It’s an utterly superfluous question that science has no need to ask let alone answer. As in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Nature lacks nothing, nothing at all. Orthogonal to it is one claim worth pursuing; nature has a creator who got Himself born in to it.
Of course not. But you weren’t talking about science.
It’s all the same. Philosophy has no more need than science. [And the proposition that the human mind has a nonphysical component is not just a non-philosophical one, it is a non-scientific one.]
Philosophers may differ.
No they don’t. Breaking my rule, so that’s that.
1 Like
Your rule:
1 Like
The most common scientific answer to “why is the sea boiling hot?” would be volcanism, though the occasional asteroid can cause it as well, ignoring various human activities that can cause some local heating. One might also philosophize about exactly what is meant by boiling hot, given that the boiling temperature depends on pressure - do we consider 600K hydrothermal vents to be boiling hot with reference to boiling at 1 atm?
Unless we specifically define “mind” as only being the brain and its associated anatomical and biochemical components, it is possible to wonder if there is a non-physical aspect as well. As science can only measure the physical, that question is outside the realm of science, but is something that can be pondered by philosophy or religion. Such a non-physical aspect could be a non-supernatural emergent property, or a supernatural component - there are various possibilities that can be envisioned and pondered.
In doing science, you make many philosophical assumptions. You are assuming that there really is something out there to study, that we can meaningfully study it, that it behaves in regular ways, that honestly reporting the results is important, etc. Yes, those seem like common sense, but common sense is not always right and not always as common as one might hope.
1 Like
Nothing in philosophy beyond and as for its empirical handmaiden science considers the supernatural. Why would it? Philosophy rightly points out that rationality is a construct and there are tools for addressing that, so I’m led to believe, like Lacanian analysis, phenomenology. Not magic.
Deities are not God. Deities are only representative of some attribute of God.
We can talk about the Will of God and that there is only one God, but that doesn’t tell us anything about God. We cannot know God. My Guru used to say “to try and define God is to deny God” and she was right.
actually, you can by reading the Bible and understanding what’s it saying. And what’s it saying is that God is unique, for it’s the ONLY being that can bare fruit from his will at ALL times.
If you follow science, you would know that to control all of reality is beyond anyone’s capability, and yet this being can do that.
The only thing that you said that I disagree with is the very first thing you said “actually, you can”. Reading the Bible does not allow any one of us to know the Divine Being. In Islam we say “there is nothing like unto God”, which is what you are saying, in saying “God is unique”.
Yes we can see that God’s Will is always fruitful, but that does not give us any insight into what God is.
Science, IMO, does give evidence that this physical Universe is God’s creation, but that is not the official view of the majority of scientists. And I would also say God not only brought this reality into being, God sustains this reality. All of our life processes are sustained and guided by God. Even with all that What is God? We cannot know.
Actually, your correct and incorrect at the same time. There’s ONE BEING that knows and understands who.God is, and that’s the Spirit of God. Your correct in that by my own power, I cannot know God, but if the Spirit wills it, I can learn who Gos is through revelation. Now I can say that God has given me revelation, but that may not be true. I might say this in order to
make myself look better In your eyes, but all that would prove is that I’m lost. But I tell you the truth, I have seen who God is, through Christ Jesus.
Man has been corrupted by the serpent which he taught the woman controversy, conflict and rebellion. But Christ has no conflict in him, for he and the Father through the Spirit is ONE. I see the truth in this for the Spirit has revealed it to me. Goodness, kindness, love, truth, justice, mercy, forgiveness, faith, trust, caring, grace, mercy, compassion and others are what makes up God. He is pure order and has no disorder in him.
What you see here is NOT the church of Christ. When Christ returns, he will select those are are of his church. When he does this, I hope to be selected, but there’s no guarantee that I will.
As I have said, I have the serpents mark on me, but by the grace of God through Christ’s sacrifice and the power of the Spirit, I can be saved if it pleases God. I cannot prove to you what I say is true, just like I cannot prove the beauty of a flower to a person born blind, but believe what I say is true.
We have different views so it is hard to discuss this further. I believe that God is One. There is no other god but God.
You believe in a Trinity. I have debated with Christians before and the same views come through. They talk about God is One but then there are three Persons. When one can know the other, I find it had to accept that this is One God.
Anyway that aside, this to me is still not enough.
No matter how many attributes we can cite, in Islam we have the 99 Names of God, in Hinduism there are 33million deities, which are all attributes of God, we still can’t know God. We are elements within the system. An element within a system can’t know the system and its creator.
Maybe you have been given such revelation. I can’t dispute that. IDK. But for me, God is always going to be a mystery, even after an enlightenment experience (1994) with the experience of union with the Divine, God is still beyond my understanding and always will be.
No. Perhaps it is an example of where God chose the foolish things to shame the wise. And perhaps in part is is because scientists (with larger egos) are more immune to familial and cultural pressures and are therefore simply more honest and comfortable in declaring their unbelief. Maybe their numbers, less impacted by these pressures, are representative of the whole population.
EDIT: typo
3 Likes
Speaking as an atheist scientist . . .
I would be deeply disappointed if someone gave up their faith because scientists tend to be less religious. I see absolutely no reason why the percentage of believing scientists should make you question anything about your religious beliefs (unless they directly contradict well established science, which is a different topic altogether).
Scientists do tend to be pretty sharp being that the profession requires a good education, life-long learning, and a propensity for analytical thinking. However, intelligence isn’t the same as wisdom. Scientists are really good at doing science, but they are as fallible as anyone else when it comes to the human experience. Scientists are really good at doing science, but not always that great at the human being thing.
However, the numbers you refer to do needs some sort of explanation. Science is applied skepticism, so it is a natural draw for skeptics which are made up of a disproportionate number of atheists. There has long been a tension between science and some theological outlooks, so it isn’t surprising if some potential scientists are pushed away from the sciences because of those beliefs. How many good and important scientists are we missing today because they happened to be raised in a church that strongly pushed YEC? For this reason, BioLogos is not only an asset for the Christian community but our community as a whole.
I would also suggest reading an essay by Dr. Francis Collins entitled “Faiith and the Human Genome”. Dr. Collins converted to Christianity when he was in college training to be a scientist, and he discusses how he is able to join his beliefs and science. I think it is right up your alley, and Dr. Collins also happens to be one of the founders of BioLogos.
9 Likes
How does one measure ego size? How does studying science enlarge ego? What foolish things shame which wise?
But what if it’s the other way round? By that I mean, what if the scientific environment is hostile to religious beliefs, what if young scientists who are only just joining the profession are worried that being a theist may hold back their career? What if they keep hearing their peers sneering at Christians and putting them down? Experience tells me that people really want to fit in, and it takes minimal pressure.
Also @NickolaosPappas you are concerned that a lot of scientists aren’t religious. But every time someone mentions Dr Collins, or another brilliant scientist who is a Christian, do you know happens? Immediately an atheist(and sometimes even a fellow Christian) points out this is not a proof whatsoever. So if they are Christian, that means nothing, if they’re not, then we should be worried why they aren’t religious…
I never say this.I am aware there are christian scientists and im glad they do.And it counts as proof
If it is a proof to you, then I won’t argue.
To me it isn’t a proof of God’s existence*, but I’m still very glad there are at least some top scientists, some are even very devout. It is good to see representation of your own kind, in similar way ethnic minorities wants to be represented in media, for example.
*I think it is valid however, to argue that if very clever and educated people can be theists(even if they are in minority) then it shows that it’s not completely unreasonable to believe. Some of course would disagree.
1 Like
Ohh i wasnt refering to that proof but
This.That is the proof .That it is not unreasonable to believe in God
1 Like