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

[The Ace]

I never thought it did.

The Biblical creation account is little different from other creation myths, the result of a people attempting to explain the Great Questions - it takes a special type of mind to take the whole thing literally.

Sometimes even scientists have to take a leap into the dark, simply believing there's somebody out there big enough to catch them. I believe that God gave us capable brains and curiosity for a reason, but I've never doubted his existence.

 

[farntfar]

Strangely though, I could argue that the belief in the existence (even the belief of others in proximity to none believers) is the thin veneer that holds society together. Without that large percentage of people that believe in something 'else', I fancy we wouldn't have to wait long for an end.

If I have understood you correctly, TEIN, you're saying that the threat of the ultimate big stick or carrot is what keeps us in line.
Either a threat to our afterlife (whether we end up in heaven or hell) or a more immediate threat of plagues of boils etc*.
That as a race, we're not capable of "being good" without it.

It's a terrible thing to admit, but you may well be right.
And furthermore, that even if you're a non-believer, you have nevertheless learnt the ideas at school or wherever, and are conditioned by them.

Trying to come back to science part of the question (and stay in the box), as we progress to the point where we are perfectly capable of wielding the ultimate big stick ourselves, does God become less required.
I suppose, that until we can supply the ultimate carrot as well, we still need him.
If he/she exists, of course, which I don't rule out, we need him even more precisely because we can wield it.

(* These example are necessarily Judeo/Christian/Muslim, because it's what I know. A better/worse reincarnation or Nirvana, I suppose for Buddism. Better treatment in Hades, Happy hunting grounds, Asgard, etc. also apply. I don't know the sanctions of other religions)

 

[Brian G Turner]

I had the same physics teacher all through secondary school and up - from age 11 to 18. And one of the wonderful things about him was that he allowed us to see the mysteries of science.

This thread is about whether science could answer fundamental questions of spiritual belief. And yet there are so many more mundane issues that science has struggled with.

For example, before the turn of the century, if you saw a bumblebee in flight, you were watching the rules of physics being broken before your eyes - because they are too heavy to fly. Same if you ever saw a dolphin swim - physics said they should not be able to swim so fast. Since then, advances in fluid mechanics have provided explanations, but I'm sure there are going to be many more small mysteries. Additionally, astrophysics was always marked by its intense sense of mystery - many theories are interpretations of data, but those interpretations are not necessarily correct.

In fact, before anyone even suggests we examine if science can ever describe God, I would like to see a viable explanation of consciousness. After all, belief in God depends upon perception of God, which in turn depends upon the fundamentals of consciousness. And so far, I have not seem any sound explanation of consciousness - theories, interpretations - but no proofs.

We are all, therefore, walking examples of scientific mysteries in ourselves.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

If we even knew what conciousness is!
We are a walking bag of mysteries!

 

[HareBrain]

In fact, before anyone even suggests we examine if science can ever describe God, I would like to see a viable explanation of consciousness.

A shame SFF doesn't seem more interested in exploring this kind of question.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It's very difficult!

 

[Brian G Turner]

It's very difficult!

Pfft! Easy compared to the fundamental question of: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Let SFF answer that!

 

[Ursa major]

Pfft! Easy compared to the fundamental question of: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Let SFF answer that!

In a foot race, the chicken.

In terms of genes, it must be the egg, as the two parents weren't (quite) chickens (and if they were -- or one of them was -- they/it started as an egg).


(And I've thought better of reproducing the dubious joke....)

 

[Parson]

In a foot race, the chicken.

In terms of genes, it must be the egg, as the two parents weren't (quite) chickens (and if they were -- or one of them was -- they/it started as an egg).


(And I've thought better of reproducing the dubious joke....)

Ursa, you've obviously grown soft boiled.

 

[paranoid marvin]

He's gone into his shell.

 

[Gramm838]

The fact that life exists and we exist, there has to be more to it then mere chance and coincidence.

I'm afraid that until we realise that its exactly chance and coincidence that brought us into being, we have no chance...

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Probably the grandparents of egg was a dinosaur?
http://xkcd.com/1211/

See also
http://xkcd.com/1104/

http://xkcd.com/867/

Hover mouse on images on XKCD site for an extra punch line.

 

[Mouse]

They had the chicken or egg question on QI and the answer was egg. Stephen Fry said it so it must be true.

 

[Ursa major]

Stephen Fry said it so it must be true.

"Stephen Fry agrees with Ursa, so it must be true!" is what you meant to say.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Only because someone gave Fry a script.

 

[Ursa major]

Well, a fried egg doesn't come before a chicken, does it? (Not counting culinary abominations....)

 

[Ray McCarthy]

If we fry all the eggs there will be no more chickens.

 

[Parson]

But if we fry and eat all the eggs we will go extinct because of all the cholesterol in our veins.

 

[BAYLOR]

Zeitoun Egypt 1968. You might find that date and place to be of interest.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

If I have understood you correctly, TEIN, you're saying that the threat of the ultimate big stick or carrot is what keeps us in line.
Either a threat to our afterlife (whether we end up in heaven or hell) or a more immediate threat of plagues of boils etc*.
That as a race, we're not capable of "being good" without it.

It's a terrible thing to admit, but you may well be right.
And furthermore, that even if you're a non-believer, you have nevertheless learnt the ideas at school or wherever, and are conditioned by them.

Trying to come back to science part of the question (and stay in the box), as we progress to the point where we are perfectly capable of wielding the ultimate big stick ourselves, does God become less required.
I suppose, that until we can supply the ultimate carrot as well, we still need him.
If he/she exists, of course, which I don't rule out, we need him even more precisely because we can wield it.

(* These example are necessarily Judeo/Christian/Muslim, because it's what I know. A better/worse reincarnation or Nirvana, I suppose for Buddism. Better treatment in Hades, Happy hunting grounds, Asgard, etc. also apply. I don't know the sanctions of other religions)

Basically yes. But it's not so much the threat of the ultimate big stick that keeps none believers in line, so much as the "believing majority's" willingness to usurp the role of punishing miscreants on their god's behalf. While they are the majority they pass and enforce the laws in line with those beliefs and the system works (provided they don't overstep the mark). So we get the inquisition, the burning at the stake and the witch hunts. Yet even these were done with the willingness of the majority at the time - happy days.

When 'lets call it society' breaks down we just get a free for all. I suspect if everyone realised (and believed) that this life is all you get, the restraints would come off and it will be every man for himself. (I have a very low opinion of the human psyche)

They had the chicken or egg question on QI and the answer was egg. Stephen Fry said it so it must be true.

An egg is of little use without the DNA within. An unfertilised egg is just that - a complex paperweight at best.

Now there are those that say life begins at the point of fertilisation.

For them the egg is already a chicken.

In which case the question reverts to: which came first the chicken or the chicken.

Answer - Chicken.