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

SQLserver

A scientist with belief is like a Christian with sin; it's bound to happen on occasion, but the whole point is to get rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle

Engaging in the denial of religion is a religion all to itself.

Science may not be a religion but all scientist are religious.

And in my opinion so are there non-secular skeptical atheists :yes:

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Engaging in the denial of religion is a religion all to itself.

Science may not be a religion but all scientist are religious.

And in my opinion so are there non-secular skeptical atheists :yes:

Any thoughts?

Your free to believe that if you want. Doesn't make it real, but you are free to believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle
Your free to believe that if you want. Doesn't make it real, but you are free to believe it.

Friend you are free to believe as you do as well and that does not make what you believe real either. That is the point and that is a good reason for the both of us to consider? That is to say God and science are compatible, because what we believe in, has nothing to do with science.

In that sense how one decides to define God is not the issue

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Friend you are free to believe as you do as well and that does not make what you believe real either. That is the point and that is a good reason for the both of us to consider? That is to say God and science are compatible, because what we believe in, has nothing to do with science.

In that sense how one decides to define God is not the issue

Any thoughts?

Yes, you are not understanding in the slightest why god is unscientific.

Just on the point why atheism is not a religion:

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth.[1] It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.

That is a description of a religion from wiki.

So tell me, how does atheism fit in to that in any form, especially the organised and spirituality bits?

Secondly, science requires something to be measurable. How do you measure god? Well the simple answer is you cannot, this is nothing to do with what we believe in it is to with the fact that conjectured beliefs are never science and this is why science is secular. Why don't you grasp that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle
Yes, you are not understanding in the slightest why god is unscientific.

Just on the point why atheism is not a religion:

That is a description of a religion from wiki.

So tell me, how does atheism fit in to that in any form, especially the organised and spirituality bits?

Secondly, science requires something to be measurable. How do you measure god? Well the simple answer is you cannot, this is nothing to do with what we believe in it is to with the fact that conjectured beliefs are never science and this is why science is secular. Why don't you grasp that.

As I explained in this thread recently, science, its function, is to understand nature. God is supernatural, so science, which cannot claim anything about the supernatural, cannot deny or confirm the existence of God. Atheism is a religion, as no natural conclusion can exist for God. How can you claim that science is secular, when scientist claim to have a religion, and as is clear, if the are claiming to be atheist? They are claiming to observe an ideology, which has no basis in natural science.

This being of course that God does not exist which, is a an idea that has no basis in science.

Any thoughts?

Any thought?

Edited by Triad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrawingPics
A scientist with belief is like a Christian with sin; it's bound to happen on occasion, but the whole point is to get rid of it.

A belief is not like a sin, scientists can have beliefs and do not have to get rid of it.

As mattshark have said, beliefs are not measurable but that does not mean your beliefs are false. It is merely beyond science to comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrawingPics
As I explained in this thread recently, science, its function, is to understand nature. God is supernatural, so science, which cannot claim anything about the supernatural, cannot deny or confirm the existence of God. Atheism is a religion, as no natural conclusion can exist for God. How can you claim that science is secular, when scientist claim to have a religion, and as is clear, if the are claiming to be atheist? They are claiming to observe an ideology, which has no basis in natural science.

This being of course that God does not exist which, is a an idea that has no basis in science.

Athiesm is a religion only if the athiests take science as their god and believe and disbelieve based only on what science has proven and not proven.

Mattshark said that he does not disbelieve. He merely said that the supernatural cannot be measured by science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
As I explained in this thread recently, science, its function, is to understand nature. God is supernatural, so science, which cannot claim anything about the supernatural, cannot deny or confirm the existence of God. Atheism is a religion, as no natural conclusion can exist for God. How can you claim that science is secular, when scientist claim to have a religion, and as is clear, if the are claiming to be atheist? They are claiming to observe an ideology, which has no basis in natural science.

This being of course that God does not exist which, is a an idea that has no basis in science.

Any thoughts?

Any thought?

Yes, hence science is secular. Scientists having religion doesn't alter science being secular. They do not use religion as part of their science as it would make it pseudo-science. Their beliefs are their own and not part of science. It is like saying someone in a secular school who has a religious belief stops the school being secular.

Atheism is not a religion. It doesn't fit into the definition of a religion. It is simply a lack of belief. It is not organised and there is no spirituality, 2 things needed for a religion. Something not being science doesn't make it a religion.

You are right god not existing is nothing to do with science. But that is an irrelevance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle
Yes, hence science is secular. Scientists having religion doesn't alter science being secular. They do not use religion as part of their science as it would make it pseudo-science. Their beliefs are their own and not part of science. It is like saying someone in a secular school who has a religious belief stops the school being secular.

Atheism is not a religion. It doesn't fit into the definition of a religion. It is simply a lack of belief. It is not organised and there is no spirituality, 2 things needed for a religion. Something not being science doesn't make it a religion.

You are right god not existing is nothing to do with science. But that is an irrelevance.

Science is an institution Mattshark, it can not be either Science is a means we use to understand nature, it was used during the days of slavery, to establish that Slave owners were mentally superior. Today, we have other taboo’s, I am certain one day will probably be scoffed at as much as the idea that simply because of race one is superior.

What method of measurement would you apply to the conclusion, that absolutely, science is secular? When absolutely, as based upon science, scientist are not?

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrawingPics

So I am being ignored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Science is an institution Mattshark, it can not be either Science is a means we use to understand nature, it was used during the days of slavery, to establish that Slave owners were mentally superior. Today, we have other taboo’s, I am certain one day will probably be scoffed at as much as the idea that simply because of race one is superior.

What method of measurement would you apply to the conclusion, that absolutely, science is secular? When absolutely, as based upon science, scientist are not?

Any thoughts?

Secluar = with out religion, science is with out religion, if you have religion in science it becomes pseudo-science. Scientists having religion does not alter this.

It is just what science is, but you seem wholly uninterested in learning that.

So I am being ignored?

Not by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
Friend you are free to believe as you do as well and that does not make what you believe real either. That is the point and that is a good reason for the both of us to consider? That is to say God and science are compatible, because what we believe in, has nothing to do with science.

In that sense how one decides to define God is not the issue

Any thoughts?

The main structure in science, is studying the material universe around us. The concept of a God(s) has been around for thousands of years, but at current,

we use science as a tool to discern things that exist in the material realm, i.e. things that can be measured and studied with our current knowledge and

understanding of the universe around us.

Placing god in scientific studies is not very logical, as the concept of a god is based on faith and conjecture. People will always have the right to believe what

they want, but it still does not prove god exists otherwise.

Are you proposing that scientists could perform a base study on people's belief/experiences in god that could possibly come to a definitive conclusion?

Regards

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle
The main structure in science, is studying the material universe around us. The concept of a God(s) has been around for thousands of years, but at current,

we use science as a tool to discern things that exist in the material realm, i.e. things that can be measured and studied with our current knowledge and

understanding of the universe around us.

Placing god in scientific studies is not very logical, as the concept of a god is based on faith and conjecture. People will always have the right to believe what

they want, but it still does not prove god exists otherwise.

Are you proposing that scientists could perform a base study on people's belief/experiences in god that could possibly come to a definitive conclusion?

Regards

Tom

No, I am presenting that claiming there is no God is also unscientific at present, given the condition of current scientific knowledge.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
No, I am presenting that claiming there is no God is also unscientific at present, given the condition of current scientific knowledge.

Any thoughts?

And no one said it was, secular does not mean atheistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle
And no one said it was, secular does not mean atheistic.

Science is beutiful (in my opinion), it will potentially make possible our survivial (In respect to a certain transition I feel will occur before Andromeda is a light year away).

1sec·u·lar

Pronunciation:\ˈse-kyə-lər\

Function:adjective

Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime

Date:14th century

1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>

2: not bound by monastic vows or rules ; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>

3 a: occurring once in an age or a century b: existing or continuing through ages or centuries c: of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>

— sec·u·lar·i·ty \ˌse-kyə-ˈla-rə-tē\ noun

— sec·u·lar·ly \ˈse-kyə-lər-lē\ adverb

secular. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular

The evidence that God does not exist is poor.

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
No, I am presenting that claiming there is no God is also unscientific at present, given the condition of current scientific knowledge.

Any thoughts?

How can god be unscientific, when god can not be considered scientific in the first place? I think you are wandering off into future prospects

of what scientists could possibly learn! (If I am wrong I am sorry.) But, for now, science does not consider god into thier studies.

Edited by Moro Bumbleroot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle
How can god be unscientific, when god can not be considered scientific in the first place? I think you are wandering off into future prospects

of what scientists could possibly learn! (If I am wrong I am sorry.) But, for now, science does not consider god into thier studies.

Apology accepted you have the wrong idea.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ValkyrieVoice
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?

Oslove

I'm not a scientist, nor am I atheist, but I believe scientists and God are compatible because God wants us to use our brain. Yes, there is the question of faith, however, even science requires such faith at the birth of any endeavor they study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrawingPics
Apology accepted you have the wrong idea.

Any thoughts?

Why is he wrong? scientists do not take god into consideration. That is right isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
Apology accepted you have the wrong idea.

Any thoughts?

Then please, explain your idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle

HUH I posted my opinion reading is not that hard Moro!!

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
HUH I posted my opinion reading is not that hard Moro!!

Any thoughts?

Either your typer is broke, or you are just being condescending... possibly both? Either way, I will read your earlier post on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle

Huh..... God and scientist are not incompatible because science has no rite to imply God does not exist.

Does that sound about rite Moro??

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
Huh God and scientist are not incompatible because science has no rite to imply God does not exist.

Does that sound about rite Moro??

Any thoughts?

Science has never implied that god does not exist, this is obviously your opinion. Science only states, that the subject of god(s)

is not explainable through scientific means. Nothing more nothing less.

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.