Do We Need God To Do Science?

_{Steve Fuller

February 10, 2010

Creationism, Culture, Design inference, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Media, Philosophy, Religion, Science, theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Premier Radio, one of the UK’s leading Christian radio stations, has been featuring several interviews/debates in recent weeks on matters related to ID, some of which have been flagged here and here.

The most recent one bears the title of this post and was aired last weekend (6th Feb), in which I debated the question with the historian Thomas Dixon, who basically holds that while we may have needed God to do science, we don’t need the deity anymore. My own view is that if we mean by ‘science’ something more than simply the pursuit of instrumental knowledge, then that quest still doesn’t make much sense without the relevant (Abrahamic) theological backdrop. I continue this line of argument in a new book, due out this summer.

Here is the link to Dixon and me in action with Justin Brierley, the genial host. (Unlike some of the previous debates, which took place over the phone, Justin, Tom and I were all huddled in one room over a couple of mikes in London. Luckily we are all on friendly terms!)

Comments

There is no God but Materialism, and Darwin is its apostle.
Supposedly Heisenberg said
There is no god, and Paul Dirac is his prophet.
LOL!tragic mishap_{February 11, 2010
February
02
Feb
11
11
2010
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

First, what is the "meaning of science" in a world (view) devoid of God? Evolutionists and materialists are advocates of the theory that the univers, our lifes and everything has no sens, purpose or higher meaning - no metaphysical significance. How a materialist or evolutionist can ultimately explain the sense, meaning, purpose of science (endeavour) within a world view where there is no meaning, sense or purpose. It is surprising, how such a materialist scientist expects a meaningless univers to manifest in an oderly and regular ways, conforming to particular invariants, rules or laws. More specifically isn't ultimately nonsensical that a meningless univers contains "pockets" or "traces" of meaning? Is this implicit belief rational, consistent with his world view? A materialist world view is consistent with a univers "governed" by chaos, absence of any invariants, rules, order and harmony. Such an univers would be amorphous, dark, unstructured, a collection of unrepetable accidents and hapenings, and seriuosly meaningless. If a materialist scientist observes though in our universe such invariants, repeatable behaviors, consistent phenomena, than he must ask himself some serious questions: 1. How come that there are such structures, invariants, rules, repeatable phenomena and occurrences in a univers ment to be meaningless and purposeless? 2. What is the "source" and the "origination" of such invariants, repetable behaviors, rules, laws, structure? Aren't they together a solid demonstration that there is an overarching order, structure, harmony and sens and significance in our univers? 2. Shouldn't an omnipotent and omiscient God be a proper name for the origin and the source of these rules, constancy, harmony and rationality observable everywhere in the univers and more so on our amazing planet?InVivoVeritas_{February 11, 2010
February
02
Feb
11
11
2010
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

To Innerbling: Thats nice, but not exactly a 'practical' example. What Im getting at, is how would it work 'in the lab' ?Graham1_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Graham wanted a practical example why God is good for science. For me God gives hope that we are living in a rational universe where doing science is possible. The question I ask my self is how it would be possible to do science in a reality where non-caused events occur and matter can come out of nothing caused by nothing?Innerbling_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

A_MacNeil at #4 Do we need Allen_MacNeil to discuss this topic ? NoInVivoVeritas_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

If God is good for science, then can someone give a practical example of how this would work ? No more theory now, a practical example.Graham_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Do We Need God To Do Science?
No. (StephenB scolded me for being too long-winded)Seversky_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

"Do we need God to do science?" Some (many?) would argue that without "God" there wouldn't be science to do and besides there wouldn't be anyone to do it.Joseph_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Recognizing I am taking this question in a different direction, nevertheless I find it ironic the way science is being so desperately undermined by dishonest practice (the IPCC especially) at the same time scientists are saying God gets in the way of good science. What greater encouragement toward honesty is there than belief in the God of truth?TomG_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

I enjoyed the debate Steve and broadly agreed with you. You made a convincing case about the need for an understanding of man made in the image of God in order to do science properly and effectively. Plantinga has also noted that in order to do science we need to begin with a belief in the 'design plan' of the mind that is geared towards seeking truth - that would not be likely under neo-Darwinism, but it is likely under ID. But the imago dei concept is not one that many ID people openly subscribe to where the designer is unspecified and may be considered embodied, or an unknown spirit, Platonic force etc. How might ID proponents seek to address this difference of opinion?Andrew Sibley_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

With that out of the way, here's another question: Do we need science to do religion?Allen_MacNeill_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

NoAllen_MacNeill_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

I like Steve Fuller because he’s courageous in an environment where that is the rarest of qualities—his 2008 Dissent Over Descent: Evolution’s 500-Year War on Intelligent Design is a worthwhile read. And Frost122585—you put it well—in spite of the frost. I often say, only partly to shock and annoy, that the purpose of science is to find God. That surely was its purpose for most of its founders, as I’d guess even Richard Dawkins might agree, while happily thinking that the answer science delivered was,
There is no God but Materialism, and Darwin is its apostle.
But I would suggest that modernism (which said forget God and pursue material knowledge) easily begets postmodernism (which says forget pursuing knowledge, period). Science has always fascinated me, but should I think that it has vindicated an ultimate nihilism I would find it all meaningless and therefore boring.Rude_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

This is actually an extremely interesting philosophical question that touches on both the true nature of science and the true nature of man. Everyone is capable of considering the reality of ultimate causation which deals directly with the origin of everything- and hence there is nothing in secular materialistic science that can deal with the most fundamental and ultimate question of origins. Hence everyone- those of faith and those who claim to be purely secular in mind are left with an incomplete understanding of reality- naturally. Hence, as literary Transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson noted “A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming.” It therefore should be no surprise to Christians and Jews - and even secular conservatives today that there is a great move afoot among those who claim to be opposed to religions (particularly Christianity) because of supposed mythological elements or oppressive morality- that those same people are also trying to combine science with a universal spiritual and religious doctrine themselves. People should be very skeptical and weary of the idea that religion and religious mentalities can be just exterminated and removed from science in general. For example you have most notably the environmentalist on a crusade against Christianity and individual liberty in the name of a pantheistic Earth spirituality or religion. These same anti-religious - yet pan-religious zealots are working to force through actual global and nation legislation imposing their dogmatic beliefs on all people. For those who are not familiar with GAIA http://contenderministries.org/UN/gaia.php And those who do not know about the UN Earth Charter.- http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Digest/1999Digest/June/The%20Earth%20Charter.htm Is it any wonder why Thomas Jefferson wanted governmental restriction on the control over religious freedoms and yet at the same time strong limits on religiously provacative LEGISLATION? He knew that religion was easily and naturally abused by man to control and take advantage of the people because of the nature of dogma and of government- and the opertunistic nature of man. It appears man indeed always worships something- even if and when he claims to be an agnostic or an atheistic. SO if man cannot seperate himself and his actions from religious fervor than why should we suppose that the domain of science (a supposedly man made convention) could be any different? Incidentally I write this while my area is experiencing the biggest mid Atlantic snow on record.Frost122585_{February 10, 2010
February
02
Feb
10
10
2010
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply