Can God Ever Not Be A False Assumption In Science?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

jgh7

Can God Ever Not Be A False Assumption In Science?

Post #1

Post by jgh7 »

Here's a quote I read in another thread
You obviously cannot distinguish between actual science, which is based on observations, measurements, experiments, etc., and religious-based pseudoscience which is based on false assumptions, god did this or that, etc.
It got me thinking. Is God always, unavoidably a false assumption in science? The quote suggests that actual science is based off observations, measurements, etc. So if one does observations, measurements, etc. and it leads them to a billion to one probability that something naturally occurred, then is it a false assumption to think it's God? Must we instead always think that parts are missing from the experiment or that data was incorrectly interpreted or measured or that there's a natural explanation that we just aren't realizing?

Could there hypothetically ever be a case where it's acceptable based off experimental results to assume that a higher power is involved? What is necessary for this to be acceptable?

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7162
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1292 times
Been thanked: 1516 times

Re: Can God Ever Not Be A False Assumption In Science?

Post #2

Post by Tcg »

jgh7 wrote:
So if one does observations, measurements, etc. and it leads them to a billion to one probability that something naturally occurred, then is it a false assumption to think it's God?


If something occurred, there is a 100% chance that it occurred. There is no "billion to one probability" that something that has occurred, has occurred. It has occurred. Given that, there is a 100% chance that it occurred.


Unless you, or someone else, can provide verifiable evidence of this thing you call god exists, there is no reason to conclude that it has done anything. "We don't know how this thing happened" is NOT evidence of a thing that can't be verified with evidence exists.



Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2106
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1362 times
Been thanked: 520 times

Re: Can God Ever Not Be A False Assumption In Science?

Post #3

Post by benchwarmer »

jgh7 wrote: Here's a quote I read in another thread
You obviously cannot distinguish between actual science, which is based on observations, measurements, experiments, etc., and religious-based pseudoscience which is based on false assumptions, god did this or that, etc.
It got me thinking. Is God always, unavoidably a false assumption in science? The quote suggests that actual science is based off observations, measurements, etc. So if one does observations, measurements, etc. and it leads them to a billion to one probability that something naturally occurred, then is it a false assumption to think it's God? Must we instead always think that parts are missing from the experiment or that data was incorrectly interpreted or measured or that there's a natural explanation that we just aren't realizing?

Could there hypothetically ever be a case where it's acceptable based off experimental results to assume that a higher power is involved? What is necessary for this to be acceptable?
To be acceptable would require some actual evidence of a 'higher power'. In science, the correct conclusion to come to if you don't have some verifiable evidence of something is "I don't know". It's not God/Santa/Leprechauns/etc. Why do some theists have such a problem with admitting they don't know something? Why must everything be explained, especially when the explanation involves making something up and declaring it to be true?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Re: Can God Ever Not Be A False Assumption In Science?

Post #4

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to jgh7]

There has to be a God if science is truly based on observation, measurement and experiment.

There can be no universe as we know it without the assumption of God. All naturalist theories end in a universe in which

User avatar
elphidium55
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 pm
Location: Champaign, IL
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Can God Ever Not Be A False Assumption In Science?

Post #5

Post by elphidium55 »

There has to be a God if science is truly based on observation, measurement and experiment.

This is not true. Science, by definition, commits itself to methodological naturalism. That is, the scientific method does not allow supernatural entities or effects. Furthermore, there is no reason that the definitions of observation, measurement and experimentation should require god.
There can be no universe as we know it without the assumption of God.
This is also not true. There are robust theories for the state of the universe as we know it which are entirely non-supernatural. My favorite is one proposed by philosopher Graham Oppy. He postulates that there was an initial quantum state of our universe and that this initial state was natural and a brute neccessity.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10556
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 503 times
Been thanked: 1151 times
Contact:

Re: Can God Ever Not Be A False Assumption In Science?

Post #6

Post by William »

It gets down to one of two assumptions. We exist within a creation or we do not exist within a creation.

Because science as a process is only able to tamper with the physical reality it is not a suitable device for answering the question. Some scientists may have perhaps gone out on a limb and claimed that we do not exist within a creation, citing that no creator is needed, as everything can be explained without having to include the idea of a creator.

This of course is dubious at best.

Scientists should generally keep out of the argument unless they can conclusively demonstrate that we do not exist within a creation (and therefore no creator required) and non-theists should be admonished for using science as if it were speaking on behalf of their position. It is not.

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1320
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Can God Ever Not Be A False Assumption In Science?

Post #7

Post by Overcomer »

All scientists, whether theist or non-theist, work with the same data. It's their starting points that differ -- one begins with a belief in God and the other doesn't. It's that lens through which they view the world that leads them to make different assumptions about it.

Some people talk as if non-theists have no bias when they do science, but that isn't true. Everyone has a bias of some kind that influences their work. As A.W. Tozer put it, what each of us believes about God is the most important thing in our lives because it affects everything.

User avatar
elphidium55
Student
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 pm
Location: Champaign, IL
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Can God Ever Not Be A False Assumption In Science?

Post #8

Post by elphidium55 »

William states:
It gets down to one of two assumptions. We exist within a creation or we do not exist within a creation.
I don't know what you mean by "existing within a creation." I am going to assume you mean that material existence is "a creation" because it was supernaturally created. If this is what you are getting at, then I would re-phrase your statement as follows:

It gets down to one of two assumptions. Either we can opt for metaphysical dualism - that is, that there are two separate realities, a familiar, "natural" one and a hidden "supernatural" one. Or we can opt for metaphysical monism, in which case, we hold that there is no such thing as the supernatural. The most common form of monism today is naturalism.

Science does not claim that everything can be explained. Science, being a form of methodological naturalism, makes no claims about the supernatural at all. That's why many Christians can also be scientists. Nor does science make claims about the moral or the esthethic or ultimate meaning and so forth. These claims properly belong to the domain of theology and philosophy, not science.

What science does do, is provide powerful explanations of material reality in which the supernatural "explanations" are superfluous. And contrary to your assertion that scientific explanations are dubious, I submit that much of science has been robustly confirmed.

Overcomer states:
As A.W. Tozer put it, what each of us believes about God is the most important thing in our lives because it affects everything.
I submit Tozer was wrong. This is mere projection on the part of many Christians. Because evangelicals believe that the question of God's existence is the most important question in life, they think non-theists also think the question is important. But this is simply not true. Many atheists fall out of religion without alot of thought about it. For many of us, atheism is like no longer believing in Santa Claus -- no angst.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10556
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 503 times
Been thanked: 1151 times
Contact:

Re: Can God Ever Not Be A False Assumption In Science?

Post #9

Post by William »

elphidium55 wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:09 pm William states:
It gets down to one of two assumptions. We exist within a creation or we do not exist within a creation.
I don't know what you mean by "existing within a creation." I am going to assume you mean that material existence is "a creation" because it was supernaturally created.

I mean that what we are currently experiencing has not been shown to be consistent with anything natural, being that there is nothing to compare it with, other than what the human mind is able to experience, which includes altered states and realities which can also be experienced.

I mean that no science has shown that we do not exist within a simulation - an impressive one yes - and all Scientific Naturalism has been able to achieve is to poke and prod at it and discover some of it's secrets.

I wrote more on this subject earlier [here].

Scientific Naturalism is too unnatural in much of it's poking and prodding and is stymied by it's declaration "To presume nature is the creation of a creator is to add additional complexity where there is no reasonable justification to do so."

If it continues on its present course, it will be it's own undoing...it needs to pull it's head in and join the Human Race rather than continue attempting to control it.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: Can God Ever Not Be A False Assumption In Science?

Post #10

Post by bluegreenearth »

William wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:30 pmScientific Naturalism is too unnatural in much of it's poking and prodding and is stymied by it's declaration "To presume nature is the creation of a creator is to add additional complexity where there is no reasonable justification to do so."

If it continues on its present course, it will be it's own undoing...it needs to pull it's head in and join the Human Race rather than continue attempting to control it.
Unless my understanding of scientific (methodological) naturalism is inaccurate, you seem to be mischaracterizing it here. The declaration you reference does not presume nature cannot be the creation of a creator but acknowledges where there is no reasonable justification to affirm a positive belief in such a claim at this time. If someone ever manages to demonstrate the existence of a creator for all things natural, scientific naturalism has the capacity to incorporate that new information. So, there is no justifiable reason to accuse scientific naturalism of being dogmatic or controlling. Your objections are more applicable to metaphysical naturalism than scientific naturalism.

Post Reply