Proving God Through Science

[shawmutt]

First of all, why is progress good? We are certainly not any happier now than we were then. The human being is very good at making due with what we have. I would argue that as technology has improved, happiness has in a way declined

Science's gift to humans is the ability to live twice as long and much healthier. I don't know about you, but that makes me happy.

but I am trying to use that to demonstrate the point that science does not give us the same kind of joy that religious individuals find in their relationship with God, no matter how far it progresses.

Perhaps you are studying the wrong thing. You quote Carl Sagan, but I'm not so sure you have read Carl Sagan. I recommend a book I'm reading and blogging about right now by Carl Sagan, called A Demon-Haunted World. That man had such a love and wonder of science that he just exuded the stuff. For myself, learning something new about the world we live in is about as good as it gets for me. I don't need to invent some better world or some supreme being; I'm happy right here, right now.

You assert that the fact that our science has given results proves something about it is correct. That isn't necessarily true in any meaningful way. I say meaningful because something is true about Ptolemy's astronomy in which the sun moves around the earth - that there is a sun, and the earth, and that there is movement in the sun-earth relationship. However, that is not meaningfully true, because overall we do not know anything more about the universe's real nature after learning Ptolemy's astronomy. It could make extremely accurate predictions, but it was completely false - here I refer you to the ideas of epicycles, a completely incorrect idea.

That's a false analogy--are you are trying to compare an observation made over 2000 years ago to current science? The fact is that science evolves.

I personally believe that physics, and all of science, has a much more important purpose than simply its application. I think the study of physics is something worthwhile in and of itself, because I believe that the human being has been granted a very special role - by God, by chance, or if the universe is indeed algorithmically compressible, then by necessity. I believe that we are a way, if not the only way (though this latter idea I don't believe), that existence itself comes to self-knowledge. To quote Carl Sagan (for the second time today ), "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

To quote Carl Sagan, "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

[B.Lev]

Perhaps I'm studying the wrong thing? There's a reason that there are people with doctorates in the philosophy of science my friend... its not as simple as you seem to think it is. Einstein was as much a philosopher as he was a scientist. Consider that before you tell me what I should and should not study.

That's a false analogy--are you are trying to compare an observation made over 2000 years ago to current science? The fact is that science evolves.

Of course science evolves. That isn't my point though. I am not trying to demonstrate that science is wrong. I am simply trying to demonstrate that just because something makes predictions does not in any way mean it is correct. Ptolemy's model made predictions, but was completely wrong (until relativity, in which case it becomes essentially equally correct, though that's a whole other story). Our physics now makes predictions, but may be wrong. The big advances in science usually involve a rethinking of the whole system. I can give you countless examples of scientific advances that prove prior ideas fundamentally wrong. To say with certainty that the same won't happen to modern science is an extremely arrogant and unfounded assertion. That is why we must continue to persist, because we must find the next step.

To quote Carl Sagan, "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Absolutely correct. You seem to think I am a far more literally religious individual than I am. I believe in something far closer to the God that Einstein believed in, not the God of Christianity. To grasp the universe as it really is is to determine the reason that drives it, be that reason the laws of physics or otherwise (obviously I believe that the laws of physics are, if not the whole picture, most of it). What I am trying to get across here is that science addresses the universe, while religion addresses abstract, physically non-existent concepts. That is not to say that there is some magical land in which religion holds domain, but rather that religion is our attempt as a species to address many important questions unique to human beings, unique to our experience, questions that deal with the problems that arise when matter interacts in such a way as to generate consciousness. As far as the actual universe is concerned, science is the way to go.

I wrote in my earlier post that it could very well be chance or necessity that gives us our position in the cosmos. If our consciousness is a product of the laws of physics, as it would seem to be, then that means that it is no fluke that we understand the universe, but rather, given the initial conditions of the universe and sufficient time, the laws of physics necessitate that we do so. That is why I think that mankind is no less privileged without God than with: because if God didn't give us this power, then it had to happen, and I don't feel all that bad about being such a unique result of the laws of physics. We may not be the only ones, but I say unique because most of the matter in the universe has no idea what is going on. We're lucky enough that the matter we are composed of has happened to arrange itself in such a way that it knows itself, and in a way, everything else.

I apologize if I wasn't clear earlier.

[Jack]

...science does not give us the same kind of joy that religious individuals find in their relationship with God, no matter how far it progresses.

That would be nearly impossible to quantify. Are you contending that non-religious people are less joyous than the religious or that delusions that make us happy are preferred over realities that might not?

We simply find joy in other things. Having been a theist, I can assure you I get as much pleasure and fulfillment out of my life without fantastic gods as I ever did believing in them.

[B.Lev]

That would be nearly impossible to quantify. Are you contending that non-religious people are less joyous than the religious or that delusions that make us happy are preferred over realities that might not?

We simply find joy in other things. Having been a theist, I can assure you I get as much pleasure and fulfillment out of my life without fantastic gods as I ever did believing in them.

Thanks for that actually, my phrasing was terrible. You're right, quantifying happiness is a foolish endeavour. What I meant to say was that there are some people for whom religion fills a special role that nothing else can. As well, studies seem to indicate that the brain is in fact hard wired for spirituality. Thus, I am not trying to quantitatively differentiate, but qualitatively differentiate. There is a part of human life that, without some kind of religion, is unfilled. Some don't miss it, some don't even know it exists. For some it probably does not exist at all. Some (like myself) believe that we can't really know anything about it, and thus should not worry too much about it in our day to day lives (hence the existence of agnostic philosophies). Some choose to contemplate it without believing in its reality. Some don't. This diversity of opinion is fine: whatever makes you happy. But the more important point that I am trying to make is that trusting science universally is in some ways just as absurd, because it is still trusting something unprovable. I happen to commit myself to that absurdity, but the crucial thing is to recognize that our knowledge is not perfect, and that we must be aware of our limitations.

Jack, we seem to agree on a lot more than either of us think we do .

[Jack]

Ah come on, no false humility. We both know we agree for the most part.

In fact I'm quite interested in the concept of non-religious spirituality (for want of a better term). Rather than take this thread off-topic, I encourage you to read some of what I've posted on that subject here.

[shawmutt]

There's a reason that there are people with doctorates in the philosophy of science my friend... its not as simple as you seem to think it is. Einstein was as much a philosopher as he was a scientist.

Science is not a philosophy, it is a method. Einstein's qualifications in science do not qualify him to be a philosopher.

I am simply trying to demonstrate that just because something makes predictions does not in any way mean it is correct.

Making predictions is only part of the scientific method.

Ptolemy's model made predictions, but was completely wrong (until relativity, in which case it becomes essentially equally correct, though that's a whole other story). Our physics now makes predictions, but may be wrong. The big advances in science usually involve a rethinking of the whole system. I can give you countless examples of scientific advances that prove prior ideas fundamentally wrong.

How about just one that even begins to "prove God through science".

I believe in something far closer to the God that Einstein believed in, not the God of Christianity.

And what exact evidence are you providing that proves "Einstein's God"?

To grasp the universe as it really is is to determine the reason that drives it, be that reason the laws of physics or otherwise (obviously I believe that the laws of physics are, if not the whole picture, most of it).

There is no reason that drives it. In a couple billion years, this planet and whatever inhabits it at the time will be engulfed by the sun turning into a red star and then blown to bits in a supernova. We will turn from a "pale blue dot", on an arm in a galaxy among countless galaxies, back into stardust. In a million years or so, some advanced civilization in some other galaxy will be looking in the sky with a telescope and jotting down the poof of another supernova.

Why do you believe there needs to be a reason to anything, to human existence? What proof can you provide of your reasoning?

eta: well that sucks, our sun can't go supernova. The end of this planet's existence just got even more inconsequential!

[B.Lev]

Science is not a philosophy, it is a method. Einstein's qualifications in science do not qualify him to be a philosopher.

Study the history of science, and you will find that it simply is. And even if his qualifications in science did not make him a philosopher (which in my opinion they do), then his works in philosophy make him a philosopher. When we write philosophy with words, we call it philosophy. When we do so with math, we call it physics.

Making predictions is only part of the scientific method.

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was responding to the claim that the predictive ability of our science means that our science is true, which is plainly not the case as the example of Ptolemy's astronomy illustrates.

How about just one that even begins to "prove God through science".

I wasn't talking about that at all.

And what exact evidence are you providing that proves "Einstein's God"?

That's a completely meaningless question. Einstein's God is the God referred to by physicists, not a personal God. It is not an entity. It is a term referring to the order underlying the universe, the harmony of the cosmos, that physics is the study of.

There is no reason that drives it. In a couple billion years, this planet and whatever inhabits it at the time will be engulfed by the sun turning into a red star and then blown to bits in a supernova. We will turn from a "pale blue dot", on an arm in a galaxy among countless galaxies, back into stardust. In a million years or so, some advanced civilization in some other galaxy will be looking in the sky with a telescope and jotting down the poof of another supernova.

Why do you believe there needs to be a reason to anything, to human existence? What proof can you provide of your reasoning?

eta: well that sucks, our sun can't go supernova. The end of this planet's existence just got even more inconsequential!

What are you talking about? There absolutely is reason. If there was no reason, then this conversation would be impossible. Reason does not mean meaning. It means, in this case, the system that governs the universe. Reason, in this context, means the driving force of nature. In discussion of the universe on the whole, reason means the laws of physics. I know that there is a reason for everything, otherwise nothing would happen. The reason I got out of bed this morning was because I wanted to. The reason the sun will become a red giant is because the fusion driving it will run out of fuel. That's all I mean by reason, which fundamentally comes down to the laws of nature.

Though admittedly, I probably should have clarified what sense of the word I was using.

[shawmutt]

Study the history of science, and you will find that it simply is.

We aren't talking about the history of science, we are talking about modern science.

And even if his qualifications in science did not make him a philosopher (which in my opinion they do),

That is appeal to authority. I would no more ask the Dalai Lama about cell culture in a biotech lab.

then his works in philosophy make him a philosopher. When we write philosophy with words, we call it philosophy. When we do so with math, we call it physics.

Perhaps you do. I call physics science. You know, all this sounds an awful lot like the novelist Mary Doria Russell, who tries to paint outdated physics and hypothesis as proof of God's existence. Color me unconvinced.

I wasn't talking about [proving God through science] at all.

Your posts state otherwise:

• As well, studies seem to indicate that the brain is in fact hard wired for spirituality.
• I believe in something far closer to the God that Einstein believed in, not the God of Christianity.
• ...because I believe that the human being has been granted a very special role
• In fact, I would argue that it is more likely that we will prove the existence of God than that we will prove that we can trust our science.
• God, in my opinion, may well be the God that physicists refer to, the reason underlying the universe.

and my favorite

• The trouble is, that thing is far beyond human comprehension in the same way that fundamentally, quantum mechanics is beyond human comprehension.

You are using appeal to ignorance.

Having heard the many arguments for and against the existence of a God, I am well aware of the more subtle "sciencey God" that has...evolved...out of our current understanding of science. It is no different than alien life evolving from demonic life--the words have changed, but the story remains the same.

I have similar thoughts of this "sciencey God", but only because I am admittedly intellectually lazy about the subject (I honestly don't care whether we have a purpose or not) and have a small vocabulary. It does not, however address your main premise--that the universe, and human existence in particular, has a "reason". All you have done to address that premise is use circular logic--"we must have a reason else our conversation would be meaningless". That sounds an awful lot like the argument a lot of theists use, "God exists because he does!"

What is your evidence of this "reason"?

As an aside, I present a humorous yet cautionary site for your review:

Crackpot index

[B.Lev]

We aren't talking about the history of science, we are talking about modern science.

Was Aristotle a philosopher? I think you will agree that he was. Yet, he conducted much of what we now call science. Science is a philosophy. It is set aside from other philosophies in that it has concrete reality where others don't, and that is due to its methodology. Philosophy literally means the love of knowledge. If science is dealing with knowledge, I'm not sure what it is dealing with. It seems to me you are arguing about this without actually knowing what science or philosophy really are.

Some definitions (Mac OS X Dictionary):
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

I don't know if it's just me, but the fundamental nature of reality sounds to be pretty closely tied to the structure of the physical and natural world...

And as if this isn't enough:
Natural philosophy: natural science, esp. physical science.

Which just so happens to mean... "the sciences concerned with the study of inanimate natural objects, including physics, chemistry, astronomy, and related subjects."

Perhaps you do. I call physics science. You know, all this sounds an awful lot like the novelist Mary Doria Russell, who tries to paint outdated physics and hypothesis as proof of God's existence. Color me unconvinced.

And thus you call it philosophy. Science is totally inseparable from philosophy. That doesn't make other philosophies as right as science is by virtue of its method.

Your posts state otherwise:

No, they don't. At no point to I say "and thus God exists" because I have no desire to prove God. I am not saying that God exists because of these things. I am pointing out limitations of human knowledge that you seem to arrogantly deny exist.

When I said that the brain is wired for spirituality, I was trying to explain why many turn to it. I was in no way using that as a proof of God.

When I said that I believe that the human being has been granted a very special role, I went on to say that it was most likely (and in my opinion) by chance or by necessity. God needs have nothing to do with it. It's the same thing as asking "who gave you the flu?" I am not asking who took the flu and put it on a plate for you to take from them. I am asking who you interacted with and caught the flu as a result. In the same way, I am saying that through necessity or chance, this phenomenon has arisen.

When I said that we would be more likely to prove God than the correctness of science, I wasn't trying to say we will prove God. I was saying that to prove the correctness of science with certainty is fundamentally and logically impossible. All we can do (as with anything in life) is go based on the best information available at the time, and that best information is that science is working out pretty well, if I may say so . I believe that. But no one can ever know it.

Having heard the many arguments for and against the existence of a God, I am well aware of the more subtle "sciencey God" that has...evolved...out of our current understanding of science. It is no different than alien life evolving from demonic life--the words have changed, but the story remains the same.

I have similar thoughts of this "sciencey God", but only because I am admittedly intellectually lazy about the subject (I honestly don't care whether we have a purpose or not) and have a small vocabulary. It does not, however address your main premise--that the universe, and human existence in particular, has a "reason". All you have done to address that premise is use circular logic--"we must have a reason else our conversation would be meaningless". That sounds an awful lot like the argument a lot of theists use, "God exists because he does!"

What is your evidence of this "reason"?

You are misinterpreting my use of the term reason. I do not mean some deeper meaning, or some arbitrary value. In a system of cause and effect, the reason of the system is the link between cause and effect. Reason simply means (from the Mac OS built in dictionary): "a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event." In the context of this conversation, the bold terms are the one's I'm referring to.

This "sciencey" God that I'm talking about is not in any way related to the theological God except by name. It's a placeholder term. Not an entity.

I'm going to drop this thread here, as I'm not sure I can clarify any further.

[shawmutt]

I am pointing out limitations of human knowledge that you seem to arrogantly deny exist.

At what point am I making that assertion?

This "sciencey" God that I'm talking about is not in any way related to the theological God except by name. It's a placeholder term. Not an entity.

So we are agreed in that there is no way to prove God through science?

[B.Lev]

At what point am I making that assertion?
Because you are refuting every argument I have towards that point. I assume that means you disagree.

So we are agreed in that there is no way to prove God through science?

Absolutely. I have never said otherwise.

[Hurt]

I'm just going to say that if God could be proved with science, we wouldn't be having arguments about God all the time.

Yes. A good thing to remember.