the role of \"the scientific method\" in agnostic thinking

hi guys, i'm new to this forum, but i wanted to sample the opinions of people here by asking the following question. -"what if any is the role of "the scientific method" in seeking proof of Gods existence or lack there of?" -i should state that i am undecided if we are the result of a creator but i do believe if we were this would leave some tangible evidence. i also believe that if the opposite is true this would also one day be provable. i also believe that despite it's imperfections science will one day answer these questions.-i thank you in advance for your time, and any thoughts or comments are much appreciated.-john

Post reply

2499 views

Welcome to John the Agnostic, who asks what is the role of "the scientific method" in seeking proof of God's existence or lack thereof.-You'll see from the different threads on the forum that this question lies at the heart of many of our discussions. My own impression from these is that without a great deal of faith, there is no way off the agnostic fence. The very fact that there are theist, atheist and agnostic scientists (Darwin having been one of the latter) suggests that you're never going to get "proof", but let me try to summarize the debate so far.-Inevitably the scientific method is applied to researching the origin and structure of the universe and of life. The more we learn about these, the more complex they appear ... and we're still nowhere near understanding them. Theists believe that this complexity is so great that the very idea of its coming about through unconscious chance is virtually inconceivable, and therefore the obvious conclusion is that the universe and life were designed. Similarly, the sheer mystery ... still unsolved by science ... of how matter can become conscious of itself suggests to the theist that there is some kind of intelligence that is independent of matter. The scientific method can therefore be used in this way to establish the comparative likelihood of God's existence. Atheists, on the other hand, argue that science continues to make great strides in its understanding of how the material world works, and in due course it will be able to create life and come up with an adequate explanation of how the universe fine-tuned itself naturally, how the mechanisms of life assembled themselves naturally, and how consciousness is the product of purely chemical processes in the brain. My agnostic view is that the theist conclusion (there is a conscious designer) and the atheist conclusion (science will one day come up with a materialist explanation for all the phenomena we don't understand) both require a degree of faith I simply cannot muster.-You ask if science might have a role in proving that God doesn't exist. My own answer to that would be no. If scientists cracked every code and succeeded in creating life from scratch, it would still have required intelligence to do so, and in any case, if someone maintains that there is a force beyond the scope of science, how can science prove otherwise?-As far as tangible evidence is concerned, this comes down to your own subjective assessment of what constitutes evidence. There are many people who regard their religious visions, psychic experiences, inner convictions as evidence enough. David Turell and I are currently discussing near-death experiences on the thread Spirituality and the Brain. How "tangible" are these? The materialist view varies from downright scepticism to attempts at physical explanations. If the scientific method can't actually come up with the answers, does that mean the experiences are to be discounted? In other words, is science the only way to find out the truth about God's existence?-I hope this summary is adequate, but I'm sure others will leap on any flaws in it, and I hope you'll give us your own views on it too. Despite the strident, self-confident pronouncements of some proselytizing atheists and some religious fundamentalists, nobody knows the truth, and each of us can come up with insights that others may not have had. -Once again, welcome to the forum.

Post reply

2429 views

I'd just like to respond to a couple of dhw's comments.-dhw writes: "Atheists, on the other hand, argue that science continues to make great strides in its understanding of how the material world works, and in due course it will be able to create life and come up with an adequate explanation of how the universe fine-tuned itself naturally, how the mechanisms of life assembled themselves naturally, and how consciousness is the product of purely chemical processes in the brain."-In fact I would not go as far as this. Progress will undoubtedly be made in answering these questions, but whether we will ever "create life" in the same way that it appeared initially is doubtful, since the extreme conditions may not be replicable, and there may be greater subtleties in the functioning of consciousness than dhw supposes, on behalf of atheists.-Secondly dhw writes: "As far as tangible evidence is concerned, this comes down to your own subjective assessment of what constitutes evidence. There are many people who regard their religious visions, psychic experiences, inner convictions as evidence enough."-This is an attitude that dhw often cites, and I've been puzzled how to argue against it, but is it really justifiable? There are lots of madmen who believe all sorts of strange things based on their subjective experience. The scientific method however insists on communicability of evidence, and if there is no way someone can transfer their subjective experiences to the mind of a sceptic what value can there be in such experiences? They may be the basis for personal decisions, but they cannot be imposed on others as "true" or "real" knowledge without independent proofs. -Claims that such independent proofs have been found in the case, for example, of secret knowledge being found by people who have out-of-body experiences, have never been scientifically justified. They are just anecdotes.

--
GPJ

Post reply

2442 views

In my earlier post I tried to summarize atheist beliefs: i.e. that science would eventually create life, would explain how the universe and life assembled themselves naturally, and would prove that consciousness is the product of purely chemical processes. -GEORGE: In fact I would not go as far as this. Progress will undoubtedly be made in answering these questions, but whether we will ever "create life" in the same way that it appeared initially is doubtful, since the extreme conditions may not be replicable, and there may be greater subtleties in the functioning of consciousness than dhw supposes, on behalf of atheists.-Thank you for this correction, which I think brings all parties closer together than is sometimes apparent. You are acknowledging that even in the future science is liable to have its limitations, and since our current knowledge of all these fundamental questions is at present so thin, it raises the question of how solidly based is belief in materialism. This provides a direct link with the second part of your post.-You dispute the value of subjective experiences, and argue that the scientific method "insists on communicability of evidence, and if there is no way someone can transfer their subjective experiences to the mind of a sceptic what value can there be in such experiences? They may be the basis for personal decisions, but they cannot be imposed on others as "true" or "real" knowledge without independent proofs."-Following this very clear and rational line of argument, what independent proofs do you have to support belief that the universe and life came about spontaneously through chance and the unconscious workings of Nature, and that consciousness itself with all its manifestations is the product solely of the physical cells in the brain? Your own studies and experiences have led you to think these the most likely explanations, and they "may be the basis for personal decisions but they cannot be imposed on others as "true" or "real" knowledge without independent proofs." David's studies and experiences have led him to the opposite belief, but he doesn't have the independent proofs either. Nor does Dawkins, nor does the Pope. All of you are satisfied with your own subjective thought processes and conclusions, which is entirely understandable. But at present science, which you regard "as the only reliable method of finding out about anything" (27 May, at 20.45), cannot provide the "true" or "real" knowledge that would enable you to transfer your subjective thought processes to the mind of a sceptic. And so it all boils down to what each of us as individuals accepts as evidence. However, I don't see this as a problem so long as people like ourselves are willing to exchange views in the rational manner of your post. Problems only arise when "impose" becomes the operative word, and intolerance takes the place of reasoned discussion.

Post reply

2413 views

A PS concerning my reply to George's thoughtful posts on this subject. You regard science "as the only reliable method of finding out about anything." I have a degree of sympathy for that view, but there are areas of life to which science has no relevance, and only subjective experience can be used as guidance. I'm talking about spheres of emotion, aesthetics, vocation, intuition, taste etc. Subjective experience alone governs my love for my wife, my boundless admiration for Shakespeare/Beethoven/ Michelangelo, my chosen career, my decision to play forward and not back (cricket shot for the uninitiated), my liking for chocolate and my dislike of ginger. Similarly, if someone I know, respect and trust (my wife, for instance) relates an incident to me, my assumption ... based on subjective experience ... will be that she is telling the truth. I have never met David or BBella in person, but when they relate incidents on this forum, my subjective response is to believe that they too are telling the truth, i.e. that those incidents actually took place. And so we come to what for our discussion is an important borderline. You wrote:-"Claims that such independent proofs have been found in the case, for example, of secret knowledge being found by people who have out-of-body experiences, have never been scientifically justified. They are just anecdotes."-You dismiss the claims, because your own subjective criteria for reliability have not been met. That is your prerogative, but my subjective criteria for reliability will not allow dismissal. You are, of course, right that "there are lots of madmen who believe all sorts of strange things", but if my subjective opinion is that they are mad, I will dismiss their evidence just as you do. However, until my wife, David, BBella, Pim van Lommel and countless others are shown to have deceived us, or to have deceived themselves (or to be mad!), I'm prepared to believe that they have witnessed events and/or acquired knowledge in ways which science cannot (as yet) explain. I will not, however, draw conclusions from those experiences. I simply remain open to possible material and non-material explanations.

Post reply

2414 views

hi guys, i'm new to this forum, but i wanted to sample the opinions of people here by asking the following question. 
> 
> "what if any is the role of "the scientific method" in seeking proof of Gods existence or lack there of?" - Delighted yhou have joined us. As the resident Theist, I'm a panentheist, I believe science can eventually prove, by the back door that chance is completely improbable. I think we are witnessing proof of intelligent design as science advances.

Post reply

2409 views

thanks guys both replies have given me a fair amount to think about, i am reading the .pdf first then i will give more thought out responses to your individual messages. i will say now however that i already find this forum to be a very interesting place, gimme a chance to catch up on the reading a bit and i will be joining the debate real soon. needless to say i too have my own strong opinions on this matter. oh and thanks for the warm welcome too.

Post reply

2397 views

As far as I'm concerned the scientific method is the only reliable method of finding out about anything. Other methods just don't cut the mustard. What are the other methods anyway? Subjective, personal experiences, wish fulfillment, anecdote, revelation, hearsay, ...?

--
GPJ

Post reply

2417 views

John, Welcome!
> hi guys, i'm new to this forum, but i wanted to sample the opinions of people here by asking the following question. 
> 
> "what if any is the role of "the scientific method" in seeking proof of Gods existence or lack there of?" 
> -The extreme difficulty is like this. Imagine the light emanating from a star. Does it emanate only in one place, or does it emanate from every direction? -As you increase your distance from the star, the amount of light visible to you decreases: your field of vision is only so wide. As you continue out, to billions upon billions of miles, the amount of light you can see shrinks until quite possibly--you cannot see it anymore. -Time works in the same fashion: As you increase time from an event, you decrease the chances of being able to see it, to learn about it, or to reconstruct it. All we have is inferences. Inferences about an event so distant in time, that no real consensus can exist: so what then?-Science patently can only study the material world. Therefore, only if God is material, can any part of it be studied by science. Most theists hold to the notion that God is immaterial; but the word "most" indicates that there is disagreement on this; -The argument--the entire debate--has nothing to do with the existence of gods at all, but it is the clashing of two meta-memes, one incredibly ancient, and one incredibly young. God only exists in the minds of men: for if man did not exist, there would be no receptacle for the idea "God." This is not to say that such an entity doesn't exist, but that the entire debate is centered on opposing epistemologies. The fact is that no scientist has ever found material evidence for or against God; the best one can do is create a meme to fit the evidence; this goes for BOTH positions, theist, and atheist.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

2395 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

the role of \"the scientific method\" in agnostic thinking (Introduction)