I'd like to ask a question. Not challenge, but question.
Scientists believe in all manner of entities that cannot be directly perceived: protons, electrons, quarks, bosons, black holes, nuclear forces, etc. They believe in these things because they help them understand natural phenomenon which they do perceive. Correct?
But God isn't one of those things that scientists can believe in because... why?
Is it that God doesn't help them understand anything that they're perceiving? What are the respective intellectual advantages and disadvantages of believing in things like protons versus believing in god, or gods or intelligent design or a universal intelligence or something like that?
I've tried to find good essays on this on the internet, but I've been unsuccessful. If someone can point me to good references that clearly answer these questions, that would also be helpful.
Thank you.
Scientists believe in all manner of entities that cannot be directly perceived: protons, electrons, quarks, bosons, black holes, nuclear forces, etc. They believe in these things because they help them understand natural phenomenon which they do perceive. Correct?
But God isn't one of those things that scientists can believe in because... why?
Is it that God doesn't help them understand anything that they're perceiving? What are the respective intellectual advantages and disadvantages of believing in things like protons versus believing in god, or gods or intelligent design or a universal intelligence or something like that?
I've tried to find good essays on this on the internet, but I've been unsuccessful. If someone can point me to good references that clearly answer these questions, that would also be helpful.
Thank you.
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare