Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Does Science Begin with a Belief in God?

  1. #1 Does Science Begin with a Belief in God? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,804
    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.


    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    “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”.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Demen Tolden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    475
    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.
    The most important thing I have learned about the internet is that it needs lot more kindness and patience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,804
    Quote 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.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Answer to the question.


    No.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    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.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote 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.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote 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?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote 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.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •