Science vs Creator: A False Binary?
Has science become so complete that it explicitly excludes the possibility of a creator? If so, could you expound upon that? Is the credibility of the creationists worldview significantly undermined by the progression of scientific understanding and to what extent are they mutually exclusive? It’s my sense that the creationists perspective, and any subsequent perspective derived from that tenet, is flexible enough to adapt to the scientific discoveries and incorporate them our postulations. So, is it possible there is a creator? I’m interested to hear and address counter arguments as I’m not hostile to alternative atheistic or agnostic perspectives.
Comments (12)
What do you mean by "a creator"? Someone who caused the universe to begin? Or someone who designed and made humans by divine hand?
As for the professions, I doubt many scientists spend a lot of time mulling over the existence of a creator, rather they focus on discovering how their corner of the universe works. Some may give a certain credence to intelligent design, but when you speak of a "creator" that sounds like a wholly religious perspective.
Among the mathematicians I've known over the years there have been virtually no discussions of this issue, although there are a few who are or were religious. If you refer to creationists who think Earth is 6,000 years old or the like, I've never met one.
Creationism is notoriously inflexible. It is known for insisting that Biblical maxims trump scientific evidence. Creationism is associated with Biblical fundamentalism, which is likewise committed to an literal interpretation of Biblical texts.
'Intelligent design' is another trend, related but not as inflexible as traditionalist creationism. Then there's theistic evolution, which accepts evolution as the means by which living beings were created.
It is always "possible" to posit some kind of hidden machinery in this fashion. And so science doesn't try to prove something is not the case. Instead it works to constrain the likelihood that it could be the case.
Science gives us reasonable and measurable doubt when it comes to creationism. And that is itself the rational position. Theories don't get proven wrong. It is just demonstrated that they lack support.
Or of course, if science wants to pass the really damning judgement, the theory can be shown to be "not even wrong".
And this is where creationism eventually leaves itself if it is a claim that also makes the claim that its truth would make no observable difference to how things turned out (according to the accepted science).
So is there a creator? Well, are you saying it would have made a difference? You need to be able to give an account of that difference to even make it an interesting question. Otherwise you are just pushing a "theory" that is not even wrong.
If by "creationists" you're referring to the young earth creationists, then I think science has indeed undermined their worldview. But if by that word you just mean one who thinks that the universe was created, then science most definitely has not undermined that world view. Indeed, it seems inconceivable how such a world view could ever be undermined by a purely scientific investigation.
I'm under the impression that science doesn't deal with that kinda questions. If the universe had an author, science is in the business of finding out what this author wrote and seems to be not in the least bit troubled about the existence/nonexistence of the author.
Scientists are roving around on a beach in the fading light of a setting sun and there half-buried in the sand they discover a wondrous book. They flip the pages and realize that this book is amazing - the secrets of the universe are within its pages. They gather together around a warm fire and discuss the provenance of this most intriguing and fascinating book. One of them offers a hypothesis, "this book is the handiwork of a supreme intelligence", says fae but then, just as they thought the matter was settled, one of the more skeptically-minded among them says in a low voice "It could also be the work of infinite monkeys randomly banging away at the keys of a typewriter."
Abiogenesis theory, from the perspectives of biology, chemistry, geophysics,, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology agree that self organization led to life. The only alternative is God, but God the creator comes up against the problem of who / what created God? If we are to avoid an infinite regress of god creators, then we must conclude that god created him / her / itself. So we come back to self creation / organization as the origin of life.
Logically, there is no alternative to self organization as the origin of life, but dose this exclude a god?
I think it depends on what you conceive god to be. In my understanding, self organization is equivalent to consciousness , within a monistic / panpsychic conception of the universe. Consciousness can be shown to have infinite potential, by applying Gödel's incompleteness theorem to an axiomatic consciousness. An infinite consciousness is not limited to anything, it can perhaps create a universe, and possibly live beyond the universe. If this was god - infinite self organization / consciousness, then this is a god I could believe in, and one that will always be light years ahead of science and philosophy, logic, etc. :smile:
Back on earth however, consciousness must decide whether a god exists or not, regardless of the science, or philosophy, or whatever. The person must decide this in regard to what best suits their self organization.
the former.
Yes, it does seem like a wholly religious perspective, although I tried to remove religious tones from the question just for the sake of simplicity. It likely falls under the category of concepts and queries that are interesting but unimportant in the long run.
I don't think I've ever met a young earth creationist either. I'm not sure if I should be encouraged that they're hard to find or upset that I haven't met someone so rare.
Thanks for the reply. If we're referring and constraining people into groups with generally universal beliefs such as creationists, theistic evolutionists, etc.) then I expect there's not much we'll disagree on.
How true.
Then, sure, the notion that an intelligent being kicked the universe off is sufficiently vague and discreet that it can absorb pretty much any scientific evidence. You just add "as the creator intended" to the end of every statement about the universe.
Quoting Julz
My counter-argument is that it's an unjustifiable and arbitrary belief. It is precisely the fact that you can neither prove nor disprove it that reduces it to a personal choice.
Once upon a time, the creator hypothesis was a very sensible one since, the absence of knowledge about ecology and evolution, the suitability of the world for us seemed consistent with the idea of design. As we learned, especially through science, more about the Earth and heavens, it made sense that whoever designed the Earth would be responsible for everything else too, including the origins of the universe as a whole.
So the reason we have the unfalsifiable concept of an intelligent creator of the universe is the now discredited concept of a creator of the terrestrial biosphere. There is no reason to believe in the former now that our knowledge of the latter makes a creator redundant.