Personal vs. Impersonal God

[cdcdcd]

Broadly speaking, a "personal" God, for example the Christian God, is one which knows what we think and do, and is able to influence events on Earth as he chooses. By "influence" I mean to alter what happens over and above what would have happened if God did not exist, including but not limited to miracles and communicating with people. Most scientists, I contend, reject this "traditional" notion of a God because it is inconsistent with scientific knowledge. For this reason Einstein, for example, made it clear that he did not believe in a personal God.

Let me be blunt about this. If you believe that your God can temporarily suspend natural laws, and/or influence any event on Earth today, then you must reject modern science. No "iffs" or "buts" about it. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. As a scientist I have neither the credentials nor audacity to tell people what type of God they should believe in, but I am sufficiently qualified to state that a personal God that can influence events on Earth at will is inconsistent with modern science. Are there any trained scientists out there that would disagree with this?

However, does this mean that we need to reject the notion of a God altogether? Can an "impersonal" God still exist, which fits into a bigger picture. Do all of the worlds religions point to a common impersonal God of some type? Can individual religions realize that their notion of God is but one of many which, from an unbiased outsiders point of view, is no more or less credible than any other? Has our own arrogant, proud and petty preoccupation with our own "special" religion blinded us to the possibility of a broader truth?

Alternatively, should we stick with our own favorite religion, but accept the reality of science, and "move with the times" in order to survive in a robust and meaningful form? Is "moving with the times" just a continuation of the trend whereby more and more biblical teachings are interpreted as non-literal? Is there a danger here that in time, there will be nothing of significance left? Therefore is religious discipline and adherence to the religious fundamentals more important than ever?

Any comments?

[twobitsmedia]

Most scientists, I contend, reject this "traditional" notion of a God because it is inconsistent with scientific knowledge.

I don't think a good scientist would reject it. A good scientist knows he cannot test God. He does not have to support the idea of "God," but to flatly reject something out of his realm of expertise doesn't even seem intelligent.

If you believe that your God can temporarily suspend natural laws, and/or influence any event on Earth today, then you must reject modern science.

I do not believe this at all. Modern science has provided much information and explantion about the world and natural law. God is not bound by those laws.

No "iffs" or "buts" about it. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. As a scientist I have neither the credentials nor audacity to tell people what type of God they should believe in, but I am sufficiently qualified to state that a personal God that can influence events on Earth at will is inconsistent with modern science.

I think otherwise.

Are there any trained scientists out there that would disagree with this?

You need affirmation?

However, does this mean that we need to reject the notion of a God altogether? Can an "impersonal" God still exist, which fits into a bigger picture. Do all of the worlds religions point to a common impersonal God of some type? Can individual religions realize that their notion of God is but one of many which, from an unbiased outsiders point of view, is no more or less credible than any other? Has our own arrogant, proud and petty preoccupation with our own "special" religion blinded us to the possibility of a broader truth?

Anyone devoted to their own religion gerenerally suffers from its own dogma...and that means other religions may exist, but they are not right; or they may be right....they are just not "as right" as my religion.

Alternatively, should we stick with our own favorite religion, but accept the reality of science, and "move with the times" in order to survive in a robust and meaningful form?

I think that is what many relgions do, acknowledging that some don't. I would not use the word "favorite" though.

Is "moving with the times" just a continuation of the trend whereby more and more biblical teachings are interpreted as non-literal?

Yes. It seems to be heading that way.

Is there a danger here that in time, there will be nothing of significance left?

If the significance was there, it will still be there. The ineterpretation will be and already is weakened.

Therefore is religious discipline and adherence to the religious fundamentals more important than ever?

I am not sure what this means. If something always is, it doesn't gain any more significance or importance.

Any comments?

yes, above.

[cdcdcd]

Most scientists, I contend, reject this "traditional" notion of a God because it is inconsistent with scientific knowledge.

I don't think a good scientist would reject it. A good scientist knows he cannot test God. He does not have to support the idea of "God," but to flatly reject something out of his realm of expertise doesn't even seem intelligent.

No "iffs" or "buts" about it. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. As a scientist I have neither the credentials nor audacity to tell people what type of God they should believe in, but I am sufficiently qualified to state that a personal God that can influence events on Earth at will is inconsistent with modern science.

I think otherwise.

Are there any trained scientists out there that would disagree with this?

You need affirmation?

However, does this mean that we need to reject the notion of a God altogether? Can an "impersonal" God still exist, which fits into a bigger picture. Do all of the worlds religions point to a common impersonal God of some type? Can individual religions realize that their notion of God is but one of many which, from an unbiased outsiders point of view, is no more or less credible than any other? Has our own arrogant, proud and petty preoccupation with our own "special" religion blinded us to the possibility of a broader truth?

Anyone devoted to their own religion gerenerally suffers from its own dogma...and that means other religions may exist, but they are not right; or they may be right....they are just not "as right" as my religion.

Alternatively, should we stick with our own favorite religion, but accept the reality of science, and "move with the times" in order to survive in a robust and meaningful form?

I think that is what many relgions do, acknowledging that some don't. I would not use the word "favorite" though.

Is "moving with the times" just a continuation of the trend whereby more and more biblical teachings are interpreted as non-literal?

Yes. It seems to be heading that way.

Is there a danger here that in time, there will be nothing of significance left?

If the significance was there, it will still be there. The ineterpretation will be and already is weakened.

Therefore is religious discipline and adherence to the religious fundamentals more important than ever?

I am not sure what this means. If something always is, it doesn't gain any more significance or importance.

Any comments?

yes, above.

[Dionysus]

The concept of a God who is at the same time transcendent (universal, omnipotent) and immanent (personal, a 'God of love') is so ludicrously self-defeating and paradoxical that Kierkegaard formulated his entire philosophy on this paradox, embracing it because it is absurd - and he was as devout a Christian as one can come by. Anyone who suggests that these two properties are not mutually exclusive is, quite bluntly, an imbecile. There are ways around it - the concept of the 'leap of faith' was devised by K. specifically to work around this exceedingly problematic issue - yet anyone who attempts to say that it is logically sound is a fool.

One either accepts this as paradoxical or one is not a Christian.

[Negachrist]

Cognitive dissonance is a prime requisite for believing in The Christian God.

[Zzyzx]

.

Most scientists, I contend, reject this "traditional" notion of a God because it is inconsistent with scientific knowledge.

I don't think a good scientist would reject it. A good scientist knows he cannot test God. He does not have to support the idea of "God," but to flatly reject something out of his realm of expertise doesn't even seem intelligent.

A competent scientist can test CLAIMS about supernaturalism. If a religion or religionist claims that a worldwide flood occurred or that dead people come back to life, those CLAIMS can be (and should be) investigated by appropriately trained people.

If a religion is based on claims that cannot be shown to be true, the religion is suspect.

If you believe that your God can temporarily suspend natural laws, and/or influence any event on Earth today, then you must reject modern science.

I do not believe this at all. Modern science has provided much information and explantion about the world and natural law. God is not bound by those laws.

Above is an example of a supernatural CLAIM "god is not bound by those [natural] laws".

Before such a claim is accepted by a discerning person, evidence of truth is requested and required. The evidence offered IS subject to scientific evaluation. If NO evidence is offered (other than hearsay, testimonials or ancient writings), the claim is NOT accepted.

No "iffs" or "buts" about it. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. As a scientist I have neither the credentials nor audacity to tell people what type of God they should believe in, but I am sufficiently qualified to state that a personal God that can influence events on Earth at will is inconsistent with modern science.

I think otherwise.

In order to best evaluate the credibility given to your statement of opinion, I must ask, are you a scientist or have you studied science beyond introductory level?

Are there any trained scientists out there that would disagree with this?

You need affirmation?

Here is agreement from another person trained in science. There is NO evidence that any of the gods feared, loved or worshiped by humans has ever influenced affairs on Earth. The only suggestions of such "godly influence" is contained in religious literature and dogma. Those claims have NOT been substantiated.

Alternatively, should we stick with our own favorite religion, but accept the reality of science, and "move with the times" in order to survive in a robust and meaningful form?

I think that is what many relgions do, acknowledging that some don't. I would not use the word "favorite" though.

Many religions and religionists seem very uncomfortable with science and scientific ideas. Quite often information produced by study of natural phenomena conflicts with what has been taught by religion as "literal truth".

I refer to peoples "favorite" gods and religions to reinforce awareness that there are many of both to choose from and no reason to favor one over the other based upon evidences provided. Selection is purely a matter of personal preference and personal opinion (usually culturally induced rather than being based upon reasoning).

Is "moving with the times" just a continuation of the trend whereby more and more biblical teachings are interpreted as non-literal?

Yes. It seems to be heading that way.

I agree and approve. If there is to be religion, it should be attuned as much as possible to the real world while retaining enough supernatural aspects to appeal to those who desire such beliefs (and to provide job security for prophets and priests who might otherwise be forced to find gainful employment).

Is there a danger here that in time, there will be nothing of significance left?

If the significance was there, it will still be there. The ineterpretation will be and already is weakened.

Agree. IF the significance was there. Is there any evidence to suggest whether "significance was there" or not?

[cdcdcd]

Most scientists, I contend, reject this "traditional" notion of a God because it is inconsistent with scientific knowledge.

I don't think a good scientist would reject it. A good scientist knows he cannot test God. He does not have to support the idea of "God," but to flatly reject something out of his realm of expertise doesn't even seem intelligent.

Are there any trained scientists out there that would disagree with this?

You need affirmation?

I contended that most scientists reject the notion of a personal God. Fortunately there is evidence of an extremely high calibre to supoport my contention. For those that may not know, "Nature" is arguably the most presigious of all scientific journals.

Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind", that is, belief in a personal God. The questionnaire was sent to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers).

The results are extremely interesting. In 1914, 27.7% of these leading scientists believed in a personal God. In 1933 the number was 15.0%, while in 1998 the number had dropped to 7.0% My contention was correct.

The claim that "a good scientist would not reject a personal God" is presumably incorrect, unless we accept that in 1998, only 7% of scientists at the US National Acadamy of sciences are good scientists. No, I don't think so.

So, on to the claim that "a good scientist knows he cannot test God". That is your assertion, so you bear the burden of prood to back it up. Based on your demostrated lack of knowledge about scientists so far, I doubt your ability to do so.

"A good scientist does not have to support the idea of God, but to flatly reject something out of his realm of experience doesn't even seem intelligent."
I agree that there are many claimed aspects of God that are "out of the realms of scientific experience", but I was careful to speak only of issues that most definitely are in the realms of science. For example, I made reference to temporary suspension of the laws of nature. Honestly, I cannot think of any example that is more completely and clearly the business of science, than an claimed observation that the laws of nature (ie, laws of science) were temporarily altered or suspended. Surely you must agree?

As time permits, I'll adress the other parts of your reply.

[twobitsmedia]

.


A competent scientist can test CLAIMS about supernaturalism.

Maybe, but my comment was not "claims" but God.

If a religion or religionist claims that a worldwide flood occurred or that dead people come back to life, those CLAIMS can be (and should be) investigated by appropriately trained people.

I would, however be interested in knowing how they could investigate such a claim. I would be inteterested in knowing the scientific method for testing a miracle, and particularly in the cases you mention, past miracles.

If a religion is based on claims that cannot be shown to be true, the religion is suspect.

Of course.

Above is an example of a supernatural CLAIM "god is not bound by those [natural] laws".

Before such a claim is accepted by a discerning person, evidence of truth is requested and required. The evidence offered IS subject to scientific evaluation. If NO evidence is offered (other than hearsay, testimonials or ancient writings), the claim is NOT accepted.

yes, well, good luck testing the claim. But I think you have to first test for "God." Let me know how that works out.
'

No "iffs" or "buts" about it. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. As a scientist I have neither the credentials nor audacity to tell people what type of God they should believe in, but I am sufficiently qualified to state that a personal God that can influence events on Earth at will is inconsistent with modern science.

I think otherwise.

In order to best evaluate the credibility given to your statement of opinion, I must ask, are you a scientist or have you studied science beyond introductory level?

Irrelevant. "I think otherwise" is a subjective comment. You are not required to agree.

Here is agreement from another person trained in science. There is NO evidence that any of the gods feared, loved or worshiped by humans has ever influenced affairs on Earth. The only suggestions of such "godly influence" is contained in religious literature and dogma. Those claims have NOT been substantiated.

The influence is largely demonstrated throughout history....even right on this forum every day. I think the "God" issue is still the piece you are missing.

Alternatively, should we stick with our own favorite religion, but accept the reality of science, and "move with the times" in order to survive in a robust and meaningful form?

I think that is what many relgions do, acknowledging that some don't. I would not use the word "favorite" though.

Many religions and religionists seem very uncomfortable with science and scientific ideas. Quite often information produced by study of natural phenomena conflicts with what has been taught by religion as "literal truth".

There hasn't been any substantiated scientific information that has conflicted with God.

I refer to peoples "favorite" gods and religions to reinforce awareness that there are many of both to choose from and no reason to favor one over the other based upon evidences provided. Selection is purely a matter of personal preference and personal opinion (usually culturally induced rather than being based upon reasoning).

All "nonexistant" Gods look the same in to those who see them in the guise of nothingness. To those who are aware, their are plenty of differences.

Is "moving with the times" just a continuation of the trend whereby more and more biblical teachings are interpreted as non-literal?

Yes. It seems to be heading that way.

I agree and approve. If there is to be religion, it should be attuned as much as possible to the real world while retaining enough supernatural aspects to appeal to those who desire such beliefs (and to provide job security for prophets and priests who might otherwise be forced to find gainful employment).

Probably no argument from me.

Is there a danger here that in time, there will be nothing of significance left?

If the significance was there, it will still be there. The ineterpretation will be and already is weakened.

Agree. IF the significance was there. Is there any evidence to suggest whether "significance was there" or not?

History speaks for itself. Religion and your non-existant Gods have played a big part in history both good and bad.

[twobitsmedia]

I contended that most scientists reject the notion of a personal God. Fortunately there is evidence of an extremely high calibre to supoport my contention. For those that may not know, "Nature" is arguably the most presigious of all scientific journals.

"most" does not equal "good."

Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind", that is, belief in a personal God. The questionnaire was sent to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers).

The results are extremely interesting. In 1914, 27.7% of these leading scientists believed in a personal God. In 1933 the number was 15.0%, while in 1998 the number had dropped to 7.0% My contention was correct.

So what you are telling me is that scientists do not even use any methodology to prove any point, just an opinion poll? Thanks for the reaffirmation: most does not equal good.

The claim that "a good scientist would not reject a personal God" is presumably incorrect, unless we accept that in 1998, only 7% of scientists at the US National Acadamy of sciences are good scientists. No, I don't think so.

Gotta love those opinion polls. I still remember the one that said that Kerry will win the presidency....I believe it was done with surveys too.

So, on to the claim that "a good scientist knows he cannot test God". That is your assertion, so you bear the burden of prood to back it up. Based on your demostrated lack of knowledge about scientists so far, I doubt your ability to do so.

Interesting dodge tactic. But how can you demonstrate a nonexistant test? I would be interested in knowing how you test for "God." (given that I have such a "limited knowledge of science" and you have proclaimed yourself an expert.)

"A good scientist does not have to support the idea of God, but to flatly reject something out of his realm of experience doesn't even seem intelligent."
I agree that there are many claimed aspects of God that are "out of the realms of scientific experience", but I was careful to speak only of issues that most definitely are in the realms of science. For example, I made reference to temporary suspension of the laws of nature. Honestly, I cannot think of any example that is more completely and clearly the business of science, than an claimed observation that the laws of nature (ie, laws of science) were temporarily altered or suspended. Surely you must agree?

No. I think I made that clear.

[twobitsmedia]

Cognitive dissonance is a prime requisite for believing in The Christian God.

If you believe that, it would explain why you ID your self as a former Christian.