Religious or spiritual belief and science

[a.kitman]

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

the diffrence is that a scientific theory can be tested and proven wrong.

[monolith94]

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.

What I'm trying to point out is that believing that God is the creator of a supernatural "soul" is just as silly as believing that god created the universe in toto. So then, why not? I guess if that's what you want to believe, you can go right ahead, I just don't understand where your logic is hooking up. The opening post of this thread seems to argue that in a strictly materialist universe God just kind of popped up out of nowhere to gift man a soul. If you accept "scientific explanations of origin, such as with astrophysics and evolution" then where would this soul-bestowing god come from?

[Jon Miller]

the diffrence is that a scientific theory can be tested and proven wrong.

Empiricism can't be tested an proven wrong.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I believe it is ~44%. A decent number of the atheists believe in things like the anthropic principle too.

JM

a) Could you please tell me where you got that number? It is far out of whack with most of the polls I've seen. Amongst physicist members of the NAS less than 10% believe in God according to a '98 Nature poll.

b) What the **** does the anthropic principle have to do with the supernatural?

[KrazyHorse]

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.

I mean, even if the soul sector is weakly coupled to the physical world then God should still have the freedom of action necessary. The only possible explanation I can see is if the soul sector is weakly coupled to God and forms a strongly-coupled bound state with human bodies.

Hmmm.

[KrazyHorse]

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

It's not that we believe we're God; it's that we have difficulty believing anybody else is even human.

[MrFun]

What I'm trying to point out is that believing that God is the creator of a supernatural "soul" is just as silly as believing that god created the universe in toto. So then, why not? I guess if that's what you want to believe, you can go right ahead, I just don't understand where your logic is hooking up. The opening post of this thread seems to argue that in a strictly materialist universe God just kind of popped up out of nowhere to gift man a soul. If you accept "scientific explanations of origin, such as with astrophysics and evolution" then where would this soul-bestowing god come from?

I think it's going to take my entire lifetime to sort out just some of the profound questions we have about faith and science. One of the reasons I created this thread is to engage in conversation about these things to help me and others with such questions.

Even atheists who carry out respectful conversation such as you or KH are good contributors in that aspect. You're able to ask questions looking in from the outside of religion/spirituality which could help me on this journey.

[MrFun]

I mean, even if the soul sector is weakly coupled to the physical world then God should still have the freedom of action necessary. The only possible explanation I can see is if the soul sector is weakly coupled to God and forms a strongly-coupled bound state with human bodies.

Hmmm.

There may not be a scientific explanation for the concept of a soul as we currently understand our universe.

[St Jon]

I only believe in God as being the creator or originator of only one important thing - soul. He alone used His power to give humans the gift of having a soul. No other creatures on Earth have a soul. Humans evolved from prehistoric primates that did not possess any soul but at some point, once hominids came into existence, God intervened with this gift of the soul. There may be intelligent life elsewhere in universe, and I believe that whatever intelligent life exists elsewhere could possibly possess the same kind of soul, as God is universal.

I am intrigued by a few of the things that you fail to make clear in your statement.

1. What is the purpose of this 'soul' that has been given to mankind? Is it an inate sense of right and wrong? Truth or deceit? Good(whatever interpretation you have for that) or evil(likewise subject to massive differences of opinion)? Clemency or brutality? If it is then it has been a pretty hit and miss affair.

2. Does a 'soul' equate to intelligence, logical problem solving and the ability to aquire and retain knowledge? These we do have - to varying degrees -and which really do set us apart from a mushroom.

3. By what yardstick did God look down upon the Earth and pick a bunch of primitive bipedal cave dwellers as being more deserving of this gift rather than an ape or a dolphin?

4. Does your God judge our actions as individuals to determine the destination of our immortal 'souls' when our physical being ceases to be? Indeed is our 'soul' immortal at all in your belief set? If it is then do you include the concept of Heaven and Hell?

[a.kitman]

Empiricism can't be tested an proven wrong.

JM

uhm, iam unsure what you mean there.

[Sava]

I believe in God just because its nice to have someone to blame for all this ****

[Jon Miller]

a) Could you please tell me where you got that number? It is far out of whack with most of the polls I've seen. Amongst physicist members of the NAS less than 10% believe in God according to a '98 Nature poll.

b) What the **** does the anthropic principle have to do with the supernatural?

Yeah, members of the NAS is down below 10%. The study at the same time frame showed that physicists as a whole, like scientists as a whole, were at ~40% (a bit above).

According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

JM

[Jon Miller]

uhm, iam unsure what you mean there.

Belief in God is a belief, just like a belief in empiricism.

You can't prove empiricism is correct with empiricism, the same with other fundamental beliefs or axioms.

All you can ask is 'are my fundamental beliefs/axioms consistent?'. If the answer is yes, then your system is just as valid as any other system for which the answer is yes.

Obviously empiricism and a belief in God are consistent.

JM

[Zoid]

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

Just because you can't see it's there doesn't mean it doesn't exist as long as it can be proven mathematically. Can you can find a equation that proves the existence of God or a godlike entity?

[a.kitman]

Belief in God is a belief, just like a belief in empiricism.

You can't prove empiricism is correct with empiricism, the same with other fundamental beliefs or axioms.

All you can ask is 'are my fundamental beliefs/axioms consistent?'. If the answer is yes, then your system is just as valid as any other system for which the answer is yes.

Obviously empiricism and a belief in God are consistent.

JM

yeah i thought you ment that, and its a pretty meaningless debate if you want to take it that far.