Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Then there's the God v Science question.

Forums Forums Humanism Then there's the God v Science question.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 105 total)
  • Author
  • #294404

    Moving right along.

    Looking for lively discussion.


    Knowledge of God is the ultimate in personal intimate relationship, your experience can not be transferred to, or replicated for, others.

    Religions are human constructs for enabling people to reconcile themselves with the seasons and hardships of their lives and to enable human societies to function in a civil organized manner

    A God if there be one is All Things to All People, well beyond all human* understanding as the Holy Books warn us (* read petty, fearful, greedy,self-serving humans) individuals.
    If you are fortunate enough to be touched by God, that is your gift alone, something for you in your unique life.  It is not a recipe for your neighbors or the world.

    Science on the other hand is humanity’s recipe for learning about the physical world and its processes as honestly as possible.


    Science is

    Learning is the goal.
    Fidelity to physical facts is the gold standard.
    Free Speech doesn’t mean it’s okay to lie and slander with malicious intent.
    Informed constructive skepticism is the rule.
    Mistakes are for learning.
    Dishonest bluster and bullying is a crime.


    I’ve been trying to get this across to a friend of mine. She posts astrology and other magical thinking stuff on facebook. A few times, not often, I’ve complained that she is claiming special knowledge and special abilities. The first time that really bothered me was when she was sliding into paternal vs maternal stuff, basically putting down men. She sort of understands what my problem with her is, actually she understands better than just about any “spiritual” person I’ve ever talked to, I’ll give her that, but, I don’t think it’s possible to think that way without thinking that you have a special connection to the universe that is only available to some elite group. She keeps saying it’s available to anyone, but you have to “open your mind”, or “let go”, or “allow your awareness to flow up” or whatever. She acknowledges I know more about science, but sometimes hints that is a block to these paths of hers. The best I’ve been able to do is convince her that I’m open to any possibility, that I love the universe, that feelings are important, stuff like that. But she insists there is some “higher” something that I could attain.

    I know of very few who hear a calling from a specific supernatural force and accept that others hear their own. Even fewer that see the wonders of nature as an equal to such a calling.



    Does anyone here think that it’s possible to be a scientist and a theist?

    You can water-down theism to almost nothing, but you’ll always have this ‘thing’ that did something before there was anything, or does stuff without using natural forces.

    So, my personal opinion is that science and god can never co-exist, without the theist playing some mind-games on themselves.


    I think that there would have to be some amount of adulteration of their intellectual integrity, but being human, a scientist is certainly capable of such. So, yes there are some scientists who are also theists.


    Yes, there are certainly scientists, even in the natural sciences, that are theists. But all of them have to somehow believe in the supernatural while studying the natural- and to me that’s irrational and illogical.

    I guess I should have said that people can hold opposing views at the same time and still function just fine, but they will always have to somehow ignore one set of beliefs while focusing on the other.

    So the impossible part is to have both views fully reconciled (allowing someone to study a natural phenomenon, believing their measurements and observations are valid, even though any influence from the supernatural would make them invalid.

    Maybe it’s just my lack of imagination that won’t allow me to see how that does occur.



    Yes, it’s very possible. It all depends on how autistic the scientist is.

    I’m joking — but only a little.




    Humans are naturally capable of learning and believing narratives by faith (just deciding to believe something).  Some develop the ability to believe based on facts and reason.   One human could do both and compartmentalize the belief systems.  Or if they are really intelligent, as scientists tend to be, they might come up with their own grand unifying hypothesis that could jury-rig some kind of compatibility of their two belief systems (at least if not too closely examined).


    I just finished listening to 5 hours of lectures on Teilhard de Chardin, a Catholic monk who was also a paleontologist. He spent his life trying to reconcile his faith and science, and he came up with some pretty far out woo-woo. The Church didn’t let him publish, so most of it came out posthumously in 1958 and has been incorporated into new age spiritualism, i.e. “We are not physical beings with spirits, we are spiritual beings living in the physical”, or pretty close to that.

    Anyway, that led me to looking up something I’ve heard of, a critique of his work. It’s pretty fun.

    To answer 3point, yes, but, and it depends. The “but” is, a scientist knows that 100% certainty is not possible. So, if they want to speculate on gods or alternate universes, they are free to do that. The “depends” is, what do you call a “theist”. If they are making claims that they have experienced a supernatural force and they are telling other people to repeat some ritual so they’ll get the same experience, then no, that’s not science and in fact it can be shown to be almost certainly not true. If however, they have read mythology and sung songs communally and had experiences of wholeness or oneness that are difficult to explain and difficult to recreate in any other way, then fine. There is data on that and evolutionary explanations for why that happens. There isn’t solid data, but there’s enough to say it’s something worth pursuing, as long as you keep in mind that the same actions can be used to inspire people to act in evil ways, and when encouraging people to do these things, you aren’t making unsubstantiated claims about outcomes for them, or blaming them when they don’t feel like you do.

    So, if you define theism as being sure about something that you can’t know, then no, you can’t be a that and a scientist. But if you define it as doing something that works for you without being sure why it works, then definitely, do it, have fun with it, explore it.


    <p style=”padding-left: 40px;”>I think that you are saying that a scientist cannot be a scientist if he actually believes for sure that there is a God.  But if he does not absolutely believe in God, would he really be a theist?</p>
    <p style=”padding-left: 40px;”>Also if a scientist’s hypothesis of God relies on the uncertainties inherent in science, i.e., those things not yet revealed by science, is he not just making the mistake of creating a god-of-the-gaps?</p>


    I don’t know how that excess stuff happened on the last post, and I con’t know how to edit an existing post.


    I am a simple cave man poster.  This new format frightens and confuses me.


    I think that you are saying that a scientist cannot be a scientist if he actually believes for sure that there is a God.  But if he does not absolutely believe in God, would he really be a theist?

    Well, yes, certainty is unscientific. I think most people have doubts about there religious belief though. Scriptures address it. So, I’m being somewhat loose with the definition if you use a definition of theist from 200 years ago, but I’m also being pretty mainstream in today’s world. Most theists don’t fit the mold of someone professing their belief on a daily basis.

    Also if a scientist’s hypothesis of God relies on the uncertainties inherent in science, i.e., those things not yet revealed by science, is he not just making the mistake of creating a god-of-the-gaps?

    Only if a god is created. I’m not requiring them to choose a specific god and believe in them fully to qualify as a theist. Talk to anyone who went to church last Easter, ask if they believe Jesus either rose from the dead bodily or was born of the virgin. Just on those two counts, many of them will be disqualified as firm believers.


    So, you seem to be suggesting that a scientist can be a theist, if he sort of (but not for sure) believes there is some sort of non-specific divine deity.

    I can buy that, but I also think that there are professional scientists who would also claim that they believe firmly in some relatively specific concept of the divine.


    “So, my personal opinion is that science and god can never co-exist, without the theist playing some mind-games on themselves.”


    Your personal opinion has ben expressed as a claim. Be fascinated to see you prove your claim.

    The claim about mind games is a  logical fallacy; argument from ignorance; IE you can’t imagine how, therefore their thinking is flawed.  That is not a claim which can reasonably be made as a principle. Unless of course you are the world’s first mind reader.

    Pretty sure there are  scientists who call themselves all kinds of  believer. Because I can’t prove otherwise, without a one-on-one discussion with each individual,  I accept such claims on face value

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 105 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.