Questions about God and Science

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

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.

[FallentoReason]

The material things you mentioned have evidence for them. "GOD" doesn't.

[KichigaiNeko]

I was under the impression that Hare Krishnas were disinterested in material things. Did I get this wrong?

[Annik]

It doesn't make sense to assume an inner-working of physics is somehow a god or otherworldly in any way.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

Why are you so focused on an imperceptible god existing, why not focus on an imperceptible god not existing? Fair is fair, right?


Tell me, what exactly tickles your fancy about god that actually has anything to do with something less trivial that your wishes and fears?

[Whatkins]

Scientists believe in all manner of entities that cannot be directly perceived

It is not a matter of belief. The dividing line between faith and knowledge is hard and fast.

"all manner of entities that cannot be directly perceived"? I do not think you meant to generalise so slothfully, and your choice of words suggests that scientists deliberately and exclusively seek to analyse things that you have categorised as difficult to perceive. But it should be obvious to you that science is not selective.

The only reason why these intricate and complex things (advanced chemistry, physics) seem so intricate and complex, is because they seem so to us. Just because our mammalian equipment cannot yet master certain things naturally does not mean they are any less potent. Example: the human eye cannot see into the ultraviolet spectrum. The concept is thus naturally alien to us. That does not make ultraviolet light any less real to the insects and birds that perceive and harness it perfectly.

Why would a physicist study protons and electrons rather than a god? I would ask you to define a god at this point and suggest to me what sort of godly material there would be to study.

[Something completely different]

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?

Because what you call "enteties" are part of a scientific theory .
This theory was established through close observation, experiments and calculation - if these are repeated - the results observed will be the same - out of wich - a theory is born. an out of this theory one can establish understandable explainations for that fields "phenomenons"... as someone who likes to give things mysterious names might call them.

wich is by far better, than saying, god did it... so worship a singing indian dude with a strange sence of body hygiene.

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?

ähhh belief? I explained above that these things were established through calculation and observaton.
Scientists will reject the current model if you observe something completly different.

[Darkstar]

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?

Not with the naked eye, but with a powerful microscope, perhaps. We cannot directly percieve some of them, but we can discern them from their effects. These effects are well documented and behave in predictable manners. The 'effects' of god simply aren't there. If god ever did something, even indirectly, in this world we would know about it unless he were deliberately hiding himself. Studies have shown that prayer doesn't work, so I don't see any 'effects of god'.

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 no disadvantage in 'believing in' protons, etc. They are proven to exist, and they fit perfectly into all of the calculations, etc. involving them. God only fits anything because he is a 'one size fits all' cop out.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Simply put, God is unnecessary in making sense of the world. You don't need God to understand the universe.

[Anomalocaris]

In other words, god is exactly as if no god, but no god is vastly more plausible.