Has Science done away with a need for God?

[BitchinHitchins]

1. In very early history there exists a pattern of belief in the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. Scientific discovery throughout history has started to slowly chip away at society's need for a god to explain where lightning comes from, why there is disease, and so on. Currently, we have enough evidence for the big bang, evolution, and many other mechanisms that brought about our existence to render religion obsolete. Sadly, no matter how much evidence science provides that suggests there is no need for a god, society will still cling to the comfort of a sky buddy.

2. If you truly research the mechanisms of the cosmos and learn more about our natural world you will draw further from believing in a supernatural deity -- assuming you believe in one in the first place. At first, coming from a former christian, you will find ways to place god into science. One might postulate that if evolution and the big bang hold valid, as they do, then god must have been the cause behind the big bang. However, once you truly learn about quantum mechanics, you will dismiss this notion. Eventually, you will find that you do not believe in god. There in lies your answer. Science is about testable observations of the natural world. Religion is nothing of the sort. So no there is no NEED to choose between the two, but I guarantee that the more you learn about science the less you will believe in a god.

[Kingpin]

1. In very early history there exists a pattern of belief in the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. Scientific discovery throughout history has started to slowly chip away at society's need for a god to explain where lightning comes from, why there is disease, and so on. Currently, we have enough evidence for the big bang, evolution, and many other mechanisms that brought about our existence to render religion obsolete. Sadly, no matter how much evidence science provides that suggests there is no need for a god, society will still cling to the comfort of a sky buddy.

2. If you truly research the mechanisms of the cosmos and learn more about our natural world you will draw further from believing in a supernatural deity -- assuming you believe in one in the first place. At first, coming from a former christian, you will find ways to place god into science. One might postulate that if evolution and the big bang hold valid, as they do, then god must have been the cause behind the big bang. However, once you truly learn about quantum mechanics, you will dismiss this notion. Eventually, you will find that you do not believe in god. There in lies your answer. Science is about testable observations of the natural world. Religion is nothing of the sort. So no there is no NEED to choose between the two, but I guarantee that the more you learn about science the less you will believe in a god.

I never found this argument very convincing.  We can explain everything there is about an internal combustion engine, but that does mean the mind and person of Henry Ford did not exist (different example of watchmaker argument).  The fact the universe cannot explain it's own existence, to me, necessitates an explanation outside of itself.  Even Hawking's proposal that at the Big Bang in the singularity the laws of nature would necessarily be broken down shows the universe's existence needs to violate the known laws of nature or is outside the laws of nature, or if you will, "supernatural".  Some call it a creator (Deism), others go further and identify the Deity (monotheism), some simply espouse, "I don't know" (agnostic), and others say, "I don't know, but I know its not a creator" (agnostic atheism).  

Those who espouse a creator, don't believe in a "God of the Gaps".  The creator is responsible for the whole thing, the parts we don't understand and the parts we do. There are plenty of scientists in this world and throughout history who are infinitely more intelligent than you or I who make your last sentence ridiculous. But because they believe in a creator, do you write them off as an intellectual?

[BitchinHitchins]

1. In very early history there exists a pattern of belief in the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. Scientific discovery throughout history has started to slowly chip away at society's need for a god to explain where lightning comes from, why there is disease, and so on. Currently, we have enough evidence for the big bang, evolution, and many other mechanisms that brought about our existence to render religion obsolete. Sadly, no matter how much evidence science provides that suggests there is no need for a god, society will still cling to the comfort of a sky buddy.

2. If you truly research the mechanisms of the cosmos and learn more about our natural world you will draw further from believing in a supernatural deity -- assuming you believe in one in the first place. At first, coming from a former christian, you will find ways to place god into science. One might postulate that if evolution and the big bang hold valid, as they do, then god must have been the cause behind the big bang. However, once you truly learn about quantum mechanics, you will dismiss this notion. Eventually, you will find that you do not believe in god. There in lies your answer. Science is about testable observations of the natural world. Religion is nothing of the sort. So no there is no NEED to choose between the two, but I guarantee that the more you learn about science the less you will believe in a god.

I never found this argument very convincing.  We can explain everything there is about an internal combustion engine, but that does mean the mind and person of Henry Ford did not exist (different example of watchmaker argument).  The fact the universe cannot explain it's own existence, to me, necessitates an explanation outside of itself.  Even Hawking's proposal that at the Big Bang in the singularity the laws of nature would necessarily be broken down shows the universe's existence needs to violate the known laws of nature or is outside the laws of nature, or if you will, "supernatural".  Some call it a creator (Deism), others go further and identify the Deity (monotheism), some simply espouse, "I don't know" (agnostic), and others say, "I don't know, but I know its not a creator" (agnostic atheism).  

Those who espouse a creator, don't believe in a "God of the Gaps".  The creator is responsible for the whole thing, the parts we don't understand and the parts we do.  There are plenty of scientists in this world and throughout history who are infinitely more intelligent than you or I who make your last sentence ridiculous.  But because they believe in a creator, do you write them off as an intellectual?

On your point about the big bang: Quantum mechanics, in and of itself, violates the known laws of nature. There exist electron-positron pairs and top quark-antiquark particles that literally come in and out of existence instantaneously. This is not the act of supernatural beings this is merely the facts of what happens at the plank scale. And yes, I agree the last sentence was only a personal anecdote of what I have observed. 

Also to your point of the belief spectrum, I would say you are a touch off. "I don't know" is a correct representation of agnosticism. However, "I don't know but I know it is not a creator" falls more under Gnostic Atheism. Agnostic atheism asserts "I do not know either way but I think it is not a creator". You see there is a difference between the belief that you know (which neither you nor I can positively know) and the belief in which you think. Just as agnostic theism asserts "Im not sure but I think it is a creator" and as gnostic theism states that "Im absolutely sure it is a creator"

[Esquilax]

I never found this argument very convincing.  We can explain everything there is about an internal combustion engine, but that does mean the mind and person of Henry Ford did not exist (different example of watchmaker argument).

Surely you can see how "that doesn't mean I'm not still right somehow," isn't a very compelling argument?

 The fact the universe cannot explain it's own existence, to me, necessitates an explanation outside of itself.

That's an argument from ignorance: the fact that you can't yet imagine an answer, or aren't equipped to know it yet, doesn't mean that the answer doesn't exist. The only way that would be possible is if you were omniscient and still didn't know, which I don't think is likely.

More broadly though, appealing to something with even less evidence than the origin of the universe is hardly going to bring you to a cogent answer. It'll bring you to fiction.

 Even Hawking's proposal that at the Big Bang in the singularity the laws of nature would necessarily be broken down shows the universe's existence needs to violate the known laws of nature or is outside the laws of nature, or if you will, "supernatural".

Seems like a cheap definitional game you're playing there. There's more to the term supernatural than just eschewing the current formulation of the laws of physics. Hell, whatever laws governed the pre-expansion universe would have arised naturally themselves, in that they arose as a part of what nature looked like at that stage of reality.

 Some call it a creator (Deism), others go further and identify the Deity (monotheism), some simply espouse, "I don't know" (agnostic), and others say, "I don't know, but I know its not a creator" (agnostic atheism).  

... I don't think you have much of an idea of what agnostic atheism is, if you're going to put "I know it's not a creator," in there. "There is no evidence currently available for a creator," would be a more accurate bet.

Those who espouse a creator, don't believe in a "God of the Gaps".  The creator is responsible for the whole thing, the parts we don't understand and the parts we do.  There are plenty of scientists in this world and throughout history who are infinitely more intelligent than you or I who make your last sentence ridiculous.  But because they believe in a creator, do you write them off as an intellectual?

Those theist scientists, notably, eschewed faith in their discoveries, and not a one of them resorted to "Hey, here's a natural explanation, but god hasn't been disproven as the cause yet!" as an argument.

[Jenny A]

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?  

There never was a need for god as an explanation for the universe.  Many eastern cultures never bothered to consider the question of where the universe come from.  So knowing the answer isn't a basic human need.  Nor is god really an explanation anymore than magic is an explanation.  Frankly, "we don't know" has always been a better explanation than god did it. It has the virtue of truth and of encouraging inquiry.  That science is a little closer to an answer to the question doesn't change the value of god as an explanation, god is not an explanation.

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

Depends on your god of choice. If you take the Bible literally, then you must choose and we know perfectly well that the creation myth contained therein is just that a myth. Virtually all of it is demonstrably false. But if you limit god's interactions with the universe sufficiently, you can still believe in a god and accept the findings of science.

[IATIA]

Even Hawking's proposal that at the Big Bang in the singularity the laws of nature would necessarily be broken down shows the universe's existence needs to violate the known laws of nature or is outside the laws of nature, or if you will, "supernatural".

IMHO, a lot of Hawking's latest theories are, shall we say, loose? It is almost as though he is creating his own 'god-of-the-gaps'. He has gained a position of authority and now, it would seem, he could say there really is a teapot belonging to the Spaghetti monster that is orbiting Jupiter and everyone would bow their heads in admiration of his genius. Not me.

[Cato]

The fact the universe cannot explain it's own existence, to me, necessitates an explanation outside of itself.

This is a fair and reasonable statement; however, as a professed Christian you leave reasonableness behind when you claim to know what this outside explanation is. The truth is nobody knows, least of all those ancients that penned your precious tome. Combine the moral dicta of bronze age control freaks with just a pinch of smug arrogance parading as certainty and you concoct a toxic brew intoxicating the most susceptible among us. Sadly, there are plenty of gullible people you can defraud of 10% to perpetuate the scheme; however, there are now enough of us not subject to death and total social ostracization to ensure your ranks will decline exponentially.

[Kingpin]

Cato, and if you follow the other thread to theists asking how certain we are God exists you will see there I clearly stated 95% because to claim 100% certainty of something unverifiable is to claim omniscience and I will readily say I can not prove it to you but I can reasonably believe beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to discuss Christianity specifically we can but maybe through PM without the peanut gallery

[Jenny A]

Cato, and if you follow the other thread to theists asking how certain we are God exists you will see there I clearly stated 95% because to claim 100% certainty of something unverifiable is to claim omniscience and I will readily say I can not prove it to you but I can reasonably believe beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to discuss Christianity specifically we can but maybe through PM without the peanut gallery

Discussion that doesn't benefit from "the peanut" gallery is not discussion of evidence. You offered to discuss C.S. Lewis's argument from morality in private with me.  What about it or your ability to believe beyond reasonable doubt requires hiding from the hoi polloi? I come to discussion forums to discuss with the many. With the exception of battle strategy, emotions, and embarrassing matters including TMI very little doesn't benefit from the voices of the many.

[Kingpin]

Jenny I would be happy to discuss it with you if you would like to start a thread or even request a moderated debate. Each time I start one I get admonished for starting a topic that has been done ad nauseum