Religious experience anyone?

Post Reply New Topic

This is the fundamental difference between science and religion. I don't have all the answers and I don't expect I will. The important thing is the questions! "What happens if we put airbags into our cars?" is a much better response to car crashes than praying to God to prevent injuries. For a start, the success rate is much higher.

Religion DOES claim to have all the answers - there's an all-knowing Being out there that runs everything and has ultimate responsibility. It's curious that religions tend to ascribe all positive events to gods and all negative ones to humans. A more rational thinker would probably do the reverse - otherwise, what's the point of having gods in the first place?

And my favourite argument for science versus faith - why do churches have lightning rods?

I'm not sure that there is no God. He might be hiding somewhere, but until and unless there's a good case for believing in such a deity (and no, emotional blackmail and threats from third hand sources are not a good case) I'm not going to bother. I may be risking my soul missing out on an eternal paradise, but I suspect that's as likely as my missing out on a few hundred million dollars from those nice Nigerian princes that keep emailing me.

Right. I totally agree with this. Which is why I am confounded that science asks hundreds of thousands of questions, theorizes answers, experiments, studies and analyzes evidence to the extent of coming up with quite plausible theories and explanations regarding the origins of the universe, right up to and including the Big Bang, then suddenly either questioning how the singularity got there to begin with is unnecessary, or more theories are forwarded, with no evidence to support them at all, rather than asking that one fundamental question:

Could it be there IS an intelligent creator?

It's never made any sense to me that asking any other question we can think of is perfectly acceptable in science, but to ask that one is for all practical purposes, verboten.

It seems perfectly acceptable to ask every question leading back to the "Big Bang," (or whatever other theories exist), but if we ask that one, suddenly we're scoffed, ridiculed, and chastised.

Why is it so taboo to consider the possibility of the existence of an intelligent creative force? I've rarely heard a reasonable answer to that question from the realm of science (from anyone willing to admit publicly that they ask it themselves). The only answers I've almost always gotten do nothing but dodge the question. Why can't we ask, "Could there be an intelligent creative force?"

I suggest the following reasons:

1. Claiming that an omnipotent intelligent creator created everything does not yield falsifiable hypotheses (Popper)
2. Claiming that an omnipotent intelligent creator created everything does not contribute to explanatory power (Occam's Razor/Hawking)

1 is so fundamental to the working of science that it should not need any further explanation.
2 is partially derived from 1, but it also raises the question: What's the point?

I generally only have them when I get food poisoning.

You're addressing claims. My post wasn't about claims. It was about asking the question.

This does not address why the questions should not be asked.

No. It addresses the answer to those questions. These questions have been asked, and science has answered them. I provided the most common answers.

The view that a *taboo* exists is false. What exists is a concept of scientific rigour resulting in the rejection of claims that have previously been found unscientific. If the concept of an intelligent creative force starts yielding falsifiable hypotheses that actually work in the real world, then science will surely pay attention to it. So far, it has not.

Science is still only relatively young but it has made massive strides in the knowledge of mankind. We know that thunder and lightning isn't created by Thor having a tantrum; we know the Earth isn't flat and it isn't the centre of the universe; we know live has evolved on Earth over many millions of years. We know the universe is expanding and that there was some sort of singularity at the beginning of its formation. I grant you that science hasn't delved very far yet into the nature of the singularity that led to our universe (though physics is quite clear on how the big-bang itself actually progressed right from a split second after the process began).

Sure it may be possible some creative intelligence was responsible for the original singularity; but so far there is no evidence of that and there is no evidence that a creative intelligence has been at work ever since the big bang so there is no reason to assume that there was one prior to our universe. Personally I think that physicists will sooner or later discover the physics behind the original singularity too and it will be simply mathematics and physics formulas. The average person will find these formulas both unintelligible and highly unsatisfying from a human point of view; however, it won't make the physics any the less true.

I guarantee one thing though. Even if physics finally manages to describe everything including the original singularity there will still be people all over the world who will continue to believe in various religions and gods and continue to attribute everything to those gods. For the average person, the belief in a (typically) patriarchal figure overlooking their lives is more important to them than knowing and understanding the reality of the universe. Each to their own.

Maybe it just means airbags are some kind of sacred lucky protection totem object in another dimension and having one here means you will not be harmed during a collision

Seriously, my air bag did not deploy. I was waiting behind a pick up which was stuck behind a police car. The cop was helping someone with a stalled vehicle. So I was stopped and a couple of cars that were traveling greater than sixty mph on I-40 west smashed into my car. One hit directly behind while the other smashed up the passenger's side back fender, door and tire. The car was totaled, basically and it was smashed. When the cars hit me, they were going so fast, they made my car hit the median on the driver's side and then into the driver's side back fender of the pickup truck like a zig zag. So the car was really smashed bad and I did not have my seat belt on. I was going to put it on when I saw how backed up 40 but changed my mind. It was a flash of intuition but I ignored it. Never ignore flashes of intuition! Not that it mattered because everyone thought I had it on anyway because I wasn't injured. It was just weird. Weirdest thing that has ever happened to me for sure.

Yes, but it answers the questions with an answer that science admits or claims cannot be proven. The "claim" that a creator exists. That isn't what I'm addressing. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not making that claim. I'm asking why, as Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan have both stated, the question itself, "Is there a creative intelligence?" is not a question worth asking.

Science, while it has not proven the existence of "God," has also not proven that "God" does not exist. My question is, "Why does it seem as though to even ask the question is shunned by science?" Why, if science is all about questioning everything, is this seemingly not a question worthy of even asking?

From every discussion I've ever been involved in considering this, the reasoning given seems to be the same every time. "Because we cannot prove it."

So what? So science cannot prove it? Why should that mean I should not ask the question?

Perhaps science has not proven it either way yet, because the question itself is never given any serious consideration.

Science probes the real world, not the philosophical world. Science prods, pokes and measures and produces mathematics that describes what is happening and how it is happening. The existence of gods is beyond the realm of science... unless gods are real or manifest themselves in the physical world by various actions. Thus far nothing has been encountered that could be called "god related". This likely means that there are no gods or that they have no effect on the physical world... in effect their non-action is not differentiable from their non-existence.

Hmm. Okay.

At the core of this reasoning however, I see a problem. The first sentence in your explanation reveals to me the presumption that the existence of a creative personality is a philosophical one, not a "real world" question. Let's look at it this way then:

IF there actually is a creative personality, that person is part of the real universe, not just a philosophical idea. So right from the start you're actually dismissing the possibility of it being a reality. Ergo, the question, "Is there an intelligent creative force?" is rendered a question not worthy of consideration as soon as one defines it as a philosophical question. Once that is done, no further serious consideration is given to the question, which is exactly why science has never and probably will never answer the question.

The problem is, that reasoning isn't scientific, because it presumes something to be unprovable by dismissing the idea as unscientific without using any scientific method to arrive at the claim that it is not a question of science, but one of philosophy.

Shouldn't the question be approached as "possible" then either confirmed or disproven, as any other theory?

How (for example) is the theory of infinite alternate universes any less fantastic than that of a creative personality?

At the moment the theory of infinite alternate universes is just that... a theory, however it has some logic at its base as it fits in with other known physics so from that perspective it presents itself as a viable possibility. At some point in the future science may be able to prod and poke and make measurements that confirm or refute it as a theory. The problem with postulating a god as the creative personality is that thus far there is no physical evidence indicating such a being exists. There is nothing so far for science to prod, poke and measure in relation to a supreme being. All scientific theories must encompass that which are known to be facts already and ideally indicate new properties or things that can in their turn be prodded, poked and measured that will confirm or refute the theory. The proposition of a supernatural being produces nothing that can be prodded, poked and measured - so from a scientific point of view there is nothing to investigate.

The question "is there an intelligent Creator?" is not a useful question. The very fact you're asking it shows that there isn't one in plain sight - "is there a Starbucks nearby?" is a sensible question which could potentially be answered with "it's over there, squire." But we are left with the conclusion that there is either not an intelligent creator or that he is hiding from observation. Either way, we aren't going to find him.

But this isn't a useful question. Does the existence of an intelligent creator have any impact on the universe now? Arguably not - otherwise, there'd be evidence of him. Prayer would have a tangible effect. Churches wouldn't need lightning rods (I did say that was one of my favourite arguments). The religious would actually follow their teachings, and only one true religion would exist. None of these things are the case, so God is absent in spirit or in actuality.

And it doesn't tell us anything. Other theories aside for a moment, the universe came into being from nothing. We don't know how, but it clearly happened as we're here to ask about it. Without God, this was not intelligently directed and simply happened - which implies it could again. With God, this was directed - but still involved a process, and could still happen again. Saying "God did it" doesn't explain how the universe came to be. Whether God was involved or not, there's a big question over how universes pop into existence. Science asks questions and investigates. Religion says "don't ask, it was just magic".

The problem with resorting to simplistic statements like that is that it reduces what might be an otherwise reasonable discussion into the probability of tossing ridiculous insults and serves no useful purpose. Placing a statement like that at the conclusion of a post makes it appear that the entire post is based on this premise, and could lead anyone who might otherwise engage you in intelligent discussion to dismiss your entire post.

I am religious. I do not believe in "magic." I'm not telling anyone not to ask questions. I would never have arrived at my own beliefs had I not asked questions. People SHOULD ask questions.

Some may discourage asking questions. I do not.

Fine, so let's investigate. Where do you propose we begin? What physical phenomena do you propose that we search for to provide evidence either for or against this hypothesis?

Christianity would apparently not agree. I refer you to Proverbs 3:5...


And John 20:29, the story of Doubting Thomas...