Do scientists need the laws of nature to explain what their ignorant mind could not understand otherwise?

Question

I mean why do some people say that the theists need God to explain what their ignorant mind could not understand otherwise? Both statements seem to be true. What's the point?

Any other argument that you may have against God such as lack of evidence, etc. is not an answer to the question. Also, opposing science and religion is itself a cyclic reasoning. If you start with the premise that religion is an alternative to science, not a complement, you are simply starting with the conclusion that you wish to obtain.

Some people see bad things into religions and they are correct other people see good things into religions and there are also correct. I just feel it is more useful to see the good things. I am not following any religion, but I cannot prevent myself from seeing the good things.

Answer 1

lol. Yes, of course. Thats the whole purpose of science. You see, at least WE are willing to admit it. Christians aren't.

Answer 2

"Also, opposing science and religion is itself a cyclic reasoning. If you start with the premise that religion is an alternative to science, not a complement, you are simply starting with the conclusion that you wish to obtain."

Everyone depends on science to survive. Humans learn about the world as a necessity. Sometimes they rely on supernatural explanations for things they cannot understand, and social organization that takes the form of religion -- this is not a form of understanding in itself.

Science, as it is based on evidence, is the task of understanding what was previously unknown. Without studying the natural world, there would be no way to understand infrared light, galaxies, or quasars. Science opens up more questions by shedding light on the bigger picture. Religions just give an answer, and expect all facts to conform to the original assumption, whether it's a belief in the importance of human beings in the universe, or specific gods.

Science is the way of learning, thus remedying ignorance. Religion is a way of coping with ignorance, by making unsupported claims. One is real, and the other is imaginary.

Answer 3

No extreme is correct. The answer tends to lie in the middle someplace. I suspect that eventually the answer of God will be found there also and both sides will claim the win.

New Quantum Theories are opening up some interesting doors that science slammed long ago. For example the "two branes touched which allowed an influx of ever expanding matter/energy" replacing the expand/contract/expand/contract of the old Big Bang theory.

Since so many disproves of old topics were based on "energy and matter cannot cannot be destroyed or created" rule then it opens up some doors that we now have a source for both which might presently be beyond our abilities to measure its activity. Not to mention the 10+1 dimensions thing

Answer 4

Some people are just insulting, which is a shame.

But have you considered the difference between thousands of humans discussing ideas and performing experiments, or completing mathematical calculations to prove, or disprove a theory and thousands of people reading books written thousands of years ago, mostly by nomads and prophets, without any experimentation or calculations?

The big difference between reliance on religion and reliance on science is the outcome of the human discussion.

After 2000 years of Christianity, we have thousands of denominations, with completely different views on biblical doctrine. We have Mormons, Catholics, Lutherans, SDA, Jehovah Witnesses etc..

Millions of people reading the bible and studying it over the past 2000 years has resulted in more and more disagreement and less of a concensus on what the 'truth' and God's will is. The reason for this, is that none of it can be measured or tested objectively.

Millions of people using science to learn about the earth and the universe has resulted in thousands of generally accepted theories, because the scientific process creates the need for evidence and measurable results.

Long story short. The scientific process has proven, better results than religion.

Answer 5

Science IS the study of the universal laws of nature and the nature of anything. So I do disagree with your assertion. Just because a person or group of people do not like the nature of Nature, nor does not make it wrong. There are all sorts of phenomenon that anti-science people point to and say "you cannot explain this", however, when the evidence is looked at rationally and methodically, the phenomenon disappears. That is not a base for our understanding of reality.

Answer 6

Of course, not only scientists, we all need to understand the laws of nature to explain how the physical world operates. It's a good thing for us all that scientists believe that there is an underlying order in the material universe which we can discover. It is also a good thing for us to believe that there is an underlying order in the spiritual universe which we can discover and understand the laws of. Of course, the physical laws are much more obvious than the more subtle spiritual laws. Both kinds of knowledge are part of the whole that can be known, although not always through the same methodolgies.

Answer 7

Scientists do not need laws. Laws exists and are discovered, they are not created and are not needed, although they may prove useful in finding new laws. For instance if your hypothesis contradicts a well established law, then you are probably incorrect in your thinking. All humans are ignorant, as anyone will tell you. Scientists are ignorant of many things, dark matter, the ebb and flow of the spacetime of the universe, the minutae of living organisms. Mathematicians are ignorant of some perfect proofs and knowledge.

However 'theists needing god to explain what they are ignorant of' is more sensible than the phrase in your question header. God is a deus ex machina, a complete problem bypasser. Instead of considering the finer points of a problem a religious person may choose to simply think 'God made it so' and ignore it. God may have made it so, but how did he make it so? He must have needed some kind of mechanism, be it theological or scientific. A scientist however, looks at a problem and searches for its solution. In this process he finds laws, and aims to alleviate the ignorance of his mind, not add to it.

Answer 8

The laws of nature are something you can witness, feel, see, etc.

People use god to explain away things or as a reason to do things without physical proof, scientists do not. I highly doubt someone thousands of years ago wrote a book following flight patterns of birds or cross pollination of flowers that anyone would take seriously today, based solely on the knowledge and understanding they had then. Plus there is nothing to gain from millions of people believing in evolution, there is only something to gain in having people behave for a reward, do things because their peers do, and having people think they are useless and meaningless w/o a crutch.

Answer 9

No scientists elicit the laws of nature by observing. They do not invoke deities to explain away what they do not understand. The former is a search for knowledge. The latter is just a poetic explanation.

Answer 10

That which we perceive with our senses is what exists as a fact. That which we imagine exists only in our mind.

It is true that no matter how much we observe, how much we study, how much we experience, we do not become omniscient or infallible. We can misperceive and we can make errors, but reality and its laws of physics, chemistry and biology remain our absolute point of reference and control of our errors. We know when we make a mistake because we discover a contradiction with reality, not with our imagination.

So, what we think, learn, perceive and imagine must correspond to reality to be true. If it doesn't, it remains a dream. One cannot be satisfied with what one imagines. Imagination is a good faculty of the conceptual human brain (a faculty that is lacking in the animals). If I imagine that there is a God, then I must be able to find him. If I imagine that there are angels, I must be able to perceive them in some form. If that does not happen, all I am left with is my belief and imagination - not facts!

Answer 11

I tried to find the "laws of nature" explanation of DNA but the book is not listed anywhere. Apparently God needed the scientist to explain what the laws of nature were regarding DNA.