Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t60MBskbNuc] No Question About It.
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CopperCicada · M
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@CopperCicada Uh?
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@CopperCicada Uh²? 🙄
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Harriet03 God doesn't need to prove Himself to you or anybody else. The evidence of His work is proof enough.
CopperCicada · M
@GodSpeed63 What I find perplexing-- is that one doesn't need to look at God's works as evidence that God exists. Many people of faith seem to have this approach these days, and it makes no damn sense to me. There is no finding of science that can impact the existence of God or a person's experience of God. That is because God transcends all conceptual categories. And there is no metaphysical belief or experience that can topple what is found by the scientific method. That is because science has a very short and strict playbook.
But people seem unable to control themselves. Asserting that God exists through some scientific argument. Sure. God can be found anywhere. Saint Julian of Norwich found God in a hazelnut. But she didn't preach through the botany and cultivation of hazelnut trees. Insisting that God be explained through science is really just a sign of materialism and a groundless faith. It's materialism. A need to ground one's faith in matter. In the material world. People are making themselves closer and closer to nihilists and materialists through this approach. I don't get it.
But people seem unable to control themselves. Asserting that God exists through some scientific argument. Sure. God can be found anywhere. Saint Julian of Norwich found God in a hazelnut. But she didn't preach through the botany and cultivation of hazelnut trees. Insisting that God be explained through science is really just a sign of materialism and a groundless faith. It's materialism. A need to ground one's faith in matter. In the material world. People are making themselves closer and closer to nihilists and materialists through this approach. I don't get it.
CopperCicada · M
@Harriet03 @GodSpeed63 Of course none of them ever proved God exists. And none of them would ever try because they realize that there is a fundamental category error in putting religion and science on the same ground. Just like it is a category error to put ethics and science, or aesthetics and science, on the same ground.
What I so don't get-- is this compulsion to put science and religion on the same ground. From the side of science, there is no point. So it has to be from the side of religion. And the only explanation I can come up with is that people feel un-grounded in their faith and thus hope to ground it with science. So they are basically materialists and not religious people at all.
The Christian tradition has been around for a long time. And science has been around for a long time-- back to Aristotle. Early Christians never justified faith on the basis of science. And it's not because of a lack of science. Eratosthenes had already measured the diameter of the earth. Aristarchus had measured the distance to the sun and relative diameters of the earth, moon and sun. All of the early Church fathers knew these things. And none of them argued the existence of God from the vantage point of science.
What I so don't get-- is this compulsion to put science and religion on the same ground. From the side of science, there is no point. So it has to be from the side of religion. And the only explanation I can come up with is that people feel un-grounded in their faith and thus hope to ground it with science. So they are basically materialists and not religious people at all.
The Christian tradition has been around for a long time. And science has been around for a long time-- back to Aristotle. Early Christians never justified faith on the basis of science. And it's not because of a lack of science. Eratosthenes had already measured the diameter of the earth. Aristarchus had measured the distance to the sun and relative diameters of the earth, moon and sun. All of the early Church fathers knew these things. And none of them argued the existence of God from the vantage point of science.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@CopperCicada Even if I agree with some of your concepts, Science is not as old as Aristóteles.
Logic haves no ontologic commitment, except for the scholastic failed rethorics.
And, thus, is not Science.
Neither is Philosophy.
Even with lot of isolated antecedents, Scientific tradition began with Francis Bacon.
Logic haves no ontologic commitment, except for the scholastic failed rethorics.
And, thus, is not Science.
Neither is Philosophy.
Even with lot of isolated antecedents, Scientific tradition began with Francis Bacon.
CopperCicada · M
@CharlieZ Sure. If you want to argue who came up with the scientific method... we can't put that on Aristotle. You are certainly correct.
But we can put the project of studying the physical world analytically on Aristotle. And such maestros as Eratosthenes and Aristarchus. We could arguably push it back to the pre-Socratics.
But we can put the project of studying the physical world analytically on Aristotle. And such maestros as Eratosthenes and Aristarchus. We could arguably push it back to the pre-Socratics.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@CopperCicada Sorry if I was not clear enough.
Scientific methods (the plural is on purpose) are, for sure, a need for Science, but not at all enough for making it scientific.
THAT was Popper´s worst mistake.
Science is defined also by it´s object.
So to say: is not only about what we say about what we think on the natural world (that would be Epistemology). It´s about things on itselves.
The Ptolemaic System was systematic, based on observations, mathematically formulated and predictive.
And, even so, not scientific.
It had a weak worldview behind,
Neither rationallity is enough.
Descartes was a bright mathematician.
But his discourse on method is just philosophy and not Science.
Thoughts, words, rationallity, knowledge do not cause the material Unverse to be. The opposite is true.
Philosophy, despite formulating deep questions and being sometimes "rational" is not Science.
It´s not even mainly knowledge, nor a strict way to know.
It´s mainly research about what we don´t know or not enough. And about what exists whith autonomy of being known.
BTW, said or not (and not invoking authority) this is the by default view of Science of the hundreds of thousands who DO Science as scientific researchers.
Scientific methods (the plural is on purpose) are, for sure, a need for Science, but not at all enough for making it scientific.
THAT was Popper´s worst mistake.
Science is defined also by it´s object.
So to say: is not only about what we say about what we think on the natural world (that would be Epistemology). It´s about things on itselves.
The Ptolemaic System was systematic, based on observations, mathematically formulated and predictive.
And, even so, not scientific.
It had a weak worldview behind,
Neither rationallity is enough.
Descartes was a bright mathematician.
But his discourse on method is just philosophy and not Science.
Thoughts, words, rationallity, knowledge do not cause the material Unverse to be. The opposite is true.
Philosophy, despite formulating deep questions and being sometimes "rational" is not Science.
It´s not even mainly knowledge, nor a strict way to know.
It´s mainly research about what we don´t know or not enough. And about what exists whith autonomy of being known.
BTW, said or not (and not invoking authority) this is the by default view of Science of the hundreds of thousands who DO Science as scientific researchers.