Can Science Rule Out God?

[AlchoPwn]

Why 'some beardy guy'? Why would a being with the power to create a universe necessarily be in a form you could recognise or comprehend?

We are made in god's image, remember? Or are you saying Michelangelo just made that up? Then again, perhaps you talking about a different god?

 

[EnolaGaia]

We are made in god's image, remember? Or are you saying Michelangelo just made that up? Then again, perhaps you talking about a different god?

It depends on the faith (and particular sub-section of said faith) to which one subscribes.

The conceptualization of "God"(or, in some cases, "gods") in anthropomorphic terms is certainly evident in many traditions.* However, some faiths (and certain sects / denominations / etc.) have generalized or abstracted the essential concept to something more like a force, pervasive entitative presence or principle.

* IMHO it's entirely predictable and understandable in the context of human capabilities, but that's a different story.

 

[AlchoPwn]

It depends on the faith (and particular sub-section of said faith) to which one subscribes.
The conceptualization of "God"(or, in some cases, "gods") in anthropomorphic terms is certainly evident in many traditions.* However, some faiths (and certain sects / denominations / etc.) have generalized or abstracted the essential concept to something more like a force, pervasive entitative presence or principle.
* IMHO it's entirely predictable and understandable in the context of human capabilities, but that's a different story.

While you are in no way wrong EnolaGaia, I do hope you would agree that the definition you present us with is very vague. By this definition, gravity could be a god, electrons could be countless tiny gods, ennui could be a god, or a tornado could be a god. It all seems a bit too general to be meaningful. So here's a question... could a sculpture of Jesus be a god but a separate god to Jesus? Ancient Astronaut Theorists say Yes (an awful lot, don't they?).

 

[EnolaGaia]

While you are in no way wrong EnolaGaia, I do hope you would agree that the definition you present us with is very vague. ... It all seems a bit too general to be meaningful.

I'm a bit confused by this insofar as I wasn't defining anything specifically, but rather pointing to the range of characterizations attributed to "gods" / "God."

There's an inherent element of vagueness owing to the "god(s)" construct always serving to some extent as an explanation (e.g., for how the universe began, how things innately are, how events unfold, or how human affairs should proceed).

The generality aspect relates to the different scales or levels in terms of both (a) phenomena governed and (b) capacity for governance at which this sort of construct has consistently been introduced, promoted, employed and even enforced throughout human history.

We tend to dismiss, or at least compartmentalize, animism as a separate and quaintly primitive explanatory gambit. This, I believe, is a categorical mistake. Animism represents the elemental or seminal form of the "god" construct, insofar as it plays upon the very same quartet of key themes at the core of subsequent allusions to "gods" or "God":

- a coherent referential framing within which a given subject may be explained;
- a consistent focus on causation / causality as the central mystery the explanation should illuminate;
- a bias for explaining causality in terms of routinely or deliberately effectuated agency; and
- a bias for characterizing agency in terms analogous to those with which we describe the behaviors of human / animal agents.

The scalar progression has unfolded from the most specific (animism: many agents vested in particular locales, objects, events, etc.), through an intermediate level (polytheistic pantheons: a select set of agents vested in respective general portfolios), to the most conceivably general (monotheism: one super-agent vested in the entire universe).

I would say the notion of "a god" emerges when moving from the specifically resident animistic motif to the more general / universalized intermediate phase motif, and the notion of "God" emerges during the transition from the intermediate to the maximally generalized phase's motif.

My earlier comment alluding to "force" / "principle" simply meant certain adherents of the third ("God"-based) phase have been known to minimize the fourth general theme (homo-centricity; anthropomorphism) in framing their descriptions / characterizations of the focal agency by which things are explained. This sort of approach has been quite vague in specifying what the notion of "God" represents.

IMHO this vagueness is an understandable, and arguably unavoidable, consequence of demoting / removing the anthropomorphic aspects of the long-running explanatory approach.

By this definition, gravity could be a god, electrons could be countless tiny gods, ennui could be a god, or a tornado could be a god.

First - as stated above, I didn't offer any "definition(s)" to be at issue prior to this current post. Having said that ...

At face value I'd say "No, not at all."

It's interesting that all four of your examples are entities defined by physical or psychological "science."

Science does exhibit a certain kinship with animism, at least when it addresses specific situations, conditions or events. However, the phenomena it addresses are explained in terms too general / universal to be considered localized in the same way as classic animistic explanations.

By the same token, its level of generality / universality cannot be considered to produce "gods" (in the same sense noted above) for lack of the anthropomorphic trappings. In the context of science such figurative characteristics projected onto agency / agents are relegated to illustrative scenarios (e.g., Maxwell's demon; Schrödinger's cat) alone, and they are considered bad form as components of a "scientific" explanation.

Science also rejects the discretionary / deliberate attributions for agency that are implied in animism and mandatory for the other two phases / motifs. It supplants any insinuation of "will" (of demons; of the gods) with automaticity. This is an example of the shift from focusing on a Creator to focusing on Creation I mentioned earlier.

So here's a question... could a sculpture of Jesus be a god but a separate god to Jesus? Ancient Astronaut Theorists say Yes (an awful lot, don't they?).

I'm not sure how to parse this question, but I'm pretty sure my answer to all the possible interpretations is "No."