The need for God exists because there is a vast range of human problems that the scientific method cannot even begin to address. Here's some "evidence" I've drawn on in support of this statement.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”So wrote Albert Einstein in 1941 to explain his personal creed: “A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.” Einstein recognized himself as a deeply religious person in this sense. For Einstein, faith and reason were not separable, let alone mutually exclusive.
That doesn't mean that he injected God or a specifically religious view into his work as a scientist. Rather, his entire working presupposition was that "There had to be something behind objects that lay deeply hidden ... the development of [our] world of thought is in a certain sense a flight away from the miraculous." That is, he recognized that the universe, though seemingly incomprehensively vast and unfathomably complex, has the property of intelligibility, which presupposes Mind. (Which, by the way, it wouldn't have, if it were a random development out of chaos.)
His great biographer Abraham Pais, a distinguished physicist in his own right, [Subtle Is the Lord] wrote of Einstein:
... already as a young man, nothing could dissuade him from his destiny, which with poetic precision he put in focus at the age of eighteen: "Strenuous labor and the contemplation of God's nature are the angels which, reconciling, fortifying, and yet mercilessly severe, will guide me through the tumult of life."Anyhoot, that would be the view from the standpoint of one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. He doesn't speak for all scientists, of course. Jacques Monod, for example, would very likely not agree. But Newton would very likely have agreed with Einstein.
There's a more "common sense" level where the need for God is evident (to me at least):
At the level of common sense, it is evident that human beings have experiences other than sensory perceptions, and it is equally evident that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle explored reality on the basis of experiences far removed from perception. The Socratic "Look and see if this is not the case" does not invite one to survey public opinion but asks one to descend into the psyche, that is, to search the reflective consciousness. Moreover, it is evident that the primarily nonsensory modes of experience address dimensions of human existence superior in rank and worth to those sensory perception does: experiences of the good, beautiful, and just, of love, friendship, and truth, of all human virtue and vice, and of divine reality. Apperceptive experience is distinguishable from sensory perception and a philosophical science of substance from a natural science of phenomena. Experience of "things" is modeled on the subject-object dichotomy of perception in which the consciousness intends the object of cognition. But such a model of experience and knowing is ultimately insufficient to explain the operations of consciousness with respect to the nonphenomenal reality men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experiences. Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human existence itself — and of what is most precious to mankind — a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective. — Ellis SandozA hundred years after Einstein’s pioneering work, his sense of the inseparability of faith and reason has been almost entirely lost, supplanted by materialist, positivist, and rationalist dogmas that together comprise a doctrine of philosophic materialism that has penetrated to the very heart of modern-day science (and thus of so much else). The essential complementarity of faith and reason that Einstein recognized has been recast as the triumph of the rational (reason) over the irrational (faith).
Yet if Einstein is right, there really are superpersonal objects and goals “which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation." There really are nonsensory experiences. Any attentive student of history can tell you that such objects and goals and experiences have informed the conduct and progress of human life from time immemorial.
Such nonsensory modes of experience lie entirely outside the reach of the scientific method as presently constituted: methodological naturalism. But the fact that science cannot reach them does not mean they do not exist in Reality.
Which is not to say that I want to inject God or religion into science. He's already in it; for human reason itself utterly depends on the divine Logos. I just think it would be nice if scientists did not blindly rule Him out of the "initial conditions" of the universe; and I sure do wish they'd stop "politicizing" science in service of atheist presuppositions.
Politicized science is not any longer science.
So folks need a problem solver that can work w/o evidence? Why is it that they need an invisible one?
"Here's some "evidence" I've drawn on in support of this statement."
...
From Einstein. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
That's testimony and it stands w/o evidence, or elaboration. It is a simple statement followed by his claim that there are things that can exist w/o rational foundation. He's correct. For instance his passivism was not rational, but it existed. His passivism continued to exist, only because the US was not passivist and provided him a place to escape to.
What are "superpersonal objects and goals"? What is the purpose for the creation of such a class of things?
"he recognized that the universe, though seemingly incomprehensively vast and unfathomably complex, has the property of intelligibility, which presupposes Mind. (Which, by the way, it wouldn't have, if it were a random development out of chaos.)"
The statement contained in the first part, which says that the universe is intelligible is fine. The second part of the sentence, which is a statement of conclusion given w/o evidence, is not. I don't believe the unsubstantiated claim that intelligibility presupposes mind. Anything real is intelligible by a sentient rational being and man is a sentient rational being. Both are logical and the sentience allows observation.
"Which, by the way, it wouldn't have, if it were a random development out of chaos."
The universe is perfectly logical system. Chaos is logical, otherwise the mechanics of 3, or more bodies would never be consistent. Also, the inherent properties of the stuff the universe is composed of determines behavior, not randomness. Note that randomness is not a property and it does not give rise to any force. Behavior must be determined by the properties of objects that give rise to, or otherwise effect forces. Naturally by ignoring the real forces involved in any phenomena and instead pointing to ficticious driving forces such as randomness, or chaos, one will never be able to know any real process.
"Strenuous labor and the contemplation of God's nature are the angels which, reconciling, fortifying, and yet mercilessly severe, will guide me through the tumult of life"
Testimony. He was simply interested in the grand reverse engineering task, not knowing the engineer. His testimony would never be noted, or repeated if it had no value as bandwagon propaganda from an authority figure. It's remarkable that those who utilize the great authority figure's quotes for propaganda purposes deny that anyone can know the mind of God at all.
"Ellis Sandoz "
General testimony. W/o the specifics, his superior experiences could be similar to Carlos Castenada's, or T. Leary's. One might prefer a Central American Shaman's superior experiences. Oh, but on the other hand some may prefer more rational seasoning and less of the irrational.
"if Einstein is right, there really are superpersonal objects and goals “which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.""
If it's not rational, it's irrational and the irrational is most often fundamentally arbitrary, which severely limits the things possibility for existence. Such irrational objects, or things with irrational foundations can't be stamped by their manufacturer with such notices as "permanent mystery" to hide their true nature.
"Such nonsensory modes of experience lie entirely outside the reach of the scientific method as presently constituted: methodological naturalism."
Logic works.
"the fact that science cannot reach them does not mean they do not exist in Reality."
Pink elephants, or Mohamed's allah character?
"I just think it would be nice if scientists did not blindly rule Him out of the "initial conditions" of the universe.
Scientists don't rule stuff out. If it's there, they'll note it. Meditate on the following quote from the only Person to ever show up on the planet, in person, to claim He was God and to teach who He was. Matt 12:38-39 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."
Consider the choices one must make. Who is a member of a wicked and adulterous generation? Is the sign of Jonah the Holy Spirit, or is it the testimony of men that God rose from the dead?
"Which is not to say that I want to inject God or religion into science. He's already in it; for human reason itself utterly depends on the divine Logos. I just think it would be nice if scientists did not blindly rule Him out of the "initial conditions" of the universe; and I sure do wish they'd stop "politicizing" science in service of atheist presuppositions."
God took Himself out and was pleased. Matt 11:25 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." If one isn't happy with Logic, the testimony of the only person to show up and claim He is God and Epicurus' principle, all they can do is present the testimony of men as equivalent members of the pink elephant, bagwan vita and allah crowd. Note that Einstein never promoted engineer guy. He wasn't even happy with some of His work, like a nature that's understood using QM. Einstein's biggest mistake occurred when he ignored engineer guy's book.
"Politicized science is not any longer science."
Politics is not a logical operation, it's a sociological operation. You are correct, there's no sociiological/political operations contained in the scientific method. Political operations do occur in religeous, acedemic and government organizations though.
Thanks for all the pings.
I’m unable to keep up with all of it but I appreciate the pings and read what I can manage.
So one has to invent God to explain what science can't? In other words, God is used to fill the vacuum science hasn't been able to fill yet? Why do we have to have all the answers? Why can't we just say we don't know this, or that yet (or eve for that matter)?
Rather, [Einstein's] entire working presupposition was that "There had to be something behind objects that lay deeply hidden...
Had to? Why?
That is, he recognized that the universe, though seemingly incomprehensively vast and unfathomably complex, has the property of intelligibility, which presupposes Mind.
What's the "mind" behind colliding galaxies? Or uvula for that matter?
Politicized science is not any longer science.
“About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.”
Einstein
To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
Eienstein
Why do you write to me “God should punish the English”? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.
Einstein