can we please stop invoking god in the scientific categories?

Answer 1

Throughout history God has always been a part of Science. Whether its the church using His name to destroy some of it or people trying to connect Him to the things they don't quite understand themselves.

Just because God is used as an answer it does not deny science coming up with an answer. It doesn't water down science and as we can see now from past circumstances, science has never been impeded because of God being used as an explination. If science can explain something, it will. It is left to the person to decide to continue having faith that God does it or accepting the explenation science comes up with.

Answer 2

I have to disagree with Pilgrim's response, though I will choose to entirely respect his view.

The problem is if God is not ruled out, a priori, then we open the door to irrational reasoning--that is, non-testable ideas being accepted as scientifically valid. As a scientist, I have a problem with that. God usually does get ruled out though in scientific, objective inquiry by application of Occam's Razor. This rule of logic says (paraphrased) that we must strive to explain our observations using known rules (or laws) of science. If we do this within the larger model of the scientific method, we will eventually be led to new ideas because this is what the method DOES.

To invoke God in this process would essentially "short circuit" the approach to research. We'd constantly conclude someting is just "an act of God" whenever we got stuck. I don't want to over simplify this arguement, but I don't want to write a thesis here either. I'll just conclude by saying, there are a lot of things we still do not understand, but that does NOT mean we need to invoke God as their explanation. Rather, we need to be patient and deligent in our research knowing that eventually (meaning sometimes, "when technology gives us new tools") we will find the answers.

Answer 3

God cannot exit in science. Science is about prediction. A theory is not accepted until it could provide some form of prediction that can be validated. Einstein got his Nobel prize on the Photoelectric effect and not on Relativity because at the time Relativity could not be proven. That is the main difference between science and Religion. You cannot make a prediction about God. Religion has made him/her beyond questioning. Therefore God is outside the realm of science. You either believe it or not. Anybody that tries to come up with a proof is just deluding him/herself. Lastly, I would leave you with this:

Faith - a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Answer 4

what do you mean by invoking god? do you mean saying "it is that way because god made it so?" if that is what you mean then i agree (although sometimes that is the only answer that works).

on the other hand we could look at it as an alternate theory, maybe we are here because god put us here, then by all rights we should treat it scientifically and see if the evidence holds up, give it a fair shake so to speak, it is unscientific to squash one idea just because you don't agree with it.

if you mean that people are swearing at things (g*d*mn it for example) then i would also agree.

Answer 5

I have to agree that to invoke God as any sort of explanation is profoundly unscientific.
On the other hand, many of histories greatest scientists (Newton for example of the top of my head) were 'God fearing men' who chose to question the world around us in that light.
Even Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking have referred to science as attempting to look into the mind of God.
For my part, the dividing line is around where you stop questioning and start believing without evidence. The line that 'God does not need proof, you must have faith' was just the old priests not understanding it themselves and being afraid to admit it, or too power crazy ;-)

Answer 6

Why?

Isn't science the realm of objective inquiry?

If you rule out discussion of God as an apriori, you're defeating the purpose of inquiry, and the objective of objectivity.

If the most rational conclusion of a scientific course of inquiry leads to the conclusion of God, why fight it.

Maintaining your objectivity regardless of where it leads is the noblest goal of the scientific method and the purest accomplishment of scientific inquiry.

Or are you an insincere activist with an agenda?

Answer 7

Because, Pilgrim, the idea of god is really incompatible with science. With science you search for the answers, experiment and prove. If you cannot prove, the search goes on. Religion, on the other hand, already has all the answers. Or one answer for everything. God!

Answer 8

Getting the believers to quit injecting God into science is like training your dog to go in the toilet.

Answer 9

"God does not play dice with the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

The greatest, or at least one of the greatest theoretical
physicists of all time invoked God.

What is wrong with you???

Answer 10

Agree with you one hundred percent.
Key in ABUSE when you see this kind of answer or question.