Looking for God in creation

(Phil) #1

I just read a blog by theologian Roger Olson, who asks why science does not look for God in creation. While we have discussed the problems of “God of the gaps” arguments and the problems in looking scientifically at non-reproducible events we call miracles, I thought it would be interesting to revisit it. In Olsen’s words,“One question that continues to baffle me is why science itself cannot consider the possibility of God (however understood) as an item of scientific investigation and causal explanation (of the universe as a whole).”
Link to full article:https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2019/04/is-absolute-refusal-to-contemplate-the-possible-existence-of-god-scientific/

(GJDS) #2

While I do not think that science can examine god and from such examination provide a theory of god, I am surprised that more scientists do not consider the intelligibility of the world of objects, coupled with the constants of science, as a basis for discussions on God. If we as scientists reflect on these, I feel we are bound to conclude there is a God.

One reason that few scientists get into such discussions is because of the accepted view of fields of study - science studies the material, theology discusses God and the spiritual.

(Laura) #3

Interesting viewpoint… in some ways I agree with him, but I also wonder what he means by “contemplate.” I’ve come to appreciate the divide between “natural” and “supernatural” because if the existence of God can be supported by science then it can also be disputed by science. If there’s room for God in the overlap between science and philosophy, that is one thing, and I guess that is part of his point that science involved philosophy.

(Shawn T Murphy) #4

Dear Phil,
Thanks for the post. In writing my three books entitled Torn Between Two Worlds, I address this topic straight on. The problem is multifaceted with issues on both side: science and Christianity. The scientists that are performing scientific research on spiritual phenomena seem to be attacked by both sides.

Bernd Kroeplin has documented his research on the human impact on water, specifically on the impact of thoughts on the structure of water droplets. Independently in Japan, Dr. Emoto, demonstrated the same effect in water crystals. Together, both researchers have revealed a source of energy that is not currently recognized by science. This is the basic essence of the spiritual world and these two independent researchers have demonstrated how prayer, intension and thought affects the physical world. Why hasn’t Christianity embraced these researchers?

I will mention, yet again, the scientific research done at the University of Virginia by Ian Stevenson and now by Jim Tucker on the reincarnation of the soul. They have thousands of forensically documented cases of reincarnation - evidence that soul lives on, yet no Christin organization has touched this. The scientific community has “debunked” 45 years of research without attempting to prove them wrong.

These two fields of study have the most scientific data, yet all we hear about is NDE which cannot be proven and is not repeatable. If Christians really want scientists to study God, they have to let go of the outcome!

(Tim) #5

The philosopher Aristotle already brought the case of God, and it was, if not outright rejected, set aside. I think atheism is a rebellion somewhat of the religious grip on science of the 18th century. An unfortunate side affect is those with the loudest voices, get the most attention. Scientists are not usually looking for attention and controversy. Peer review is probably enough stress on that front.

I am not faulting the point that God can be divorced from both science and religion. I realize the point that no human wants to state much less vote on which ancient text best describes God, but how do we even get a grasp on God without a single revelation of God period? It cannot be everyone’s collated opinion, and the most reasonable result becomes the default.

I do not see the point of God being part of the practice and method of science with just a symbol. That may be a start, but Aristotle did that, and most in the field have that fact sitting somewhere in their minds. I still think, we would also have to come to some agreement on the extent of God’s involvement and how that involvement is revealed.

(Mark D.) #6

To the question posed in the title of the piece “Is Absolute Refusal to Contemplate the Possible Existence of God Scientific?” I’d answer, no. When you look at how widespread God belief in some form is and how far back it goes, it seems close minded not to at least wonder why that is and to wonder what role it may have played in our gaining the unusual form of consciousness we experience which seemingly sets us apart from other creatures on the earth. Whether or not there is a separate entity responsible for the widespread apprehensions of a God or gods, it might nonetheless be true that this belief was transformational for our species. I don’t understand why so many of my fellow atheists can dismiss the significance out of hand. However to look for God in creation only along the lines of the biblical God would also be narrow as well as poor science. To really take the question seriously one would have to ask questions capable of confirming other versions of God as well. Otherwise we would be guilty of crafting hypotheses to deliberately yield a fore settled conclusion.

(Phil) closed #7

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.