Since being scientific requires being open minded, so how can one say they are being scientific if they have come to a conclusion based on the very limited knowledge we have aquired before considering all options?
2006-09-20 05:06:36 · 21 answers · asked by Edward J 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Wow! This is by far one of the best questions in this section. Very well thought out. It is true, scientists are supposed to be open minded about everything. But many of them start to feel like they know it all based on the very limited knowledge that they posses, and with it they claim to KNOW that God does not exist. The two words "atheist" and "science" should not be linked together as science is supposed to be ever growing and changing with increased knowledge. Good point.
2006-09-20 05:10:19 · answer #1 · answered by 1big teddy graham 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most responses have so far treated science and religion as totally seperate idealisms, I however disagree.
Both Science and Religion provide large areas of the worldwide society with direction, belief, determination and comfort. Essentially providing each individual with a means to assess the world around them and guide them in their lives.
The difference occurs only in the timeframes in which both have come to prominence. While there is no doubt that science has provided huge advances in the state of the human condition, religion has also filled this role in ages past.
As individuals become more aware and perceptive of the world and search for the meaning of life , it is inevitable that there will be a paradigm shift from blind faith towards hard facts.
From my own point of view I believe that both are fatally flawed idealisms as it is near on impossible to know the true nature of the universe, and equally to devote oneself to a belief system based solely on the writings of a group of people some 2000+ years ago (which has undergone numerous edits) seems absurd. However both also provide great wisdoms and advice for living in all ages.
There is no pre-requisite in my mind that a scientist must, by definition be an atheist. If anything I think you must accept the possibility of God in order to be a fully aware scientist.
2006-09-20 13:10:25 · answer #2 · answered by Alan H 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Huh? Go buy a dictionary!
What you are indulging in here is the 'god of the gaps' argument - which has troubled even prominent theists like the archbishop of Canterbury - basically, by this argument, every new scientific discovery diminishes, rather than glorifies, god!
I am an atheist, and my position is strengthened because I am an astronomer and scientist. Everything we observe about the universe denies the biblical account. There may be a god, but she is hiding very well!
2006-09-20 12:18:26 · answer #3 · answered by Avondrow 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is an good point, and you are right there is no way to rule out the existence of G-d in the vast universe but atheists mainly feel that the Bible is not true, and since the Bible is the only really proff of G-d that we have, not believing in the bible leads to a non belief in G-d. Even if an atheist were to say that there might be a higher power out there beyond humans he would still not be reffering to the G-d inthe bible.
Also I do not think it requires a leap of faith to not believe in G-d.
Without the bible or exposure to religions in society, There would be absolutly no reason to believe that one exists.
2006-09-20 12:33:14 · answer #4 · answered by abcdefghijk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science has been moulded around the fact that we don't know all the variables.
When plotting trajectories for rockets, scientists can't predict the tiny changes in wind direction that may alter the path. Or in medicine, doctors someimes accidentally kill patients because they didn't know that the patient had a very rare desease to the medicine the doc prescribed.
So, we gather all the information we do have about god and life and death; and make our best ASSUMPTION. Science is based on assumptions.
2006-09-20 12:12:51 · answer #5 · answered by rishi_is_awake 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you suggesting that God exists, but in a distant part of the universe? Since most people don't claim he exists in a physical sense, I don't see how the size of the universe is relevant. Open mindedness doesn't mean never coming to a conclusion.
2006-09-20 12:08:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's getting harder than it used to be. In astronomy, the findings suggest some outside "creation force" in the universe (where did the "Big Bang" come from, anyways?!), and show that our little planet Earth is so carefully placed, that the odds of "life by coincidence" are statistically zero, even when multiplied by potentially billions of worlds.
I am both a student of Christianity and of Science, so I speak generally for both sides. It is the nature of Christianity to believe "blindly" in a creator - that is faith in its pure form. But science is about learning, exploring, testing. So it is not in the nature of scientists to believe in God, but rather to continue exploring the nature of the universe, learning ever more about this creation.
What you might see over time is science turning from a atheistic community to a God-exploring community, where the underlying philosophy turns from one turning away from religion (as it did in the Renaissance) to one where believers research to learn about the miracle of creation.
2006-09-20 13:10:54 · answer #7 · answered by Polymath 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You cannot be an atheist "scientifically", period. Science and religion are seperate entities. They are not mutually exclusive in that one does not have to reject one to accept the other, but they are seperate. Science does not seek to prove or disprove the presence of a higher being because that is an issue which falls outside of the realm of science.
2006-09-20 12:34:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whoa! Slow down!!! Science can NOT prove the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, therefore science can not prove or disprove the existence of "God" if you define "God" to be "supernatural". I prefer to think of "God" as "natural" and not "supernatural" and then science works just fine for me. If someone is claiming to be an "atheist scientifically" then they are mixing up their logic. A lot of people seem to think the universe would not be miraculous if it was created by natural forces but to them I say lets you see you create the universe... go on... I'm waiting... ;)
2006-09-20 12:13:13 · answer #9 · answered by Paul H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The absence of proof is not proof of absence or if you like, just because you can't find proof that something exists does not mean it is proof that it does not exist. But if you want proof that heaven can't exist then consider if our energy (soul) goes to heaven then heaven must contain energy and this energy would need a force to keep it contained. As energy is measurable then we should be able to find it if it was within our detectable range. If heaven is outside our detectable range then how can our energy be accelerated to reach heaven, it would need a force to do it which would be detectable. Energy and force are within our concept of science unless you want to quote Mr Spock and say "it's not like anything we have seen before captain"
2006-09-20 13:05:41 · answer #10 · answered by xpatgary 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋