Why science and religion are not compatible

[Ichneumonwasp]

You used the word "my" and I don't mean to imply that you are ignorant, or misconceived. I was referring to people in general, not you in particular.

But as for what supernatural things people have in the past (and maybe even present) believed that we now know have natural origins ...

• Garden of Eden / Adam and Eve — we now know we evolved over the course of millions and millions of years from the simplest lifeforms.

• Young Earth — we now know the Earth is billions of years old and have a decent understanding about the natural forces that caused it to come into existence.

• In the past, people have attributed divine origins to fire, lightning, wind, volcanoes, etc. — we now understand the causes for these, and most people accept that they are natural phenomena.​

These are but a few examples of things that were once supernaturally described but now are best described by nature. I believe that the better we understand the world and universe around us, the less we will rely on supernatural explanations and see the rationality to natural ones.

I believe that we've just scratched the surface in our knowledge about the world around us, and as time passes and our knowledge increases we'll rely less and less on supernatural explanations for things we today don't understand.

I agree that we have only scratched the surface about what we know. I guess we can hope that those with a supernatural bent will rely less on supernatural explanations for things we don't really understand, but I'm less sanguine than you about that.

 

[FattyCatty]

May I suggest that SG might start another thread in which she can clearly lay out the evidence and supporting arguments and answer questions and objections? It often comes up and usually as part of some other discussion, so she tends to only get a chance to present a brief overview of the evidence/arguments which presented in such a way as to not take over the thread don't come across as particularly convincing.

I realise it might be a large, time consuming task, but it would make a good reference for her to point to and probably ultimately save a lot of time.

Good idea. I hope she decides to do this.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You've totally confused me with this paragraph, but I'll try my best to figure it out. Firstly: I thought one used the evidence/observations to find out whether expectations of an idea hold true. You say it works the other way? You take a bunch of evidence/observations and come up with an hypothesis? I guess that's part of the circular process.

Secondly, how could "the concept that new evidence is always possible ha[ve] been abused when it comes to god beliefs"? Isn't it fundamental to good science that new evidence is always possible and that it is always possible to change the conclusions if new evidence demands it?

Thirdly, you can't prove a negative. So you are correct that you are not able to prove that gods don't exist. This does not mean that they do exist either. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't want to place myself in the middle of your apparently long argument, but a few points.

Science works by beginning with observations. We then propose hypotheses to account for those observations and then test if the hypotheses hold water with other observations. If they pass the test we hold onto them.

This is not circular reasoning.


And absence of evidence when one makes a concerted effort is evidence of absence. It is not proof of absence, but it certainly is evidence of absence.

 

[Dani]

Everybody has their own version of God. Some are close to the "accepted definition", whatever that is, some are so far from that as to be alien to the original. It's only a personal opinion what a god is or isn't, and in the end it just a fiction anyway. This puts it outside the realm of science.

If someone (like Spinoza) defines God as a synonym of nature, then God, as it is defined by this person, exists. It makes the word God quite useless, but I'm aware that this is one of the existing uses of this word.

Like Karl Popper said, the testability of a theory increases with its informative content, and the more information a claim contains, the greater will be the number of ways in which it may turn out to be false. That is, the more informative a claim is, the more restrictive its probability of being true is. For example, "most people like Star Wars" is more informative than "many people like Star Wars". In fact, the first claim is scientifically testable while the latter is quite useless because you'll have to define many in the first place. This happens with concepts too. In Spinoza's definition of God, the problem is redundance more than lack of information. This tends to obfuscate rather than facilitate communication, because we already have a word for that concept, nature, so why complicate things with a non standard use of an alternative word? In other cases, where God is not clearly defined, the claim is outside the realm of science in a similar way "many people liked that movie" is (how many people is "many people"?). Also, indiscernible and absurd claims are outside the realm of science. They are not true or false, they're useless.

People demand clarity in order to make a claim testable, and people often obfuscate in order to make their claim untestable (or even trivially true) and get away with it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If someone (like Spinoza) defines God as a synonym of nature, then God, as it is defined by this person, exists. It makes the word God quite useless, but I'm aware that this is one of the existing uses of this word.

Like Karl Popper said, the testability of a theory increases with its informative content, and the more information a claim contains, the greater will be the number of ways in which it may turn out to be false. That is, the more informative a claim is, the more restrictive its probability of being true is. For example, "most people like Star Wars" is more informative than "many people like Star Wars". In fact, the first claim is scientifically testable while the latter is quite useless because you'll have to define many in the first place. This happens with concepts too. In Spinoza's definition of God, the problem is redundance more than lack of information. This tends to obfuscate rather than facilitate communication, because we already have a word for that concept, nature, so why complicate things with a non standard use of an alternative word? In other cases, where God is not clearly defined, the claim is outside the realm of science in a similar way "many people liked that movie" is (how many people is "many people"?). Also, indiscernible and absurd claims are outside the realm of science. They are not true or false, they're useless.

People demand clarity in order to make a claim testable, and people often obfuscate in order to make their claim untestable (or even trivially true) and get away with it.

Not that he needs defending, but there are a few reasons why Spinoza offered that solution.

1. I think he saw that solution as the logical conclusion of both the ontological and cosmological arguments. I think when looked at closely neither of those arguments allow us to say anything about this god character aside from Being.

2. It provides a useful marker denoting one's orientation to nature; religion can certainly be viewed as an attitude or orientation to the universe as much as a group of beliefs.


But, with that said, great post. I agree with you completely.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm confused as to why you would think I was offering evidence that the supernatural might exist. It is possible that it exists and is hidden; but there is nothing anyone can say about it then.

If one is going to cite "it is possible" and nothing else in the way of evidence suggesting "it is possible", one is essentially citing "it is possible" as evidence. I know that was not your intent, and I fully trust your critical thinking skills and knowledge of the scientific process.

But you are nonetheless, intentional or not, citing "it might exist" as evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Good idea. I hope she decides to do this.

Been there, done that. I'll post a couple links when I have time to find them, though I don't give much weight to Egg's failure to be be convinced. I don't believe that represents the opinions of everyone on my position.

But first, on to your long reply.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... Skeptic Ginger, I think we've been this way before and that we will always disagree about this. These aren't apologies, they are reasons. The belief in God(s) is a matter of faith, not fact, and not a matter for science, which examines the natural world. I hope you checked out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link, it was very interesting.

For the record, the definition of "apology" as I'm using it is a reason. The apology/reason, however, has certain implications that amount to excusing something. In the case of Bible apologetics, there are excuses for why the Bible is wrought with errors. If the Creation story doesn't match the geological, biological and cosmological evidence, just call it a parable. If it makes no sense, claim God has a reason we just don't know what that reason is, and so on.

In the case of faith vs evidence, the apology merely comes from the other side. If all the evidence fails to support the conclusion that a god or gods exist, declare the god belief outside the realm of science. Divide a lack of supporting evidence into two categories, the things scientific evidence actually debunks and so called "faith based beliefs". What, pray tell, is the difference? When you look at the fine print, nothing.

Not all the quotes I gave were espousing NOMA specifically, although they may have been similar. And to offset those you dismiss as "scientists who prefer not to challenge god beliefs" are those whom I will dismiss as scientists who prefer to re-define science and turn it into a "quasi-religion" because they don't believe in God (followers of Methodological Naturalism). According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it is this group, rather than theistic religion, that has a science/religion conflict.

Perhaps I'm confused by your post here but the Sanford Encyclopedia authors are hardly a definitive source to define a groups of scientists as treating science as a religion because they are atheists. I'm trying to parse your statement some other way but failing.

Scientists who prefer to not challenge god beliefs you dismiss as preferring to "redefine science" and turn it into a quasi-religion? Huh? Surely you are not trying to say if I dismiss god beliefs then science must be my religion.


As for who has the conflict, it is those who define their position in conflict. That's different from an empirical conflict. A theist and/or scientist who buys into NOMA doesn't have a conflict. An atheist and/or scientist who does not buy into NOMA could just find god beliefs the same as other woo and not see any conflict, just dismissal.

It is the empirical conflict I refer to here. If NOMA, then no conflict. If not NOMA, then scientific analysis finds gods are fictional beings. I'm not sure what third option you think exists. Either gods are fiction (the evidence supports this), or, real and part of the natural world (the evidence says not), or, real but part of the supernatural world or something similar science doesn't address, (IMO an apology for why the evidence says not).

To repeat a quote from the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism:This is not a "non-confrontational apology" but an explanation of the reason God is outside the realm of science. Science and religion "address aspects of human understanding in different ways." Science cannot answer all questions about all things.

The phrase "double standard" is also incorrect, as this section of Understanding Science demonstrates:

You are not posting anything new here. You are just repeating the NOMA argument.

....I think calling religion or belief in religion/God "not thinking," "magical," "grandiose," and other such things does not show toleration of religion by anyone. As to the "consequences of such tolerance," I would usually considered them benign. For instance, tolerance might encourage students to believe in or even study evolution; it might encourage funding for science; it might help bring back a better level of science education (particularly biology) in the U.S.; it might lead to an increasing respect for the conclusions of science (e.g., global warming).

There is not a "double standard." This is an opinion not borne out by evidence. See above.

Apply all this to any other 'woo' belief and see what the double standard is. Why is a god belief any less magical than believing homeopathy works?

As I said at the beginning of this post, we'll have to agree to disagree on whether science can or cannot prove that gods don't exist.

I don't disagree with people who say there is no way to prove gods don't exist. I say, why is it even relevant? Do you care that science cannot prove Harry Potter's world does not exist? Can you say with confidence the evidence supports the conclusion Harry Potter is a work of fiction? I can say with confidence that god beliefs are also derived from works of fiction.

And yet, when I change perspective the other way, I discover that faith/religion/spiritualism/belief in God, whatever you want to call it (except god belief - a detestable phrase from a language standpoint, and one I refuse to use) does indeed "serve some purpose science cannot." It answers questions science doesn't address; e.g., Is there a God? Why am I here? What happens after I die? Science deals with things of nature. Religion deals with things of the mind (as opposed to the brain) and spirit.

More NOMA arguments, nothing new.

I have learned a lot since joining this Forum about how wonderful the things science tells us can be. How complex some things are and how small variations can have significant effects. How things have to happen just so for a certain result to occur. According to one physicist, J.C., Polkinghorne, in Belief in God in an Age of Science:And a biologist, M.D., and former atheist, Francis S. Collins, the former director of the Human Genome Project, said at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s Faith Angle Conference:

The Universe is fascinating, no god beliefs needed.

BTW, the reason I use the term, god beliefs, is to point out what they actually are. So you find a boiled down to the essence but nonetheless valid description to be unacceptable. Interesting.

How Nietzschean of you. Please provide the evidence you mention. It will be hard for either of us to find evidence; neither of us was around when man first evolved, there was no writing, and there are no time machines. So I'll just provide another point of view: Jay R. Feierman, The Biology of Religious Behavior: The Evolutionary Origins of Faith and
Religion, page 81:

I addressed this already in this thread. (post cite pending)

You've totally confused me with this paragraph, but I'll try my best to figure it out. Firstly: I thought one used the evidence/observations to find out whether expectations of an idea hold true. You say it works the other way? You take a bunch of evidence/observations and come up with an hypothesis? I guess that's part of the circular process.

You are confused, but you are not the only one in this thread to have this same confusion.

First one makes observations. One does not start with wild speculation and go off testing hypotheses willy nilly. The observations lead to conclusions. Then one tests the conclusion to confirm or refute it.

Secondly, how could "the concept that new evidence is always possible ha[ve] been abused when it comes to god beliefs"? Isn't it fundamental to good science that new evidence is always possible and that it is always possible to change the conclusions if new evidence demands it?

Again, the problem is starting with a conclusion for which the only evidence is "people believe". I merely expanded the variables as one should do in a proper scientific investigation.

The observation: people believe.
The possible explanations:

Real gods interacted with people
People made up god fiction (the reasons why are part of the evidence but not part of this hypothesis per se)​

I'm going to have to come back to the rest of your post. It really is just a rehash of stuff that has been discussed. I have to get back to work.

 

[FattyCatty]

I don't want to place myself in the middle of your apparently long argument, but a few points.

Science works by beginning with observations. We then propose hypotheses to account for those observations and then test if the hypotheses hold water with other observations. If they pass the test we hold onto them.

This is not circular reasoning.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that it was circular reasoning, but that the process was circular, as described in on the Understanding Science site I had quoted in a previous post; I couldn't copy the interactive graphic that shows the circular nature of the process:

The process of science is iterative.

Science circles back on itself so that useful ideas are built upon and used to learn even more about the natural world. This often means that successive investigations of a topic lead back to the same question, but at deeper and deeper levels.
<snip>

And absence of evidence when one makes a concerted effort is evidence of absence. It is not proof of absence, but it certainly is evidence of absence.

I disagree. It is not the concerted effort that is important, but whether the ability to find the evidence is present (e.g., detection method or specific knowledge). There is not method for finding something outside of nature (e.g., God, soul, life after death) From Wikipedia:

Distinguishing absence of evidence from evidence of absence________________________________________________________________
Absence of Evidence is a condition in which no valid conclusion can be inferred from the mere absence of detection, normally due to doubt in the detection method. Evidence of absence is the successful variation: a conclusion that relies on specific knowledge in conjunction with negative detection to deduce the absence of something. An example of evidence of absence is checking your pockets for spare change and finding nothing but being confident that the search would have found it if it was there.

Formal argument

By determining that a given experiment or method of detection is sensitive and reliable enough to detect the presence of X (when X is present) one can confidently exclude the possibility that X may be both undetected and present. This allows one to deduce that X cannot be present if a null result is received.

Thus there are only two possibilities, given a null result:

Nothing detected, and X is not present.
Nothing detected, but X is present (Option eliminated by careful research design).
To the extent that option 2 can be eliminated, one can deduce that if X is not detected then X is not present and therefore the null result is evidence of absence.

This Formal argument and example, as well as your statement, apply only when the "method of detection is sensitive and reliable enough to detect the presence of X." But God, as they say in Understanding Science, is without a basis in the physical universe and so not subject to the laws of that universe (outside the realm of nature); therefore, God cannot be studied with the tools of science. So concerning God, absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

 

[FattyCatty]

<snip>
I'm going to have to come back to the rest of your post. It really is just a rehash of stuff that has been discussed. I have to get back to work.

Well, we both believe what we believe and aren't convinced by the other person.

Anyway, I'm a little under the weather right now and have to go pick up my medicine and go back to bed. I'll respond to your post later tonight.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I disagree. It is not the concerted effort that is important, but whether the ability to find the evidence is present (e.g., detection method or specific knowledge). There is not method for finding something outside of nature (e.g., God, soul, life after death)

Hence it not being proof of absence. It is still evidence of absence. If I look in my pocket and find no money that is evidence of the absence of money in my pocket. If I look for God and do not find him that is evidence for the absence of God in the places I looked using the tools that I used to look for him. It simply doesn't disprove the existence of God because this isn't a proof. You can even argue that it isn't particularly good evidence, and I would agree with you; but you can't successfully argue that it isn't evidence.

From Wikipedia:This Formal argument and example, as well as your statement, apply only when the "method of detection is sensitive and reliable enough to detect the presence of X." But God, as they say in Understanding Science, is without a basis in the physical universe and so not subject to the laws of that universe (outside the realm of nature); therefore, God cannot be studied with the tools of science. So concerning God, absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

Hence my reference to concerted effort. It does no good for me to say that there is evidence of no money in my pocket if I looked in a small area with an electron microscope. Looking for God, through whatever means, in the physical universe is evidence of the absence of God in the physical universe if we can't find him using a concerted effort and approaching the issue in a way that we might well expect to find him. It is not evidence of the absence of God in some supernatural realm because we haven't looked there. It is also not very good evidence of the absence of God in the physical universe since I doubt that we have a very good grasp on how to go about looking in the first place.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If one is going to cite "it is possible" and nothing else in the way of evidence suggesting "it is possible", one is essentially citing "it is possible" as evidence. I know that was not your intent, and I fully trust your critical thinking skills and knowledge of the scientific process.

But you are nonetheless, intentional or not, citing "it might exist" as evidence.

'It is possible' is not 'evidence' in any traditional sense, but sure I guess it fits the general definition broadly construed. It is possible that God exists in a supernatural realm logically. We cannot disprove it logically, so it is possible. By that reasoning your earlier assertion that it does not constitute evidence (what is used to support or refute an argument) is simply wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

'It is possible' is not 'evidence' in any traditional sense, but sure I guess it fits the general definition broadly construed. It is possible that God exists in a supernatural realm logically. We cannot disprove it logically, so it is possible. By that reasoning your earlier assertion that it does not constitute evidence (what is used to support or refute an argument) is simply wrong.

I don't doubt that when you think it through, you are not referring to "evidence". But "can't disprove gods exist" is almost always cited when the discussion is about whether gods exist or not. If I were to say, "you cannot 'prove' invisible garage dragons don't exist", you would not likely hear that statement in a discussion that was suggesting they might. So why do we not view the statement exactly the same when the discussion of gods existing comes up?

 

[Egg]

I don't doubt that when you think it through, you are not referring to "evidence". But "can't disprove gods exist" is almost always cited when the discussion is about whether gods exist or not. If I were to say, "you cannot 'prove' invisible garage dragons don't exist", you would not likely hear that statement in a discussion that was suggesting they might. So why do we not view the statement exactly the same when the discussion of gods existing comes up?

Actually, since the dragon thing was was concocted by Sagan to deal with this exact kind of argument, the "you cannot prove it" kind of goes hand in hand with garage dragons. Beyond that, there's the plausibility issue with god(s) which is a question of philosophy and there are hundreds of thousands of testimonies of personal experience. While, of course, this doesn't stand up in the face of scientific rigour, it does put the issue in a different category from garage dragons in most people's eyes.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't doubt that when you think it through, you are not referring to "evidence". But "can't disprove gods exist" is almost always cited when the discussion is about whether gods exist or not. If I were to say, "you cannot 'prove' invisible garage dragons don't exist", you would not likely hear that statement in a discussion that was suggesting they might. So why do we not view the statement exactly the same when the discussion of gods existing comes up?

What makes you think I view those statements differently? I can't logically prove that invisible garage dragons exist. They might possibly, logically, exist. The statement that gods might exist logically is on the same footing.

You are the one applying the word evidence to this issue.

If we want better evidence for the existence of gods or God we have to look elsewhere. Logical possibility doesn't help anyone in that regard. The logical possibility of God or gods is used not to promote the idea that God or gods exist but that you cannot disprove their existence on logical grounds. We also cannot disprove God or gods on empirical grounds. We can raise very serious doubts as to their existence, however.

 

[FattyCatty]

Hence it not being proof of absence. It is still evidence of absence. If I look in my pocket and find no money that is evidence of the absence of money in my pocket. If I look for God and do not find him that is evidence for the absence of God in the places I looked using the tools that I used to look for him. It simply doesn't disprove the existence of God because this isn't a proof. You can even argue that it isn't particularly good evidence, and I would agree with you; but you can't successfully argue that it isn't evidence.

It seems to me that your example of looking for change has some implied premises or assumptions: you are looking for evidence of something in the natural world; you know there is a possibility of finding change in your pocket because it has happened in the past (there is expectation); you are certain that if there is change in your pocket, you will be able to find it using the tools of science (in this case, looking with your eyes or feeling with your hands).

But I think that the "change-in-pocket" situation is not the same as a "does God exist?" situation. A "God doesn't exist because there is no evidence" argument has no way of finding evidence and being valid because of its implied premises or assumptions: you are trying to look for evidence of something outside of the natural world, which can't be done by science; you don't know whether or not there is a possibility of finding it because it hasn't happened before (no expectation); you are certain that even if God exists, you will not be able to find Him using the tools of science (you might find evidence of some of His actions, but not of God Himself).

I had snipped some of the Wikipedia stuff about the change-in-the-pocket argument earlier. Here it is now:

Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests (via certain types of inference or deduction) the non-existence or non-presence of something. A simple example of evidence of absence: checking one's pocket for spare change and finding nothing but being confident that one would have found it if it were there. This is an example of modus tollens, a type of logical argument.

In this regard Irving Copi writes:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

In an argument about God, you can't have that expectation based on finding God before (unless you count faith as evidence). Because God is not in the natural realm, because God is outside the purview of science, God cannot be looked for with the tools of science; there can be no "qualified investigators" in science able to look for God. Therefore, one cannot expect to find evidence of God even if He exists.

Hence my reference to concerted effort. It does no good for me to say that there is evidence of no money in my pocket if I looked in a small area with an electron microscope. Looking for God, through whatever means, in the physical universe is evidence of the absence of God in the physical universe if we can't find him using a concerted effort and approaching the issue in a way that we might well expect to find him. It is not evidence of the absence of God in some supernatural realm because we haven't looked there. It is also not very good evidence of the absence of God in the physical universe since I doubt that we have a very good grasp on how to go about looking in the first place.

I have to disagree that we might well expect to find God in the physical universe. God must exist outside the physical universe (i.e., outside of nature) to have created that universe. So, because God is a supernatural being, science cannot use its tools to find evidence of His existence. Science might look for evidence of His works, but not of God Himself. Therefore, absence of evidence of God in the physical universe is not evidence of the absence of God, because He exists outside the physical universe. It is true, as you say here, that absence of evidence of God in the physical universe (where we would not expect to find him) is evidence of His absence in the physical universe; but evidence only for that circumstance, and not evidence of His absence in general. Just because I can't be found in Russia doesn't mean I don't exist.

I'm not sure if I said what I meant clearly enough. And you may fault my attempts at logical thinking. But they have helped me immensely to clarify what I think and believe on this subject.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It seems to me that your example of looking for change has some implied premises or assumptions: you are looking for evidence of something in the natural world; you know there is a possibility of finding change in your pocket because it has happened in the past (there is expectation); you are certain that if there is change in your pocket, you will be able to find it using the tools of science (in this case, looking with your eyes or feeling with your hands).

But I think that the "change-in-pocket" situation is not the same as a "does God exist?" situation. A "God doesn't exist because there is no evidence" argument has no way of finding evidence and being valid because of its implied premises or assumptions: you are trying to look for evidence of something outside of the natural world, which can't be done by science; you don't know whether or not there is a possibility of finding it because it hasn't happened before (no expectation); you are certain that even if God exists, you will not be able to find Him using the tools of science (you might find evidence of some of His actions, but not of God Himself).

I had snipped some of the Wikipedia stuff about the change-in-the-pocket argument earlier. Here it is now:In an argument about God, you can't have that expectation based on finding God before (unless you count faith as evidence). Because God is not in the natural realm, because God is outside the purview of science, God cannot be looked for with the tools of science; there can be no "qualified investigators" in science able to look for God. Therefore, one cannot expect to find evidence of God even if He exists.

I don't recall saying or even implying that the two -- looking for change in one's pocket and looking for God -- are the same.

What I objected to was your use of the trite phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"


I will repeat again: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is not proof of absence and it needs to be interpreted in context. In particular contexts it may be piss-poor evidence; but it is still evidence.

Whether or not God can or cannot be looked for with science is beside the point when it comes to making the claim that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You seem to take 'evidence of absence' in some sort of absolute sense, that if there is evidence then the conclusion must be correct. That is not correct, though. In court cases there is plenty of evidence that can work for and against claims; the presence of evidence does not imply the conclusion. The force of an argument helps us decide if a conclusion is true or not; and the relevance, lack of ambiguity, lack of equivocation over terms, etc. make for stronger arguments when evidence is applied.

Not finding God in the physical universe is very strong evidence against him if one thinks God is in the physical universe and/or acts in the physical universe on a regular basis. If I thought God was a 12 foot tall Sycamore that walked about Manhattan dispensing playbills to passersby, then I think you would be very correct to tell me that the absence of evidence for such a being is a strong argument against it likely existing.

If God exists out of the universe or is the universe itself, the only evidence we might find is through intelligent action occurring without any obvious intelligent agent through the workings of the universe. Not finding strong evidence of such is evidence of its absence.

I am not proposing a 'God does not exist because there is no evidence of him' argument here. Please do not confuse me with SG. I am objecting to a phrase that you used.

I have to disagree that we might well expect to find God in the physical universe. God must exist outside the physical universe (i.e., outside of nature) to have created that universe. So, because God is a supernatural being, science cannot use its tools to find evidence of His existence. Science might look for evidence of His works, but not of God Himself. Therefore, absence of evidence of God in the physical universe is not evidence of the absence of God, because He exists outside the physical universe. It is true, as you say here, that absence of evidence of God in the physical universe (where we would not expect to find him) is evidence of His absence in the physical universe; but evidence only for that circumstance, and not evidence of His absence in general. Just because I can't be found in Russia doesn't mean I don't exist.

I'm not sure if I said what I meant clearly enough. And you may fault my attempts at logical thinking. But they have helped me immensely to clarify what I think and believe on this subject.

It's fine with me if you object to finding God in the physical universe; I didn't say that we should. I said that if we could expect to find him there and used the approptiate means to uncover him, then the absence of evidence for him would be evidence of absence.

I am not arguing that this indicates his absence in general. It might, or it might not. It is certainly evidence that he might not exist at all. It isn't proof of his radical absence, though.

I thought I made it clear that I don't think we can even formulate how to look for God effectively depending on one's definition of God. When people make claims about God and indicate his intervention in the physical universe though, this does open the possibility of his detection, of science being able to investigate. In that situation the absence of evidence is, again, evidence of absence. One may argue that it is really only evidence of absence of lasting effect or something other along those lines; there are all sorts of potential arguments.


God is not a special case. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence as we define those words.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's hard to revisit topics I've posted a lot about when I'm in my busiest work season. My apologies and I don't expect any of you to read through the following threads. But here they are nonetheless:

Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

Taking a second look at untestable gods.

 

[FattyCatty]

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get to this, but before I reply to your post, Skeptic Ginger, I wanted to give the times in the video linked at the end of my post #896 (J.C. Polkinghorne said in a lecture at the Royal Society). The transcript was edited because it was too long. Note that there is a Click Here time that is not necessarily the same as the Start Quote time. This is because this video has start points you must use instead of being able to start at any time.

Click on 7:32; quote starts at 7:43 right after "...the discoveries of their experimental colleagues." Quote ends at 11:47 at "But the quantum world can only be known according to its Heisenburgian uncertainty and fitful probability."

Click on 12:03; quote starts there with "If the study of science teaches us anything..."; quote ends at 14:04 with "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test is just a fact of the spiritual life."

Click on 14:18; quote begins at 14:28 right after "...commit the sinful error of attempting magic." Quote ends at with 14:46 with "Together they constitute our encounter with the reality within which we live."

Click on 18:14; quote begins at 18:18 right after "...religious belief also comes under this Polanyian rubrik." Quote ends at 19:49 with "because the subject matter of the two discourses differs in the ways that we have been considering."

Click on 22:45; quote starts at 22:54 right after "...the same had also been true, alas, of non-believers." Quote ends at 28:07 with "It is that delicate balance between order and disorder that enables true novelty to come into being and to remain in being."

For the record, the definition of "apology" as I'm using it is a reason. The apology/reason, however, has certain implications that amount to excusing something. In the case of Bible apologetics, there are excuses for why the Bible is wrought with errors. If the Creation story doesn't match the geological, biological and cosmological evidence, just call it a parable. If it makes no sense, claim God has a reason we just don't know what that reason is, and so on.

Do you mean your definition of "apology" in the sense of justification, defense, excuse (from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary)?

Definition of APOLOGY

a : a formal justification : defense
b : excuse 2a

Because the implications of the word may be different for different people. You say excuse, implying to me that something is wrong that needs excusing; I say defense, implying that I am countering an attack. So why complicate the discussion by using a loaded word when you can just use the word reason, which is neutral. To make it easier for me in my attempt to parse your statements, I will change your use of apology to reason, as that's what you say it means.

Your references here confuse me. I haven't been talking about the Bible or about the "Creation story." Why are they suddenly showing up? I have nowhere said that belief in God(s) requires belief in or use of the Bible or the "Creation story." There are plenty of God(s) besides the Judeo/Christian God. Nor have I said whether or not I believe in either of those things. They just aren't relevant here.

For In the case of faith vs evidence, the apology reason merely comes from the other side.

Your sentence is confusing. Which side is the "other side"? Faith or evidence? What do you mean "merely"? What are you trying to say?

If all the evidence fails to support the conclusion that a god or gods exist, declare the god belief outside the realm of science.

God, as part of the 'supernatural world,' was said to be outside the realm of science as part of the explanation of what science is, what is does, and what it doesn't do; not as a reason "all the evidence fails to support the conclusion that a god or gods exist...."

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/gottlieb.html

Science, as an intellectual activity, encompasses observations about the natural world that can be measured and quantified, and the ideas based thereon can be tested, verified, falsified, or modified.

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html

1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.

Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology​

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html

What is Science?

Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding¹. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.
<snip>
So what does all this mean? It means that science does not presently, and probably never can, give statements of absolute eternal truth - it only provides theories. We know that those theories will probably be refined in the future, and some of them may even be discarded in favor of theories that make more sense in light of data generated by future scientists. However, our present theories are our best available explanations of the world. They explain, and have been tested against, a vast amount of information.

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html

What Science Isn't, Part I: A Historical Perspective

Many historians suggest that modern science began around 1600 in the time and with the efforts of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), and Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Their era punctuated the change from scholasticism of the Middle Ages and Renaissance to science as we know it. Scholasticism largely involved deductive reasoning from principles supplied by Aristotle, by scripture, or by notions of perfection (which largely involved circles and spheres). It was thus a "top-down" intellectual enterprise. Modern science instead involved induction from multiple observations of nature, and so worked "bottom-up" from basic observation or experiment to generalization. In the words of Bacon's Novum organum, "For man is but the servant or interpreter of nature; what he does and what he knows is only what he has observed of nature's order in fact or in thought; beyond this he knows nothing and can do nothing. . . . All depends on keeping the eye steadily fixed upon the facts of nature and so receiving the images simply as they are."
<snip>
Science, in contrast, is the attempt to reach demonstrable, replicable, conclusions about the natural world (and social science is the corresponding attempt to reach demonstrable conclusions about the social or human world).
<snip>
Science and religion are very different, both in what they try to do and in the approaches they use to accomplish their goals. Science seeks to explain the origin, nature, and processes of the physically detectable universe. Religion seeks (or religions seek) to explain the meaning of human existence, to define the nature of the human soul, to justify the existence of an afterlife for humans, and to maintain devotion to a diety or deities. Their goals are thus very different.

Thier methods are also very different. Science uses physical evidence to answer its questions and relies on modern humans to make inferences from that evidence. Religions, on the other hand, commonly use divine inspiration, interpretation of ancient texts, and (in some cases) personal insight as the source of the answers to their questions. Science and religion thus are not, or should not be, competing approaches, because they seek to accomplish different things, and by different methods. In light of these fundamental differences in goal and method, science and religion are distinct but mutually compatible paradigms (a term we will explore further in the next section)
<snip>

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science9.html

Does this mean that there is no god?

No, it doesn't mean that. The results of science suggest that there isn't a god who created the world 6000 years ago, and that there isn't a god who made humans in his or her own image as his or her own special point of attention.
<snip>
However, none of this precludes the existence of a deity - an as-yet-unseen very knowledgeable being in some way cognizant of, and perhaps even responsible for, what we call the universe. No one will ever be able to prove that there is no god, or are no gods.

Divide a lack of supporting evidence into two categories, the things scientific evidence actually debunks and so called "faith based beliefs". What, pray tell, is the difference? When you look at the fine print, nothing.

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html

Science is the concerted effort by very real human beings to understand the history of the natural world and how the natural world works. Observable physical evidence, either from observations of nature or from experiments that try to simulate nature, is the basis of that understanding.

Your first category is concerned with elements of the natural world (the physical universe) that are testable; science has the tools to make observations and/or measurements there to use as evidence confirming (or otherwise) expectations.

Your second category (why scare quotes?) is concerned with supernatural entities, forces, and processes (i.e., they are not part of the natural world) that are not testable; science does not have the tools to make observations and/or measurements there to use as evidence, and so science cannot confirm (or otherwise) expectations (or existence).

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science, but that doesn't mean that these realms are unimportant. In fact, domains such as ethics, aesthetics, and religion fundamentally influence human societies and how those societies interact with science. Neither are such domains unscholarly. In fact, topics like aesthetics, morality, and theology are actively studied by philosophers, historians, and other scholars. However, questions that arise within these domains generally cannot be resolved by science.

• There are things in the natural world (the physical world) that science can observe and/or measure. They are testable. Science has the tools to make observations and/or measurements, which are used as evidence to support or oppose hypotheses. They are "in the realm of science."
  
  
• There are things that are intangible, though not in the supernatural world, that science cannot observe and/or measure, (e.g., judgements on morals, aesthetics, how to use scientific knowledge; ideas on meaning, values, purpose). They are "outside the realm of science."
  
  
• There are things in the supernatural world (i.e., outside the natural or physical world) that science cannot observe and/or measure (e.g., God(s), ghosts, life after death). They are "outside the realm of science."

Perhaps I'm confused by your post here but the Sanford Encyclopedia authors are hardly a definitive source to define a groups of scientists as treating science as a religion because they are atheists. I'm trying to parse your statement some other way but failing. Scientists who prefer to not challenge god beliefs you dismiss as preferring to "redefine science" and turn it into a quasi-religion? Huh? Surely you are not trying to say if I dismiss god beliefs then science must be my religion.

Similarly, I'm having trouble parsing your sentences. If I read it correctly, you seem to have totally misunderstood the quote. The use of "quasi-religion" was not because the proponents are atheists, but because they co-opt the functions of religion.

My use of a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was addressing the conflict of science and religion. It shows an instance where the conflict appears to be not between religion and science, but between those attempting to mandate their definition of science (i.e., the quasi-religion) and science. And I do consider the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to be a valid source on questions of conflicts between science and religion (there are so many different opinions on this subject that there wouldn't be any definitive source).

Maybe you didn't read the source, but just my quote, which was truncated. In case you still don't want to read the source, I'll expand on the quote.

5. Naturalism and Science

So far we've examined alleged conflict between theistic religious belief and science with respect to several areas: evolution, divine action in the world, the difference between the scientific attitude and the religious attitude, evolutionary psychology, and HBC. But some have suggested a science/religion (or science/quasi-religion) conflict of a wholly different sort: one between naturalism and science. (Otte 2002; Plantinga 1993, 2002a; Rea 2002; Taylor 1963); there are also hints of this effect in Nietzsche (2003) and in Darwin himself (1887).

Now naturalism comes in several different colors and flavors. First, there is the view that nature is all there is; there are no supernatural beings. Of course this is a bit slim as an explanation of naturalism; we need to know what nature is, and what allegedly supernatural beings might be like. Perhaps a way to proceed would be to say that naturalism, so conceived, is the view that there is no such person as the God of theism, or anything like God (see, e.g., Beilby 2002). Call this ‘naturalism₁’. Another variety of naturalism, ‘scientific naturalism’, we might call it, would be the claim that there are no entities in addition to those endorsed by contemporary science (Kornblith 1994).^[12] Given that current science endorses no supernatural beings, scientific naturalism implies naturalism₁. There is also what we might call ‘epistemological naturalism’, according to which, roughly speaking, the methods of science are the only proper epistemic methods (Krikorian 1944). With the help of a couple of fairly obvious premises, epistemological naturalism also implies naturalism₁, and I'll use ‘naturalism’ to refer to the disjunction of the three versions of naturalism sketched. Advocates of naturalism thus conceived would be (for example) Bertrand Russell (1957), Daniel Dennett (1995), Richard Dawkins (1986), David Armstrong (1978), and the many others that are sometimes said to endorse “The Scientific World-View.”

Naturalism is presumably not a religion. In one very important respect, however, it resembles religion: it can be said to perform the cognitive function of a religion. There is that range of deep human questions to which a religion typically provides an answer (above, Section I): what is the fundamental nature of the universe: for example, is it mind first, or matter (non-mind) first? What is most real and basic in it, and what kinds of entities does it display? What is the place of human beings in the universe, and what is their relation to the rest of the world? Are there prospects for life after death? Is there such a thing as sin, or some analogue of sin? If so, what are the prospects of combating or overcoming it? Where must we look to improve the human condition? Is there such a thing as a summum bonum, a highest good for human beings, and if so what is it? Like a typical religion, naturalism gives a set of answers to these and similar questions. We may therefore say that naturalism performs the cognitive function of a religion, and hence can sensibly be thought of as a quasi-religion.

As for who has the conflict, it is those who define their position in conflict. That's different from an empirical conflict. A theist and/or scientist who buys into NOMA doesn't have a conflict. An atheist and/or scientist who does not buy into NOMA could just find god beliefs the same as other woo and not see any conflict, just dismissal.

It is the empirical conflict I refer to here. If NOMA, then no conflict. If not NOMA, then scientific analysis finds gods are fictional beings. I'm not sure what third option you think exists. Either gods are fiction (the evidence supports this), or, real and part of the natural world (the evidence says not), or, real but part of the supernatural world or something similar science doesn't address, (IMO an apology for why the evidence says not).

The conflict is with your opinions and science. You keep trying to make your position scientific. It isn't. If your premise is valid scientifically, prove it. Show me evidence admissible under the standard definition(s) of science.

You are not posting anything new here. You are just repeating the NOMA argument.

And you are just repeating your incorrect view.

Apply all this to any other 'woo' belief and see what the double standard is. Why is a god belief any less magical than believing homeopathy works?

I pointed out to you in my post why this statement is untrue. To refresh your memory,

<snip>The phrase "double standard" is also incorrect, as this section of Understanding Science demonstrates:

Within science, the term natural refers to any element of the physical universe — whether made by humans or not. This includes matter, the forces that act on matter, energy, the constituents of the biological world, humans, human society, and the products of that society.
<snip>
In practice, what's natural is often identified by testability. Natural things behave in predictable ways — though we may not yet fully understand them — which have observable outcomes. This predictability means that we can test hypotheses about natural entities by making observations. Ghosts, for example, are supernatural entities without a basis in the physical universe and so are not subject to the laws of that universe. Hence, ghosts are outside the purview of science, and we cannot study their existence (or lack thereof) with the tools of science. If, however, we hypothesize ghosts to be natural entities, made up of matter and energy and bound by the laws of the universe, then we can study them with the tools of science — and must accept the outcome if the tests we perform suggest that ghosts do not exist as natural entities.

I don't disagree with people who say there is no way to prove gods don't exist. I say, why is it even relevant? Do you care that science cannot prove Harry Potter's world does not exist? Can you say with confidence the evidence supports the conclusion Harry Potter is a work of fiction? I can say with confidence that god beliefs are also derived from works of fiction.

It is relevant to my understanding to the universe, so it is relevant to me. It is relevant because of the questions science cannot answer that religion addresses (e.g., ...that range of deep human questions to which a religion typically provides an answer..." mentioned above).

More NOMA arguments, nothing new.

More denial of what science is, nothing new.

The Universe is fascinating, no god beliefs needed.

The universe is even more fascinating and meaningful and understandable to me with a belief in God.

BTW, the reason I use the term, god beliefs, is to point out what they actually are. So you find a boiled down to the essence but nonetheless valid description to be unacceptable. Interesting.

As I said in my post, I objected to the phrase "from a language standpoint," not because of the meaning, which is the same as "beliefs in God(s), with which I have no problem. I will continue to avoid the phrase and assume that those who use it have problems appreciating the potential beauty of language.

I addressed this already in this thread. (post cite pending)

Thank you.

You are confused, but you are not the only one in this thread to have this same confusion.

First one makes observations. One does not start with wild speculation and go off testing hypotheses willy nilly. The observations lead to conclusions. Then one tests the conclusion to confirm or refute it.

Thank you. I corrected myself later in the thread when I clarified what I meant by circular process.

Again, the problem is starting with a conclusion for which the only evidence is "people believe". I merely expanded the variables as one should do in a proper scientific investigation.

The observation: people believe.
The possible explanations:

Real gods interacted with people
People made up god fiction (the reasons why are part of the evidence but not part of this hypothesis per se)​

But Skeptic Ginger, a proper scientific investigation wouldn't be looking at belief in God at all. Also, when you say people believe, in what do they believe? Did you mean to put God(s)?

Now if you are talking about a logical argument instead of a proper scientific investigation, the process for arguments is to first identify the conclusion of the argument; then identify the explicit premises; then identify any implied premises and/or assumptions; then remove any irrelevancies, inconsistencies, and cross references.

Breaking down your argument:

The conclusion: People believe in God(s)
The premises:

Premise 1: Actual God(s) interacted with people​

Premise 2: People made up god fiction (the reasons why are part of the evidence but not part of this premise per se)​

Remove irrelevancies: edited Premise 2: People made up god fiction

Argument:
If actual God(s) interacted with people
Or people made up god fiction
Then people believe in gods.

So either way the conclusion is valid. Which just goes to show why your method is valueless with regard to belief in God(s), specifically to denying that God(s) exist.

I'm going to have to come back to the rest of your post. It really is just a rehash of stuff that has been discussed. I have to get back to work.

I'll check back later.

 

[Humes fork]

And yet, when I change perspective the other way, I discover that faith/religion/spiritualism/belief in God, whatever you want to call it (except god belief - a detestable phrase from a language standpoint, and one I refuse to use) does indeed "serve some purpose science cannot." It answers questions science doesn't address; e.g., Is there a God? Why am I here? What happens after I die? Science deals with things of nature. Religion deals with things of the mind (as opposed to the brain) and spirit.

But the religions give different answers to these questions. How do you determine which one is correct?

The questions you pose have scientific answers. Let's deal with them one by one. Can't speak for everyone, but I think the modern scientific answers have a greater probability of being right than the myths of Iron Age desert dwellers.

Is there a God?

No.

Why am I here?

Because each of your ancestors successfully replicated before they died.

What happens after I die?

You cease to exist.