Religious or spiritual belief and science

[MrFun]

Awhile back, in some other thread, Che was perplexed with my belief in God without believing that He was the creator of the universe and of life. I believe in God but I am not a creationist; instead, I completely accept scientific explanations of origin, such as with astrophysics and evolution for examples.

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 forgot what the past thread itself was about, but in there, I also got into a discussion about natural disasters with some of the posters and I said that God is not responsible for natural disasters or epidemics. That was when others asked how I could believe in an all-powerful God who would not intervene to save humans from such suffering. I then tried explaining that I believe God does not intervene because using his power to save us from such suffering would require him to take away our souls. But, I now don't think that makes sense so I thought about it some more.

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. I believe this makes more sense.

Anyway, I had been thinking about that discussion again this evening and now I'm curious as to how other religious or spiritual Apolytoners on here have reconciled their belief with science and with the continual suffering of humans at hands of nature and each other.

[Riesstiu IV]

I believe in science. That's why I'm a Scientologist.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

a) Why does God not having created the universe mean that he did not have the power to do so?

b) Why does God not having the power to create the universe mean that he doesn't have to power to manipulate it?

[SpencerH]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

Belief in God amongst physicists is a seriously minority position.

[monolith94]

Mr Fun, where's the logic of your argument? Why is it that if he can create that thing which you call a soul, he cannot have created the entire universe? If we accept the big bang theory, why is it that he could not have willed that primordial matter from which the big bang expanded into being? There's so much that's completely arbitrary, intuitive, and un-empirical about what you are saying.

[MrFun]

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.

a) Why does God not having created the universe mean that he did not have the power to do so?

b) Why does God not having the power to create the universe mean that he doesn't have to power to manipulate it?

Among humans, it is true that we have power to manipulate things around us that we ourselves have not created. But I refuse to believe that God has the power to intervene in natural disasters to prevent human suffering but simply refuses to lift His finger to do so. God is compassionate and just, not vindictive and violently angry.

[MrFun]

Mr Fun, where's the logic of your argument? Why is it that if he can create that thing which you call a soul, he cannot have created the entire universe? If we accept the big bang theory, why is it that he could not have willed that primordial matter from which the big bang expanded into being? There's so much that's completely arbitrary, intuitive, and un-empirical about what you are saying.

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.

[monolith94]

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?

[BlackCat]

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

[KrazyHorse]

Among humans, it is true that we have power to manipulate things around us that we ourselves have not created. But I refuse to believe that God has the power to intervene in natural disasters to prevent human suffering but simply refuses to lift His finger to do so. God is compassionate and just, not vindictive and violently angry.

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.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

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.

[Jon Miller]

Belief in God amongst physicists is a seriously minority position.

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

JM

[Jon Miller]

If you restrict it to leading physicists, the number is very small.

Note that I know several, personally, who are believers.

I think the reason leading scientists rarely believe in God is because they are have too much ego. A god that isn't subject to their probing and understanding isn't something they desire to believe in.

JM

[Jon Miller]

As evidence I suggest the study that shows that the same percentage of scientists believe in God in 1916 as today (roughly 40%).

In 1916 we didn't have the big bang theory/etc, we had no scientific theory to explain the origin of the universe.

Scientists in 1916 mostly didn't want to believe in God, same with scientists today. It is independent on how good the scientific theories that exist are.

JM