Has science made God obsolete?

Bess writes:

Science. Or Faith? Which do you follow? Take your pick, then stick to it. With as much fervour and passion as possible (and yes that does apply to the scientists too!). Well that's how the
increasingly polarised, at times vitriolic debates between scientists and believers often appear, at least from the outside.
So it was a bit of a relief to encounter "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" a slim
booklet of 13 essays produced by the John Templeton Foundation, as part of their "Big Questions"
series, for which they ask top uni professors, scientists, theologians etc for their take on
big issues (what is love, does the universe have a purpose? etc etc)

For this topic, the foundation asked have asked 13 assorted scientists, philosophers, university professors, a Roman Catholic Cardinal and even a journalist to explain in just over three pages apiece their take on the God v science debate.

It's a joy to read, or at least I thought so, arguments based on reason, fact, logical
argument rather than passion. And all explained in clear, layman's terms you don't have to
be an egghead to follow.

The views are, whether or not you agree with them, certainly thought provoking:
an atheist scientist who says belief contributes an experience of ecstasy which
science will never provide, the Physics Nobel Laureate who argues that science and religion are not
irreconciliable enemies " science is not the only useful way of looking at life."
Or the philosopher who says that we all live with a few unprovable assumptions eg that others are
conscious beings rather than mindless robots.
The Catholic Cardinal (Christoph Schonborn of Vienna if you're interested) points out that
while the intellectual culture of the West is dominated by a scientific mentality, most people
live a "soft" non-rational and relativistic world of feelings, opinions and values. Quiet hedonism
and mind-numbing mass entertainment that block out the small still voice of God are the true facts of our time. On the other side of the debate, Steven Pinker, a psychology professor at Harvard says that
a belief in God "was attractive" because it promised to explain "the deepest puzzles about origins
.. the deeper we probe these questions, and the more we learn about the world in which we live,
the less reason there is to believe in God."

Interestingly he argues that "people used to think that biology could not explain why we have a a
conscience. But the human moral sense can be studied like any other mental faculty, such as
thirst, color vision, or fear of heights. Evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience are showing
how our moral intuitions work."

You won't necessarily finish the Templeton essays with answers but rather with more questions:
such as what is the nature of 'reality' anyhow? Is the God problem, as one believing scientist argues
assuming that "God is natural" and therefore part of nature, rather than "the reason for nature?" And where does  morality, a sense of right and wrong come from?

One of the things that most struck me was that many of the scientists who write here did not see any contradiction between having faith and being a scientist.

The authors' answer to the question  in the booklet's title is advertised tantalisingly, and briefly
on the cover as: Yes, if by... No, and yes, Absolutely not! Of course not. No. No, but it should. No. Yes. No,not at all. it depends. Of course not.
No, but only if.

To read Tim Hames' Comment piece on the Templeton booklet please click here

Copies of the booklet can be ordered at http://www.templeton.org/belief.
And if you'd like to read two previous "conversations" on Big Questions from The Templeton Foundation,
try: Does the Universe have a Purpose
www.templeton.org/questions/purpose
Will money solve Africa's development problems?
www.templeton.org/questions/africa

Comments

[Rick Beekman]

From The Bible Where God Talks To Job;

Job 38 v 4 to 12; "Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof.
When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Or who shut up the sea with doors when it brake forth as if it had issued out of the womb?....(Also read the rest of that chapter and Job chapters 39 & 40). God tells Job it is HE that created all things and has a handle on every situation.

[alan]

I'm highly suspicious of claims by intelligent people (in this case "scientists") that they believe in the supernatural. It seems to me they are either deceiving themselves or trying to deceive others.

[Felix Turner]

Alan what kinds of supernatural do you mean? Do you mean Ghosts and UFOs or what?

[alan]

Felix - yes, ghosts, ufos, gods. But the scientists I refer to don't usually claim to believe in ghosts and ufos. Only gods.

[John Patrick Grace]

The almost infinite complexity of the world--indeed, even of a single cell--bespeaks an infinite intelligence. Color, music, design, not to mention passion, generosity, hope, and faithfulness--have to come from somewhere. From where then? An anonymous "speck" that's always been there? Well, where did that speck come from? And to contain the potential for all that we see, hear, smell and feel, for the vastness of the universe, the sun, the planets, the stars--that must have been one incredible speck. It's so very much more rational and intelligent to posit the existence of a God always has existed, will always exist, and who radiates creation from his very being. That makes good logical sense. That all that surrounds us evolved from some amorphous and senseless speck is the goofiest theory of all.

[Steve]

God is the creator of Heaven and Earth. We are His spirit children. He loves us. We have been brought to Earth to gain experience. We've been given agency to choose between good and evil. God has a plan for our happiness. It involves His Son Jesus Christ (the "Light of Christ" is given to all, it's our conscience). Christ makes it possible to be forgiven of sin (the act is called the Atonement). No unclean thing can live in God's presence. Repentance makes it possible for us to live in God's presence (this is asking God's forgiveness through prayer for errors we've committed). This life is the time for us to workout our salvation and prepare to meet God. Knowledge we gain in this life will be an advantage in the next (the next life is "Eternal"). All people will be resurrected and stand to be judged of God and have a place in accordance with the life they've lived. We must be careful of our thoughts, words, and deeds.

[Jack Goldman]

Science has nothing to do with faith or God. Science is a method of experimenting that proves experiments repeat in the same way. Science is for the world outside the eyes where it belongs.

Faith is a way of making conclusions faster, behind the eyes. Faith and opinion work behind the eyes. Science works outside the eyes.

Do you believe in God is the wrong question. Do you believe in the Universe is the right question. We are only now adding on our understanding of the Universe to add on to our sensory understanding that exists behind the eyes. We are only now understanding how big the Universe is and how it works.

Science is for the world outside the eyes. Faith is for the world behind the eyes. The two worlds energize each other as inhaling and exhaling energize each other.

You don't find a miracle, you live one. Protect yourself. No one else can or will.

[Ajaya Dutt]

God. There is only one. And that is my kind only.

What an evil concept. Born out of tribal mindset, instinctively programmed to kill other for own survival.

God, as depicted in Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith system, is a very evil concept; the root cause of evil acts on the name of openly declared or vehemently denied (but in fact true) Jihad, Crusade or just as a chain of action and reaction. Which basically means that even though it is acknowledged that acts are evil but it commited because it is only reaction to evil acts by others.

Evil, committed on the name of God, is a phenomenon independent of good deeds committed on the name of God, such as empathy and charity in Christian faith and community service in Islam.

Man created God in his own image. Good, Bad, Beautiful and/or Ugly.

I am disgusted with the prevalent concept of God.

I am also acutely aware of a sense of spirituality that transcends my engineering, logical, scientific knowledge.

I humbly acknowldge both and wish spirituality.

[alan]

Jack, quite right.
Faith is "behind the eyes", existing purely in the brain, i.e. in the imagination. When the brain dies, the imagined deity dies with it. That's why, for example, Thor is dead today.
Science is "outside the eyes", i.e. it uses the brain to see the real world and attempt to understand it. It has thus given us all the scientific achievements of the modern world, including the internet which allows the faithful to spread their weird notions.
And that's just one more instance of the way scientific achievements can be put to ill use as well as to good.

[Coel]

John Patrick Grace writes: "The almost infinite complexity of the world--indeed, even of a single cell--bespeaks an infinite intelligence."

John, there is a joke which goes "How do you make a small fortune in the movie industry?" (The industry chosen varies in different joke versions.) The answer is "start with a large one!" Boom, boom!

Your answer to "how do you explain complexity and intelligence" is "start with even more complexity and intelligence". Your reasoning is, quite literally, a joke. Your "explanation" is a complete non-starter, it doesn't even attempt to explain anything.

Fortunately, science can do far better, since we now have a good understanding of how complexity and intelligence can arise from simple and non-intelligent origins.

[Leslie Huszar, MD Neurologist]

Science cannot make GOD obsolete since science does not deal with GOD. To extrapolate from scientific experiments and try to disprove GOD one would need to design a reproducible research study and nobody came up with one yet.
In my personal opinion science should pertain to the measurable and reproducible experiments to reality.
Whether GOD exist or not is not a scientific question since it is not amenable to any known scientific method. To ask a question who and why came up with the idea of GOD that is a social question and should be addressed as such. Finally there are many human activities with not particular utilitarian return such as music, sculpting etc. One could ask the question if any one of these became obsolete because of science. No one should of course ask these questions.
The human mind can come up with many questions that should not be asked simply because they have no answer.
The question restricted the discussion to science and GOD. It did not ask about faith or religion which are even more divisive issues. One should develop a social climate where one can pursue science freely and without trying to stop or influence it by religious forces and also people should feel free to have faith if they so choose without being ridiculed by some activist scientist.
The purpose of true science is not to destroy religion or faith since these are emotions and they should be respected. However, religion should not promote and undermine scientific teaching and confuse young and vulnerable students to reject science by promoting the pseudo-scientific creationism.
A little honesty and humility from both side would be in order. Personally I would find it extremely useful if schools would teach religions but not just one of them rather require students to know in reasonable detail at least the worlds leading religions.
This would give people a better understanding of hour earth and the global village we live in.

[Felix Turner]

Alan it seems you're persecuting people because of their religious beliefs. Something you say that religious people exclusively do. The tables have turned I think.

[Coel]

Leslie Huszar writes: "Whether GOD exist or not is not a scientific question since it is not amenable to any known scientific method."

Yes it is, just as any other claim about how the universe is or operates is amenable to the scientific method.

"Finally there are many human activities with not particular utilitarian return such as music, sculpting etc. One could ask the question if any one of these became obsolete because of science. No one should of course ask these questions."

No, one SHOULD ask these questions. And the quite clear answer is that music and sculpture both exist and have value so are not made obsolete by science.

[John]

Science merely serves to underline the errors of religious dogma. Society and the moral zeitgeist have made religion obsolete, not science.

Religion was been bending over itself to comply with the enlightenment. The passing of time has eroded the histrocity of those times. Suddenly all those absolutely insane things that happened before didn't count and religion was responsible for morals!!

That's right, the inquisition having, witch-burning, supersticious miscreants from the dark ages have the gaul to ignore all of the great Greek teachings and claim the enlightentment as a self governing, Christian outpouring.

What nonsense. What kind of unalterable manual on sin-free living requires such governance?

I think it woud make an absolutely superb programme - David Starky on the Enlightenment.

[Tim Roberts]

Prof. Pinker says that evolutionary psychology is showing us how our moral intuitions work.

What it isn't showing us is why we should respect them. "Now that I know that, what do I do?", as Charlie Brown says.

[Coel]

Tim Roberts says: "Prof. Pinker says that evolutionary psychology is showing us how our moral intuitions work. What it isn't showing us is why we should respect them."

Easy, it isn't that we SHOULD respect them, it is that we WANT to respect them, because they ARE our moral intuitions.

[Leslie Huszar]

To Felix Turner

I simply stated that the purpose of science is not to prove or disprove GOD, rather it is a study of measurable reality. Whatever people use science for is their political, social, etc choice. At that point we no longer talking about science but rather it's use or misuse. One sad such example is the dispute over global warming.
Indeed, some claim that the universe was created by GOD. We can study the creation = universe but not the creator.
If you Mr. Felix Turner would come up with such a scientific method to study the creator I would like to hear about it.