The foundation of science is devotion to god

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The foundation of science is devotion to god

Lunacy some would say, but not if we think of god as the primal forces of existence. God is the notion of everything as a singularity, as it is used here.

A scientist may study an atom and learn everything about it, but in order to do so he needs an atom to study. Where does this come from?
Everything is energy. There is not a thing in this world that is not energy in one form or another. But where is the source of all this energy? There has to be one, since energy cannot be separated from it's source. This source is also part of the term god.

Everything the scientist may study is brought forth by the god. He is himself a part of god. That is what I mean by the initial statement.

I am disregarding every religious use of the word god. Is there a scientific word that implies the same, as explained above? "all energy as a singularity, connected to it's source"

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,816 • Replies: 51

No top replies

If you are throwing out the "religious" aspect you need to throw out "devotion" as well !

0 Replies

No I don't. But I guess I could replace it with trust if it makes you feel better.

0 Replies

Cyracuz,

Science is founded around the concept of not worrying about what we don't know, and blindly trying to build up a collection of facts that we do know.

Science does not contradict the concept of a God, although many scientists do not believe in a God, and many of the beliefs people have about what God can do are challenged by science.

But, if it was proven that God existed, then God would then be PART of scientific knowledge...

You say that you are not talking about the traditional God having to do with religion in your post. I am talking about the religion God. But if you aren't talking about the religion God, why the heck do you use the word "God"? There is no point. Just say "singularity of energy" ok?

Regardless, to say that scientists study this singularity of energy is WRONG. That assumes that science is founded on specific theories which can be disproven. Science is not founded on any theories, science is NEVER wrong by definition. You could disprove any of the theories in science, but science does not claim that it's theories are correct in the first place.

0 Replies

Quote:

Regardless, to say that scientists study this singularity of energy is WRONG. That assumes that science is founded on specific theories which can be disproven. Science is not founded on any theories, science is NEVER wrong by definition. You could disprove any of the theories in science, but science does not claim that it's theories are correct in the first place.

Is it? I am just saying that science needs it's problems to advance. Science didn't invent the objects it studies. Like you say, science is never wrong. It looks at what is the case and then tries to document it as accurately as can be done. But it is god they study, invariably. There is nothing else.

Why use the word god? Because this singularity is what the religions talk about also. Religion tries to explain the supernatural using natural terms, hence the confusion about an entity with beard and mind and all the other misconceptions.

Not only is science devoted to the understanding of god. It is more so than any religion. Religions are always so interlaced with humanity and twisted misconceptions about the world that what they say about god is tainted. Science looks at what is, and in so doing they are honoring god by being what they are for all they are worth.

0 Replies

Cyracuz

I think you will find that this singularity which you are chosing to call "God" is seen by the religious as an indivisible timeless unity. It follows that any "science" which confines itself to "parts" cannot be about "the whole". Indeed the very naming of a part like "force" or "atom" is iconoclastic in the llteral sense. If we contrast "successful control and self interested prediction" for your equally emotive "trust" we might have a better insight into the psychological ploy of evoking "God" as the underwriter of perceived "order".

0 Replies

Re: The foundation of science is devotion to god

Cyracuz wrote:

The foundation of science is devotion to god"

Is this just another back door entrance to advocacy of Intelligent Design?

BBB

0 Replies

Quote:

Like you say, science is never wrong. It looks at what is the case and then tries to document it as accurately as can be done. But it is god they study, invariably. There is nothing else.

You are contradicting yourself.

On the one hand, you agree that science just tries to document reality, without any presuppositions as to what reality is.

On the other hand, you say that science assumes a god or unity of energy underly reality.

Science assumes nothing...and most scientists probably would not agree in your unity of energy theory anyway, at least not the way it is worded now. But whether or not individuals believe is beside the point.

0 Replies

Quote:

You are contradicting yourself.

On the one hand, you agree that science just tries to document reality, without any presuppositions as to what reality is.

On the other hand, you say that science assumes a god or unity of energy underly reality.

Am I? I don't think so.

I am not saying that science assumes a god or unity. I am saying that regadless of what science studies it is a part of the whole. There are no words that I know of that means this: everything in the entire existence, nothing excluded, not even nothingness. So I call it god, because god is the greatest, I'm taught.

Science studies things as they are, assuming nothing, as you say. But a condition is that there is something to study. This something, regardless of how tiny it is, fits into a bigger picture. The scientist assumes nothing, he just obeys the rules of his science, wich correspond to the rules of evolution.

How many assumptions does a priest have, for instance, in his devotion to god? Most of what he bases his devotion on is nothing but the dogmas he learned, obviously misunderstood for generations. He assumes and assumes, fills the blanks with his own imagination, fabricating answers by interpeting the books. Where does the priest's true devotion lie? with god, or with his idea of god?

The same question about the scientist. His devotion is to truth and knowledge, seeking a way out of ignorance with pure means. He listens to god, by studying the things in our environment. He does not lie to himself or anyone else for gains, so his quest for enlightenment is purer than a priests.

Quote:

Science assumes nothing...and most scientists probably would not agree in your unity of energy theory anyway, at least not the way it is worded now. But whether or not individuals believe is beside the point.

How is it possible to deny that everything that exists fits together? We know that even matter is energy, and since everything consists of matter and energy it is safe to say that all is energy. Energies that behave in all sorts of ways, for sure, but a unity equally guaranteed. How can you argue with that?

0 Replies

I will return later to see what this is about....

0 Replies

If God==Life,the Universe, and Everything...then sure, you could say scientists study God...but most people when they refer to God are talking about a conscious spiritual presence, but I don't see any relationship between what other people call God and your definition of God.

0 Replies

Energy Source... Scientist and Priest Not So Different

Quote:

"There has to be one, since energy cannot be separated from it's source. This source is also part of the term god."

The problem I see with this is that there may be various sources of the energy not just a single source; compared to polytheism verse monotheism.

Quote:

"Science didn't invent the objects it studies. Like you say, science is never wrong. It looks at what is the case and then tries to document it as accurately as can be done. But it is god they study, invariably. There is nothing else."

Agreed that science did not invent the studied objects, but science can be wrong about the way it portrays certain phenomenon. Once science stated that the world was flat. If I were to agree with the proposition I would be more likely think that scientist are actually studying a set of gods, possibly.

Quote:

"How many assumptions does a priest have, for instance, in his devotion to god? Most of what he bases his devotion on is nothing but the dogmas he learned, obviously misunderstood for generations. He assumes and assumes, fills the blanks with his own imagination, fabricating answers by interpeting the books. Where does the priest's true devotion lie? with god, or with his idea of god?"

The scientist uses theories and laws formulated by previous scientists to explain his environment. I really do not see a big difference between a priest and scientist other than one derives knowledge mainly from "metaphysical" means (theory) and the other mainly from empirical means (theory). Remember the Theory of relativity is only a theory not a law.

To reiterate, Individuals use explanations of phenomenon that are accepted as fact and create their own explanations of other phenomenon based on the latter, which was derived from another's who applied the same process. This appears similar to the priest who does the same thing but through word of mouth or certain text that were derived from oral tradition. Actually, it may even be said that science uses oral tradition to a certain extent. I will not insult anybodies intelligence but we all have seen were scientific explanations of certain phenomenon get revised when someone other than the founder of the ideas discovers that a certain idea is off base from the "truth". Example, once leeches were used to heal the sick by getting rid of the bad blood that is causing a person to be ill and this was once thought of as good science. Over time the latter practice has been ruled out all together.

Interesting subject!

0 Replies

Quote:

I really do not see a big difference between a priest and scientist other than one derives knowledge mainly from "metaphysical" means (theory) and the other mainly from empirical means (theory).

You don't see a big difference between attempting to discover the truth through experimentation, vs assuming you already know the a truth that defies experimentation? Or how about the difference between claimaing that their way of thought is a fact (that God exists) vs claiming that their way of thinking is a theory (science)?

0 Replies

Quote:

big difference between attempting to discover the truth through experimentation, vs assuming you already know the a truth that defies experimentation?

There is defiantly something to be said about that. I for one have more respect for the scientist than the priest, considering the scientist is on the search for what is most likely the truth in our world verse, like you said, assume they now the truth in the world, like the priest.

0 Replies

God is a pathetic invention of humans to explain things they don't know, based on intuition, guesswork, fear and ignorance.

0 Replies

edgar,

Well said !

.....but isnt it strange that some eminent scientists like Polkinghorne (Cambridge physics professor) who on scientific grounds has rejected simplistic concepts such as "God as the prime mover" continues to wear his other hat as an ordained Anglican priest ?....he claims that ne needs "God" to account for things like "morality" NOT physics !
The ways round that one for us atheists seem to include either to argue for an "altruism gene" within evolution or to consider "existence" from a systems viewpoint in which reality is segmented according to observer/societal needs. i.e. the "God concept" exists because it is required as a node within a social system, just like the "four elements" existed because they were required within the science of their time.

0 Replies

Edgarblythe wrote:

Quote:

God is a pathetic invention of humans to explain things they don't know, based on intuition, guesswork, fear and ignorance.

Doesn't that depend on how you define it?

I am having a hard time deciding who's the more foolish, the christian for believing in what he doesn't understand, or the atheist, who defines it as an impossibility so that he can disregard it. One has courage, the other does not...

The god I am referring to here is the god that is referred to in krishna consiousness. Krishna means "all-attractive". This is not a god in the christian term of the word. There are no such gods. It is merely a term that implies that everything is inseparably connected. It is a term that is used when speaking of everything, in the same way the word "engine" is used about cylinder, combustion chamber, and cogs. But even if you have cylinders, combustion chamber and cogs, and all the other parts, you do not have an engine until it is assembled correctly. So, god is a term that includes all parts of everything and their interaction. I believe that this is also the original message of christianity. It is certainly the message in hinduism and krishna conciousness. When hinduism talks about it's many gods it is important to remember that these are metaphors. Brahma, for instance, is a metaphor for the physical universe, while Shiva is a metaphor for the destructive powers within it. All these combined is Krishna, or god.

God is not a difficult term to understand. That it's hard is a misconception that has been cultivated by those who had something to gain from it.

0 Replies

The foundation of science is...

...and acknowledgement that we do not know very much about our universe...

...and that this "unknown" makes for a very interesting puzzle that we should try to solve.

0 Replies

Book Mark

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y11/Bella81/HW-TRICKORTREATDOLL.gif

0 Replies

Cyracuz

Do you not see that "science" which is analytic is
antithetical to your Krishna/Wholism ?

In the words of a well known Eastern parable.....

God and the Devil are looking down from heaven and God says "Look! That human has picked up a real piece of knowledge...aren't you worried he will become enlightened ?. "On the contrary" says the Devil "watch him take it apart and attempt to analyse it thereby rendering it useless!"

0 Replies

The foundation of science is devotion to god

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know