Religion and Science: A Useless Argument

[drbob]

   This morning (May 12th) the P-I ran an editorial from Kathleen Parker, discussing the argument between science and religious faith.  Parker examined the views of a Christian scientist, Francis Collins, who claims that the acceptance of science does not disprove the existence of a creator.  Indeed, Collins argues that science does more to prove the existence of a creator than not.  I will write a few words about Collins' point of view.
   The first thing to say is that theists and atheists ought to drop the argument.  It is useless.   Each using the standard of their own beliefs, theists and scientists cannot logically make an argument that can be accepted by the other.  They cannot talk to one another because they are talking about different things. 
   A scientist once said, "I know god does not exist because I cannot find him in my test tube."   If this scientist found something that claimed to be god in a test tube it would not, could  not, be god.  God is, by definition, not a substance.  The scientist would be confusing god with a chemical.  Theists describe god extra-cosmic outside the laws of the universe.  As such, god cannot be detected by scientific means.  There is no survey, data search, nor experiment, that can prove the existence of god, and there can never be one.   
Scientists believe that everything has a cause.  And with the exception a few scientific gaps, they can trace everything cause and effect back to a big bang, the moment of the start of time.  Theists, however, believe that god existed before time and science has no scientific way to contradict that claim.  It is a non-scientific claim.  It cannot be proven or disproven and science insists that any claim (or theory) must have some means by which it might be disproven.
A basic scientific principal is that if there are two competing theories that explain the observed data, the simplest theory is the one that should be accepted (Ockham's razor).  Scientists claim that everything we observe today can be explained, without god, so god should be left out of the theory that explains what we see in the universe today.  Theists, however, see god as extra scientific, therefore cannot be explained by scientific principles.  For theists, Ockham's razor does not apply.   
   On the other hand, there is nothing in the nature of god that argues that the universe did not evolve over billions of years into the cosmos that we observe today.  Theists sometimes claim that the universe is not billions of years old but only a few thousand years old.  Well, it is logically possible that god created everything in the universe individually.  God might have created fossils of dinosaurs that appear to be tens of thousands of years old, without there ever having been dinosaurs.  God might have created humans, with their memories of yesterday, without there ever having been a yesterday.  But such a conclusion makes no sense at all.  If god did this god is a deceiver.  If god created fossils and artifacts that appear to be many thousands of years old, but are not that old, god is deceiving the beings he created.  I do not think theists wish to define god in those terms.   Theist define god as a perfect, all-good being.  God cannot be perfect, all-good and at the same time be a deceiver.  It seems to be more logically consistent, if you believe in a creator, that god created the universe billions of years ago and allowed (or caused) it to evolve as we observe it today. 
   The point of all this is that the argument between religion and science is a silly one.  The back and forth between atheists and theists is two ships passing in the night.  They are making two different arguments starting from two different points of reference.  Either one or the other could be true.  Both could be true.  Neither could be true.  The argument does nothing but generate bad feeling.  It cannot be resolved.           

[Bo D]

I wholeheartedly concur, with one minor exception.

"they can trace everything cause and effect back to a big bang, the moment of the start of time."

Many scientists now believe that the big bang was not actually the "start of time."

[drbob]

Hi Bo. D.  Thanks for the comment.  Yes I'm aware of Hawking theory.  I don't understand it, Steven Hawking does understand it, but he's a bit beyond my level.  :}

[Bo D]

Hi Bo. D.  Thanks for the comment.  Yes I'm aware of Hawking theory.  I don't understand it, Steven Hawking does understand it, but he's a bit beyond my level.  :}

I'm not quite up to speed on String Theory yet myself. But if I remember correctly, it has something with 26 or 27 different dimensions, each on its own plane. The big bang was caused by a collision of planes. And since the planes existed before the big bang, time was a pre-existing condition.

I think .... 

[Henry Hawk]

The argument does nothing but generate bad feeling.  It cannot be resolved....this is the one part that I am certain to agree with....and I'm okay with that.  Although I do find discussing this issue to be interesting, and sometimes fascinating....it doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things as far as I am concerned....and besides, it makes my head hurt when I even TRY to understand some of the concepts, i.e. ...hawking...

[Bo D]

Fascinating!

\:-|

[followsthewolf]

A Hawk that does not understand Hawking..................

LUCY!!!!!

You got some 'splainin' to do!!!!!!

[Henry Hawk]

A Hawk that does not understand Hawking..................

LUCY!!!!!

You got some 'splainin' to do!!!!!!

are you up to date on .... wolving?   

[Locutus]

Might I suggest "A Brief History of Time?"  That book brings many of Hawking's theories and the like down to the layman level.  Quite an interesting read, and I would recommend it to everyone.

[Bo D]

Might I suggest "A Brief History of Time?"  That book brings many of Hawking's theories and the like down to the layman level.  Quite an interesting read, and I would recommend it to everyone.

GREAT BOOK!!!!!!!!

And for the really lay laymen - lots of pictures! 

May I also suggest the sequel (since the original is a bit dated now) - "A Briefer History of Time."

[drbob]

hello all... thanks for your comments. 

I did read A Brief History of Time, quite a while ago.  I thought I understood about 75 percent of it.   My son step son, who was in high school at the time, read it along with me.  We had fun discussing it. 

I too sometimes think the argument is interesting, but as an agnostic who believes mostly in science, it is difficult to engage in an a discussion with someone who put most of their faith in intuition.  You may think you are talking the same language, but you really are not.   

[Locutus]

GREAT BOOK!!!!!!!!

And for the really lay laymen - lots of pictures! 

May I also suggest the sequel (since the original is a bit dated now) - "A Briefer History of Time."

I wasn't aware that he had a book by that title. I'll have to pick it up.