Why science and religion are not compatible

[Skeptic Ginger]

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....

To review, this thread is titled, "Why science and religion are not compatible."

When one investigates god beliefs using the scientific process, (regardless of the benefit some people derive from said god beliefs, regardless of what said god beliefs mean to some people), the evidence is clear, god beliefs are a human generated phenomena, aka, fiction.

People believe all sorts of unsupportable things as a matter of our nature. For example, more than half of all kids are judged above average by their parents. It is statistically impossible for their beliefs to be true. If one looks at the incompatibility of various god beliefs, some people have to be believing in god myths even if real gods existed. That's because various god beliefs conflict with various other god beliefs, like monotheism vs polytheism.

So to argue that "because god beliefs are [x] to some people" has no bearing on why science and religion are not compatible. That is unless you are talking about the scientific community tolerating religious beliefs and avoiding challenging the beliefs. That certainly goes on and some in the scientific community even advocate that tolerating the theists among us is a better alternative than challenging their beliefs. There are even science based apologies for god beliefs like Gould's NOMA.

The problem with science tolerating and/or apologizing for god beliefs (with NOMA explanations/definitions) is that at some point that action comes back to bite. If I excuse unsupportable god beliefs as NOMA, why not say the same about unsupportable homeopathy beliefs? After all, the believer is convinced, and feels better taking the mixture. How is that different from believing in god and feeling better because of it?

How about the psychic that claims to talk to the dead? A grieving parent believing they've communicated with their dead child, how does that differ from the belief in heaven? If you are convinced 911 was an inside job, so what? Shouldn't I tolerate your belief and not challenge it? Perhaps you derive some benefit from that belief.


That brings me back to the other point I've made in this thread. The typical approach to god beliefs in the scientific community is to say one cannot disprove gods exist. This is often misused as if it were evidence gods could exist. Just as an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither is it evidence of presence.

My approach is to shift paradigms. Why are we looking for evidence to confirm or refute a conclusion? The proper scientific approach is to start with the evidence and follow it to the conclusion, not start with the conclusion and look for evidence supporting or refuting it. When you start with the evidence we have a wealth of anthropological data. We have a wealth of psychology and social science data. We have evidence from evolution and biology. That all adds up to a long history of god beliefs and the psychological/biological evidence connected to god beliefs. Within that data are patterns. Those patterns are consistent and clear. People invented god beliefs. To think Zeus is a myth but Jesus was a real god is not supported by the evidence. To think the Hopi Indian creation myth is fiction but the Christian belief or even the Deist god belief that a god created the Universe is not fiction is an unsupportable conclusion. The evidence that gods are the result of human imagination couldn't be more clear. That is unless you are like Westprog and indoctrinated to believe your god belief is special (not saying you have a god belief) while contradictory god beliefs are myths.

 

[The Norseman]

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

You got that from a fortune cookie, didn't you?

 

[citizenzen]

People invented god beliefs.

Why? Why did/do people invent god beliefs?


If science can answer why people of virtually every culture throughout history "invented" god beliefs, then it could lay the issue to rest.


I would suggest that it isn't entirely an invention.

But before you go ballistic ... that doesn't mean it's a god, either.

 

[tsig]

Why? Why did/do people invent god beliefs?


If science can answer why people of virtually every culture throughout history "invented" god beliefs, then it could lay the issue to rest.


I would suggest that it isn't entirely an invention.

But before you go ballistic ... that doesn't mean it's a god, either.

We all had parents and god is just a great big parent.

 

[westprog]

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

Well, if scientists claim (as they have) that human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors, then that's a clash with a particular religious belief. That's because scientists publish peer-reviewed papers which show that this is the case. When a religion claims that the Earth is trillions of years old, then this is in conflict with peer reviewed scientific research which asserts something different.

When religion claims that the universe was created by an omnipotent being existing outside of time and space, science concludes that this is not a testable hypothesis, and is not a fruitful source of predictions, and ignores it.

If we are to use something other than the peer-reviewed literature to determine the position of science on a given subject, then I'd love to know what.

 

[westprog]

So what if this poster is a Christian?

Well, it's often indicative when someone attacks the person and the motivation rather than the argument.

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 ...

 

[Paulhoff]

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.

The neutral theory of molecular evolution states that the vast majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by random drift of selectively neutral mutants (not affecting fitness).[1] The theory was introduced by Motoo Kimura in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and although it was received by some as an argument against Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Kimura maintained (and most evolutionary biologists agree) that the two theories are compatible: "The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution".[2] However, the theory attributes a large role to genetic drift.

My Highlighting in RED.

Paul

 

[westprog]

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.

It's actually the critical non-scientific element about making tea.

Which god are you talking about?

Define it first and then we'll see.

I don't think that the absence of a scientific definition means that science should have a viewpoint on the matter. If something is ill-defined, science usually holds off on giving a viewpoint until a precise definition is given.

There are lots of ill-defined terms in common use, even among scientists.

 

[westprog]

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.

That's the explanation of the action. It's not the wanting itself.

 

[The Norseman]

It's actually the critical non-scientific element about making tea.

See tsig at 420.*

I don't think that the absence of a scientific definition means that science should have a viewpoint on the matter. If something is ill-defined, science usually holds off on giving a viewpoint until a precise definition is given.

There are lots of ill-defined terms in common use, even among scientists.

Okay... I think that was my point. That's why I asked for your definition first before I can give conclusive evidence.

 

[westprog]

The problem with science tolerating and/or apologizing for god beliefs (with NOMA explanations/definitions) is that at some point that action comes back to bite. If I excuse unsupportable god beliefs as NOMA, why not say the same about unsupportable homeopathy beliefs? After all, the believer is convinced, and feels better taking the mixture. How is that different from believing in god and feeling better because of it?

When science takes on board unproven and ill-defined assertions, that is not a good protection against pseudoscience.

The way that homeopathy is debunked by science is by double-blind trial experiments. Not by analysing the possible motives of the people promoting it, not by unfounded assertions that homeopathy is bad for society - actual scientific research. What would encourage homeopathy and all the other pseudo-science that is at present held back because science holds to rigid standards. If science were to abandon those standards and allow scientists to pursue their own personal agenda, and make arbitrary claims without ruthless scrutiny, then science would just be a matter of whoever's voice was loudest.

 

[westprog]

Why? Why did/do people invent god beliefs?


If science can answer why people of virtually every culture throughout history "invented" god beliefs, then it could lay the issue to rest.

Actually, no. If science could answer why, say, people believed the theory of evolution, that wouldn't mean that the theory of evolution was disproved. You can't disprove something by demonstrating that people believe it for unsound reasons.

I daresay you could do an anthropological analysis of why atheism has become more common in recent years. That wouldn't debunk atheism as an idea.

I've made this point to SG a number of times - which has been characterised as a failure to respond.

I would suggest that it isn't entirely an invention.

But before you go ballistic ... that doesn't mean it's a god, either.

 

[The Norseman]

Actually, no. If science could answer why, say, people believed the theory of evolution, that wouldn't mean that the theory of evolution was disproved. You can't disprove something by demonstrating that people believe it for unsound reasons.

That was very clever reversal. We're not talking about something with god beliefs that has as much evidence from multiple, multiple scientific fields than evolution has. Very much far from it!

The fact is, is that scientists are discovering the possibility that god beliefs are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain which would go further towards disproving the idea that gods actually exist.

 

[citizenzen]

Actually, no. If science could answer why, say, people believed the theory of evolution, that wouldn't mean that the theory of evolution was disproved. You can't disprove something by demonstrating that people believe it for unsound reasons.

The theory of evolution is supported by more than just belief. Take away the belief and you still have fossil, genetic and other physical evidence. It isn't merely belief that built the theory or has sustained it through the decades.

But belief in deities is only that: belief ... faith ... or unquantifiable personal experience.

So if somehow science could demonstrate the physical cause of that belief, in either a structure of the brain or pattern of activity, it could go a long way to proving that god belief is an artifact of our physical brain and not of divine origin.

Here's my personal example. I'm Zen Buddhist. And during meditation, the mind that we usually associate as "ourself" can become still enough that another mind becomes apparent. This "Big Mind" may simply be an artifact of our regular, every day mind. It may simply be a delusion. Or it may be connected to this tendency among people to believe in something more.

So I'm a fence sitter. I understand somewhat where religious folk are coming from. But I think that mythology overwhelms what is a very inscrutable, very personal experience. And it's important to keep in mind that we are easily fooled. I try not to believe most of what I believe.

 

[westprog]

Okay... I think that was my point. That's why I asked for your definition first before I can give conclusive evidence.

Just to make it plain - my assertion is not "God exists". Or even "God is a well-formed concept". My assertion is that science should not be and is not concerning itself with the God hypothesis.

I can imagine certain tentative research taking place - on the anthropic principle, say - but I cannot see how, in principle, any proposition could be put forward on the existence or non-existence of God. There is no test for omnipotence, and there is no test for whether an omnipotent being is hiding or not.

 

[westprog]

That was very clever reversal. We're not talking about something with god beliefs that has as much evidence from multiple, multiple scientific fields than evolution has. Very much far from it!

The fact is, is that scientists are discovering the possibility that god beliefs are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain which would go further towards disproving the idea that gods actually exist.

No, it would do nothing to prove or disprove it. That's a clear logical fallacy. All that we can say about beliefs that have been explained is that the beliefs cannot be considered evidence in favour of what is believed in. It doesn't affect the likelihood other than that. The bar for proof and disproof in science is set high, and rightly so.

 

[westprog]

The theory of evolution is supported by more than just belief. Take away the belief and you still have fossil, genetic and other physical evidence. It isn't merely belief that built the theory or has sustained it through the decades.

But belief in deities is only that: belief ... faith ... or unquantifiable personal experience.

So if somehow science could demonstrate the physical cause of that belief, in either a structure of the brain or pattern of activity, it could go a long way to proving that god belief is an artifact of our physical brain and not of divine origin.

I'll repeat what I said - it wouldn't prove anything, either way. It would simply take one bit of evidence out of the equation. Imagine trying to disprove string theory, say, by analysing the minds of the scientists involved. It's inherently absurd.

 

[Leumas]

but I cannot see how, in principle, any proposition could be put forward on the existence or non-existence of God. There is no test for omnipotence, and there is no test for whether an omnipotent being is hiding or not.

Oh yes there is :
Is an omnipotent being able to create a rock it cannot lift?

• If Yes….then it is not omnipotent since there is something it cannot do.
• If No…...then it is not omnipotent since there is something it cannot do.

but I cannot see how, in principle, any proposition could be put forward on the existence or non-existence of God. There is no test for omnipotence, and there is no test for whether an omnipotent being is hiding or not.

Yes there is:
Is an omnipotent god able to see all the strife in the world?

If No….then not omnipotent
If Yes…..then is it able to stop it?

If No …. Then not omnipotent.
If yes….. then why doesn’t it?

If because it doesn’t want to…..............then it is a VILE TURD.
If because it doesn’t care…...................then it is a HEINOUS TURD.
If because it doesn’t want to interfere…..then it is a USELESS TURD.​

 

[Aridas]

The Christian God is pure existence itself (He is not a being, he is Being) so we would agree that existence has existed from eternity. He is not a thing, He is an act (or cause) and the universe is an effect. The effect could be coeternal with the cause without contradicting creation. This may be Plato's (not sure) but imagine a foot planted in the sand from eternity. The footprint would also exist from eternity but it would still be caused by the boot. Personally though, I believe there was a beginning of the world and will be an end but that's a whole different thing.

A rather recent conception, I think. But this really isn't the thread to discuss this in depth.

Does anyone on this thread think that someone can believe in God and yet make no claims about God?

No claims at all? Not even that the being exists? That sounds a bit far-fetched.

If you're looking for a compatible type of deity, though... the FSM is an example of a far more compatible conception of a god than the Christian versions. It's a rather deceptive conception of a god, though. In short, of course, I'd argue, off the top of my head, that three types of gods can potentially be compatible with the conclusions that science reaches. One, deceptive conceptions that cover their tracks. Two, conceptions that simply don't have much to to with the physical universe. Three, conceptions that say that the deity is reality itself. If we're going to expand that to religions, no god beliefs are actually necessary for something to count as a religion, which is a point that I find interesting in how little it's been raised here. Naturally, adding claims that are actually testable to any of those bases opens them up to being refuted by science. And logic tends to refute any need to believe any of them, regardless.

Why? Why did/do people invent god beliefs?


If science can answer why people of virtually every culture throughout history "invented" god beliefs, then it could lay the issue to rest.


I would suggest that it isn't entirely an invention.

But before you go ballistic ... that doesn't mean it's a god, either.

Look around a little bit. There's been a fair amount of research done on the psychology of belief. Here is a link to a little bit of it, after googling "Psychology of belief."

 

[Patrick1000]

Of course they agree Paul!!!! that was the whole point of the "trick"

My Highlighting in RED.

Paul

Of course they agree Paul!!!! That was/is the whole point of my "trick question"! To show neo-Dawinism as the unmitigated gobbledygook that it is!

How is it possible to have a "theory of evolution" that says both at once, talks out both side of its mouth at once, biologic systems evolve as environmental pressures select for the fittest phenotypes, AND, at the same time, evolution occurs through a process where phenotype is unaffected by natural selection/environmental pressures, molecular evolution occurring clock like and independent of everything and anything? Well it is possible when one is not dealing with anything that remotely resembles science.

Motoo Kimura is a talented biologist, but what he is doing here is not very scientific, nor are the oodles of biologists and not so very biologists that jump on the "neutral evolution" bandwagon every time the situation so suits, and then right back off when the next situation demands the opposite, demands molecular change affect phenotypic change with natural selection then delivering to us the fittest of the lot available from the phenotypic menu.

This is Marxism, Freudian pseudoscience type rubbish. Like these other two pseudodisciplines, neo-Darwinism explains EVERYTHING, every case and so it therefore explains nothing. And keep in mind it explains every case because Kimura changed the rules, changed the theory's axioms at his whim, changed Darwin's theory when it suited his contrived truth, a truth that in reality would otherwise flat out FALSIFY THE WHOLE BOGUS NEO-DARWINIAN SHEBANG.

I can make up a science like that too Paul, one in which once it hits a contradiction and is FALSIFIED, I CHANGE THE SCIENCE'S AXIOMS. Wonder if they give Nobel Prizes for such nifty face saving ideas????

My trick question proves a point. Neo-Darwinism is a bunch of biologic bull, and just because most evolutionary biologists buy in to that insane bull, well that don't make it true. Far from it. Look at the nonsense above, Kimura's "theory". What did you expect evolutionary biologists would do Paul? Say Darwin was WRONG after all? Say the discipline they have devoted their lives to has just been FALSIFIED and so is not scientifically true? Of course they are going to jump on the Kimura bandwagon and off and on and off and on and off, as the biologic problem to which they devote their attention on any given day demands.

Darwinism science? Indeed not! Nothing more than poppycock! And you yourself proved this to be the case, showing how inconsistent biologists were, buying into a theory that explains nothing, because it has an answer for everything by changing its own rules.

Surprisingly, there has not been a single voice here suggesting there is one situation in which science and religion are fully compatible. Genuine science, not the neo-Darwinian poppycock kind of jive, but real science that exposes itself, RISKS FALSIFICATION, and genuine religion, a proposed truth that asserts we were made by a creator with the furtherance of purpose in mind, that science and that "religion" are grounded in the notion of "intelligent design".

What say you to that Paul, makes a lot more sense than Kimura and your evolutionary biologists that like to have it both ways. What do you think of intelligent design Paul?

I would suggest it makes a heck of a lot more sense than neo-Darwinism. That theory is looking flat out dumb in the wake of this cytochrome c stuff, is it not?