Scientists, what is your take on this statement by a Christian apologist on the nature of science?
Disclaimer: I'm honestly not attempting to troll. I just wanted your response would be to this. This is a statement on Quora by a Christian apologist who was responding to an atheist. I am nonreligious myself. Your thoughts please? Sorry for the length. Thanks in advance.
[ "Lawrence. This sounds very like, “keep faith in your god separate from mine because mine is right and yours is nonsense.” Perhaps that is not your intent. The idea that God and science must stay separated is a conflict over worldview though and not really a sensible one.
There are a couple of points.
I have already addressed the idea of “no scientifically valid proof of God’s existence.” That really depends upon what you mean by “scientifically valid” and by what you mean by “proof.”
In science, not all science is done in a lab with a microscope and the five steps of the scientific method. When science studies the origins of the universe, it can’t put the universe in the lab. When the origins of life are studied it isn’t possible to go back in time and take a sample. Gravity can’t be put in a test tube and brought into the lab; the best that can be done is to study the effects of gravity and make inferences. That is all science. And the methods used to infer in these areas of science can also be used to make valid inferences about God. ...(cont. in addtional details)
In the soft sciences like psychology and anthropology, self-reporting is a valid means of information gathering. Collective data is pretty much all there is in sociology. New Oxford Review This is a review of Alston’s book showing experience of God is a valid kind of “proof” where God is concerned as well.Belief “rests on a complex variety of sources that mutually support and reinforce each other.” Evidence and faith work together to strengthen one another. (cont.)
(cont.) ” If there were never any evidence of any kind to reinforce faith, no human would be able to sustain it for long.
You say “faith can’t exist only in the realm of factually proven” but I say science does not exist, cannot exist, without its own foundation of faith. Science rests upon principles that cannot be proven but are accepted simply by believing in them—that’s faith. The uniformity of nature is one. That reductionism is valid is another. (cont.)
(cont.) Causal closure could not be proven so it was simply declared to be true—everyone should read the history of the philosophy on that one! That is not only faith, it’s dogma! The belief in the nature of reason, in the belief that “scientific truths” are out there to be discovered by rational minds if we just look—why should we believe that? What in the metaphysic of materialism guarantees that? Because there have been a few physical experiments on physical things in the physical world (cont
should not overwhelm any of us with awe. God built an orderly universe with laws it is possible to seek and find. There are so many—so very many—aspects of science that are unexplainable without God.
And so many types of evidential support for the existence of a higher intelligence, and historical support that he reached out to us in Jesus. Lawrence—if there is a God—He invented everything that we think of as science. He invented physics. He invented chemistry and mathematics and (cont.)
biology and all the rest. When we study those things—we ARE studying him.
- AnonymousLv 73 weeks ago
>” That really depends upon what you mean by “scientifically valid” and by what you mean by “proof.”
NOPE. This isn't philosophy. There are firm definitions of 'scientifically valid' and 'evidence' in science and God doesn't meet them. Astronomy, gravity, dark matter, etc. MEET THOSE STANDARDS. God does not. He's trying to con you with post-modernism.
- JimLv 73 weeks ago
God: mankind trying to understand faith.
Science: mankind trying to understand the world around us.
- TomLv 71 month ago
I am a Scientist Myself (Geologist) And also a Methodist. I find no conflict with the actual Scripture and Science. Conflicts are with religious dogmas and various interpretations. I can interpret the same words to support my Science views.
As a Methodist I subscribe to the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" in terms of MY faith. Testing my conclusions by 1) Scripture (Best translation) 2) Tradition, 3) Experience and 4) REASON.
Besides, Science and religion are TWO SEPRATE "Games" where we do NOT mix the rules. The Science Game is only use Observation, Experience, Logic and Experiment to develop theories. Saying "Goddidit" would be against the rules of the game and NOT "Scientific". ------Its quite easy for most people to understand Football and Baseball rules and not mix them up.----And also for Scientists to be both Religious and Scientific, when they have to be.
Even Scientists have "Faith" if only in their own theories or world views. And most have the common sense not to mix religion and Science---as they are two DIFFERENT paths to different sets of Truths.
- WhoLv 71 month ago
aspects of science that are unexplainable without God."
thats just stupid - just cos it cannot be explained today does not prove it will not be explained in the future, and "god" is certainly not the default answer to any question
you wanna claim "god" is the explanation then YOU have to prove it- not assume it the absence of another explanation
"God built an orderly universe" - PROVE IT . It not MY job to prove ist WASNT "created" by a "god". Its YOUR job to prove it WAS
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- οικοςLv 71 month ago
I agree that science is more than laboratory experiments. That is about the limit of my agreement. Most of the rest is just an argument from ignorance. An all-too-common fallacy.
- CRRLv 71 month ago
How about you provide a link to the original?
- DixonLv 71 month ago
Is that Vishnu or Ra?
- jehenLv 71 month ago
This is very simple and requires no contortions. We look to science to explain the natural world - the what is, how it came to be, what it means to our lives, and how our lives affect the world, how the foreseeable future will unfold. We then exploit this knowledge for our benefit, improving lives, as best we can fashioning a better today and tomorrow. So scientist tells us 'what', 'how', and 'when', explaining and understanding cause and effect. But we looked to God for 'why'. A question science does not even ask.
- CarolOklaLv 71 month ago
My reaction is you are using circular reasoning starting with a possibly false premise. You assume God exists as the hypothesis without considering the null hypothesis that God does not exist. Your logic is used by many scientists of many faiths to justify why they do research and science. Research is a form of worship. There is problem in that trying to be totally objective is not a"normal" frame of mind. Truth can be very subjective. A scientific fact may be "true" for 1 person may be fatal for another person.
Organized religion and faith are NOT the same thing. Organized religion often has dogma. Faith is often based on personal experience. I was baptized when I was 14 years old, but I wasn't saved until more than 5 and a half years later.
If my consciousness and identity survive the death of my physical body, I'll be very busy fixing out how my new expanded universe works. If consciousness does NOT survive the death of my physical body, I will not be around to worry about it. I haven't believed in a fire and brimstone He'll since I was about 11 years old. I didn't understand why a loving God might send my grandmother, my only living grand parent, to a fire and brimstone Hell. He'll can be state of mind that you may not sense the boundaries of until you are about to escape. The possibility of falling back into that mental Hell is always there. It haunts you. That is what many people who struggle with clinical depression for decades is like for many people.
- Anonymous1 month ago
If God was real, then majority of criminals wouldn't have lived 100 years and weak people who have done nothing wouldn't be killed