h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No, I actually thought that was a very good example of certain scientists not being influenced by their religious beliefs.


az

Science basically works on the principle that the laws of nature don't change, and that consequently the world will behave in consistent (if often only statistically so) fashion. What would be the value of testing a drug for efficacy and safety be if you believe that God can intervene whenever he pleases to change the outcome? Indeed if you believe *that* why bother with the drugs in the first place?

Noggin

I can't talk from experience, being non-believer but I *do* know perfectly good scientists that are religious. Maybe thier idea if God is quite personal?

They might believe in a God who has set the ball rolling & is merely observing progress, or God being the spirit of love working through people.
Any believers who are scientists care to offer an opinion?

>> Indeed if you believe *that* why bother with the drugs in the first place? <<

When I was young, a question like that would always be answered with the assertion that God helps those who help themselves.

Personally, I always though that was a bit of a cop-out to hide the inability if God to be as omnipotent as we are led to believe he is.

Donald

"God helps those who help themselves"

I always hated that phrase. It always seemed to me that anyone with two braincells to rub together would immediately think "Well, if I have to help MYSELF, why does god even come into it?"

I'm always reminded of my favourite ever joke from "The Simpsons" - Bart is asked to say grace before a meal, and he clasps his hands together and intones:

"Dear God, we paid for this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing."



H.

"God helps those who help themselves"

My mother always responds:

"And God help those who get caught."

F

Noggin, the fact that a scientist believs in God does not mean that she is going to study a drug by measuring its performance against *miracles*! The rabies story isn't relevant, because miracles weren't involved there either - in fact the story as it was originally reported has been changed out of all recognition in its discussion on hootoo! (It's now became a hate-the-fundamentalists discussion, for some wildly illogical reason..)

"the fact that a scientist believs in God does not mean that she is going to study a drug by measuring its performance against *miracles*!"

Thank you, Della, for demonstrating that you didn't understand post 222. It makes it so much easier to ignore you if you're explicit like that.

H.

>> It makes it so much easier to ignore you if you're explicit like that. <<

So why don't you Hoo. It would save us all having to constanly read your sniping remarks.

Donald

Della, my point was that if a religious belief includes a belief in God as a an entity who *intervenes* in the world, then this belef must be set aside in order to do science. Of course a person may hold such a belief and do science, butnot at the same time.

Noggin

Yo, Noggin!

<...if a religious belief includes a belief in God as a an entity who *intervenes* in the world, then this belef must be set aside in order to do science.>

I used to think that, but now I'm not so sure. If God were to intervene only occasionally via a 'basic action', there would be no violation of the usual causal chain and, as scientists, we would dismiss the results as some kind of experimental error. After all, science depends on the possibility of replicating experimental results. We can hardly expect to call upon the Almighty every time we do the experiment! So scientific method would automatically rule out anything anomalous.

toxx

If God intervened only occassionally, and in a manner not too anomalous (appearing in person for example, or causing a large scale alteration in the workings of gravity), then, in practice what you suggest would probably happen.

But two points suggest themselves.

Firstly, working scientists, even if religious, don't look to divine intervention to explain an unusual result. They look for explanations that accord with the laws of nature being consistent.

Secondly, if God intervenes *at all*, what constrains him from intervening all the time, and where, therefore, is the reason to think that the continued working of the laws of nature can be relied on? And if the intervention involves no violation ofthe causal chain why posit an intervention at all?

Noggin

I tend to agree with you, Noggin. However, my natural reaction is to try to think of arguments to support whatever appears, at the time, to be the losing side. I wonder if it makes any sense to suppose that God is sometimes *directly confronted* by a situation that He ought to alleviate. Being perfectly good, He can hardly refuse to intervene.

On the other hand; being omniscient, He will be aware of everything that's going on - and presumably will approve that it's in accordance with His long-term plans.

I can make sense of the idea that, during the incarnation, Jesus was directly confronted by suffering and pleas for help. This seems to have a different personal force to mere (huh!) omniscience. Could He really preach about the Good Samaritan and at the same time refuse to help? I just can't pin it down, but there seems to be something different between these situations.

Confused, toxx

Hi, Toxxin, good to see you here...
<>

Good point!

Hi toxx. As usual, if you give up on a triple-o god, then there's no problem

Maybe, but giving up aspects of God can lead to more problems than it solves. I'm certainly in some doubt as to the senses in which God is perfectly free and omnipotent. There's no doubt in my mind that God's freedom is limited by being unable (in practice) to choose to do wrong. Maybe, a bit more of the same is all that's needed to explain miracles and their absence most of the time

toxx

"Can science prove the existence of God?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/thisweek/story/0,12977,1374171,00.html

"No."




az

<"Can science prove the existence of God?">

Well, science can't prove anything with absolute certainty, so picking out 'God' as a case in point is just rhetoric. However, philosophy goes beyond science but, one hopes, in a disciplined way. Flew's 'conversion' is remarkable, since he was an adamant atheist publicly for so many years. I constantly stumbled across his tracks when I was a student, just after he had moved on from Keele. What a remarkable appointment was that of Swinburne immediately afterwards!

toxx