Evidence for God from Science

I just came across an article summarising the Ruse/Dennett falling out regarding evolution. I found it predominantly entertaining, but think Ruse makes an important distinction between two varieties of evolutionary proponents.

Article can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1724337,00.html

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:I ... think Ruse makes an important distinction between two varieties of evolutionary proponents.

I agree wholeheartedly. I wish more Christians could see the two different philosophies as well.

They only differ in degree, no? Evolution says Christianity is false, while evolutionism says all religions are false. I mean, as august has been...trying to get through to some of you, it's either omnipotent God or omnipotent chance-you can't say evolution is true and Christianity is true at the same time. They disagree on a point, so one of them must lose.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:They only differ in degree, no? Evolution says Christianity is false, while evolutionism says all religions are false. I mean, as august has been...trying to get through to some of you, it's either omnipotent God or omnipotent chance-you can't say evolution is true and Christianity is true at the same time. They disagree on a point, so one of them must lose.

On degree... perhaps, but what is the "degree" they differ on? From the article I posted, what is the distinction you believe Ruse is making between himself and that of Dennett or Dawkins with regards to evolutionary belief?

Kurieuo

What I mean in degree is that evolutionism is more vocal while evolution is more subtle in saying Christianity is false. Evolution, though, doesn't go and say all other beliefs are false-because they don't say God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwells within.

I'm basically saying what Ruse says. And I said it because sandy, to me at least, was saying that evolution doesn't say or imply that Christianity is false, but evolutionism does, and that us stupid Christians who thump our Bibles can't tell the difference when we attack evolution when in fact our only enemy is evolutionism. This is my 2020th post of utter nonsense *YEAH*

This all still misses the point, despite what Ruse says.

He, or anyone else, has not demonstrated how evolution does not necessarily lead to atheism. You can attempt to draw artificial boundaries as much as you like between science and philosophy, or science and religion, but ultimately they are related and connected.

Ruse admits as much:"And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may. Now, you might say, does this mean it's just a religious assumption, does this mean it's irrational to do something like this. I would argue very strongly that it's not. At a certain pragmatic level, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And that if certain things do work, you keep going with this, and that you don't change in midstream, and so on and so forth. I think that one can in fact defend a scientific and naturalistic approach, even if one recognizes that this does include a metaphysical assumption to the regularity of nature, or something of this nature."

So for all the bluster, he agrees with Dennett in principle, it's just the methods he has issue with.

He is simply stating that there has to be an assumption that the Universe is ordered. Otherwise scientific principals cannot work.

Anything else cannot be a part of scientific study, but that does not leave out it's possibility.

It's not the method he has issue with, it's the philosophy. The idea that science will one day uncover all knowledge and explain everything.

Many understand that science only gives us paradigms from which to understand the world around us. Different paradigms can give us the same results, so the paradigms in themselves are not absolute truths.

So lets take this into the real world and see what this actually means.
In science we discover mechanisms, properties and processes by trial and error. Let's say we discover that excited carbon adsorbs two bands of light in a light spectrum. Now we test it by taking several mixtures of gasses and add carbon to some and not to others. If we can correctly identify which samples contain carbon the observation has been stregnthened.

Now we analyze the sunlight. And notice that the two bands also appear in the spectrograph. We can induce that the sun must contain carbon.

We can examine the spectrograph of more distant stars and deduce that not only they contain carbon but that the bands have shifted toward the red end of the spectrum.

We can even using our mathmatical models of atom's induce why it is those specific bands which are being adsorbed.

But if we excite an electron in a carbon atom we cannot know which direction the photon will exit the atom. This isn't due to limitations in our ability to measure. The heisenberg principal states that it is fundamentally impossible to know both speed and location.

We cannot predict or measure this. We cannot induce what causes light to propogate or gravity to bend space. Or the reason behind the fabric of space time. Yet there clearly must be one. If one cannot experiment on it how can we study it? This is what as meant by pragmatism.

Not being able to study it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Explaining the mechanics of something doesn't mean that the object of study has no soul. Inability to predict the outcome does not mean that there is no underlying order.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:He is simply stating that there has to be an assumption that the Universe is ordered. Otherwise scientific principals cannot work.

That assumption is a metaphysical assumption, yes? That is what he says. He goes on to say that that assumption is naturalism, not theism.

Also, that assumption is by definition an exclusion of God, since it assumes that everything happens naturally, including the regularity of nature.

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:He is simply stating that there has to be an assumption that the Universe is ordered. Otherwise scientific principals cannot work.

That assumption is a metaphysical assumption, yes? That is what he says. He goes on to say that that assumption is naturalism, not theism.

Yes to be pragmatic science can only deal with what is measurable.

August wrote:Also, that assumption is by definition an exclusion of God, since it assumes that everything happens naturally, including the regularity of nature.

No it's not an exclusion of God, what prevents God from being the cause of the regularity in nature?

Look at it this way.

Lets assume God caused the Universe to exist.
The universe exhibits regularity.
Man observes that the universe is ordered.
Man studies these regularities.

Studying the regularities in nature excludes the existance of God?
I don't see how you can reach this conclusion.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:He is simply stating that there has to be an assumption that the Universe is ordered. Otherwise scientific principals cannot work.

That assumption is a metaphysical assumption, yes? That is what he says. He goes on to say that that assumption is naturalism, not theism.

Yes to be pragmatic science can only deal with what is measurable.

From Websters:

Main Entry: nat·u·ral·ism
Pronunciation: 'na-ch&-r&-"li-z&m, 'nach-r&-
Function: noun
1 : action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts
2 : a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena

That shows that the underlying assumption that Ruse uses, that of naturalism, by definition excludes God, and is atheistic. Anything that follows that assumption cannot logically be excluded from the conclusion.

No it's not an exclusion of God, what prevents God from being the cause of the regularity in nature?

Look at it this way.

Lets assume God caused the Universe to exist.
The universe exhibits regularity.
Man observes that the universe is ordered.
Man studies these regularities.

Studying the regularities in nature excludes the existance of God?
I don't see how you can reach this conclusion.

Thanks, this exactly proves my point. The god you are describing is a deistic god, who was the first cause but no more.

You seem to miss the point. Naturalism posits that the regularities cannot be caused by God, since there is no empirical proof for the existence of God. That same naturalism is described as a key metaphysical assumption for the validity of evolution by Ruse above. If you have a problem with that, then you should take it up with Ruse and the other philosophers of science who espouse that view.

He doesn't use that definition of naturalism. There are connotative meanings to words when taken in context.

commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things

And what kind of naturalism is this? The kind that excludes miracles and whatnot.
And why?
Because science is practical and pragmatic, how does one plan to observe a miracle and test the causes behind it?

August wrote:

No it's not an exclusion of God, what prevents God from being the cause of the regularity in nature?

Look at it this way.

Lets assume God caused the Universe to exist.
The universe exhibits regularity.
Man observes that the universe is ordered.
Man studies these regularities.

Studying the regularities in nature excludes the existance of God?
I don't see how you can reach this conclusion.

Thanks, this exactly proves my point. The god you are describing is a deistic god, who was the first cause but no more.

How do you know that the laws of nature are not the direct act of God? Is it possible that every tiny vibration and movement of every atom is the hand of God?
It's all perspective don't you think? Or do you beleive that God is limited like a man.

August wrote:You seem to miss the point. Naturalism posits that the regularities cannot be caused by God, since there is no empirical proof for the existence of God.

Then what causes the regularities? Science studies the regularities, it makes no mention of what caused them.

The fact remains that much of what we discovered in science can be described mechanically. Do you reject the results of experimentation which have brought forth the modern world? If nature reveals God than a naturalistic explanation is a Thiestic explanation as well, don't you think?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:They only differ in degree, no? Evolution says Christianity is false, while evolutionism says all religions are false. I mean, as august has been...trying to get through to some of you, it's either omnipotent God or omnipotent chance-you can't say evolution is true and Christianity is true at the same time. They disagree on a point, so one of them must lose.

it is not the intention of the theory of evolution, nor science, to disprove christianity. no physical science concerns itself with any theological ideas. science, including evolution, is simply another way of looking at the world around us. evolution does not claim anything about christianity, anything contrary to this is mere speculation and personal opinion, it is not science.

there is no one point of disagreement between evolution and christianity, the conflict is all opinions and interpretations of either theory. i do believe that there is much conflict in a literal interpretation of the bible and the theory of evolution, but the problem is that hardly any christians believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. i think that it is possible to (barring strictly literal usages of both theories) to have evolution and christianity agree according to any denomination or division of belief. but that still doesnt show that either or both are right, but rather how shifty and unreliable our method of communication is. everything we say is a metaphor, the bible and the theory of evolution are no different. what is true are the interactions, not the words.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:If nature reveals God than a naturalistic explanation is a Thiestic explanation as well, don't you think?

i think this statement embodies naturalism very well.

Zenith wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:If nature reveals God than a naturalistic explanation is a Thiestic explanation as well, don't you think?

i think this statement embodies naturalism very well.

Naturalism says God doesn't exist, so how can you start with "God doesn't exist" and ever come to the conclusion "God exists?"

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Zenith wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:If nature reveals God than a naturalistic explanation is a Thiestic explanation as well, don't you think?

i think this statement embodies naturalism very well.

Naturalism says God doesn't exist, so how can you start with "God doesn't exist" and ever come to the conclusion "God exists?"

If you beleive that nature is a reflection of and a revalation of God, then the study of nature is indirectly a study of God.

The type of naturalism required to conduct science, is the kind which limits studies to natural occurances, this does not reject God a priori.