Scientific Proof towards a God?

OP

Original post by The Epicurean

If there was scientific proof for God, then why are so many people irreligious or atheist?

An interesting point, that is what I am trying to find out really. If there is scientific proof of a God or if like another poster said, Science and Religion are set apart by belief and cannot be reconciled together.

And the truth is, I cannot answer for others who are irreligious or atheist as they have searched and have formed their own beliefs and that must be commended as they are not religious for the families sake or out of fear.

Reply 4

OP

Original post by VannR

Theism requires rationalism; scientific realism promotes empiricism. They are incompatible.

Any reconciliation between the two must recognise this perceived incompatibility, and in some way expand upon it.

Thanks, this is also a great answer and has made me think. I can see there could be some reconciliation between the two but the incompatibility between having to see an event or reasoning about the event is quite large but I believe there could be some sort of connection that can allow a belief in both theism and scientific realism.

Reply 5

Original post by VannR

Theism requires rationalism; scientific realism promotes empiricism. They are incompatible.

Any reconciliation between the two must recognise this perceived incompatibility, and in some way expand upon it.

Mathematics is entirely 'rationalist' and yet the real core of the sciences depend on it. You're dichotomy is interesting but I don't think it holds water.

Reply 6

OP

Original post by Harrie Lyons

Mathematics is entirely 'rationalist' and yet the real core of the sciences depend on it. You're dichotomy is interesting but I don't think it holds water.

So would it be fair to say that you believe that belief in rationality and empiricism in terms of religion and science or even with just those two philosophical systems can be reconciled with an apparent incompatibility or are you just refuting the previous comment?

Reply 7

VannR

21

Original post by Harrie Lyons

Mathematics is entirely 'rationalist' and yet the real core of the sciences depend on it. You're dichotomy is interesting but I don't think it holds water.

This is far too cavalier.

On one hand, philosophers such Locke and Mill claim that it makes no sense for mathematical concepts to exist a priori since we have no knowledge of them until we have sense experience; on the other, Leibniz claimed that all necessary truth must be a priori, coming from logical induction upon our experiences and must therefore be synthetic a priori (though he goes onto defend this through a less-than-plausible metaphysics) - Plato takes a similar approach using the theory of Forms.

This may lead to a defense of the rationalist position, but a Humean (strong empiricist) approach would have us say that we are now attempting to push human thought beyond its capability by speaking about the metaphysical. We can only know what we experience - whether it existed metaphysically beforehand is not something we can coherently enquire about.

As my whirlwind tour of the debate between rationalism and empiricism demonstrates, there is much more to it than simply 'all maths is raitonalist, but empiricists require it thereby making themselves irrelevant'. There are good arguments on both sides, and the issue to this day remains unresolved.

Back to the point of this thread, the (not my) dichotomy is real, and it is most persistent.

Reply 8

VannR

21

Original post by StolenPrivacy

Thanks, this is also a great answer and has made me think. I can see there could be some reconciliation between the two but the incompatibility between having to see an event or reasoning about the event is quite large but I believe there could be some sort of connection that can allow a belief in both theism and scientific realism.

Some attempts have involved accepting particular limitations on the scope of human understanding e.g. we can only know what we perceive, but it does not follow from this that all that we can know is all that exists. I am less certain of the specifics after this point since I come from a rather secular position in philosophy, but I think that by combining this with ontological arguments, Pascal's Wager etc there have been ways of accepting a form of induced theism in a world of scientific realism.

Reply 9

OP

Original post by VannR

Some attempts have involved accepting particular limitations on the scope of human understanding e.g. we can only know what we perceive, but it does not follow from this that all that we can know is all that exists. I am less certain of the specifics after this point since I come from a rather secular position in philosophy, but I think that by combining this with ontological arguments, Pascal's Wager etc there have been ways of accepting a form of induced theism in a world of scientific realism.

Interesting, so I am of the understanding that whilst it would require the taking on of various beliefs and the accepting of knowing that we have various limitations which can affect our own understanding which wouldn't follow with a belief of realism but would allow the reconciliation between these two philosophical sects?

I am really interested to hear other peoples opinions but again, thanks for answering my question and answering it with style. If you do not mind me asking, what secular position do you take with this question or would you rather not answer?

Reply 10

Hevachan

15

I have read quite a lot about Christianity and have never read any scientific proof.. there is philosophical 'proof' and historical.. I'm still not convinced though :smile:

Reply 11

OP

Original post by Hevachan

I have read quite a lot about Christianity and have never read any scientific proof.. there is philosophical 'proof' and historical.. I'm still not convinced though :smile:

I can understand that, but what I would really like to see is if there is any scientific proof that can be used to confirm or even correlate with the belief of a God in general but not a "One True God"

Reply 12

Original post by VannR

This is far too cavalier.

On one hand, philosophers such Locke and Mill claim that it makes no sense for mathematical concepts to exist a priori since we have no knowledge of them until we have sense experience; on the other, Leibniz claimed that all necessary truth must be a priori, coming from logical induction upon our experiences and must therefore be synthetic a priori (though he goes onto defend this through a less-than-plausible metaphysics) - Plato takes a similar approach using the theory of Forms.

This may lead to a defense of the rationalist position, but a Humean (strong empiricist) approach would have us say that we are now attempting to push human thought beyond its capability by speaking about the metaphysical. We can only know what we experience - whether it existed metaphysically beforehand is not something we can coherently enquire about.

As my whirlwind tour of the debate between rationalism and empiricism demonstrates, there is much more to it than simply 'all maths is raitonalist, but empiricists require it thereby making themselves irrelevant'. There are good arguments on both sides, and the issue to this day remains unresolved.

Back to the point of this thread, the (not my) dichotomy is real, and it is most persistent.

Anybody that wasn't a pure empiricist would agree that mathematics is knowledge a priori, and a pure empiricist (like Locke and Hume) would have to make mathematical knowledge a posteriors ipso facto that it is knowledge. (btw Making Plato a Leibnizian rationalist is a gross modern distortion but very symptomatic of modern redactivism, it completely misses the mystical in Plato)
My point was that claiming science is unequivocally rationalist is not sufficiently tentative: mathematics on which so much of it relies is a strong contender for being knowledge obtained purely by reason. At the same time, not all theists accept the analytic self-evidency of God, myself included. I personally believe God is actually self-evident, not by ratio but by a quasi-Kierkegaardian 'divine sense' (and no this does not fall under a rationalist category). Pascal's le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
Shame it's not your dichotomy, I'd never read anywhere else so I assumed it to be original (although I disagree)

Reply 13

Original post by StolenPrivacy

So would it be fair to say that you believe that belief in rationality and empiricism in terms of religion and science or even with just those two philosophical systems can be reconciled with an apparent incompatibility or are you just refuting the previous comment?

Lol just contradicting the previous statement. I think religion is outside the realm of both

Reply 14

OP

Original post by Harrie Lyons

Lol just contradicting the previous statement. I think religion is outside the realm of both

So why would you think this and do you not believe it possible for theology and science through the mediums of rationale and empiricism to be interconnected or would you say that religion/theology doesn't class as being a rational or empirical system and is its own system outright.

Reply 15

Original post by StolenPrivacy

So why would you think this and do you not believe it possible for theology and science through the mediums of rationale and empiricism to be interconnected or would you say that religion/theology doesn't class as being a rational or empirical system and is its own system outright.

I think religion is an experience that transcends the field of rational inquiry, much like the experience of selfhood, concrete Iness. I also think if we admitt God exists, we have to admit he would be unattainable through empirical method. It would be like expecting a computer program to discover the programmer through enaction of it's program commands, impossible. If such a being were to be discovered it would have to be through direct encounter initiated by the being . Or not at all.

http://youtu.be/59YN8_lg6-U
, the experience of colour is scientifically verifiable : the measurement of light wave length. Imagine all people were like that man, through the scientific method they realise there is something called light which they feel affect them through heat, and they can detect the wave length of light particles, but knowledge of colours would undeniably be absolutely unattainable to them. It would actually be meaningless to them. Only through some revelatory encounter could they see, an opening of their eyes.

That encounter I believe to be religious experience. Theology is merely an attempt to put this experience into text, as best someone can.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 16

Plantagenet Crown

20

No, there is no scientific/empirical proof for a God. If there were it would be all over the news and the person who found it would be famous.

Reply 17

OP