The Impact of Science on the Concept of God

[devil5_advocate]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, a lot of 'better' concepts don't seem much different to me than rehashed versions of the 'old stuff'. I meant more that God must remain vague because to say, for example, that God is a rock, or god is a bearded man sitting back in golden rocking chair, isn't going to carry much weight. At least, not to me.
My conclusion is not, as you thought, that we might have to abandon any notion of God, but rather that we must always keep a vague sort of mysterious God, and I think this may remain so despite scientific discoveries that lay in the future.

So you say that to define god is to destroy? That having a vague god is the best kind of god? Beg your pardon but isn't that like putting one's faith into a vague belief? How so will that help you when you are in trouble, psychologically and emotionally and spiritually?

 

[devil5_advocate]

Originally posted by heusdens
From our very existing and proceedings and developments, we HAVE to conclude that no abstract definition of anything (including God) will last forever. Our insights are constantly changing.
This means for any 'God' to survive in a changing world, the definition or concept of 'God' has to change accordingly, or else it will be put in the garbage can of history.

Heusdens, i find what you've said to be particularly true. Just as surely as civillisations rise and fall, so will their concepts and thoughts go with them, leaving behind only records of what they believed in. Though this will help historians no doubt I don't think that they would have gained any converts of faith because they recorded they worshipped the Sun god.. would they? God will change with the times, or else the civillisation would probably have ceased to exist.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by devil5_advocate
So you say that to define god is to destroy?

No, I am asking a question here, not proclaiming it to be true.

That having a vague god is the best kind of god?

No, not the best kind, but perhaps the only kind that can survive close scrutiny. I meant it more in line with your response to Fliption concerning gravity/mass/god. If science dissects it gravity gets related to mass, not god.

Beg your pardon but isn't that like putting one's faith into a vague belief?

I would consider this beside the point. What one wishes to believe is their own business of course. But since you mentioned it I’d say that God seems pretty vague to me, how about you?

How so will that help you when you are in trouble, psychologically and emotionally and spiritually?

Again, I consider this beside the point. No comment.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron;
Traditionally, creating narrower definitions of God and the supernatural in general has been accomplished by science and technology as much as anything. Few today believe lightning bolts are thrown by Zeus or are supernatural. However, this is not to say that creating a non-vague definition of a God is impossible or would destroy the concept.

Yes, I think I can see what you’re getting at here and I can see how it tends to refute the argument that vagueness is necessary in light of scientific advancements. I will think more on this point, Wu Li, and see what comes to my mind.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
The question "God ... to define is to destroy" has two "human" aspects: a social impact (if we can give a final definition or image or formula of God ... will it destroy religious institutions - like churches, sekts, ..), and the personal impact (how will individuals react on that"knowledge").

Actually the latter one, to replace the religious beliefs in deities, the only attempt made succesfull, is to have people scientifically educated.

To overcome all forms of superstition, religion, ignorance and stubbornness, we must therefore provide well founded scientific education for the masses.

And we better take care here, that the science education budgets are increasing to fulfill that goal, instead of decreasing (as they have in many industrial nations; for instance the science/education budget in the Netherlands between 1980 and 2002 were alsmost cut in half!)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
To overcome all forms of superstition, religion, ignorance and stubbornness, we must therefore provide well founded scientific education for the masses.

Nothing more than deterministic brainwashing ... You see isn't this what freedom of religion is all about, to allow us to make up our own minds?

 

[BoulderHead]

It reminded me very much of Alexander.
Isn't just about everything brainwashing anyway?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
It reminded me very much of Alexander.
Isn't just about everything brainwashing anyway?

If so, then how can you tell? Whereas coming from a Communist country, I can see that he has a point.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Nothing more than deterministic brainwashing ... You see isn't this what freedom of religion is all about, to allow us to make up our own minds?

No, it is what freedom on a human scale is about. To set forth one's own future, and free oneself of any narrowmindedness. Freedom is the knowledge about necessity.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
No, it is what freedom on a human scale is about. To set forth one's own future, and free oneself of any narrowmindedness. Freedom is the knowledge about necessity.

What about the freedom to learn from one's mistakes? If we put too many restrictions on what freedom is supposed to entail, if nothing more than to root out any possible "narrow mindedness," then how much freedom does that leave us? And, by the time I start hearing "my way or the highway," then I realize that maybe people don't deserve their freedom, although it does indeed exist.

I'm sorry, you can't have freedom without the freedom of religion.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about the freedom to learn from one's mistakes? If we put too many restrictions on what freedom is supposed to entail, if nothing more than to root out any possible "narrow mindedness," then how much freedom does that leave us? And, by the time I start hearing "my way or the highway," then I realize that maybe people don't deserve their freedom, although it does indeed exist.

I'm sorry, you can't have freedom without the freedom of religion.

Would it imply mankind would no longer be free as religion goes extinct? I don't think so.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Would it imply mankind would no longer be free as religion goes extinct? I don't think so.

Before we can answer this we need to establish whether there was anything substantial to religion in the first place, otherwise, it's not abouts to die.

Besides that, if you take away our right to our beliefs, then you take away our freedom. This is the one fundamental idea (I believe) which made the United States so prosperous.

 

[BoulderHead]

I don't advocate force. I want freedom from force, actually. There need not be any force used against people to make them surrender religious beliefs. That would only drive it underground where it might become even more powerful.

They know that we represent reason and science, and, however confident they may be in their beliefs, they fear that we will overthrow their gods. Not ncessarily through any deliberate act, but in a subtler fashion. Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor but they have few followers now."
Arthur C. Clarke

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I don't advocate force. I want freedom from force, actually. There need not be any force used against people to make them surrender religious beliefs. That would under drive it underground where it might become even more powerful.

They know that we represent reason and science, and, however confident they may be in their beliefs, they fear that we will overthrow their gods. Not ncessarily through any deliberate act, but in a subtler fashion. Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor but they have few followers now."
Arthur C. Clarke

If you lay something to rest, you better be sure to give it a proper burial, otherwise it will come back to haunt you.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If you lay something to rest, you better be sure to give it a proper burial, otherwise it will come back to haunt you.

But on the other hand if it simply dies and rots away, why bother with a funeral?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
But on the other hand if it simply dies and rots away, why bother with a funeral?

It's like I said ... Before we can answer this we need to establish whether there was anything substantial to religion in the first place, otherwise, it's not abouts to die.

 

[BoulderHead]

Ok, let me try to get back to my topic;
I think there is a relationship in this topic to science being involved so intentionally with the material world that If a religion proclaims a ‘cow’ to be sacred, for example, that science will not agree and explain a cow as a biological creature. If a rock is proclaimed to be ‘holy’ then science will say the rock is just so much mineral matter. If God is proclaimed to be fire, earth, wind, etc, then science will explain this away too. In short, if you are able to define god as something we are able to test and experiment on then after testing and experimentation it may/will never be ruled as god, just some element of the natural world or force of nature (and note that whether god might actually be any of those things is a tad beside the point here). So, barring absolute knowledge god can never be ruled out of the picture with 100% certainty. But, with each stone unturned by science as we go along, god will never be hiding under it.
On a more personal level, if you tell me that God exists I might say; “yes, you might be right”. But, if you define your god to be living inside the heart of a palm tree I would tell you “I doubt it”. By saying that god is everything you present an un-testable and I think ‘vague’ concept of god that one may choose to believe or not. If god ‘hides’ in the mysterious, the unexplained, the un-testable, ‘he’ has a better chance of being believed in.

[edit]
I don't how to put this in a way that I'm certain Wu Li will accept, but I'd like to think I'm trying to.

 

[devil5_advocate]

I don't how to put this in a way that I'm certain Wu Li will accept, but I'd like to think I'm trying to.

Haha, one always hopes...that is man's last right when all's said and done.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Before we can answer this we need to establish whether there was anything substantial to religion in the first place, otherwise, it's not abouts to die.

The substantiability of religion is inherently there on the basis of the limited and relative knowledge we have had and always will have, although our knowledge is ever growing and improving.

Besides that, if you take away our right to our beliefs, then you take away our freedom. This is the one fundamental idea (I believe) which made the United States so prosperous.

Eh. You mean an idea that made so many other countries to suffer?

You have to separate freedom from religion.
There is no implication that people would have less freedom when they are free of religious beliefs or superstition.

If that is not the case, then please proof that to me.

In the end we have to deal with only human freedom. Any human freedom stops where it limits some other humans freedom. So freedom is an inherently inter-human relation, it must be based on how all humans relate to each other. And one of the ways humans relate to each other, is through the economy.

And we still have to consider that the way the current economy in fact works, makes in some places of the world people terrible rich, and somehwere else, makes people terribly poor.

Which then can be stated as that some of the economic mechanisms, that exist, are harmfull for human freedom. Which urges us to rethink how the economy works, and that an economy that painfully hurts the freedom of a large amount of the population, while on the other side, providing excess of goods for a minority, can not be a good concept of how the economy should work, provided the fact that economic relations and activities, serve the purpose of setting humans free, provide for their real needs, and so on.

This could in fact mean, that - in order to liberate a majority of people that suffer under these conditions - we need to limit the (economic) freedom of a minority, that profit from these existing relations. All goaled towards providing an equal amount of freedom to all human beings.

Which is a human goal, and what is freedom all about.