Science Forums 2

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by REASON

What's missing in this situation is a reasonable scientific explanation for why it becomes necessary, beneficial, or in any way logical to assign the label of *god* to what is being observed in nature. It is therefore relegated to a personal opinion.

I can offer only personal opinion, and hints at experimental design to verify it, but I’ll try for an explanation of this.

Science is done by humans. Humans ability to do anything involved their brains’ limbic systems, brain structures associated with strong emotions and motivation. By associating activities such as the scientific study of nature with strong emotions such as reverence and awe, one strengthens their limbic reinforcers. Used properly, these feelings enhance the performance of science.

I hypothesize a positive correlation and causative link between limbic system activity and related neurochemistry and scientific competence and excellence.

However, I think this “limbic system management”, while it may, and in some well known cases, such as Albert Einsten, involve use of the term God, doesn’t require it. I believe people including staunch atheists for whom the term “God” rarely if ever comes to mind, or vehement ones who powerfully despises the term, are as capable of the technique as such people as those intimately comfortable with the idea Spinoza’s God.