Science is limited

[livingwordlabels]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

Also when people use only what they can observe to explain how mankind was created. This inevitably fails, as they have to limit life to something physical and we get the absurd idea of life evolving out of matter. The Bible offers us a more plausible explanation - that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

[Baz]

[Replying to post 1 by livingwordlabels]

Perhaps when (if) our use of science enables us to learn all that there is to learn and made every possible discovery, we will discover that we are so much part of god that asking for proof of god is as pointless as asking for proof of us.
The snag is it would take an eternity and we probably only got a few thousand years at best.




.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 1 by livingwordlabels]

Does God or Doesn't God interact within our reality from time to time? If he does, this should be testable using the framework of science. If he doesn't how could you possibly know he exists?

The only limitation of science - and I will add logic as well - is that it can't disprove the possibility of Gods existence. But possibility does not lie within the realm of reason, it only lies in the realm of hope and emotion. I think the better question is how probable is the specific God as defined by the Christianity or any other religion for that matter - this I think science can speak to quite effectively.

[unfogged]

Is there a question? In my opinion life evolving gradually from non-living things is much more plausible than dust and magic. The problem with assuming a spiritual answer is that there doesn't seem to be any good reason to accept any particular view over any other. Each of the thousands of disparate creation stories are arguably all as well supported as any other and none of them make as much sense to me as the scientific view does.

Science is not able to explain everything yet and may never explain everything. I don't see the point to making untestable speculations to fill the gaps.

If you want to understand God,

It doesn't make sense to want to understand something that I see no reason to believe exists. You have to believe there is a god before you can believe that there is something that will help you understand it. I want to understand reality better and for that science has proven to be the best tool identified so far.

how we were made,

Science has made great strides in understanding cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution. The picture is not yet complete but there doesn't appear to be much room for supernatural components.

our purpose for living,

Why assume that there is a purpose? Again, you have to first believe there is something more than natural processes to make that assumption.

our relationship with God

Since I work under the assumption that there is no god the idea of a relationship has no meaning.

and even our future, then you need something more than science.

If you don't see any reason to accept that there is a spiritual component then you don't need anything more.

[instantc]

how we were made,

Science has made great strides in understanding cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution. The picture is not yet complete but there doesn't appear to be much room for supernatural components.

Science has made great advancements in cosmology, and no doubt it will keep developing, but there are good reasons to believe that the picture will never be 'complete' as you say. In principle, science can only explain how things work, but it has nothing to say about how the said things came to be in the first place. It seems to me that the only logical answer science can provide is that the universe has always existed in one form or the other. Science hasn't explained how something can come from nothing. I submit that as long as we are talking about nothing in the very literal sense, it is logically impossible for nothing to turn into something.

[Divine Insight]

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

I totally agree with this. However, having said this, the realization that science is limited in this regard does not justify believing in just anything.

For example, we have come to the rational conclusion that the Greek myths of personified Gods were false. They are false for many reasons. Some can be recognized to be false for reasons of pure rational logic and common sense. Other reasons are indeed related to observational evidence (i.e. science). For example, there are no Gods living on Mt. Olympus. This is an observational fact that pretty much gives Greek mythology the final boot (although there were already many common sense reason to dismiss it anyway).

The very same thing applies to Hebrew mythology. We can see from just pure common sense that no supreme all-wise deity would behave in such an immature and foolish fashion as the God of the Bible. No science required to dismiss these myths as being utterly absurd.

Of course, to these particular myths we can apply observational knowledge of the real world too (i.e. science). For example, the Bible has mankind's "Fall from Grace" as being the reason their is death and sin in the world. That's clearly false. We know that there was death, disease, and all manner of imperfections and horrible things happening long before mankind ever showed up on the planet. So just as we were able to toss Greek mythology out because there are no Gods living on Mt. Olympus we can also toss out Hebrew mythology because mankind cannot possibly be blamed for the fact that life is a natural dog-eat-dog world filled with disease, etc.

So, yes, science may not be able to tell us the true nature of reality, but that doesn't mean that we should then believe in just any absurd superstitious fables either.

If we want to believe in a "Creator" or a "God", one of the wisest thing we can do in that regard is to toss Hebrew Mythology onto the pile of already known false mythologies. It's just more of the same actually. In fact, it even uses many of the very same ideas; a God who is appease by blood sacrifices, has a demigod son to a human female, etc. These were all totally worn-out superstitions long before the Hebrews ever made up their God myth.

So if we want to believe in some spiritual essence to reality we need to look toward spiritual philosophies that actually describe a potentially intelligent God.

It makes no sense to proclaim that God is "All Wise" and then try to support something as utterly stupid as Hebrew mythology as being a realistic picture of a God.

So science isn't even required to recognize that something like Hebrew superstitions can't be true.

But like I say, if you would like to use science to verify the fallacy of Hebrew mythology just recognize that humans cannot be held responsible for the death, disease, and other ills of the world. Those things were a natural part of the world long before humans ever came to be. So any myths that try to pin the blame for this on humans are clearly false. This is something that science can tell us.

[WinePusher]

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

Scientists and philosophers alike agree that the natural sciences are based upon faith based assumptions. So it's laughable to see atheists criticizing the concept of faith when the very own scientific enterprise that they claim to love and cherish is also based on faith.

And yes, science is very good at providing physical explanations for the world's anomalies. The biological sciences are certainly capable of telling us how humans live. Biology can tell us how our body functions and how our various anatomical systems keep us alive. But, biology cannot tell us why humans live. Biology cannot tell us why our body functions and what the purpose of our body is. These are questions that cannot be answered by science, so in this sense science is limited and shouldn't be our only engine for discovering truth.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 7 by WinePusher]

What aspect of science do you consider faith based?

[100%atheist]

[Replying to post 1 by livingwordlabels]

Yes, science is limited and rational. So what? I think that problem is with some theists trying to force irrational philosophies on rational world's phenomena.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by livingwordlabels]

If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

You're making a conclusion you can back up and stinks of bias. You say "God" when in fact, there may be no God but a god.
We know how we are made. It's biology. No need for God or a god for that.
Our purpose for living is highly subjective. Again, if you believe in God it may be one way, or if you believe in a god, it could be another way.
The relationship we may have with any god can only be the individual, as religion is individual.
You are aware that you can't prove your god to exists either, right?
You are aware that your god may not exist; there may be another god, yes?
The point is that, you're claiming that the only way to meet these needs is by your god (which is arrogant), not science. In part, you're right: science can't show some things. Though, science doesn't make a claim to show such things. It's silly to think so.
You're picking a fight that doesn't need to happen.
That happens a lot when people are threatened by something they don't understand. Clearly, you don't understand science in any fashion