Do you believe that Science leaves any room at all for a God?

[benburch]

Poll question: Do you believe that Science leaves any room at all for a God?

[bowens43]

1. Science has nothing to say about god.

Science is thy study of the natural world.

[Canuckistanian]

4. Not until there are direct, observable phenomena

And that phenomena can be connected to some form of a distinct intelligence (e.g. clear "interference" with natural processes), then no.

But first, we have to get a handle on what "natural" processes are. Then we can speculate about the supernatural.

[SnowGoose]

6. Right on - Option # 2 poorly worded.

I think this was to be the option for people who would say "science studies natural, not supernatural reality." (If a supernatural reality even exists, etc. etc.)

But of course science and religion can, and do, conflict. There've been plenty of religions that posit a flat world, for example.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. the famed author Edna St. Vincent Millay once said,

“There is no God.
But it does not matter.
Man is enough.”

Unfortunately, that is not enough for those who wish to interfere with our lives and who demand that we must believe as they do.

[hlthe2b]

8. Naturalistic religions believe God is life--all life...within all life...

that would seem consistant with Ms. Millay..as well as with Buddhists and many other more traditional spirtual or reigious beliefs...

[murray hill farm]

11. Science will assist us humans in knowing what is..

and to more and more clearly define and redefine what is in our world and our universe. If god is the "I am", then science will be the source of expanding understanding more clearly just what the "i am" is.

[manic expression]

39. Interfere?

Divinity IS ultimately everything, men interfere with that.

"Man" is only a facet of "god". To say one thing is "enough", while another is not is misled. What is "enough" being measured to? Divinity transcends all things, and that is what matters.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

40. I suspect that we seriously disagree on that point.

In my mind, this divinity stuff is evil mind control, a pathetic relinquishment of rational thought and a horrible display of superstitions beating out logic and science.

[manic expression]

41. Probably,

but that's the basis of a good conversation.

Religion is different beliefs on the divine. There is quite a bit of logic and rational thought put into many beliefs, and religion and science can not only coexist, but can support one another as well. The very reasonable rational that goes into many religions is undeniable even if one disagrees to the greatest degree.

Of course, there are religious groups that do seek to control. There are religious groups that not only do not use logic, but openly shun it as a matter of principle. The Romans and late pagans criticized the Christians for their hatred of the truth as a central part of their religion, and they were right. THAT is what you speak of. However, this is a case of misuse of something, and is certainly not grounds for condemning all religious thought.

Look, the very thought of missionaries makes me shake with rage, the concept of intolerance does the same, so it's not like I'm arguing for the Inquisition here; many religions are very rational, reasonable and tolerant, and that is the way it should be.

[bluerum]

3. I don't agree with the way you have framed the responses.

The yes response if very on/off.

Science cannot prove that god does not exist. Science can't prove that god does exist either. For that matter, science does not care one way or the other. Those questions are exercises for theologians and philosophers. Don't drag science into this!

There is nothing to prove, one way or the other. It is simply a matter of belief and choice. Science deals with facts.

[imaginary girl]

7. I agree with your assessment of the choices

Science is a way of explaining what has either been created or what somehow created itself. It doesn't explain the source of the creation or order. Perhaps it seeks the source, but I've seen nothing to suggest it's ever gotten close.

[benburch]

12. Actually, Science has everything to say about God.

God is a purported creature that;

- Created the Universe in a very compressed time-scale.
- Can change the rules of the Universe at Will.
- Does so in everyday matters like curing sickness.
- Does so in ways that would leave durable traces like the Noachian Flood.

(Yes, different mythologies have different claims for powers of Deities, but they all amount to the same thing.)

Which claims are testable;

Science demonstrates that the Universe was not created on a very compressed time-scale. There is Deep Time.
Science finds no evidence that the rules of the Universe ever change.
Science cannot substantiate ANY putative "Miracle" in spite of trying repeatedly.
Science finds no evidence of those scriptural events that would leave durable traces.

In short, Science leaves no room whatsoever for a God as traditionally defined.

[bryant69]

18. If you already know the answer why make a poll?

[benburch]

21. Because the answer I don't have is how others think about this. nt

[bryant69]

23. why would it matter?

Do you really expect anybody to put forward a position that sways you?

[benburch]

24. Of course not.

But being swayed isn't what I was looking for.

I was looking for the data about other people's opinions. The usual reason for a poll, after all.

[bryant69]

25. I'm not sure I buy that - it seems like this is more of a Push Poll

As other's have noted, the language is a bit weighted - I didn't respond because none of those really reflect my point of view.

It strikes me this is an argument disguised as a poll - nothing wrong with that (it's a technique I use myself, on occasion).

[benburch]

26. Wasn't meant to be a push poll.

I thought item two was the appropriate and fair one for the converse opinion of item one. Which I am learning it is not!

[bluerum]

28. The poll questions are improperly framed - they imply a black and

white answer to this question exists.

[bluerum]

27. You presume that we accept the God created the world in 7 days

"theory" of the bible.

I could also claim that my dog created the world in 12 days in previous spritual existence. Thats my choice and it has just as much basis in reality as these statements:

God is a purported creature that;

- Created the Universe in a very compressed time-scale.
- Can change the rules of the Universe at Will.
- Does so in everyday matters like curing sickness.
- Does so in ways that would leave durable traces like the Noachian Flood.

[Inland]

34. Your conclusions are not supported by your argument.

Three of the four statements say "science finds no evidence, can't substantiate, no evidence", from which you conclude "science leaves no room whatsoever".

Finding "no evidence" or "can't substantiate" isn't the most compelling of conclusions that there is no room whatsoever, not in and of itself. When the traditional god can "change the rules of the universe at will", he can also not leave any durable traces. It happens that the conventional god, maybe conveniently, is not subject to observation and is not required to leave physical evidence of his doings, and therefore to state that there is nothing observed means nothing.

There's never going to be a more conclusive "scientific" assessment than "science can't prove he exists, either."

[bowens43]

36. Your reasoning is faulty.

If a god or gods exist your 'testables' are irrelevant. This god could easily have created the universe to appear as it does now. This could could have created it last thursday for all we know. In the realm of miracles or omnipotent power a lack of evidence is meaningless.

Science has NOTHING to say about the existence or non-existence of gods. Gods are outside of the realm of science. Science is the study of the NATURAL world. To say that it has 'no room' for god is wrong. Science just doesn't consider gods.

[heidler1]

47. Yes, but then God would be as deceitful as Bush and eternity

with that sucks bad.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. No, it isn't.

The Christian and Jewish conception of God has those properties, and I think the Islamic one does too, but the word God simply means "A supreme being". There's absolutely nothing about it that implies any of your claims.

It's entirely possible to believe in a God who doesn't cure sickness, or act in ways that would leave durable traces; and certainly there's absolutely nothing about believing in a God that means one has to believe in the Flood, or anything else in any particular religion.

If you meant "does science contradict Christianity/Judaism/Islam/whathaveyou" then you should have asked that, not "does science contradict the existence of a god".

[hunter]

46. Oh, bah. We don't even know what time is, much less "Deep Time."

Your tiny little brain, even this tiny little earth, is utterly insignificant against the scales of the universe. We are all dust.

If I start out with some faith that God is not out to deceive me, that God is Truth, then my God and my religion have no conflict with my science.

I'm an amateur evolutionary biologist so I tend to focus my disdain for the religious fundamentalists on the Creationists and "Intelligent Design" snake oil salesmen.These people are like the guys who are always paranoid that their wives are cheating on them. They see deception everywhere, they cannot see beyond their own fears. The evidence of the fossil record, the evidence of evolution in our own genes, is always a potential a deception by satan, or a test of one's faith in God. Knowledge is always a threat.

But to claim that "Science has everything to say about God" is another kind of extremism. To claim that " Science leaves no room whatsoever for a God as traditionally defined," presumes that we know a lot more about the workings of the universe than we really do.

[Skinner]

19. I gotta agree with this.

It seems to me that the options available do not correspond with the question being asked.

The question is: "Do you believe that Science leaves any room at all for a God?"

None of the options provided correspond with the question:

"No. There is zero evidence of any sort of Diety." --> Simply because there is no evidence of a Deity does not mean that there is "no room at all for a God." Many believers who understand and respect science believe that they can still find "room for God" in those places where Science does not and cannot speak.

"Yes. Science and religion can never conflict." --> What does this even mean? They can *never* conflict? There are plenty of religious beliefs that conflict with science. But many people believe that religion doesn't have to conflict with science. When you say "can never conflict" do you mean "it is not possible for conflict to exist between the two" or do you mean "When conflict exists, one must bend to accommodate the other"? Or do you mean something completely different?

The question of how Science and Faith conflict/compliment/inform one another is an interesting one that is worth discussing. But this poll does nothing to shed any light on the topic. To be honest, I don't even think this poll makes any sense.

[mike_c]

22. god can't prove that god exists....

Fundamental problem for rational people, there....

[libhill]

35. Because

there is nothing that CAN be proven, one way or another. The existence / non existence of a Deity of some sort is unknown and unknowable. The jury is still out on that one, and always will be.

[bryant69]

5. Are Religious people morons or simply deluded?

Why don't you do a poll about that?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[benburch]

9. You may.

Feel free.

[GeorgeGist]

10. Science doesn't decide what exists.

[Desertrose]

13. A simple truth beautifully stated.

[trotsky]

16. No, but it can help us determine what does. n/t

[bluerum]

29. Cheers to that. eom

[One_Life_To_Give]

14. Is God bound by our understanding of science?

Was our science intended to unfold as it currently is?
Intended to give us the current questions at this point in time?
Did god create science such that it would cause people to question their belief?

[bluerum]

30. You should have stopped at "Did God create science." eom.

[trotsky]

15. About the only thing science has to say

is that there is no evidence at all that a god is needed to explain anything.

Other than that, science doesn't really care about the god question. It's irrelevant.

[Skinner]

20. Exactly.

I agree completely.

[Evoman]

38. Wouldnt it be cool

Wouldn't it be cool though, if there was a god, that he would let us study him/her/it.

C'mon, big guy. Let us study you. I promise, no needles.

Evoman

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. "Given that", not "other than that", I think.

If it weren't for the fact that the Universe, as far as we can tell, operates exactly as it would do if a God didn't exist (whether or not one does), then whether or not one did would be a scientific issue of the utmost importance.

I think this is probably what you meant, but it wasn't entirely clear - was it? Or were you saying that the existance or not of a God would be a matter for philosophers rather than scientists, even if that God were interacting demonstably with the universe.

[trotsky]

44. Yes, the first meaning. n/t

[HereSince1628]

17. It's not the science, it's the empiricism

Empiricism is bigger than science and applies to more than the study of the natural universe. Science' per se, simply relies on that form of knowing as the best way to be confident about what is known in the natural universe.

If you are a natural scientist at work you ought to be an empiricist, but you could be a relativisit, a spiritualist or whatever at home or at play on your own time.

This capacity to have multiple ways of knowing has been referred to by some as philosophical dualism. It allows for treating the ways of knowing like different types of screw drivers...that is different screwdrivers for different types of screwheads, different ways of knowing for different things to be known.

It is not at all uncommon to find scientists who are dualists. Many scientists I have worked with are dualists and either believe in a god or gods.

But if you really are a dyed in the wool Empiricist, an Empiricist with a capital E, you are an Empiricist vocationally and avocationally.

There is plenty of empirical evidence for the existance of religions and religious beliefs, but there isn't good empirical evidence for gods, ghosts, demons, angels, etc.

The meme is, "You can measure an angle but you can't measure an angel."

How does one _prove_ empirically there is not one or more god? Absence of evidence is not really the same as evidence of absence.

Proving negatives is a tough business and not the sort of thing empiricists and scientists intentionally engage in.

[bluerum]

31. Here Here. eom

[H2O Man]

32. Other. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

33. False choices...

as others have said.

There is no fundamental conflict between science and any of the gods out there. Science simply measures and counts stuff. It's all about mechanics, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Religion asks "why" and explores the meaning of all those dry facts, just as art and philosophy do. There are plenty of religious dogmatists out there who insist they are "right," just as there are artists and philosophers out there who have their attitudes. Unlike dogmatic scientists, however, they don't have new and unfortunate measurements and facts thrown in their faces to prove them wrong, so they go on with little to affect their beliefs except whatever self-realization they have.

Science tells us how we exist, but doesn't come close to answering why. Not that any other path will necessarily come up with a "true" answer, but if we're gonna ask the question, we're gonna come up with some way to answer it.

It's part of being human. Our ability to think in the abstract and have our emotions.

To dream.

[manic expression]

37. Of course it does

why wouldn't it? If anything, it shows evidence of "something more".

By the way, I didn't vote in your poll because the phrase "science and religion NEVER conflict" is incorrect, nor is it really the question. Science and religion can coexist, and more importantly, they can support one another.

[mmonk]

45. science doesn't take up the issue (just like math doesn't).

So why does religion take up science and want to discredit it? Is religion comfortable with itself?

[varkam]

48. Science operates on the principles of materialism, nuff said.

The way science works is through observational phenomena - i.e. stuff we can hear, see, feel, taste, touch or otherwise quantify in some way. It operates on the premise that the universe is comprised solely of material, as in no immaterial substances. In other words, physicists don't speak of forces by saying "well because of the mass of the object and then because of the action of these mysterious ghostly forces over here...".

To press the point, if I'm correct in my statement that science operates on the basis of materialism, then, for science there can be no God. There are no souls (as supposedly they are consciousness apart from matter, which cannot exist according to the materialist viewpoint). There likewise is no afterlife, no heaven or hell, etc.

But then again, science doesn't really concern itself with theological claims per se.