Would be science denialism in itself be going again God (quote, faith)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I don't think one can truly deny science, but for those who do. Science in it's most basic form is the study of the physical world through our senses. Seeing that God created us in his own image to rule over the other creatures of the Earth. Wouldn't denying the reality that God created for us, meaning to deny what can be clearly observed, and distinguished be going against god?
I dislike that science has been the victim of unnecessary hate, and mis guided hate. Science is the way we humans have lived for years, and is readily embraced when it directly enhances ones life. Science is not the enemy of the people if anything it's what has aided us the most in our history. Just wondering what others think.
God created an orderly universe that is capable of being investigated and to a large degree understood. God blessed humans with investigative and analytical abilities that make them able to undertake this task. This "coincidence" is in itself a rather large clue for those with eyes to see and ears to here.
Until comparatively recent times, there was no disconnect between science and religion. Virtually all of the great scientists, including giants like Newton, were believers. They took for granted that the "coincidence" I describe in the above paragraph was simply God's plan.
The problem today is that science is essentially a religion with its own creed. One axiom is that we live in a naturalistic, materialistic universe in which there is no room for God or any supernatural forces. This is as much an "article of faith" as any religious claim.
The role of science is to investigate and attempt to explain that which can be investigated and explained through scientific methodology. When science remains within its proper sphere, there is no disconnect between science and religion. When science claims to have answered the ultimate metaphysical questions, then it simply makes itself look ridiculous.
All of this is brilliantly explained in Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga.
God created an orderly universe that is capable of being investigated and to a large degree understood. God blessed humans with investigative and analytical abilities that make them able to undertake this task. This "coincidence" is in itself a rather large clue for those with eyes to see and ears to here.
Until comparatively recent times, there was no disconnect between science and religion. Virtually all of the great scientists, including giants like Newton, were believers. They took for granted that the "coincidence" I describe in the above paragraph was simply God's plan.
The problem today is that science is essentially a religion with its own creed. One axiom is that we live in a naturalistic, materialistic universe in which there is no room for God or any supernatural forces. This is as much an "article of faith" as any religious claim.
The role of science is to investigate and attempt to explain that which can be investigated and explained through scientific methodology. When science remains within its proper sphere, there is no disconnect between science and religion. When science claims to have answered the ultimate metaphysical questions, then it simply makes itself look ridiculous.
All of this is brilliantly explained in Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga.
You're trying to make it complicated where it's not.
Science is about verifiable evidence.
And in terms of god, there is none.
Period.
That doesn't mean that people shouldn't have faith in god. It just means there's no verifiable evidence for faith in god.
You're trying to make it complicated where it's not.
Science is about verifiable evidence.
And in terms of god, there is none.
Period.
That doesn't mean that people shouldn't have faith in god. It just means there's no verifiable evidence for faith in god.
Scientism - in contrast to honest science - is predicated on an unassailable axiom that reality can be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Scientism hasn't proved God doesn't exist. Scientism isn't even predicated on a scientific conclusion that God doesn't exist. Scientism rules out the existence of God from the get-go.
An axiom that reality can be explained in purely naturalistic terms is not predicated on verifiable evidence. Indeed, it's flatly contradicted by quantum physics. See Bernardo Kastrup's The Idea of the World for an excellent, peer-reviewed discussion from many perspectives.
This is why scientism is dishonest. It presents this axiom, which is in fact an article of faith, as though it were a settled conclusion based on verifiable evidence. This is why scientism goes to absurd lengths to resist the findings of quantum physics and why it seeks to shout down the Intelligent Design movement. The findings of quantum physics expose naturalism as simply false. The ID movement confronts scientism on its own turf and its own terms, and scientism can't handle it. Like any fundamentalist religion, scientism does not want to debate its axioms.
There are sound - indeed, logically irrefutable - "proofs" for the existence of God. There is abundant evidence, including verifiable laboratory evidence, for the existence of phenomena that cannot be accommodated by naturalism. There are scientists and scientific papers of the highest caliber that point toward a designed reality. There are mountains of anecdotal and to some extent scientific evidence for the continuation of consciousness after bodily death. For many people, there are personal experiences that they believe can best be explained as the workings of a providential God. A belief in God can be entirely rational, as legions of scientists, philosophers and other scholars will attest.
A belief in naturalism likewise can be entirely rational. In either case, it is simply a matter of how informed the believer is and how he or she assesses the best evidence from all available subject areas.
The dishonesty of scientism is in pretending that its naturalistic paradigm is in some entirely different epistemological category from a belief in God. Fundamentalist scientists are no different in essence from religious fundamentalists. There is no disconnect whatsoever between honest science and a belief in God.
Try reading Alvin Plantinga's work that I cited above. He is widely recognized as the premier epistemologist of the twentieth century.
You're trying to make it complicated where it's not.
Science is about verifiable evidence.
And in terms of god, there is none.
Period.
That doesn't mean that people shouldn't have faith in god. It just means there's no verifiable evidence for faith in god.
You are Wrong, period! There is plenty of evidence but you do not consider it ENOUGH because you refer to call it any name but God. How you can dismiss as NOT GOD the very source of your existence and the existence of everything we know about and do not know about is beyond my ken. What extraordinary arrogance and hubris! What the H--- would a God have to do to impress you that it is a God relative to you?????? Pretending it is nothing or some ineffable something but NOT God is puerile and pedantic.
You are Wrong, period! There is plenty of evidence but you do not consider it ENOUGH because you refer to call it any name but God. How you can dismiss as NOT GOD the very source of your existence and the existence of everything we know about and do not know about is beyond my ken. What extraordinary arrogance and hubris! What the H--- would a God have to do to impress you that it is a God relative to you?????? Pretending it is nothing or some ineffable something but NOT God is puerile and pedantic.
Apparently you believe the creators of the Dictionary.com are guilty of "extraordinary arrogance and hubris."
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute:
the God of Islam.
(lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception:
the god of mercy.
SEE MORE https://www.dictionary.com/browse/god
There isn't a definition in there that refers to something that is just the source of all that exists. They all tack on other stuff. If you click "see more" there isn't anything better.
"no any god" is just blind faith. its more like a comfy blanket than anything else. The world is a big place and some people need comfy's to keep them safe. so hold on to that "no any god".
some of the traits that they claim their god has match the standard model and some of them don't. Bt if you need the "no-any-god" comforter to wrap yourself in ... thats is your right.
Scientism - in contrast to honest science - is predicated on an unassailable axiom that reality can be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Scientism hasn't proved God doesn't exist. Scientism isn't even predicated on a scientific conclusion that God doesn't exist. Scientism rules out the existence of God from the get-go.
An axiom that reality can be explained in purely naturalistic terms is not predicated on verifiable evidence. Indeed, it's flatly contradicted by quantum physics. See Bernardo Kastrup's The Idea of the World for an excellent, peer-reviewed discussion from many perspectives.
This is why scientism is dishonest. It presents this axiom, which is in fact an article of faith, as though it were a settled conclusion based on verifiable evidence. This is why scientism goes to absurd lengths to resist the findings of quantum physics and why it seeks to shout down the Intelligent Design movement. The findings of quantum physics expose naturalism as simply false. The ID movement confronts scientism on its own turf and its own terms, and scientism can't handle it. Like any fundamentalist religion, scientism does not want to debate its axioms.
There are sound - indeed, logically irrefutable - "proofs" for the existence of God. There is abundant evidence, including verifiable laboratory evidence, for the existence of phenomena that cannot be accommodated by naturalism. There are scientists and scientific papers of the highest caliber that point toward a designed reality. There are mountains of anecdotal and to some extent scientific evidence for the continuation of consciousness after bodily death. For many people, there are personal experiences that they believe can best be explained as the workings of a providential God. A belief in God can be entirely rational, as legions of scientists, philosophers and other scholars will attest.
A belief in naturalism likewise can be entirely rational. In either case, it is simply a matter of how informed the believer is and how he or she assesses the best evidence from all available subject areas.
The dishonesty of scientism is in pretending that its naturalistic paradigm is in some entirely different epistemological category from a belief in God. Fundamentalist scientists are no different in essence from religious fundamentalists. There is no disconnect whatsoever between honest science and a belief in God.
Try reading Alvin Plantinga's work that I cited above. He is widely recognized as the premier epistemologist of the twentieth century.
God is intelligent...generally speaking, according to most perspectives. Stuff being able to be explained by naturalism, or not, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a God exists. You'll find plenty of atheists who believe, or are very open to the possibility, that there's mysterious stuff in existence that just can't be explained. I don't see how that's any different than claiming "reality might not be explainable in purely naturalistic terms."
The whole term "naturalistic" appears completely unnecessary to me. I could be wrong, but I don't know why I wouldn't.
We already have a term for stuff with mysterious properties. It's called "stuff with mysterious properties." I don't know why that wouldn't be all we need. Everyone believes in "stuff with mysterious properties." I'm therefore pretty confident, given that nobody seems to know what "non-natural" actually means...that it's a needlessly divisive, confusing term that convinces the intellectually slothful that they understand things about reality that most of humanity don't...which basically all humans already do.
God is intelligent...generally speaking, according to most perspectives. Stuff being able to be explained by naturalism, or not, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a God exists. You'll find plenty of atheists who believe, or are very open to the possibility, that there's mysterious stuff in existence that just can't be explained. I don't see how that's any different than claiming "reality might not be explainable in purely naturalistic terms."
The whole term "naturalistic" appears completely unnecessary to me. I could be wrong, but I don't know why I wouldn't.
We already have a term for stuff with mysterious properties. It's called "stuff with mysterious properties." I don't know why that wouldn't be all we need.
People talk about stuff being immaterial...but they don't even know what that would actually mean, so it fits nicely into the "stuff with mysterious properties" bin.
exactly clintone. not all atheist are part of the group that feels we need to deny everything. In fact, most atheist believe we are part of a larger more complex system.
Deny everything to stop religion is unscientific.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
