The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?"

[westprog]

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

What we might define as magic changes as our ideas about the nature of the universe changes. Until the 20th century, a causeless event would have seemed to be magic. Now it's the accepted way that the world works.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

No Emsworth, there isn’t. Not even remotely. See if you can understand why beyond simply parroting the company line. It’s not so hard. .

Then you don't try to identfy and/or even adress some differences between your examples and religion/spirituality. Hey, it was your point.

(I also don't have the highest expectations of ever finding out what company line I am supposedly parroting.)

 

[punshhh]

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.



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.



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.

Sounds ok to me.

I am short of time over the next few days, easter holidays. So I will just say that (A) may or may not have the attributes of (B), we don't know. The important thing is it cannot be refuted. All science can say, if at all, is that from our position it is highly unlikely and there is no indication that it is so.

Going back to revelation, if we assume that revelation can only be true if (B) exists, then the truth or not of revelation is determined by the truth or not of the existence of (B). Again science can only say it is unlikely to be true, as there is only anecdotal evidence and the human brain is understood to cause hallucination and delusion due to biological factors, leading to the idea that it was a revelation.

In either case, does this amount to a refutation?

 

[Lowpro]

Sounds ok to me.

I am short of time over the next few days, easter holidays. So I will just say that (A) may or may not have the attributes of (B), we don't know. The important thing is it cannot be refuted. All science can say, if at all, is that from our position it is highly unlikely and there is no indication that it is so.

Going back to revelation, if we assume that revelation can only be true if (B) exists, then the truth or not of revelation is determined by the truth or not of the existence of (B). Again science can only say it is unlikely to be true, as there is only anecdotal evidence and the human brain is understood to cause hallucination and delusion due to biological factors, leading to the idea that it was a revelation.

In either case, does this amount to a refutation?

Happy holidays, hope they're safe and fun.

But yea pretty much I think it is close enough to a refutation until something else may come along; that's how science tends to work. The thing is you can say it's irrefutable, but there is no way that leaving within the grey area means it's valid. That's the disconnect. Science doesn't refute, science gathers data and that data can be investigated and then compared against a hypothesis. The God hypothesis is untenable, especially with our case of God (B) because even IF we could allow for God (A) to exist, that doesn't strengthen the argument of existence for God (B). If Quantum Fluctuations gave rise to existence, that doesn't make:

t 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

This guy any more likely. That God is just stuck in your mind like any fictional character is.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

I never suggested otherwise.

Sometimes, they are even useful in determining what's true, but to do so we must put them in context. When someone has a feeling that relativity is false, for instance (and many people do), they would do well to examine where that feeling arrises in order to determine how to weigh it with respect to all the other available evidence.

‘ 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.

None of those things are questions of what's true, or about how the universe actually is. When you are trying to work toward an outcome determined by your feelings of course it makes sense to take your feelings into account. I don't see how you think I suggested otherwise.

If I'm looking at a menu and trying to decide what dish to order, I have to think about what dishes taste good to me.

….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.

They don't have zero legitimacy, but they the legitimacy they have is contextual. Yes, if you ask me "who should I marry?" it makes sense to look at the feelings you have toward the different people in your life. If you ask me "does god exist?" your feelings on the matter will tell us very little.

 

[Roboramma]

I don't actually have a problem with punshhh's "God = the creator or origin of the universe" definition. It's fine. In fact, I'm happy to say that under that definition I'm agnositic: there may be such a thing, and I wouldn't even be all that surprised. Of course, I wouldn't be all the surprised if there's not either.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that there is.

Okay. Now, the universe has some sort of causal origin. Cool. What else is true about it?

What colour is it? Well, maybe it doesn't have a colour. But if it does, let's say someone comes along and says "it's pink!" That specific claim is unlikely to be true, because it's only one of a large number of other colours the it could have.
Maybe someone else says "it's described by such and such an equation" again, without evidence to support it, that claim is also unlikely to be true, given that it's only one of the vast number of equations that could apply, if any actually do.

Intelligence and personality are not single attributes, but the combination of many. So rather than saying "it's intelligent" being similar to saying "it's pink", it's actually more like saying "it looks like marilyn monroe".

I'm sorry, but that particular combination of properties is simply unlikely. Yes, it's as possible as any of the almost infinite number of other possibilities about which we know nothing, but there's no more reason to favour it than any of the others. And the more specific someone's conception of god becomes, the less likely it is to be true, even if something fitting the definition at the start of this post exists.

 

[annnnoid]

Then you don't try to identfy and/or even adress some differences between your examples and religion/spirituality. Hey, it was your point.

(I also don't have the highest expectations of ever finding out what company line I am supposedly parroting.)

Lets face it Emsworth….the understanding of religion and religious motivations and experiences portrayed by the typical JREF resident (especially on the R&P threads) barely approaches kindergarten level…not to mention the incoherent positions so frequently presented to ridicule it (the ‘company line’)…as Westprog quite accurately pointed out:

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.

Religious activity / spirituality is a vast and complex area that goes to the very heart of what it means to be a human being (anybody who’s taken the time to actually study the matter […ie: look at the evidence..] will know this)…the exact same place where all our thoughts and feelings occur and originate. You cannot isolate religious / spiritual issues into single simplistic functions any more than you can isolate any other human experience into single simplistic functions. They are all fundamentally intertwined. Therefore the ‘feelings’ that are involved in the adjudication, experience, and activity of religion / spirituality are no different than those involved in every other area of life and are very often if not invariably interconnected with it. For example….one of the defining issues referred to in many traditions / religions is the phenomenon known as ‘love’. Quite obviously, this is a condition that is equally relevant across the entire human landscape.

 

[Peterson]

I can understand your curiosity so I'll recommend a book for you because your question is too big to be answered in a post.

http://www.amazon.com/Mysticism-Eve...4970/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333711365&sr=8-1

Thanks for reminding me that I wanted to read her. I picked up a used copy of Practical Mysticism last night.

I'd say that the only way to know what it's like to be aware of God's presence is to be aware of God's presence. Mysticism isn't anything special. Everybody is a mystic to some extent. Even the non-believer is in touch with the Divine at the most basic level of existence. In this sense the atheist glorifies God in the same way a rock does, by the simple fact that they exist. They just don't realize or don't want to realize that they are doing this.

 

[Donn]

I'd say that the only way to know what it's like to be aware of God's presence is to be aware of God's presence.

How do you tell that apart from Yoda's presence? Wait, don't tell me... It's a feeling.

Mysticism isn't anything special.

Bingo!

Everybody is a mystic to some extent.

Vague, but poetic.

Even the non-believer is in touch with the Divine at the most basic level of existence.

Saying it don't make it so.

In this sense the atheist glorifies God in the same way a rock does, by the simple fact that they exist.

And the Theist glories the lack of God by the same argument. Since we are now free-wheeling and making coprolite up.

They just don't realize or don't want to realize that they are doing this.

I am perfectly aware that there is no god. Thanks anyway.

 

[annnnoid]

I'd say that the only way to know what it's like to be aware of God's presence is to be aware of God's presence. Mysticism isn't anything special. Everybody is a mystic to some extent. Even the non-believer is in touch with the Divine at the most basic level of existence. In this sense the atheist glorifies God in the same way a rock does, by the simple fact that they exist. They just don't realize or don't want to realize that they are doing this.

There is a continuum. Mysticism is, ultimately, an integrated part of that continuum. Like every other part of the continuum…it can, and often is, experienced in isolation…and thus, like every other part of the continuum, can be distorted and / or misinterpreted. Is it something special? …indescribably so. But I think far more so when it is integrated with everything else (‘balance’ I think is the correct term). As you point out….life itself is immeasurably special (even for those who are convinced it isn’t). I think it’s simply a matter of when you get the inside right, you discover the outside (for anyone who gives the slightest crap about the evidence, there is much to support this POV).

….but as they say…I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

 

[annnnoid]

How do you tell that apart from Yoda's presence? Wait, don't tell me... It's a feeling.

….and as we all know, though feelings may be the metric by which we successfully adjudicate the entirety of everything that is in the slightest bit meaningful to each and every one of us….when it comes to this situation, they suddenly achieve absolutely zero credibility. Of course Donn.

 

[Donn]

Lets face it ... he understanding of religion and religious motivations and experiences portrayed .. barely approaches kindergarten level…

Well, I feel stupid now.

Religious activity / spirituality is a vast and complex area that goes to the very heart of what it means to be a human being

I gather you mean, by this, that atheists are not human. Nice.

You cannot isolate religious / spiritual issues into single simplistic functions any more than you can isolate any other human experience into single simplistic functions.

Haven't seen anyone trying this. You reading the same thread?

They are all fundamentally intertwined. Therefore the ‘feelings’ that are involved in the adjudication, experience, and activity of religion / spirituality are no different than those involved in every other area of life

Yes. There is no god. It's all chemisty. Glad you finally agree.

 

[Roboramma]

Religious activity / spirituality is a vast and complex area that goes to the very heart of what it means to be a human being (anybody who’s taken the time to actually study the matter […ie: look at the evidence..] will know this)…the exact same place where all our thoughts and feelings occur and originate. You cannot isolate religious / spiritual issues into single simplistic functions any more than you can isolate any other human experience into single simplistic functions. They are all fundamentally intertwined. Therefore the ‘feelings’ that are involved in the adjudication, experience, and activity of religion / spirituality are no different than those involved in every other area of life and are very often if not invariably interconnected with it. For example….one of the defining issues referred to in many traditions / religions is the phenomenon known as ‘love’. Quite obviously, this is a condition that is equally relevant across the entire human landscape.

All of this is true. The question is not "is there value in religious/spiritual traditions", but rather is the framework that religious/spritual traditions use to explain that value valid or correct?

I find value in the same emotional experiences as I suspect most people do. I certainly don't begrudge them those experiences. But when they try to explain those experiences as having originated in god, when instead there is a very strongly supported psychological explanation, then I take issue.

There's a difference between the activities suggested by and incorporated in a religious tradition (like, for instance, going to church, which I suspect for many people is a very valuable part of their life), and the explanation for why those things are important, particularly when those explanations include mystical claims. Admitting the value and emotional component of religion has nothing to do with accepting it's claims about the true nature of the cosmos.

Similarly denying the latter doesn't require denying the former, though admittedly some fail to realise this.

 

[dlorde]

We can say a lot about Gandalf, why not god? Fictional characters can be discussed.

I agree. I was just pointing out punshhh's claim was self-contradictory (a statement about God that says we can't make statements about God).

 

[dlorde]

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

How could I forget?

 

[dlorde]

My point is quite simply that we cannot assess the likelyhood of any kind of origin over any other
....
My definition of God is more likely I would suggest than the FSM.

These statements contradict each other.

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.

Redundant. Not being able to say anything about God includes what God might do - that's what the 'anything' means.

 

[Donn]

….and as we all know, though feelings may be the metric by which we successfully adjudicate the entirety of everything that is in the slightest bit meaningful to each and every one of us….when it comes to this situation, they suddenly achieve absolutely zero credibility. Of course Donn.

I can't believe I'm gonna quote Heinlein, but here it is:
"The universe is what it is, not what we want it to be." - Starship Troopers

Your feelings, my feelings, they make not a bit of difference to reality. The whole essence of science is to get our feelings out of the way.

 

[dlorde]

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

gwimw? :d

 

[Resume]

Your feelings, my feelings, they make not a bit of difference to reality. The whole essence of science is to get our feelings out of the way.

What a kindergarten level of understanding. What kind of world would it be to examine phenomena objectively?

 

[Resume]

I picked up a used copy of Practical Mysticism last night.

I hope you didn't pay too much.