Belief in God is scientific.

But you could also say that with modern understanding of how unbelievably amazing the universe is and how unfathomable a place it really is that modern skeptics are also victims of their own imaginations in thinking that they understand enough of existence and the universe to say with such certainty that there isn't a God. When in reality the true value of how much we actually know is probably more or less nothing compared with what there is to know.

The skeptic does not say that there is no God. The sketpic asks for evidence for God, and upon seeing no evidence sees no reason to believe that God does exist. If and when that evidence is presented, then the skeptic will change their position.

The real question is why believe that there is a God to begin with. If your only answer is that other people are doing it, then you really don't have much of a reason. It gets even worse when you begin to evidence God by pointing to our ignorance.

quote:

---

The result, on every scientific test, is that "belief" is a very unreliable way to use your brain in order to learn facts about the world.

---

Humanity would have failed long ago it it didn't believe 'it could do it'
Belief is integral to human success. Once we believed we could sail round the world and we did, once we believed we could land on the moon and we did, at the moment we believe we can land man on Mars and we probably will.
Imagining we can do somthing makes us plan to do it, we envision the obstacles to over come and the requirements needed to do it. Believing we can do it motivates us to overcome those obstacles and to procure the requirements and skills to do it.
This very day there are probably hundreds of science students studying for degrees who will spend their whole careers imagining, believing and planning to send man to Mars.
the statement at the top only makes sense if it is the propaganda of an idiot.

Edited by divermike1974, : No reason given.

Humanity would have failed long ago it it didn't believe 'it could do it' Belief is integral to human success. Once we believed we could sail round the world and we did, once we believed we could land on the moon and we did, at the moment we believe we can land man on Mars and we probably will. Imagining we can do somthing makes us plan to do it, we envision the obstacles to over come and the requirements needed to do it. Believing we can do it motivates us to overcome those obstacles and to procure the requirements and skills to do it. This very day there are probably hundreds of science students studying for degrees who will spend their whole careers imagining, believing and planning to send man to Mars. the statement at the top only makes sense if it is the propaganda of an idiot.

It is true that belief is a strong motivating force. But that has no bearing on the question of whether it is a reliable way to establish facts. Yes, people believed that they could put a man on the moon, this motivated them to try it, and they succeeded. They were right. Some people believed that they could get rich by investing in Enron, this motivated them to try it, and they failed. They were wrong. Some people believed that they could build perpetual motion machines, this motivated them to try it, and they failed. They were wrong. Some cult leaders believed that they could raise the dead, this motivated them to try it, and they failed. They were wrong. And so forth.

It is true that if we never believed true things, we'd never try and succeed --- but on the other hand lots of people have believed false things and failed. The belief itself does not guarantee truth, and does not guarantee success. "Belief is integral to human success" you write. Sure. But it is also integral to human failure.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In that case belief could be the driving force for the evolution of thinking creatures.

In that case belief could be the driving force for the evolution of thinking creatures.

That's about the biggest non-sequitur I've ever seen. That's not at all how belief, thought, nor evolution work.

Very true. I remember when Tink's light was fading out and only if everyone closed there eyes real tight and believed in fairies could she be saved.

divermike writes: Humanity would have failed long ago it it didn't believe 'it could do it'

How much belief do you think it would take for you to win the lottery?
I serously doubt that you think it might change the odds. Or do you?

In that case belief could be the driving force for the evolution of thinking creatures.

You what?

Hi divermike1974,

I think you're ideas about belief and science and good/bad things are a bit too strict.

Belief is certainly a good thing. A very good and powerful thing.
It's just not a scientific thing.
Scientifically speaking... belief is negative and unreliable.

But science isn't everything.
Science is a tool for us to use to learn facts about the world. To make use of those facts and build technology.

Belief is a tool for us to use to help us feel better. To provide hope or a sense of motivation. It is very powerful.

Neither is "better than the other" all the time.
Neither is "always bad".

The trick is to identify the situation and use whichever method is appropriate.

When doing science, it's just kinda obvious that the Scientific Method is preferred over Belief.

divermike1974 writes: Humanity would have failed long ago it it didn't believe 'it could do it'

I don't know about "failed." But, yes, I agree things would be different.

Belief is integral to human success. Once we believed we could sail round the world and we did, once we believed we could land on the moon and we did, at the moment we believe we can land man on Mars and we probably will.

Correct. But remember to try and separate the ideas.
Belief is integral to human success because it allows us to use our imagination and think of ideas not otherwise obvious.
However... it's not belief that built sailboats. Science did that.
It's also not belief that built rockets that take us to the moon... science did that too.

They are separate ideas, try to identify when they are to be used separately.

Believing we can do it motivates us to overcome those obstacles and to procure the requirements and skills to do it.

Exactly.
Belief is for motivation.
Science is for "the requirements and the skills to do it."

Separate ideas for separate tasks.

This very day there are probably hundreds of science students studying for degrees who will spend their whole careers imagining, believing and planning to send man to Mars.

Yes. They will use their belief to motivate themselves.
But, they will use science to build the spaceship.

I have two cars.
One built by science.
One built by a guy who "believes it will keep you safe."

Which one will you drive?

the statement at the top ("The result, on every scientific test, is that "belief" is a very unreliable way to use your brain in order to learn facts about the world.") only makes sense if it is the propaganda of an idiot.

The statement makes sense if you can identify that Belief and Science are two separate ideas that help us with separate tasks.

Before i go down that road, lets get back to the inadequate list of particles you had started.

Before i go down that road, lets get back to the inadequate list of particles you had started.

Or you could just look up the term "gauge bosons". If you're going to talk about how simple the universe is, my point is that you shouldn't leave them out of your description of it.

I feel that the website godandscience.org (mainly the cosmology parts) offers a lot of good suggestions from commonly accepted science for the existence of God, and a personal one at that. One of my favorite examples is the long list of examples of qualities of the universe that highly give the impression of "fine tuning", enough to where it seems absurd to think that a non-designed universe could even result in a universe that could even result in matter, let alone living things. Some of these things that seem to be fine tuned are the rate of exansion, the ratio of matter to anti-matter, and certain aspects of the laws of physics; where with each of these the universe would be vastly different and unsuitable for matter if they were changed by even the slightest amount yet could have easily "happened" differently. I for one feel that these are good evidence for God, though definitely not direct proof as many will say.

I don't think science "proves" the existence of God, but I think it provides a rational grounding for belief in God. Expecting science to produce undeniable proof for God, seems unrealistic whether God exists or not. What would hard proof of God look like, to where even the most stubborn atheists can't deny it?

Edited by ViperAce, : No reason given.

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=16904

There you can add to the fine tuning discussion. As noted over and over we really don't know enough to make any statements bout it.

It is possible that there is no tuning of any kind possible. The qualities of the physics of the cosmos might have to be just as they are with no wiggle room at all. But we don't know that.

If you want to discuss any of the arguments on that website feel free to start a thread. However I have to say that the introductory essays gave me no feeling that it has anything much to offer.

I got the same feeling.

I had a quick look at other parts (on 'cosmology', but not really on cosmology) written by Richard Deem (who's claimed to have an M in Microbiology). Doesn't bode well for his knowledge on Physics or Cosmology.

Maybe ViperAce should start a thread on it. I could learn from the people who know more than me on those subjects.

I'm still trying to get my head around many of the posts on Cosmology and Physics on the other thread mentioned. The Physics 1 I did years ago is not of too much help at all.

My fear is that it's just going to be the same regurgitated, yet totally unconvincing, arguments presented.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.