• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why science and religion are not compatible

Humes fork said:
But science and religions don't deal with different things. Religions give their accounts of the origin of the world and life, and of human history. Science gives another account. Guess what? These accounts contradict each other!
Click to expand...


Again ... some religions give their accounts of the origin of the world and life, and of human history.

Some. Some. Some.

Why do you keep describing religion as a monolith and ignore the fact that it encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and practices?

You do it because it fits your premise. You reached a conclusion and now simply choose the evidence that agrees with your conclusion. Evidence presented that doesn't agree with your conclusion is ignored.

That isn't very scientific of you.
 
citizenzen said:
Again ... some religions give their accounts of the origin of the world and life, and of human history.

Some. Some. Some.
Click to expand...

Which religions don't? How many adherents do they have?

citizenzen said:
Why do you keep describing religion as a monolith and ignore the fact that it encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and practices?
Click to expand...

I don't. I'm merely observing the prevailing religions.

citizenzen said:
You do it because it fits your premise. You reached a conclusion and now simply choose the evidence that agrees with your conclusion. Evidence presented that doesn't agree with your conclusion is ignored.

That isn't very scientific of you.
Click to expand...

No. If religions were merely about morality and "meaning" (whatever that is), I wouldn't claim that they are incompatible with science. But they aren't.
 
Humes fork said:
Which religions don't? How many adherents do they have?
Click to expand...


Here's a webpage that does a very good job of answering the metaphysical questions to which some of you believe the only answer is God the All-Powerful Creator. I'm sharing this with you in an effort to expand your understanding of what some religions believe.

According to Wikipedia, Buddhism is the 5th largest religion in the world, practiced by 400-500 million people. So it is indeed a shame that you continue to overlook it in your desire to describe religion so that it fits your preconceived notions ...


Do Buddhists believe in a god?

No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:

Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
​
...

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy & paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, just cite a short quote and post a link to the source.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Or, the third option, no historical Jesus ever existed and the story is a myth altogether.
Click to expand...

Always a possibility, but we we have some evidence in support of an historical Jesus which is why I tend toward that side. Regardless, almost everything in the stories is a myth so I still don't see what difference it makes either way.
 
Humes fork said:
Which religions don't? How many adherents do they have?
Click to expand...


Jainism has between 8-12 million adherents. It's an interesting combination that believes in some gods, deities and godhoods, but does not see god as creating the universe. In their view, the universe is a natural phenomenon, which puts them in agreement with science ... at least in some aspects.

But that is a key point. Again we see that a religion isn't so simply categorized as the OP and others would have us believe. Their simple depiction or what religion is doesn't match what is being practiced in the real world.


Jainism

... many of my friends in school talk about God. Jesus is their God, Krishna is another God. Can you tell me something about our God?

Many religions say, "God created the world. He maintains it. He controls it. He is very kind. He forgives us for our sins. He knows everything. He makes us happy."


Does Jainism say the same thing about God?

No, Jains have a different concept of God. It is not God, but godhood that can be attained by every soul. He/she who attains it, is omnipotent. He knows everything about all the past, present, and future at the same time. He is free from the four major Karmas. We call these great souls Arihantas. There have been many Arihantas. In present time cycle, there were twenty-four of them who set up the religious order afresh to help us cross the cycles of birth and death. They also re-establish the order of the Jain-Tirth formed of sadhus, sadhvis, male and female house holders and that is why they are also called Tirthankaras. The Jains worship them.


Did they create universe?

No, the world is a natural phenomena. It is eternal which means that it was here from the beginning of time and will be here forever.​
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
"If a supernatural being inspired the Bible, one would expect some evidence the Bible contained knowledge the people who first wrote the stories would not have known without the input from a supernatural being."
Click to expand...


The 'stronger form' of modus tollens works if the consequent necessarily follows from the antecedent. I don't see how your consequent necessarily follows from your antecedent. One might expect any number of things if a supernatural being inspired the Bible, but it doesn't follow that those things would necessarily occur.

The weaker form of modus tollens works as a general argument put does not supply proof. If there are other possible explanations for a consequent -- no supernatural knowledge, say, because the being doesn't want humans to have that knowledge for some reason.

In other words, you can argue against supernatural inspiration and provide absence of evidence as evidence of absence, but you cannot disprove the existence of supernatural inspiration through this means.
 
Humes fork said:
Which religions don't? How many adherents do they have?
Click to expand...


Taoism — Estimates for the number of Taoists worldwide range from twenty million and possibly to as many as 400 million in China alone.


What Do Taoists Believe?

Taoism takes its name from the word "Tao" ("the Way"), the ancient Chinese name for the ordering principle that makes cosmic harmony possible. Not a transcendent ultimate, the Tao is found in the world (especially through nature), and can be encountered directly through mystical experience. It is the ultimate reality as well as the proper natural way of life humans must follow. Taoism prizes naturalness, non-action, and inwardness.

Generally speaking, there are two kinds of Taoism: philosophical and religious. Philosophical Taoism is rational, contemplative, and nonsectarian, and it accepts death as a natural returning to the Tao. Religious Taoism is magical, cultic, esoteric, and sectarian, and it emphasizes health and healing as ways to gain long life or even immortality. T'ai chi and the medical practice of Quigong are modern manifestations of Taoism.


Belief in Deity

The supreme being/ultimate truth is beyond words or any conceptual understanding. When asked to name it, it is referred to as Tao or the Way. The Power of the Way is referred to as Te. Although Tao and Te are similar to other practices' ideas of God, Taoists seldom refer to God.


Origin of Universe and Life

All matter is a manifestation of the Ultimate Reality. Generally, Taoist beliefs don't find modern scientific discoveries contradictory to Taoist thought; hence Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics" is aptly named.​
 
Egg said:
Not snarky at all if you're just showing your reasoning rather than trying to use it to suggest I must be ignorant/lack understanding for disagreeing.

Since you still are under the impression that I'm not understanding Modus tollens, how does the following example work?

If you had overwhelming evidence and a genuine, sound argument that no god(s) exist, atheists and skeptical thinkers would be citing your argument all over the internet. They're not. Not Q then not P.
Click to expand...
It's a reasonable hypothesis however it does not follow for reasons depending upon which of my two arguments you are referring to.

Re the 'follow the evidence and asking the right question', new ideas and paradigm shifts always take time to seep into the mainstream discourse. And in this case, I have seen a number of people in this forum adopt my position. And I doubt I am the first person with this position, I consider myself simply an early adopter pointing it out.

Re the absence of evidence that should be in the Bible if a supernatural being inspired or influenced people involved in writing the Bible, that is an accepted argument and I am not the first person to suggest it. It has been noted by others here in this forum that there are things absent from the Bible which one should expect to see if the Bible were more than human generated fiction. Again, why should this concept become immediately dispersed when theism is still the majority delusion?

Can you find any evidence in the Bible suggesting a supernatural being was involved in advising humans at any time in our development? Citing miracles is not what I speak of here. Knowledge that god gave humans is what I am referring to. Why would a real god tell people to keep people with lesions out of their town to control infection but not advise people to wash their hands? And surely the concept of reflected light was not incomprehensible to humans so why describe the Moon as a light instead of noting it shown with reflected light?

A list of absurdities in the Bible.

Dwindling in Unbelief
1. Leviticus has the most absurdities (158).
2. There are three books that have an unusual number of absurdities for their sizes. Two high (Revelation and Leviticus) and one low (Psalms).
Click to expand...
Not all the absurdities are evidence of the absence of a supernatural being, but many of them are, especially those in Genesis and Leviticus.
 
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp said:
Always a possibility, but we we have some evidence in support of an historical Jesus which is why I tend toward that side. Regardless, almost everything in the stories is a myth so I still don't see what difference it makes either way.
Click to expand...
The evidence of a real Jesus is pretty paltry, but I have only a tentative opinion and have refrained from thoroughly investigating all the arguments. Not worth the time. As you say, it doesn't matter.
 
I'd caution against concluding too much about a religion (and especially its adherents) based on scripture. All scripture is weird. A lot of it stems from a time when magic was perfectly creditable, texts have been pasted together and in many cases translated multiple times.

Now quite a few of you will say un-unh, that's not fair, if you are a Christian you must believe everything literally, etc., but I disagree.

The idea this guy Jesus lived seems perfectly plausible to me - and I actually like the religion better if he didn't rise from the dead. There's no doubt in my mind that 2,000 years ago someone could have been removed (how? claw hammer?) from a cross and buried alive.

Science "incompatible" with religion a broad statement, defensible under some sets of assumptions and not others.
 
Minoosh said:
I'd caution against concluding too much about a religion (and especially its adherents) based on scripture. All scripture is weird. A lot of it stems from a time when magic was perfectly creditable, texts have been pasted together and in many cases translated multiple times.

Now quite a few of you will say un-unh, that's not fair, if you are a Christian you must believe everything literally, etc., but I disagree.

The idea this guy Jesus lived seems perfectly plausible to me - and I actually like the religion better if he didn't rise from the dead. There's no doubt in my mind that 2,000 years ago someone could have been removed (how? claw hammer?) from a cross and buried alive.

Science "incompatible" with religion a broad statement, defensible under some sets of assumptions and not others.
Click to expand...



From the examples provided in the OP I think Sean Carroll's position is that science is equivalent not just to methodological naturalism but to philosophical naturalism -- that the supernatural does not exist. It is the case that the philosophical position of naturalism/materialism is incompatible with the types of religious stances that Carroll is most interested in. It is not the case that philosophical naturalism is opposed to everything that goes under the name of religion.

The way some folks have tried to get out of that issue is by renaming certain religions -- primarily some forms of Buddhism -- as philosophies and not religions at all. I don't agree with that move, but so be it.
 
¿Are some people saying that Science can't study why people will make up such poor excuses to have such a so-called god?

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
¿Are some people saying that Science can't study why people will make up such poor excuses to have such a so-called god?

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...


I don't think so. The counter-claim is that science studies the natural world and religions refer to the supernatural; science cannot absolutely disprove the supernatural.

Scientific investigation can certainly comment on claims of supernatural intervention in the natural world, though -- that is Sean Carroll's claim.

That a supernatural world might exist and remain hidden nothing but speculation can touch. It remains to be seen if 'the supernatural' is a coherent concept in the first place.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
That a supernatural world might exist and remain hidden nothing but speculation can touch.
Click to expand...


I would suggest that what we think is supernatural is in reality natural, and that science will be able to make positive strides in describing and quantifying what today we think is indescribable and unmeasurable.

Sure, some knowledge will remain beyond our grasp. We aren't gods after all.
 
citizenzen said:
I would suggest that what we think is supernatural is in reality natural, and that science will be able to make positive strides in describing and quantifying what today we think is indescribable and unmeasurable.

Sure, some knowledge will remain beyond our grasp. We aren't gods after all.
Click to expand...


I think that depends a bit on what you mean by supernatural. Generally, in the Western tradition, the supernatural is thought to be not only unexplained by science but unexplainable by science or any natural process. The divine is divine because it deserves worship not because it is powerful. Deserving of worship implies perfection and supernatural origin, beyond, other.

Other things that some folks deem supernatural, like ghosts, etc. are thought to be supernatural because we do not have reliable evidence to support them, not because we do not have a reliable theory to account for them. There are plenty of things for which we have reliable evidence that we cannot explain yet.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Generally, in the Western tradition, the supernatural is thought to be not only unexplained by science but unexplainable by science or any natural process. The divine is divine because it deserves worship not because it is powerful. Deserving of worship implies perfection and supernatural origin, beyond, other.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, but I believe you're talking about people's ignorance, misconceptions or preconceived notions ... none of which I put much stock in. How does anybody know what can be explained by science or any natural process? They don't really. The discoveries that science has made in the last hundred years would have at one time seemed like magic or the supernatural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom