The more people understand how natural processes create the physical phenomena we observe the less likely they are to need a supernatural being to produce those phenomena. That’s why we’ve pretty much given up Thor as the source for lightning and thunder.
Maybe, but that is certainly a shaky generalization. For among believing scientists it works exactly the opposite. The more we understand about science, the more we see God’s handiwork in creation.
8 Likes
That’s as good an example of confirmation bias as there is.
1 Like
And for those whose atheism is reinforced with each new scientific discovery, is that confirmation bias free?
3 Likes
Naturalistic scientific discoveries aren’t evidence for Gods or against Gods. They’re just evidence no intervention from any supernatural entity was necessary. You confuse your need to have science support your religious views with how science does not deal with any supernatural influences.
1 Like
You are not answering the question I asked. To repeat, with the part you are glossing over in bold:
And for those whose atheism is reinforced with each new scientific discovery, is that confirmation bias free?
Now a possible answer is “nobody’s atheism is ever reinforced by a new scientific discovery.” That would be consistent with your statement:
but it would be inconsistent with the legions I’ve heard and read over the years who do in fact claim that scientific advances only serve to strengthen their lack of belief.
So if you believe there are such atheists, who make such a claim, are they free of confirmation bias?
Or are you claiming no such atheists exist?
People who use science to try and support atheistic beliefs are just as wrong as those who use science to try and support their religious beliefs. Science doesn’t say anything about the existence or non-existence of any supernatural God or Gods. Are you admitting to your severe confirmation bias?
1 Like
This seems to contradict what you said earlier:
3 Likes
No it doesn’t. Try reading the words again. Understanding how natural physical processes produce phenomena removes the need for supernatural intervention. It doesn’t say anything at all about whether supernatural entities exist or not. It merely makes them unnecessary.
1 Like
But if we discover that God is necessary to explain some phenomena, do you agree that it is then more likely that he exists?
Just how do you propose to scientifically demonstrate 1) some phenomenon absolutely requires supernatural intervention and 2) only your personal favorite supernatural entity could be responsible?
Sorry but science rejected “God-of-the-gaps” arguments as worthless over three centuries ago.
1 Like
That’s not the point, Tim. Please answer my question:
It’s unfortunate the subjunctive is an endangered species.
“But if we discover that God is necessary to explain some phenomena, do you agree that it is then more likely that he exists?” could then be “If we were to discover that God be necessary to explain some phenomena, do you agree that it is then more likely that he exist?”
To which I would answer “not really”.
1 Like
It is the point if you’re going to argue by logical fallacy. Please answer my questions first for clarification.
1 Like
Hum!
A little science takes you away from God, but a lot brings you back. Louis Pasteur
Nice googling. A very little more googling should reveal that the quote is misattributed and that it can’t be connected to Pasteur. If it were true, wouldn’t all those NAS members, who presumably have had a great deal of science, be theists?
1 Like
Does Science Take Us Away From or To God
Yes. Next question. 
Even if it’s not from Pasteur, it is an idea that has been around. Francis Bacon said something similar, to the effect that a little bit of scientific knowledge (which he would have called “philosophy”) inclines a person to atheism, whereas a deeper scientific knowledge brings one back to belief in God. (Whether Bacon meant that sincerely is a debatable question, but he did say it.)
Bacon presumably would have said that they had not reflected deeply enough on the meaning of the scientific knowledge they have acquired. Newton, in his General Scholium, expresses the view that sound reflection on the system of the sun and planets leads one to the existence of a wise contriver of that system. Boyle, another titan of early modern science, held to a similar belief. The question is why so many modern scientists do not draw similar conclusions. And it’s not enough to say that modern scientists know that we don’t need God because we have natural laws, because Newton and Boyle also explained things in terms of natural laws, but did not from that move to the conclusion that God was nonexistent or unnecessary as an explanation. They saw God as the source of the laws, the reason for their rationality. So we know that scientific genius as such, and reflection on laws of nature as such, do not necessarily take one away from belief in God; this suggests that other cultural factors are operating. It is worthwhile trying discern what those factors are.
1 Like
Ah, they’re nae true Scotsmen, in other words.
Yes, and then along came Laplace.
Actually, Newton needed God because he couldn’t figure out how the solar system could remain stable over the long term. We now know more than Newton about that. I don’t think your premises are correct here. More knowledge can indeed explain the difference.
1 Like
You’re talking about Newton’s suggestion that every so many million years God would have to step in to readjust the mechanism, and you’re saying that Laplace did away with that supposed need. I’m fully aware of this. That’s not what I’m talking about. Even supposing that the solar system needed no tinkering, Newton still would not have said that we no longer need God to explain it. Ditto for Boyle and Kepler. For them natural laws, regularity, mathematical order, etc. did not tell against the existence of God, but pointed all the more firmly to God.