Before Galileo, virtually everybody was a solipsist and God existed only within subjective mental experience. The physical was considered an illusion, created by the human mind, and nobody cared that God didn't exist there. Then the scientific revolution established that the physical realm was completely real. Descartes invented Dualism and believers asserted that their God existed both in subjective experience and in the physical realm. There is much evidence that God exists in the mental experience of believers, but there is none that He occupies the physical realm. I could easily believe in an old fashioned subjective God, if I wasn't also required to be a scientific hypocrite and pretend God exists where He never has, in the physical realm. Because of Dualism, millions of scientists are forced to become atheists to avoid the hypocrisy of accepting a physical God. Could believers return to purely solipsistic God, so scientists don't have to become atheists? Discuss this idea.
2007-10-13 12:44:02 · 10 answers · asked by Diogenes 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Justin, I'm afraid I sidetracked you with Galileo's name. I originally wrote "the beginning of the scientific revolution" but needed more characters to finish the question. I substituted "Galileo" and accidentally mislead you. Sorry.
2007-10-13 13:20:02 · update #1
Fireball, I'm doing the best I can. If this question isn't about Religion, I don't know what else it could be.
2007-10-13 13:29:49 · update #2
...and, by the way, I'm not trying to be anything but myself. This question is as honestly "me" as I can be. The only thing missing might be anger.
2007-10-13 13:34:13 · update #3
al_asad, so can I assume you mean that if God were purely solipsistic (nonphysical), science would benefit because their would be more Christian scientists? (I agree) ...or do you mean current dualistic scientists are somehow superior to atheist scientists? (I disagree)
2007-10-13 13:59:21 · update #4
They're free to believe what they choose. Are you sure about Galileo? After he said the earth went round the sun, he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. I don't think the people who put him there would have been content with the concept of God existing purely within the human mind.
2007-10-13 12:50:41 · answer #1 · answered by Citizen Justin 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
In a way, what you describe is pretty much the current situation for many Christians. They believe that God created the universe and its laws, but these laws are the laws of science. They don't argue against science. This creates a convenient separation like the one that you suggest. The exceptions are those like the creationists that insist on a literal interpretation of the bible.
2007-10-13 13:00:29 · answer #2 · answered by My account has been compromised 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
you may do slightly examine right here or basically take an get admission to point college direction in evolutionary anthropology. There are literally tens of thousands of examples of transitional fossils. while it involves human and different hominid transitional fossils, they seem to be slightly rarer as a results of fact the geology and climate we initially developed in weren't very conducive to fossilization, yet there are nonetheless multiple examples of transitional hominid maintains to be alongside with dozens of heavily proper species. while you're fortunate your community organic historic previous museum could have a area committed to it and you will look on the casts of the hominid maintains to be your self.
2016-10-22 07:40:48 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a christian who is also a scientist is the best kind.
we see the miracles of things around us and look to see how God did it instead of scratching our heads going, since there is no god involved it could not be
advancements in science are a result of Christians who are explorers of our natural world. atheistic science stagnates that.
edit, the idea is that a dual hatted scientist, one who accepts and believes in God works to exploit, explore and dominate all aspects of the world to include science because that is a command, we don't have to look for reasons that are unreasonable to explain something, we look for facts to understand why it was designed to work a specific way
darwin is all about man, not of its self bad, but the result has been
2007-10-13 13:43:41 · answer #4 · answered by magnetic_azimuth 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good try but I'd offer that scientists are rejecting BOTH realms of God.. and not by force.
2007-10-13 12:53:42 · answer #5 · answered by Michael da Man 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Examine the idea that God is every where . We exist on just one of Gods protons within a cell of that , that which is God.
Now where are we ?
2007-10-13 12:53:26 · answer #6 · answered by Mogollon Dude 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I both sides would just respect each others stance- that would be a compromise. Peace
2007-10-13 14:59:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
God is real, he exists - can't compromise that (as if we could).
He is not ours to manipulate or make him so that he works for us and our ideas and comfort.
He is sovereign, greater than us - to think otherwise would be greatly misdirected.
2007-10-13 12:53:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I am with abc on this one.
2007-10-13 13:03:33 · answer #9 · answered by batgirl2good 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
thats not true so trying to look smart isnt helping you...no thanks we are here to discuss R&S
2007-10-13 13:23:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋