Thread: Does Science Begin with a Belief in God?

Are the bibles of the world just rudimentary science texts at best? Are they just an attempt to explain what the heck is going on.

I think it possible that a belief in a creator God was the first elementary step man took in an effort to begin understanding his universe. Simplistic but not a bad. God then continued to be the cornerstone of scientific exploration until evidence suggested otherwise. I think we are at that stage now. God should remain as an explanation for awhile but I think eventually He will eventually be passed over.

For example...are flood stories merely an attempt to explain marine life evidence on mountaintops? How would our ancestors, who were probably just trying to survive, have the resources to discover the truth?

It takes time. We are somewhere on the upward evolutionary curve of gaining knowledge but we couldn't have got there without someone getting the science ball rolling many years ago.

It's the belief of myself (and some others) that the bible was written by genius's over time. Either in attempts to control the populace, works of fiction, or a mix of science encoded in dogmatic belief. Or some other possibilities.

There are numerous things one can pull from the bible that are "close enough" to be considered scientific. Ranging from my own discovered calculation about the age of the earth, to the calculation of pi.

Still, "science" began long before God or the bible. What you've described as "science" is actually folklore. Yes they are attempts at explanation, but through mythology rather than fact or observation.

“Attempting to explain something” isn’t the same as science. The entire point of science is that after you come up with an explanation for why things are they way they are, you go out and try to confirm or disprove your explanation with observations in the real world. That’s what separates science from philosophy, religion, etc. Simply sitting around making up bullshit fantasy explanations for things that you never bother to actually check doesn’t constitute “doing science”.

Nah, religion is just mostly understood. It is actually just a collection of thousands of years and countless lives that have been dedicated to understanding the human condition, and the population of the world spends trillions of dollars a year to further this study in their art and stories. Religion is far from a useless fantasy.

Here is an example an example from Star Wars and how it applies to life:

Luke Skywalker is the hero of our story who lives a sheltered life of dependence on his uncle and aunt, but suddenly he is forced to go out in the world and find his place in it. The veil that protected him from the "reality" of the world is suddenly removed and he finds the world a harsh murderous place. This is the departure of the hero motif found in many mythologies.

(I'm getting bored so I'll just cut right to the more interesting stuff.)

The story of creation in the Bible is a parable. Before Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge they knew nothing of duality and opposites, but given the fruit by the serpent they became aware of good and evil, male and female, light and dark, and polarity in general. This story is about man's growth from nonconscienceness to conscienceness, and leaves the implication of the reverse. There really is a lot of work that has been done on the subject in many cultures.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

“Attempting to explain something” isn’t the same as science. The entire point of science is that after you come up with an explanation for why things are they way they are, you go out and try to confirm or disprove your explanation with observations in the real world.

And when you get to the end there's no more explaining to be had. I hear what you're saying but surely if our forefathers believed God was the best explanation for everything, it was the end all. If you couple that with the fear of divine reprisal for even questioning it, then are you going to go out and prove God exists?

The sun goes down in the west and then hurries around or under only to rise up again on the other side. I paraphrase but I seem to recall reading that in some religion's holy text. Isn't that a scientific explanation for a day? If holy text is the word of God then who's going to question it?

I see your point though. Maybe science got started when somebody finally decided to question the God explanation.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

“Attempting to explain something” isn’t the same as science. The entire point of science is that after you come up with an explanation for why things are they way they are, you go out and try to confirm or disprove your explanation with observations in the real world.

That's a scientific method. Science is literally an attempt at explaining the world around us by using methods that attempt to be as objective as possible.

That’s what separates science from philosophy, religion, etc. Simply sitting around making up bullshit fantasy explanations for things that you never bother to actually check doesn’t constitute “doing science”.

You, sir, are possibly as dogmatic as those religious. Philosophy is NOT making fantasy explanations. Philosophy requires a very innate knowledge of both ones own cognitive reactions and logic.

Philosophy attempts to transcend the sciences by rationally deducing what cannot be empirically proven. Most scientific attempts at discoveries (in fact some discoveries) begin with Philosophy. Some end in philosophy still very well ingrained.

Philosophy IS a science. If you disagree you can stop by Wikipedia. The point here is that some things you can't "check" for a very long time. Trying prematurely only tends to lead to failure.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

You, sir, are possibly as dogmatic as those religious. Philosophy is NOT making fantasy explanations. Philosophy requires a very innate knowledge of both ones own cognitive reactions and logic.

I wasn't saying that about philosophy. My statement about "making up fantasy explanations" was referring to people who explain things in the natural world by attributing them to ghosts/spirits/gods/etc. Like "We had an eclipse because god waved his hand in front of the sun" or "Our crops died because someone put a curse on them."

Philosophy IS a science. If you disagree you can stop by Wikipedia. The point here is that some things you can't "check" for a very long time. Trying prematurely only tends to lead to failure.

You need to look into the role that falsifibility plays in science. The vast majority of scientists don't consider theories to be "scientific" if there is no way to empirically test them.

Answer to the question.


No.

Does science begin with a belief in God?

No. Science ends as soon as a belief in God is involved.

God implicitly answers every question and explains everything that happens, all we need is faith.

But if we have that faith, what need is there for answers or explanations, do we not simply wait upon Him?

What need is there for technology or medicine or education, when all we need to do is pray to an all knowing and all powerful God and He will provide whatever He thinks is best.

Science must rest on the opposite of faith. It requires a little skepticism. It requires explanations which give us something to do besides prayer. And so it is not to a God who is beyond our understanding that science must turn, answering mysteries with greater mysteries, but instead must turn to the tangible and visible so that we can reduce our unknowns to that which is known.

Ah and behold, this actually works for many things, and so we do not need to turn to God for everything but can sometimes do for ourselves. But no worries if science does not do for us in some matter of concern, God is always there to turn back to in prayer when there is nothing we can do by ourselves.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Does science begin with a belief in God?

No. Science ends as soon as a belief in God is involved.

God implicitly answers every question and explains everything that happens, all we need is faith.

But if we have that faith, what need is there for answers or explanations, do we not simply wait upon Him?

What need is there for technology or medicine or education, when all we need to do is pray to an all knowing and all powerful God and He will provide whatever He thinks is best.

Science must rest on the opposite of faith. It requires a little skepticism. It requires explanations which give us something to do besides prayer. And so it is not to a God who is beyond our understanding that science must turn, answering mysteries with greater mysteries, but instead must turn to the tangible and visible so that we can reduce our unknowns to that which is known.

Ah and behold, this actually works for many things, and so we do not need to turn to God for everything but can sometimes do for ourselves. But no worries if science does not do for us in some matter of concern, God is always there to turn back to in prayer when there is nothing we can do by ourselves.

I agree... to some extent: prayer is useless.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I agree... to some extent: prayer is useless.

Are you sure?

Is that you opinion as a Psychiatrist or a professor of Psychology?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

I agree... to some extent: prayer is useless.

Are you sure?

Is that you opinion as a Psychiatrist or a professor of Psychology?

There is no way to know whether prayer works; we can conclude that it's worthless: no better than luck.

Or perhaps this works better: praying for things is worthless; you'd better depend on luck.

You can pray for the heck of it, but don't expect to gain anything.