Why science and religion are not compatible

[Skeptic Ginger]

That replaces an argument with an assertion.

I am unashamed to assert, there is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE god beliefs are human generated fiction. There is NO EVIDENCE real gods are the source of any god beliefs. I am confident the evidence supports those two assertions.

What is your assertion? That god beliefs are all about NOMA the evidence matters not?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which simply places the issue outside of the scope of science.

It might, if there wasn't OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE god beliefs are human generated fiction and NO EVIDENCE real gods are the source of any god beliefs.

 

[Patrick1000]

I don't believe it was intended, I am an atheist.

Again, trying to say that science needs to "prove" something just, rather blatantly, shows that you don't understand science. We could get into the relevant philosophy here, but I really don't feel like it, at the moment.



Sure. Believe that it was directed and intended. That's quite your right to do. I, certainly, have no problem with that belief. I do have problems, however, when you make proclamations that are blatantly false. Luckily, this paragraph doesn't appear to be one of them.



And... excuse me as I... *facepalms*

Anyways, this is something of a straw man, on multiple levels, and doesn't actually address the topic. Science says nothing about it being accidental. Science says that this seems to be the most likely explanation of how things happened, based on the information at our disposal. Nothing to do with the why. You're trying to argue with philosophical naturalism, which isn't quite the same thing as science.

Furthermore, your definition of "God" is narrow. Extremely narrow, in fact, if you're trying to argue that "God" and "accidents" are not compatible. And that's before you get to the single "God" versus multiple point. And before you get to the point where religion doesn't require deities. You're addressing a question much different than the topic.

I don't believe it was intended, I am an atheist.

The evolutionary biologists also say it was unintended, and so upon that we agree, but in a sense, for different reasons.

 

[Patrick1000]

I have addressed the topic very directly, half a dozen times

Again, trying to say that science needs to "prove" something just, rather blatantly, shows that you don't understand science. We could get into the relevant philosophy here, but I really don't feel like it, at the moment.



Sure. Believe that it was directed and intended. That's quite your right to do. I, certainly, have no problem with that belief. I do have problems, however, when you make proclamations that are blatantly false. Luckily, this paragraph doesn't appear to be one of them.



And... excuse me as I... *facepalms*

Anyways, this is something of a straw man, on multiple levels, and doesn't actually address the topic. Science says nothing about it being accidental. Science says that this seems to be the most likely explanation of how things happened, based on the information at our disposal. Nothing to do with the why. You're trying to argue with philosophical naturalism, which isn't quite the same thing as science.

Furthermore, your definition of "God" is narrow. Extremely narrow, in fact, if you're trying to argue that "God" and "accidents" are not compatible. And that's before you get to the single "God" versus multiple point. And before you get to the point where religion doesn't require deities. You're addressing a question much different than the topic.

I have addressed the topic very directly, half a dozen times. Religion and science are not compatible. Now for the half dozenth plus oneth time, as science/neo-Darwinism says "evolution" is purposeless, undirected, and as religion says otherwise, well then, never the twain shall meet.. This is the whole intention of western religion, that there is intention. If God doesn't care, then we have something else altogether. One may call it religion, but it is not Christianity in our occidental tradition. The whole point is that God not only made you, but she cares about you, AND WANTS YOU TO CARE ABOUT HER, AND THIS WAS HER INTENTION FROM THE GET GO.

God cares, you are important to her/him. She/He made you in her/his image and likeness and yes this is exactly on topic. This is very much not compatible with neo-Darwinism. PERIOD. FULL STOP!

 

[Minoosh]

By and large, we operate under the assumption that we have the ability to understand anything and everything, including the fundamental nature of life , including its origins, how it came about.

I don't operate under the assumption that I have that ability - but I do assume there are others are more able than I am, so that understanding accretes. Really I rather easily accept that humans may never understand everything, hence my "God of the gaps" question. That's sort of what "God" means to me - the parts we may never know, or which may not be expressible with our current languages (including mathematics).

Of course that doesn't mean we should give up, and though some strains of religion think we should, not all of them do.

 

[Leumas]

But you may not have that in mind. In that case I'm totally baffled.

I am not at all.

All indications are quite clear..... refusing to attend to replies to his repeated wrong assertions and dogmatic reassertions of the same already rebutted twaddle without any recognition for any logic or facts are well known traits and actions.

 

[Patrick1000]

i AGREE, NEVER GIVE UP, AND PROCEED AS THOUGH ALL IS WITHIN OUR REACH

I don't operate under the assumption that I have that ability - but I do assume there are others are more able than I am, so that understanding accretes. Really I rather easily accept that humans may never understand everything, hence my "God of the gaps" question. That's sort of what "God" means to me - the parts we may never know, or which may not be expressible with our current languages (including mathematics).

Of course that doesn't mean we should give up, and though some strains of religion think we should, not all of them do.

I AGREE, NEVER GIVE UP, AND PROCEED AS THOUGH ALL IS WITHIN OUR REACH. That said, to argue that we do not have limitations is simply to not be honest with ourselves.

How many times have you been surprised by the fact that someone you thought was so so so smart, missed some or other little point? Did not know something trivial? Happens all of the time. People were embarrassed for Albert Einstein toward his period of middle age, and late in his life. He just did not seem to get it, quantum mechanics. His attempts at unified field theories were a flat out embarassment.

Everyone is limited, and we are limited as a group as well, collectively limited. We may well never understand life, what it is, how it came to be, except existentially of course.

 

[westprog]

It might, if there wasn't OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE god beliefs are human generated fiction and NO EVIDENCE real gods are the source of any god beliefs.

It doesn't matter what you THINK is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. We are discussing science, and what is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. So if you'll point to a peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC paper that comes to that conclusion, then it's relevant. If it's philosophical or metaphysical reasoning, then it is not relevant to a discussion about SCIENCE, no matter how many BLOCK CAPITALS are used.

 

[westprog]

I am unashamed to assert, there is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE god beliefs are human generated fiction. There is NO EVIDENCE real gods are the source of any god beliefs. I am confident the evidence supports those two assertions.

Then you should DEMONSTRATE your confidence by presenting the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

What is your assertion? That god beliefs are all about NOMA the evidence matters not?

In discussions about science, evidence which doesn't meet the requirements of science matters not, that is correct.

 

[Patrick1000]

Great point.

It doesn't matter what you THINK is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. We are discussing science, and what is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. So if you'll point to a peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC paper that comes to that conclusion, then it's relevant. If it's philosophical or metaphysical reasoning, then it is not relevant to a discussion about SCIENCE, no matter how many BLOCK CAPITALS are used.

Think of Godel's Theorem. Even within scientific systems, there are undecidably true statements, and so out of our reach in a formal sense.

That said, there are plenty of true statements outside of the purview of scientific systems altogether, even further out of science's reach, but still knowable as true.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so to sum of this whole thread.

Science and religion are compatible because I want to say things which are non-scientific and not look stupid doing it.

 

[Patrick1000]

I like that Joe, I'll buy in.

Okay so to sum of this whole thread.

Science and religion are compatible because I want to say things which are non-scientific and not look stupid doing it.

I like that Joe, I'll buy in. Go for it dude!

 

[Aridas]

I have addressed the topic very directly, half a dozen times. Religion and science are not compatible. Now for the half dozenth plus oneth time, as science/neo-Darwinism says "evolution" is purposeless, undirected, and as religion says otherwise, well then, never the twain shall meet.. This is the whole intention of western religion, that there is intention. If God doesn't care, then we have something else altogether. One may call it religion, but it is not Christianity in our occidental tradition. The whole point is that God not only made you, but she cares about you, AND WANTS YOU TO CARE ABOUT HER, AND THIS WAS HER INTENTION FROM THE GET GO.

God cares, you are important to her/him. She/He made you in her/his image and likeness and yes this is exactly on topic. This is very much not compatible with neo-Darwinism. PERIOD. FULL STOP!

Just in case you somehow missed it, this time around, as you tried to answer... your point is badly formed. I addressed this, repeatedly, already.

As amusing as before, I see. I wasn't aware that "science" = "modern fully naturalistic neo-Darwinism." Somehow, I'm rather certain that they're not one and the same, though, despite your assertions.

You're trying to argue with philosophical naturalism, which isn't quite the same thing as science.

Furthermore, your definition of "God" is narrow. Extremely narrow, in fact, if you're trying to argue that "God" and "accidents" are not compatible. And that's before you get to the single "God" versus multiple point. And before you get to the point where religion doesn't require deities. You're addressing a question much different than the topic.

Western tradition =/= religion as a whole. To say that "You were created with a purpose in mind" is the only aspect of "western religion" worth dealing with is fallacious. To define Western religion by it is worthy of an eye-roll. You're narrowing the playing field from what it is to what you want it to be, and then arguing against the whole thing by presenting arguments relevant specifically to your narrowed definition. That's a logical fallacy if I've ever heard one.

But, just in case you need it simplified, the "neo-Darwinism" you refer to is not science. It's philosophy.

The definition of "God" that you're using is extremely limited.

Yes, you've made your point. The "neo-Darwinism" that you're speaking of is in contradiction to the "God" that you're speaking of. Did anyone, anyone at all, say otherwise? Now, that was the question you answered, which, very much, isn't the question that this thread is about. There are lots and lots of actual examples where science has produced claims based on evidence that something is the case that conflict directly with religious claims. That would be more relevant to the topic, even if trying to argue that those specific examples mean that there is an intrinsic conflict is a logically problematic argument.

What you're doing, however, is arguing that two conflicting philosophies/beliefs/worldviews, neither of which is science, nor even representative of "religion," in the general sense, conflict. Truly, this is an amazing revelation for all those here.

Do you see the issue with your point, on this topic, yet?

 

[punshhh]

I asked for evidence, dinosaurs to birds, show it to me. A wild dog to a tame one emphasizes, if I may be so bold, the limitations of simple selective breeding, which by the way is not "random" in any sense. So here is an example where when people are TRYING! to make a "wild dog" different, they succeed in a limited sense. And even when TRYING!, no one has shown selective breeding, or anything else for that matter creates a wholly new species.

Science is evidence based. What evolutionary biologists offer us is gobbledygook. I am an atheist by the way. But as I have mentioned before, I find myself more than sympathetic to the intelligent, well spoken faction of the religious right at times. Christian fundamentalists have every right in the world to ask that "Intelligent Design" be presented in schools if neo-Darwinism is. The latter is a theory which suggests this world, our world, is one without a God. As such, neo-Darwinism is religious/atheist, and if taught, which I believe it should be, needs to have this point emphasized so the students don't get infected with the gobbledygooky thinking of the same type that the yo-yos writing biology textbooks are infected with.

Also, and to emphasize, there is no bona fide molecular evidence whatsoever that supports the notion of species evolving as a result of a series of unintentional mutations(or intentional mutations/selective breeding for that matter). They ought to be teaching this series of mutations gobbledygook as an option, and one that is a major reach given the lack of empiric support.

Being an atheist doesn't mean I do not find substance and value in Christian teachings. The bible, both Old and New Testaments are probably the most important/influential pieces of Western Literature. By that I mean pieces of literature per se. Take a look at Michelangelo's Pieta. It says a lot more about everything than does this ridiculous notion of a zillion mutations, a cavalcade of gobbledygook, carrying dinosaurs to birds.

So yes I am an atheist, but I say score one for Michelangelo and zero for the modern evolutionary biologists, guys and gals that don't understand the importance of empirics, yo-yos that better get a grip before the intelligent design crew articulate them into oblivion.

Michelangelo's Pieta says more than a zillion words, if one has the eye to behold.

 

[Patrick1000]

No argument there.

Just in case you somehow missed it, this time around, as you tried to answer... your point is badly formed. I addressed this, repeatedly, already.







But, just in case you need it simplified, the "neo-Darwinism" you refer to is not science. It's philosophy.

The definition of "God" that you're using is extremely limited.

Yes, you've made your point. The "neo-Darwinism" that you're speaking of is in contradiction to the "God" that you're speaking of. Did anyone, anyone at all, say otherwise? Now, that was the question you answered, which, very much, isn't the question that this thread is about. There are lots and lots of actual examples where science has produced claims based on evidence that something is the case that conflict directly with religious claims. That would be more relevant to the topic, even if trying to argue that those specific examples mean that there is an intrinsic conflict is a logically problematic argument.

What you're doing, however, is arguing that two conflicting philosophies/beliefs/worldviews, neither of which is science, nor even representative of "religion," in the general sense, conflict. Truly, this is an amazing revelation for all those here.

Do you see the issue with your point, on this topic, yet?

I agree, neo-Darwinism is not scientific, at least as far as it can currently be best formulated, expressed. It is indeed a world view. No arguement there.

I agree, Christianity is a world view. No argument there.

It would appear we are in complete agreement as to your point.

 

[Patrick1000]

I agree.

Michelangelo's Pieta says more than a zillion words, if one has the eye to behold.

I agree. The work is breathtaking. Light years beyond metaphor. Nothing less than heart breaking in its rendering.

 

[Aridas]

I agree, neo-Darwinism is not scientific, at least as far as it can currently be best formulated, expressed. It is indeed a world view. No arguement there.

I agree, Christianity is a world view. No argument there.

It would appear we are in complete agreement as to your point.

Hopefully so. I'm going to be a bit chancy, though, and ask for something to be said clearly.

I have addressed the topic very directly, half a dozen times. Religion and science are not compatible. Now for the half dozenth plus oneth time, as science/neo-Darwinism says "evolution" is purposeless, undirected, and as religion says otherwise, well then, never the twain shall meet..

If we are, indeed, in agreement, you should likely officially either rescind this statement or post another statement correcting the errors in this very recent statement.

 

[Patrick1000]

Just because neither is scientific, does not mean that they are not contradictory.

Hopefully so. I'm going to be a bit chancy, though, and ask for something to be said clearly.



If we are, indeed, in agreement, you should likely officially either rescind this statement or post another statement correcting the errors in this very recent statement.

Just because neither is scientific, does not mean that they are not contradictory.

Neo-Darwinism's world view is one in which life evolves without intelligent input, without direction.

Christianity is a world view which claims I was made by a creator with intention.

Neither view of the world is scientific, but they nevertheless are very much mutually exclusive. So I most certainly do not rescind my previous claims. Those stand and those claims do stand very well indeed.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Dinosaurs to birds, where is the molecular evidence?

Someone, an intelligence, a manipulator, is trying to make something happen in the case of selective breeding. This is a no no in the case of neo-Darwinism as conventionally presented.

We are not allowed to "breed dogs". I mean we can, but then it does not "count", and similarly, God is not allowed to "breed people" by whatever means anyone wants to imagine this may have been done. These are Natural Selection's axioms. The process is wholly naturalistic and intention does not play a hand.

In the case of Christianity, intention is the very point of the whole thing.

Before proceeding, is it evidence that you want -- you've already been provided evidence in this thread -- or proof? Science doesn't prove propositions, it disproves some and others pass. Scientists construct theories to account for the evidence that we see and the theories that best explain the available evidence without recourse to extraneous fluff or complicated ontologies win out. That is why evolutionary theory wins out -- because something as complex as a designer is left out of the picture.

So, what exactly are you asking for with your claim to want evidence? What sort of evidence do you want? Because if you are complaining that evolution by means of natural selection relies on historical, non-repeatable occurrences that we cannot directly see happening now, then we need to have a longer discussion about induction and the way science works.


ETA:

Also before proceeding let me say this: I don't know that birds descended from dinosaurs. It might be that they share a common ancestor. But the issue over showing a direct molecular line from that common ancestor to modern birds or from some type of raptor to modern birds depends on us having the genetic material from those fossils. We don't have such evidence. That is why I told you earlier that it is a bit disingenuous to ask for such evidence when no one claims that it exists in the first place. The argument for bird evolution from dinosaurs or from a common ancestor with them is based on morphology of fossil finds. And the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not the least bit touched by whether or not birds descended from dinosaurs or from a common ancestor between a bird-raptor line and a dinosaur line.

If you want to discuss the molecular genetic evidence linking other organisms (common ancestor to modern variant) where we actually have such evidence would make much more sense.

 

[Patrick1000]

Before proceeding, is it evidence that you want -- you've already been provided evidence in this thread -- or proof? Science doesn't prove propositions, it disproves some and others pass. Scientists construct theories to account for the evidence that we see and the theories that best explain the available evidence without recourse to extraneous fluff or complicated ontologies win out. That is why evolutionary theory wins out -- because something as complex as a designer is left out of the picture.

So, what exactly are you asking for with your claim to want evidence? What sort of evidence do you want? Because if you are complaining that evolution by means of natural selection relies on historical, non-repeatable occurrences that we cannot directly see happening now, then we need to have a longer discussion about induction and the way science works.


ETA:

Also before proceeding let me say this: I don't know that birds descended from dinosaurs. It might be that they share a common ancestor. But the issue over showing a direct molecular line from that common ancestor to modern birds or from some type of raptor to modern birds depends on us having the genetic material from those fossils. We don't have such evidence. That is why I told you earlier that it is a bit disingenuous to ask for such evidence when no one claims that it exists in the first place. The argument for bird evolution from dinosaurs or from a common ancestor with them is based on morphology of fossil finds. And the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not the least bit touched by whether or not birds descended from dinosaurs or from a common ancestor between a bird-raptor line and a dinosaur line.

If you want to discuss the molecular genetic evidence linking other organisms (common ancestor to modern variant) where we actually have such evidence would make much more sense.

The claim is birds from dinosaurs. Any molecular evidence at all will do. Show me the mutations over time. Direct, or good indirect evidence for those mutations having occurred and their being "unintentional". That is the claim of the evolutionary biologists. I would like to see it backed up with something substantive.

If not birds from dinosaurs, then mamals from ancient fish. Any mainstream lineage will due. I am not picky.