Can God be Found By Science?

As a scientist, I just don't want to be involved in this project. Think of the horror in publishing a paper in the peer-reviewed system!

 

Such a study will be subjective, even if not trying to be.

Our knowledge keeps expanding - just look at a possible hole in the Theory of Relativity.

This is one scientist's conclusion (Francis Collins): I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome - Times Online

 

This reads like something from The Onion.

Tom

 

Depends on whether he is hiding or not.

For most of the popular conceptions of god, he is intentionally fabricating evidence which contradicts his own dogma.

***

"Many definitions/descriptions of what a god is share much commonality, for example, that there's only one"

See: Commandment 1 for a refutation of this.

 

You clearly identify the need to precisely define "god", but just as precisely needed is to define "find". Remember that the majority viewpoint is that science can rarely prove something. It's much better equipped to falsify something. So you need to be just as clear in this regard. Is the goal to prove something or disprove something?

The opening move is yours. Supply the one definition you want to discuss. Keep in mind that disproving just one definition still leaves an infinity of definitions to falsify.

You leave out all the Near Death Experiences that neither conform to established theologies or personal beliefs (prior to the experience). What about these? Note that these provide something tangible to explore, specifically memory traces created by some mechanism. Right now the technology to explore these is in it's infancy, but decades from now, it might be able to determine how they were formed. No idea where this leads, but it allows asking questions that science can answer.

Who is "we"? There are LOTS of gaps. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Neutrino Oscillation among others are known wide open theoretical gaps. I would content that if you ask Physicists, most would not be prone to fall back on god. I would also contend that if you ask Priests, quite a number would be split between physics and divinity. It depends on the question you are asking and who you are asking. It's still not clear exactly what you are after.

Seems to me you are entering this question with an established bias (like everyone else in existence). Could that bias influence what you are asking and looking for?

You may want to ask everyone that you know to do something for you. In case they have a Near Death Experience, make sure they ask the NDE "Powers in Attendance" about FTL neutrino explanations. If you get any results, I'll be REALLY interested. "god" may or may not be within the ability of science to refine today. Could be different tomorrow.

I remember rule #1 on a list of pretty good rules at a friend's desk: "What you see is determined by where you sit." It's pretty clear that you have a narrow definition of "god". A definition that is easily subject to demolition. I'm much more interested is how the universe actually operates. Long before any questions about "god" can even be asked, it would be nice to know who else is out there. It would also be nice to know if consciousness can exist outside of a biological container. It would also be nice to know if other dimensions exist outside of our 3 space and one time dimension. At that point, questions about higher intelligence might be easier to frame.....but nothing indicates that these pedestrian questions will have answers that are forthcoming soon via conventional science.

You need to return to your original question. That is fun to pursue. You end up asking for someone to step into your boxing ring. That is not worth pursuing.

 

If you do find a god, my questions would be similar to what science asks. What are the characteristics of this god? Are there regular behaviors or dimensions? God is not an answer, just another set of questions.

 

Science has already proven that there is a god: Specifically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The proof is that all living things are based on DNA, which is a double helix, just like spaghetti.

I think you were thrown off the track by assuming that commonalities in all the world's false religions (those religions in which god is not a big flying ball of spaghetti with eyes) could yield some clue as to the true nature of god. An understandable error.

Pastafarianism is also the only religion to explain gravity (as the FSM pressing down on us with his noodly appendages).

 

If you seek Him, God finds you, no science needed. :amen:

 

All hail the Mighty FSM, the one and only true god.

 

Are you sure about that? If you're right and no one is thinking that with these particular tests...there are people who do think along those lines: they're now called intelligent design "scientists".

I personally feel that mankind will destroy themselves before they find out who or what god is. There in lies the necessity for a personal belief: whether you want to believe in an almighty deity or that there is no concept of god...they're going to continue to have to be personal beliefs. I don't think most people were thinking we'd see evidence of god when it was uncertain if a pilot could survive going mach 1+. If revised tests do show that a neutrino state is faster then our current understanding of light...then the more logical assumption is that it's our understanding of light that should be revised: Einstein's equation makes perfect sense in that whatever the absolute value of light would be...it would not have any mass.

Or let us look at the main topic where most people have been looking for god: biology. Chuck's article does read something like the Onion (or some political blog). The human genome was not "cracked" by "one man" (and it's still not fully sequenced). As for personal religious beliefs with scientists...many have religious beliefs and see no dichotomy with all laws of science. I personally have a lot of studies in anatomy: you see patterns of evolution in embryology and comparative anatomy. The only central argument I've seen from intelligent design scientists is that they believe they've seen particular variances in cellular systems (particular organelles) that have no repetition in other systems. With those debates, I have seen examples provided from other scientists who can show correlations with the systems in question.

The one area of the article that I think is interesting, is when Collins brings up his own beliefs:

So his belief is that god has control over evolution and that evolution has stopped now, because god has reached his own image in man. I'm certain that he and all of us will be long past before "mankind" might find out. The control in this thought is that man will live indefinitely and will never evolve. That sort of goes against Christian beliefs which call for a revelation: IE man is not entirely god's image and god can decide what to do with his children. Also, from an anthropological study of Neandrathals to Cro-magnon and then current multiregional anthropology...we can see that "humans" have not stayed stagnant. You can even see changes in the statistical height of an average person from the earliest studies in the 18th and 19th centuries vs now.

 

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN

'Science cannot provide all the answers' | Science | The Guardian

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience

Do Scientists Believe In God | What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times

 

^I assume all those links from Chuck are in response to my post. None of them dispute my claims over science vs religion. One does try to say that some of the most notable current scientists are athiests...and somehow then we should continue to make a stance of science vs religion. These scientists they note, though, do not make a claim about whether it was evident there was no "god" involved with the big bang. There are many scientists who are Christian and also subscribe to evolution. Even Dr Collins...who I would not agree with as far as we right now "are god's image"...except for that belief, I would agree with. The sensational aspect of his stance or an equally sensationalistic athiest is that we can ever "prove" or "disprove" an existence of a higher power. Personally, I think this dichotomy of observations over nature and the existance of a true creator will stay with mankind. I actually think that's a good aspect of humanity: our reasoning for why we're here and where we come from will always be involved with faith. The only problem is that we also tend to think our own belief is the most self righteous and want to judge others by their beliefs instead of their attributes.

 

^ I was not trying to be augmentative or disagreeable as much as present another side.

Hope that clarifies.

 

^Not really...what is the other side? I thought I was being more middle of the road...not let's bash religion vs lets bash "athiest" science:noidea:

 

If you find him, let him or her, know that we need to talk . I want to see the Blueprints that he worked off of for the Universe that he supposedly built..... I think he took a lot of shortcuts and pocketed the loot, and we got a LOW BID GOD!

 

Dave,

I was not on your case - just put some links out there of scientists that do believe in God.

It was not directed at you - NOT directed at you.

 

Chuck,

Did I ever say I didn't believe in god? I consider myself spriitual but not religious...technically I'm more Jewish...and if I'd have to side, I'd probably agree with Judaism more then anything. What I agree with most is that we all live on through others, and that it's not a given about an afterlife. The fundamentals that I like about most religious thought...whether you believe in whatever god..is that we should be fundamentally good towards everyone since "we'll be judged" (whether being Jacob's Ladder or how you'll be remembered afterwards). The main short siding from any fundamentalist is forgetting that everyone has their awakening/revelation/etc but trying to pass their own judgment of those that don't have their own beliefs.

 

Dave,

That post with four links were responding towards the very secular on threads like this - not you. I did not quote you and often in threads a third party posts between the two involved.

I was not attacking you nor intended to be perceived as doing so.