Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?

  • #101
344
1
Asserting that science proves or points to the universe not being created is making stuff up. Assuming/believing the existence of the universe is a fluke is totally different story.
No, it is not making stuff up. We simply make the following argument.

1. We should believe worldviews that makes predictions that is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality.
2. Worldview X is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality than worldview Y.
3. Thus, we should believe worldview X.
 
  • #102
666
0
NeoDevin said:
In your particular case, the idea that there was necessarily a first cause, and that that first cause was somehow more "intelligent" than us in some way.

In what other way can you explain certain weird 'coincidences' like the existence of laws of physics, physical constants, Time, space, matter? Or you'd pass on, as if they didn't need an explanation?



Your use of capital "G" God strongly suggests a Christian god, if you meant some other non-self-contradictory God, then please clarify because I obviously misinterpreted your meaning.

Capital or not, I don't think i have met a religion that i didn't find contradictory.





When have I ever claimed to believe in a "First Cause" (Why is that capitalized?)? I have never even claimed the necessity of a first cause. I don't know if there was a first cause, and if there was, I don't know anything about it. Here's the kicker though: Neither do you! Your declaration that there must be a first cause, that that cause must be intelligent, and that "God" is a remotely accurate descriptor of that first cause are all completely unfounded.

Why? This is a bare assertion. Why do you use purely deterministic causal science only to where its supportive of your beliefs? How come all of this weird 'coincidence' that after the Big Bang that matter was formed and later the orderly universe we see today? Through the laws of physics? Where did they come from? You assume that's natural, right? If that's natural, then my 'unnatural' is the same your 'natural'.






When you are claiming that there must have been a first cause, and that that first cause is God, you are making a "god of the gaps" argument.

Your knowledge of the universe and existence is "knowledge of the gaps". There are three things that science doesn't say what they are - these things are Time, Space and Matter. You feel you know what these things are, but scientists do NOT. And neither do you. From the little we know about existence and the universe, it's absolutely impossible to rule out a creator. In fact, it makes sense, as opposed to saying - this 'coincidence' does not need explanation because it just happened like that, for no reason; reason is a human concept, etc.




I don't know what you're talking about here, I've known many physicists, including some you might call famous. I know a couple who are among the top in their fields and are devout Catholics, I know others who are also among the top in their (different) fields, and are atheists. I know many who aren't the tops of their fields who subscribe to all sorts of different beliefs. Please elaborate on this "god of physicists", because I've never noticed such a phenomenon.

Further arguments from popularity or (false) authority are invalid. Even if every scientist in the world believed in the same sort of god, that doesn't suddenly change reality to fit their beliefs.

The only famous atheist physicist i am aware of was Carl Sagan. What change of reality are you talking about? That the universe is a fluke? How about some evidence for this assertion? I am particlularly interested to know how energy can naturally create a classical-looking universe? Explain how a kind of condensed energy can manifest as a human being that falls in love, reasons, talks and cries in a very predictable environment.

It would be interesting if you could explain what you consider an argument that there is no god. Also, what would you consider evidence/clues that we don't live in a simulated informational universe?
 
Last edited:
  • #103
666
0
Mattara said:
No, it is not making stuff up. We simply make the following argument.

1. We should believe worldviews that makes predictions that is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality.
2. Worldview X is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality than worldview Y.
3. Thus, we should believe worldview X.


How does worldview X hint that there is no god/the universe wasn't created? Does worldview X hint if we live in a deterministic universe or otherwise? What is worlview X? Non-existence -- extreme luck/coincidence -- Big Bang -- existence?
 
  • #104
3,077
3
What about one's experience of God alternating with one's non-experience of God? I believe most people undergo such an existence.
 
  • #105
344
1
How does worldview X hint that there is no god/the universe wasn't created? Does worldview X hint if we live in a deterministic universe or otherwise? What is worlview X? Non-existence -- extreme luck/coincidence -- Big Bang -- existence?
Big Bang is not about the origin of the universe, is not based on "luck" and no one is claiming that "non-existence" existed before the Big Bang; that would be a contradiction in terms.

Worldview X and Y are just examples; that's how you compare opposing worldview to find out which is more reasonable. You can yourself compare the predictions of, say, philosophical naturalism and a random brand of theism.
 
  • #106
Evo
Mentor
23,138
2,679
Locked pending moderation. The constant pushing of a single god, and certain other statements is too close to pushing a certain religion. The arguments of a single god concept can be upsetting to those that do not hold this belief and is not appropriate in this discussion. Perhaps we need to to be less specific and just replace the concept of a "god" with "supernatural beings" so that there is no bias. Even better, let's stop bringing up "gods" altogether. For some, being spiritual doesn't even require a supernatural being, and that is their "religion".

Religion is highly personal, and pushing this idea of a single god as creator can be offensive to people that don't hold this view. People of many religions as well as non-religious are members here and we need to be considerate and not push any specific views.

The title of this thread is "Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?". That is appropriate.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
8K
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
674
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
13K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
15K
Top