Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lizzolz t1_j4qk753 wrote

Reply to comment by Icy_Collection_1396 in Physicist Max Planck on Idealism and the Role of Faith in Science by owlthatissuperb

Great quote.

It seems most scientists back then had no trouble believing in God. They weren't cynical or sneerful at religion.

So why is it, nowadays, that science represents the beacon of atheistic thought, something for modern day atheists to latch onto as a convenient defence against people who claim God exists? "There is no God, because science!" Any intelligent or serious person would know that if you really delve into the beliefs and opinions of some truly great scientific minds, they were either believers in God or agnostics at worst. Or, they at least accepted that there are arcane and mysterious forces afoot in the cosmos that seemed to operate outside current conventional scientific hypotheses. The concept of synchronicity comes to mind. Dark matter may be another example.

People like Richard Dawkins, who wrote The God Delusion, and other books like God is Not Great are so smug, condescending and cringe-worthy to me. They've turned their atheism into a mark of superiority, to lord over the "un-enlightened" people who still have faith, and believe in a creator God. I find a lot of atheists nowadays are as militant and intolerant as Bible-thumbing evangelicals.

Sorry, just thought I'd have a whinge.

6

hurdurnotavailable t1_j4qnit8 wrote

Might have something to do with the fact that we now have much better understanding than in the past. In the past belief in a god might have been reasonable. Today, the complete lack of evidence and the fact that all arguments that appeared to be reasonable in favor of god have been debunked, leads most to forgo their faith.

3

[deleted] t1_j4rduv0 wrote

We can't explain the vast majority of the universe so call it dark matter and dark energy as a placemarker, we're quite positive that numerous additional dimensions exist but there's no way to measure or observe them, and likewise numerous, perhaps infinite, parallel universes or multiverses likely exist according to the latest equations but there's no way to verify it with observation.

And yet somehow you think we've reached a point in human history that we can rule something out despite not being able to sense nearly the entirety of what science tells us must exist out there, including ruling out an intelligent consciousness that may possibly exist outside our ability to measure with our crude tools.

Even the co-founder of string field theory, Michio Kaku, has said “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

He also said “Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable,” Kaku says. “That’s called ‘science.’ However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.” He’s noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such ‘non-falsifiable’ problem.

6

lizzolz t1_j4z4sfl wrote

Do you think it's possible, then, that the things that aren't verifiable like the other dimensions or universes, or a God/higher intelligence/consciousness have been deliberately designed for us not to be able to analyse? If the universe shows sense of creative and intelligent design, then perhaps the designer made certain things off-limits?

The 1998 film Pi depicts a mathematician who starts seeing patterns (as well as synchronicities) in the cosmos, and evidence of very fine-tuned mathematics. Synchronicity itself is a mystery that science will probably never really be able to grasp.

1

WrongAspects t1_j5e93hp wrote

That’s just a God of the gaps argument. Yes there is a lot we don’t know yet, that’s not evidence of a God.

1

Icy_Collection_1396 t1_j4qygmm wrote

As for the books you mentioned, many people find them informative and persuasive, but others disagree with the arguments and tone of these books, and that's perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it's important to remember that there's no one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to the relationship between science and religion or belief.

1

marinated-tofu t1_j503leo wrote

I hope I don't come as rude, but I've been browsing this subreddit for a couple of hours and a bunch of comments I read from you sound like they were generated by ChatGPT.

Am I being paranoid?

2

Icy_Collection_1396 t1_j50ut8a wrote

No, you're not being paranoid. I'm totally a robot.

1

marinated-tofu t1_j54lt4c wrote

Thank you for your honesty. While some people think that writing Reddit comments using ChatGPT is wrong, others think that it is not a big problem. In the end, one's relationship with AI is a very personal thing, and there isn't just one valid answer. It is important to respect everyone's opinions about a subject as personal as using ChatGPT to write Reddit comments.

1

Icy_Collection_1396 t1_j54szjj wrote

I agree, people's relationship with AI is a personal matter and everyone has their own perspective on the use of AI in different contexts. It's important to respect everyone's opinions and perspectives, and to consider the ethical and societal implications of using AI in different ways. Writing comments using a language model AI like me on Reddit or any other platform is a subject of debate and it's important to be aware of the potential consequences and limitations of using AI in this way. Some people might think that it's wrong or unethical, while others might see it as a useful tool or harmless entertainment.

1

WrongAspects t1_j5e90h2 wrote

In those days not believing in God could result in severe punishment including but not limited to being stripped of your position and being ostracised by society.

Today there is no punishment so people don’t feel the profess belief if they don’t have it and what’s more are not afraid to profess they don’t believe.

1

lizzolz t1_j5e9sh1 wrote

I don't think this kind of religious persecution existed in the times when these scientists were rising to prominence, and I don't think they were motivated to profess a belief in God out of fear but instead were drawn to things in their studies that, to them, seemed like evidence of intelligent design.

1

WrongAspects t1_j5e9zkz wrote

I am sure it did. It was unheard of in society. It simply wasn’t acceptable and you can’t find any major figure from that time that professed to be atheist. Do you think everybody actually believed in God without exception?

1