steve@zinfandel.UUCP (12/15/84)
As we mortal humans can create increasingly sound explanations for the workings of the universe without having to appeal to the existence of a God for those sound explanations, then doesn't God (even if God exists!) become increasingly not necessary? What is the use of a God which is not necessary? Why should one believe in an unnecessary God? Why should one worship an unnecessary God? Steve Nelson zehntel!zinfandel!steve
cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (12/18/84)
>As we mortal humans can create increasingly sound explanations for the >workings of the universe without having to appeal to the existence of a >God for those sound explanations, then doesn't God (even if God exists!) >become increasingly not necessary? >Steve Nelson I hope that Christians don't flame at this one. As a Christian, I think it's an important idea for us to consider. It's true that when the science behind lightning, earthquakes, comets, supernovae, etc. wasn't too well known, that religious myths grew up around these things. However, I don't think that God is unnecessary now that we have some sound scientific explanations. We can debunk some religious myths, however. In my mind, science (including social science) cannot address various social problems (Christians, substitute the word "sin" here) we have in this world. Can it explain how, at this moment, there are various groups of people at war throughout the world? Can it explain the growing stockpile of nuclear weapons? Can it explain why Ethopians starve to death when, taken as a whole, this world produces enough food to feed everyone in it? While Christians believe that God created the physical universe and is sovergn over it, they also believe that this is just a part of his realm. The human condition is another part of it. To me, at least (I'll stop speaking for other Christians now -- there may be differences of opinion here), the condition of sin as described in the Bible, from the fall of man in Genesis to the coming events in Revelation, fits the world as it has been and is. God's way of dealing with it is also described in a way I can buy into. What I can't buy is the secular humanist view of man constantly improving *himself* (with or without God, it doesn't matter) to the point where a *perfect* society will evolve. For me, the evidence just isn't there. For example, wasn't World War I called "the war to end all wars"? For these reasons, God will still be necessary in my belief system, no matter how technically sophisticated we get [even if we solve the creation/evolution issue! :-) ] Carl Blesch
barry@ames.UUCP (12/20/84)
[] > As we mortal humans can create increasingly sound explanations for the > workings of the universe without having to appeal to the existence of a > God for those sound explanations, then doesn't God (even if God exists!) > become increasingly not necessary? > > What is the use of a God which is not necessary? Why should one > believe in an unnecessary God? Why should one worship an > unnecessary God? > > Steve Nelson > zehntel!zinfandel!steve I think the use of the concept of God to explain the workings of physical processes (e.g., creationism) is, indeed, a hangover from earlier times. But God can still be a relevant concept for answering questions which are not physical/scientific. For example, "what is the basis for morality?"; "what is the meaning of life?"; "why is there evil?"; "why is there *anything*?". God is certainly not the only answer to questions of this sort; perhaps the questions themselves are meaningless. What *is* certain is that science cannot provide answers to questions which lie outside the realm of science. For such questions, "God" is a possible, though unprovable, answer. If it works for you, go with it; if not, don't worry about it. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry SOURCE: ST7891