Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Pyrrho]

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?  

I wouldn't think about it in terms of "need". I think a better way to phrase that is "science explains more about how the universe works and is better for making predictions about it than God is".
...

I don't think you have that quite right.  It is not just that "science explains more about how the universe works and is better for making predictions about it than God is," it is that science actually provides some explanations and predictions, whereas God explains nothing.

Saying "God did it" is not an explanation; it is a pseudo explanation, a fake explanation, because it explains nothing at all.  It is merely pretending to have an explanation.  Take the rainbow, for example.  Saying "God did it" does not explain it at all.  One does not know anything more about a rainbow after hearing that than one knew before hearing it.  Saying it is caused by the reflection and refraction of light on water droplets is giving an explanation for a rainbow.  (For those wanting more details of that explanation, start here.)

This, by the way, is one of the ways that religion impedes knowledge, as it gives people a feeling of having an explanation when they don't have one, and if you already have an explanation, you don't need to look for an explanation.

We find this presently in the question of the origins of the universe (if it has an origin).  People pretend that saying "God did it" gives an explanation, when it is no explanation at all.

So the theists who say that God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe are wrong.  Not because it isn't "best," but because it explains nothing whatsoever.  Just like the rainbow.

[Kingpin]

I wouldn't think about it in terms of "need". I think a better way to phrase that is "science explains more about how the universe works and is better for making predictions about it than God is".
...

I don't think you have that quite right.  It is not just that "science explains more about how the universe works and is better for making predictions about it than God is," it is that science actually provides some explanations and predictions, whereas God explains nothing.

Saying "God did it" is not an explanation; it is a pseudo explanation, a fake explanation, because it explains nothing at all.  It is merely pretending to have an explanation.  Take the rainbow, for example.  Saying "God did it" does not explain it at all.  One does not know anything more about a rainbow after hearing that than one knew before hearing it.  Saying it is caused by the reflection and refraction of light on water droplets is giving an explanation for a rainbow.  (For those wanting more details of that explanation, start here.)

This, by the way, is one of the ways that religion impedes knowledge, as it gives people a feeling of having an explanation when they don't have one, and if you already have an explanation, you don't need to look for an explanation.

We find this presently in the question of the origins of the universe (if it has an origin).  People pretend that saying "God did it" gives an explanation, when it is no explanation at all.

So the theists who say that God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe are wrong.  Not because it isn't "best," but because it explains nothing whatsoever.  Just like the rainbow.

Pyrrho, 

While I understand what you are saying and fully agree that simply saying "God did it" is not a valid explanation as the HOW or WHAT question you also must remember that there are differing forms of explanation that are not contradictory, but both complimentary or that some things require both explanations to be fully understood.  There are mechanical explanations sure (as in your description of a rainbow), but there are are also explanations from agency.  Science can explain the how answers, but not the why.  To answer a why question fully you also need an explanation from agency.  If I present to you a pot of boiling water on a stove and then ask you the question "why is the water boiling?", science can give a detailed description of the heat causing the aggravation of the water molecules, etc, etc.  But I tell you no, it's boiling because I want a cup of tea.  These are not conflicting explanations, but both are satisfactory and answer the same question.  

You state the universe had an origin which gets us to the Kalam argument.  We've all heard it before so I won't get in to it.  I find it too often that people reject an explanation from agency when it comes to the universe, but logic dictates that it must be so in order to answer the why question.

[Longhorn]

Science DOES answer 'the why' questions, you just don't like the answer it gives. You're looking for purpose and meaning, traits that are observed in the actions of conscious beings. Prove there can be a consciousness without a brain, and we'll get somewhere.

[Crossless2.0]

I wouldn't think about it in terms of "need". I think a better way to phrase that is "science explains more about how the universe works and is better for making predictions about it than God is".
...

I don't think you have that quite right.  It is not just that "science explains more about how the universe works and is better for making predictions about it than God is," it is that science actually provides some explanations and predictions, whereas God explains nothing.

Saying "God did it" is not an explanation; it is a pseudo explanation, a fake explanation, because it explains nothing at all.  It is merely pretending to have an explanation.  Take the rainbow, for example.  Saying "God did it" does not explain it at all.  One does not know anything more about a rainbow after hearing that than one knew before hearing it.  Saying it is caused by the reflection and refraction of light on water droplets is giving an explanation for a rainbow.  (For those wanting more details of that explanation, start here.)

This, by the way, is one of the ways that religion impedes knowledge, as it gives people a feeling of having an explanation when they don't have one, and if you already have an explanation, you don't need to look for an explanation.

We find this presently in the question of the origins of the universe (if it has an origin).  People pretend that saying "God did it" gives an explanation, when it is no explanation at all.

So the theists who say that God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe are wrong.  Not because it isn't "best," but because it explains nothing whatsoever.  Just like the rainbow.

And this is what grates on me when these arguments are put forward -- not merely that nothing is explained by invoking God but that the use of that argument leads to one of two outcomes: either the fake explanation obviates the need for further thought or investigation, or it serves as a springboard from which the believer is free to indulge in any manner of pseudo-philosophical speculation (leading unsurprisingly into their shoehorning their favorite ancient literary character into the role they've dreamed up in their ramblings).  Either way, there is a pretense of knowledge that is wholly unearned and unjustified dressed up in the borrowed rags of the likes of William Lane Craig.

[Pyrrho]

I don't think you have that quite right.  It is not just that "science explains more about how the universe works and is better for making predictions about it than God is," it is that science actually provides some explanations and predictions, whereas God explains nothing.

Saying "God did it" is not an explanation; it is a pseudo explanation, a fake explanation, because it explains nothing at all.  It is merely pretending to have an explanation.  Take the rainbow, for example.  Saying "God did it" does not explain it at all.  One does not know anything more about a rainbow after hearing that than one knew before hearing it.  Saying it is caused by the reflection and refraction of light on water droplets is giving an explanation for a rainbow.  (For those wanting more details of that explanation, start here.)

This, by the way, is one of the ways that religion impedes knowledge, as it gives people a feeling of having an explanation when they don't have one, and if you already have an explanation, you don't need to look for an explanation.

We find this presently in the question of the origins of the universe (if it has an origin).  People pretend that saying "God did it" gives an explanation, when it is no explanation at all.

So the theists who say that God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe are wrong.  Not because it isn't "best," but because it explains nothing whatsoever.  Just like the rainbow.

Pyrrho, 

While I understand what you are saying and fully agree that simply saying "God did it" is not a valid explanation as the HOW or WHAT question you also must remember that there are differing forms of explanation that are not contradictory, but both complimentary or that some things require both explanations to be fully understood.  There are mechanical explanations sure (as in your description of a rainbow), but there are are also explanations from agency.  Science can explain the how answers, but not the why.  To answer a why question fully you also need an explanation from agency.  If I present to you a pot of boiling water on a stove and then ask you the question "why is the water boiling?", science can give a detailed description of the heat causing the aggravation of the water molecules, etc, etc.  But I tell you no, it's boiling because I want a cup of tea.  These are not conflicting explanations, but both are satisfactory and answer the same question.  

You state the universe had an origin which gets us to the Kalam argument.

I most certainly did not say such a thing.  Read my post again.

But even if it did have a beginning, the Cosmological Argument is a good deal of drivel anyway.

 We've all heard it before so I won't get in to it.  I find it too often that people reject an explanation from agency when it comes to the universe, but logic dictates that it must be so in order to answer the why question.

You presume that there is a 'why' to be answered.  Which is to say, you are begging the question and assuming that there is a god in order to prove that there is a god.  You are assuming that there is a reason why the universe exists, rather than accepting the fact that there may be no "why" to it at all (in the sense of the term you indicate in your post).

[Kingpin]

Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies.

According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious.

Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious.

The brain has no more ability to spawn consciousness than a rock does.

But we are conscious so this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation? Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove.

Bottom line? All conventional scientific arguments for the brain as the “place of consciousness” are futile and absurd. And this leads to something beyond scientific and philosophic materialism.

It leads to non-material consciousness.

[Longhorn]

Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies.

According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious.

Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious.

The brain has no more ability to spawn consciousness than a rock does.

Composition fallacy. Google it.


*Yawn*

But we are conscious so this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation? Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove.

Bottom line? All conventional scientific arguments for the brain as the “place of consciousness” are futile and absurd. And this leads to something beyond scientific and philosophic materialism.

It leads to non-material consciousness.

Demonstrate consciousness outside of a brain. It's that simple.

[Crossless2.0]

Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies.

According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious.

Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious.

The brain has no more ability to spawn consciousness than a rock does.

But we are conscious so this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation?  Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove.

Bottom line? All conventional scientific arguments for the brain as the “place of consciousness” are futile and absurd. And this leads to something beyond scientific and philosophic materialism.

It leads to non-material consciousness.

So I assume you'll have no problem consenting to a bit of invasive brain surgery, no? Let's remove certain parts of this brain that allegedly doesn't produce your consciousness and see what happens. You're down with that, right?  And if not you, perhaps we could perform the operation on a loved one.  No problem, right?

If not, why not?

[Cyberman]

You are assuming that the internal combustion engine (or any humanly designed artifact) is relevantly analogous to the universe. You haven't even begun to justify that leap.

Side note, but I'd like to know what Henry Ford had to do with the invention of the internal combustion engine.

[Crossless2.0]

You are assuming that the internal combustion engine (or any humanly designed artifact) is relevantly analogous to the universe.  You haven't even begun to justify that leap.

Side note, but I'd like to know what Henry Ford had to do with the invention of the internal combustion engine.

He invented it after leading elephants over the Alps and smashing the stone tablets on which the 17 Commandments were engraved.  I learned that in homeschool.