To scientists: why can’t you just say, for the sake of deference, that God wrote the rules that we are learning day by day?

Easy (although I’m buy a layman) - which God?  How do I know?  Maybe it really was Binky the Magic Space Clown.  Would theists be happy if a scientist said “OK, maybe some god did something?” I doubt it; they seem (from my experience) to want acknowledgement of their own particular deity.

Until evidence is found to indicate the involvement of some deity (and, no, the argument from personal incredulity doesn’t count as evidence), do scientists have to defer to everyone who claims something beyond the natural world was involved?  Isn’t that kind of - well - silly?

Or should they just defer to Christians?  Or just The Big Three?  Where does one draw the line, when - from Christianity to Islam to Hinduism to Heaven’s Gaters - the evidence (actually, lack of) is the same.

Andy, you do make a point. I should have clarified the question, that the questions are on an individual level, not on a community level of both the faithful and the scientific. Since you do not believe in any sort of theos, I’ll try to see to your points as much as I can see them.

In fact, as I slightly indicated in the comments of the previous point, that there is a place for both faith and science. Through methodology they should be mutually exlcusive (AIDS is not God’s punishment on gays and the fact that nothing can exist before time=0 in the “big bang theory” doesn’t negate the existence of a theos). Tenets of faith have no place in *explaining* the scientific ("why do animals speciate?"), however, the faithful have the choice of accepting scientific knowledge as an expanding understanding of the creative work of God ("the way animals speciate is the work of god"). Scientific discoveries cannot attempt to explain such an irrational non-existent existent concept such as God, but the same time it can go along and move forward without having to explain God away.

I think that your use of the term “involve” indicates an actively micromanaging god, which I don’t ascribe to. To get into my headspace, here’s an example of what goes on in my head when I reconcile my generic theistic faith with my scientific background.

Scientific question: How did the universe come about?
Answer: Big bang theory. (As much as I can discern it)
Theological question: How did the universe come about?
Answer: God set forth the big bang.

Following scientific question: How did people come about?
Answer: Darwinistic natural selection and speciation.
Following Theological question: How did people come about?
Answer: Current understanding is Darwinistic natural selection and speciation. The principles as we understand them are all part of the creative process with which God set the universe in motion. Are there gaps in the Theory Of Evolution? Yes. Are they enough for it to be refuted in its entirety? No. Heck, my belief is that what God set in motion was right the first time and that there is no need for his continued interference.

I know it sounds really foreign, irrational, and what not. I have had a similar discussion with an Objectivist, of all people. He cannot fathom how I can believe in any sort of God since I am a practicing scientist. I myself can’t explain it. I just know that a scientist does not have to abandon belief in any sort of God, and that a faithful man doesn’t have to discard God to accept scientific discovery.

Well, I can’t argue too much with your position in that it strikes me as being more deistic than anything else.

Sure, perhaps there was some creator to start things, but I think in believing such you’re unnecessarily complicating the issue (as I stated elsewhere to Nathan - adding an unknown to explain an unknown essentially explains nothing).  However, since you’re not advocating for a 6500 year old Earth or miracle stains in office windows, I suspect we’d get along just fine.

I do believe, however, that if a scientist states that their god is an active player in the universe, upsetting the laws of nature whenever he likes, then that scientist no longer has grounds to assume we can understand anything about the universe.

I shudder to imagine what some of the Literalists would say about the Genesis story as a ripoff of the Eridu Genesis. “If you believe in any sort of Noah’s ark thene, your god is really Moloch/Baal/Enlil whatever!!!”

Shoot, I don’t even ask atheists (like Andy, et al) to admit that maybe there is Binky the Space Clown.

I just get wrapped around the axle when atheists say, based on all the available evidence, there cannot be a God behind it.  And anyone who says there is a God is rejecting scientific thought.  But that is an extremely non-scientific viewpoint, since science, as a body, has never really tried to prove or disprove the existence of God.  Science is, and should be, agnostic toward God, and should confine itself to figuring out how the universer works, regardless of how it came to be.

Maybe that is the default viewpoint of my verbal sparring partners, and in my oversensitization on the issue, I’ve missed that admission, dunno.  It’s just that my ego will not stand still for someone classifying me as “willful idiot” or “anti-science” just because I’m a Christian.  Or because I’m not enamored with the Apple iPod. ([rimshot!] No, I’m not going to let it go.)

I gotta point out something Andy said, though: “upsetting the laws of nature whenever he likes,” ...isn’t that pretty much a description of Dark Matter?

Now, I would probably not get my underalls in a twist if people would at least make the concession, “From a Newtonian perspective...”, because I freely admit that Newtonian physics leave no room for anything like the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God.  But Newtonian physics also leave no room for relativity, quarks, gluons, strings, all the things that are pretty much accepted to be better descriptors of the stuff behind the scenes in the universe.

Quantum Theory forces some room back into the universe for God that Newton’s principles squeezed out.

Last one before bedtime and before I head off for the rest of the week for work.

Nathan, I’m pleased to meet you. (Actually, it should be hello again.) All I can say is that it’s good to inject some new and fresh viewpoints and this is one of the reasons I joined R/S.

As for “a Newtonian perspective,” I think that that phrase has to be filed as one of the greater semantic atrocities in talking about science. Newton and his “clockwork universe” was the BEST HE CAN CONCEIVE OF using the body of knowledge that he had at the time. Heck, Newtonian mechanics (f=ma, fi=fo, objects at rest) doesn’t even psit the nonexistence of a god of any sort.

I’ll give you (and anyone else who keeps abusing Newton) a quote from what I’m reading (Stephen Jay Gould. The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister’s Pox. Harmony Books, 2003. p29-30):

Some dogmatists and traditionalists did greatly fear the influence of science and did hold strongly to biblical literalism (particularly for the earth’s young age, a short episode of creation, and the reality of a universal flood) and to the impossibility of explaining planetary history without frequent and direct miraculous intervention by God. But many other equally devout and equally professional theologians welcomed the new knowledge as embodying a more exalted concept of God’s awesome power and sense of order, and of his wisdom in establishing a universe operating under constant laws of his own proclamation—regularities that would require no divine tampering thereafter. Moreover, effectively all major scientists of the seventeenth century held genuine and firm beliefs in a deity of fairly conventional form, and in the sacredness and infallibility (if not literality) of the Bible.

Indeed, the movers and shakers of the Scientific Revolution espoused a range of opinions about even so central a question as whether miracles—defined as direct supernatural interventions of God—must be invoked o explain the full range of phenomena require to chronicle the earth’s history. (In the practical terms of a working scientist, miracles must be treated as temporary suspensions for the otherwise invariant regime of natural laws that regulate the mechanisms of the universe, and make scientific explanations possible.) Newton himself took a “generous” view, and happily granted God an occasional option for miraculous intervention, even though the success of science did imply God’s strong preference for invariant natural law, and his sparing use of miraculous effects. Newton wrote: “Where natural causes are at hand God uses them as instruments in his works, but I do not think them alone sufficient.”

But other key figures of Newton’s generation hoped to ban miracles entirely, arguing that God would only be demeaning his own grandeur if he ever needed to fiddle, even momentarily, with his own laws to nudge history back into the right track. […]

The parallels to today’s discussions are not surprising, and quite amusing. Anyway, that’s it for me. See you all next week.

Jay,
I want to make sure we’re on the same page.  If I understand you correctly, you consider it incorrect for me to ask for an atheist to say “from a Newtonian perspective”, because Newton himself remained a Christian.

I agree with that, sort of.  In fact, one of the richer ironies in science vs religion debates is that most of the authorites most atheists appeal to are Christians!  Or at the very least, religious!  So they trust the brilliance of the scientist to describe the universe, but reject the very same same brilliance when applied to a personal understanding of the source of the universe!

But still, when I let myself get embroiled in these discussions, the way that the atheist ridicules the religious believer is always in Newtonian terms: Nothing can violate the laws of physics, I don’t see any evidence of a God, where did God come from, etc.
These are all questions from a Newtonian perspective of how the world works.  Newton didn’t care about how gravity works (he didn’t have the physical or philosophical tools to even begin to address that aspect), he just described its effects.  Newtonian physics denies the many of the aspects of quantum physics and black holes and relativity right along with the idea of an omnipotent God...but now we know that Newtonian physics are just an approximation of one significant bandwidth of experience.  Someone saying that science has disproven God is like someone saying that X-rays exist because they can’t see them.  They are using one portion of science experience and ignoring all the rest that does allow for the existence of God, if not actually indicates there is one.

If that’s what you are already saying, forgive me.

If you still disagree, then how should I understand or approach the dichotomy of views?  When someone says science disproves God, and implies I’m an idiot or a fool for continuing to believe in God, how should I respond?

Hmm, I don’t think I’ve ever said science has disproven God(s).  I have said, however, that our increased understanding of the universe makes the need or likelihood of a god less and less relevant (please reference “God of the Gaps,” pages 45-928).

If you want science to consider god as an explanation, then I welcome you to propose a scientific test for god.  Science has to operate on the basis that the universe is knowable, otherwise anytime we came across something that didn’t make sense to us, we’d say “God did it!” and stop right there. 

As for dark matter violating the laws of physics, no, I don’t see how it does.  We developed methods to calculate the mass of large visible objects (e.g galaxies) and found that our methods implied there was something there that we weren’t seeing.  So, we have a hypothesis of dark matter - which could be supermassive black holes or new particles altogether, but I don’t see physics being violated anywhere.  In fact, I see physics necessitating that something be there.

Well, it’s not just you, Andy.  I’m describing the impression left by a gestalt of discussions with a large number of people.

Regarding Dark Matter, it violates the laws of Newtonian physics in that there is no evidence for its existence.  Allow me to introduce my understanding of the issue:
The only reason the theory came into being at all is that limited understanding led scientists to formulate a series of equations about the total mass of the universe related to its velocity of expansion.  All the equations boil down to “a = a”, if you will.  As instruments got better, they were able to determine that the velocity was all out of whack, not in line with predictions.  Suddenly, “a = a” became “a = b” when it simultanously remained “a does not = b”.  So scientists said, there must be something else out there, and changed the equation, without any other shred of evidence for its existence other than that it balances the equation to preserve their assumptions, to “a + x = b”.  And the more refined their instruments and measurements become, the more they have to increase the value of “x” to make the equation balance.

That’s not really science.  Or rather, it is science in that they made an assumption that they will now try to prove or disprove.  Except that the scientists who support the theory of Dark Matter are taking a non-scientific approach and refusing to recognize that perhaps the original assumptions were wrong to begin with.  Their original equation is getting warped by the increasing estimates of Dark Matter mass.

And yet, if someone said, “Hmm, everything I understand about the universe isn’t adding up.  Things aren’t moving as fast as they should.  A mysterious force without any other evidence for its existence must be affecting things.  I’ll call it “God” and use that as a working theory to see if I can prove or disprove it”, that person would get laughed out of the scientific community.  There’s actually no difference between the two assumptions, except for terminology.

Black holes can be detected and located by how they affect objects that get near them, and how they warp even light that passes near it.  But there is nothing in the universe at all that any science can point to and say, “That’s Dark Matter.  Dark Matter caused that specific effect right there.” It is invisible, inert, and has no discernible affect on the measurable universe at all...except to make the mass/velocity equations balance.

Pardon me, but that’s freaking ridiculous!

Physics may necessitate that something be there, but only if the current understanding of physical laws is correct...and there would be other evidence for Dark Matter’s presence.  Occam’s Razor at least suggests that time and effort would be better spent re-examining the assumptions of the original equation.  Based on the number of people who claim to have had a person experience with God (of whatever religion), there is far more evidence (albeit ambiguous and subjective, of course) for a God than there is for Dark Matter.

Now, if there is some other evidence for Dark Matter that I’ve somehow missed in my science readings, feel free to shove a link down my throat! [grin]

Andy, the increasing irrelevance of an active, micromanaging God in the understanding of the universe IS a natural consequence of increased scientific discovery. However, your argument with a Christian would be of a theological nature as to whether God is active or not (although we all know you’re an atheist). Just as a thought exercise, I enjoin you to try to see it from the view of a faithful person. Read some of the epistemology of Christian morality. Read a little of the philosophical works of Augustine, or Aquinas, or even of Pope John Paul II. Not everything that comes out of a Christian’s mouth in praise of God is irrational crap.

Too many times I have encountered atheists whose ideas unnecessarily and tactlessly fly into the faces of the faithful. That isn’t the way to convince a Christian (in a metaphysical argument of course) that his idea of God as an active participant is flawed. It merely makes them hunker down and fight some more. I know you are not one of those, although sometimes the disdain can be piled on thick. I do not want to sound patronizing but welcome to MY ballpark, where arguments and bull sessions are centered around what we think, and sharing what we think and know… not why we’re right and why the other side is wrong.

I don’t think that Nathan is asking for science to use God as an explanation for anything. I think that in all of this all he wants is an admission from scientists that not all there is to know has been known. As he has said earlier, he’s not asking atheists to “believe in Binky The Space Clown.”

Nathan. With regards to the previous statement to Andy, I invite you too, to take a long hard look not at the Scientific community! but at the nature of science itself.

Observe, hypothesize, test, analyze data, conclude, publish, peer review. This is the Scientific Method at its purest form. Take note there is no such step that says “build consensus.” That is the realm of pseudoscience which pervades Environmentalism and sociology.

As for dark matter. This is a touchy subject for me, one that I can not argue myself because all I can argue from is personal incredulity. But I think that the base equations have BEEN reexamined and all that can be said is that with the current understanding of gravity, the mass/velocity equation is the best we have and yes, there’s probly nothing there, but there are two roads in that quest. (1) Understand gravity better (2) Find a way to detect dark matter. I for one find DM incredulous from a logical point of view but not so much as to rule its possibility out completely. I do not know enough to continue talking about DM with any sort of confidence. Sorry.

Jay,
I, too, actually see God as not much of an active participant.  He set things in motion, and all that we see occurring is the result of our choices.  At this point in my Faith, I think that “miracles” occur in people’s hearts, not in the physical realm of science.

I’m also certainly open to Dark Matter eventually being proven...but it’s a huge leap of faith at this point.  Your last paragraph is pretty much how I would describe my views of DM, if pressed.  I think that there will be another scientific breakthrough in understanding and theory that will allow us to “balance the books” without having to resort to something as lame as DM...and I’ll also point out that assuming DM is probably a necessary step; without that assumption, we probably wouldn’t be able to tweak the rest of the equation to work to the point where we don’t need DM anymore.  I pretty much consider it a placeholder to allow future discoveries.
But denying God on the basis of logic, yet having no problem with DM on the basis of logic just because a scientist says so...[shakes head].  They seem to be pretty much the same thing to me, tautologically [sp?] speaking.

Oh, and Andy is a former Catholic (I think it was Catholic...please forgive me if I’m wrong about that), so he has at least been exposed to many of the thinkers you mentioned.  How such an obviously-intelligent guy like Andy can remain unmoved by the writings of such an obviously intelligent guy like St. Augustine is beyond me.

Nathan - it seems to me that you’re assuming that dark matter is something mysterious and unknown, which isn’t necessarily the case, as indicated here: http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/essay.html

What could the dark matter be? The dark matter in the disk most likely consists of very dim stars, such as white and even black dwarfs.

There’s more there as well.

Regarding the swipe about accepting dark matter while not accepting God, if you care to show us some mathematical equations of physical interactions that seem to necessitate a god, again, the scientific community would probably love to evaluate them. 

Anyway, you and I both know we’re not going to agree on any of this, so let’s call it a day.

P.S. to Zomby and Company - sometimes when you preview your post, the image with the word you need to submit does not show up correctly on the next page.

Hmmm, I’ll have to read more about that, because my previous readings indicated that they first re-adjusted the equations by upping the estimate of non-luminous matter in black holes, white dwarfs, etc...and then when that was insufficient, they came up with Dark Matter...not “dark” as in non-luminous, but “dark” as in undetectable.
Jay’s comment that DM is non-logical to him, as well, supports my original understanding, but an article from Berkeley’s Astronomy dept does carry no small weight with me, so I’m going to have to re-research to figure out why we have such different understandings of it.  If all it is, is non-luminous material that we can detect through its gravitational effects on other phenomena, I’ll have to recant/withdraw my objections.

Nathan - I think the article does touch on that it could be something new, some new form of matter of which we have little understanding, but they’re taking the “simplest explanation” route and assuming it to be non-luminous matter.