Science is not a belief system...

[Tator]

I see this mistake made everyday in my life, and it can be upsetting as such. So many times I see people who do not have a belief in God, or anything of spirituality because they use science as their "belief system". This is such a disturbing mistake to see happen, and I would like to take some time to explain why this is a bad way to use science.

Before I reply any further, it would help if you clarify how you "see people who do not have a belief in God, or anything of spirituality, because they use science as their "belief system".

Just what kind of things do these people say or do that alerts you that they are making this mistake?

[_barrelomonkeys]

I can't tell if this is Coggins or just another troll coming in for his rapid fire post fest followed by quick retreat.

Nah, Nephi posts at MAD. He's not coggins. :)

[_The Dude]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me LSD so I can touch the spiritual realm like you, Nephi.

[_Nephi]

I see this mistake made everyday in my life, and it can be upsetting as such. So many times I see people who do not have a belief in God, or anything of spirituality because they use science as their "belief system". This is such a disturbing mistake to see happen, and I would like to take some time to explain why this is a bad way to use science.

Before I reply any further, it would help if you clarify how you "see people who do not have a belief in God, or anything of spirituality, because they use science as their "belief system".

Just what kind of things do these people say or do that alerts you that they are making this mistake?

Things such as, "there is no proof of God, therefore God does not exist," or, "evolution is real, so creationism is false, therefore God does not exist."

[_Nephi]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me LSD so I can touch the spiritual realm like you, Nephi.

Dude. You're the Dude! Just ask the guy you buy your weed from. They gotta know someone.

[_beastie]

Things such as, "there is no proof of God, therefore God does not exist," or, "evolution is real, so creationism is false, therefore God does not exist."

You know, I've been an atheist for a decade, and have participated on discussion boards with other atheists for much of that time, and I've yet to hear a single one say something like this. Are you sure this is what atheists are really saying, or is it your own interpretation of, perhaps, something slightly different?

Such as this: there is no evidence to necessitate the existence of God, so therefore I do not believe in God.

Or this: Evolution is well supported by evidence, therefore it is illogical to believe in creationism as it is taught in the Bible.

If you read those statements, would you summarize them with "there is no proof of God, therefore God does not exist", or "evolution is real, so creationism is false, therefore God does not exist."

I'm also curious - where have you been reading or hearing atheists say these things? Could you link me to some of the conversations where they're talking like this?

[_Nephi]

Things such as, "there is no proof of God, therefore God does not exist," or, "evolution is real, so creationism is false, therefore God does not exist."

You know, I've been an atheist for a decade, and have participated on discussion boards with other atheists for much of that time, and I've yet to hear a single one say something like this. Are you sure this is what atheists are really saying, or is it your own interpretation of, perhaps, something slightly different?

Such as this: there is no evidence to necessitate the existence of God, so therefore I do not believe in God.

Or this: Evolution is well supported by evidence, therefore it is illogical to believe in creationism as it is taught in the Bible.

If you read those statements, would you summarize them with "there is no proof of God, therefore God does not exist", or "evolution is real, so creationism is false, therefore God does not exist."

I'm also curious - where have you been reading or hearing atheists say these things? Could you link me to some of the conversations where they're talking like this?

I hang out in the student lounge of the physics department (or did last semester when I was in school), and those who would argue again the existence of God would use such arguments. However, I would like to answer the two statements you put forward (which I never heard either):

there is no evidence to necessitate the existence of God, so therefore I do not believe in God.
150 years ago there was no evidence to necessitate the existence of quarks, but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as quarks. It is okay at the time to say one did not believe in quarks, but the particle is a real thing. Furthermore, the statement itself is based upon a scientific process. Evidence is not deemed evidence to support a hypothesis unless it can be tested as such. Since things of spirituality are not testable by others to receive the same conclusion, then what may be evidence to one individual would not be considered as such to another.

Evolution is well supported by evidence, therefore it is illogical to believe in creationism as it is taught in the Bible.

Maybe I took it a step further than it normally goes, however, many will take that since the Bible is full of "errors" that it must be false, and since those who support the Bible support the idea of God, then God is probably false as well.. I for one see that creationism is describing evolution, so both are correct to me.

[_truth dancer]

Funny how people see the world so differently.

I observe that it is those who embrace the world without religion who do not claim to have the answers. The scientists I know seem to be fully aware that we are very early on in the world of discovery and are open to new discoveries.

It is the religionist who are the ones who claim to have the answers. Which is one of the main difficulties I had with belief.

For example...

God is a human man, married to multiple women in heaven on a globe next to Kolob.

There is a judgment day and folks will go to one of three Kingdoms.

You must believe in Joseph Smith to get into the CKHL.

Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Scientists seem to go with...

We don't know how the universe came to be.

We do not know what will happen after death.

We do not know who will get into heaven if there is one.

In other words, while scientists move toward knowledge, there is always the awareness that what we know is a spark of information that will lead to greater knowledge.

Does that make sense?

I do not think of science as a religion but more a process. It is a way to learn and grow and discover.

~dancer~

[_Nephi]

It is the religionist who are the ones who claim to have the answers. Which is one of the main difficulties I had with belief.

Hello Dancer:

I am one who is Mormon and has a firm understanding in the sciences. I never claim to have all the answers, either. I do know what you mean about religious people, some of which who claim to have all the answers, and it is really sad. Anyone who claims to know it all is sadly mislead.

[_marg]

I didn't ask you to accept them by my words only. I used a parable to explain a matter which cannot be proven true or false for someone else. I merely put forth a parable for all to read and think about. Whether or not you believe any of it is totally up to you... I do appreciate your contrary argument though.

And Nephi, with regards to your parable, science is not a tool. Science is practiced, it is the activity. Scientist do science. They don't use the tool of science.

No, it is tested hypothesis to explain that which we see in reality around us. This information is used like a tool then to predict future event that happen within the reality around us. For example, Newton developed a theory of Gravity. It was tested by others and found to be accurate. The theory of Gravity was then used to help predict things such as the progression of planets, satellites, comets, meteors, et al. The science is a tool then.

But to compare and contrast, religion is also practiced, it is the activity. Relgious people do religion.

I agree the theories generated by doing science can be used as tools for predictive & explanatory power value and can help to generate or be used as a basis to build upon and create additional theories.

But let's look at your words "One can not use science to find God. This is using the tool wrong." You are not talking about any particular hypothesis you are talking about science methodology in general. There is no particular science tool used for science methodology. The doing of science uses, observations, testing, previous accepted theories, some assumed natural laws, intuition (leaps of faith if you will) and scientists come up with theories and models which offer explanatory and predictive value of the natural world. If any theory offers no predictive or explanatory value of the natural world, they are of no use and are not science. It is not that science can not find God or God can not be a scientific object but rather without any particular thing to study or offered up by those claiming God, and without any God theory by those claiming God offering any explanatory or predictive value, science does not say anything about the concept of an entity God. But science is studying and coming up with theories of the beginning of the universe, beginning of life etc., It is possible that in the future the concept of God will be a scientific object of study. Obviously if something is claimed to exist and it can be found potentially anywhere in the universe it will be a virtually impossible thing to be studied if it is not available for study.