Is Dawkins right that the question of God is for science

[lsbskins1]

A psychological/sociological standpoint, would be a scientific response to god. Both those fields have contributed much to our understanding. If I wanted to find out about why people believe in god from a scientific viewpoint those are two of the sciences I would look at along with the works of the DNA mapping specialists.

The difference in science between hard science like quantum maths or soft like psychology is not so much hammer versus screwdriver, it is more one is a phillips head screwdriver versus a flathead screwdriver. Both do science but in their own efficient way.

Hell, you don't have to convince me that sociology and psychology are actual sciences...but they still deal with things you can't really touch or prove in the same way that you can prove that cells divide. Being engaged in attempting to become degreed in a social science profession, I understand this much...the social sciences are as much art as science. It is the "art" portion that touches the untouchable. And some believe that the untouchable is outside of the science. It is why we have behaviorists who only want to study what can be actually quantified.

[Robert]

Hello,
post #3, can you please edit out the 'f' word, thank you~ Robert

[Cephus]

That is exactly the way I am talking about it. From a psychological/sociological standpoint, people seem to need religion. It answers some metaphysical need, some deep seated human requirement for comfortable answers to questions like, "Why am I here?" or "What does it all mean?" The screw is definitely one you can't actually touch, which is why science can't "touch" it.

No, it's not that people "need" religion, people "want" religion because people are lazy. People don't want to do any actual work, they just want something simple to believe in, damn whether it's actually true or not. Science actually takes work, it doesn't present all simple answers to all questions at a moment's notice, it takes thinking and education and a willingness to acknowledge there are some things we just don't know yet.

[BlackSheep]

That is exactly the way I am talking about it. From a psychological/sociological standpoint, people seem to need religion. It answers some metaphysical need, some deep seated human requirement for comfortable answers to questions like, "Why am I here?" or "What does it all mean?" The screw is definitely one you can't actually touch, which is why science can't "touch" it.

It answers some need for answers on the nature of being. The answer does not need to be 'supernatural' at all. A much simpler answer is that it is an extension of our simple desire to know.

[lsbskins1]

It answers some need for answers on the nature of being. The answer does not need to be 'supernatural' at all. A much simpler answer is that it is an extension of our simple desire to know.

YOU may find that satisfying. Many do not. I don't begrudge them the right to arrive at their own conclusions. I only ask that they allow me the same right.

[BlackSheep]

YOU may find that satisfying. Many do not. I don't begrudge them the right to arrive at their own conclusions. I only ask that they allow me the same right.

I might find what satisfying?
I don't know the answer nor do you and feel free to hold your own opinions. I don't think I suggested otherwise.

I simply said it didn't need to be 'supernatural' and gave a simpler explanation that does not require creating god(s).

[lsbskins1]

I might find what satisfying?
I don't know the answer nor do you and feel free to hold your own opinions. I don't think I suggested otherwise.

I simply said it didn't need to be 'supernatural' and gave a simpler explanation that does not require creating god(s).

And I simply said that an answer without a god or gods might satisfy you, but it does not satisfy some. What, to you, is "simpler", for others is, perhaps, lacking in depth. I'm not making the case that your answer is wrong, simply pointing out how it might fail to satisfy some. My only point is that you should no more need them to accept your solution to "ultimate questions" than they should need you to accept theirs. I fully understand that many "believers" feel it is their duty to "bring people to Jesus". It all requires a delicate balance. I have certainly run into my fair share of atheists who consider it their sworn duty to "bring people to reality". Neither approach is any less odious to me. It is all a matter of degree. I don't give a shit if either side wants to make their case, as long as they make it respectfully and know when it is time to shut the hell up and leave it alone.

[BlackSheep]

And I simply said that an answer without a god or gods might satisfy you, but it does not satisfy some.

Why do they "require" gods to satisfy them? I think more what they need is an absolute answer.

What, to you, is "simpler", for others is, perhaps, lacking in depth.

I seek the truth. I mentioned simpler to conform with Occam's Razor. I fail to see why the truth needs depth. My personal goal is to find the truth and not to seek what I want beyond that.

I'm not making the case that your answer is wrong, simply pointing out how it might fail to satisfy some. My only point is that you should no more need them to accept your solution to "ultimate questions" than they should need you to accept theirs. I fully understand that many "believers" feel it is their duty to "bring people to Jesus". It all requires a delicate balance. I have certainly run into my fair share of atheists who consider it their sworn duty to "bring people to reality". Neither approach is any less odious to me. It is all a matter of degree. I don't give a shit if either side wants to make their case, as long as they make it respectfully and know when it is time to shut the hell up and leave it alone.

If people desire something specific and wish to believe that then that is fine and long as they don't tell me it is fact. I don't have an issue with that, but if they try to tell me it as a fact I will ask why and point of conflicts that I see. My job is not to convince them I am right but for me to learn by exposing myself to different points of view.

[Questatement]

According to Richard Dawkins... the idea of God is a question for science to answer. Is he right or wrong?

Dawkins is of course referring to science based on philosophical naturalism which, coincidentally, does not allow for gods or the supernatural. He can't lose this way. You could plop God down in a chair right in front of him and although Dawkins might have to admit there is a God, it would not be via naturalistic science which would have to explain it some/any other way than allowing for said deity to be divine.
Bible/creation-based science is no different. It does not allow for an explanation which definitively contradicts the tenets of scripture. Both start with their respective assumptions and go from there.

[BlackSheep]

Dawkins is of course referring to science based on philosophical naturalism which, coincidentally, does not allow for gods or the supernatural. He can't lose this way. You could plop God down in a chair right in front of him and although Dawkins might have to admit there is a God, it would not be via naturalistic science which would have to explain it some/any other way than allowing for said deity to be divine.

I agree and disagree with this and I share this point of view.

If you could prove to me that gods existed then they would to me be part of the universe and so are 'natural'. Over time many things have migrated from supernatural to natural. I am sure that it Dawkins was presented with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt he would be convinced as would I.

Bible/creation-based science is no different. It does not allow for an explanation which definitively contradicts the tenets of scripture. Both start with their respective assumptions and go from there.

The problem is that science has allowed us unprecedented understanding and control of the natural world where the scriptures are simply writing of one particular religion and have no agreed upon evidence it is the the truth and yet you compare them equally.

Dawkins and I begin with no assumptions. We simply follow where the evidence, when critically examined, leads.

What assumption would you suggest we have?

[Questatement]

The problem is that science has allowed us unprecedented understanding and control of the natural world...

For the most part, we're talking about origins and early/pre-written history based areas when science is involved in these debates. What from these fields has given us 'unprecedented understanding and control of the natural world?'

... where the scriptures are simply writing of one particular religion and have no agreed upon evidence it is the the truth and yet you compare them equally.

So it is not possible to use scripture to make accurate, predictive theories which naturalism would fail at one a final measurement can be ascertained?

[BlackSheep]

For the most part, we're talking about origins and early/pre-written history based areas when science is involved in these debates. What from these fields has given us 'unprecedented understanding and control of the natural world?'

Why are we limiting ourselves to that era? I am talking about today. Are we not talking about say Christians today who will not accept things that do not mesh with the scriptures and modern science with Dawkins?

So it is not possible to use scripture to make accurate, predictive theories which naturalism would fail at one a final measurement can be ascertained?

I can't speak to whether it is possible, but has it given us any inclination that it can?
We accept science in general, because it works. It has allowed us to glean secrets and gain control over many things.
What do these scriptures have that would convince us that they are accurate and that if something does not mesh with them it can not be.
Keep in mind that science changes. It is not absolute.