Science is Oblivious or Neutral?

[Lisa0315]

Curiosity question stemming from another thread...

In regards to the idea of a deity, do you think science is oblivious or neutral on the subject?

Which term would you think is more appropriate and why?

Lisa (OP and observer, not participating in debates)

[tjakey]

I don't see how "god" can be the subject of any specific scientific inquiry? "Uninterested" might be a more accurate term.

[DMB]

Lisa, you must be aware of Laplace's famous reply to the Emperor Napoleon. Napoleon asked him why in his remarkable book on celestial mechanics he had made no mention of god. Laplace replied that he had had no need of that hypothesis.

As far as science is concerned, no-one has come up with a way of distinguishing between a world where god(s) exist(s) and one with no gods. So gods are ignored.

If someone could come up with a sort of Michelson–Morley experiment to detect the activity of a god, I expect that scientists would be very interested. Although you may remember that the thing about that experiment was that it failed to detect aether, and as a result the aether hypothesis was eventually abandoned.

[RAFH]

I don't feel it's oblivious or neutral. It can't be. Not if one is serious about the application of the scientific method. To do so, one must first of all observe some sort of phenomena, that means whatever it is, it must be observable. That does not mean is must be visible, we scientifically observe many things that are not readily apparent to the human senses. But it must be observable. What ever is being investigated has to have an effect. No effect, no observation, no science.

As soon as some purported extra-natural effect is effectively observed, it begins to fall out of the realm of extra-naturality and starts to become just another part of reality. That's when gods evaporate. They become superfluous. Unnecessary and meaningless. And that places them outside their original definition as necessary and meaningful.

That's the big problem with most theism, it want's to have concrete, effective agents, but ones that remain unobservable. You can't have it both ways.

[Notta]

By definition, science is concerned with natural phenomena (things that have a natural cause). Religion/faith/belief in a supreme being is concerned with supernatural phenomena (things that are caused by this supreme being). Supernatural phenomena may be observed (according to believers), but they can't be tested.

In a scientist's viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether or not any god exists. The things being studied do not depend on the existence of a god for testing purposes.

However, studies have been done about the effect of prayer on critically ill people. Have you read this study? The healing power of prayer? (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/27/news/snpray.php)

[Hex]

Having only those two words as options, neither fits the actual relationship.

The word that probably best fits is 'incompatible'.

Deities, and indeed all other entities in theistic or magical worldviews, exist in the supernatural world. By definition, this is the realm that exists outside the natural world, that is, the world that science can explore.

The two worlds are exclusive.

Until the supernatural world produces natural phenomena. So far as most worldviews that include the supernatural dimension work, human actions/speech can intrude from the natural world into the supernatural world (as with undertaking magical or scared rituals, or with shaman or other mediums putting their souls or senses directly into the supernatural world). Science, however, has no way to test these because the realm is outside of the natural world.

If the supernatural world does intrude into the natural world, then we would expect some observable phenomena, as such is what the natural world (and therefore science) is about. Hence the reason why people want 'proof' of the supernatural that can be recorded and studied, because then it becomes scientifically relevant.

Hence, we get ghost-hunters out with cameras with 'night-vision', sensative audio recording devices, instant-read thermometers, EMF detectors and the like. They want to find the evidence for the phenomena.

The two realms of the supernatural and the natural can be seen to co-exist without overlapping with each other, which could explain the problems of science and the supernatural (including deities), but if they don't interact, one could ask, 'what's the use?'

And hence, many scientists end up being agnostic or atheistic. The realms are incompatible.

[Oolon Colluphid]

If something happens or exists, then it happens or exists in the real world (to deny that is to mangle 'happen' and 'exist' beyond all recognition.) In nature. Whatever that turns out to be -- which is why we study it. If it happens, it is part of how the world is.

Even temporary suspension of apparent natural laws ('miracles' etc) would be part of how the world is. If something is -- by any reasonable use of the term -- real, there, in existence, then it is a part of nature, and hence 'natural'. Even if only transitorily, or occasionally. No matter how weird or rare or counter to everything we previously knew something is, it is, by definition, part of how the universe is.

Therefore, the supernatural does not and cannot exist. Something cannot be outside nature and yet impact on it. Or rather, I suppose it might, somehow, in, erm, a different universe or something... but as soon as it impacts on this universe, it's part of it, and so, by definition, natural: part of nature.

And so to return to the OP... as I've still got the pdf open from earlier:
The view that I shall defend is very different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP [temporary agnosticism in practice, like agnosticism about life elsewhere in the universe] category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability.

[Notta]

Having only those two words as options, neither fits the actual relationship.

The word that probably best fits is 'incompatible'. <snip>

And hence, many scientists end up being agnostic or atheistic. The realms are incompatible.
As a former middle school science teacher, I couldn't come right out and say things like this. In addition, I held a fundamentalist Christian worldview for most of the years I was a teacher.

So I used the simple 'supernatural vs. natural' explanation for my students, as the question arose every year over whether science could prove the existence of god or whether scientists had to be atheists.

Most of my students could understand the distinction, but since an enormous number of them believed in miracles (as did I), I had to make the statement that science couldn't investigate EVERYTHING that happened in the world.

I wouldn't say that now, though.

[Hex]

Having only those two words as options, neither fits the actual relationship.

The word that probably best fits is 'incompatible'. <snip>

And hence, many scientists end up being agnostic or atheistic. The realms are incompatible.
As a former middle school science teacher, I couldn't come right out and say things like this.

It's one of the beauties of teaching Anthropology. I can say that to my classes ... :D

[cmoon]

I think as soon as anything involving god becomes measurable, predictable, and testable, then we can talk about potential overlap and/or possible opposition, but until then, it seems science has about as much to say about God as paraphenomena.

[Ray Moscow]

I recommend this book: God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811)

There are all sorts of things we should find if the Bible/Koran sort of God did exist, except of course that we don't see any such thing.

There are logically possible Gods that don't interact with the universe and therefore don't conflict with science. However, these Gods are not the ones that most "believers" believe in.