What sort of answers would you give to these questions,


#1

Assume science has explained everything. Now, what does your god DO? What do you believe it does? Why do you need it? In what way does it help you?

When (not if) the time comes that we can explain everything via science, what does that leave for god to do? What is god bringing to the table? An afterlife where all your kittens and puppies and extended xtian families are all waiting for you in a mansion for all of eternity? Sounds kind of silly, especially in a future where we will know more and more about the origins of religion and power, and what role they play in the human mind. Not unlike a mental disorder, we will eventually discover what chemical need is fulfilled with religion.

Thanks in advance.


#2

Assume science has explained everything. Now, what does your god DO? What do you believe it does? Why do you need it? In what way does it help you?

If science ever did attempt to explain everything it would have to change how it operates because science doesn’t seek to explain everything but to understand natural phenomena, which is quite another matter.

When (not if) the time comes that we can explain everything via science, what does that leave for god to do? What is god bringing to the table? An afterlife where all your kittens and puppies and extended xtian families are all waiting for you in a mansion for all of eternity? Sounds kind of silly, especially in a future where we will know more and more about the origins of religion and power, and what role they play in the human mind. Not unlike a mental disorder, we will eventually discover what chemical need is fulfilled with religion.

Thanks in advance.

If the afterlife was what you describe, I wouldn’t be all that interested in it, either. We don’t really know very much about what life will be like after the resurrection of the dead after the final judgment when God will create a new heavens and a new earth. We do know we will be like the risen and gloried Christ and that we will enjoy the beatific vision of God, which is far more than mere earthly relationships, no matter how close, could ever be.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. Science cannot discover the undiscoverable. It can only put forward a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, and then come to conclusions about it. Medical science can only do the same thing. It cannot tell us if human beings have souls nor if there is a God who created us and to whom we will have to answer for our how we conducted our lives while alive on this planet. That’s not its purpose.


#3

This is such a silly question!

If the time comes when science can answer everything, science can tell us the role that God will play in our life, so why ask now?

Translation: Science will reveal the working presence of God, just as more and more scientists today are coming to the realization that all of science is intricately created as part of a divine plan. The purpose of God isn’t to answer questions about the world. God’s “purpose” is that he created us, and he loves us, so we love him in return.

You don’t judge God by his mechanical utility.
Josh


#4

Greetings,
As a practicing Catholic who is also a practicing scientist, I find these kinds of questions silly. Only people who are using science as a religion pose such questions.

Here’s what I might say: Science is a tool for helping us to understand the physical world. However it is not the only tool. There is more to life than rational explanations of the world. Science does not answer teleologic (why?) questions. It also does not tell you what is moral, regardless of what people like Carl Sagan implied in the past.

There is an aspect of this world which is fundamentally mysterious and science does not touch this. Ask them if they love their wife, etc. What does that love mean from a scientific standpoint? Nothing, because it is outside the scope of scientific inquiry. So I would say that science is a limited tool and the world will always be mysterious, no matter how far we go in our explanations.

You might run into an reductionist materialist who answers that love is just a biochemical reaction going on in their minds and hence not relevant. This is another silly idea. Ask them, if that is true, then is the scientific method just a biochemical reaction? If so, why give it any credence?

Another point of attack with such people is to emphasize the importance of faith. Even scientists have to take things on faith, such as the scientific results of previous workers. If we didn’t , we’d never get to the job at hand; we’d just have to re-prove what everyone else has done.

In calling things silly above, I didn’t mean to belittle you. It annoys me to see people have such misconceptions about science. Help these people see the larger world they are in!

Best of luck!


#5

Please bear in mind that these questions are not my own, they are from another forum. :cool:


#6

Assume science has explained everything.

Why assume what science doesn’t? Science is open to and aggressive seeks out change as more data is collected, the theories become more focused.

When (not if) the time comes that we can explain everything via science, what does that leave for god to do? What is god bringing to the table? An afterlife where all your kittens and puppies and extended xtian families are all waiting for you in a mansion for all of eternity? Sounds kind of silly, especially in a future where we will know more and more about the origins of religion and power, and what role they play in the human mind. Not unlike a mental disorder, we will eventually discover what chemical need is fulfilled with religion.

When that happens and science negates God we’ll talk. Until then the point is moot.


#7

[quote=Valz]Thanks in advance.
[/quote]

Science is concerned with HOW.

Theology is concerned with WHY.


#8

Science doesn’t claim to, or has the ability to, answer the fundemental question. Why?

As in:
Why am I here?
Why do we love?

I don’t believe the answers to these questions can come from science.


#9

Many natural processes, especially the biological, appear to have a teleology. That is, they appear to be working toward an end result. (The sperm is trying to reach the egg. The virus is attempting to infect the host. The birds are making a concerted effort to head south.)

But science is not allowed to use explanations that involve teleology. They can’t assume that a process is working toward an end. Science can answer questions of how something occurs, not questions of why something occurs.

If science could explain everything, it would still have to tackle the question of why there is anything.

But that’s a job for philosophy, not science.

And as MulusChristi mentioned, if all conscious thought is just a biochemical process, then it is completely deterministic. Why should a biochemical process that results in scientific conclusions be given any more credence than a biochemical process that results in theological conclusions?


#10

[quote=MulusChristi]Greetings,
As a practicing Catholic who is also a practicing scientist, I find these kinds of questions silly. Only people who are using science as a religion pose such questions.

Here’s what I might say: Science is a tool for helping us to understand the physical world. However it is not the only tool. There is more to life than rational explanations of the world. Science does not answer teleologic (why?) questions. It also does not tell you what is moral, regardless of what people like Carl Sagan implied in the past.

There is an aspect of this world which is fundamentally mysterious and science does not touch this. Ask them if they love their wife, etc. What does that love mean from a scientific standpoint? Nothing, because it is outside the scope of scientific inquiry. So I would say that science is a limited tool and the world will always be mysterious, no matter how far we go in our explanations.

You might run into an reductionist materialist who answers that love is just a biochemical reaction going on in their minds and hence not relevant. This is another silly idea. Ask them, if that is true, then is the scientific method just a biochemical reaction? If so, why give it any credence?

Another point of attack with such people is to emphasize the importance of faith. Even scientists have to take things on faith, such as the scientific results of previous workers. If we didn’t , we’d never get to the job at hand; we’d just have to re-prove what everyone else has done.

In calling things silly above, I didn’t mean to belittle you. It annoys me to see people have such misconceptions about science. Help these people see the larger world they are in!

Best of luck!
[/quote]

much applause!!!.


#11

Call me when this is the case…


#12

Call me back when Science has explained everything. Since the scientists change their minds on every topic from healthy diet to defining neuroses to behavior of elemental particles with annoying regularity I am betting it won’t be anytime soon.


#13

[quote=jjwilkman]much applause!!!.
[/quote]

I agree. Very good stuff, MulusChristi.


#14

[quote=jjwilkman]much applause!!!.
[/quote]

I agree. Very good stuff, MulusChristi.


#15

Science by its very nature can not explain everything. Science disreguards the supernatural. Science is open ended by nature.


closed #16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.