- September 8th, 2010, 6:57 am
#48288
It has often been argued that theism (god did it) is a science-stopper. The implication is that if one believes that "god did it", there is no motivation left to pursue understanding of the cause and effect sequences involved in generating the phenomena in question.
Historically, of course, this is patently false. The history of science is full of devout believers who, even though they firmly believed that "god did it", didn't use that belief as a reason to stop investigating; rather, it propelled them to continue. They believed that a rational, purposeful god intentionally created the universe the way it was, and created reason and gave man free will so that he could apprehend and appreciate His creation. Newton, Kepler, Bacon, etc. were, in their minds, seeking to understand the mind of god by examining the sequences of cause and effect in the physical world.
For these men, science was about finding and uncovering truths about the world through empirical and methodical investigation; they fashioned the scientific method, still used today, to best pursue that knowledge.
Of course there were those in positions of power - at the time, the church - that didn't like what certain scientists discovered, and attempted to censor that information. However, that is hardly because of religion, since the history of secular science is full of exactly the same kind of behavior. People in power, who have reputations and credibility on the line, do not like factual information to spread that undermines their reputations, credibility, and authority - whether they are in positions religious or secular.
No religious scientist of any historical merit ever used "god did it" as a reason to stop investigating the cause and effect sequences of any phenomena, even while concurrently believing that god was the first cause and prime mover of existence itself.
But, let us say that at some time, somewhere, a scientist did reach a conclusion - let's say, "where gravity came from" or "why the universal constants are set at what they are set at" - of "god did it". Is such a finding unscientific? Preposterous? A "science-stopper"?
Recently, Stephen Hawking has asserted that the universe created itself. Apparently, now, entire universe can just "create themselves"; exactly what science can be conducted after we decide that a thing created itself out of "nothing"? If we are talking about true "nothing", then there are no properties to investigate or theorize, no potential, no time or space. What exactly is science supposed to do with that? Isn't saying that something created itself out of nothing a true science stopper?
At least with the conclusion that a god, as prime mover and first cause, created the universe - you have something, and something is always better than nothing when it comes to the potential of further scientific or at least rational inquiry.
After all, it is only materialist ideology that claims that science can only investigate the material world; Isaac Newton didn't subscribe to that notion as he set about to discover the mind of god by rationally examining the patterned behavior of physical matter and thus discern the invisible, non-material "laws" that govern our universe. If Newton had begun with "the universe creating itself out of nothing", exactly what principle would have led him to think that there existed rationally-discernible laws of matter that governed a universe?
One can see why the consequent would follow if a rational god created both the universe and those who would be living in it; but a universe that springs ex nihilo has no obligation to be rationally discernible, nor offers any reason to believe it even could be. Such a premise offers zero heuristic rationale or impetus to do science of any sort.
However, the premise or conclusion that a rational first cause and prime mover is informing both the form and substance of our universe, and our mind in correlation to that universe, at least offers a reason why the pursuit of rational scientific methodology should be productive, while materialism offers no basis whatsoever for such a perspective. In materialism, reason itself is just whatever each individual set of colliding molecules happens to think it is, rendering it utterly relative and not a means of discerning any truths at all.
In the end, only the premise and conclusion that a rational first cause and prime mover, operating from purpose and intent - God did it - can originate, promote, and inform sound scientific investigation; otherwise, we end up with nihilistic and absurd proclamations such as "the universe created itself from nothing" and an abandonment of science as a search for truth.
God did it is not only a viable explanation that promotes scientific inquiry; it is the only viable ultimate explanation, and it is a necessary explanation as the basis for meaningful scientific inquiry.
Historically, of course, this is patently false. The history of science is full of devout believers who, even though they firmly believed that "god did it", didn't use that belief as a reason to stop investigating; rather, it propelled them to continue. They believed that a rational, purposeful god intentionally created the universe the way it was, and created reason and gave man free will so that he could apprehend and appreciate His creation. Newton, Kepler, Bacon, etc. were, in their minds, seeking to understand the mind of god by examining the sequences of cause and effect in the physical world.
For these men, science was about finding and uncovering truths about the world through empirical and methodical investigation; they fashioned the scientific method, still used today, to best pursue that knowledge.
Of course there were those in positions of power - at the time, the church - that didn't like what certain scientists discovered, and attempted to censor that information. However, that is hardly because of religion, since the history of secular science is full of exactly the same kind of behavior. People in power, who have reputations and credibility on the line, do not like factual information to spread that undermines their reputations, credibility, and authority - whether they are in positions religious or secular.
No religious scientist of any historical merit ever used "god did it" as a reason to stop investigating the cause and effect sequences of any phenomena, even while concurrently believing that god was the first cause and prime mover of existence itself.
But, let us say that at some time, somewhere, a scientist did reach a conclusion - let's say, "where gravity came from" or "why the universal constants are set at what they are set at" - of "god did it". Is such a finding unscientific? Preposterous? A "science-stopper"?
Recently, Stephen Hawking has asserted that the universe created itself. Apparently, now, entire universe can just "create themselves"; exactly what science can be conducted after we decide that a thing created itself out of "nothing"? If we are talking about true "nothing", then there are no properties to investigate or theorize, no potential, no time or space. What exactly is science supposed to do with that? Isn't saying that something created itself out of nothing a true science stopper?
At least with the conclusion that a god, as prime mover and first cause, created the universe - you have something, and something is always better than nothing when it comes to the potential of further scientific or at least rational inquiry.
After all, it is only materialist ideology that claims that science can only investigate the material world; Isaac Newton didn't subscribe to that notion as he set about to discover the mind of god by rationally examining the patterned behavior of physical matter and thus discern the invisible, non-material "laws" that govern our universe. If Newton had begun with "the universe creating itself out of nothing", exactly what principle would have led him to think that there existed rationally-discernible laws of matter that governed a universe?
One can see why the consequent would follow if a rational god created both the universe and those who would be living in it; but a universe that springs ex nihilo has no obligation to be rationally discernible, nor offers any reason to believe it even could be. Such a premise offers zero heuristic rationale or impetus to do science of any sort.
However, the premise or conclusion that a rational first cause and prime mover is informing both the form and substance of our universe, and our mind in correlation to that universe, at least offers a reason why the pursuit of rational scientific methodology should be productive, while materialism offers no basis whatsoever for such a perspective. In materialism, reason itself is just whatever each individual set of colliding molecules happens to think it is, rendering it utterly relative and not a means of discerning any truths at all.
In the end, only the premise and conclusion that a rational first cause and prime mover, operating from purpose and intent - God did it - can originate, promote, and inform sound scientific investigation; otherwise, we end up with nihilistic and absurd proclamations such as "the universe created itself from nothing" and an abandonment of science as a search for truth.
God did it is not only a viable explanation that promotes scientific inquiry; it is the only viable ultimate explanation, and it is a necessary explanation as the basis for meaningful scientific inquiry.
Meleagar ON THESE BOARDS you call materialist determinists robots, not human beings, what is next, annihilation of human robots ..your a breath away from becoming Hitler and exterminating those whom you don`t define as human!
- By Fried Egg
- By Sanju Lali
- By Thrylix
- By Pattern-chaser