Honest questions here guys, curious to know your opinions.  

1.  Do you believe that modern science has completely done away with a need for God as an explanation for the universe?  

2.  Does one need to choose between God and Science?

There was never any need for a god, it doesn't explain anything. It is the personification of the argument from ignorance/incredulity.

If you can even define what a god is, and how I can distinguish it from a non God, I'll be impressed

Science does not comment on "the supernatural". If God is defined to be outside the scope of the natural, then science has no interest in it. Science deals with what is real and testable, that's all.

Choose? I don't even know what "choosing God" means. If you choose it as an explanation then you've abandoned science at that point and are just making up answers to feel comfortable.

1. I believe there never was a need for a god hypothesis in the first place. It has never been a valid explanation, so there's no need to do away with it.

2. Can one simultaneously believe in god and not reject science? Sure, compartmentalization works wonders. The god hypothesis is simply irrelevant to science, because the god claim is untestable and science does not deal with untestable claims. Other religious doctrines, such as intelligent design are irreconcilable with science though.

@lkingpinl,

What is God? Can you give a somewhat detailed definition what you mean?

Funny how Vic and I were typing up pretty much the same thing in tandem

Hey, I'm quite chuffed with my new phrase. Finally a definition for God:

"The personification of the argument from ignorance/incredulity".



I'm not trying to be disrespectful. It feels accurate.

Apart from splitting hairs about the definition of God etc., though, I think we can safely say that there are several important thinkers in history who would have been full blown atheists if the had known what we know today about evolution by natural selection. For example, I recall Voltaire saying in his philosophical dictionary that he cannot reject God because of the apparent design in nature. I take this as an admission that he would favour being an atheist if that issue had been taken care of. I guess the same would have pushed more than one Deist among the US' founding fathers.


edit:

Voltaire repeatedly talks about the moral dangers of atheism - however, I cannot believe that he was so shallow a thinker that he would seriously argue that atheism must be false because he dislikes the (imagined) consequences.

"The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability. "

"Let us add especially that there are less atheists to-day than ever, since philosophers have recognized that there is no being vegetating without germ, no germ without a plan, etc. and that wheat comes in no wise from putrefaction."

The only real argument against atheism I recall him making was the one from design.

(July 27, 2015 at 11:43 am)robvalue Wrote: Funny how Vic and I were typing up pretty much the same thing in tandem

Hey, I'm quite chuffed with my new phrase. Finally a definition for God:

"The personification of the argument from ignorance/incredulity".

I like it! It's get legs! (Or tentacles for those who follow the FSM.)

(July 27, 2015 at 11:47 am)Alex K Wrote: Apart from splitting hairs about the definition of God etc., though, I think we can safely say that there are several important thinkers in history who would have been full blown atheists if the had known what we know today about evolution by natural selection. For example, I recall Voltaire saying in his philosophical dictionary that he cannot reject God because of the apparent design in nature. I take this as an admission that he would favour being an atheist if that issue had been taken care of. I guess the same would have pushed more than one Deist among the US' founding fathers.


edit:

Voltaire repeatedly talks about the moral dangers of atheism - however, I cannot believe that he was so shallow a thinker that he would seriously argue that atheism must be false because he dislikes the (imagined) consequences.

"The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability. "

"Let us add especially that there are less atheists to-day than ever, since philosophers have recognized that there is no being vegetating without germ, no germ without a plan, etc. and that wheat comes in no wise from putrefaction."

The only real argument against atheism I recall him making was the one from design.

I always found it fascinating when people bring up Voltaire and how his argument from design would not stand against today's modern scientific achievements but quite often people either forget and completely ignore modern atheists arguing and admitting the argument from design still stands.  Do we forget the most notorious atheist of the 20th century conversion to Deism, Antony Flew when he said:

‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’ (p. 75)

Richard Dawkins has also stated that one could make the argument that there appears to be design in the universe.  Stephen Hawking also stated that the universe appears designed, but again both argue that this is not evidence for God.  I am not espousing that either, just pointing out that the "design" argument even today still holds weight.

(July 27, 2015 at 12:29 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: I always found it fascinating when people bring up Voltaire and how his argument from design would not stand against today's modern scientific achievements but quite often people either forget and completely ignore modern atheists arguing and admitting the argument from design still stands.  

Lol no it doesn't still stand :-D

Quote:Do we forget the most notorious atheist of the 20th century conversion to Deism, Antony Flew when he said:

Who is Anthony Flew and why should I care what he thinks?

Yea, great. So you have a designer. Who designed him? Why is it your god? Why is it a god at all? Why does this design look evolved?