Out of Curiosity, Why Does Science Need to Prove or Disprove The Existence of God?

[BAYLOR]

Or an afterlife for that matter ?

It seems to me that it's nothing more then an exercise in futility.

 

[HareBrain]

I think the question contains a fallacy. Science doesn't "need" to do any such thing.

Nor does Science (as though that were one thing) seek to disprove the existence of God. That would be impossible. It seeks, broadly, to demonstrate explanations for things in terms of physical laws. This might of course prove that there are other explanations than God for those particular things.

Scientists who do seek to "prove" the existence of God tend to be religious, and the explanation is then obvious.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Does it?

Some atheists would like to disprove the existence of god, I suppose. And some of these might use scientific rationalism as a tool for there arguments.

But the fact is that, deep down, science says nothing at all about the issue really. As HB says.

 

[BAYLOR]

Ever read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins ?

 

[Ursa major]

I'm not sure "science" wants, or has, to do either. At its simplest, science is a process, not a philosophy.

And how would you disprove the existence of anything? Proving negatives is quite difficult, unless there's a situation with a finite number of possibilities, all of whose existences are provable: prove one of them is true and you've disproved the others (in that situation).


Some people who happen to be scientists may wish to do so, but that may or may not have anything to do with their scientific enquiries.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Ever read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins ?

I haven't so I'm afraid you will have to expand your thinking regarding how this relates to your original question, please!

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Ever read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins ?

But that is nothing to do with science. It's a philosophy of Atheism as a religion, no matter how he may claim to be applying science. Real science has nothing to say about the subject. Philosophy is important, but it's not science.

Even if Dawkins is correct in his belief, how can it be Science?

 

[BAYLOR]

But that is nothing to do with science. It's a philosophy of Atheism as a religion, no matter how he may claim to be applying science. Real science has nothing to say about the subject. Philosophy is important, but it's not science.

Even if Dawkins is correct in his belief, how can it be Science?

The book argues that based on what we currently know, evolution is the likely mechanism for how life arose, so in that regard it's bringing science into the discussion.

The book is definitely worth reading.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Evolution or Creation is actually irrelevant to the Question: "Why Does Science Need to Prove or Disprove The Existence of God".
Especially arguing against particular US viewpoints on "creation".
Anyone that regards The Book of Genesis or the Creation theology or writings of any religion as literally historical scientific claims is making the same mistake from a different starting point.
"Creation vs Evolution" is totally pointless debate:
1) "Creation" can mean nothing to Science and you can move the goal posts to suit all known facts ("God as Watchmaker")
2) "Evolution" is a scientific attempt to explain development of species etc from Single cell thingys to stuff today. It says nothing about God. Nor does science answer questions like "what is the point of it all?" It's like trying to decide if the Mona Lisa is a good painting by analysis paint, or advocating taking care of the poor by explaining how babies are produced.

Religion, Torah, Old Testament, Koran, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jain, Theology are not God. They are Man's record of trying to understand God, no matter if you are believer and think the writing is inspired by God OR are an Atheist convinced God is delusion not fit for "Rational" beings. Evolution has no knowledge of Rational. It's just a description of what has happened and an explanation of why that happens without having to invoke a "god" directing it. If there is no God, then Gaia too is a myth and evolution is no more philosophically important than how a Sun 'burns' hydrogen to helium, we are no more of significance than a bacteria, just complicated enough to realise we aren't the same and ask why?

By definition you can't "prove" God exists or is imaginary. Poking fun at primitive theology says nothing about God and only proves that some people that believe in God are not very logical, or well educated.

Dawkin's "evangelical" Atheism is his starting point in interpreting Science and some of it embarrasses Atheists.

 

[Mirannan]

Ray - Yup. Asserting that there is a supernatural entity who created the universe and everything in it doesn't cause any problems. Asserting that a particular book has the true and unimpeachable explanation of precisely how the entity did it might. As might asserting that that entity has talked to you personally and given you a set of rules for everyone to follow.

Speaking entirely personally, I think that of two ideas - the first that God created the seed of the Universe and all its laws, knowing that in the fullness of time it would develop life and sapience, the second that everything was put together "by hand" and needs continual maintenance and interference for it to work properly - the first is far more impressive.

I rather like the idea that God can break the rules any time She wants, but doesn't need to because She built the universe properly in the first place.

 

[Boneman]

Because God likes us folk to puzzle over something? I can prove there is/isn't an afterlife, but I'd have to kill you to do it.... Being somewhat healthily cynical, I'd say it's so scientists can be gainfully employed, with research grants from people/organisations who should know better. Until the second coming (which IIRC is due in the next 20 years) there can only be endless speculation...

 

[Nick B]

Science doesn't need or want to do anything of the sort. Some scientists may want to, just as some footballers, or possibly some accountants may want to. Science however is just science.

 

[Rafellin]

There is an argument that when science can, we will have become gods.

As for Dawkins, don't get me started. I have never encountered a man who is so religious in his insistence of having no religion, and so fanatical in attacking those who disagreed with his view. Atheists, like any religious sect (and I include sports fans in that) are fine providing they don't start ramming their views down everybody else's throats.

A scientist - for personal reason or reasons - may be determined to prove or disprove the existence of gods. Outside of that, the disciplines that are clustered under the term 'science' are indifferent to the concepts of divinity.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I prefer Terry Prachett as an Author to Dawkins.

T.P. claims to be an Atheist too.

 

[farntfar]

I agree that the reality of evolution or creation in no way proves or disproves the existence of God, but as has been said, it's largely irrelevant.

Zap: the earth, but without form and void.
Zap: the heavens
Zap: the seas and the land.
Zap: the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.
Zap: Adam
Hold on Adam old bean. Give me one of your ribs.
Zap: Eve.

I expect Dumbledore could do as nearly as well.

But:
I’ve designed a system of physical and chemical laws that will do it all for me over billions of years starting from a big bang.

Now that I find impressive. That takes some really intelligent design.

Having said that, I don’t believe that someone who could do either of those would part seas or get cross with David for sleeping around, or send people to heaven or hell, or be interested whether I go to church or not.

So if you exist, God old son, I say,” You did a good job, one way or the other. If you’re still watching, I hope you enjoy it.
For my part I’ll be good or bad, moral or amoral by my own judgement and I'll take full responsibility for my own actions. I won’t ask any special favours or expect any special punishments.

But if you don’t exist, I won’t be surprised either.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Is there a philosophy section? Discussing the 'nature' of God isn't appropriate for a Science/Nature section.

 

[HareBrain]

I think the original question -- concerning the extent to which science can and does (or doesn't) set out to prove the existence of God -- is fine in the Science and Nature forum. But yes, posters would do well to limit themselves to that. Other speculation or assertion about the existence or nature of God isn't appropriate here.

 

[farntfar]

I apologise.

 

[HareBrain]

No worries -- and I was mainly wanting to prevent future thread-creep rather than tackle any previous post.

There is (I believe) a sister-site for people interested in discussing religion and philosophy. Perhaps @Brian Turner can remind us what it is?

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Yes there is.

Brian must be asleep because in the old days (Ah I Remember the old Ones) he'd have shut this thread down for being more suitable on that site

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/search.php?searchid=574849

Is the basic link. Used to be a Brian sister site - not sure if that's still the case.

Don't be put of - The discussions are lively cross faith and none abusive (or were).

When I used to visit there was less moderation than this site, but in general it seemed to work.

However, the posts were lengthy sometimes.

They did have prettier Avatars though.