Antireligious rule of Science

[questfortruth]

There are many scientists, who believe in God.
But the methodological naturalism is the basic rule of their profession.
Does methodological naturalism strengthens and benefits their faith?
Can a believer assume for an hour that there is no God, and not lose faith?

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

There is no requirement to "assume for an hour that there is no God". All you need to do is assume God does not have to keep tinkering with his creation, as if it were a 1970s Austin Allegro.

In his workplace a scientist assumes, that God is inactive, the angels are inactive, the UFO is inactive, the devil is inactive in the workplace. But that is not possible: angels must constantly drive demons away from the consecrated by priesthood laboratory. The angels and demons can not both be inactive in order for the science could be conducted. Moreover, while researching the Big Bang the theist-scientist assumes, that God was silent and inactive while doing world creation; such scientist assumes, that Bible with its 6 days of Creation in 6000 BC is wrong. But it is the method of science, pretended philosophy, that is why after day-long working at the lab, the scientist returns his mind into the state of normality at home: the Young Earth Creationism. I bet with vodka. Is such swiching of the mind between theism and atheism good for faith? Is it a healthy thing for the psychical health?

That is a statement that asserts that if someone has an hour of doubt in God they will necessarily become an atheist. I don't accept that assertion.

Not the doubt, but the totally sure NATURALISM: the total "absence" of God.

 

[ChristineM]

Can a believer assume for an hour that there is no God, and not lose faith?

I know a few scientists, at least 3 also hold belief in their god. There is no conflict because they are open minded and are able to rationalise their god with their work.

Personally i would think this to be troublesome but they see no problem

 

[rocala]

The rules of science are also anti Santa Claus and anti tooth fairy. Do you have a problem with that too?

 

[Quintessence]

You don't have to assume there are no gods when doing science. I never did, though granted it helps when your gods are the things that the sciences (and the humanities for that matter) study.

What you do have to assume is that you must practice your discipline in a way that is in keeping with your discipline's traditions and expectations. It's not that hard. Wasn't for me, anyway. It's not much different than, say, switching writing styles depending an audience.

 

[exchemist]

There are many scientists, who believe in God.
But the methodological naturalism is the basic rule of their profession.
Does methodological naturalism strengthens and benefits their faith?
Can a believer assume for an hour that there is no God, and not lose faith?

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

There is no requirement to "assume for an hour that there is no God". All you need to do is assume God does not have to keep tinkering with his creation, as if it were a 1970s Austin Allegro.

 

[Nakosis]

There are many scientists, who believe in God.
But the methodological naturalism is the basic rule of their profession.
Does methodological naturalism strengthens and benefits their faith?
Can a believer assume for an hour that there is no God, and not lose faith?

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Supernatural explanations are generally not falsifiable and therefore not useful for scientific inquiry.

I don't see a problem is separating personal beliefs from scientific inquiry. you just accept that your personal belief in God is not something you can apply science to.

 

[Cooky]

You don't have to assume there are no gods when doing science. I never did, though granted it helps when your gods are the things that the sciences (and the humanities for that matter) study.

What you do have to assume is that you must practice your discipline in a way that is in keeping with your discipline's traditions and expectations. It's not that hard. Wasn't for me, anyway. It's not much different than, say, switching writing styles depending an audience.

In my opinion, it's an ability that takes practice to perfect... You have to see science as a "method" and not a belief system first of all. That's the first step in allowing yourself to experience both religion and science.

 

[Cooky]

Supernatural explanations are generally not falsifiable and therefore not useful for scientific inquiry.

I don't see a problem is separating personal beliefs from scientific inquiry. you just accept that your personal belief in God is not something you can apply science to.

It sounds like you understand the difference between real science and scientism.

 

[ChristineM]

There is no requirement to "assume for an hour that there is no God". All you need to do is assume God does not have to keep tinkering with his creation, as if it were a 1970s Austin Allegro.

The allegro was more aerodynamic going backwards than it was going forwards, i think that makes it a unique vehicle

 

[sun rise]

Can a believer assume for an hour that there is no God, and not lose faith?

That is a statement that asserts that if someone has an hour of doubt in God they will necessarily become an atheist. I don't accept that assertion.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are many scientists, who believe in God.
But the methodological naturalism is the basic rule of their profession.
Does methodological naturalism strengthens and benefits their faith?
Can a believer assume for an hour that there is no God, and not lose faith?

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

One can assume anything, & then see where it leads.
Tis leaping to belief that leads one astray.

 

[QuestioningMind]

There are many scientists, who believe in God.
But the methodological naturalism is the basic rule of their profession.
Does methodological naturalism strengthens and benefits their faith?
Can a believer assume for an hour that there is no God, and not lose faith?

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

So you're upset that science doesn't investigate the supernatural?

 

[questfortruth]

There is no requirement to "assume for an hour that there is no God". All you need to do is assume God does not have to keep tinkering with his creation, as if it were a 1970s Austin Allegro.

In his workplace a scientist assumes, that God is inactive, the angels are inactive, the UFO is inactive, the devil is inactive in the workplace. But that is not possible: angels must constantly drive demons away from the consecrated by priesthood laboratory. The angels and demons can not both be inactive in order for the science could be conducted. Moreover, while researching the Big Bang the theist-scientist assumes, that God was silent and inactive while doing world creation; such scientist assumes, that Bible with its 6 days of Creation in 6000 BC is wrong. But it is the method of science, pretended philosophy, that is why after day-long working at the lab, the scientist returns his mind into the state of normality at home: the Young Earth Creationism. I bet with vodka. Is such swiching of the mind between theism and atheism good for faith? Is it a healthy thing for the psychical health?

That is a statement that asserts that if someone has an hour of doubt in God they will necessarily become an atheist. I don't accept that assertion.

Not the doubt, but the totally sure NATURALISM: the total "absence" of God.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There are many scientists, who believe in God.
But the methodological naturalism is the basic rule of their profession.
Does methodological naturalism strengthens and benefits their faith?
Can a believer assume for an hour that there is no God, and not lose faith?

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

In his workplace a scientist assumes, that God is inactive, the angels are inactive, the UFO is inactive, the devil is inactive in the workplace. But that is not possible: angels must constantly drive demons away from the consecrated by priesthood laboratory. The angels and demons can not both be inactive in order for the science could be conducted.



Not the doubt, but the totally sure NATURALISM: the total "absence" of God.

That would depend entirely on the scientist and the willingness to abandon one for the other.

 

[questfortruth]

I know a few scientists, at least 3 also hold belief in their god. There is no conflict because they are open minded and are able to rationalise their god with their work.

Personally i would think this to be troublesome but they see no problem

That is a statement that asserts that if someone has an hour of doubt in God they will necessarily become an atheist. I don't accept that assertion.

One can assume anything, & then see where it leads.
Tis leaping to belief that leads one astray.

So you're upset that science doesn't investigate the supernatural?

In his workplace a scientist assumes, that God is inactive, the angels are inactive, the UFO is inactive, the devil is inactive in the workplace. But that is not possible: angels must constantly drive demons away from the consecrated by priesthood laboratory. The angels and demons can not both be inactive in order for the science could be conducted. Moreover, while researching the Big Bang the theist-scientist assumes, that God was silent and inactive while doing world creation; such scientist assumes, that Bible with its 6 days of Creation in 6000 BC is wrong. But it is the method of science, pretended philosophy, that is why after day-long working at the lab, the scientist returns his mind into the state of normality at home: the Young Earth Creationism. I bet with vodka. Is such swiching of the mind between theism and atheism good for faith? Is it a healthy thing for the psychical health?

 

[Revoltingest]

In his workplace a scientist assumes, that God is inactive, the angels are inactive, the UFO is inactive, the devil is inactive in the workplace. But that is not possible: angels must constantly drive demons away from the consecrated by priesthood laboratory. The angels and demons can not both be inactive in order for the science could be conducted. Moreover, while researching the Big Bang the theist-scientist assumes, that God was silent and inactive while doing world creation; such scientist assumes, that Bible with its 6 days of Creation in 6000 BC is wrong. But it is the method of science, pretended philosophy, that is why after day-long working at the lab, the scientist returns his mind into the state of normality at home: the Young Earth Creationism. I bet with vodka. Is such swiching of the mind between theism and atheism good for faith? Is it a healthy thing for the psychical health?

Scientists typically make no assumptions about gods.
They just don't enter into science.

 

[exchemist]

In my opinion, it's an ability that takes practice to perfect... You have to see science as a "method" and not a belief system first of all. That's the first step in allowing yourself to experience both religion and science.

I think this is it exactly.

That is why it is called methodological naturalism, after all. Science is, indeed, not a belief system, nor is it a worldview.

 

[Native]

There are many scientists, who believe in God.
But the methodological naturalism is the basic rule of their profession.
Does methodological naturalism strengthens and benefits their faith?
Can a believer assume for an hour that there is no God, and not lose faith?

There´s no need to disconnect God from science. In fact, there are many reasons to connect both.

Take for instants the ancient worship of the Sun as a God. The Sun creates everything on the Earth by it´s LIGTH. In the Abrahamic story of creation, LIGHT is the force of creation. Light is an electromagnetic frequence amongst a lot of other E&M frequensies which fills the Universe. As such, the Solar deity is not a person in space but a natural force.

IMO it´s all a question of interpreting the ancient myths into modern cosmological terms.

 

[ChristineM]

In his workplace a scientist assumes, that God is inactive, the angels are inactive, the UFO is inactive, the devil is inactive in the workplace.

You know this how?

A believer in god does not just switch off their belief when artwork

 

[Quintessence]

In my opinion, it's an ability that takes practice to perfect... You have to see science as a "method" and not a belief system first of all. That's the first step in allowing yourself to experience both religion and science.

That's not how I approach it. The sciences do involve a particular belief system - it makes its sets of assumptions about the world and then operates based on those assumptions. It's not difficult (for me, anyway) to switch between different paradigms of thought or "belief systems" though.

For example, back when I was doing research, I accepted the conclusions I was allowed to draw were limited to methodological naturalism. Even if you feel the evidence supports conclusions based on different assumptions (and it routinely does) you are not allowed to draw those connections in the sciences because it is not scientific. This doesn't mean the other conclusions one could draw are incorrect either. Sciences are strictly limited to thinking about the world in one particular way. It is one way of knowing, not the only way of knowing.