Principia

More than likely, you're thinking of Michio Kaku.

Corona688

What right? Science has merely produced results - and religion has not. Science has lengthened lifespans, given us a deeper understanding of the universe and ourselves, let us fly, communicate across vast distances, see other planets, see individual atoms... how much of this would we have learned if we'd accepted 'goddidit' as an answer?

The thing is, science has done all this without needing to refer to god - often times, pushing god out of places where he had been presumed to directly act. And reality doesn't seem to care whether we believe in god or not... antibiotics work whether or not the person that takes them believes in Yahweh, Vishnu, or no deities at all. Science is slowly and surely showing what god does NOT do.

yguy

I don't know that that's true, but it's irrelevant anyway, since I never suggested that religion be the arbiter of truth.

Depending on the quality of that acceptance, we might all be walking on water by now.

That is meaningless, since many people claim they believe in God but don't - and many who don't profess belief love God even though they don't know it.

Absolutely, utterly preposterous. Nothing has been discovered by science that contradicts the idea of God. Many peoples' conceptions of God have been dashed by science, but not His reality.

Wounded King

I would assume that the scientific mindset should at least be allowed to define what it considers to be scientific truth. This may be a fuzzy and constantly changing form of 'truth' in some instances, but that is the nature of science.

Kimpatsu

Not of truth, of fact. "Show me a relativist at 38,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite. If you are flying somewhere, it is because a lot of Western-educated engineers got their sums right."

VonEvilstein

Uhu. That's what was said. Science has shown that no god is directly involved in the functioning of such things as storms, earthquakes, planetary orbits, plagues, etc., etc., etc..
Is this such a prepostorous position to take? Would this position require a non-belief in god?

yguy

Of course it is. It's a blatant lie.

VonEvilstein

A lie? Howso? Science has provided natural explanations for all manner of things formerly the exclusive domain of divine beings. Sure, these divine beings may be very sneaky and cunning and doing it all unseen, but that's dangerously close to IPU country.

Yet none of these disoveries contradict the existence of God - many were made theists, including some quite devout ones at that.

How do natural explanations of these events in any way deny the existence of any gods?

eh

Are you suggesting God is the cause of natural phenomena such as EM, gravity, star formation and others?

yguy

I'm very aware of the ever-present possibility of having the idea trivialized so as to be able to ridicule it without understanding it. Science has never proven that any phenomenon was not influenced entirely or in part by the Creator.