Can you mix science with god?

[too-open-minded]

I think so. I'm agnostic being open to the concept of god but skeptical of their being one.

 

Although if their is a god, I'm sure its something a lot more sophisticated than our brains are able to comprehend

 

 

 

 

Could god be everything together in the universe acted together as a collective conscious?

 

Quantum physics shows us that particles can retain information.

 

What if everything together right down to quarks, energy, radiation, etc is collectively god?

 

I'm not saying their is a god, or even if their is one I doubt we could even grasp the slightest notion of what god is. I just don't think mixing god with science is out of the answer and wanted to throw this out their

[immortal]

I think you can safely ignore scholars and physicists turned philosophers who mix science with religion. Religion has nothing to do with science.

[too-open-minded]

I think you are taking my question about god and science too literal.

 

I'm talking about a hypothetical god not specific religion

[A Tripolation]

I think so. I'm agnostic being open to the concept of god but skeptical of their being one.

 

Agnostic doesn't mean that you are "open to the concept of God." It means that you do not believe an absolute knowledge on the subject is attainable. It stems from -a (without) and -gnosis (knowledge).

Most atheists are agnostic atheists.

 

Although if their is a god, I'm sure its something a lot more sophisticated than our brains are able to comprehend

 

I agree. If we can comprehend it, why call it God?

 

 

Could god be everything together in the universe acted together as a collective conscious?

 

Sure. God could also be the programmer that created this artificial universe we live in.

 

 

Quantum physics shows us that particles can retain information.

 

What?

 

 

What if everything together right down to quarks, energy, radiation, etc is collectively god?

 

This sounds a lot like panentheism.

[too-open-minded]

Well if thats the definition of agnostic it suites me quite well.

 

I don't like labeling things, you can call it what you want; I just called it god because that is the closest thing I can say besides supreme being.

 

Quantum physics or better yet quantum mechanics has devised a new type of computer that, from what i understand and I probably don't understand it correctly; a new type of computer that uses particles to do math by vibrating them to certain frequencies. Like I said I barley understand it but apparently the particles contain mathematical information which can be processed through a quantum computer.

[mellowmorgan]

Science is the study of knowledge we have of our universe, and the rigorous methods used to attain it. Since there is currently no knowledge of a god in reality, or in the universe that we can best perceive through science, we cannot "mix" or include him in it. Also, things like intelligent design are neither testable nor falsifiable, which is absolutely necessary in science. I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, but so far we have no reason to believe he does and thus he has no place in science.

One day in the future, we might have new technologies that give us proof of the supernatural, just like the microscope enhanced our sight and verified the existence of microorganisms. But until then I say NO WAY to your question.

[Bill Angel]

Well if thats the definition of agnostic it suites me quite well.

 

I don't like labeling things, you can call it what you want; I just called it god because that is the closest thing I can say besides supreme being.

 

Quantum physics or better yet quantum mechanics has devised a new type of computer that, from what i understand and I probably don't understand it correctly; a new type of computer that uses particles to do math by vibrating them to certain frequencies. Like I said I barley understand it but apparently the particles contain mathematical information which can be processed through a quantum computer.

 

There is a good book on this subject by Seth Lloyd

"Programming the Universe / A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmos"

 

I've read the book and can assure you that God is a hypothesis this scientist has no need for.

But he is sensitive to the question of the value and meaning of human life in a universe devoid of gods and inhabited by a humanity devoid of immortal souls.

 

The New York Times carried a good book review on this work

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/books/review/02powell.html?pagewanted=all

[Norbert]

Yes, you can look at religion as being a set of metaphors for very real, natural processes. You sometimes end up with highly tentative conclusions but unraveling this architecture of logic, or rather creating it, can be a highly empowering and satisfying investigation.

 

God can be thought of as the culmination of physical forces which can act on mater to create things. Going form the most basic to the most abstract, transcendent. From planets and stars forming to the the entirely new, but not separate, dimension of consciousness. In this view, gravity is god. Evolution is god. Etc.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Norbert

[TheVillageAtheist]

I think so. I'm agnostic being open to the concept of god but skeptical of their being one.

 

Although if their is a god, I'm sure its something a lot more sophisticated than our brains are able to comprehend

 

 

 

 

Could god be everything together in the universe acted together as a collective conscious?

 

Quantum physics shows us that particles can retain information.

 

What if everything together right down to quarks, energy, radiation, etc is collectively god?

 

I'm not saying their is a god, or even if their is one I doubt we could even grasp the slightest notion of what god is. I just don't think mixing god with science is out of the answer and wanted to throw this out their

 

 

If you're just going to call the laws of the universe "God," then what's the point? It's theoretically possible, but there's no evidence to suggest it and the concept doesn't provide a better understanding of the universe.

 

The better, broader question is whether or not science is compatible with religion, and as we've seen, it very much is. Catholicism is already fully on board, and others are going to have to follow if they want to remain viable in the West as time goes on. Science isn't going away, in other words, and as we continue to shed light on the truth in ways that nakedly contradict literal interpretations of popular monotheistic texts, the big players will have to adapt or face extinction. That isn't to say religion will disappear, of course; rather, old religions will likely lose out to newer variations that do not oppose modern understandings of the world.

 

 

[too-open-minded]

Thevillageathiest, I agree and think that is for the best.

 

Although your thinking about god in the theology sense. I'm proposing "god" in a different light.

[afungusamongus]

Although if their is a god, I'm sure its something a lot more sophisticated than our brains are able to comprehend

 

Yeah he tells us so in Philippians 4:7.

Quantum physics shows us that particles can retain information.

 

I have no idea what this means.

What if everything together right down to quarks, energy, radiation, etc is collectively god?

 

A rose by any other name...

I'm not saying their is a god, or even if their is one I doubt we could even grasp the slightest notion of what god is. I just don't think mixing god with science is out of the answer and wanted to throw this out their

 

Sounds like you are getting at a partially overlapping magisteria. Which is in reference to a certain Stephen Jay Gould and a view that made him famous. I think you are clasping at something that has value though. Science can indeed have a influence on religion. The refutation of a static universe has had a tremendous effect on religious thought in the last century.

 

Also Biblical Archeology and what it tells us about what the ancient world was like is also very important for those who want to know in what type of world Jesus of Nazareth lived in.

 

Also I think whether it be Christianity or other religions, religion needs to be valued by scientist for the moral framework it provides. It can in this way also have a profound effect on the science we do and the effect our work has on society.

 

Just in closing I would just like to tell the OP that spelling God with a small letter is not just very condescending it is also very poor English. You might want to revise if you want to start threads in a religion forum with such a antagonizing tone.

[StringJunky]

 

 

Just in closing I would just like to tell the OP that spelling God with a small letter is not just very condescending it is also very poor English. You might want to revise if you want to start threads in a religion forum with such a antagonizing tone.

 

It depends whether one is referring to "God" as a name then a capital 'g' is appropriate but if one is referring to gods in general as a description then a lower-case 'g' is appropriate. The OP appears to be using it in the context of the latter mostly, although I do note he should use a capital in one or two places because he is using it as a proper name. I don't think he has any intent to condescend and he is merely unaware of this minor distinction.

[Phi for All]

Also I think whether it be Christianity or other religions, religion needs to be valued by scientist for the moral framework it provides. It can in this way also have a profound effect on the science we do and the effect our work has on society.

How stable is a moral framework dependent on the faith of the practitioner? Don't a lot of people have crises of faith many times in their lives? And how valuable is morality based in the majority on punishment and/or reward? Isn't it more stable to believe in doing right because it's right, and not because you might get the carrot or the stick?

 

Just in closing I would just like to tell the OP that spelling God with a small letter is not just very condescending it is also very poor English. You might want to revise if you want to start threads in a religion forum with such a antagonizing tone.

Capitalizing the word implies that we're talking about the Abrahamic deity. The OP clearly states, in the second sentence, "Although if their [sic] is a god...", making the lower case spelling correct.

[afungusamongus]

How stable is a moral framework dependent on the faith of the practitioner? Don't a lot of people have crises of faith many times in their lives? And how valuable is morality based in the majority on punishment and/or reward? Isn't it more stable to believe in doing right because it's right, and not because you might get the carrot or the stick?

 

It is clear. Christianity gives us clear guidelines on how to live. How do we define what right is if we don't have some transcendent law giver? That is the question. If you take a Nazi doctor like Joseph Mengele. He was a scientist just like many on this forum. He discarded ideas of Gods just like many scientist here also. He also was thinking he was doing what was right. I have even heard that some of his experiments where precursors to modern cancer treatments and that some of the things he did had some scientific merit.

 

His blind quest for progress made him able to justify horrible actions. Should some human benefit alone be enough to justify the science we do?, or should we hold our scientist not just accountable for their actions but their consequences as well? Seeing as we are in the age of the atom bomb I think we need to be certain that the scientist now more than ever have a clear understanding of what is right objectively not just what they think is right. Who knows what horrors the future may entail if scientist are given the right to do as the please purely in the name of progress.

[Phi for All]

It is clear. Christianity gives us clear guidelines on how to live.

But what happens to one's morals when faith is successfully challenged and those guidelines come into question?

 

And considering how many interpretations are possible when talking about the Bible, how can you really consider the guidelines to be clear?

 

And what about the question of basing morality on a punishment/reward system? Doesn't that seem to encourage adherence to religious laws and allow that to supersede secular ones? Don't we see many examples of religious people ignoring a secular law in favor of a religious one? Is it OK to discriminate against gay people because that's the way you interpret your religious documents?

 

How do we define what right is if we don't have some transcendent law giver? That is the question. If you take a Nazi doctor like Joseph Mengele. He was a scientist just like many on this forum. He discarded ideas of Gods just like many scientist here also. He also was thinking he was doing what was right. I have even heard that some of his experiments where precursors to modern cancer treatments and that some of the things he did had some scientific merit.

 

His blind quest for progress made him able to justify horrible actions. Should some human benefit alone be enough to justify the science we do?, or should we hold our scientist not just accountable for their actions but their consequences as well? Seeing as we are in the age of the atom bomb I think we need to be certain that the scientist now more than ever have a clear understanding of what is right objectively not just what they think is right. Who knows what horrors the future may entail if scientist are given the right to do as the please purely in the name of progress.

What the Nazis did was not openly approved by their secular society. It was not part of the moral structure of Germans as a culture, but was rather a secretive justification for the actions of a few.

 

I would more easily trust a scientist who had arrived at his moral system without threat of eternal punishment, or promise of eternal reward. I would much rather trust someone who realized, as I do, that ethical behavior is what allows our species to communicate and cooperate to make life better for as many of us as possible.

[seriously disabled]

No I don't think you can mix God with science. Also science seems to contradict almost everything about God and also simple observation and common sense contradicts God.

 

With that being said, I highly doubt that there is a God and 99.999% of the evidence simply points to there being no God and no objective meaning to life.

 

I basically agree with H.P. Lovecraft that the universe is at best hostile or indifferent to human existence.

 

http://gondolin.piglets.org/serendipity/archives/114-Cthulhu-and-Cosmic-Terror.html

Edited August 21, 2012 by seriously disabled

[Phi for All]

With that being said, I highly doubt that there is a God and 99.999% of the evidence simply points to there being no God and no objective meaning to life.

And does this belief stop you from giving a ethical and beneficial meaning to your own life?

[seriously disabled]

And does this belief stop you from giving a ethical and beneficial meaning to your own life?

 

What do you mean by that? I didn't quite understand what you mean.

[swansont]

It is clear. Christianity gives us clear guidelines on how to live. How do we define what right is if we don't have some transcendent law giver? That is the question. If you take a Nazi doctor like Joseph Mengele. He was a scientist just like many on this forum. He discarded ideas of Gods just like many scientist here also. He also was thinking he was doing what was right. I have even heard that some of his experiments where precursors to modern cancer treatments and that some of the things he did had some scientific merit.

!

Moderator Note

No, no, no, no, no.

Do not go down Godwin Lane. Or any other path of logical fallacies. It's a fast track to getting shut down.

 

Besides, you breathe air. Just like Hitler.

[Phi for All]

What do you mean by that? I didn't quite understand what you mean.

It's been posited by others that only a Christian moral system gives clear guidelines on how to live ethically. You said that you, "highly doubt that there is a God and 99.999% of the evidence simply points to there being no God and no objective meaning to life". I just wondered if your belief that there is no objective meaning to life stops you from forming your own ethical foundation and meaning to life.

[doG]

I think so. I'm agnostic being open to the concept of god but skeptical of their being one.

Firstly, agnosticism IS NOT a point on the axis of theism. To be agnostic simply means that you believe man can never 'know' the truth about the existence of deities. It has nothing to do with the 'belief' in deities. Belief, or lack thereof, is what theism is. If you have an affirmative belief that there is/are one or more deities then you are theist, else you are not-theist, i.e. atheist. If you believe man can never know the truth and you are skeptical about the existence of deities then you are an agnostic atheist.

 

Secondly, define 'god'. Ignosticism can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.

2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

 

IMO, 'God' is a copout. It is a made up answer for questions man hasn't found answers for yet. It is for quitters. Scientists don't quit looking for answers or resort top making one up. They accept that we don't have answers for everything yet and they keep on looking. To that means 'god' is not compatible with science, from Latin scientia meaning "knowledge".

[seriously disabled]

I just wondered if your belief that there is no objective meaning to life stops you from forming your own ethical foundation and meaning to life.

 

Yes it does stop me for the most part. My shocking realization that I am too insignificant and unimportant in this world is what stops me from forming my own ethical foundation to life. Of course I don't want to die because no one wants to die but the lack of an universal or at least Earthly meaning to life that everyone can agree on is really what scares me from forming my own.

[Phi for All]

Yes it does stop me for the most part. My shocking realization that I am too insignificant and unimportant in this world is what stops me from forming my own ethical foundation to life.

And yet, others find you interesting and your thoughts significant and important enough to discuss science and philosophy with you when they could be doing any amount of other things.

 

Of course I don't want to die because no one wants to die but the lack of an universal or at least Earthly meaning to life that everyone can agree on is really what scares me from forming my own.

I think you'll find it impossible to get "everyone" to agree on anything.

 

Personally, when I stopped trying, it gave me enough insight to realize that my own meaning to life was the only thing I had much influence over. And that led to the idea that my ethics are stronger because I'm the only one who ultimately holds myself accountable. I can be a moral person because everyone, and me especially, needs me to be a moral person.

[too-open-minded]

Only a christian morale system gives guidlines?

Sounds like a morale viagra to me.

 

Sometimes I think i'm the only person on the planet with a conscience :/

[doG]

It is clear. Christianity gives us clear guidelines on how to live.

Please see The Affirmations of Humanism:A Statement of Principles. Guidelines to live by without the threat of eternal damnation. Do right by mankind because it's the right thing to do, not because you've been threatened with hell if you don't.

 

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."