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

[farntfar]

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.

Ah that's a shame. I had hoped it would be the other way round. (But I try to be an unreasonable optimist.)

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

We could fry and eat all the chickens and kill the joke but not ourselves.

 

[Parson]

We could fry and eat all the chickens and kill the joke but not ourselves.

I'm not at all sure. Fried chicken has led to more than one stroke and heart attack.

 

[farntfar]

Don't be so negative, Parson. Have faith. :

 

[Parson]

Good advice!

Hm, science vs. faith, that sounds like something to talk about.

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Actually, I've been thinking more on this recently and it occurs to me that the question/premise is the wrong way round.

Scientists don't need to prove or disprove the existence or none existence of a quasi-supernatural-mythical being.

They are not the ones proposing the theory.

It seems to me that it's the job of those that want to use their beliefs to impose limits and morals on others to come up with a proof that they have the backing of said entity. (That's two proofs - Existence and authority to act)

Faith is not enough. I can have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, barring exceptional circumstances (although I am aware those circumstances could occur). However, I am under no requirement to have faith in someone else's faith. I need actual proof of the existence of a 'rule maker' before I follow any rules that may be laid down by others in it's name. (However, I'm not implying those rules are bad. I actually think they form the basis of a reasonable way of living)

I've often used the argument that the only reason people believe in a god of some kind is because someone indoctrinated them. Had they been left alone in their formative years it's probable they would never have considered the possibility of a super being. Oh they might have wondered what it's all about and questioned how it all fits together, but it's most unlikely they would have come up a theory involving an all powerful, all seeing etc. entity.

This is easily demonstrated in the west by a child's belief in Father Christmas. A being that only exists in the imagination of the parents who indoctrinate children in his existence. Why do they do this? It's a control mechanism. Behave or else.... Be good and nice things will happen in the future. (sound familiar?).

What amazes me is why, when the child learns the truth, it doesn't think - What else have they lied about?

IMHO no one should be taught anything about any religion until they are old enough to vote.

 

[Parson]

I respectfully disagree. I shudder to think what our world would become if everyone were completely convinced that s/he were the repository of truth and lived only to please one's self.

 

[mosaix]

I respectfully disagree. I shudder to think what our world would become if everyone were completely convinced that s/he were the repository of truth and lived only to please one's self.

That doesn't necessarily follow from not believing in God, Parson. It didn't for me, nor for my children. Who, in my opinion, have a better moral compass than many of my / their church going friends.

 

[Brian G Turner]

And in that regard, as we're getting into discussions more specific to religion, rather than more general metaphysics, it's time to close this thread, and recommend that anyone who wishes to discuss it further do so at interfaith.org.