The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?"

[Mudcat]

In the Bible god stops the sun for a whole day to enable Joshua to slaughter more people. YHWH also reverses the sun by 10 degrees to give a sign to a king that his boils will be cured as prophesied.

I asked a professor of geology at my school his opinion about what would happen if this really happened in real life. He said that pretty much all surface water would instantly vaporize and the planet would shater in two... and that would be the 'good news' portion of it, it would get much much worse from there.

 

[westprog]

You know I just love this claim Neil. You know why? Well when ever a creationist (which seems to be you in this case) says that science can not disprove God, I have a very relevant quest. I aim this at you now:

If science was making the opposite claim and saying that not only does God exist but your God is the one and only God would you really still be saying "Well, science can't proove or disproove God"?

Extra credit for an honest answer.

There have been plenty of people making such a claim and they are undoubtedly just as unsound as the people making the opposite claim.

 

[Mudcat]

There have been plenty of people making such a claim and they are undoubtedly just as unsound as the people making the opposite claim.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your post here.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

There have been plenty of people making such a claim and they are undoubtedly just as unsound as the people making the opposite claim.

How have we actually figured out what is and what is not unsound?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If science was making the opposite claim and saying that not only does God exist but your God is the one and only God would you really still be saying "Well, science can't proove or disproove God"?

That is an interesting question. At least kind of. And I think that the corollary of the game that is being played about God (etc) being mysterious/supernatural/beyond the scope of science is that this "one and only God" having been shown to exist is in fact not a God at all.

If it were a real God, it'd be beyond science. And since it isn't it is not a God.

I mean, if people insist on painting themselves into a corner ...

(ETA: I don't think that NeilC is a creationist.)

 

[punshhh]

And yet the things that we can figure out about the universe give us predictions, and those predictions reliably, quantitatively, to an incredible degree of accuracy, come true. That is very different than the sorts of stories we told in the past, though they were not completely lacking in those attributes.

Yes I don't want to belittle the achievements of humanity through the practice of science. Indeed it is a testimony to our ingenuity as a species. However take a look at what this thread is about, its not about the subjects studied by scientists. Its not about objective physical reality. Its about whether a group of people described as scientists have refuted religion.

Lets take a closer look at this, ( I haven't watched the video yet, I will today if I have time)
Are they a group of scientists?
Do they speak for the scientific community?
Do scientists routinely refute religion as part of their work?
What are they actually refuting?
What is religion?
What is the goal or purpose of religion?
Why do we have religion?
Why do we have science?

The highlighted bit is simply false. We know how evolution works, we know the mechanisms behind it. We know how matter interacts, and we know what sort of matter we are made of. Certainly there is a great deal left for us to learn, but the things we know, we know.

False, well then you can answer these questions then, can you not?

What is our origin? (accepting the discoveries of science)
What are we? (accepting the discoveries of science)
Why is reality the way it is? (accepting the discoveries of science)
What is existence?
Can we say anything about our origin and any creators which may be involved in it?

 

[Donn]

I'm always amazed at this particular argument. Any Catholic knows that the bread and wine don't change their appearance whatsoever.

I stand corrected.

I see it's all symbolic and faithy, so there's no meat and blood to get DNA samples from. Mea culpa.


Just for some fun with the whole symbol: The Great Desecration

You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university (the diminution of my vast powers is also a common theme).

From: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php

​

So, a bunch of people take it literally, even though it's a symbol (buried under theobabble) - but, again, not something science can detect.

I would say it's something that science and it's application can eradicate.

 

[Donn]

.. can answer these questions then, can you not?

What is our origin? (accepting the discoveries of science)

We evolved by natural selection and the complex properties of chemistry.

What are we? (accepting the discoveries of science)

Flesh vehicles driven by blind-dumb genes, with a layer of rich input processing and output capacity. We may have some kind of say in our moment to moment lives, but even that's looking shaky.

Added to all that is the capacity to suffer as well as enjoy. Neither of these has supernatural basis.

Why is reality the way it is? (accepting the discoveries of science)

Because it is. If it where other, we would know that.

What is existence?

The part that comes before death.

Can we say anything about our origin

Yes. Lots.

and any creators which may be involved in it?

Yes. There are no creators, if you don't count the replicators that started the whole bio ball rolling.

 

[punshhh]

We evolved by natural selection and the complex properties of chemistry.

Deja vu

Your not very good at this are you?
But I like your style so carry on its fun.

Where I put "accepting the discoveries of science", I was already accepting the scientifically based answers you gave before asking the question.

So for example when I wrote "What is our origin (accepting the discoveries of science). I was actually saying "bearing in mind all the discoveries and breakthroughs in science and accepting that they are by and large correct, except where they are only pure speculation, what is our origin?" and likewise with the other questions.

Yes. There are no creators, if you don't count the replicators that started the whole bio ball rolling.

I think you'll find the answer to this question is;

No we cannot say anything about our origin and any creators that were involved in it.

 

[Donn]

Deja vu

And when it's mustard that comes back at midnight it's Dijon vu.

Your not very good at this are you?

Seems so. You are of course a Master.

But I like your style so carry on its fun.

Tah.

Where I put [yadda yadda].. I was actually saying .. [blah blah]

Then say so. Don't chide me for what you failed to communicate.

No we cannot say anything about our origin and any creators that were involved in it.

Wrong. But hey, I'm not very good at this.

Go read this for the hell of it: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...logy-design-universe-20120401,0,4136597.story

 

[Roboramma]

Where I put "accepting the discoveries of science", I was already accepting the scientifically based answers you gave before asking the question.

So if you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

 

[Mashuna]

lol

1. Get a scientist with no faith
2. Have him try to experience a faith healing
3. It fails, obviously, since the faithless can't be healed by faith healing
4. declare science the winner through "fair-play" and "open-minded inquiry"
5. ???
6. profit

1. Get a scientist with or without faith
2. Set up a double-blind test of faith healing
3. Write up the results.
4. Think up excuses for why it didn't work
4(a). Probably something to do with sheep and goat, but using religious terminology.
5. Declare faith the winner, as the Bible states you can't test God.
6. Tithes!

 

[annnnoid]

(ETA: I don't think that NeilC is a creationist.)

....yes he is...he said so...somewhere...I think...didn't he...somewhere...or perhaps that is just...a...mistake...(so what else is new?)

Added to all that is the capacity to suffer as well as enjoy. Neither of these has supernatural basis.

….where, exactly, has it been conclusively established that neither of these things has any supernatural basis…and what, exactly, does ‘supernatural basis’ even mean….and where, exactly, has it been established that we know what ‘suffering’ and ‘enjoyment’ mean and how they happen?

How about another quote Donn: “ We use words so we can avoid having to face the fact that we don’t know what we’re talking about.” Sounds kind of confusing. Is it even remotely possible that our condition is just slightly more complex than many of us imagine. That perhaps this thing people refer to as God may be in the realm of the word incomprehensible….given that it’s defined in terms of universe-sized dimensions….15 billion light years across….15 billion years old. Whereas the most any one of us can say is that we didn’t create ourselves, we don’t create ourselves, we don’t understand ourselves, and we may be around for 50 to 100 years. But somehow so many of us have decided that we have the ability to definitively adjudicate the existence (or not) of something on the scale of a God. Impressive, to say the least. To many, that would be regarded as stupid bordering on arrogant (…or more likely, crossing way over the line).

 

[punshhh]

Then say so. Don't chide me for what you failed to communicate.

I'm not chiding, I just thought lets cut to the chase.

Wrong. But hey, I'm not very good at this.

If I'm pointing out that we don't know, what could be wrong with that?

Go read this for the hell of it: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...logy-design-universe-20120401,0,4136597.story

Thanks for the link. God help us we could vanish in an instant into nothing and another identical universe appear and we would never know.

Looks like we're in dire need of some metaphysics to prevent us from going down the plug hole of uncertainty

Quote:

"Most surprising of all, combining the ideas of general relativity and quantum mechanics, we can understand how it is possible that the entire universe, matter, radiation and even space itself could arise spontaneously out of nothing, without explicit divine intervention. Quantum mechanics' Heisenberg uncertainty principle expands what can possibly occur undetected in otherwise empty space. If gravity too is governed by quantum mechanics, then even whole new universes can spontaneously appear and disappear, which means our own universe may not be unique but instead part of a "multiverse.""

 

[Donn]

….where, exactly, has it been conclusively established that neither of these things has any supernatural basis…and what, exactly, does ‘supernatural basis’ even mean

I meant supernatural as 'from god' - i.e. Creation etc. Souls have been made responsible for various feelings and human capabilities.

No one has demonstrated creation or souls, ergo they do not exist. (To the extent that they are not a practical hypothesis. They are down there with Cthulhu and last Thursday.)

No God, no souls, no supernatural - it's the null hypothesis.

….and where, exactly, has it been established that we know what ‘suffering’ and ‘enjoyment’ mean and how they happen?

Dunno, didn't think I was claiming too.

How about another quote Donn: “ We use words so we can avoid having to face the fact that we don’t know what we’re talking about.” Sounds kind of confusing.

Sure, sounds okay to me. Not the avoiding bit, I have accepted my limitations. I don't know very much and I will never know much more. That's the deal.

Is it even remotely possible that our condition is just slightly more complex than many of us imagine.

You go on to an argument from ignorance.

 

[punshhh]

So if you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

But I don't know the answer (accomplishments of science accepted). Do you?

I have watched the video now, great stuff, entertaining too. They barely touched on the deeper issues here. It would have been nice to hear something along the lines of:

I accept that scientific studies have refuted the narrative of organized religious behavior which we have inherited. But that the issues which the religious life addresses along with the fundamental questions relating to existence are not addressed or refuted.

Or in other words science has refuted the mythology of religion (through sociology and anthropology etc), but not the point of religion or what religion attempts to address.

Issues like this might move on the debate a bit and help the opposing sides to realise that there is no need for conflict and that science and the religious life are entirely compatible.

 

[Donn]

Or in other words science has refuted the mythology of religion (through sociology and anthropology etc), but not the point of religion or what religion attempts to address.

This is too vague. What are these points?

Issues like this might move on the debate a bit and help the opposing sides to realise that there is no need for conflict and that science and the religious life are entirely compatible.

No. Oil and water. If you do science and religion u r doing it wrong.

Of course we fallible humans can hold any number of opposing systems of thought in our heads and still function - and pointing this out is seen as rude. That shoves it back under the carpet. So, no. They don't mix, they are not compatible. Time for a change.

 

[Roboramma]

But I don't know the answer (accomplishments of science accepted). Do you?

Perhaps I'm not clear on the question. Donn answered it (briefly, but well enough for our purposes so far it seems). You don't accept his answer as an answer to your question. Why not? What do you think is missing from it?

You say "accomplishments of science accepted": there's your answer.

 

[westprog]

I stand corrected.

I see it's all symbolic and faithy, so there's no meat and blood to get DNA samples from. Mea culpa.


Just for some fun with the whole symbol: The Great Desecration

From: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php

​

So, a bunch of people take it literally, even though it's a symbol (buried under theobabble) - but, again, not something science can detect.

I would say it's something that science and it's application can eradicate.

Oh, an excellent choice. Yes, when I want to find out what Catholics believe, I just ask P Z Myers. He'll give an unbiased account.

Might as well ask Ian Paisley.

 

[westprog]

This is too vague. What are these points?


No. Oil and water.

Do you really think that oil and water are incompatible? They just can't be made to mix easily.