The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?"

[Lowpro]

Maybe he is, I don't know him. However, plenty of good scientists do have religious beliefs which don't prevent them being good scientists.

I note that the claim of incompatibility is usually coupled with the statement that of course this doesn't imply that any of the people holding unscientific beliefs are in any way to be looked down on over it. This seems foolish. Creationists are bad scientists. There's no two ways about it. They conflict with biology, physics, chemistry and mathematics on major point. Catholics can be perfectly good scientists, and don't conflict with science in any significant way. Claiming that religion is incompatible with science but religious belief isn't is not coherent thinking, and leaves a loophole for bad science to creep in the back door.

No no no I am not saying the two are mutually exclusive, you can be religious and be a good scientist because the method of science doesn't give a damn who's behind it. Check out Faraday, probably one of the best scientists of all time (take THAT Einstein!) and a very religious man. Ken Miller is a Catholic and pretty much is a good scientist because his beliefs don't hinder his ability to actually practice science. Michael Behe, NOT a good scientist.

But that's not what this debate is about, and frankly I don't know this discussion to be about that, if my previous post and particularly the jab to Dinesh led you to think that my apologies.

On the argument that Science can defeat Religion, I don't think it can do it wholly. Religion is a social construct; it's like asking science to determine our social laws*. Science is unmoving, social laws are zeitgeist bound. Religion makes claims about the world, and most of them are untrue. Science CAN defeat religion when religion makes a claim about the world. That's what happens when you scrutinize a hypothesis.

I don't care to repeat myself, but my previous post(s) expound on that.

*(perhaps it can explain some...but that's another thread entirely)

 

[MG1962]

No no no I am not saying the two are mutually exclusive, you can be religious and be a good scientist because the method of science doesn't give a damn who's behind it. Check out Faraday, probably one of the best scientists of all time (take THAT Einstein!) and a very religious man. Ken Miller is a Catholic and pretty much is a good scientist because his beliefs don't hinder his ability to actually practice science. Michael Behe, NOT a good scientist.

I can speak to the Catholic portion of your post. The Church is very active in a number of fields most notably cosmology and astronomy, and the Vatican observatory has been punching out important observations for over a hundred years.

It comes down to mindset when balancing scientific discipline with faith. Most active Catholics see the expansion of our knowledge about the natural world as a form of glorifying God. If God is truly limitless then by default nature and knowledge should equally so

 

[Donn]

How good would the science of a Catholic be were he to determine the materials facts of transubstantiation?

The Catholic view of evolution is still tainted with ensouling. There is still purpose in their view. This is not properly scientific.

When a human doing science touches his bias, there will be bad science. It's not alone religion, but any bias — like racism for example.

The discipline needed to self-detect human flaws (Feynman quote here) may be easier to do when one doesn't labour under faith in religion. Just as seeing clearly is aided by removing dark glasses.

 

[Roboramma]

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

Yes, it was. Poor evidence, perhaps, but the only evidence people had available to them.

and cannot be refuted by presentation of evidence.

Yes, it can, and has been.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

The whole point of faith healing is that it relies on faith, and through faith breaks the laws of nature. Thus, science cannot refute faith healing.

Except it can. Whatever is true, the only way we have to find out is to examine the evidence for or against it. That never leads to certainty, but it can lead us to a better understanding of the world. So, where does the evidence lead with respect to god? That "he" doesn't exist.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

Sure, but in this way of thinking anything is possible. Maybe God is hiding his existence, maybe it's my Uncle Marty who found a magic ring which gives him omnipotence, and he's been travelling through time messing with the human race, putting fossils in the ground, etc. etc.

Yes, it's possible that my Uncle Marty is doing those things, but without any evidence for it, it's no more likely than any of an infinitude of other possible things. The most parsimonious explanation for the world around us? It's the explanation that science has given us.

 

[Roboramma]

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..

Except that even if god exists and miracles happen, other religions then necessarily are storytelling. Given that we know that humans tend to tell these types of stories to each other, what's more likely: that they are all stories, or that they are all stories except that one of them just happens to be true?

It's a little odd that the world just happens to be just as people tend to imagine it, with us as central figures in some high narrative, whereas for everything else that we've managed to discover the world is very different from what humans imagine (for instance, see quantum mechanics, or the expansion of the universe, or the distance between the stars, or the fact that the heliocentric solar system, etc. etc.)

You don't find it surprising to suggest that the universe is completely unintuitive everywhere we look (beyond the limits of our intuition as it evolved to our natural environment), but when it comes to it's grand design, it's fits so well with human intuition that it falls into the same class as all the other stories (most of which necessarily are made up) that humans have been telling each other?

There's two possible explanations: one is that yeah, human intuition is limited to human scale things, except with respect to god. The other is that all religions are stories, and there isn't that one lone exception.

Personally I choose to follow the evidence.

 

[Roboramma]

I disagree - The age of the Earth is immaterial to religion and faith.

Tell that to a YEC.

It may not be an integral part of all religions, but it is clearly a part of some people's religious belief: they believe that the earth is 6000 years old, because that's what their religion tells them. How is that different from believing that Jesus died and was resurrected? The only difference is that this is a belief that is more easily tested, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a belief.

I agree that some aspects of religion don't overlap with science, but that doesn't mean that none do, and when religions make testable claims about the real world, that is an obvious point of overlap.

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.

Of course. In some situations (and with some individuals) the goal was the opposite: to learn more about god, certainly not to discredit religion.

But so it goes: the universe is as it is, and we are learning about it. That it's not as we imagined is just the way it is.

 

[MG1962]

It's a little odd that the world just happens to be just as people tend to imagine it, with us as central figures in some high narrative, whereas for everything else that we've managed to discover the world is very different from what humans imagine (for instance, see quantum mechanics, or the expansion of the universe, or the distance between the stars, or the fact that the heliocentric solar system, etc. etc.).

You seem to be unaware the geocentric model of the solar system was actually a scientific theory, based on an accumulation of existing data

 

[Brainache]

You seem to be unaware the geocentric model of the solar system was actually a scientific theory, based on an accumulation of existing data

And you seem to be forgetting that the geocentric model was overturned by scientists accumulating more scientific data.

 

[MG1962]

Tell that to a YEC.

It may not be an integral part of all religions, but it is clearly a part of some people's religious belief: they believe that the earth is 6000 years old, because that's what their religion tells them. How is that different from believing that Jesus died and was resurrected? The only difference is that this is a belief that is more easily tested, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a belief.

But as I pointed out in my post - The Bible does not give an actual creation date. People implied that information from their interpretation of the Bible. That troubles me because it is usually those who read the Bible literally who follow this process, which seems inconsistent to me

But so it goes: the universe is as it is, and we are learning about it. That it's not as we imagined is just the way it is.

However this has to be tempered by what we thought the universe was. I am currently reading Thomas Wright's biography. He talks of his research being inspired by 13th Cent Catholic writings that argue the stars were not points affixed to a sphere, but are suns at incredible distances from Earth. The reason for this point of view was that if he stars were a on a fixed sphere we would limiting God's magnitude.

This was a very non Aristotelian viewpoint which is interesting because it is often claimed the Church's major issue with Galileo was belief in the Aristotelian system. Which means ultimately someone is trying to have their cake and eat it

 

[MG1962]

And you seem to be forgetting that the geocentric model was overturned by scientists accumulating more scientific data.

I am making the point that the geocentric model was not intuitive thinking (rebutting Roborammas point)- it was a theory, ultimately wrong, but a theory none the less based in no way on religious teachings

 

[Brainache]

I am making the point that the geocentric model was not intuitive thinking (rebutting Roborammas point)- it was a theory, ultimately wrong, but a theory none the less based in no way on religious teachings

It may not have been Religious (I'm not sure of that), but it was intuitive. That the Earth was stable and at the centre of things was just assumed. It wasn't until people had telescopes and could directly observe objects orbiting planets other than Earth, that Geocentrism was seriously challenged.

 

[punshhh]

Except that even if god exists and miracles happen, other religions then necessarily are storytelling. Given that we know that humans tend to tell these types of stories to each other, what's more likely: that they are all stories, or that they are all stories except that one of them just happens to be true?

It's a little odd that the world just happens to be just as people tend to imagine it, with us as central figures in some high narrative, whereas for everything else that we've managed to discover the world is very different from what humans imagine (for instance, see quantum mechanics, or the expansion of the universe, or the distance between the stars, or the fact that the heliocentric solar system, etc. etc.)

You don't find it surprising to suggest that the universe is completely unintuitive everywhere we look (beyond the limits of our intuition as it evolved to our natural environment), but when it comes to it's grand design, it's fits so well with human intuition that it falls into the same class as all the other stories (most of which necessarily are made up) that humans have been telling each other?

There's two possible explanations: one is that yeah, human intuition is limited to human scale things, except with respect to god. The other is that all religions are stories, and there isn't that one lone exception.

Personally I choose to follow the evidence.

In the end all things can be reduced to stories, except perhaps for directly repeatable experiments. Experiments from within a relativistic system about which we are in the dark in terms of understanding.

Perhaps we exist as entities within an illusion and everything we can do and figure out about anything is little more than a reflection in degrees of our peculiar evolved capacities. Again stories.

All are stories, (some stories contain repeatable and verifiable observations, they are stories all the same), we are in the dark when it comes to our origins and what and why we are the way we are.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I mean really NielC I understand your argument but what it is someother guy here linked and it's actually poignant...it's called going nuclear and it has its issues.

What you're setting up is for absolute free reign. With your arguments my position that God's a pernicious bastard who sends good people to hell and evil people to heaven is just as valid. It gives NOTHING because it hides behind sophistry and demands science back off. But as long as you make the mistake of saying "omnipotence" or adding an attribute to God as an agent, science CAN step in and provide something, even if it is just a "we don't know". As I said, it's far better to say "we don't know" using truths rather than saying "we know" with lies.

Thank you. Well said.

 

[Donn]

In the end all things can be reduced to stories .. Again stories .. All are stories

Where does that leave you? Is everything equal to everything else? Are there no better and no worse explanations?

Can you post to this forum based on some other 'story' than IT technology? Can you do it with a psychic story? Can you do it with meditation stories? Can you post with interpretive dance?

Make up a story. Go ahead.

 

[Donn]

Thank you. Well said.

+1

 

[annnnoid]

The Catholic view of evolution is still tainted with ensouling. There is still purpose in their view. This is not properly scientific.

Ensouling (....???)....I wonder how many times this word has to be introduced: Un-fal-si-fi-a-ble! Science cannot touch the subject (any more than science can currently touch 99% of human activity [refer to Chomsky quote])...and there is evidence that implicates such realities (cue the chorus).

As for 'purpose'...God forbid that there should exist something so irrelevant.

“Scientists, animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless, constitute an interesting subject for study.” Alfred North Whitehead

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Ensouling (....???)....I wonder how many times this word has to be introduced: Un-fal-si-fi-a-ble! Science cannot touch the subject [snip]

Wasn't that the point of what you are responding to?

 

[Leumas]

It may not have been Religious (I'm not sure of that), but it was intuitive. That the Earth was stable and at the centre of things was just assumed. It wasn't until people had telescopes and could directly observe objects orbiting planets other than Earth, that Geocentrism was seriously challenged.

There were certainly many preceding Helocentric theories. One from 290 BCE was that of Aristarchus of Samos who even had a mathematical model for it.

Before that Pythagoras had a one that was ALMOST "right" with a stretch if you think in terms of a galaxy and the central black hole. He thought the earth, moon, planets AND the sun moved around a central sun.

Also have a look at the Antikythera mechanism which is a computer created circa 150 BCE. It was used to COMPUTE the positions of astronomical bodies.