The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?"

[tsig]

You can only advise us that human claims relating to God can be refuted. No more than that because any God that might actually exist could have any attribute imaginable or unimaginable and we would be none the wiser.

I'm not aware of any non human claims about god so human claims are all there is.

 

[Lowpro]

You can only advise us that human claims relating to God can be refuted. No more than that because any God that might actually exist could have any attribute imaginable or unimaginable and we would be none the wiser.

There's never been a nonhuman claim about God Punshhh. Until there is evidence of God without anthropocentric meddling that'd be fine, and I'm sure that evidence would probably fall under the purview of science...

 

[dafydd]

Human claims about god, how funny. Perhaps punshhh's dog has been making claims about god.

 

[Brainache]

So where does this notion that there is no reason to believe absurd unfalsifiable ideas come from?

Is it a scientific idea?

No. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Well it certainly isn't a religious idea.

It may have been realised thousands of years before "Science" became known as "Science", but I think it might be called a scientific way of thinking.

Maybe we could re-title the thread: "Has the notion that there is no reason to believe absurd unfalsifiable ideas refuted Religion?"

 

[The Norseman]

I always find this massively amusing. It’s juuuuuuuust feelings. How about an update Roborama: Feelings are critical to accurately adjudicating the most important issues (and just about everything in between) of the entire lives of each and every one of us.

‘ Why did you get married?’….because of how I feel
‘ Why did you have kids?’ ….because of how I feel.
‘ Why did you choose that particular vocation?’….because of how I feel?
' Why are you friends with him?' ...because of how I feel.
' Why are you dating her?'...because of how I feel.
' Why do you spend so much time on that hobby?' ...because of how I feel
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

….but all of a sudden, when it comes to anything remotely related to religion / spirituality / ?....human feelings suddenly have absolutely zero legitimacy. What a load of unqualified crap.




…except for everything that makes a human being a human being.. But how could any of that possibly matter??????????????????????

Love what you've done with these strawmen! Livens up the thread!

 

[The Norseman]

If a human spouts a contradictory statement, god exists or not regardless. Indeed whatever anyone says or science discovers, gods will or will not exists regardless.

Remember I have defined my use of the word God in regard to this point I am making.

No, you haven't defined anything about 'god'; what you've done is equivocate with the term. This is the only method by which people can sneak in the rest of the garbage which accompanies the 'god' concept.

Yes one that might actually exist.

You continue to posit that an undefinable something exists that has no bearing or relationship to humanity nor the universe except maybe, perhaps as your way of saying 'the big bang event'. Except, of course, everyone but you seems to use 'god' in a different manner and thus, your use of the term 'god' does nothing to clarify, but only hinder communication.

My point is quite simply that we cannot assess the likelyhood of any kind of origin over any other.
This does not follow, it might only be in our locality that intelligence is a relatively rare phenomena. Again we cannot say anything about this issue.

Well we can look at nature and look for clues about how the larger system works, but it can only ever be speculation.

My definition of God is more likely I would suggest than the FSM.
No science can only give a biological or psychological alternative explanation. Just like we can't say anything about God, we can't say anything about what such a God might do including delivering revelations to people.

So now suddenly you're using the term 'god' to include possibly delivering revelations to people? What happened to your earlier, careful definition as to 'god' being your equivalent to 'the big bang event'?

Can't eat your cake and have it too.

 

[The Norseman]

Whenever this discussion takes place, somebody says that there aren't valid scientific arguments against religion, and this is countered with a long string of unscientific arguments. In fact, exactly the same arguments tend to be trotted out as appear in all the other threads refuting religion.

It's a bit depressing that not only do so many people not know what constitutes a scientific argument, they don't seem to care any more than a Southern Baptist brandishing his King James.

So instead of whining about it, how about demonstrating your superior skills at making and conducting real scientific arguments? I think I know you well enough by now, but I'm still guessing that you apply hardcore scientific evidences and thoughts towards everything but your god. Is this correct? Maybe I'm wrong, but in order to forestall any difficulty, how about formulating a real scientific argument against the existence of any other god that you don't believe in?

If I, and others, are doing it wrong, then please show me how to do it correctly. I am the first to admit I don't know everything and I read JREF quite a bit to learn.

 

[punshhh]

There's never been a nonhuman claim about God Punshhh. Until there is evidence of God without anthropocentric meddling that'd be fine, and I'm sure that evidence would probably fall under the purview of science...

I don't know if you read the concept presented by Inchneumwasp in the thread
"Are agnostics welcome here" recently.

Essentially the position is that everything in and about our existence is evidence of God* and could not be any other way. And yet this world is identical to the world of materialism. It would be entirely impossible to distinguish between the two possibilities because both our perception and experience would be identical and as we don't have an alternative universe to examine, we are stuck within the one example we do have.

All science can do is to describe this universe as it appears to us, nothing more.

Any God* which does exist could theoretically in principle do anything and it wouldn't be magic (although it might appear so to us) and there would be no way of knowing what God was doing in our world as it would appear to us as quite normal physical phenomena obeying the laws of physics.


*God = the creator or origin of the known universe and all thats in it.

 

[dafydd]

*God = the creator or origin of the known universe and all thats in it.

You left ''and an invention of mankind'' out of your definition.

 

[punshhh]

No, you haven't defined anything about 'god'; what you've done is equivocate with the term. This is the only method by which people can sneak in the rest of the garbage which accompanies the 'god' concept.



You continue to posit that an undefinable something exists that has no bearing or relationship to humanity nor the universe except maybe, perhaps as your way of saying 'the big bang event'. Except, of course, everyone but you seems to use 'god' in a different manner and thus, your use of the term 'god' does nothing to clarify, but only hinder communication.

I am only philosophizing, I'm not suggesting God exists. I'm laying out what one can sumise about a God if one defines it as I have.

I have conceeded that God as described by religions can be challenged through sociology and anthropology.

So now suddenly you're using the term 'god' to include possibly delivering revelations to people? What happened to your earlier, careful definition as to 'god' being your equivalent to 'the big bang event'?

Can't eat your cake and have it too.

I only discuss revelation because people have testified to have received revelation. I see no way science can prove that it has not happened. Even if there are lots of electrodes on the head of the person experiencing the revelation. Given the concept of God in my first paragraph above, there would be no way of distinguishing which scenario was being observed scientifically.

 

[Lowpro]

I don't know if you read the concept presented by Inchneumwasp in the thread
"Are agnostics welcome here" recently.

Essentially the position is that everything in and about our existence is evidence of God* and could not be any other way. And yet this world is identical to the world of materialism. It would be entirely impossible to distinguish between the two possibilities because both our perception and experience would be identical and as we don't have an alternative universe to examine, we are stuck within the one example we do have.

All science can do is to describe this universe as it appears to us, nothing more.

Any God* which does exist could theoretically in principle do anything and it wouldn't be magic (although it might appear so to us) and there would be no way of knowing what God was doing in our world as it would appear to us as quite normal physical phenomena obeying the laws of physics.


*God = the creator or origin of the known universe and all thats in it.

That's not religious either. You call it God, I call it quantum fluctuation. The problem is the attribution of agency OTHER than this. Take for instance that God as you describe with the asterisk IS the creator of the known universe and all that's in it. That has NO intent any more than quantum fluctuation. Religion describes more than this, it demands intent at the very least, and usually it involves spiritual "stroking yourself" things. God as you argue here isn't an agent of anything more than existence, but has NOTHING to say about afterlife and spirituality, the things that make religion. It also has no magic as Hutchinson and D'souza have to use to make God "their" God etc etc.

This doesn't validate belief, this doesn't validate religion. It doesn't equivocate mysticism and religious thinking either. All it does is allow science to say "i told you so" by excluding God's agency in reality.

Also Punshhh as to revelation, it has about as much validity as people testifying that Tom Sawyer exists. I always like to imagine in some communication apocalypse centuries from now people will tell the tales of Tom Sawyer as obvious truth, since after all they read it in a book... The only reason we can actually say Tom Sawyer doesn't exist is through the scientific method. When evidence against Tom Sawyer disappears (as in, history of Mark Twain may be lost, people forget how to read for a bit and (mis)translations occur...people just make crap up that he DOES exist and everyone is to ignorant to challenge him/her...and sometimes if they did that person would just be killed outright for heresy -.-) it'll be harder to test the theory; doesn't mean science CANNOT test for it though, it just means confirmation is harder to get and you'd have to say "I don't know" and as I've said, it's much more valid to say "I don't know" with truths than say "I know" with lies.

I think the reason religion doesn't thrive as easily as it did earlier was because the ability to put bullpie claims to task became standard fare.

 

[tsig]

I don't know if you read the concept presented by Inchneumwasp in the thread
"Are agnostics welcome here" recently.

Essentially the position is that everything in and about our existence is evidence of God* and could not be any other way. And yet this world is identical to the world of materialism. It would be entirely impossible to distinguish between the two possibilities because both our perception and experience would be identical and as we don't have an alternative universe to examine, we are stuck within the one example we do have.

All science can do is to describe this universe as it appears to us, nothing more.

Any God* which does exist could theoretically in principle do anything and it wouldn't be magic (although it might appear so to us) and there would be no way of knowing what God was doing in our world as it would appear to us as quite normal physical phenomena obeying the laws of physics.

*God = the creator or origin of the known universe and all thats in it.

How can something appear to be magic and also appear as quite normal physical phenomena obeying the laws of physics?

 

[punshhh]

That's not religious either. You call it God, I call it quantum fluctuation. The problem is the attribution of agency OTHER than this. Take for instance that God as you describe with the asterisk IS the creator of the known universe and all that's in it. That has NO intent any more than quantum fluctuation. Religion describes more than this, it demands intent at the very least, and usually it involves spiritual "stroking yourself" things. God as you argue here isn't an agent of anything more than existence, but has NOTHING to say about afterlife and spirituality, the things that make religion. It also has no magic as Hutchinson and D'souza have to use to make God "their" God etc etc.

Yes, I accept that my definition may be devoid of agency, it does allow for the possibility of it though. Also it is not religion, however it is addressing a potential entity which is analogous to the God of religion, if paired down a little.

This doesn't validate belief, this doesn't validate religion. It doesn't equivocate mysticism and religious thinking either. All it does is allow science to say "i told you so" by excluding God's agency in reality.

Yes it doesn't validate religion in any way. It proposes a God which might exist and which science cannot say anything about. Such a God should it exist could have any attribute irrespective of the derived laws of physics.

Also Punshhh as to revelation, it has about as much validity as people testifying that Tom Sawyer exists. I always like to imagine in some communication apocalypse centuries from now people will tell the tales of Tom Sawyer as obvious truth, since after all they read it in a book... The only reason we can actually say Tom Sawyer doesn't exist is through the scientific method. When evidence against Tom Sawyer disappears (as in, history of Mark Twain may be lost, people forget how to read for a bit and (mis)translations occur) it'll be harder to test the theory; doesn't mean science CANNOT test for it though, it just means confirmation is harder to get and you'd have to say "I don't know" and as I've said, it's much more valid to say "I don't know" with truths than say "I know" with lies.

Revelation can be no more than anecdotal, however it cannot be disproven given the scenario I had suggested.

Revelation should it be true is the agency through which knowledge of this God would be received. As such there would be aspects of testimony of revelation in religious texts which may be genuine knowledge of God, should God exist.

 

[The Norseman]

I am only philosophizing, I'm not suggesting God exists. I'm laying out what one can sumise about a God if one defines it as I have.

You consistently do more than that, in my opinion.

I have conceeded that God as described by religions can be challenged through sociology and anthropology.

And how about the gods of mysticism?

I only discuss revelation because people have testified to have received revelation. I see no way science can prove that it has not happened. Even if there are lots of electrodes on the head of the person experiencing the revelation. Given the concept of God in my first paragraph above, there would be no way of distinguishing which scenario was being observed scientifically.

There isn't? Have you heard of the god hat? That's science and it's attempting to do just what you describe as not being observed scientifically. And I'm using 'observed' in the normal, scientific sense. Anyway, they claim even some success, though it's not conclusive.

Yes, I accept that my definition may be devoid of agency, it does allow for the possibility of it though. Also it is not religion, however it is addressing a potential entity which is analogous to the God of religion, if paired down a little.

Your definition doesn't allow for anything of the sort, unless I'm missing something.

Yes it doesn't validate religion in any way. It proposes a God which might exist and which science cannot say anything about. Such a God should it exist could have any attribute irrespective of the derived laws of physics.

Revelation can be no more than anecdotal, however it cannot be disproven given the scenario I had suggested.

Revelation should it be true is the agency through which knowledge of this God would be received. As such there would be aspects of testimony of revelation in religious texts which may be genuine knowledge of God, should God exist.

Oh, sigh. You're equivocating again. Why would we wish to use a term ('god') with all of it's attendant baggage and assumptions and problems of identification and understanding rather than the more acceptable, neutral, not-to-be-confused-for-anything-else term of ('the big bang event')?

I also find it interesting that people don't generally make statements like "the big bang event allows for the possibility of agency and intelligence during the moments before Planck time" yet it's natural to do that for the term 'god'.

 

[westprog]

So instead of whining about it, how about demonstrating your superior skills at making and conducting real scientific arguments? I think I know you well enough by now, but I'm still guessing that you apply hardcore scientific evidences and thoughts towards everything but your god. Is this correct? Maybe I'm wrong, but in order to forestall any difficulty, how about formulating a real scientific argument against the existence of any other god that you don't believe in?

If I, and others, are doing it wrong, then please show me how to do it correctly. I am the first to admit I don't know everything and I read JREF quite a bit to learn.

What's the right thing for a scientist to do about God? Shut up about it and get his work done. There is no rightful place for religion in science, and I don't understand why atheists of all people are determined to drag it in.

Of course I don't apply hardcore scientific evidence to everything else but religion. In fact, scientists apply hardcore science to their job. They don't use science to decide whether they like fish and chips, or who to marry, or what to watch on TV. That would be an equal misuse of science.

 

[westprog]

How can something appear to be magic and also appear as quite normal physical phenomena obeying the laws of physics?

We don't establish the laws of physics from first principles. We derive them from observation.

 

[tsig]

How can something appear to be magic and also appear as quite normal physical phenomena obeying the laws of physics?

We don't establish the laws of physics from first principles. We derive them from observation.

Your post is not responsive to mine.

 

[Lowpro]

Yes, I accept that my definition may be devoid of agency, it does allow for the possibility of it though. Also it is not religion, however it is addressing a potential entity which is analogous to the God of religion, if paired down a little.

Yes it doesn't validate religion in any way. It proposes a God which might exist and which science cannot say anything about. Such a God should it exist could have any attribute irrespective of the derived laws of physics.

No it doesn't. You can't have a genuine statement of that any more than I can say that it gives possibility for a God which science CAN say anything about. It gives a statement of no value.

Revelation can be no more than anecdotal, however it cannot be disproven given the scenario I had suggested.

Revelation should it be true is the agency through which knowledge of this God would be received. As such there would be aspects of testimony of revelation in religious texts which may be genuine knowledge of God, should God exist.

Tom Sawyer does not exist. I can prove this using the scientific method, or at least make his existence extremely untenable. Science doesn't always have to be absolute proofs, because it can gather evidence to make a theory more or less tenable, and religion cannot. So, that being said, how does revelation beat this barrier? What does revelation have that makes it immune from inquiry and evidence gathering? I've said that science CAN investigate if there's something to investigate, even if the investigation doesn't make a conclusive statement. "I don't know" is valid, and to say that I don't know about this God of yours hasn't proved that science cannot at all say anything about existence. Science CAN investigate it, it may not be able to give a definite answer though. This problem can change depending on circumstances; Tom Sawyer is easy to render untenable (disprove) because we have a lot of information. Bronze Age myth is easy to render untenable (disprove) too (The pantheon for instance is easy to disprove) stories in the Old Testament are easy to render untenable (disprove). Religion has cowered and now uses sophistry instead of myth to create a God which fits their ability to hide details. The more we learn, the more ground they have given up. At this point trying to equivocate "well it could" is senseless because there's no value in what you suppose here. It's not even religious until you make that spiritual connection. It as IS valid as saying Tom Sawyer could have existed. That doesn't mean he does exist, it doesn't allow you to say you know he exists. At this point Punshhh how could you actually say Science hasn't refuted Religion? Really if we're reduced to using sophism to avoid actually losing the argument here, and that sophism doesn't even have religion at all any more than just trying to make sure Tom Sawyer/FSM/God could possibly exist, even if that existence has in no way any relevance to any religion, why keep taking a few steps away from logic to hold onto it?

Allow me to try a bit of a different tactic, using what you've said. Things we are pretty sure we know. We have a universe, and it wasn't eternally this way, it started with a Big Bang and evidence lends to the theory that a quantum fluctuation occurred that quickly amplified into what we have now, given a vast length of time. That's everything we have. You define a cause to this, and name that cause God, for the purpose of what I'm about to discuss, we'll call this God (A). This God doesn't necessarily have to have ANYTHING else to do except be that quantum fluctuation. Fine.

It proposes a God which might exist and which science cannot say anything about. Such a God should it exist could have any attribute irrespective of the derived laws of physics.

We'll call this supposed God (B)

You cannot get from what I summed up there (A), to here (B). Not without making something up along the way. (A) Has only one novel function, that being the creation of existence, but then you also propose (B) as if they're the same. There is no necessary reason for this to be so. You might as well have just made up two gods, (A) and (B) and they could have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. But you can't even make (B) valid at all either. There is no line of logic, no reason for (B) to exist, or for (A) to also be (B) (Sorry if this is confusing, it would be nice if I could draw this on a whiteboard...)

(B) is superfluous and untenable. It has no obvious novel function by which we can surmise its existence at all. At least with (A) we have room to consider it, with (B) there is none.

So why suppose (B) at all? Why are you considering it, and why conflate with (A) if you are indeed doing so.

--------------------------------

You know I read that over once...I want to be able to present this idea...but it is screwy in this format...so sorry.

 

[westprog]

Your post is not responsive to mine.

I think it is.

The quantum world works like magic. Newton thought gravity worked like magic. The reason we don't think it's magic is because it follows consistent rules, not because it isn't bizarre.

 

[Lowpro]

I think it is.

The quantum world works like magic. Newton thought gravity worked like magic. The reason we don't think it's magic is because it follows consistent rules, not because it isn't bizarre.

Well that's using the word magic with abandon isn't it? Sort of like saying magic exists until it doesn't...