Why science and religion are not compatible

[westprog]

I could be misunderstanding, sure. I think he's at least implied in his posts that we should have some sort of reservation towards god beliefs instead of saying that certain god beliefs are not amenable to the scientific process therefore we should consider them irrelevant.

Well, it's important to distinguish what my position is in this thread, discussing this topic. Here, I'm not saying that the arguments against religion are wrong, or that people shouldn't be told that their beliefs are not justified, or that scientists shouldn't be atheists. I'm just saying that religious beliefs are not in conflict with science. It's perfectly possible for a scientist to have religious beliefs without being a worse scientist.

It's been pointed out several times that religious beliefs don't meet the standard of proof of science. This is quite true. If they did, they would be part of science. Religion and science are separate things, and there is only an issue where they impinge.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... Religion and science are separate things, and there is only an issue where they impinge.

Like when science investigates the origin of god beliefs and finds they are F-I-C-T-I-O-N-A-L.

 

[westprog]

You have an incredibly anemic view of science, the scientific process, and scientific evidence if you think everything can be boiled down to a single peer reviewed scientific paper.

Can you boil down evolution theory, cosmology, quantum mechanics, gravity and plate tectonics each to a single peer reviewed scientific paper?

No, I can't. But I can summarise what science says about God into less than six words. And I know waffle when I hear it.

I am willing to bet that there are many thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers on the subjects of evolution theory, cosmology, quantum mechanics, gravity and plate techtonics. Coordinating them and sifting through them is a major effort, but luckily there's software available that can look through scientific papers and find the references. How many physics papers do you think there were last year that referred to "God" or "religion"? Y'know, approximately?

 

[The Norseman]

Well, it's important to distinguish what my position is in this thread, discussing this topic. Here, I'm not saying that the arguments against religion are wrong, or that people shouldn't be told that their beliefs are not justified, or that scientists shouldn't be atheists. I'm just saying that religious beliefs are not in conflict with science. It's perfectly possible for a scientist to have religious beliefs without being a worse scientist.

It's been pointed out several times that religious beliefs don't meet the standard of proof of science. This is quite true. If they did, they would be part of science. Religion and science are separate things, and there is only an issue where they impinge.

I think that there are huge amounts of religious beliefs that are in conflict with the scientific method; it's already been covered in this thread by posters far more versed in the arguments than I.

I would say that science and religion are not compatible for the reasons spelled out.

 

[westprog]

Like when science investigates the origin of god beliefs and finds they are F-I-C-T-I-O-N-A-L.

Progressed from BLOCK CAPITALS to B-L-O-C-K C-A-P-I-T-A-L-S W-I-T-H D-A-S-H-E-S, I see. None of which would be as persuasive as a reference to a S-I-N-G-L-E scientific paper which made the God does not E-X-I-S-T claim. And I'm pretty sure that would include most of the anthropological papers.

 

[westprog]

I think that there are huge amounts of religious beliefs that are in conflict with the scientific method; it's already been covered in this thread by posters far more versed in the arguments than I.

What does "in conflict with the scientific method" mean? I made tea this morning. I'm pretty sure that I didn't employ the scientific method. The scientific method is used for science. Outside of science, it's not required.

I would say that science and religion are not compatible for the reasons spelled out.

Your vote is noted.

 

[Minoosh]

I, for one, don't. The title God, without claims about him, is simply an empty placeholder word.

I kind of like that - the "God of the empty placeholder word."

My question had to do with the tendency to generalize god-belief as superstition among those with no god-belief. You had said that if God existed he would exist beyond theology. For me - strictly felt reality - God exists beyond language. Math may come closer than ordinary language.

When God-belief is equated with all sorts of specific claims it is usually demonstrably wrong, in that contradictory claims exist and they can't all be right.

So I'm OK with "God of the bookmark," as long as I keep hitting "refresh" ...

 

[The Norseman]

What does "in conflict with the scientific method" mean? I made tea this morning. I'm pretty sure that I didn't employ the scientific method. The scientific method is used for science. Outside of science, it's not required.

What method did you use then to determine the right temperature of the water for you and strength of tea and/or sweeteners? You formulated a question (how hot is the water) and tested it (saw the steam), then mixed your tea in it (from past experience you note how strong you like it), took a few exploratory sips (yup, still too hot!), stirred it some more and sat down to enjoy it before it got too cold. At its core, that's all the scientific method is.

An alternate would be what perhaps a few other JREF members would do: namely, sit on a cushion in the living room, contemplating the nature of tea until his spirit told him that the tea was just the way he likes it.

Your vote is noted.

Thanks! Just putting in my two cents!

 

[Leumas]

Progressed from BLOCK CAPITALS to B-L-O-C-K C-A-P-I-T-A-L-S W-I-T-H D-A-S-H-E-S, I see. None of which would be as persuasive as a reference to a S-I-N-G-L-E scientific paper which made the God does not E-X-I-S-T claim. And I'm pretty sure that would include most of the anthropological papers.

I agree with you.... lack of scientific papers trying to prove that God does not exist is VERY significant.

It is extremely significant in fact. It bears a lot about the issue.

Just as much as it bears on the fact that there is not a SINGLE scientific research into how the following and other things don't exist:

• Aladdin
• Mordor
• Shangrila
• Zeus
• Quetzalcoatl
• Snow White
• Pegasus
• Leprechauns
• Harry Potter
• Thor
• Zaphod Beeblebrox
• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Captain Kirk
• Darth Vader
• Ewoks
• The list IMAGINARY creatures or Gods that humanity has contrived is endless

All of the above and MUCH MUCH more are not proven to not exist by science. There are no scientific papers about the none-existence of so many MYTHS and FABLES and imaginary creatures.

So when are you going to start worshiping Zeus?

 

[westprog]

I agree with you.... lack of scientific papers trying to prove that God does not exist is VERY significant.

It is extremely significant in fact. It bears a lot about the issue.

Just as much as it bears on the fact that there is not a SINGLE scientific research into how the following and other things don't exist:

• Aladdin
• Mordor
• Shangrila
• Zeus
• Quetzalcoatl
• Snow White
• Pegasus
• Leprechauns
• Harry Potter
• Thor
• Zaphod Beeblebrox
• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Captain Kirk
• Darth Vader
• Ewoks
• The list IMAGINARY creatures or Gods that humanity has contrived is endless

All of the above and MUCH MUCH more are not proven to not exist by science. There are no scientific papers about the none-existence of so many MYTHS and FABLES and imaginary creatures.

So when are you going to start worshiping Zeus?

If you think that science class is the right place to discuss Snow White, then put forward your case.

 

[westprog]

What method did you use then to determine the right temperature of the water for you and strength of tea and/or sweeteners? You formulated a question (how hot is the water) and tested it (saw the steam), then mixed your tea in it (from past experience you note how strong you like it), took a few exploratory sips (yup, still too hot!), stirred it some more and sat down to enjoy it before it got too cold. At its core, that's all the scientific method is.

An alternate would be what perhaps a few other JREF members would do: namely, sit on a cushion in the living room, contemplating the nature of tea until his spirit told him that the tea was just the way he likes it.

What is missing from the description is the whole issue of whether I wanted the tea in the first place.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I can't. But I can summarise what science says about God into less than six words. And I know waffle when I hear it.

I am willing to bet that there are many thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers on the subjects of evolution theory, cosmology, quantum mechanics, gravity and plate techtonics. Coordinating them and sifting through them is a major effort, but luckily there's software available that can look through scientific papers and find the references. How many physics papers do you think there were last year that referred to "God" or "religion"? Y'know, approximately?

So you just refuse to look at the citations I posted all the while declaring I posted nothing?

Who are you trying to convince of your position here and do you think you it's convincing to pretend no evidence has been posted?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with you.... lack of scientific papers trying to prove that God does not exist is VERY significant.

It is extremely significant in fact. It bears a lot about the issue.

Just as much as it bears on the fact that there is not a SINGLE scientific research into how the following and other things don't exist:

• Aladdin
• Mordor
• Shangrila
• Zeus
• Quetzalcoatl
• Snow White
• Pegasus
• Leprechauns
• Harry Potter
• Thor
• Zaphod Beeblebrox
• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Captain Kirk
• Darth Vader
• Ewoks
• The list IMAGINARY creatures or Gods that humanity has contrived is endless

All of the above and MUCH MUCH more are not proven to not exist by science. There are no scientific papers about the none-existence of so many MYTHS and FABLES and imaginary creatures.

So when are you going to start worshiping Zeus?

Thank you, Westprog needs to read additional viewpoints. But I'm not claiming there is evidence gods don't exist as he wants to restate my position. I'm stating very clearly despite Westprog's utterly total denial, that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, gods are human generated fiction. And there is nothing left after one looks at that evidence which suggests anyone needs to prove fictional gods are or could be real, as you have so logically argued.


Westprog is a Christian and as such he cannot 'see' evidence that contradicts his god beliefs.

 

[westprog]

Thank you, Westprog needs to read additional viewpoints. But I'm not claiming there is evidence gods don't exist as he wants to restate my position. I'm stating very clearly despite Westprog's utterly total denial, that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, gods are human generated fiction. And there is nothing left after one looks at that evidence which suggests anyone needs to prove fictional gods are or could be real, as you have so logically argued.


Westprog is a Christian and as such he cannot 'see' evidence that contradicts his god beliefs.

Which is to totally miss the point of this entire thread. (Well, apart from the anti-evolution bits).

The reason that scientists haven't published papers disproving the existence of Snow White is that there's no prevailing belief in the existence of Snow White, or that it's possible to choke on an apple, enter suspended animation and be revived months later by the Heimlich manouevre. There are plenty of publications which do disprove any such belief, of course.

If a scientist could produce a paper disproving God, then is it really likely that he would hold off just because sure, everyone knows that God stuff is rubbish. The reason that no scientist has produced such a paper is that no such paper can be written. No physicist would attempt to prove fundamental truths about the universe by referring to anthropological research.

If a scientist is attempting to make a scientific point, then that's how he does it - peer-reviewed in a scientific journal. It should be noticed that the original article was not peer reviewed in a scientific journal. It was an op-ed piece in a popular science magazine. If he'd tried to publish it in a scientific journal, it wouldn't have been accepted.

 

[Minoosh]

Well, it's important to distinguish what my position is in this thread, discussing this topic. Here, I'm not saying that the arguments against religion are wrong, or that people shouldn't be told that their beliefs are not justified, or that scientists shouldn't be atheists. I'm just saying that religious beliefs are not in conflict with science. It's perfectly possible for a scientist to have religious beliefs without being a worse scientist.

It's been pointed out several times that religious beliefs don't meet the standard of proof of science. This is quite true. If they did, they would be part of science. Religion and science are separate things, and there is only an issue where they impinge.

So what if this poster is a Christian? I'm not, but what he says makes sense to me. When atheists draw a bead on god-belief they usually aim at superstition, folklore, creation stories, talking snakes, etc., but that's not what it is to all people.

And I'm getting mixed up what thread I'm on because I think I've already said this in the Deepak Chopra vs. Richard Dawkins thread ...

 

[Patrick1000]

Not quite Paul, like I said , it was a "trick question", very devious

So simple again, if something works well, a change may not make it work better so that most likely will stay the same because any change could make that new version not work as well so it dies out and isn't carried on to the next generation.

Paul

Not quite Paul, like I said , it was a "trick question" there, very devious, if not downright "mean".

So what just happened? Well, I even got you yourself to argue against neo-Darwinian mechanism as conventionally presented. Told ya' I was rarely devious, but when I am.........., well enough said.

Anyway, how might it be possible for cytochrome C s(pleural), of various and sundry types, from various and sundry species, to have a molecular rate of change independent of phenotype? Well, if molecular evolution occurred in such a way that it was INDEPENDENT OF OF, UNAFFECTED BY, NATURAL SELECTION.

And you suggested this yourself. I'll paraphrase for you; you suggested the phenotype would stay the same despite changes in the genotype.

Well said(I think anyway Paul). Still, despite your effort, Motoo Kimura, the late great Japanese biologist beat you to the punch some 43 years ago. He introduced the idea of a "neutral theory of evolution" in 1968, a theory proffered to save neo-Darwinian face.

Do you see the point now? At face value, and why should one not take it at face value? I do. The cytochrome c example proves modern evolutionary theory wrong. Genes change/code changes/information changes, but the cytochrome c phenotype does not AND, the change occurs independent of any selection pressure. Kimura termed this "neutral evolution". A genotypic change occurring outside the context of selection pressure and correspondingly not associated with any change in phenotype.

I like Kimura's spunk, though in most scientific circles, this is called "cheating", or trying to have it both ways. Honest biologists wouldn't and don't buy into Kimura's baloney.

These types of things are important to point out. There are dozens and dozens of examples where the empiric evidence points 180 degrees away for natural selection's being real, as here in this case.

I'll leave it at that, though "neutral selection baloney", cytochrome c and Kimura are indeed favorite topics of mine.

 

[tsig]

Progressed from BLOCK CAPITALS to B-L-O-C-K C-A-P-I-T-A-L-S W-I-T-H D-A-S-H-E-S, I see. None of which would be as persuasive as a reference to a S-I-N-G-L-E scientific paper which made the God does not E-X-I-S-T claim. And I'm pretty sure that would include most of the anthropological papers.

Unless scientists publish papers on the non existence of god there's no conflict between science and religion?

 

[The Norseman]

What is missing from the description is the whole issue of whether I wanted the tea in the first place.

Hah! Nice one, you sure got me there! You must not think my point is worth commenting on, so I'll just leave it at that then.

Which is to totally miss the point of this entire thread. (Well, apart from the anti-evolution bits).

The reason that scientists haven't published papers disproving the existence of Snow White is that there's no prevailing belief in the existence of Snow White, or that it's possible to choke on an apple, enter suspended animation and be revived months later by the Heimlich manouevre. There are plenty of publications which do disprove any such belief, of course.

If a scientist could produce a paper disproving God, then is it really likely that he would hold off just because sure, everyone knows that God stuff is rubbish. The reason that no scientist has produced such a paper is that no such paper can be written. No physicist would attempt to prove fundamental truths about the universe by referring to anthropological research.

If a scientist is attempting to make a scientific point, then that's how he does it - peer-reviewed in a scientific journal. It should be noticed that the original article was not peer reviewed in a scientific journal. It was an op-ed piece in a popular science magazine. If he'd tried to publish it in a scientific journal, it wouldn't have been accepted.

Which god are you talking about?

Define it first and then we'll see.

 

[tsig]

What method did you use then to determine the right temperature of the water for you and strength of tea and/or sweeteners? You formulated a question (how hot is the water) and tested it (saw the steam), then mixed your tea in it (from past experience you note how strong you like it), took a few exploratory sips (yup, still too hot!), stirred it some more and sat down to enjoy it before it got too cold. At its core, that's all the scientific method is.

An alternate would be what perhaps a few other JREF members would do: namely, sit on a cushion in the living room, contemplating the nature of tea until his spirit told him that the tea was just the way he likes it.





Thanks! Just putting in my two cents!

If you don't throw in your two cents then how can you expect change?

I think some members would like to sit on the cushion and have their followers make the tea.

I mean really tea is just an idea in our head because there's nothing material and it's all in how we look at things. Fire is not hot, fire gets hot so the movement of the molecules should start with a thought.


_{tsig shakes like a wet dog}


The wisdom of woo is so easy to do.

 

[tsig]

What is missing from the description is the whole issue of whether I wanted the tea in the first place.

You wanted tea because in your past experience the drinking of tea stimulated centers in your brain that registered as pleasure so you seek to replicate the experience.

Science, it's even in your brain.