of Iran that is what we are doing). One way of evaluating God the Holy Bible is in relation to the Book of Ezekiel where it states that God's army would be responsible for restoring the Israelite’s to Israel. Now, in relation to current history Israel was restored by the Allied forces of WW 2 which included the former Soviet Union, a country lead and controlled by atheist. The reason given in Ezekeil for God separating the Israelites from there land is that they failed to honor the 1st commandment (as given to Moses).

Legitimate science should have nothing to fear from religion, but a point of contention, is that without extra-ordinary science, we cannot claim that the concept of God is to blame for our problems. One of the tenants of atheism is just that, because God is "actually" false if this concept is eradicated from awareness it will improve life (just like the song from John Lennon). Now there is the concern for non-secular atheism that would probably be a problem realistically speaking.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof and that requires extra-ordinary science. Science is a tool so as far as secularism; non-secularist can also use tools (though it is true as in the case of Iran that is what we are doing). One way of evaluating God the Holy Bible is in relation to the Book of Ezekiel where it states that God's army would be responsible for restoring the Israelite’s to Israel. Now, in relation to current history Israel was restored by the Allied forces of WW 2 which included the former Soviet Union, a country lead and controlled by atheist. The reason given in Ezekeil for God separating the Israelites from there land is that they failed to honor the 1st commandment (as given to Moses).

Legitimate science should have nothing to fear from religion, but a point of contention, is that without extra-ordinary science, we cannot claim that the concept of God is to blame for our problems. One of the tenants of atheism is just that, because God is "actually" false if this concept is eradicated from awareness it will improve life (just like the song from John Lennon). Now there is the concern for non-secular atheism that would probably be a problem realistically speaking.

Any thoughts?

That is conjecture, nothing to do with science, but never mind.

Science doesn't have anything to fear from religion (well apart from those who want to have their religious belief taken as scientific evidence). However you cannot use science to study something that has is not empirically testable. This is why science has to be secular. It is not about the beliefs of the individual who uses science. Anyone can use science, however, you cannot conjecture your religious ideals into your work as that is pseudo-science and meaningless. This is why science is secular. Science is not divided by religion, it is separate from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrawingPics
That is conjecture, nothing to do with science, but never mind.

Science doesn't have anything to fear from religion (well apart from those who want to have their religious belief taken as scientific evidence). However you cannot use science to study something that has is not empirically testable. This is why science has to be secular. It is not about the beliefs of the individual who uses science. Anyone can use science, however, you cannot conjecture your religious ideals into your work as that is pseudo-science and meaningless. This is why science is secular. Science is not divided by religion, it is separate from it.

So scientists can be religious? The thought is strange, but it seems possible considering scientists are also humans

Edited by LaptopLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle

Developing good critical thinking skills is very important as science is a tool. I mentioned earlier that science is like a cane, well, you can hit someone with a cane.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrawingPics
Developing good critical thinking skills is very important as science is a tool. I mentioned earlier that science is like a cane, well, you can hit someone with a cane.

Any thoughts?

Yes. People can dodge from your cane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle

The term fundementalism can also be defined (as in the dictionary) as the effort to understand fundementally all fleids of man knowledge.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
The term fundementalism can also be defined (as in the dictionary) as the effort to understand fundementally all fleids of man knowledge.

Any thoughts?

I think that is nye on impossible with scientific study as it is so very broad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle

Not from the context of say reading every "intro to book" during your fist two colledge year's, in respect to each department which is split up by sciences and arts.

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Not from the context of say reading every "intro to book" during your fist two colledge year's, in respect to each department which is split up by sciences and arts.

Any thoughts?

Just in general it is not really do able in science, you can spend you life studying just one facet in one area of biology and still never completely understand it for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle

Its not about the details it could work as a field in the arts.

God and science are not incompatible it's just that due to problems perhaps some fundamental changes will make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Its not about the details it could work as a field in the arts.

God and science are not incompatible it's just that due to problems perhaps some fundamental changes will make a difference.

Yeah, it may work in the arts, it unlikely, but it won't work in science.

God and science are completely incompatible, god and scientists aren't. You put god in science you will have no scientific career as you will be considered dishonest and a pseudo-scientist. God is based on belief and conjecture, it is nothing to do with science. Adding conjecture to science is far from a improvement it would allow ridiculous nonsense in as science and you'd have to accept every religion. Critical thinking will show how ridiculous that idea is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle

Mattshark the idea of accepting all religions is not ridiculous although it would be non-secular. :yes: Actually basic level education teaches generalities, in respect to a standard practice and with respect to all the felids of science and the arts.

Understanding in general the various fields are related to choosing ones carrier Mattshark :yes:

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Mattshark the idea of accepting all religions is not ridiculous although it would be non-secular. :yes: Actually basic level education teaches generalities, in respect to a standard practice and with respect to all the felids of science and the arts.

Understanding in general the various fields are related to choosing ones carrier Mattshark :yes:

Any thoughts?

Accept religion into science would mean you have you no longer require evidence for you claim and it will affect your work, results and it will all based on belief, that is not only degrading to science it is likely to set it back a thousand years.

:no:

Accepting religion is science is totally ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.