Scientist David Eagleman is a “possibilian” about God
So while there are plenty of good books by scientist-atheists, they sometimes under-emphasise the main lesson from science: that our knowledge is vastly outstripped by our ignorance. For me, a life in science prompts awe and exploration over dogmatism.
A life in science prompts awe and exploration over dogmatism
Given these considerations, I do not call myself an atheist. I don’t feel that I have enough data to firmly rule out other interesting possibilities. On the other hand, I do not subscribe to any religion. Traditional religious stories can be beautiful and often crystallise hard-won wisdom – but it is hardly a challenge to poke holes in them. Religious structures are built by humans and brim with all manner of strange human claims – they often reflect cults of personality, xenophobia or mental illness. The holy books of these religions were written millennia ago by people who never had the opportunity to know about DNA, other galaxies, information theory, electricity, the big bang, the big crunch, or even other cultures, literatures or landscapes.So it seems we know too little to commit to strict atheism, and too much to commit to any religion. Given this, I am often surprised by the number of people who seem to possess total certainty about their position. I know a lot of atheists who seethe at the idea of religion, and religious followers who seethe at the idea of atheism – but neither group is bothering with more interesting ideas. They make their impassioned arguments as though the God versus no-God dichotomy were enough for a modern discussion.
Full article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727795.300-beyond-god-and-atheism-why-i-am-a-possibilian.html
More science fiction speculation masquerading as science! Without data it is far too easy to let our imaginations rip, and speculate on all the conceivable possibilities. Please lets go back to investigating just what the data is in fact, and work upwards from there.
I blame Popper in part for this modern tendency, due to the emphasis he placed on developing hypotheses first and checking them against the data, and dissing the inductive method. Scientific method is a cyclic process but the points at which it impinges upon reality are the data points.
I think that David Eagleman, as a scientist, have a very different view of what god is, compared to the Pope. So it is easier to contemplate the possibility of the existence of a force in the universe material to its creation which has not been discovered yet than, say, a divine individual who hangs around listening to prayers, performing the odd miracle, and damning souls.
There is so much we don’t know, and as rational persons, we keep our minds open to certain possibilities yet to be discovered which science tells us could exist. But we know enough to say what definitely cannot exist.