Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 9 of 310 (485872)
10-12-2008 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-12-2008 1:05 PM


Potential for role reversal?
I think it well suits the theistic communities that their god(s) are undetectable, and liable to remain so. However, should science ever start to detect ”supernatural’ phenomena, which might suggest some form of deism, I do wonder about theism’s ability to accept the evidence, given the hopelessly unrealistic expectations that appear to exist within the various communities.
How ironic would it be if we were to end up with the situation where science starts proposing gods and theism feels it has to deny them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 1:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 4:17 PM dogrelata has replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 11 of 310 (485880)
10-12-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
10-12-2008 4:17 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Obviously we’re in the realm of pure speculation here, but given that we are, my best guess would be that nothing approximating the entities proposed by the various theistic communities either exists or can be verified as existing. However, that is not the same as saying new god hypotheses will not emerge to encompass future scientific discoveries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 4:17 PM Straggler has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 31 of 310 (485928)
10-13-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
10-12-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Straggler writes:
The point of this thread as I intended it is to ask the question as to whether people think that their beliefs, or lack of them, are justified or even derived fom science.
My view is that I see no evidence for the existence of any ”supernatural’ entities that approximate the various god hypotheses currently ”doing the rounds’, or any that have done so in the past. Additionally, I feel no emotional need to believe in such entities.
So I guess the first part of the above is derived from what science has taught us, whilst the second part probably says more about my temperament than any adherence to scientific endeavour. That said, had I been born 200 years earlier, it seems likely that the chances of my believing in something would have been significantly higher, so even my temperamental tendencies are probably influenced to a certain degree be exposure to scientific knowledge.
There is another consideration, which I feel has a great bearing on my views in this area. It concerns the tendency for modern theisms to portray their deities as some sort of ”super human’ entity. This has never made much sense to me, and seems a bit like a subliminal desire by humanity to project itself onto the fabric of the universe by suggesting that not only has the universe been put here for our benefit, but that the force(s) behind its existence can be explained in terms of ”humanoid’ purpose and creativity.
A classic case in point is the ID movement, who seek to suggest that design processes used by a single species of biological life form in a remote corner of an astronomically large universe should represent whatever processes brought the universe to its current state of being.
Instinctively, this whole hypothesis seems comical and nonsensical to me, which I accept is an argument from incredulity, but it forms part of my view of reality, so I offer it as such.
This leaves the problem of whether anything can satisfy the criterion of being a god hypothesis and still be amenable to scientific research. I don’t believe any of the current hypotheses do. Which is why I suggested in Message 9 that any paradigm shift may need to be scientifically driven, in the sense that some branches of theism may be prepared to temper their expectations of personality-based super beings and move towards a more process orientated model . which hardly sounds like faith at all, but today’s gods bear little resemblance to many of their polytheistic forebears, so what’s new?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 5:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 10-13-2008 12:28 PM dogrelata has replied
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2008 5:41 PM dogrelata has replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 38 of 310 (485952)
10-13-2008 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
10-13-2008 12:28 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Coyote writes:
Greek and Roman, and even many Native American, deities were "super human" as well. Or is that included in your "modern?"
No, not really. I used the word quite loosely. I had in mind the major monotheistic theisms, which tend to focus on a personality-based super being - almost a human super-ego in some respects.
It’s kind of interesting you should home in on one word though - it got me thinking. Thinking about the analysing of things to the nth degree and contrasting that with how I came to choose atheism over theism.
I grew up in a culture and home environment where the robes of religion were worn very loosely, and I choose to discard mine at the age of ten. What’s interesting is that this was an entirely intuitive decision - I simply felt that the whole god thing was pure nonsense. In the forty years that have since passed, I’ve seen nothing to make me think that gut reaction was wrong.
I think the point I’m trying to make is about the part feel or intuition or good old-fashioned gut-reaction plays in what each of us believes. I hold my hand up, it played a big part in what I came to believe and probably still does.
As such, I’m always going to be drawn more to scientific explanations rather than theistic ones, as they tend to be a much better fit for my intuitive model of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 10-13-2008 12:28 PM Coyote has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 64 of 310 (486005)
10-14-2008 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Straggler
10-13-2008 5:41 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Straggler writes:
. idea that a future form of the "god hypothesis" might be more amenable to scientific investigation. Whilst I think the prospect is intriguing it seems unlikely.
I agree, it does seem a little unlikely. Here’s the thing though. We have this theory of evolution. It’s a rather elegant little theory, I believe, and I have no problem accepting it offers a plausible explanation for the bio-diversity we observe all around us. Furthermore, I see it as an ongoing process, which is where things start to get interesting.
In what way will future life forms evolve? The truth is we don’t know, but evolution has produced some pretty complex entities to date. Should this trend continue, can we rule out the possibility that beings will evolve that satisfy many of the criterion that are applied when attempting to define a god?
Maybe the prospect isn’t quite so unlikely after all .
Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2008 5:41 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 5:52 PM dogrelata has replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 105 of 310 (486071)
10-15-2008 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Straggler
10-14-2008 5:52 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Straggler writes:
However I think the one thing that might differentiate such a being is an evolutionary past. Will humans ever accept that which itself has evolved from very simple and humble beginnings as a god to be worshipped no matter how advanced it may eventually be?
I suspect we can agree that there’s very little likelihood of humans who subscribe to the various current god hypotheses ever accepting such a thing. However, if we look at theism, it does tend towards deities that it believes can bring about change for the better, either in this life or some supposed other. If a super species were to evolve, that had the power to deliver dramatic improvements to the lives of others, it’s not too big a stretch to imagine the type of hero worship that might follow.
And if we accept evolution as an ongoing process, why are humans to be the sole arbiters of what is worthy of worship further down the line? If we accept evolution, we surely have to accept the possibility, even probability, that our self-appointed position as the pre-eminent species is only temporary. Don’t we?
However this has all become highly speculative and as such has deviated somewhat from the questions you posed in the OT, which I presume were aimed at matters much more firmly rooted in the here and now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 5:52 PM Straggler has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 127 of 310 (486158)
10-16-2008 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
10-15-2008 1:54 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
Straggler writes:
IF:
Two people arrive at two completely opposite mutually exclusive conclusions via subjective, non-empirical faith based evidence alone
AND:
Each is equally convinced of the irrefutable certainty of his own faith based conclusion
THEN:
How can we tell which one has reached a reliable conclusion and which one has not?
If we’re lucky, they hold an election. If not, they have a war, or a genocide or a burning of books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 1:54 PM Straggler has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 139 of 310 (486224)
10-17-2008 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2008 11:13 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
Catholic Scientist writes:
onifre writes:
How do you know it was Jesus though? If I can ask...
I don't, really. I tried to help myself to no avail so I asked Jesus for help and it worked immediately. In the end, I do have to have faith that it was Jesus.
You’re a scientist, so you don’t need me to tell you why such testimony has little validity in terms of being independently verifiable. But that’s not where I want to take this.
The above is typical of a much broader issue. It concerns the extent to which we as humans seem to require much greater burdens of proof from science when it challenges our personal experiences. That is, when science appears to undermine our ability to discern reality. Whether it be Loch Ness Monsters or alien abductions or spiritualism or whatever, anytime science attempts to rationalize these experiences, it tends to alienate the witness who ”knows what they saw with their own eyes’ or ”felt something within that was real’.
So whilst most of us are prepared to accept scientific rationalizations in areas where we are not directly affected, e.g. fairies at the bottom of the garden, we are much less happy to do so where we ourselves have been affected or trust those whose testimony is being questioned. It is a big part of how we see ourselves as humans - as conscious beings who are able to gather information about reality and learn to trust our own interpretations of what we experience. Indeed it could be argued we need to be able to trust our own interpretations to be able to function effectively within that reality.
So when science challenges the way we experience reality, it is effectively challenging the model of reality we have developed, which allows us to be functioning human beings. As such, science may always be limited in its power to persuade ”all of the people, all of the time’.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 11:13 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 140 of 310 (486226)
10-17-2008 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by onifre
10-15-2008 6:27 PM


Re: Answers
onifre writes:
If you are not familiar with the evidence, or have a layman understanding that you feel is good enough to interprete evidence that is far beyond your level of comprehension, then you are not going to agree with certain things, but that does not make those things any less valid to those who do understand it.
This is an interesting point.
As science delves ever deeper into the nature of reality, what it uncovers seems ever more remote from what the average layman has the capacity to understand. As such, the extent to which we, as average laymen, need to trust or place our faith in scientists seems greater than it ever has done, if we are to accept their findings. How can we know whether a prediction made about quantum mechanical interactions in the 8th dimension has been successfully fulfilled? We probably can’t, so we need to put our trust in an ever smaller number of individuals who believe they can.
Does that make them the new gods, in which we either chose to place our faith or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 10-15-2008 6:27 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Agobot, posted 10-17-2008 7:53 AM dogrelata has replied
 Message 144 by onifre, posted 10-17-2008 12:36 PM dogrelata has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 143 of 310 (486236)
10-17-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Agobot
10-17-2008 7:53 AM


Re: Answers
Nice joke, although I generally prefer to cut straight to the “I dunno” bit myself - it saves a lot of time and effort.
Agobot writes:
Now if you are talking about the multitude of proposed hypothetical theories and models describing reality, you are right, you have to take them on faith. If a theory of everything ever comes up, it will be understandable in its basic form and scientists will not be gods. But every theoretical model that there is today, suggests reality is way stranger than anyone can imagine.
I think it may have been RAZD, apologies to all concerned if I’m wrong, who said in a thread last year, “It’s the quantum world that is ”normal’, the world of large objects that we inhabit is what’s really weird”, or something to that effect. That really made me think . although I’m not sure it got me anywhere . .
As an aside, I did see something a couple of years ago where a quantum physicist, talking about M theory I think, suggested it may be possible at some point in the future to create a whole new universe in the lab. If that were to ever happen, we would have an entity creating a universe, which is one of the cornerstones of many of the current god hypotheses, so maybe the scientist as god isn’t so far-fetched after all .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Agobot, posted 10-17-2008 7:53 AM Agobot has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 170 of 310 (486302)
10-18-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Agobot
10-18-2008 7:30 AM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Agobot writes:
Sorry for pounding atheism for the umpteenth time
Don’t worry about pounding atheists, we’re a resilient lot - it’s not us who require the emotional crutch after all!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 7:30 AM Agobot has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 172 of 310 (486304)
10-18-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Agobot
10-18-2008 7:30 AM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Agobot writes:
but how can anyone believe that DUMB energy can construct an universe, an Earth, living organisms and the computers you're using, by CHANCE??? Does energy have a mind of its own?
Here’s the thing. If I take a vast amount of water to the top of a mountain, a couple of hundred miles from the ocean, and invite the world’s finest scientists, with the most powerful supercomputers, and some of the most eminent theologians, who may ask for divine guidance, to predict the course the water will take to the ocean when I release it, my hunch is that neither group is going to come close . yet that dumb old water will just keep on rolling until it gets there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 7:30 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024