Philosophy of Science

[McCulloch]

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?

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

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.

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are those who argue that a belief in God is necessary for science.

Could you offer an example?

[McCulloch]

There are those who argue that a belief in God is necessary for science.

Could you offer an example?

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.

[Miles]

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.

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.

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]

There are those who argue that a belief in God is necessary for science.

Could you offer an example?

There are some who have argued in these forums (I apologize for not being able to locate them just now) ...

People 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]

Do you believe that particular argument represents a significant position among even a minority of theist scholars?

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]

Do you believe that particular argument represents a significant position among even a minority of theist scholars?

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.

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.

[Goat]

Do you believe that particular argument represents a significant position among even a minority of theist scholars?

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.

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.

Actually, I have seen that argument several times. I have also seen that without God, there is no morality.

[McCulloch]

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.

I 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]

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.

Rubbish.