Belief in God Violates the Basic Scientific Value

The most important scientific value is that
EVIDENCE is required before a hypothesis is accepted.
Verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence.

There is, of course, NO EVIDENCE of this kind for a
*Theist* God.

Hence, scientists have a significantly higher rate of Atheism
than do non-scientists.
And the most elite scientists at the American Academy
have an Atheist Rate (AR) of over 90%
(the US population has a Belief Rate of over 90%).

Perhaps the "different magisteria" demarcation is a bit more porous than Stephen Jay Gould asserted?

Both science and religion cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, and this is the way God wants it to be. Religious folks who are trying to force the existence of God on non-believers are doing God a great disservice. They don't realize or refuse to believe this.

Science agrees that there are various types of dimensions, some which are physical, and some which are non-physical. Science can currently only prove and find evidence for things which exists in a physical universe, such as ours. Scientists know this. My son is a physicist and he explains to me everything concerning physics. But, my son also believes in God, because even as a scientist, he has been able to experience God. Because of this, I have been able to also experience God, so we both have proof good enough for us of God's existence. We don't need to rely on "blind faith" nor a book to know He exists. There are also a few people scattered throughout the world who have experienced God in the same manner.

For people who have come to believe in God through "faith" (mainly blind faith), they have done so because they have believed the words written in their religious books claiming that a God exists. The great majority have not actually spoken to Him, nor have received an audible reply from Him. Most of these people have not had a personal experience with Him, and one can tell because they all have different doctrines which their religious leaders have created detailing HOW and WHAT they should believe. They are not receiving this information directly from God. They ASSUME that their laws and doctrines come from God.

There may come a day in which scientists are finally able to tap into non-physical dimensions, but that may take centuries, even millennia. Scientists at this moment are discussing what these non-physical dimensions may be like.

Science has something great going for it. It has evidence and proof of evolution. Religion does not. Yet, religion seeks to disprove this existing evidence, but they never will. Religion can't even prove the existence of God. This is because God is made of non-physical "stuff." He exists in all dimensions/universes, but He can only be proved non-physically. We still do not have the capability, like I stated before, to prove and find evidence for the non-physical.

To not acknowledge science and evolution is to not recognize nor believe in God, because God is the creator of both. So, it's truthful to say that atheists and agnostics who believe in science and evolution have a stronger belief in God, even though they do not acknowledge His existence (or are not sure of His existence), than those who claim that they do believe in God, but do not acknowledge science and evolution. Religious people don't realize that believing in these matters does not take away any of the power and glory from God. In fact, it magnifies it!

Thanks Rosita.
Is it possible for you to describe a bit more the God that you believe in?

You said "God is made of non-physical "stuff." He exists in all dimensions/universes, but He can only be proved non-physically. We still do not have the capability, like I stated before, to prove and find evidence for the non-physical."

"made of non-physical stuff," for instance.
thanks
Henry

Rosita Tanza says: "Both science and religion cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, and this is the way God wants it to be."

I'm fascinated with people who are absolutely convinced that they know what is in the mind of God, when there is no evidence to support the contention that there is an invisible, inaudible, omniscient, and omnipotent god in the first place. The term "hubris" comes to mind at times like these.

That is a fascinating insight into an unusual approach to belief in God. It starts off, though, with an assumption that God exists. Apart from that, very interesting.

Rosita, as always it's a pleasure to read your posts. Always wise and straight to the truth. Thanks.

F Cone,

I was dismayed to see your response to Rosita.
(I wanted to be the one to jump on that statement.)

Fine, let's for a moment agree that there is such a god - some being powerful enough to have designed and created the entire universe! And this particular simple little human knows what this being wants? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Henry James --Until you or any athiest on this site are willing to take my challenge you are just flapping you lips and spreading propaganda.

P.S. Which does work sadly. Machiavellian Psychology is simple if you scream the loudest, weaker minded people believe what you are saying. Reagan was good at this Hitler also. I think you know that and that why you do what you do. Unfortunately for you my mind isn't weak.

Roland,
I must've missed it, but you've piqued my curiosity. What's your challange?

as some scientific nobody once said "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"

F. Cone says: "I'm fascinated with people who are absolutely convinced that they know what is in the mind of God... The term "hubris" comes to mind at times like these."

It seems like hubris to me. But one might be able to say that 'whatever exists' is 'what god wants', without showing any hubris.

The priest said
God wants goodness
God wants light
God wants mayhem
God wants a clean fight
What God wants God gets

God wants peace
God wants war
God wants famine
God wants chain stories
What God wants God gets

God wants sedition
God wants sex
God wants freedom
God wants semtex
What God wants God gets

God wants boarders
God wants crack
God wants rainfall
God wants ......
What God wants God gets

God wants voodoo
God wants shrines
God wants law
God wants organized crime
God wants crusade
God wants jihad
God wants good
God wants bad
What God wants God gets
God help us all

- Roger Waters

Roger Waters (continued)

God wants dollars
God wants cents
God wants pounds shillings and pence
God wants guilders
God wants kroner
God wants Swiss francs
God wants French francs
Oui il veut des francs francais
God wants escudos
God wants pesetas
Don't send lira
God don't want small potatoes
God wants small towns
God wants pain
God wants clean up rock campaigns
God wants widows
God wants solutions
God wants TV
God wants contributions
What God wants God gets
God help us all
God wants silver
God wants gold
God wants his secret
Never to be told
God wants gigolos
God wants giraffes
God wants politics
God wants a good laugh
What God wants God gets
God help us all
God wants friendship
God wants fame
God wants credit
God wants blame
God wants poverty
God wants wealth
God wants insurance
God wants to cover himself
What God wants God gets
God help us all

- Roger Waters

OP: "Perhaps the "different magisteria" demarcation is a bit more porous than Stephen Jay Gould asserted? "
---------------
I would say "yes" to this. They are not entirely different magisteria.

Everytime someone prays to God, and everytime someone calls something a miracle of God, they are expressing the belief that God interferes-with or guides events within the natural world. No evidence of such a thing exists, and so a scientist is forced to believe that "that type of God" does not, in fact, exist.

This still leaves room for a belief in deism (God created things, and then does nothing). There are still open questions about the nature of "the self" which allow a degree of spiritual self-reflection.

But, for God in the traditional active Judeo-Christian sense -- a scientist is unlikely to believe in such a thing.

I concour. I am quite fond of Rosita, and she is one of the most thoughtful and reasonable theists on this forum, but it is odd to simultaneously assert that we can't prove god exists but that we can know what he's thinking.

Yes, what's your challenge?

Quantum Physicists put forward several different model theories of the universe which are all incredible and really push the bounds of the imagination. I doubt many of them are really anti-theist (or even atheist, but not to confuse the two). Spirituality and scientific inquiry are not mutually exclusive endeavors. Some theists reject and scientific evidence which seems to contradict their teachings (e.g. the universe was not actually created in exactly 518,400,000ms ... and in fact the base unit of measure itself was part of the creation per the text) and some science touting atheists (but probably not most actual active scientists) reject any theist notions outright. Science is always self-updating as more is learned, part of the problem I and many others have with many religions is they refuse to update despite the change in times and knowledge. But using science to actually refute God is using the wrong tool for the job. Likewise the opposite.

How is anything expressed on this thread propaganda?

Science and faith are mutually contradictory ways of viewing the universe. Science requires evidence, faith does not. People who prefer faith tend to eschew scientific thinking, and those who prefer scientific thinking will dissregard faith, while many others will find room for both. This is simply describing what is.

"...and some science touting atheists reject any theist notions outright."

No, not outright, but after theists fail to provide evidence for their notions time and again. Show me evidence for god, for miracles, for the holy veracity of the bible or the efficacy of prayer, and I will accept that those things exist.

Rosita: "Religion can't even prove the existence of God. This is because God is made of non-physical "stuff." He exists in all dimensions/universes, but He can only be proved non-physically. We still do not have the capability, like I stated before, to prove and find evidence for the non-physical."
-----------------------
I liked your post. Thanks. But, I think your logic is fuzzy and circular. You have found a way to use your son's physics knowledge to create this non-physical multi-dimensional hypothesis of God without any basis to test your hypothesis. Does existing in all dimensions and universes make a testable prediction? If this God only existed in our universe, how would you tell the difference? If there weren't any extra dimensions, beyond the 4 we can proved, would that have any impact on God's existence?

You have created a story for yourself that makes you feel happy, but it has no basis in science at all. When science finds out the truth about extra dimensions, I'm sure you will find some new invisible place to put this God.

What I did like about your post, is that you seem honest. You rightly point out that faith for you and your son is about personal experience. The belief that God communicates with your soul, takes away your sins, and gives you everlasting life makes you feel a certain way. It makes you feel good. That is the only "proof" you need. You must understand how to a rationalist, this is no proof at all, because the same "proof" can be used to justify belief in literally anything.

Let's subject this argument to a critical analysis. As the 'world's greatest literary critic' himself, I'm sure that dear, dead Henry could only approve...

HJ: "The most important scientific value is that
EVIDENCE is required before a hypothesis is accepted.
Verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence."

JL: Hmm..."-most important scientific value-"? I don't think so. Science, by definition, is philosophically a value-neutral explanatory methodology that seeks to explain and describe reality. As such, it neither has 'values', nor does it purport to ascribe values to the empirical observations of its practitioners. It is a descriptive utilitarian method, not a system of values.

Furthermore, scientific hypotheses are often accepted as provisionally valid by the scientific community despite the immediate absence of evidence to support the validity of those hypotheses. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is a case in point. It was widely accepted as being correct by most physicists before it was experimentally verified in 1919.

HJ: "There is, of course, NO EVIDENCE of this kind for a
*Theist* God."

JL: Another 'Fail'... Scientific inquiry is philosophically and methodologically restricted to the investigation and explanation of natural phenomena. Theists explicitly posit 'God' as being a *super*natural phenomenom. Therefore, the question of the posited 'supernatural God' lies outside the legitimate purview of scientific inquiry. Further, from a logical perspective, the absence of empirical -ie; naturalistic -evidence of a supernatural entity in no way invalidates the Argument for the Existence of God. A supernatural phenomenom is not logically required to possess naturalistic properties.

HJ: "Hence, scientists have a significantly higher rate of Atheism
than do non-scientists.
And the most elite scientists at the American Academy
have an Atheist Rate (AR) of over 90%
(the US population has a Belief Rate of over 90%)"

JL: <sigh>... A blatant example of the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority. Because the legitimate authority of scientific authorities is by definition restricted to scientific -ie: naturalistic -claims. The claim that God exists is not a naturalistic claim. Therefore scientific authorities have no more claim to special authority vis God, than anyone else.

HJ: "Perhaps the "different magisteria" demarcation is a bit more porous than Stephen Jay Gould asserted?"

JL: Maybe so. But maybe you also don't have a clear understanding of Gould's argument. Have you actually read, "Rock of Ages"? Or are you just parroting the criticisms of those who have? I ask this because if your comprehension of Gould's argument is on the same level as your demonstrated knowledge of what science is actually about, then I can only reasonably infer that you haven't. Because what Gould is saying is that questions of values (The majority of religious claims are expressly concerned with values) have no legitimate place in scientific inquiry. And he's absolutely correct. Science is about IS, not OUGHT...

BTW, I am an atheist. And always have been one ;o)

JL

Alex asks
How is anything expressed on this thread propaganda?

HJ: it clearly isn't (at least the OP and almost all of the posts)

Bravo Longmire: let's critique
You say:
Science, by definition, is philosophically a value-neutral explanatory methodology that seeks to explain and describe reality. As such, it neither has 'values', nor does it purport to ascribe values to the empirical observations of its practitioners. It is a descriptive utilitarian method, not a system of values.

Wikipedia says:
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

HJ says: Hmm. "must be based on gathering...evidence."
Longmire does not want to call that "valuing evidence."
Ok: "requires."? Like that instead.
I would say *Values*, as in "places a high value on", evidence is a perfectly accurate way to describing the method. And I am sure you understand what I mean by "values" in this context.
To expand, it does NOT value mystic speculation.
But use your own word. The rest of us can use "places a high value on evidence." Or, "values" for short.
As literary criticism, your point here is called "nit-picking."
UN-valuable. To coin a phrase.

Webster On-line: VALUE: to rate or scale in usefulness, importance, or general worth.

HJ: Science thinks evidence is highly useful and important.
It VALUES it highly.

Longmire says
JL: <sigh>... A blatant example of the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority. Because the legitimate authority of scientific authorities is by definition restricted to scientific -ie: naturalistic -claims. The claim that God exists is not a naturalistic claim. Therefore scientific authorities have no more claim to special authority vis God, than anyone else.

HJ: Sigh. Clearly you have little capacity to follow a logical argument.

Anyone with rudimentary reading comprehension ability
can clearly see that
I am NOT saying that
Because elite scientists do not believe in God
THEREFORE there is no God.
I am silent on this question.

i AM saying that those who are most skilled at using the Scientific Method,
and therefore have the most developed respect for, and ability to use, evidence,
are the LEAST likely to believe in God
(cuz dey ain't got no evidence).
SEe the difference.

So far, your first two critiques are both wrong. Just outright wrong.
1. The word "value" is perfectly appropriate in the context used.
2. Your assertion that I employed an "Argument from Authority" is simply incorrect.

you appear to have the reasoning skills of a typical arrogant teenager. The reason so many elite scientists are atheists is because their whole disipline focuses on the material world exclusively, and in the course of that narrow spectrum of thought they come to believe that the material world is all there is. Anyone who's reached their mid-twenties has already figured out this basic fact of human biases. You'll catch on in a couple of years