There are those who argue that a belief in God is necessary for science. Without a belief in an intelligent powerful creator God who provides the laws of the universe, there would be no reason for the fundamental assumption of science, that is, that the inferences required to progress in science depend on there being a Creator God.
There are others who argue that science must at least be operationally atheistic. A belief in a supernatural being who can and does periodically intervenes in the universe would render every conclusion of science as being invalid. Such a belief would inhibit scientific inquiry, in that any unknown could well be answered with, "God did it."
Question for debate: Is a belief in God beneficial or detrimental to the pursuit of scientific truth?
Philosophy of Science
Moderator: Moderators
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Philosophy of Science
Post #1Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
- Sage
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: Midwest
Post #21
And if an atheist is so mentally constructed that he or she needs to denigrate theists in order to feel important and secure then by all means do so. Fortunately there are many on both sides of the God issue that reject such adolescent efforts.Miles wrote:The only benefit I can see is a personal one. If a scientist is so mentally constructed that he or she needs the comfort derived from a religious belief in order to function properly, then by all means subscribe to it.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: Midwest
Re: Philosophy of Science
Post #22Could you offer an example?McCulloch wrote:There are those who argue that a belief in God is necessary for science.
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Philosophy of Science
Post #23McCulloch wrote:There are those who argue that a belief in God is necessary for science.
There are some who have argued in these forums (I apologize for not being able to locate them just now) that without a belief in God, there is no philosophical basis for believing that the laws of the universe are uniform thus science requires God. I, of course, disagree.Jayhawker Soule wrote:Could you offer an example?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Post #24
While you may consider any personal need to be adolescent, I do not. Religious comfort or even denigrating others is no different than any other support or aid that enables one to function properly. Some people need alcohol or random sex. Others may require constant psychological stroking or an ear to listen to one's bragging, but as lame as these may sound, they are nonetheless quite real. And if they help a person do their job better then they function as an asset.Jayhawker Soule wrote:And if an atheist is so mentally constructed that he or she needs to denigrate theists in order to feel important and secure then by all means do so. Fortunately there are many on both sides of the God issue that reject such adolescent efforts.Miles wrote:The only benefit I can see is a personal one. If a scientist is so mentally constructed that he or she needs the comfort derived from a religious belief in order to function properly, then by all means subscribe to it.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: Midwest
Re: Philosophy of Science
Post #25People argue all manner of things in forums. Do you believe that particular argument represents a significant position among even a minority of theist scholars?McCulloch wrote:McCulloch wrote:There are those who argue that a belief in God is necessary for science.There are some who have argued in these forums (I apologize for not being able to locate them just now) ...Jayhawker Soule wrote:Could you offer an example?
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Philosophy of Science
Post #26I would not make such a claim. I have heard the argument, more than once. That is all I know. I would hope that it had no significant weight among scholars, but considering what I have seen pass for scholarship in some theistic circles, I would not be sure.Jayhawker Soule wrote:Do you believe that particular argument represents a significant position among even a minority of theist scholars?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
- Sage
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: Midwest
Re: Philosophy of Science
Post #27I suspect you have spent far too little time in scholarly theistic circles to be sure of anything, but it strikes me as disingenuous to to employ this "some-people-say" nonsense to set up a discussion. All you end up with is the dubious 'joy' of pummeling some silly strawman.McCulloch wrote:I would not make such a claim. I have heard the argument, more than once. That is all I know. I would hope that it had no significant weight among scholars, but considering what I have seen pass for scholarship in some theistic circles, I would not be sure.Jayhawker Soule wrote:Do you believe that particular argument represents a significant position among even a minority of theist scholars?
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Philosophy of Science
Post #28Actually, I have seen that argument several times. I have also seen that without God, there is no morality.Jayhawker Soule wrote:I suspect you have spent far too little time in scholarly theistic circles to be sure of anything, but it strikes me as disingenuous to to employ this "some-people-say" nonsense to set up a discussion. All you end up with is the dubious 'joy' of pummeling some silly strawman.McCulloch wrote:I would not make such a claim. I have heard the argument, more than once. That is all I know. I would hope that it had no significant weight among scholars, but considering what I have seen pass for scholarship in some theistic circles, I would not be sure.Jayhawker Soule wrote:Do you believe that particular argument represents a significant position among even a minority of theist scholars?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Philosophy of Science
Post #29I believe that I made this post in response to someone here making such a claim. I don't believe that it was a strawman, but an actual argument make by someone here, but I have since lost track of who made the claim. You could be correct that such a claim is rarely, if ever made by theistic scholars, but few believers are up-to-date with scholarship. Theistic debate is necessarily at the level of what real people believe not what the scholars say. No, I am not intending to set up a strawman and then pummel it down. The blood of too many strawmen has been shed needlessly here in these forums.Jayhawker Soule wrote:I suspect you have spent far too little time in scholarly theistic circles to be sure of anything, but it strikes me as disingenuous to to employ this "some-people-say" nonsense to set up a discussion. All you end up with is the dubious 'joy' of pummeling some silly strawman.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
- Sage
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: Midwest
Re: Philosophy of Science
Post #30McCulloch wrote:Rubbish.Jayhawker Soule wrote: No, I am not intending to set up a strawman and then pummel it down. The blood of too many strawmen has been shed needlessly here in these forums.