Is science interested in finding God ?

[McBell]

If it were possible to define and find God, most scientists would even more studiously avoid the search.

Would it surprise you to find out that most scientists don't give a hoot about your bia and prejudices?

 

[Kfox]

If "God" were hovering in the air right in front of us, in some unimaginable 'blaze of glory', what could science do to verify that this experience is actually God?

Answer: nothing. Science could do nothing to verify the nature or existence of God even if God were hovering right in front of us all. So what can science do to verify the nature or existence of God when God is not hovering in the air right in front of us all? The answer is even less than nothing, as it wouldn't knowhow or where to even look. And in fact, there is no human intellectual endeavor that could verify the nature or existence of God, for humanity. The concept of God transcends the boundaries of existence as we perceive it. It is beyond our comprehending except as a mysterious possibility.

If God transcends the boundaries of existence as you perceive it, how do you know he exists?

 

[PureX]

If God transcends the boundaries of existence as you perceive it, how do you know he exists?

We can't know it. We can only know that it is possible. And then we can choose to trust in that possibility, or not. Which we choose, and why, is completely up to us.

 

[Valjean]

cladking said:
If it were possible to define and find God, most scientists would even more studiously avoid the search.

A soon as credible, objective evidence for a god is found, there will be a stampede of scientists rushing to investigate the discovery.
Why would science not want to learn about so interesting a phenomenon, regardless of how it's originally defined/conceived?

 

[PureX]

A soon as credible, objective evidence for a god is found, there will be a stampede of scientists rushing to investigate the discovery.
Why would science not want to learn about so interesting a phenomenon, regardless of how it's originally defined/conceived?

They need more than evidence. They need a physical phenomenon of some kind. Otherwise they have no means of investigating the evidence. There's already plenty of evidence, but it's not physical or mathematical, it's logical (philosophical) and scientists can't investigate that.

 

[Altfish]

Is science interested in finding God ?

Fame, fortune and a Nobel Prize await the successful scientist, so why wouldn't it be interested?

 

[F1fan]

I wasn't asking about 'lore', nor was I asking about any 'believers'. It was a simple question. What could science possibly do to verify that a direct visitation from God was an actual visitation from God?

My point is that even humans are unsure what God is, so if an actual God were to show up and humans were able to understand it was an actual God, why couldn;t science acknowledge it too? Let's note that science isn't some unhuman thing, it is the ultimate human endeavor that uncovers what is true about the universe. So far in human history many believe they experience God, but in no way can they show this is a real and true experience. It's more likely tthe human brain creating experiences through imagination. The dilemma for theists is that no actual God ever shows itself.

But we aren't talking about "imaginary" visitations. We're talking about an actual direct experience that BOTH witness.

You theists cliam you are having experinces with real gods, but you can't show this is really happening and it's not just imagined. It's notable that the "experiences" with gods are cultural. No one ever "experiences" Jesus without first hearing about Jesus from others. That's a good bit of evidence that imagination is what is happening with abstract ideas picked up from social experience.

Why is it so difficult for you to just admit that science would be useless to us in the face of such an event?

If it's really happening, and humans are witnessing real phenomenon, why wouldn't science be able to investigate? Your learned bias against science only reveals that you need to protect religious experience from scrutiny, and that must be because you know it isn't authentic. If humans can really detect and sence a God, then science can study it. So far no Gods detected, and the belief in gods is learned behavior via social experience.

Perhaps it's because you don't want to discuss WHY science would be useless in the face of such an event.

This is your claim, so you need to explain it. But of course you fall back on your beliefs and bias and have no case. You expect critical thinkers to assume what religious believers do, and that is against our principles for seeking truth. You're more interested in believing than understanding what is true about human experience.

They do?. Philosophers discuss and debate immaterial speculative possibilities all the time. Is philosophy not an intellectual pursuit?

That sort of speculative pondering by the religious and philoosophers doesn't have to follow facts, nor a method, nor logic, nor work towards true conclusions. It is at best an exercize that might or might not involve intellect. We see many dumb people speculate (and even boldly claim) about the immaterial, so as a category it isn't neessarily intellectual.

Art also depicts images and representing questions and possibilities that have no correspondence in the material world.

Art never intends to describe reality, it's a human expression that is derived from the human mind. Religion is more like art than science.

Is art also not an intellectual pursuit?

It may or may not be. I suggest it requires something that isn't necessarly intellect.

Or are you just so blinded by your worship of science as the only possible means of understanding the truth of 'what is' that you just habitually ignore these other possibilities?

And there's the exaggerated insult that exposes your fear and insecurity. I take note of theists who believe themselves so deeply experienced with a God but show serious mental flaws like this. To my mind it is rooted in an awareness that the religious experiences aren't what they think they are. But the beliefs are invested in, and the alternative, that the believer might be wrong, is unacceptable to the ego.

That sentence makes no sense. Yes, humans are fallible. Yes, we have 'evolved'. Yes, we do adopt patterns of behavior ... to mimic what?

Cultural norms, like religion. Have you noticed the diversity of religious beliefs all over the world? Even Christianity and Islam have evolved versions that are prevalent in one place but not others. If religion is the "truth" why so many different interpretations and rituals?

Those around us? Of course. We learn from each other. We do it to survive.

Look at all the conflicts in the wolrd today due to religious differences. Survival in Gaza and Isreal depends on how many more die before it's enough. That's religious extremism at work, and they all are uncompromising in that they have THE truth, and doing God's will.

First, you don't seem to understand that what ANYONE believes about God (including you) is irrelevant to there being an actual God, or not.

That is what I state, that believers aren't believing because of evidence, but learned behavior to believe in religious ideas, and to create experiences in the mind.

And secondly, being able to explain why someone else would choose to believe whatever they do about God (even if you were correct) likewise has nothing whatever to do with God's actually existence.

Too bad there's no evidence for any of the many versions of God thought to exist in reality. That's why critical thinkers reject belief in gods. You certainly offer no rational reason to believe.

So whether you know why people believe in God, or not, it still has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. So your proposed 'justification' here fails on both counts. It fails to show that anyone else's belief in God is wrong, and it fails to show that your lack of belief in God is right. Because what you or anyone else believes about God has no bearing at all on the actual question of whether or not God exists.

I follow evidence, and the evidence suggests religions were invented, and they have become part of social and cultural normalities. Theists who insist their gods exist fail to show their cclaims are true. That's their problem, not the problem of critial thinkers. Your gripe is that critical thinkers aren't adopting the norms of religious assumption, like assuming a hower power exists of some sort.

Humans choose to believe in all sorts of unverified ideas. How true they are is seldom knowable. Especially when it comes to the nature and existence of any gods.

Science does excellent work on describing what is real and true. It's theists who are troubled with a lack of evidence for their beliefs. Why to believers believe at all? Not because of evidence, but of learned behavior.

Conforming to group opinion, or NOT conforming to group opinion has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of ANYONE'S opinions.

Until you engage with critical thinkers. Then you insist that we are wrong, and you are correct, and all without any basis in fact or reason. You have these principles but don;t aply them to believers, which includes yourself. So why the discrepancy, and why not work towards actually following this?

Whether it's shared by a group or not. So this weak attempt at justification also fails regardless of the opinion being upheld, or rejected.

This applies to you, not critical thinkers.

So you have no actual justification, then, for slandering theism, or promoting atheism.

I wrote:

Not really. It's a set of ideas that have have integrated into social life and mental software. Ideas like gods and other rituals, and things like language, all become a sort of software that we use as sorts of utilities. Naturally we value these utilities for certain functionality of social life. Atheists, and even some former believers, have learned that belief in religious ideas aren't necessary in modern life. Non-belief might get you beheaded in Iran, but not in first world nations. ​

​

Oh god concepts aren't that complicated. Some are even ridiculous. Believers just avoid questioning whether their gods exist, and instead mask this uncertainty with invented mysteries. Why wold a believer risk examining whther their god exists on case they discover it doesn't? Being lost in the mysterious fog, as you like to claim, is a good way to hide from your own fer and anxiety of there being no gods. Walking alone or in groups in the fog doesn't sound very appealing to atheists, or even those theists are are absolutely certain their beliefs are true.​

How isn't this justified? You brush off my comment withotu any rebuttal. If you have none, then just be honest about it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is science interested in finding God ?

Why find only one god (named God)?
If science were really to search, it shouldn't
be limited to just a particular one.
How would gods be detected...telescopes,
space probes, anal probes, search parties?
What objective or measurable features would
gods have...height, weight, behavior, powers?

It's a tough business detecting gods. We've
had many programs to find microbial life,
even just fossilized evidence, yet nothing
has turned up. The search for gods looks
even more daunting & fruitless.

I suppose we could create a robot, & send it
into space where it could gaze at its own navel,
& see what spirits beckon.

 

[PureX]

My point is that even humans are unsure what God is, so if an actual God were to show up and humans were able to understand it was an actual God, why couldn;t science acknowledge it too?

Because that's not how science works.

Let's note that science isn't some unhuman thing, it is the ultimate human endeavor that uncovers what is true about the universe.

Science is a method for investigating physical interactions. Physical causes and effects. If "God" appeared before us and claimed that identity, scientists would try to investigate the physics of this phenomenon, surely. But how would this validate or invalidate the claim?

Think of it this way ... if I take an hallucinogenic drug and then I experience God, directly, did the drug cause a "false" experience, or did the drug enable a real one? And how could anyone possibly tell the difference?

So far in human history many believe they experience God, but in no way can they show this is a real and true experience.

Nor can anyone show that it was not. That's my point. If such an experience occurred in a room full of scientists, they couldn't tell the false experience from a genuine one, either.

It's more likely the human brain creating experiences through imagination.

Why is that "more likely"? What does any of us know about the likelihood of a genuine God experience?

The dilemma for theists is that no actual God ever shows itself.

Well, given that such an appearance can't provide us any assurance, what would then be the point? Why are you presuming that we should have expected such a thing?

You theists cliam you are having experinces with real gods, but you can't show this is really happening and it's not just imagined.

But your bias is not the default, here. There is no logical reason why one person's experience of God should be shared by or should mimic anyone else's. So when they don't, it does not support your bias.

It's notable that the "experiences" with gods are cultural. No one ever "experiences" Jesus without first hearing about Jesus from others. That's a good bit of evidence that imagination is what is happening with abstract ideas picked up from social experience.

Well, that is how we humans we cognate our experiences: by assigning familiar labels and characteristics to them (compare/contrast/repeat). I don't rreally see how we could avoid doing this. How could we cognate a God-experience without using whatever concepts we have available to us via our culture.

If it's really happening, and humans are witnessing real phenomenon, why wouldn't science be able to investigate?

What is an "unreal" phenomenon? Even hallucinations are "real phenomena".

Your learned bias against science only reveals that you need to protect religious experience from scrutiny, and that must be because you know it isn't authentic. If humans can really detect and sence a God, then science can study it.

Science can't study ideas. It's can only study physical interaction. God is an idea.

Too bad there's no evidence for any of the many versions of God thought to exist in reality.

The many versions of God that are thought to exist ARE evidence.

That's why critical thinkers reject belief in gods. You certainly offer no rational reason to believe.

I reject belief in gods, AND 'disbelief' in them. Belief is just silly human hubris.

Until you engage with critical thinkers.

I have noticed that anytime anyone has ever claimed to be a "critical thinker' they turned out to be blowing smoke up their own butts.

Then you insist that we are wrong, and you are correct, and all without any basis in fact or reason. You have these principles but don;t aply them to believers, which includes yourself. So why the discrepancy, and why not work towards actually following this?

This applies to you, not critical thinkers.

I wrote:

Not really. It's a set of ideas that have have integrated into social life and mental software. Ideas like gods and other rituals, and things like language, all become a sort of software that we use as sorts of utilities. Naturally we value these utilities for certain functionality of social life. Atheists, and even some former believers, have learned that belief in religious ideas aren't necessary in modern life. Non-belief might get you beheaded in Iran, but not in first world nations. ​

​

Oh god concepts aren't that complicated. Some are even ridiculous. Believers just avoid questioning whether their gods exist, and instead mask this uncertainty with invented mysteries. Why wold a believer risk examining whther their god exists on case they discover it doesn't? Being lost in the mysterious fog, as you like to claim, is a good way to hide from your own fer and anxiety of there being no gods. Walking alone or in groups in the fog doesn't sound very appealing to atheists, or even those theists are are absolutely certain their beliefs are true.​

How isn't this justified? You brush off my comment withotu any rebuttal. If you have none, then just be honest about it.

I ignore this nonsense because it is nonsense. Unquestioned bias is not "critical thinking". Nor is it a logical default position. And every time you try to pass these off as critical thought, I am going to ignore it for the nonsense that it is. You think that because a hallucinogenic drug enables someone to experience God, that the experience must be "unreal" or "untrue" (hallucination, only). Because that ir the bias that you want to conclude. But if you really were a "critical thinker", you would see that even if is it an hallucination caused by the drug, that does not logically discount it as being a genuine experience of God. And even as you're reading this you STILL aren't going to see it.

 

[cladking]

And even as you're reading this you STILL aren't going to see it.

Everyone thinks they're a critical thinker and don't see their own assumptions, axioms, or how definitions affect what they believe. If you are a believer in science then you know for a fact that visions in hallucinations are just as automatically incorrect as philosophy and information from ANYTHING they consider a bad source. It's kindda funny to watch once great scientists get kicked off the list of et als because they are out of style.

 

[Yazata]

Is science interested in finding God ?

Depends on how one defines 'God', I guess.

Science seems to have little or no interest in finding the kind of personalized deities that one finds in the 'Abrahamic' religions and in theistic forms of Hinduism.

But science does seem to be pursuing what we might call an Ultimate Explanation for all observed features of reality. The fabled Theory of Everything.

And a number of religious traditions equate the Ultimate Explanation for reality with God. (It's seemingly implicit in doctrines of divine creation and/or emanation.)

 

[F1fan]

Because that's not how science works.

Why not? Your scenario was God showing up so it was evident to anyone, and that includes scientists. That means God could be examined since it would be a real observed phenomenon.

Science is a method for investigating physical interactions. Physical causes and effects. If "God" appeared before us and claimed that identity, scientists would try to investigate the physics of this phenomenon, surely. But how would this validate or invalidate the claim?

There is no answer since it is hypothetical. Scientists have many instruments to use and exmine the phenomenon of God.

Think of it this way ... if I take an hallucinogenic drug and then I experience God, directly, did the drug cause a "false" experience, or did the drug enable a real one? And how could anyone possibly tell the difference?

Well if you want to experience God you'd better stay drugged up. What a pity it's the only way.

Nor can anyone show that it was not.

That's why we follow evidence, not assumptions and desires.

That's my point. If such an experience occurred in a room full of scientists, they couldn't tell the false experience from a genuine one, either.

How do you know? More of your bias against science. How would you know a genuine from imagined? Do you consider the 9-11 hijackers as experiening God in a genuine way? I mean, hell they died for their God, do you think that is just imaginary?

There's been a lot of studies using fMRI and pet scans on brains that have religious thoughts and experiences.

Why is that "more likely"? What does any of us know about the likelihood of a genuine God experience?

Because no Gods are known to exist. Those who claim to experience Gods don't show any particular wisdom or insight, and many are quite dogmatic and narrow minded. Not the best witnesses. And let me repeat, no evidence of Gods existing.

Well, given that such an appearance can't provide us any assurance, what would then be the point? Why are you presuming that we should have expected such a thing?

Really? You don't think an apvearance by an actual God would impress everyone? I think one of the reasons so many Christians and Muslims are vile people is because they aren't convinced God exists and aren't worried about accountability to it. They get away with bad behavior because that is what others approve of in their tribe. The evangelicals who love Trump, do they really act as if they fear the God that Jesus talks about?

But your bias is not the default, here. There is no logical reason why one person's experience of God should be shared by or should mimic anyone else's. So when they don't, it does not support your bias.

You can't just say bias when you disagree with someone. Why should we take claimants word for their extraordinary claims? Believers claim all sorts of things that they can't show are true. They can't explain how they came to "experience" an actual God in a way that makes sense. And it doesn't help that many different Gods are claimed to be THE God, which means the others aren't real.

Well, that is how we humans we cognate our experiences: by assigning familiar labels and characteristics to them (compare/contrast/repeat). I don't rreally see how we could avoid doing this. How could we cognate a God-experience without using whatever concepts we have available to us via our culture.

It's not a matter of similar experiences with differnt labels and words. It is completely different rituals and experiences, which is cultural.

What is an "unreal" phenomenon? Even hallucinations are "real phenomena".

I referred to real phenomenon. Unreal phenomenon is nonsense. The hallucination is a real mental phenomenon, but the person is mistaken about what they think is happening.

Science can't study ideas. It's can only study physical interaction. God is an idea.

Then how can believers experience it?

The many versions of God that are thought to exist ARE evidence.

Only evidence of many, mnay different versions, not evidence of them being real. Even you admit God is just an idea.

I reject belief in gods, AND 'disbelief' in them. Belief is just silly human hubris.

This is incoherent. How can you be against disbelief in Gods? And reject belief? You already admitted they are ideas. More foggy, grey area, blurred vision mystery to hide in?

I have noticed that anytime anyone has ever claimed to be a "critical thinker' they turned out to be blowing smoke up their own butts.

And you almost got through a reply without an insult.

I ignore this nonsense because it is nonsense. Unquestioned bias is not "critical thinking". Nor is it a logical default position. And every time you try to pass these off as critical thought, I am going to ignore it for the nonsense that it is. You think that because a hallucinogenic drug enables someone to experience God, that the experience must be "unreal" or "untrue" (hallucination, only). Because that ir the bias that you want to conclude. But if you really were a "critical thinker", you would see that even if is it an hallucination caused by the drug, that does not logically discount it as being a genuine experience of God. And even as you're reading this you STILL aren't going to see it.

This is not a reasoned rebuttal, it's just protesting because you have nothing to defend your position.

 

[PureX]

Why not? Your scenario was God showing up so it was evident to anyone, and that includes scientists. That means God could be examined since it would be a real observed phenomenon.

But that is not proof of God. Only proof of a mysterious phenomenon calling itself God.

There is no answer since it is hypothetical. Scientists have many instruments to use and exmine the phenomenon of God.

No, they have instruments for examining physical phenomena. But none for determining that such is God.

But I can see you're just going to continue avoiding this fact.

Well if you want to experience God you'd better stay drugged up. What a pity it's the only way.

If it is a way, nothing says it's the only way, ... nothing but your automatic bias.

That's why we follow evidence, not assumptions and desires.

Evidence is an assumption. And one usually based on a desired conclusion. As we just saw in your comment above.

How do you know? More of your bias against science. How would you know a genuine from imagined? Do you consider the 9-11 hijackers as experiening God in a genuine way? I mean, hell they died for their God, do you think that is just imaginary?

I can't validate or invalidate anyone's experience of God. And neither can you, nor can science.

There's been a lot of studies using fMRI and pet scans on brains that have religious thoughts and experiences.

Those instruments will document the occurrance of ANY thought. But it tells us nothing at all about the validity of those thoughts. The brain is not the mind. Any more than the computer is the program.

Because no Gods are known to exist.

We don't know what can or can't exist. So not knowing if gods exist signifies nothing but our own ignorance.

Those who claim to experience Gods don't show any particular wisdom or insight, and many are quite dogmatic and narrow minded. Not the best witnesses. And let me repeat, no evidence of Gods existing.

Plenty of evidence, but no proof. And your bias against theists is just self-serving nonsense.

Really? You don't think an appearance by an actual God would impress everyone?

What does being impressed have to do with anything? I thought you were such a skeptical thinker. Why wouldn't you and your skeptical cohorts be doubting this visitation, and looking for other possible explanations? I would be. And I'm a theist.

I think one of the reasons so many Christians and Muslims are vile people is because they aren't convinced God exists and aren't worried about accountability to it.

I think it's because they are people. And there are always a percentage of people that are going to be 'vile'.

You can't just say bias when you disagree with someone.

I can when that's all it really is.

Why should we take claimants word for their extraordinary claims?

I don't see why you think you have to take their claims as anything more than what they are. If I meet someone that says they met God, I have no reason to accept nor reject their claim. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. What do I care? If I met God, myself, I'd STILL be skeptical. Because I know that I have no way of knowing if that experience was valid, or not. I also know that no other human can know that, either. So ANY claim of meeting God is just a claim. Nothing more. I'm not going to be able to validate nor invalidate it. And the claimant isn't going to be able to, either. So why do you keep insisting that they must do so?

Believers claim all sorts of things that they can't show are true.

And so do you when you claim that their claims are false.

They can't explain how they came to "experience" an actual God in a way that makes sense.

They don't have to explain it for it to have been a valid experience. For some reason you're not getting this.

And it doesn't help that many different Gods are claimed to be THE God, which means the others aren't real.

There is no logical reason to expect otherwise. So this point is of no significance.

It's not a matter of similar experiences with differnt labels and words. It is completely different rituals and experiences, which is cultural.

I referred to real phenomenon. Unreal phenomenon is nonsense.

Even a false hallucination is a "real" phenomenon. So this whole reality assessment of yours is whacked. And it only served to bolster your bias. A skeptical thinker would understand immediately that the whole concept of "unreality" is nonsensical.

The hallucination is a real mental phenomenon, but the person is mistaken about what they think is happening.

But their interpretation of the phenomenon does not invalidate the phenomenon. Their calling it God doesn't make it God any more than your calling it not God makes it not God. The phenomenon remains "real", and so does the possibility that it was God. Our interpretations and biases don't change that fact of reality.

Then how can believers experience it?

Only evidence of many, mnay different versions, not evidence of them being real. Even you admit God is just an idea.

Everything we experience is "just an idea". Perception IS conception.

This is incoherent. How can you be against disbelief in Gods? And reject belief? You already admitted they are ideas. More foggy, grey area, blurred vision mystery to hide in?

Belief is just an arrogant presumption of our own righteousness. As such, it's both unnecessary and unwise. Faith, on the other hand, is the choice to trust in a concept of truth that we hope is true, even when we don't know it to be so, or know it not to be so. Faith is both useful and necessary to us. Belief is neither.

 

[Colt]

Is science interested in finding God ?

Finding God isn't really the aim of science, neither is denying spiritual realities.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Fame, fortune and a Nobel Prize await the successful scientist, so why wouldn't it be interested?

So science is interested in fame, fortune, and Nobel prizes? I thought it was interested in explaining how our natural world works.

Science must be more ego-driven than I thought.

 

[MikeF]

science is a tool or methodology for acquiring and accumulating knowledge via testing the models (models include explanations & predictions).

No hypothesis and no theory is true, until they have been rigorously tested (through observations, eg experiments, evidence & data).

Science isn’t a religion, as there are no worshipping required for the belief in some mythological supernatural beings. Natural Sciences don’t deal in the supernatural, nor are there any worshipping.

it is you, who confusing science with religion. So all you are doing is laughing at your own ignorance.

It's funny, but I had a different takeaway from @Eli G 's post, ignorant of their position on the existence of supernatural entities. I interpreted the post in the following way:

Funny ... the way some talk about science as an intelligent entity that makes decisions and decides what others should accept.

I took this as a criticism of those with an anti-science stance who perceive science as being presented in the way described. But, alas, I see it probably meant to accuse those who advocate for a scientific approach to knowledge acquisition as deifying science.

Science is not a specific entity or group of people, nor does it dictate what humanity in general should believe or accept.

This statement I see as perfectly true which fits nicely with my first impression of the first statement.

Some think that science is an entity that somehow takes the place of God for humanity.

Here again, my initial interpretation was as a criticism of the anti-science crowd. In other words, some religious folks make this claim that science is deified and replaces a supernatural entity concept for non-believers of supernatural entities.

And that idea is laughable, because human nature is flawed from root to top.

Here, again, I agree completely and found it supporting my initial interpretation of previous comments above. Human beings are flawed and fallible, thus requiring skepticism regarding any claims about supernatural entities.

This must be why those who trust a certain group of people with certain philosophical thinking fail to solve human problems effectively... they give too much credit to human reasoning.

This passage I interpreted as a dig against Philosophy which is used as a safe haven for religious thought. Philosophy permits consideration of "intuition" and "insight" to form and establish axioms and initial premises, which then enable an appropriate starting point to employ "logic and reason" to "prove" or establish a preconceived conclusion.

Scientific inquiry, on the other hand, is skeptical of human reasoning, recognizing the inherent flaws and fallibilities inherent in any investigator. Scientific inquiry starts and builds from that which can be experienced and verified, verification beyond the account of any one fallible individual.

So, perhaps I was wrong, but my first read-through of Eli G's post was pro science. It certainly advocated for strong skepticism, which would be great if the intent was to apply it to all thought and belief.

 

[MikeF]

"God" is just the term most humans use to refer to that mystery (when they're speaking English).

You use this phrase a lot. When "most humans" use the term 'God', do "most humans" consider the term 'God' to be pointing to the "great mystery" as you have so often describe "the great mystery", or do "most humans" see or believe the term 'God', when used, pointing to something else entirely? My impression is that it is the latter case.

 

[PureX]

You use this phrase a lot. When "most humans" use the term 'God', do "most humans" consider the term 'God' to be pointing to the "great mystery" as you have so often describe "the great mystery", or do "most humans" see or believe the term 'God', when used, pointing to something else entirely? My impression is that it is the latter case.

God is the great mystery source, sustenance and purpose of all that it. The labels and concepts that we humans use to represent this mystery will vary, of course, according to our cultural experience of it. That is to be expected. How could it be otherwise? Yet you seem to expect that it shouldn't be like this. That somehow we all should have the same label and cultural experience of this greatest mystery, and that we should be able to "prove it" to each other. Which is quite illogical and unrealistic. And yet this presumption never seem to diminish among anti-theists.

The Tuareg people living in the Sahara Desert have a dozen different words for water, because finding water is life and death for them. I do not have a dozen words for water because I can't imagine water in that many different forms. Yet the Tuareg people can, and do. Does this mean water is not a "real" experience ... because our experiences of it, our understanding of it, and our labels for of it are so different?

 

[Yazata]

There are a whole host of fundamental assumptions upon which much (all?) of science is based. Logic and mathematics obviously. The existence of the kind of natural order that physicists love so much, their "laws of nature". Scientists typically accept these kind of things as givens and doesn't typically inquire into their origin or into why they are as they seem to be and not some other way. And there's always going to be the most fundamental question of all, why reality exists in the first place. What explains it?

I think that many strands of religious tradition think of 'God' as the ultimate explanation, the ultimate source. Certainly the tradition of natural theology in Christianity, with its first cause and design arguments. Neoplatonism and its many offshoots is another. Perhaps some varieties of Hindu Vedanta. Perhaps some strands of Islam.

So I'd say that science very much points to the existence of a 'God' (defined in this rather philosophical way as the ultimate Source and Explanation for everything else). It does so when physicists chase their grand unified "theories of everything". Science points beyond science whenever one inquires into the most basic things that science presupposes and into their unknown origin. I think that it's implicit in everything that science does.

It's true that science rarely if ever conducts a research effort in the most fundamenal directions (which are more the province of philosophical metaphysics I guess) perhaps in some large part because scientific empiricism doesn't apply there and the vaunted 'scientific method' wouldn't seem to be applicable either.

 

[Altfish]

So science is interested in fame, fortune, and Nobel prizes? I thought it was interested in explaining how our natural world works.

Science must be more ego-driven than I thought.

Not all science BUT money and fame is a driver in any capitalist society, so some scientists will be motivated.