Can Science Find God?

[The Happy Humanist]

This question is mainly (but not exclusively!) for the scientists out there.

I have been debating a gentleman in email, who asked me what I would consider as proof of God. I thought about it, and decided that, if a few dozen stars were to suddenly rearrange themselves to spell out "Howdy, it's me! -- GOD", I might be swayed. OK, I would be seriously challenged. OK, OK, I'd be singing Hosannahs and heading for the confessional.

He replied that he doubted it, that astronomers would merely chalk it up to "coinicdence", or swamp gas, or just "unknown." That got me to thinking. I know that Science is supposedly neutral w/r/t God and the supernatural; that is, it doesn't deny they exist, it just isn't set up to study that realm, or magisterium, so it can't say anything about them.

But what about a case like this, where God (finally) shows his hand unmistakably? Am I right in saying that Science would be forced to at least acknowledge that "after significant study, the phenomenon in question seems to be attributable to an entuty called God, through mechanisms currently unknown to us, but which may involve supernatural forces"? Or is my friend right, that there still could be and would be no acknowledgement?

Basically, would Science be allowed to acknowledge God if it found him?

[QED]

1) The choice of a particular religion often has more to do with our social condition - what nationality etc. we are than about philosophy. Despite the Internet and faster travel nationalism is very stubborn.

This is why the only place that science can find god is in the minds of humans. The only repeatable phenomena is the universal occurence of spirituality (in one form or other) in every mind of every age. I suggest this isn't because every human is actually on the end of a real hotline to god, but is subject to the same rigors of mortality and seeks transcendency through the readily attainable perfection available in their imagination.

I say this because each individuals vision is steered by their own particular culture. If we were actually experiencing a real external signal, I would not expect the 'clumping' of responses that we find in different cultures. I.e, a couple of billion people all think one thing, a billion others think something quite different, and so on. This 'clumping' is also spread across time as well as population. So the imaginations of people are seeded in blocks relating to their place in time and space.

[harvey1]

Basically, would Science be allowed to acknowledge God if it found him?

If science reached the point to where the laws of physics were seen to cause the (meta)universe and influence every event according to some set of complex system equations, then science might say that they found God. Actually, science is already close to this point. However, philosophical issues which debate realism/antirealism, platonist/nominalism, etc., will never be resolved. Science won't ever be able to answer the philosophical questions, hence the issue of God's existence will always be tenative from a scientific perspective.

That's not to say that science will give much hoot to what the philosophers are saying. If they can create models that explain why the war of 1812 happened when it did, you can better believe that they will do so.

[Ian Parker]

No one has yet mentioned the main theological objection to proofs of any king, that of Free Will. If we had incontrovertible proof of God we would lose a critical element of free will. I myself do not agree with this but I think it is important to look at the question from this point of view. I think an answer could be given along the following lines.

1) Christ never said that mere intellectual assent was enough we had to become followers. Science can never make us into followers.
2) All Science can ever do is to prove that a God of some sort exists. What precisely you mean by God in fact is still vague.

What kind of a God? is as important a question as whether or not God exists. Quite apart from the issues associated with Genesis and Evolution, the God of the Old Testament is very much one of an Olympian super being. One might even argue that Darwin had freed us from Olympianism. Not completely I remember a homily on prayer where Abraham pleaded the case for Sodom and Gomorrah. Now the right answer was that the temperature in the center of Gondwanaland was even higher than that of Ur, did he really want that? We must understand geological processes and stay out of the way. Good, bad and ugly Americans move 3cm away from Europe each year, it is nothing to do with morality. Scientists have I think at the back of their minds that fact that Genesis could cost lives. Do people say that it is OK to build across the San Andreas if the occupants of the house are straight!

Basically the best scientific evidence shows that Evolution follows a minimum information, or maximum entropy path. In view of the difficulties involved in the creation of AI it is clear that zero added information is not plausible. This statement means in fact that Science is correctly attempting to reduce the amount of information required.

We can now look at the second part of the question. "Would Science be allowed to say so?". I think one can answer that question in a number of different ways. Scientists like to feel that they are open minded and that their minds close only with the introduction of facts. There are a number of points.

1) This applies particularly to arguments about Intelligent Design. Science must be absolutely certain that there can be no other possible explanation. Evolutionary biologists are now talking about genes from plants and animals mixing, chlorophyll could be part of the explanation of the eye. There is however no way out on Intelligence, any possible way out would constitute a revolutionary mathematical theory, which no evolutionary biologist possesses. In fact it involve the creation of strong AI itself, or at least providing a viable route, starting from an evolvable starting point..

2) At the moment, in the United States, there is legal action involving the teaching of evolution. Now whatever one may think about Intelligence and its evolution, it is clear that the theory of Evolution is one of Sciences great theories. The variety of life, the differences between the Gallapodas islands and the South American mainland are all accounted for by Evolution. I don't think anyone should be in any two minds about this. The proposed Kansas Science standards go way beyond a simple consideration of whether or not the statistics of Evolution stack up. They seem to want alternative theories for a whole range of questions ranging from Geology to Cosmology.

The next point is that legal action is expensive and is not really conducive to finding out truth. David Irving, who denies that the holocaust took place. He sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel in the London courts. Now you would think would you not that as the holocaust is accepted by all reputable historians, and denial is in fact a criminal offense in Germany that the courts would take that as read, oh no! Everything had to be proved from scratch at the cost of £1,000,000. At the end of the day Ms. Lipstadt was vindicated but considerably out of pocket.

This undoubtedly undermines proper objectivity. There are however a number of fundamental questions.

1) Intelligent Design, or to my more precise the statistical anomalies of Evolution, may indicate the presence of an Intelligence it does not however indicate any particular kind of God. Theology still has to be a matter of revelation and philosophical deduction.
2) Infinite Gynothropism (biologists, including evolutionary biologists talk about lines of daughters, so this is really the term to use) is an alternative to Intelligent Design. Basically the theory says that an evolutionary line ending with woman is extremely unlikely but not impossible. In an infinity of worlds it will take place. If you believe in the multiverse, or multiple universe you simply pick the universe with is anthorpic, i.e.. one where C12 is produced easily and has all the other characteristics necessary for the complex chemistry of life.
3) Timeline. You cannot go back and kill your grandmother. However you may be able to go back and influence her in ways that would lead to your existence. The interference with your grandmother will thereby create a timeline. If one looks at telepathy and the power of prayer we can see that timelines are not so fantastic. Does a timeline imply the existence of a God? A God of some sort perhaps simce there is the question of what sort of timeline is selected. A gynothropic timeline?

Other people will have to form their own conclusions, to me I find the Infinite Gynothrpic theory deeply unsatisfactory. This may be to do with my own personality.The only satisfactory form of it is expressed in terms of an infinitely old Hyperuniverse. If in fact Logical Positivism had been allowed the case for God would be proved, as it is the Type 3 civilization and the matrix is the only viable alternative.

There is one interesting point. Ted Drange, who is an atheist, now talks about infinity and draws an analogy about being lined up against a firing squad of 200 expert marksmen, and having them all miss you. If they had not missed you would not be here.

Power of Prayer

The second area where Science could "prove" God is in the question of the power of prayer. Various experiments have been performed in which some people have been prayed for and others not. Scientists tend to be skeptical about such things but perhaps not as skeptical as some people. James Randi is a professional magician and thinks that scientists are too easily taken in. He has a prize of a million dollars for anyone who can demonstrate psychic ability. Now Randi is not a trained scientist. Trained scientists in fact look at confidence levels and demand 95%, 99% or 99.9% or whatever. They do not demand the psychic ability on demand that Randi seems to. There is a famous paradox, relevant to timelines, which states that you cannot go back and kill your grandmother. Randi seems to me in many ways to want to do just that.

It would appear from the results that prayer has a definite power which varies from disease to disease. Science was in fact the initiator of this so there is no question of not being allowed to.

[justanotherperson]

What if God came to earth: in the flesh of a human, similar to the Christian thought of the Son of God, Jesus? Would the Science of today reject the Jesus of the past, for instance if Jesus did most of the things he did in the New Testament: miracles, raising from the dead, ect. My guess is that if the same things happened in the same manner as back then, people would discredit him as back then. There would be little to no difference. What do you all think?

I am also assuming that a fleshly form of God would be the ultimate sign of God's existence according to science.

[Ian Parker]

What if God came to earth: in the flesh of a human, similar to the Christian thought of the Son of God, Jesus? Would the Science of today reject the Jesus of the past, for instance if Jesus did most of the things he did in the New Testament: miracles, raising from the dead, ect. My guess is that if the same things happened in the same manner as back then, people would discredit him as back then. There would be little to no difference. What do you all think?

I am also assuming that a fleshly form of God would be the ultimate sign of God's existence according to science.

It was nor scientists who rejected Christ, it was religious leaders. Science would investigate miracles and examine their autenticity. There is of course the question of exceptional hypotheses demanding exceptional proof. That aside I can see no real reason why not.

A fleshy mainfestation of God would be a strong sign of His presence, but perhaps not in this day and age an ulimate sign. God today might take the form not of a child of a virgin, but perhaps a CDROM or DVD which you would put on the Internet and which would provide for an intelligent presence. Just a thought.presence. If you are interested in this line of reasoning look at the SETI postings where I haveloped the argument in the context of ET. sci.skeptic or rec.aviation.military

[teegstar]

I dont think its possible for Science to show that God exists or doesnt exist.

God is based on faith, and faith is the belief in something without material evidence. Science is based on material evidence. The two are almost the exact opposite of each other. (ok just cause opposites attract doesnt mean they agree with each other )

For there to be evidence, would mean there would no longer be faith, and since religion is based on faith, there would be no religion. I dont think a God would want to provide the evidence to get rid of faith

Science cant factually prove the existance or non-existance of something that is based on having no material evidence. Its impossible for Science to prove God exists or doesnt exist because of this, and I dont think its something science wants to prove.

I could say my cat was God, and nobody, religious or scientist, could prove otherwise cause I could just say 'Well, he told me to tell you, and that he'd make it impossible for you to prove...'. What could a scientist do to prove I was 'wrong'?

A Christian, on the other hand, could have faith, and just believe it was true.

Science can re-write the history books, and discredit information given in the bible, but then again, you could always say it was writen for a less educated audience in a way that they would understand, and is open to interpretation!

The chicken... the egg... no no the chicken... no the egg!

[Ian Parker]

God is based on faith, and faith is the belief in something without material evidence. Science is based on material evidence. The two are almost the exact opposite of each other. (ok just cause opposites attract doesnt mean they agree with each other )

For there to be evidence, would mean there would no longer be faith, and since religion is based on faith, there would be no religion. I dont think a God would want to provide the evidence to get rid of faith

What do you mean by "material" evidence. There are many ways we can approach the question of God. ID Is random chance and survival of the fittest on its own capable of producing intelligence? What about the power of prayer. Do near death experiences have and significance. These are all good scientific questions.

Faith is a difficult concept, Calvinists - shared to some extent by Moslems view intellectual assent as the be all and end all. Faith is bearing the heat and sweat of the day. This is what makes it a difficult concept. Becoming a scientist does involve effort and a certain amount of heat and sweat in itself take my word for it. The real question of do you believe in God is not faith it is a precursor to Faith. Faith is heat and sweat. Science (which we reach by a certain amout of HAS, may tell us is it worth becoming a disciple. It can never make us one.

One topical topic, suicide bombing. Suicide has traditionally been the coward's way out. You cannot press a button to obtain paradise, only HAS can do this. If you take a short cut you could well find yourself in Hell.

[QED]

While you've raised the matter of suicide bombings, note how forensic detectives can reconstruct the actual explosive device from such tiny, scattered, fragments that you'd imagine would make this impossible. But thanks to the uniformity of physical laws, scientific methods can be employed to back-track in this way. I've personally spent a lot of time troubleshooting complex systems and understand how emergent phenomena always leaves a trace or signature that can be analysed. Garage mechanics, Air-crash investigators and Particle Physicists all know that things 'give themselves away' in a similar fashion.

This sort of forensic work has already revealed detailed and often unexpected results from the natural world. The project to map the human Genome is a good example of how accessible nature can be. But by definition we will not be able to apply forensics to anything supernatural. The supernatural can only be inferred form the natural. I suggest that our working knowledge of the world is almost at the point where the only inferences that we might wish to draw would be ones that lead to a remarkably different flavour of supernaturality than most people have come to expect through religion.

I say this because we already know that man is not really the pinnacle of nature, and that our (eccentric) place on an outer spiral-arm of an average galaxy is not special either. In fact, if we take a step back, we can see that our presence in the universe hardly registers. So putting our pride to one side, the inference would be that everything does not revolve around us and that any supernatural element (if it existed) would most probably be indifferent to our existence anyway -- something that is well supported by the evidence we get from lifes immersion in extinction and suffering.

[Ian Parker]

The project to map the human Genome is a good example of how accessible nature can be. But by definition we will not be able to apply forensics to anything supernatural. The supernatural can only be inferred form the natural. I suggest that our working knowledge of the world is almost at the point where the only inferences that we might wish to draw would be ones that lead to a remarkably different flavour of supernaturality than most people have come to expect through religion.

I say this because we already know that man is not really the pinnacle of nature, and that our (eccentric) place on an outer spiral-arm of an average galaxy is not special either. In fact, if we take a step back, we can see that our presence in the universe hardly registers. So putting our pride to one side, the inference would be that everything does not revolve around us and that any supernatural element (if it existed) would most probably be indifferent to our existence anyway -- something that is well supported by the evidence we get from lifes immersion in extinction and suffering.

First point is that if we believe in the New Testament we find that God is not indifferent to us. What may well be the case is that God's action may be so integrated into the world that we find it very difficult to disentangle.

I am afraid I must disagree completely about the supernatural leaving no traces. There was an interesting discussion in sci.skeptic about the new Kansas Standards. This was a propos of Science seeking a naturalistic explanation. The philosophers claimed that every explanation was naturalistic and that the supernatural, if it existed was amenable to scientific investigation.

There is one point we should bear in mind. In most of Science consistent experiments are required. The supernatural can never be consistent in this was, although the degree and nature of that inconsistency can be examined. Let us take an example. Suppose the reason why the statistics of Evolution do not tally is that Evolution occurs on a timeline. This means that influences (lets call them gauge particles for the sake of argument) travel back in time. You cannot be consistent as you cannot kill your grandmother, you must work with the timeline.

I do also claim that the statistics of evolution can be investigated. Randomness cannot be the sole process.

[QED]

First point is that if we believe in the New Testament we find that God is not indifferent to us. What may well be the case is that God's action may be so integrated into the world that we find it very difficult to disentangle.

Of course, that's the whole thrust of the bible. But entanglement is another way of saying "god is in everything" which paradoxically is equivalent to "god is in nothing" simply because it can make no difference. The quantum world testifies to this as does the theistic rationalist who has to produce notions such as free-will to account for gods apparent hands-off approach.

I am afraid I must disagree completely about the supernatural leaving no traces. There was an interesting discussion in sci.skeptic about the new Kansas Standards. This was a propos of Science seeking a naturalistic explanation. The philosophers claimed that every explanation was naturalistic and that the supernatural, if it existed was amenable to scientific investigation.

OK, if every explanation is naturalistic then why can't we say that there is no such thing as the supernatural? Bearing this in mind, if we did witness an event that could not be explained with known phenomena, we would have to reserve judgement... but as I said, this would amount to the supernatural leaving no trace that we could identify.

There is one point we should bear in mind. In most of Science consistent experiments are required. The supernatural can never be consistent in this was, although the degree and nature of that inconsistency can be examined. Let us take an example. Suppose the reason why the statistics of Evolution do not tally is that Evolution occurs on a timeline. This means that influences (lets call them gauge particles for the sake of argument) travel back in time. You cannot be consistent as you cannot kill your grandmother, you must work with the timeline.

Why would Evolution being on a timeline account for alleged inconsistencies in its statistics?

I do also claim that the statistics of evolution can be investigated. Randomness cannot be the sole process.

Of course randomness is not the sole process. This theory is only ever put forward by those who wish to shoot it down. But you know better than this so I wonder why you state such an obvious thing? Directed randomness is the key to the process. A simple Google search for 'Directed randomness' yields a wealth of papers from all walks of science robotics and general and engineering. Conclusion: It works.