Theology forumDiscussion about religion and the study of it. Covers all varieties of religious thoughts.
Advertisement (please log in or register to remove this ad)
Notices
Welcome to the Hypography Science Forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, take quizzes, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Why would it be a blow to science to consider God and nature as the same thing? It would be a terrible blow to Christiantiy, but to science? I think this concern is just a prejudice that can be over come, because the reasoning is sound.
Nutron,
Please focus on the part of my post below. This explains why adopting the idea of "Nature as God" would be a blow to science and why it is unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
I don't believe this is the responsibility of science whatsoever. Science must remain dedicated to producing empirical results or explanations that can be tested, verified, or falsified if it is to preserve its integrity. If the scientific community were to suddenly decide to classify all of nature "God," no matter what the intentions in doing so, the insuing scrutiny as to how they arrived at such a conclusion would be ceaseless, particularly because there would be no way to demonstrate any findings to the ravenous public. It would be an incredible blow to the integrity of scientific research, and their failure would only serve to inspire the supernatural religious zealots.
Reason can only overcome religious mysticism if it is promoted and spread throughout society in a mannor that it is likely to be accepted. False notions have to be challenged and rejected for reason to prevail. Intellectuals have to take on the responsibilty of questioning religious dogma and its unfounded premises when it invades the public arena, and science can help in this endeavor simply by doing what it already does. Promoting an unfounded premise that "nature is god" does not fit this prescription, and is in itself, indefensible and unreasonable.
I must say it has become quite tiresome to have to continue explaining this.
Simply stated, this notion cannot be scientific because it cannot be proven. There is no theory, no facts, and no evidence. Only opinions. And you know what they say about those (or maybe you don't ).
__________________ When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
Please focus on the part of my post below. This explains why adopting the idea of "Nature as God" would be a blow to science and why it is unreasonable.
I must say it has become quite tiresome to have to continue explaining this.
Simply stated, this notion cannot be scientific because it cannot be proven. There is no theory, no facts, and no evidence. Only opinions. And you know what they say about those (or maybe you don't ).
This is dumb, dumb, dumb simply change your definition of God and we have no argument.
This is dumb, dumb, dumb simply change your definition of God and we have no argument.
I don't have a definition of god. You do.
Your stubbornness is blinding you from the reality of scientific inquiry and you are failing to see reason.
Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be expected to simply change my definition of god to suit your expectations anyway? This is not scientific.
This is another example of proselytizing and why you find yourself on the hot seat around here, nutron.
Why do you allow your view of god and your expectations of others to find acceptance in it to remain cast in iron?
__________________ When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
Your stubbornness is blinding you from the reality of scientific inquiry and you are failing to see reason.
Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be expected to simply change my definition of god to suit your expectations anyway? This is not scientific.
This is another example of proselytizing and why you find yourself on the hot seat around here, nutron.
Why do you allow your view of god and your expectations of others to find acceptance in it to remain cast in iron?
If you change your definition of God there is no argument, it is as simple as that. The reason for doing so is political and world peace. And it is good science, when we drop the superstitious notions and adopt a scientific one.
I repeat, it is politically important and the way to world peace.
PS, you don't have to believe in this God. Just use the science definition, and see what happens.
I had to look up the word "proselytizing" to know what it means. I am not aware of aware of any religion the uses science to understand God, and if such a religion did exist, I am not of that religion, so I can not be proselytizing. Nothing I have said is about religion. I am only giving God a scientific definition, so that we can aprouch the subject of God scientifically, and that is the best way to end superstition and silly notions that I can think of.
Last edited by nutronjon; 07-20-2008 at 08:14 AM.
Reason: add a response to "proselytizing".
If you change your definition of God there is no argument, it is as simple as that.
This is proselytizing, the effort to induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith, in this case Pantheism. Do not ask anyone here to change their definition again in an effort to convert them to your beliefs. Have I made myself clear?
Editor and Forum Administrator stego anyone?
Add yourself to Hypography's Frappr. "There are only 10 kinds of people in the world -- .....Those who understand binary, and those who don't."
"Draw no conclusions before their time."
The attempt to include "god" (whatever that may be) into the scientific analysis of the universe has been tried many times before over the last millenium. From the 19th Century, we have this admirable quote from a senior British scientist:
Quote:
"If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of his creation it would appear that God has a special fondness for stars and beetles."
John B. S. Haldane
And that about sums up EVERYTHING humanity has ever accomplished with that approach. It's been tried before, Nutronjon, and it has failed, failed, failed.
Please stop beating the dead horse.
__________________ Hypography Forums Moderator -- - - - - - What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are.
Epictetus, Greek Philosopher The map is NOT the territory.
Korzybski, Polish-American Philosopher
There are hundreds of testimonials written by fans grateful to have their outlook changed by "The God Delusion" and Dawkins' other works. And I say a fraction, because there are certainly more people who've felt the same and haven't written Dawkins to thank him, and I happen to be one of them.
"I wasn't searching for anything. I wasn't dabbling or questioning. I wasn't having any kind of spiritual breakdown. I just opened my eyes one day, looked around and realised that I had once been standing in a house and one by one the walls had collapsed and there was no longer a house there. I was standing out in the open. It was very liberating."
<...>
"It's been a revelation to me a year since my "epiphany". I feel as if I'm walking through life with the blinkers off. Suddenly all the religious mumbo-jumbo jumps out as so bonkers. Wearing certain things, eating certain things, mumbling certain things at certain times so some imaginary friend will let you into a club in the sky when you die. I want to do my living now, thanks. I'm not afraid of dying. I'm afraid of never having lived.
There is a school of thought that suggests atheists should not call themselves atheists but just say we apply rational thought to everything and religion is no exception.
As Sam Harris, author of The End Of Faith, puts it, "I think that 'atheist' is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology. "
<...>
"A quote attributed to Stephen F. Robert sums it up for me: "We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." "
can science tell you what vanillia tastes like?
that's the problem with science, can't tell you what you really want to know.
chemistry can give you a better tasting vanillia, but you still have to taste it
science has proven that life doesn't just start, others say it can or did and that's their opinion. how can a man look at something and not have an opinion about it? who decides which opinion is correct?
science has proven there is a great gulf between man and animal. but why?
__________________ smarter than your average scientist
can science tell you what vanillia tastes like?
that's the problem with science, can't tell you what you really want to know.
chemistry can give you a better tasting vanillia, but you still have to taste it
Science can tell you if something contains vanilla, you can't even tell me what vanilla tastes like why would you expect science to able to do that?
Quote:
science has proven that life doesn't just start, others say it can or did and that's their opinion. how can a man look at something and not have an opinion about it? who decides which opinion is correct?
Not true goku science says life did just start, opinions are like as*@#& everyone has one and most of the time they stink. Science doesn't operate on opinions, it operates on evidence.
Quote:
science has proven there is a great gulf between man and animal. but why?
Another falsehood goku, science has shown there to no difference, humans are animals. We have very close relatives that are not human. You just like to beat dead horses don't you goku?
Astronomical instruments needed to answer crucial questions, such as the search for Earth-like planets or the way the Universe expands, have come a step closer with the first demonstration at the telescope of a new calibration system for precise spectrographs. The method uses a Nobel Prize-winning technology called a 'laser frequency comb', and is published in this week's issue of Science. Read » | 0 comments
Stanford computer scientists have developed an artificial intelligence system that enables robotic helicopters to teach themselves to fly difficult stunts by watching other helicopters perform the same maneuvers. The result is an autonomous helicopter than can perform a complete airshow of complex tricks on its own. Read » | 0 comments
247 Mini Golf Champion!
).
Re: Does God exist? 
2 Many Bugs Champion!
