The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?"

[tsig]

If one assumes that God is omnipotent and works in mysterious ways then I fail to see how you can refute his existence or anything else claimed in his name. After all you may think you've refuted something but it's possible He just wants you to think that as part of his Plan or that he operates on a totally different level that makes science look like a child's game.

For example, how has science proven that Jesus was not the son of god, born to the virgin Mary and sent here to save mankind?

Then how could you believe anything claimed in his name? If god doesn't want us to know his mind then anyone who claims to speak for god is a fake.

 

[NeilC]

Science has shown that the Bible is not a factual account of reality and therefore we can conclude that the God of the Bible does not exist.

No you cannot conclude that. Well you CAN but it isn't the only conclusion and certainly not the one Christians make. You can also conclude that the Bible is partially allegorical but the main thrust of it is true.

There is no need to refute every single element and occurence in a story in order to refute the story.

But merely refuting parts of it doesn't necessarily render it all untrue either

Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist even if 'someone' in London played the violin and worked as a private detective.

Nobody postulated a supernatural basis for Holmes existence. His fictional nature is easily provable. God's isn't.

 

[paiute]

Here's one:

Religious claim: The world was created six thousand years ago.

Scientific fact: the earth is 5 billion years old.

That's an intersection.

The intersection is an illusion. On the scientific axis, the belief that the world is 6000 years old does not appear, as it was not obtained by inspection of evidence and cannot be refuted by presentation of evidence.

 

[Humes fork]

For example, how has science proven that Jesus was not the son of god, born to the virgin Mary and sent here to save mankind?

Actually this can be judged scientifically. One hypothesis requires some ancient texts to be mistaken, the other requires a major deviation from the laws of nature we otherwise always observe.

 

[Brainache]

No you cannot conclude that. Well you CAN but it isn't the only conclusion and certainly not the one Christians make. You can also conclude that the Bible is partially allegorical but the main thrust of it is true.

What would you say is the main thrust of the Bible?

I'm not being snarky, but it seems to have many mutually exlusive interpretations floating around, so how can anyone decide what the main thrust is?

Man's relationship with God? That would seem to be like a Slave to a Master throughout most of the book.

God loves us? I can't see that anywhere in there. He does let us kill Jesus, but that just seems weird to me.

But merely refuting parts of it doesn't necessarily render it all untrue either



Nobody postulated a supernatural basis for Holmes existence. His fictional nature is easily provable. God's isn't.

But we know that all the stuff about God, Moses, Adam and Eve, Joshua and others in the Old Testament wasn't true, so the whole business about a Messiah was based on fairy tales.

The Messiah was just supposed to beat up the enemies of Israel, and Jesus didn't even do that...

 

[NeilC]

Actually this can be judged scientifically. One hypothesis requires some ancient texts to be mistaken, the other requires a major deviation from the laws of nature we otherwise always observe.

The whole point of miracles, such as the virgin birth, is that they break the laws of nature. God can make and break any laws he likes. What human's believe they observe is irrelevant to God.

 

[NeilC]

What would you say is the main thrust of the Bible?

I'm not being snarky, but it seems to have many mutually exlusive interpretations floating around, so how can anyone decide what the main thrust is?

Man's relationship with God? That would seem to be like a Slave to a Master throughout most of the book.

God loves us? I can't see that anywhere in there. He does let us kill Jesus, but that just seems weird to me.

But we know that all the stuff about God, Moses, Adam and Eve, Joshua and others in the Old Testament wasn't true, so the whole business about a Messiah was based on fairy tales.

The Messiah was just supposed to beat up the enemies of Israel, and Jesus didn't even do that...

That's all true but doesn't take away from the fact that proving some bits of it wrong does not disprove all of it or the existence of God.

That there is no single interpretation in fact makes it even harder to refute I would say since there is no single "it" to refute.

What seems weird to you doesn't matter one jot to the almighty.

Most Christians don't believe that the bible is 100% accurate dictation of the word of god from his mind to paper so you can refute the great flood and other stories but still not refute the entire religion. Science has pushed religion into a smaller and smaller corner but not killed it entirely. The concept of God is not disprovable and religions based on that sort of god can be whittled away all you like but there is still room to believe in the God.

 

[Brainache]

That's all true but doesn't take away from the fact that proving some bits of it wrong does not disprove all of it or the existence of God.

That there is no single interpretation in fact makes it even harder to refute I would say since there is no single "it" to refute.

What seems weird to you doesn't matter one jot to the almighty.

Most Christians don't believe that the bible is 100% accurate dictation of the word of god from his mind to paper so you can refute the great flood and other stories but still not refute the entire religion. Science has pushed religion into a smaller and smaller corner but not killed it entirely. The concept of God is not disprovable and religions based on that sort of god can be whittled away all you like but there is still room to believe in the God.

Yes, but you have to whittle away so much that it is no longer the God of the Bible.

You are left with a God who didn't make the Earth, didn't send a Flood, didn't choose the Jews, didn't make a covenant with Moses, didn't write the Ten Commandments, didn't help Joshua conquer Canaan, didn't send a Messiah to defeat the enemies of Israel etc etc etc. Why would you keep the Bible as some kind of book about God, if it is about some other as yet undefined God?

 

[Donn]

Nobody postulated a supernatural basis for Holmes existence. His fictional nature is easily provable. God's isn't.

How is Conan Doyle writing SH any different from <gang of writers> writing the <name of holy text here>?

The only thing I can think of is time. What gets lost in time may now be ascribed to God? Is that it?

 

[Donn]

Why would you keep the Bible as some kind of book about God, if it is about some other as yet undefined God?

Oh that's easy, it's the spaces between the words and letters that counts. You see, those are the famous gaps!

 

[Donn]

The whole point of miracles, such as the virgin birth, is that they break the laws of nature.

Yes, as intended by the imaginative human story-tellers of old.

God can make and break any laws he likes.

Hermione can make and break any lock she likes.

What human's believe they observe is irrelevant to God.

What you say that God finds relevant about humans is irrelevant.


Apropos your recent posts here, are you pulling a Poe, or are you serious?

 

[NeilC]

How is Conan Doyle writing SH any different from <gang of writers> writing the <name of holy text here>?

He's openly writing fiction. They're claiming they're writing with divine inspiration. If their god is real the the difference is vast.

 

[NeilC]

Yes, but you have to whittle away so much that it is no longer the God of the Bible.

You are left with a God who didn't make the Earth, didn't send a Flood, didn't choose the Jews, didn't make a covenant with Moses, didn't write the Ten Commandments, didn't help Joshua conquer Canaan, didn't send a Messiah to defeat the enemies of Israel etc etc etc. Why would you keep the Bible as some kind of book about God, if it is about some other as yet undefined God?

Not necessarily. Most of those things can still be true but miraculous. The flood happened but the usual evidence you'd expect isn't there. He did make the earth but it looks to your puny human mind that he didn't. He's operating on a level that you have zero chance of comprehending whilst still on earth. You can pick all the holes you like but it's like your pet cat trying to understand why you're sitting there reading this response.

 

[NeilC]

Yes, as intended by the imaginative human story-tellers of old.


Hermione can make and break any lock she likes.


What you say that God finds relevant about humans is irrelevant.


Apropos your recent posts here, are you pulling a Poe, or are you serious?

I don't know what "pulling a Poe" means.

You claim it's story telling. But if god exists and miracles happen then it isn't. It's just begging the question.

None of this shows that science has refuted God or religions. It may have refuted some aspects and cast a hell of a lot of doubt on it. But science is not capable of refuting an omnipotent god who works mysteriously. I would have thought that much was obvious.

 

[annnnoid]

I don't know what "pulling a Poe" means.

You claim it's story telling. But if god exists and miracles happen then it isn't. It's just begging the question.

None of this shows that science has refuted God or religions. It may have refuted some aspects and cast a hell of a lot of doubt on it. But science is not capable of refuting an omnipotent god who works mysteriously. I would have thought that much was obvious.

....of course it's obvious....to anyone with any intelligence. Another JREF'er by the name of Ichneumon wasp had this whole thing out on another thread a while back. He got so sick of trying to hammer the basic points into everybody's heads that he finally just gave up and left. Ignorance must really be bliss. Hope you don't do the same. It's just plain refreshing to have some sane voices around.

 

[Lowpro]

You are no more capable of proving or postulating its existence. However that's fine. Philosophically an omnipotent God cannot exist; omnipotence is a nonsense term.

 

[MG1962]

Here's one:

Religious claim: The world was created six thousand years ago.

Scientific fact: the earth is 5 billion years old.

That's an intersection. It's true that some aspects of religion don't intersect with science, but I don't see why you would consider that meaningful, as some other aspects certainly do.

I disagree - The age of the Earth is immaterial to religion and faith. If it was a lynch pin of faith it would be acknowledged by all faiths that source their origins from the bible. At best it is a minority view, held sadly by a very vocal minority.

I have always been troubled by the argument for creation. Those who claim this date say it is based on the literal reading of the Bible. However the Bible never expressly says a date for creation. The date was fixed by Bishop Ussher by interpreting the Bible. Assumptions about the book had to be made. We have no way of knowing are we watching a highlight reel or the whole game when discussing the progression of the generations.

But back to the point of intersecting science and religion. Doubt was cast on the literal understanding of the creation story and progression of generations long before science was in a position to have an opinion on the subject.

So it is not a case of God of the gaps being corralled by science, it was an area both philosophies arrived at similar answers, using entirely different methodology

The whole 4004BC thing has really been a fad that comes and goes. Deborah Cadbury devotes a lot of her time to this exact issue in her book Dinosaur Hunters Where she details the theological clashes occurring well before Darwin's thesis was printed.

All that aside, science and it's exploration of the age of the Earth never set out with a specific goal to discredit religion or the Bible. It went where the data points took it.

 

[MG1962]

Yes, religion works differently. But in part, it makes assertions about the same kind of things that science does. Science and religion are sure different, but they don't cover different magisteria.

And in most cases religion is moving away from its core - being an expression of the human condition. Often when religion speaks about or against science it is a reflex action to a threat that actually never existed.

Sometimes your world view guides your reaction. Newton after developing his mathematical formulas did not see his calculations as an affront to God. He saw it as evidence of God's existence. The balance and geometry he saw in gravity convinced him a creator had to be involved

Hundreds of years later Einstein makes an equally important mathematical step and sees beauty in the natural world. One was a very religious and pious man, the other; faith and religion seems to have played a minor or even non existent role.

 

[Donn]

He's openly writing fiction. They're claiming they're writing with divine inspiration.

Doyle was a spiritualist - perhaps he felt he was "divinely inspired" as he wrote. Perhaps SH is god's word; for real, this time.

If their god is real the the difference is vast.

Natch. My very point being that their feelings and divine "inspirations" are not enough to establish reality.

The hound of the Baskervilles is as real as Harry Potter's wand, is as real as Jesus' crown of thorns.

If science and reason cannot discern fact from fiction, there's a problem.

I don't know what "pulling a Poe" means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

i.e. Are you being sarcastic/satirical? (I gather since that you are not.)

You claim it's story telling. But if god exists and miracles happen then it isn't. It's just begging the question.

I didn't follow that.

None of this shows that science has refuted God or religions. It may have refuted some aspects and cast a hell of a lot of doubt on it. But science is not capable of refuting an omnipotent god who works mysteriously. I would have thought that much was obvious.

Is it impossible for science to refute anything? Even patently absurd mythology? (Serious question.)

 

[Humes fork]

The whole point of miracles, such as the virgin birth, is that they break the laws of nature. God can make and break any laws he likes. What human's believe they observe is irrelevant to God.

There is still no reason to believe the virgin birth happened. The only sources are some dubious ancient texts. That Mary's pregancy took place in conventional ways is the null hypothesis.