It’s high time we put the most enduring myths about human behavior to bed, and see the mind—and the world—as it is.
Verified by Psychology Today
I agree with the notion: "Science is under no obligation to either prove or disprove the existence of god, or gods" because science cannot detect such things. As it cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, then science cannot be used to comment on God's existence. To say we have such models that have no need for an external cause is nonsense, because science cannot detect such a cause.
There's more than one way to know truth, and the scientific method is not the only way. The claim that only science is truth cannot be deduced by the scientific method. The existence of objective truth, reason, or logic cannot be empirically verified but is philosophically assumed. If science cannot establish that it's a reliable form of inquiry, then it can hardly establish it is the only reliable form.
Sure, the idea of God is "scientifically uninteresting", but that's where philosophy is used to offer proofs for God's existence. "Evidence" for God's existence is not empirical, but philosophical. Such philosophical proofs we take for gained include: logic, thoughts (we cannot see or measure someone's mind), math, reality of the external world, morality, truth.
This is why a scientist cannot claim to debunk external or first causes using scientific models. To claim a God would be superfluous by only citing scientific models is wrong. If the author makes this claim, he must back it up with proof (and as we agree science cannot offer such proof). If he refuses, then he cannot continue to say science has no need for an intelligent designer or first cause.
Thank you for responding! I'm glad we can agree on this point!
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.