RE: Has Science done away with a need for God?
July 29, 2015 at 7:06 pm
(This post was last modified: July 29, 2015 at 7:10 pm by Aristocatt.)
I like to think of three major types of gods.
The Rhetorical -- The universe IS god.
The unmoving mover -- god created the universe.
The active god -- god creates floods when we don't worship him enough.
Science has done a good job undermining a lot of what made the "active" god a compelling hypothesis to many people.
The other two gods are a little better.
The unmoving mover will probably always be able to accommodate science. The issue most scientists would take with this claim is that it is, as far as we know, untestable. Untestable claims don't really have much room in science. The second issue with the claim would be the reasons given to posit such a beings existence. We talk about how an engine needs to have an operator and assume that all things created must have an operator. This is a fallacy of composition. Or we get trapped in the circular logic of intelligent design. Circular logic is not a disproof of what you are espousing, but when your evidence is composed solely of logical fallacies, you don't actually have evidence. The unmoved mover is a completely possible thing. But there are no scientific reasons to believe in it. Without scientific reasons, or a way of testing something, one must wonder what that thing really has to do with scientific pursuits.
The rhetorical god is boring. It to me just seems like a poor use of language.
Has science done away with the need for god?
It depends on what god you are talking about. A lot of "active" gods no longer make any sense thanks to science.
The philosophy of science and logic have done much to illuminate the issues of the unmoving mover.
The rhetorical god isn't worth a discussion.
Does one need to choose between god and science?
Again it depends on which of the three gods you are inclined to believe in.
The rhetorical god and the unmoving mover god are okay.
Many forms of the active god, like the god of rain, are not okay with science.
This is generally how I think about the subject.
The Rhetorical -- The universe IS god.
The unmoving mover -- god created the universe.
The active god -- god creates floods when we don't worship him enough.
Science has done a good job undermining a lot of what made the "active" god a compelling hypothesis to many people.
The other two gods are a little better.
The unmoving mover will probably always be able to accommodate science. The issue most scientists would take with this claim is that it is, as far as we know, untestable. Untestable claims don't really have much room in science. The second issue with the claim would be the reasons given to posit such a beings existence. We talk about how an engine needs to have an operator and assume that all things created must have an operator. This is a fallacy of composition. Or we get trapped in the circular logic of intelligent design. Circular logic is not a disproof of what you are espousing, but when your evidence is composed solely of logical fallacies, you don't actually have evidence. The unmoved mover is a completely possible thing. But there are no scientific reasons to believe in it. Without scientific reasons, or a way of testing something, one must wonder what that thing really has to do with scientific pursuits.
The rhetorical god is boring. It to me just seems like a poor use of language.
Has science done away with the need for god?
It depends on what god you are talking about. A lot of "active" gods no longer make any sense thanks to science.
The philosophy of science and logic have done much to illuminate the issues of the unmoving mover.
The rhetorical god isn't worth a discussion.
Does one need to choose between god and science?
Again it depends on which of the three gods you are inclined to believe in.
The rhetorical god and the unmoving mover god are okay.
Many forms of the active god, like the god of rain, are not okay with science.
This is generally how I think about the subject.
