Atheists, has science buried God?

Atheists, has science buried God? Topic: God of the gaps hypothesis for science
June 21, 2019 / By Porter
Question: Do atheists think science has or will eventually bury God as the so called "gaps" close? If so, why do you think that? Theists, what would be your response to this? Please, no disrespectful comments. Oh, and I'm a theist, I think the idea that science can bury God is illogical at the very core. @Neil S: The God hypothesis makes the prediction that the universe is orderly and comprehensible, and acts according to laws. It sure isn't a scientific hypothesis per se, but it is worth considering. The atheist after all is most likely bound to look at the universe as a chaotic place whereas the theist sees it as an orderly machine. Which view fits better with science? As the great CS Lewis put it: "men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver". @Nel S: Atheism (or naturalism more precisely) does not make that prediction. In most atheists minds, the universe is fully explainable in terms of matter+chance/necessity+time. As a matter of fact, many atheists repeat that the universe isn't made for us because it is a chaotic place. You easily reconcile the universe being an intelligible place if you think this intelligibility points to an intelligence that created it. If not, then what are you left with? It is blatantly false that CS Lewis, who is mind you, one of the most influential writers of his generation and the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century isn't taken seriously, but that's besides the point of that quote, which is that science sprung out of a religious (Christian) background. People like Isaac Newton did science because they thought the universe was comprehensible at all, and this is because they believed in an intelligence that had created it, namely, God. And simplicity isn't the only criterion that must be considered when proposing a hypothesis. It would be nice if that hypothesis is actually logically coherent, or possible. Considering we are very sure the universe had a beginning, there are only two possibilities: either something or someone transcendent caused it, or nothing caused it. If nothing caused it, either it created itself (logically incoherent) or it just came into being from nothing all by itself (impossible). By deduction, we are left with a transcendent cause that when examined, must be a lot like we commonly refer to as God by definition.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Atheists, has science buried God?

Maitland Maitland | 4 days ago
I my self am a christian and i actually find that science actually proves how amazing and perfect god is. People just try to use science as a way to disprove god when i personally find that science proves the existance of god.
👍 216 | 👎 4
Did you like the answer? Atheists, has science buried God? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: God of the gaps hypothesis for science

Maitland Originally Answered: Atheists, has science buried God?
I my self am a christian and i actually find that science actually proves how amazing and perfect god is. People just try to use science as a way to disprove god when i personally find that science proves the existance of god.

Jenkin Jenkin
I'd probably be best described as a deist (believer in God but not revelation or physics-defying miracles.) The notion that there's some pattern higher than the human will seems pretty obvious to me. The laws of physics are the tip of the iceberg, but there are social laws as well. Some forms of social organization just work and some don't. I'm agnostic to the nature of that pattern and I don't really care that much if people personify it or see it as a set of aloof rules. I think that science helps to discover the nature of that pattern. Let me put it this way; practically speaking those with political power don't tend to be controlled by the local law to the same extent that the rest of us do. And in the past, this problem was even more severe. Emperors could do what they wanted. So is it possible to say to someone in power; "it doesn't matter what your desire is, trying to get what you want will lead to your own destruction and the destruction of the land you rule? There are some things even beyond your will?" I think this is possible, and I consider these rules to be a part of "God." These rules are not "buried" by science, but it's possible that study will change people's opinions about what the rules actually are. (Unfortunately, many things that pass as science have flaws in their methodology and are simply forms of deception.) Also, while not popularized, fine tuning arguments are pretty interesting. In short; we live in a universe which is amazingly odd in its capacity to support carbon based life. Also, OP wrote; " If nothing caused it, either it created itself (logically incoherent) or it just came into being from nothing all by itself (impossible)." Quantum mechanics is also logically incoherant, but predictive and observable and thus accepted. And it's the predictive value of QM which is critical, not its logical coherance. The notion of things like object permanence is based entirely on our experiences within the universe at the macro level and there's no 'logical' reason that such rules have to apply to whatever contains this universe or under extreme conditions or scales which we have never experienced. Some interpretations of QM, for instance, predict that vacuum energy makes 'something' come from 'nothing.'
👍 90 | 👎 0

Geoff Geoff
I guess it depends. If you think science has just occurred as we discovered it, then sure. Because that means we are just making it all up, science and God. If you think science has always been there, and we are just learning it as we go along then no. That means, for example, interstellar warp drives, and undiscovered biological organisms exist, even though we don't know about them yet. Science has always been there, and God has always been there. Then how can science claim it know God is not there. The idea of science can then only run parallel to God and never cross paths. Anyway, not sure if the way I worded this makes sense. Also, I am a Christian, so I realize the question was not specifically aimed at me. However, it was an intriguing question the way it was worded, so I couldn't resist answering. edit: I guess my point really is just a way of saying that science can never, and I mean never, prove or disprove God because science can never be 100% complete. There is always something beyond. For example, we are currently exploring quantum mechanics, but when we master that, maybe there will be something even smaller to explore. Sub-Sub atomic particles or something.
👍 87 | 👎 -4

Dikla Dikla
Gaps in our scientific understanding have never been a valid reason to hypothesize a God. Arguing that way has always been a "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Scientific thinking requires us to consider an hypothesis only if it predicts something about the universe. If it does not, the hypothesis is already useless as an aid to our understanding of why things are as they are. Since the idea of an omnipotent creator doesn't make any specifiable predictions, it's not worth considering. edit: Quantum physics doesn't suggest anything about a creator. In fact, it's far from an established fact that quantum physics is ontologically accurate. It's ability to make useful predictions does not automatically confer upon it the title of a accurate view of "reality" (whatever that turns out to be.) Any metaphysical argument based on it would be premature at best. edit 2: That's not a prediction that is specific to this hypothesis. Many hypotheses make that prediction, and ANY hypotheses is simpler than positing a supernatural source. C.S. Lewis is not a good source to quote, since he has little credibility with reasonable people. Our expectation of order need only be a recognition that if no such order exists, scientific inquiry is no more useless than any other attempt to know.
👍 84 | 👎 -8

Blaze Blaze
No - science deals with the physical world, religion deals with the spiritual world. Science and religion have never been at war with each other - I really get quite annoyed at the idea that science somehow trumps religion or has removed the need or desire for faith. Both religion and science put forth theories based on observations of the world, as our understanding of the world improves as a result of science our religion changes - science disproves theories religion put in place, but that doesn't mean that it kills religion all together. There will always be things that science cannot explain, and even if that wasn't the case there will still always be areas of spirituality and feeling that science cannot touch. But you specified God - in the future I think our religion will evolve, as it always has, so more will become atheists (not necessarily anti-religion or absent of religion). I think God as the Judeo-Christian concept will die as it's too absolute, so too with polytheism, where as pantheism may survive as scientific pantheism without any concept of deity. It will take some time, many people require a religious deity; "all gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours" [Huxley] but I think that religion will evolve to see beliefs as just that; beliefs, and when that happens we lose the need for deities at all, I think we will be spiritual, philosophical, mystical, but I don't think we will carry on being theists. For the record I'm a Pagan-Atheist; a combination of Sea of Faith movement and Scientific Pantheism - so I cheat and sit on both sides of the fence.
👍 81 | 👎 -12

Blaze Originally Answered: Here we go again! Yep, you guessed it, ANOTHER race crime cover up! Media buried this one fast, didn't they?
PC media.http://www.reversespins.com/pcmarx.html http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050913_crime.htm http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58397

If you have your own answer to the question god of the gaps hypothesis for science, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.