Does science make belief in God obsolete?

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Science does not make a personal God obsolete...only atheist scientists attempt to do that.

Explaining in naturalistic terms is like explaining the mechanics of anything mechanical, but provides no explanation as to why the mechanics themselves exist, how the laws of nature that support those mechanics exist, or what their purpose those mechanics may serve from a larger perspective.

An alternate belief doesn't not make an existing belief obsolete.

Quote from smilingsynic:

Back to the original question: science makes a PERSONAL god obsolete, but not necessarily an IMPERSONAL god.

That which used to be attributed to God--meterological and astronomical phenomena, disease, and such--now can be explained in naturalistic, rather than in supernaturalistic, terms.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Turok:

Rcanfiel/TZ must state his qualifications on regular intervals. We might forget otherwise.

I just don't understand how anyone can even question someone with such a "solid background".

JB

TraderZones is Rcanfiel? Well THAT certainly explains a lot.

Thanks for the info, Turok.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from kut2k2:

TraderZones is Rcanfiel? Well THAT certainly explains a lot.

Thanks for the info, Turok.

I have Turok on ignore. Generally, he is more capable of saying things that are syrupy than he is in addressing the point.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from Thunderdog:

I don't specifically know what the moral values were in ancient times, and I am disinclined to accept the bible's account at face for obvious reasons. Whatever the case may be, we can all pick and choose our examples. Hollywood, as you describe it, certainly has its failings. However, it tends to be far more tolerant of different races and sexual orientation (which we are born into and do not choose) than the Bible Belt. Yesterday, I watched Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. They had clips of West Virginians who actually said they would not or did not vote for Obama because he's black. I can't find those videos on youtube, but I did come across this one, which is not quite as good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI

Sorry, SSB, the Bible Belt does not have a monopoly on morality. Sometimes, it doesn't even have a slice.

First comment: you're assuming that I always think the Bible Belt has the "best" moral values. That's not necessarily the case. A lot of things down south would drive me crazy.

My point was simply that religious beliefs can imo shape moral/ethical values and effect behavior.

And, again, I think it's worth noting that, as incredible as science is, it really cannot decide for us the important questions of life regarding child rearing, morals and so on.

Here's another question it really cannot answer. Let's say that you think you might have had a spiritual/supernatural encounter or experience and you want to find out if it was real or not. Science has no way to deal with that issue.

I guess I'm just commenting that that All Things Non-Falsifiable are often criticized. But that doesn't leave much when it gets right down to it...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from TraderZones:


As to the Big Bang, we never witnessed it. We have never seen another singularity like it. We only have fragmentary evidence that has been pieced together, such as the COBE mission which mapped cosmic microwave background radiation seemingly dating to about 300,000 years after the BB.

But if you look around the universe at various objects and everyone of them is expanding away from you, what other conclusion can you draw?

Furthermore, there are multiple lines of evidence that show the universe is no older than XX billion years old.

So you've got a universe with a recent birth and everywhere expanding. That's why every astronomer I know of believes that there was an explosion...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from TraderZones:


As an example: for decades, nutritional supplements like caretenoids, vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, etc. were "thought" by science to have powerful health effects on the human body. But much of the recent studies seems to indicate many or most of these in supplement form have little to no value to us, and some even shorten lifespans. The current thinking is that nutrients should be gotten from appropriate fruits, veggies, and other foods, if these is any hope for health benefits.

Very true. Almost all the supplements have a downside that you won't hear about.

However, it should be pointed out that a Meditteranean Diet and a varied diet of fruits and vegetables has done very well in the studies. The Meditteranean Diet has even done well in various mortality studies, which is the acid test imo...

 

[Turok]

The word "science" is used in far too vague of a manner much of the time.

Just because supplement makers say "scientific studies claim ... blah, blah" or "clinically proven ... " doesn't make it good science.

When commercial interests are involved, the term "good science" is probably hogwash.

JB

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from Turok:

The word "science" is used in far too vague of a manner much of the time.

Just because supplement makers say "scientific studies claim ... blah, blah" or "clinically proven ... " doesn't make it good science.

When commercial interests are involved, the term "good science" is probably hogwash.

JB

Hey Turok!

Actually, it's not quite as bad as that. For example, there are literally hundreds of studies showing positive qualities about Vitamin C in peer-reviewed journals. But what researchers recently found out was that Vit C taken in supplement form increases nitrosamines in the stomach (a potential carcinogen) when fat is in the stomach. I could go on and on about this but will spare you.

But, again, the problem is generally not that the studies are bad - it's all in peer reviewed journals and so is generally sound. The problem is simply that supplements are like mild drugs and thus (virtually) always have a down side on top of all the positives.

And the downside you'll NEVER hear about it from the supplement manufacturers of course!

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

But if you look around the universe at various objects and everyone of them is expanding away from you, what other conclusion can you draw?

That might seem true, but whether the universe was steady state, expanding, or contracting was a mystery until well into the 20th century.

And as to conclusions, it is anything but simple. There have been many arguments over the shape of the universe. Many believe different parts fold back in on itself (wormholes, etc. etc.) It cannot be assumed that the universe is like a big balloon, where everything expanded away until 13.7 billion years passed, and you just measure the size of the balloon.

The more they study, the more hypercomplex it seems to get.

One sample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Very true. Almost all the supplements have a downside that you won't hear about.

However, it should be pointed out that a Meditteranean Diet and a varied diet of fruits and vegetables has done very well in the studies. The Meditteranean Diet has even done well in various mortality studies, which is the acid test imo...

That is my leaning also. Get your nutrition from foods. The point was, that many supplements underwent extensive scientific testing. Not just the commercial interests. Many university, federal and institutional studies were performed, and science was generally convinced about the many benefits, from cancer prevention to multiple health benefits. These were touted by many, not just the pill makers. But the more we learn, the more we realize how naive nutritional science was. And still is.