Religious or spiritual belief and science

[SlowwHand]

God created all. He gave man a brain that, in theory, processes logically. That doesn't mean that He's a full time baby sitter. For the most part, we bring it on ourselves.
War, certainly. Natural disasters? If you're in tornado alley and can't handle it, move. Don't like earthquakes, mudslides or wildfires? Stay away from California. On and on.
Don't forget, He's living in eternity. He turns around to get a coffee and centuries have passed here.

[MrFun]

Perhaps you're not understanding me.

I'm asking you what steps of thinking allowed you to write this sentence:

God is not the creator of natural things and because he did not have the power to create, he also does not have the power to intervene to prevent human suffering from natural disasters.

In this sentence you are presuming one thing (which I will assume is an axiom of your current belief system): that God did not create the universe.

You are then predicating a second statement (that God does not have the power to manipulate matter) on a third statement (that God did not have the power to create the Universe) and implicitly predicating this third statement on the first statement.

Please explain how either of this deductive steps occurred. Or, did you mean to write:

"God does not intervene in human suffering because he does not have the power to do so; since he cannot manipulate matter it thus stands to reason that he cannot create matter either, and thus he did not create the universe"

Note that the chain of inference runs the opposite direction in this statement than in yours.

The way you explained it is actually a better way of what I meant.
I do not believe God has power to manipulate matter in our universe, which fits with my belief that He did not create the universe or life.

[MrFun]

Much less or completely immaterial?

If a soul is completely immaterial then how does it interact with matter to give us the freedom to manipulate the world?

And given that souls interact with the world then how come God cannot interact with the physical world by using soul-sector intermediation?

In other words God -> Souls -> Matter would be a valid means for God to prevent human suffering.

I don't have all the answers as to how immaterial things can still be interconnected with our material world. One of the things that so dramatically differentiates faith from science is that with faith, we believe without having evidence or all explanations for what we believe in. With science, it's based on empirical evidence and repeated experimentation.

[MrFun]

Just out of curiosity - can you please define the term "soul" ?

I conceive of a soul as being a spiritual part of humans that is distinct from our physical being, but not entirely separate from one another.

[MrFun]

A soul cannot be explained by science, and science cannot determine the soul's existence. The soul is a concept embedded in the supernatural world. If you can believe in one supernatural thing, why not extend that idea further, and suggest that same force with supernatural power as the wellspring of creation?

I don't understand why believing in the concept of God and the soul has to force us to believe in God being creator of all material things in our universe.

[Q Classic]

The universe is far more wondrous, fascinating, breathtaking, and amazing without magical beings that there is no need to create one to have spiritual experiences.

[BeBMan]

Belief in God amongst physicists is a seriously minority position.

Belief in being God amongst physicists seems to be much more widespread.

[Zoid]

You can't really compare beliefs and science. They're two different things, I'm always amazed how someone can belive in both God and science. I mean as a scientist you're taught to question everything (well, almost) and to have an explanation (or at least a theory) before you state that things work this way and that. You don't have to have this with religion, it's a cop out. If you can't prove what you're saying why should I listen to it?

Basically, there's no room for God in science. And those who claim that are deluding themselves and have yet to free themselves from millenia of inherited superstition...

[trev]

You can't really compare beliefs and science

Many times it seems that science is also just a belief. An equation makes no sense, lets believe in dark matter. Another equation makes no sense, lets believe in dark energy.
There is a lot of belief needed to believe in modern science.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I only believe in God as being the creator or originator of only one important thing - soul.

[Zoid]

Many times it seems that science is also just a belief. An equation makes no sense, lets believe in dark matter. Another equation makes no sense, lets believe in dark energy.
There is a lot of belief needed to believe in modern science.

There's a difference between scientific theories and belief...

[Thue]

A soul is something that cannot be explained by science; it's something much less material than anything in nature such as rocks, water, animal life, and so on. There is nothing in nature that souls can originate from; God is the only one who has that power to provide the gift of a soul.

Sound like a God of the gaps. But IMO this gap has already been somewhat closed with computers being able to do many thing once reserved to humans. If/when real AI is created then this gap will be completely closed.

[Jon Miller]

Huh?

I don't believe in a separate soul, but your statement doesn't follow.

JM

[trev]

There's a difference between scientific theories and belief...

Really!
There is no direct observational evidence for dark matter, so is it a real theory or belief?
There is no direct observational evidence for dark energy and very limited circumstantial evidence for it, so is it a theory or a belief?
There is also indirect evidence for the existence of God, ie people's personal experiences in response to prayer, miraculous healings in response to prayer etc. Seems like the evidence is at least as strong as that for dark energy, so perhaps the existence of God should be seen as a theory too.
Ones person's belief is another person's theory and vice versa

[Proteus_MST]

Although I do not believe in god, I have been surprised by the number of scientists (all biologists of various expertises) who do. In addition, I've met many christian scientists who believe in evolution but believe that god directs it.

Not uncommon.
If you separate the belief in god from the belief in the literal truth of the bible,
there is a lot of room for god to coexist with modern science.
In germany I think this is a rather common form of faith.

A natural scientist who believes in the literal truth of the bible on the other hand, of course, has a big problem

As for my own faith:
I for my part believe in some form of deity (or maybe higher consciousness) that is ammanent to the universe, that is part of us all as we are part of it. I think it could best be compared to the image of god in Gnosticism.