Has Science done away with a need for God?

[IATIA]

Language relies upon a conscious interchange between two agents. We call program algorithms "language" because we humans understand them, not because they are understood by the subject. The same is true with DNA; the codons do not convey abstract symbology, they only regulate molecular interactions via physical processes.

Then is language the sole domain of humans?

[The Valkyrie]

Reality has done away with the need for deities.

Of course science has helped.

And then again, I question that we ever needed deities in the modern age in the first place.

They may have been an easy way for early man to explain what he did not know, but now it's a control mechanism holding billions in thrall for the benefit of a relative few.

[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.

[Esquilax]

If the symbols are shown to be repeatable or have a pattern to them or appear to carry meaning, yes I must deduce an intelligent agency.  I would liken this to cave drawings or hieroglyphics.  I cannot decipher them, but they clearly carry meaning and I cannot logically deduce that it occurred naturally.

So then what on earth are you actually using to deduce agency at all? If it's not intelligibility, or complexity, or even the available evidence, then what is informing these deductions? Seems to me you'll just assume agency at every turn, based on very little at all.

[Aristocatt]

This whole discussion about language is pointless.

You are asserting that language has qualities a, b, and c.
Then you are recognizing qualities a and b within DNA, and assuming that c must follow.

You are moving in and out of using a formal system of definitions and an informal one of examples, and because you keep moving between the two you are never recognizing that DNA does not demonstrably fit every quality of the word language you have given it.

[Whateverist]

Yeah, theists would be so much better off if they just didn't insist on placing God in the world. They wouldn't even have to come out and agree that gods are in our head. Just cop to it being beyond them and a mystery. So easy but so rarely chosen.

[Angrboda]

Design implies a mind? But what is a mind? The intuition that design implies a mind is problematic on its own, but you're overlooking that once you imply a mind, you are only half finished. If mind is the product of biological evolution, then you've just bankrupted your argument, because then design --> mind --> nature. But whatever this 'god' thing that you think created the universe is, it is not a product of nature. Your implication fails because you didn't carry it through far enough. If mind is not known to be other than nature, then you cannot get from "design implies mind" to a non-natural creator without the additional step of ruling out mind as an artifact of nature. Have you done this? You've indicated that you think it absurd that mind is brain, but that's not a valid argument, that's an example of the argument from incredulity fallacy. No, mind might ultimately turn out to be non-natural as you suppose, but then it might just as soon turn out to be natural. Until that question is resolved you can't assert that design implies a non-natural mind, a cosmic creator. It could be that design only implies specific types of natural processes.

You're assuming that design implies mind and that mind is not natural; the latter premise is not adequately supported. So you can't conclude that design implies anything more than 'more nature'.

[Lemonvariable72]

Have you ever seen a poorly written computer program?  If so do you dismiss the person behind it existed?  Just because we right now see sections that do not seem to be used at all, or have no purpose, means nothing.  The Genome was only sequenced 12 years ago.  I can write a function program that can be used in multiple applications that I code, but in it contains other function calls that some applications might not need.  Does that mean I do not exist?

Language or code whether perfect or imperfect (in so far as our current perception of that goes), if it carries meaning, we deduce an intelligence behind it.

Well first that doesnt address the fact that DNA as a language is simply a metaphor, however would you code a program where 90% was completely useless junk? No? Why you would think that a all knowing and all powerful god would do that. So this isn't a matter of writing unused functions, but function that are utterly broken and make about 90% of the volume of the code, in other words gibberish. Also dna, unlike any language has no real rules or patterns that it has to follow, it can be utterly random.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Language relies upon a conscious interchange between two agents. We call program algorithms "language" because we humans understand them, not because they are understood by the subject. The same is true with DNA; the codons do not convey abstract symbology, they only regulate molecular interactions via physical processes.

Then is language the sole domain of humans?

I don't think so. It seems to me that other species have their own languages, which are understood to convey meanings known to them. Dolphins, for instance, seem to have a language.

The key to focus on is not whether a human being can understand the message, but rather whether a conscious agent can.

Language is inherently abstract. Abstraction requires higher-order powers of thinking. Molecules lack that capacity, and are unable to abstract the message. Without a listener, what are words?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If the symbols are shown to be repeatable or have a pattern to them or appear to carry meaning, yes I must deduce an intelligent agency.  I would liken this to cave drawings or hieroglyphics.  I cannot decipher them, but they clearly carry meaning and I cannot logically deduce that it occurred naturally.

So then what on earth are you actually using to deduce agency at all? If it's not intelligibility, or complexity, or even the available evidence, then what is informing these deductions? Seems to me you'll just assume agency at every turn, based on very little at all.

Pulsars emit radiation very, very regularly, in an orderly pattern, but there is no linguistic intent involved.