Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?

Before you jump to conclusions about the nature of this thread, I'm actually just sharing something interesting that I found. It has something to appeal to both theists and non-theists.

The Templeton Foundation recently sponsored a series of brief essays concerning the titular question. For those who know the Templeton Foundation, they generally harbor some irrationally strong Christian agendas, and I often find their commitment to "science" to be laughable.

Which is why this discovery was refreshing. 13 brief essays, all relatively short and extremely readable, all dealing with this question. But they pool from religious figures, scientists, philosophers, etc. and from both sides of the question. My shock was complete to see names like Stephen Pinker and Michael Shermer among the essayists, renowned free thinkers, skeptics, and atheists. But among them are religious scientists, monks, and experts from the other viewpoint as well.

I've read about 4-5 essays so far and found them fun. Each provides different insights to the question.

http://www.templeton.org/belief/

I'd encourage others to read and share your thoughts.

I've read a couple

I wish people would argue about the philosophy of science rather than just specific facts. Unfortunatly neither God nor Science are defined very well in the question.

and the religious ones seem really... usual?

The length of them means that they will be fairly specific in their intent, and certainly not comprehensive, but it's a decent overview of various viewpoints. Shermer's focus on extraterrestrials was particularly amusing. Some might say he avoided the central question quite a bit, but it was certainly a new skeptical take on what evidence would look like for a God, and how it could be interpreted.

And religious arguments generally fall into well-trodden territory. So I agree with you there. That alone doesn't invalidate them, but there's only so many valid justifications that exist for one's belief.

the justification bit might actually be what throws me the most

like, I believe things, I have morals, and I couldn't care less what "science" has to say about them...

I don't know, the whole religion/science thing is about social control of the concept of "truth", with each side hoping to maintain political superiority. blah, no ranting...

I only read a couple, so I don't know if it is brought up, but what about the belief in God itself, rather than whether or not God exists. It really doesn't matter, culturally, if he does or not, considering the vast majority of people think he does. People live their lives as though he does. While on a factual basis there may be no real argument for God, people are still captivated by the concept. Obviously SCIENCE isnt the athema of God that it is being made out to be.

After I take a nap, I'll comment on a few.

I still don't see why any religious man would feel like he needed to condemn science or vice versa.

- You can't prove one way or another if God exist.

- Science is a way to understand how things work. Put in a different context it would mean: "It is a way to understand what God has created."

Either would be valid depending on their stance.

It's sad that society attempts to make you choose one or the other.

Originally posted by inimalist
the justification bit might actually be what throws me the most

like, I believe things, I have morals, and I couldn't care less what "science" has to say about them...

I don't know, the whole religion/science thing is about social control of the concept of "truth", with each side hoping to maintain political superiority. blah, no ranting...

I only read a couple, so I don't know if it is brought up, but what about the belief in God itself, rather than whether or not God exists. It really doesn't matter, culturally, if he does or not, considering the vast majority of people think he does. People live their lives as though he does. While on a factual basis there may be no real argument for God, people are still captivated by the concept. Obviously [b]SCIENCE isnt the athema of God that it is being made out to be. [/B]

Well, I think perhaps the question was worded poorly. Though Shermer's response actually addresses it briefly. Does science make belief itself obsolete? No, according to him. But he answer "yes" to whether it makes obsolete a belief in God. He distinguishes between the two, rightly observing that no evidence exists that would lead to a belief in God, but belief itself is untouched.

Science can and does have a lot to say about beliefs, whether it's the specific God of a given religion or various paranormal phenomenon that people cite to justify their beliefs. But to take the "non-overlapping magesteria (sic)" interpretation of Gould, and essentially say that science can't comment on religion and vice-versa, is overly sensitive at best, and negligent at worst, because it posits that all beliefs should be left alone, when it's clear that many have no rational foundation and cause harm.

Originally posted by chithappens
It's sad that society attempts to make you choose one or the other.

Society is inherently dualistic in its tendencies. Not just with religion. I think the best responses in the essays don't take a yes/no approach, but qualify their answers with certain stipulations, revealing correctly that there is a spectrum of approaches to the question, not just 2.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Society is inherently dualistic in its tendencies. Not just with religion. I think the best responses in the essays don't take a yes/no approach, but qualify their answers with certain stipulations, revealing correctly that there is a spectrum of approaches to the question, not just 2.

Yes, I agree, but isn't the question itself unnecessary?

It's like that "Would Obama be considered the first black president?" question on the GDF.

Originally posted by chithappens
Yes, I agree, but isn't the question itself unnecessary?

It's like that "Would Obama be considered the first black president?" question on the GDF.

Bad comparison, imo. If addressed properly, the topic has merit, as I think many of the essays show. Though I already conceded that the question was worded poorly, but that doesn't invalidate the entire discussion, especially for the essayists discerning enough to recognize the question's shortcomings and clarify their position accordingly.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Bad comparison, imo. If addressed properly, the topic has merit, as I think many of the essays show. Though I already conceded that the question was worded poorly, but that doesn't invalidate the entire discussion, especially for the essayists discerning enough to recognize the question's shortcomings and clarify their position accordingly.

Well I articulated myself poorly I suppose (just woke up from that nap).

We have seen many discussions here about "What would God do?", "Why does God...", "Where did God come from?" None of them reach a concrete conclusion because there is no completely, concrete evidence to prove or disprove either because:

a) God does not want us to know (assuming all-powerful)

or

b) God does not exist. If God does not exist we can't disprove.

I don't even like discussions that discuss the two in depth because there is too much black or white never discussion of a gray area in the stuff I have come across. Again, I haven't read the essays yet. I've been in college for three years and it is always the same polarists bs over and over again so you have to excuse my complete pessimism before I even begin.

I think that's the mistake most people make, is assuming that the discussion should be about "proof." No, we can't prove or disprove God. Nor any belief, actually. Yet we can determine a rational conclusion from evidence or lack thereof. So rather than "can we prove god" we can ask "what evidence suggests to us that god is real" or vice-versa. So then instead of saying "I know god exists" we say "I believe he exists" and vice-versa with non-belief. Because we can't invalidate the possibility of ANY God, but the gods of mythology (major religions included) have active Gods who intervene with the universe, answering prayers, aiding creationism, working in "mysterious ways" to meet some Plan, etc. etc. which are falsifiable statements, deal with the material realm, and subject to scientific scrutiny.

So can science make a belief in God obsolete? No. But does it have the potential to make obsolete most of the gods and beliefs of earth? Absolutely.

I got through most of the first four essays. Well-written; nothing especially new, it would seem.

My own response to the thread question would be, Depends what you mean by 'God'.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Science can and does have a lot to say about beliefs

totally off topic, but the neuroscience of belief is something I've been honestly thinking of trying to get into.

I know where you are coming from with the belief vs god thing. I'd come at it a little different, but essentially the same. I'm just exceptionally pessimistic about the capacity of individual humans to know things. Like, from a neuroscientific perspective, there is probably no difference between the fact of gravity and the equality of women when it comes to what I think is truth. Philosophers have argued for centuries about subjective and objective truth, but really, none exist [re: since truth is a human defined concept, it is all by definition subjective, even that which is produced through the scientific method, that is, on the individual level].

What this prompts me to want to discuss is the human capacity to believe things are true. Why and how certain truths are created, and specifically, how those truths come to be spread.

I've been sort of half heartedly thinking of a couple of experiments for a while, they are a little relevant, and I think a little humerous. The first would be to have 3 sets of psychology researchers, preferably social psych so they would be familiar with experiments that have deception in them. Run them in an identical task, but inform one group verbally that there is deception in the study, inform one group that there might be deception in the study, and inform the last that there is no deception in the study (this is ethical because it is true, the deception is telling them they will be deceived). Measure differences. (lol, I didn't promise gold)

The other one would be in manipulating information delivery. So, have a specific fact, and many ways it can be presented to individuals. News broadcast, guy in a lab coat, emotional documentary, boring cold facts, etc. Have secondary facts presented in the piece that are not related to the main thesis (so like, in something anti-bush, have a remark about Condi Rice and a possible allegation she did something bad years ago). Have people watch different films, call them 2 weeks later, and ask them, even a leading question, about Condi Rice. One could even see if different types of facts are believed easier under different types of presentation.

and again, I post something so long most people wont take the time to read it.....

I've taken part in team-building exercises with similar premises: some will be told that there are "spies" or "deception" or whatever other word fits that pattern. In the end, everyone learns something cliche about trust, and it's sociological and hardly empirical, but it reminded me of your first experiment.

As for your lament on subjectivity, I've harbored similar thoughts. But resigning ourselves to such thinking gets us nowhere and makes all thought into unfounded guesswork. I prefer to believe that we can approximate reality to a sufficient degree as to have "truths" that are close enough to being objective in order to function as rational creatures. Anyone can differentiate between "What is 4+6?" and "What is the best color?" in terms of subjective/objective, but your point takes it to an entirely new levels that leaves us all intellectually powerless if fully embraced. I simply have to accept that questions like the former (4+6) have the same answer in any interpretation or setting, or else we can't know anything...not just about religion but any subject. Possibly true, but we'll never know, and I see it as fruitless to resign to such thinking.

But the experiments sound fun. Let me know if you ever run them, or similar ones.

does it matter?science is not going to change someones belifs just through evidence.no they need a 2000 year old book to show true authenticity.

Belief in God has always been obsolete.

Originally posted by Boris
Belief in God has always been obsolete.

It all depends on what God is.

Originally posted by carnage52
does it matter?science is not going to change someones belifs just through evidence.no they need a 2000 year old book to show true authenticity.

What are you talking about? There aren't any religions that use 2000 year old texts.

Besides it's nearly impossible to change anyone's beliefs once they've been formed. However I agree with the idea that it doesn't really matter. Science has existed for a very long time as an alternative to Religion and failed to unseat it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What are you talking about? There aren't any religions that use 2000 year old texts.

Besides it's nearly impossible to change anyone's beliefs once they've been formed. However I agree with the idea that it doesn't really matter. Science has existed for a very long time as an alternative to Religion and failed to unseat it.

Well, there's more than one reason for that. To frame it like that makes it sound like religion provides the de facto better argument. Religion fills a need in the human psyche, and according to some theories even provides survival value, and is thus hard to extricate.

Though I'd challenge the notion that it is difficult to change a person's beliefs. It depends largely on the person, and I've actually found that you're right for most people. But open-minded individuals are apt to change....and by open-minded I don't mean they are willing to believe anything, but that their beliefs are subject to change if presented with evidence for/against it, or presented with better reasoning for an alternative position. Provisional opinions rather than dogmatic beliefs. Hard to come across, granted, but not impossible to find.

Originally posted by chithappens

- You can't prove one way or another if God exist.

- Science is a way to understand how things work. Put in a different context it would mean: "It is a way to understand what God has created."

This is pretty much my thoughts as well...

I don't believe it should really be an all or nothing thing.

I basically see God as the "why" and Science, for the most part, as the "how".

The only conflicts I have lie in humanities' creation.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
This is pretty much my thoughts as well...

I don't believe it should really be an all or nothing thing.

I basically see God as the "why" and Science, for the most part, as the "how".

The only conflicts I have lie in humanities' creation.