Answered
Is it God Delusion or is it scientist's delusion?
If god did not exist man would find it necessary to create him... That is easy. Science is based on measurable, testable, observable evidence. Tests that can be rep…eated by another scientist, to get the same results. Science is based on objective and sensory proof. Meaning things that can be seen, heard, or sensed in some natural way ( as opposed to supernatural). A delusion is defined as , " A belief that is firmly held against all evidence to the contrary ." That would automatically eliminate science which is totally based ON supporting evidence. Science does not require faith, anymore than gravity requires faith. In other words one does not have to believe in gravity. One can observe it's effects. That's science. Answer If the sciences or scientists themselves are delusional, then their work could produce no meaningful or discernible advancements. This is clearly not the case. If I needed medical treatment of some kind, and I had the choice of going back to the Iron Age to be treated by the Hebrews wandering the desert, I'd stay in the 21st century, thank you. Some people (people of faith and scientists alike) feel the need to pit faith against science, as if one of them must lose, and one of them must win. This is hard to understand. Some believe that religious scriptures somehow nullify or replace science, and claim that scriptures contain science. They do not. After the fact, passages are sometimes found that "support" some scientific concept. I have never heard of a person finding one of these passages and then predicting or explaining some scientific principle that is later verified independently. And while science is by nature dynamic, sometimes explosive, malleable and ever-changing, the scriptures are by nature static, authoritative and beyond challenge. It is dogmatism that loses ground bit by bit, over time. Simply understanding that scriptures are not science documents would be a huge step forward. A faith that can be challenged or shaken by mere facts, and systematic efforts to obtain more facts, can't be based on anything more substantive than facts. A faith that can confidently step out of the plane of human information has a much greater chance of being genuine and transcendant. On the other hand, scientists should be careful not to be dogmatic in their own right. It is dogmatism that kills. Skepticism is one of the energizers of science, and it is a much more useful and powerful position when considering matters of religious faith. Scientists look to how the world functions. They are based on evidence and are certainly not delusional. They may however be arrogant when they claim they have the key to ultimate truth, or when they claim that the fact they explained gravity means that there is no God in the Universe...Scientific explanations of facts do not answer the big metaphysical questions of human kind...they just make them bigger. Having explained how species evolved or how electrons move, does not mean that you have made a point in favor or against the existence of purpose in the world... If you have as a starting point the dogma that "Nothing exists in the universe except electons and protons interacting as natural laws dictate", then it is more than expected that you cannot find "proof" of anything spiritual in the cosmos. Even if you see something "weird" that you cannot explain via your scientific knowledge, then you simply say "OK, I cannot answer that right now, but SOMEDAY I WILL be able to find an answer". So when modern cosmologists have found that all universe parameters are set to the very exact values needed to support life and they cannot find a good explanation for that, they do not "see" God in it but simply state that SOMEDAY, SOMEHOW, SOMEONE WILL answer that big question. Arrogance levels high for scientists... Even if Godel has PROVED that science CANNOT answer everything, many modern scientists tend to forget that and BELIEVE the opposite... Without a doubt, some scientists are arrogant, but this observation is 'ad hominem' and not useful at all. There have been more than a few public advocates of religion who accurately demonstrate that pride goeth before the fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction. Puffed up scientists do not define science any more than prideful evangelists define religion/faith. The question really is: "What am I persuaded to believe, and what persuades me to believe it?" The process of science is an heuristic. It in fact never ends. No theory, pompous and arrogant scientists notwithstanding, is ever proven in an absolute, unassailable sense. The Newton-Einstein example is perhaps over-used, but still excellent. I will assume that this question's readers know the story and so I won't get into details. There is no telling how many editions of the basic physical theories there will be before mankind comes to an end. But the truth is that even as we accept that theories are NEVER beyond challenge, there is a history of progress in every field of science and technology. We are talking about a distinction between knowledge based on faith (and therefore based on the unseen and non-tangible) and knowledge based on trial and error. It is not delusional to be curious, skeptical, inventive and searching. When I can see some aspect of balance in the world that was not visible before, I have learned something that I as a human being was meant to know. Whatever else might or might not be true, my trial and error knowledge is real and not delusional. RATIONAL THOUGHT MAKES PEOPLE RATIONAL. I have a question: is the Culture War really worth the effort? For what? To prove that humans are, by nature, biased? Science and religion are in a long war. Neither side is gaining ground, and the war is making both sides look bad. Arrogant, biased freaks are on both sides. We will see who who wins in the end. --- To my mind, there isn't a war at all between religion and science; they can both work together. I am a Professor of Biochemistry, and therefore a scientist, but I am also a strong Christian, and believe that actually the two are somewhat interlinked. Now, although this is a debate for another question, I would like to point out that Science revolves around a hypothesis and then the evidence to back that hypothesis. Since religion, and any god of any religion, cannot be definitively proved, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it just means that we cannot prove that he does or doesn't. (MORE)
