God and Science

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
dtommy79's picture
God and Science

Most Atheists don't believe in God because of scientific reasons. However, there are many scientists that do believe in God.
So do you think it's such an impossible idea that God and science can exist together?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

gladoscc's picture
Religion and science tends to

Religion and science tends to easily conflict with each other. Some scientists find alternate explanations, or disregard certain scientific theories in order to make their religion fit. It's not impossible, but for a lot of things it is a stretch.

Mirta's picture
Religion has no scientific

Religion has no scientific proofs so a real scientist shouldn't believe in God, but I don't think these two things are so irreconcilable...

dtommy79's picture
Even Einstein believed in

Even Einstein believed in some form of God.

Zarathustra's picture
You misunderstand, and

You misunderstand, and Einstein hated being quoted in terms of religion. He said 'God does not play dice' and Stephen Hawking, an adamant non-believer, uses the phrase God in his works, too. They're bastards, physicists, but they use the phrase God in a metaphorical sense to describe the ordered nature of the universe. Einstein himself professed belief in 'Spinoza's God' who reveals himself in the beauty and order and workings of the world. Spinoza was a pantheist, which means he believed that the universe itself can be argued to be God. Einstein was in fact decried as a 'Godless socialist' by the US, particularly individuals like Senator McCarthy, because he considered capitalism predatory and pathetic, and his reputation in the US dropped greatly when his lack of religion was exposed. An awful shame, but such is the way of things.

dtommy79's picture
Actually I didn't

Actually I didn't misunderstand. I know that Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, that's why I said "some form of God". Still, he did not refuse it entirely.

SammyShazaam's picture
This pantheism sounds

This pantheism sounds interesting, I'll be looking into it. Do you have any more references on the subject?

Zaphod's picture
Me too, Its as decribed above

Me too, Its as decribed above kind of what I would believe a god to be in my imagination. But I will not venture to go as far as to say just because I believe something, it is so.

PsychoSarah's picture
If god is inanimate, then I

If god is inanimate, then I guess it won't care if I don't believe anyway. But I will say that the universe is a vast and beautiful thing.

Mirta's picture
Yes, science is a matter of

Yes, science is a matter of mind, religion, or better faith, it's a matter of soul and hart, and we're made of both...

VinnieIlDuce's picture
Can I ask you why you think

Can I ask you why you think science is a matter of religion? Religion is based on faith in which science shows us doubts about religion. I don't see the two mixing well. This is just my view of course.

SammyShazaam's picture
I'm not really going to agree

I'm not really going to agree that science is a matter of religion, but I have seen many people who study science (I'm going to reserve the term scientist for a minute) treat it in such a dogmatic fashion that it looks almost akin to a religion. They swallow the teachings of whatever great theorists came before them, and rather than take the findings as the challenge they are, accept them as immutable proof and continue to extrapolate from those points to make unstable conclusions, like a house of cards. When it falls, they blame experimental caveats and sweep the whole thing under the rug, and never think to test the foundation.

PsychoSarah's picture
I know some atheists that

I know some atheists that love logic so much you could almost say they worship the quality of logic.

Tman127182's picture
Science is based on facts and

Science is based on facts and evidence, if there is no evidence for god but mere conjecture, then I don't think they can coexist in the next 50 years. Scientists are able to separate their personal beliefs from scientific facts. Francis Collins, a geneticist and an Evangelical Christian, accepts evolution as fact, but his fellow Evangelical Christians, the majority of them, would probably refuse to accept it.

dtommy79's picture
I don't think it's about

I don't think it's about evidence or facts. It's about faith. Why is it so bad that other people may believe in something you cannot accept?

Tman127182's picture
The bad part is that people

The bad part is that people will accept claims without questioning it, without being skeptical first. Faith is accepting something without valid evidence or proof, science is exactly the opposite of that, science is based on demonstrable evidence and facts in which we can experiment to independently verify.

Zarathustra's picture
I think certain ideas of God

I think certain ideas of God can coexist with science, but it heavily strains your notion unless you view your God as distant or uncaring. Also, slightly mentally retarded, and far from perfect. Some theists say evolution is God's tool, though I wonder why a perfect being would use such a shoddy tool. Others say God created us as we are, but then I wonder why he made such shoddy people. Then theists say we can't understand him. Then I wonder why worship this alien God, he sounds like Cthulhu.

Dtommy, the problem isn't that people believe something I (or others) cannot accept, it's that unless this belief is personal and then bends to the world we discover through science, it's like cutting out your eyes and blocking your ears with dirt so as to render yourself blind and sightless, just so you can keep going with an idea that you, for some reason, cannot change. I don't think God, if he's so powerful but more importantly, so damned intelligent (even creating the universe with its flaws is a marvellous feat, I must say), why would he want, having imbued you with such a powerful brain, to forgo its use so you can stick to 'faith'? I thought the key point was believing in God, not dismissing the world as it stands. Let those who believe, believe. But let them not harm nor hinder those of us who do not.

dtommy79's picture
"why would he want, having

"why would he want, having imbued you with such a powerful brain, to forgo its use so you can stick to 'faith'?"

I guess this is a question yet to be answered :)

So do you think that the universe, life, everything here just happened on its own? Something or someone must have started it. I'm a very open-minded religious guy so I'm not saying that it had to be the Christian God or Allah etc. but a very powerful being.

SammyShazaam's picture
The thought there must be a

The thought there must be a divine creator simply because everything works so *perfectly* around here (lol) is inherently flawed. We have become best suited for this environment, not the other way around. The order is an illusion, which we're quite literally making up as we go!

It's like hindsight being 20/20. This could have gone a million different ways, and given enough recycling of cosmic matter, almost certainly will and has. And, it will and would look just as im/perfect every single time, every single way. We're humans and we like to see patterns and assign causality. It's an adaptive trait - there's no reason to read further into in than that (even though we most certainly will because we're human and that's what we do, lol).

samking009's picture
If science is perfectly

If science is perfectly defined as we all know it....google Definition of Science and read the first few that comes up to know what I mean. Then if you agree with those definitions, isn't God the first Scientist? Beside, the Science of the Creation of the Heavens and Earth is God.

Tman127182's picture
if god is the first scientist

if god is the first scientist, then that means that god doesn't know what he is doing, because a scientist is someone who uses the information he/she knows to obtain new data to learn the unknown.

Also for god to be the first scientist, there has to be a god there to be the first scientist.

SammyShazaam's picture
I don't think science rules

I don't think science rules out the possibility of a god altogether, but I do think that it rules out the possibility of many things that have been assumed as literal by several of the Western religions. I'm not as well versed on the Eastern religions, but they seem to be much more in line with what we've learned through science.

Anthropologically, I don't think that's a coincidence.

Zaphod's picture
I agree Sammy, Science does

I agree Sammy, Science does not rule out the possibility of a God.

I do think it would if it could or vise versa and I am not saying it can or does prove the existence of God which would have to happen in order for it to acknowledge the existence of God, which at the the present time it does not. It is very hard to prove something does not exist, its very hard to know where even to begin looking for evidence since if something did not exist it would not leave evidence. I do however think If God were to be proven to exist it would be far removed from what any eastern or western religion has come up with.

Matty Arnold's picture
I believe that God completely

I believe that God completely contradicts many fundamental laws of physics and conflicts heavily with almost all aspects of science. I think any scientist who believes in God ignores their own science and will not apply facts to god in order to preserve their faith. After all, that's what faith is - maintaining belief in spite of no evidence for it, or evidence against it.

Zaphod's picture
Probably one of the most

Probably one of the most important things Jesus ever said in the eyes of the church would be "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." or something to that effect.

That being said I think its entirely possible for a scientist to take the view that the existence of God has not been unproven. I also think its entirely possible for a scientist to separate their belief from their science. In science they have what are called Theory and Proof. I think God would fit into some sort of theory. Perhaps since it would be nearly impossible to prove God does not exist it would be fitting to call people who study religious aspects of theory people who study theology or theologist they could study into what can and can't be proven in religious belief, wait no, that would be more along the lines of philosophy, I mean they could study the validity of things that would support faith in God, the divine, or belief in deities perhaps the field could be encompassing of all religions and be considered theology.

Greek philosophy around the time of Plato is the earliest known source of the term theology. It turns out this idea has existed for quite some time and was first used to refer to the teaching and study of Myth. I am so stupid sometimes and confuse gods with myth. I want you to know Matty, I am not picking on you but rather I am picking on theology which has been adapted by the Christianity and found application in all theist religion after its transformation from the teaching and study of Myth into something that takes the questioning aspect out of it.

mysticrose's picture
God is simply beyond any

God is simply beyond any scientific theory can explain so the supreme god and science cannot be put together in one bottle.

DarkLight's picture
Science is just a flawed way

Science is just a flawed way to prove things that human beings have speculated about.

TW Duke's picture
Why would you say that? Hasn

Why would you say that? Hasn't science proven the earth is round,that it revolves around the sun,that there is energy in matter and so on? Religion on the other hand hasn,t proven a thing.

Zaphod's picture
I would argue that religion

I would argue that religion has proven many things but many things it has proven are not what it set out to prove!

Zaphod's picture
Hard to argue with that

Hard to argue with that Darklight! At least though science has what is called the scientific method which is a system in which to test something enough times using controlled variables, observation, data collection, and procedure to be able to come up with enough statistical data with which to form conclusions and applications. It is safe to say intelligent speculations can be formed from science. It is however as you said flawed, from time to time these flaws are discovered and can expand on what science has to offer in so far as it is usable.

On another note, I had an experience once that makes the the name dark light very interesting to me I will check out you profile but I was wondering where you got the idea to use that name?

TW Duke's picture
Yes, that's how we learn just

Yes, that's how we learn just about everything...by making mistakes(flaws).
I think I might have misunderstood you Darklight...I see now the point you were making.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.