RE: Questions about God and Science
October 16, 2012 at 7:14 pm
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2012 at 7:16 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 11, 2012 at 8:42 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: 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?
If the definition of 'believe' you are using is 'the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true', then yes, by that definition scientists believe they exist. If you are using 'confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof' as your definition, then no, they don't believe they exist.
As others have stated, the things you claim scientists 'believe in' (protons, electrons, quarks, bosons, black holes, nuclear forces, etc.) have been observed, either directly or indirectly. They also all have beautiful and coherent math that describe them.
Quote:But God isn't one of those things that scientists can believe in because... why?
First of all, about 30% of all scientists do believe in a god.
But those that that don't believe in a god most likely apply the same method to the claim that a god exists as they do to other claims concerning the nature of the universe, the requirement that the claim be supported by; demonstrable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence and reasoned argument.
Without any of the above, what should their justification be to believe a god exists?
Quote: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?
There is nothing that has been observed in the universe (including its existence) that requires a god. There is zero need to evoke the existence of a god to explain anything.
The intellectual advantage of believing in protons is that they help explain reality. There are no disadvantages, as far as I can tell. The disadvantage of believing in gods and intelligent design is that they have zero explanatory power.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.