Support NeoGAF

[Seda]

Did you at some point determine which beliefs to hold and which to discard? I can't imagine you would take scientific assertions made in the Bible at face value (things like the age of the Earth or the nature of the cosmos).

I don't take the bible so literally. I'm more mainline protestant not evangelical. Recently I've been leaning more and more deist actually. I think Young-Earth christians are some of the most uneducated people on the planet.

 

[Diablos]

I can make a place for religion while I cut the grass. Doesn't make it ideal. I don't think there is really a place for it, yet people resort to statements like "evolution can be accurate even with a creator involved" as it allows folks to rationalize -- or attempt to rationalize -- everything they've heard about science vs. religion. The real answer is to completely separate the two, but not many people want to do that because it leads to a depressing but true conclusion. Realistically, there is absolutely no place for religious faith in science. None.

 

[Mario]

So do you consider the Aztecs to be atheists?

Given they believed in multiple gods isn't the answer by definition no?

 

[Karma Kramer]

I find it funny that most of the things going on in science today "curing the blind" are things thought to be only possible by religious figures/gods.

 

[C4Lukins]

Did you at some point determine which beliefs to hold and which to discard? I can't imagine you would take scientific assertions made in the Bible at face value (things like the age of the Earth or the nature of the cosmos).



One is based on research, the other on faith. How can one be as good as the other?

Well you cannot honestly say that religious history has not been researched. And just like science they commonly disagree on how it went down. This of course does not mean that their findings are true.

This sort of comes down to history versus science. While science can attempt to explain the formation of the Earth, evolution and so on, science cannot write the Old Testament nor can it currently explain the last three weeks of my own life as well as say some documentation could. What did I say last week in response to something else someone said to me, it is beyond our knowledge exactly what I would have said in such a situation and only someone documenting it could even give the pretense to explore such a concept.

Again none of this is dismissive. With science we do not necessarily always stand on the shoulders of giants, but often we realize through a simple discovery that they were never giants at all.

I remember seeing this short documentary on a scientist who studied a particular butterfly for 20 years of her life, and made a discovery involving how it reproduces that went against most of her previous research. She suddenly learned something on a very small level that improved her knowledge of the species. Now this is one scientist devoting their life to a very small part of our universe. Yet we see so many people who pretend to have a broad sense of how the universe works, while it takes a single expert on a very small scale to try and even get it half right

Look at our understanding of the human brain, and how many different opinions can come from that. Whether it be philosophy, anatomy, or just simply the ability to repair the damn thing, we still have a billion questions. Science may be the answer, but we are either way to limited or we need to do so much research that we are far and away from getting it right.

By the way, I made the shit about the butterfly scientist up. I just imagine that is something that happens. I wanted to see if someone called me on it, but I did not want to be dishonest in the end. Just to make you think because I bet that is a common occurrence.

 

[Mario]

Look at our understanding of the human brain, and how many different opinions can come from that. Whether it be philosophy, anatomy, or just simply the ability to repair the damn thing, we still have a billion questions. Science may be the answer, but we are either way to limited or we need to do so much research that we are far and away from getting it right.

The great thing about our ability to research, record, cross check, and disseminate knowledge fro generation to generation means individuals don't need to undertake the efforts themselves in every domain to gain insight. Our collected pool of knowledge is constantly growing and increasingly accessible.

We are "standing on the shoulders of giants".

 

[gerg]

Hmm, this is fast getting into shady territory. The reason I brought it up is because it is an example of a continent thing (something that exists some way, but could exist some other way without any sort of contradiction) that is made without any clearly defined cause or reason for why it is that way - why did the atom decay at 2.112 seconds rather than 2.01 seconds like the previous one of the same element? Why did the virtual particle pair appear there instead of slightly to the left? These things are random, which makes them distinct from all other things in physics which do have "causes" and "reasons" for all of their "contingent characteristics".

To me, this says that the premise of the cosmological argument - that all finite and contingent things must have a cause (or reason for being the way they are as opposed to some other way) is not true under all conditions. Naturally, there is room for debate here.

I just find the idea of "caused randomness" very hard to contemplate. I think part of the reason for this is an argument I heard regarding the incoherence of free will - I think it formulates something like this:

P1. A free will would be an undetermined (or uncaused) will.
P2. An undetermined will would be a random will.
P3. A random will is not free - it is random.
C1. Therefore, the concept of free will is incoherent.

What this to me says is that as long as something has a cause it is determined - something cannot be caused but be undetermined by that cause. We are caught between the rock of determinism and the hard place of randomness, with no space between them.

As for why this is problematic for science, it seems to me that science tries to fill that void by giving reasons, however poorly understood they may be at the moment, as for what causes "random" radioactive decay, and so on.

Maybe I'm wrong and science does just say "Nothing causes radioactive decay. It really is random." It's when you start saying that "Nothing really causes radioactive decay." that I begin to feel a bit less convinced.

You can think of it as: "I told him to meet me at the park at around 7, and he showed up at 7 : 03 across the street". The "cause" means that it's going to happen, the randomness is regarding when and where it happens.

I would deny that, in your analogy, the fact that your friend shows up across the street at 7:03 truly is random. In my mind, it is not. In fact, it is causally determined by how fast your friend walks, whether or not he was mistaken about where you asked to meet him, or whether he intentionally decided to go to another place (such an intention being part of a causal chain stretching back prior to his birth, even), or his ideas about what "around 7" means, or if he intended to meet you on time but got a very important phone call before he left the house, and so on and so forth.

... but this redresses the problem. If some alternate realities where the universe does exist are there and some where it does, you just say "BUT WHY DOES THE MULTIVERSE EXIST?"

Well, sure. The problem appears to be very intractable.

 

[C4Lukins]

The great thing about our ability to research, record, cross check, and disseminate knowledge fro generation to generation means individuals don't need to undertake the efforts themselves in every domain to gain insight. Our collected pool of knowledge is constantly growing and increasingly accessible.

We are "standing on the shoulders of giants".

My point was not that we cannot do this, but that we have been wrong so many times before. The idea that we put faith in science that we do not understand, and we trust in people who we think do understand it. It is very similar to religion.

But the topic is about faith and science, and those are the examples I am presenting. And we put faith in science and we put faith in religion, and until one gets it really fucking down it is hard for me personally to dismiss the other. I believe they can coexist.

 

[Mario]

My point was not that we cannot do this, but that we have been wrong so many times before.

Where we have been drastically wrong before about things is generally prior to the consistent application of the scientific method. Since its introduction our understanding of reality is generally marked by steps of new discovery and refinement rather than fundamental overturning of prior discovery e.g. "Darwinian evolution" to modern evolutionary theory, Newtonian physics to modern physics etc resulting in an ever more accurate and predictable model of reality.

It is very similar to religion.

It is not. Science via the scientific method is convergent on understanding the nature of reality, and is based on repeated and independently verified observation of the real world. Religion over time is divergent from original the messages and claims of the core religions, and is generally based on faith necessarily without evidence and personal experience.

 

[Monocle]

My point was not that we cannot do this, but that we have been wrong so many times before. The idea that we put faith in science that we do not understand, and we trust in people who we think do understand it. It is very similar to religion.

But the topic is about faith and science, and those are the examples I am presenting. And we put faith in science and we put faith in religion, and until one gets it really fucking down it is hard for me personally to dismiss the other. I believe they can coexist.

Not really. Science gave you the device you're using to read this message, the knowledge that helps prevent you from making yourself ill with traces of your own waste products, and the opportunity to travel to any major city on the planet in less than a day's time IN A CHARIOT THAT SAILS THROUGH THE CLOUDS. Religion gives you a packet of IOUs and assurance that you are very very special, in exchange for your critical faculties and self respect (and that's just for a start).

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

So do you consider the Aztecs to be atheists?

I have no familiarity with the Aztec belief system. You are an Atheist if you do not believe in the existence of any deities. End of story.

 

[GavinGT]

Well you cannot honestly say that religious history has not been researched. And just like science they commonly disagree on how it went down. This of course does not mean that their findings are true.

Obviously, the Bible is full of references to historical events, and those events have been analyzed by religious historians. But that doesn't lend any veracity to the parts about Jesus floating down from heaven or Moses parting the Red Sea. Nor does it in any way reverse the countless incorrect scientific assertions made in the book. Besides, it's hard to do any worthwhile research when you think you already know the answers and you're just looking for anything that will back that up. The aim of science is to impartially move from data to conclusion. If further findings negate past ones, then the old ones must be discarded. In this way, scientists are perpetually creating better and better working models for how our universe works. Discrepancies are not to be feared, for they ultimately lead to better understanding.

This sort of comes down to history versus science. While science can attempt to explain the formation of the Earth, evolution and so on, science cannot write the Old Testament nor can it currently explain the last three weeks of my own life as well as say some documentation could. What did I say last week in response to something else someone said to me, it is beyond our knowledge exactly what I would have said in such a situation and only someone documenting it could even give the pretense to explore such a concept.

So you would prefer it if science were presented in storybook form?

Again none of this is dismissive. With science we do not necessarily always stand on the shoulders of giants, but often we realize through a simple discovery that they were never giants at all.

I remember seeing this short documentary on a scientist who studied a particular butterfly for 20 years of her life, and made a discovery involving how it reproduces that went against most of her previous research. She suddenly learned something on a very small level that improved her knowledge of the species. Now this is one scientist devoting their life to a very small part of our universe. Yet we see so many people who pretend to have a broad sense of how the universe works, while it takes a single expert on a very small scale to try and even get it half right

Like I said above, scientists are always creating better and better working models. Just because an old way of thinking is replaced with a new one doesn't totally invalidate the old one. I just brought this up in another thread, but take, for instance, Newton's Theory of Gravitation. It worked for us for a few hundred years. Hell, it even got us to the Moon. But it was only an approximation, and we know now that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a more accurate representation of the phenomenon of gravity. But that doesn't mean Newton should be stripped of his recognition. It was an amazing discovery nonetheless and it empowered humanity to do all sorts of amazing things.

By the way, I made the shit about the butterfly scientist up. I just imagine that is something that happens. I wanted to see if someone called me on it, but I did not want to be dishonest in the end. Just to make you think because I bet that is a common occurrence.

How very Christian of you.

 

[HK-47]

So lets look at the "Big Bang" while I agree that it did occur, we only have theoretical science to explain how it occurred which in my opinion is just about as good as religion when it comes down to an actual explanation.

And correct me if I am wrong, but there is an assumption that we only had one real "Big Bang" which created the universe. That seems a bit strange to me as well. Why not a thousand of them over the course of history or in different places well past our current technical ability to view the universe?

The Big Bang Theory is a very solid theory. That is theory in the scientific definition.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I have no familiarity with the Aztec belief system. You are an Atheist if you do not believe in the existence of any deities. End of story.

Apparently not. According to at least two posters here, it just means you don't believe in ONE deity. You can believe in two or three or a thousand, as long as you don't believe in one, you are an atheist.

Given they believed in multiple gods isn't the answer by definition no?

Apparently so.

 

[gerg]

Apparently not. According to at least two posters here, it just means you don't believe in ONE deity. You can believe in two or three or a thousand, as long as you don't believe in one, you are an atheist.

Well, then that's a pretty stupid definition of atheism.

 

[slidewinder]

Apparently not. According to at least two posters here, it just means you don't believe in ONE deity. You can believe in two or three or a thousand, as long as you don't believe in one, you are an atheist.

Whaaaat? Where'd you get this from? Are you sure you're not just dwelling on someone's usage of "a god" or the like where they'd probably have been just as happy with "one or more gods" if they'd known it was going to become an issue?

 

[V_Arnold]

It is not RELIGION that poisons "us", it is narrow-minded PEOPLE and our EGO that poisons us.
What the hell makes someone STILL attacking christian theories when all Jesus said is to not hurt anyone, treat your friends well, do not cheat, and only do things to others that you are willing to accept being done to you.

Who twisted this? Mankind twisted it. The core is still good.
That is about religion. Science cant be touched by stuff like this, you say, yet, there have been countless of idiotic grudges between researchers on a field when something REALLY groundbreaking was about to be discovered. Until it was proven time and time again, many laughed at it, then they had a hard time accepting that thing they believed(!) as "proven" and "true" became false in the new system. Talk about sheer faith, huh.

So yeah, sciences gives you a false sense of "I am on a higher ground than those who believe in God", but nothing more. What kind of man you are is not determined by the things you study or work with.

 

[Monocle]

It is not RELIGION that poisons "us", it is narrow-minded PEOPLE and our EGO that poisons us.
What the hell makes someone STILL attacking christian theories when all Jesus said is to not hurt anyone, treat your friends well, do not cheat, and only do things to others that you are willing to accept being done to you.

Who twisted this? Mankind twisted it. The core is still good.
That is about religion. Science cant be touched by stuff like this, you say, yet, there have been countless of idiotic grudges between researchers on a field when something REALLY groundbreaking was about to be discovered. Until it was proven time and time again, many laughed at it, then they had a hard time accepting that thing they believed(!) as "proven" and "true" became false in the new system. Talk about sheer faith, huh.

So yeah, sciences gives you a false sense of "I am on a higher ground than those who believe in God", but nothing more. What kind of man you are is not determined by the things you study or work with.

The important thing isn't what one thinks, but how one thinks. Science depends on and promotes critical thinking and skepticism. Religion depends on and promotes credulity and unjustified certainty. That is a fundamental difference no reasonable person can ignore.

 

[Prine]

Science is beyond context, as long as its moving forward and progressing its not concerned with how or why. So yes, they can co-exist. They always have.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Whaaaat? Where'd you get this from? Are you sure you're not just dwelling on someone's usage of "a god" or the like where they'd probably have been just as happy with "one or more gods" if they'd known it was going to become an issue?

Did you read above?

Given they believed in multiple gods isn't the answer by definition no?

The definition of theism is belief in a single God, while the definition of atheism is being without theism. So by logic and an overly stringent use of definitions, atheism simply means not believing in one God.

This is according to the definitions given by another poster:

'a disbelief in the existence of a diety'
'the doctrine or disbelief that there is no God'

I think that this approach is startlingly literal and inappropriate for the way that the English language is used, but I am responding in kind.

 

[daviyoung]

The definition of theism is belief in a single God, while the definition of atheism is being without theism. So by logic and an overly stringent use of definitions, atheism simply means not believing in one God.

Not quite.

Monotheism = belief in one God

Polytheism = belief in more than one God

Theism = belief in one or more Gods

Atheism = rejection of belief in one or more Gods

 

[V_Arnold]

The important thing isn't what one thinks, but how one thinks. Science depends on and promotes critical thinking and skepticism. Religion depends on and promotes credulity and unjustified certainty. That is a fundamental difference no reasonable person can ignore.

Actually, a lot of people mistake faith for some blind certainty of a "god who makes it allright for us". I would laugh at this definition, especially when we go to buddhism and other more active beliefs, but the point is: if you gotta make a proof (like when Andrew Wiles created the proof for Fermat's Last theorem), if there is no answer, yet you KNOW (or more precisely: FEEL) that it is true, you keep coming, you keep bending, you keep improving on your thinking until you finally have the proof. That is a profound similarity between religion and science, regardless of what non-believers think.

 

[C4Lukins]

Obviously, the Bible is full of references to historical events, and those events have been analyzed by religious historians. But that doesn't lend any veracity to the parts about Jesus floating down from heaven or Moses parting the Red Sea. Nor does it in any way reverse the countless incorrect scientific assertions made in the book. Besides, it's hard to do any worthwhile research when you think you already know the answers and you're just looking for anything that will back that up. The aim of science is to impartially move from data to conclusion. If further findings negate past ones, then the old ones must be discarded. In this way, scientists are perpetually creating better and better working models for how our universe works. Discrepancies are not to be feared, for they ultimately lead to better understanding.



So you would prefer it if science were presented in storybook form?



Like I said above, scientists are always creating better and better working models. Just because an old way of thinking is replaced with a new one doesn't totally invalidate the old one. I just brought this up in another thread, but take, for instance, Newton's Theory of Gravitation. It worked for us for a few hundred years. Hell, it even got us to the Moon. But it was only an approximation, and we know now that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a more accurate representation of the phenomenon of gravity. But that doesn't mean Newton should be stripped of his recognition. It was an amazing discovery nonetheless and it empowered humanity to do all sorts of amazing things.




How very Christian of you.

Again I am Agnostic, but I am going to have to give a 16 hour break on the topic because of sleep and work obligations. I look forward to picking this up again tomorrow night.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Not quite.

Monotheism = belief in one God

Polytheism = belief in more than one God

Theism = belief in one or more Gods

Atheism = rejection of belief in one or more Gods

Not according to a selective reading of wikipedia (also in a linguistic sense):

In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.

(I am being deliberately ridiculous)

 

[GavinGT]

Actually, a lot of people mistake faith for some blind certainty of a "god who makes it allright for us". I would laugh at this definition, especially when we go to buddhism and other more active beliefs, but the point is: if you gotta make a proof (like when Andrew Wiles created the proof for Fermat's Last theorem), if there is no answer, yet you KNOW (or more precisely: FEEL) that it is true, you keep coming, you keep bending, you keep improving on your thinking until you finally have the proof. That is a profound similarity between religion and science, regardless of what non-believers think.

No, they twist and bend hypotheses until they have a working model. Then they see if that model is consistent with all other related research. If it doesn't fit, either the hypothesis is wrong or the other research is wrong.

 

[daviyoung]

How utterly absurd.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Not according to a selective reading of wikipedia (also in a linguistic sense):


(I am being deliberately ridiculous)

I should damn well hope so.

 

[Kentpaul]

If a scientist belives in god, i will take anything he/she says with a grain of salt.

 

[V_Arnold]

No, they twist and bend hypotheses until they have a working model. Then they see if that model is consistent with all other related research. If it doesn't fit, either the hypothesis is wrong or the other research is wrong.

The problem is with what you say is that sometimes you gotta keep digging and you gotta believe that what you have is a real proof and the hypothesis itself is NOT wrong, even when it does not work. That little stuff in there is called FAITH, because otherwise we would still not have that famous proof for big Fermat

If a scientist belives in god, i will take anything he/she says with a grain of salt.

Haha, you do not even know how many did this

 

[Raist]

The problem is with what you say is that sometimes you gotta keep digging and you gotta believe that what you have is a real proof and the hypothesis itself is NOT wrong, even when it does not work. That little stuff in there is called FAITH, because otherwise we would still not have that famous proof for big Fermat

Call it trust, or confidence if you want. But it has nothing to do with faith, unless you're using it as a generic term. It certainly isn't anything like religious faith.

 

[V_Arnold]

Call it trust, or confidence if you want. But it has nothing to do with faith, unless you're using it as a generic term. It certainly isn't anything like religious faith.

Because we all know every type of that nasty, pooooisonous religious faith, right? All I am saying: do NOT generalize faith too much when ot comes to the "supernatural".

 

[Sutton Dagger]

If you have a problem with Gallup's methods, state them. It doesn't matter who they were contracted by. Who would you expect such a study from? The Atheist Corporation?

I thought I demonstrated my problem with Gallup's method. They left out every superstitious belief that Christians do hold in order to reach the conclusion that Atheists are more superstitious.

In critical literacy it is important to understand who is promoting a certain viewpoint, It should be self evident why.

 

[Raist]

Because we all know every type of that nasty, pooooisonous religious faith, right? All I am saying: do NOT generalize faith too much when ot comes to the "supernatural".

Not judging anything there. Just saying that "I have faith in this guy" is quite different form "I have Faith".

 

[GavinGT]

The problem is with what you say is that sometimes you gotta keep digging and you gotta believe that what you have is a real proof and the hypothesis itself is NOT wrong, even when it does not work. That little stuff in there is called FAITH, because otherwise we would still not have that famous proof for big Fermat

Yes, they take leaps of faith. However, at a certain point, if the model based on the leap of faith doesn't jive with other research, they have to scrap it and start over. Really, that's the crux of the scientific method.

 

[Mario]

The problem is with what you say is that sometimes you gotta keep digging and you gotta believe that what you have is a real proof and the hypothesis itself is NOT wrong, even when it does not work. That little stuff in there is called FAITH, because otherwise we would still not have that famous proof for big Fermat

You are making invalid comparisons. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of an observed phenomenon, so it already starts from a place grounded in reality. A scientist does not need to "have faith" at all that their hypothesis is a true and accurate model for the phenomenon in order to put it forward. A hypothesis is a "best educated guess".

If you want to attach an emotional state to such things, seeing as scientists are not robots, you'd be better off suggesting that scientists have "hope" that their posited hypotheses are supported so progress is made and understanding gained.

 

[Qwomo]

(I am being deliberately ridiculous)

The word for that is trolling!

 

[Ashes]

So people here are genuinely gonna think hey you scientist, you believe in god(s), so your science is flawed.

That's just absurd!

I liked the dubious *I can read minds* where scientists compartmentalize things theory better, and even that doesn't describe scientists who are religious to some degree or another.

Meh, what a silly position the opposition has on this matter. I'm out of this thread. It's usefulness has ended.


edit: @ second paragraph below. Good gawd, that's ethically outrageous. Even if the scenario were reversed, and the non-religious were left out of the job.

 

[GavinGT]

Obviously a scientist's work would speak for itself. There should be no need to bring his personal beliefs into the matter, as peer review would weed out any bias.

That said, if I were were in charge of hiring at an engineering firm and I had to pick between two candidates, one with religiosity and one without, based solely on that I would choose the non religious candidate.

 

[V_Arnold]

Obviously a scientist's work would speak for itself. There should be no need to bring his personal beliefs into the matter, as peer review would weed out any bias.

That said, if I were were in charge of hiring at an engineering firm and I had to pick between two candidates, one with religiosity and one without, based solely on that I would choose the non religious candidate.

That is discrimination, mind ya.
Luckily, you will have a lot of pointless other data to cover your decision up

 

[szaromir]

While religion and science should be ideally separated as much as possible, one of my favorite stories in science is related to religion actually. It's the EPR article, resulting discussion about validity of quantum mechanics, finally CHSC and Bell inequalities and after some time their experimental confirmation (or rather denial). Pretty fascinating stuff.

 

[Raist]

So people here are genuinely gonna think hey you scientist, you believe in god(s), so your science is flawed.

That's just absurd!

I liked the dubious *I can read minds* where scientists compartmentalize things theory better, and even that doesn't describe scientists who are religious to some degree or another.

Meh, what a silly position the opposition has on this matter. I'm out of this thread. It's usefulness has ended.


edit: @ second paragraph below. Good gawd, that's ethically outrageous. Even if the scenario were reversed, and the non-religious were left out of the job.

People don't generally say that. But you have to admit that there is some kind of cognitive dissonance going on there.

I mean, Kenneth Miller is an absolutely brilliant biologist, but I have a hard time understanding how he describes himself as a pure roman catholic. The two don't work together at all. A while ago I tried to find his exact views and beliefstake on christianity, but couldn't. A cookie to anyone who would find that somewhere online.

 

[jaxword]

Not according to a selective reading of wikipedia (also in a linguistic sense):


(I am being deliberately ridiculous)

Well, at least you're finally admitting you're picking and choosing terms and basically trolling.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Well, at least you're finally admitting you're picking and choosing terms and basically trolling.

I was making a point about the ridiculousness of being obsessive with definitions. I think it is a weak substitute for an argument, to attack someone's use of words, rather than to deal with the arguments that they are making.

Oh well, I guess you can say it worked, we stopped talking about militant atheists.

 

[jaxword]

I was making a point about the ridiculousness of being obsessive with definitions. I think it is a weak substitute for an argument, to attack someone's use of words, rather than to deal with the arguments that they are making.

Oh well, I guess you can say it worked, we stopped talking about militant atheists.

Yes, it was made clear the misuse of the term atheist in a deliberately incorrect manner, as the definition being used here is not shared by any sources.

 

[Cartman86]

My point was not that we cannot do this, but that we have been wrong so many times before. The idea that we put faith in science that we do not understand, and we trust in people who we think do understand it. It is very similar to religion.

But the topic is about faith and science, and those are the examples I am presenting. And we put faith in science and we put faith in religion, and until one gets it really fucking down it is hard for me personally to dismiss the other. I believe they can coexist.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Trust is not faith. Trust is earned or based on reasonable assumptions. You are playing word games here. Faith in the religious sense is not faith in my father or trust in science. Religious faith is believing in something without evidence. By what criteria do you dismiss all the other religious claims (or non religious claims even) and arrive at your own if all you are using is faith. How does this allow for an objective path to truth? I could take it on faith that when I die i'm going to be resurrected as George Lucas in an alternate universe. This claim is the same as any other in that they aren't based on evidence.

Besides that I would heavily argue your point that religion has somehow given us enough to keep it up with science. I don't see how you can sit there at a computer and insist that science has not somehow earned it's place as the best method of truth.

 

[devenger]

The point is, while doing your science, you can't say "A wizard did it." You can believe the instigator of the phenomenon was a wizard, but it can't be a part of your proof, or it's not science.

I have a fundamentalist "friend" who jumps on all of my physics posts and links creationist sites as responses. It's infuriating. Every one of the articles work like troll physics. They take one scientific statement, say something to the effect of "then why we got monkeys?" and then quote scripture.

The worst is when they use "science" to disprove science. If you think you've found several game changing problems with evolution, that's great. That does not mean "therefore: must be God."

 

[Mgoblue201]

This, however is a hypothetical that is exceedingly unlikely. How does one disprove things that are not the realm of science? The foundation of your argument is based upon a false assumption: that you could prove all religions are false.

Religions, almost by their very nature, make truth claims about reality. Quite a few of them can be disproven with a little logic, if you have the time. I am not saying that science is the one to slay religion. Science can certainly cast a lot of doubt on religion by showing that its claims about the world are wrong. But the argument must also take place on philosophical and theological grounds. So what I am saying is that if the veracity of a religion is resolved, then that itself has implications for science. If, for example, we use theology to prove that a religion is false, then automatically it has no place in science, because science is about resolving falsehoods.

As a tangent, I would bet that if something like the efficacy of prayer could be proven via the scientific method, followers of that religion would be touting that as a reason for belief. If scientists discovered that a certain creation myth was true, then you'd never hear the end of it. So if that is accepted, then the opposite must be accepted: science can also work against a religion.

It's really no surprise why science and religion must either clash or fit together. Religion for a long time has been making claims about the nature of this world. Science has also been revealing the nature of the world. In certain facets they must eventually interact. No, it cannot prove or disprove god, but if the supernatural has a certain effect upon the natural world, then that can be tested.

Again you fall back to the same case, again. For a Jew or a Hindu or a Muslim, you pointing out fallacies in Christian literalism has no consequences whatsoever. Religion is not a monolith and not all religions are the same. Picking the one that makes the most scientific claims and attacking it does nothing at all but strawman.

Those aren't very good examples, because some of their followers make similar mistakes (there are such things as Jew and Muslim creationists). One can even criticize supposed liberal religious individuals such as Ken Miller for making unscientific claims. I think that you'll find that generally most religions have the same problem. But there is something more important than the fact that religions generally get things wrong: by their very nature they invite unsubstantiated claims about the world. If all religions are wrong, then attempting to fit them into a larger framework is futile.

That is like saying 'who is communicating with the almighty yet needs to plow the fields to provide for themselves', it does not follow. The scientific method is a tool restricted to making observations about specific parts of reality, it is not the be all and end all of all thought.

Having knowledge about basic facts is not equivalent to god doing work for you. But my point was to argue that truth claims religions make about the world, handed down by god in all his or her wisdom, are often subservient and forced to change thanks to the scientific method. That's backwards. If a religion was true, then science should have verified its claims about the world that it has been making for hundreds or thousands of years.

In general this thread has become about whether or not it is possible for scientists to be religious without taint. If I have been mistaken in the core of your arguments, then I need to apologise and point out my mistake, as it would seem I have been addressing the wrong part of what you are saying. Is this the case? That you are arguing that religion should not be part of the scientific method? If that is true then I do not disagree in the sense that religion is not and never can be part of the scientific method. Science is a systematised method of enquiry into observable natural phenomena, in this sense it is self contained.

One can say that the role that religion can play in relation to science is the same as any moral code. Why does one not get all Tuskegee with it? Because it is bad science? No, because it is un-ethical. That is the place that religion, like any other code, plays in science.

Morality has its own field. If all truth is detached from the moral framework of religion, then you're simply left with morality. Then that too is worthless in its endeavors to play a role in science.

Furthermore, if you are discussing "whether or not it is possible for scientists to be religious without taint", then, as I have already explained, the veracity of religion is central to the point. If religion is wrong and one refuses to accept that, then that certainly must be taken into consideration when one makes a judgment of that person.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Religions, almost by their very nature, make truth claims about reality. Quite a few of them can be disproven with a little logic, if you have the time. I am not saying that science is the one to slay religion. Science can certainly cast a lot of doubt on religion by showing that its claims about the world are wrong. But the argument must also take place on philosophical and theological grounds. So what I am saying is that if the veracity of a religion is resolved, then that itself has implications for science. If, for example, we use theology to prove that a religion is false, then automatically it has no place in science, because science is about resolving falsehoods.

I think there needs to be a distinction made between empiricism/the scientific method and rationalism. By definition empiricism is not meant to be dealing with things like logic, though the idea comes from logic. The purpose of empiricism is precisely that logic is insufficient to make claims, that experimentation is the best way to access objective truths.

You are assuming that theology can be used to prove a religion as false, this may be your personal belief, but it has not happened, at least not unarguably, and so the idea has little place here.

As a tangent, I would bet that if something like the efficacy of prayer could be proven via the scientific method, followers of that religion would be touting that as a reason for belief. If scientists discovered that a certain creation myth was true, then you'd never hear the end of it. So if that is accepted, then the opposite must be accepted: science can also work against a religion.

Undoubtedly, I have a problem with Muslims who point out the 'scientific miracles' of the Qur'an, as science is constantly changing. One cannot found their beliefs on such shaky ground. I recently read a study about medical science and how riddled with problems it is, a large amount of the major studies that were most cited had not been replicated at all, and many where not repeatable when they were tested. Medical science is of course still better than random guesses (which is what 'New Age' medicine is) but it is still one example of how science is a shaky foundation for any religion.

It's really no surprise why science and religion must either clash or fit together. Religion for a long time has been making claims about the nature of this world. Science has also been revealing the nature of the world. In certain facets they must eventually interact. No, it cannot prove or disprove god, but if the supernatural has a certain effect upon the natural world, then that can be tested.

We always come back to Cartesian relativity, we all essentially operate on the assumption that the 'nature of the world' can actually be revealed to us in any meaningful way. The flaw in empiricism is that at its core, there is no independent verification that what we perceive is what is, empiricism cannot test itself. We are always making a great leap in assuming that what we see is what actually exists, when we are founding that assumption on logic, not experiment.

Those aren't very good examples, because some of their followers make similar mistakes (there are such things as Jew and Muslim creationists). One can even criticize supposed liberal religious individuals such as Ken Miller for making unscientific claims. I think that you'll find that generally most religions have the same problem. But there is something more important than the fact that religions generally get things wrong: by their very nature they invite unsubstantiated claims about the world. If all religions are wrong, then attempting to fit them into a larger framework is futile.

I think that 'creationist' can be a weasel word. What 'creationist' will mean for a Muslim from the Ashari school means a very different thing from a Christian evangelical. This is my issue, one cannot generalise in the way that you do. So many atheists believe that they have 'answered religion' when what the majority of the arguments they make revolve around Christian conceptions of God.

Of course this is understandable considering the cultural milieu within which they develop, but it should not be an excuse.

Having knowledge about basic facts is not equivalent to god doing work for you. But my point was to argue that truth claims religions make about the world, handed down by god in all his or her wisdom, are often subservient and forced to change thanks to the scientific method. That's backwards. If a religion was true, then science should have verified its claims about the world that it has been making for hundreds or thousands of years.

Again, you are make a generalisation that you should not. The idea that such things are subservient is again formed by your interactions with Christians, such a thing is not the case for some other religious claims.

Morality has its own field. If all truth is detached from the moral framework of religion, then you're simply left with morality. Then that too is worthless in its endeavors to play a role in science.

While truth must play a role in morality, I am unsure of what you are talking about here. You must make science subservient to ethics and morality right?

Furthermore, if you are discussing "whether or not it is possible for scientists to be religious without taint", then, as I have already explained, the veracity of religion is central to the point. If religion is wrong and one refuses to accept that, then that certainly must be taken into consideration when one makes a judgment of that person.

You are not however judging the person, you are judging their science. If they make scientific observations, then I am sure we are both in agreement that these are testable through the scientific method. The whole reason that the Discovery Institute is not doing science is that they don't try to get published in peer reviewed journals. If a religious scientist is apparently tainted by that, then one doesn't need to judge him, they need to judge the science.

If the science is lacking, then it is lacking, if it is not, then it is not, it doesn't matter if the scientist is Richard Dawkins or a man who believes the world is flat.

 

[Raist]

I recently read a study about medical science and how riddled with problems it is, a large amount of the major studies that were most cited had not been replicated at all, and many where not repeatable when they were tested.

I'd be very curious to see that one.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I'd be very curious to see that one.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269

That is the source, he was interviewed on the Ottawa Sceptic podcast 'The Reality Check'.

“Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.”

I liked the article and according to the friends I have working in the field, quite apt. I worry however that it can encourage people to take it as an endorsement for alt med stuff