Science tests all it can and takes nothing for granted as probably true.  All science then regards doubt as a good thing and it then promotes what is left standing.  This is not like faith at all.  There is no trust.  What is put out by it as probably true is put out reluctantly.  There is no celebration.  Science is a search for the brute fact.  If it is a search to learn about creation from God or whatever, even if it won't say what, it will have to involve faith and joy.  Science has to be cold and clinical to maximise objectivity.  So the argument that science is a gift from God and science and religion agree is nonsense.  Those who say science and religion help each other if they mean Christianity cannot really think that Islam fits science.  They are lying for you can be sure they have not read the Vedas or the Qur'an.

Science is about how things affect each other – about how one thing relates to another. One domino knocks the other down. That is what it looks like. You cannot start assuming that a ghost you cannot detect is what knocks the other domino down though it could be that looks are deceiving. Science then by default rejects the idea of supernatural causes. It does not assume that there are complicated laws we know nothing about that create the effect. It is just that one physical thing hits another and knocks it over. It keeps it simple.

The answer to how Christians say, "Science is about the physical and makes no statement as to whether there could be a spiritual power that is creating the physical" is, "Science thinks of nature as acting like brute facts." It has to think of it as just pure natural force for unless you think that what is the point? If you just play along you won't want to do science. You need to think it.

Believers hold that there would be nothing at all if there were no God.

The atheist will say a tree does not prove God. That is to say it fails to prove him for it could be just there. By just there we mean that each component of the tree is just there. We are not saying trees just appear.

The believers will agree with the atheist that the tree is not a strict proof of God. So believers are indicating that they think things could be a mere brute fact that exist for no reason. They will not admit it clearly. Yet they condemn science for being based on the brute fact idea.

Religion says that science cannot do tests to see if God is behind something. It will not admit that this really amounts to saying God cannot be tested in a lab. But there is more to science than those kind of tests. The domino knocking over the other domino is seen as scientific proof that nature explains itself and you cannot say or even SUGGEST that the other domino is not really affected by the one that seems to hit it and thus that it is God that knocks it over. To say that God or no god things will act like they are run by chance and blind force is saying that if there is a God it is not blind force but an imitation! Science cannot accept that. Simulated blind force is not blind force at all. Blind force is about what something is not how it behaves. It behaves that way for it is blind. The idea that God is non-material and undetectable does nothing to make science a distinct and separate thing from God. If we believe religion, then when science tests the random it is testing God for nothing really is random. Religion vehemently denies that.
To prevent science declaring that there is no God or that if there is we should not believe for it is unscientific, God believers attempt to put God outside the reach of science. They argue that science is only about secondary causes not primary. But that will not do. The argument is that unless there is a primary cause you cannot believe in or care about secondary. There cannot be a secondary cause on its own. There has to be a reason why it is secondary. If science does not understand that it is secondary causes it is dealing with then it is a pile of rubbish. Science does not accept that it deals only with secondary causes for that implies science must admit a primary cause, perhaps God.

Strictly speaking because nothing at all exists unless God holds it in existence then there is nothing only primary causes. The doctrine that God is the absolute and the creation utterly depends on him makes him more important to it than it is to itself.  He is closer to it than itself.  Primary and secondary cause talk is not literally correct for God is distant from nothing.  He has as much to do with the apple falling off the tree as he does with there being an apple in the first place.  Primary and secondary is only a language construct for theologians and apart from that means nothing.

God and science are opposed despite religious lies that they fit together.  Science is about the brute fact and thus the denial of any need for a creator God.  Russell found that philosophy allows for the universe being just there and not a creation.  So science and philosophy when correctly understood meet at that point.


No Copyright