The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?"

[Lord Emsworth]

Is there actually anything interesting in this "great debate"? From what I can see in this thread there seems to be plenty of the usual rubbish.

And ... Why does it always seem that there are just a bunch of retarded apologists who get to act as spokepersons for everything religious?

 

[Lowpro]

Is there actually anything interesting in this "great debate"? From what I can see in this thread there seems to be plenty of the usual rubbish.

And ... Why does it always seem that there are just a bunch of retarded apologists who get to act as spokepersons for everything religious?

Can't have one without the other

 

[Leumas]

Well, I listened to parts of it and (apart from the fact that the audio was hard for me to hear) I did not hear anything enlightening from anyone. From some speakers already mentioned, I heard the opposite of enlightenment: remarkable presumption, empty words and called bluffs.

The emptiest of words were the ones in which miracles were declared real because they had been seen. Well, excuse me, but any real scientist would know that doesn't count for bat spit, especially since we don't know the circumstances of the witnessing, we don't know how "miracle" is defined, and to top it off, I know some pretty good magic tricks that could probably fool everyone on the stage and that could pass for miracles (and I admit I'm AWFUL as a magician!). And do I need to add that miracles do not attest for the truth of religions in the first place?

Is there actually anything interesting in this "great debate"? From what I can see in this thread there seems to be plenty of the usual rubbish.

And ... Why does it always seem that there are just a bunch of retarded apologists who get to act as spokepersons for everything religious?

I think the best thing in the entire 2 hours was by one of the questioners.

Listen to it intently it is great and quite right.... minutes 1:42:19 to 1:43:41.

So true and poignant.

ETA: Can anyone do us the favor of finding a transcript of it?

 

[jakesteele]

I think it has. The universe is so vast that for a god to exist hed have to be more vast than anyone could ever comprehend. No sign of that out there.

If a god does exist this earth of ours is just a tiny example of what the universe was created for. It wasn't just for us.

Me I think there is no god.

I believe that's the whole point of the god concept. God, by definition, is supposed to be more vast that anyone could ever comprehend.

I am all that is and all that will ever be
All that is, all that ever was and all that ever will be.
I am all of that and more.
I am more than you can conceive
Or believe.
you are because I am.
I will be when you are not
you are because I am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism

 

[Leumas]

I believe that's the whole point of the god concept. God, by definition, is supposed to be more vast that anyone could ever comprehend.

I am all that is and all that will ever be
All that is, all that ever was and all that ever will be.
I am all of that and more.
I am more than you can conceive
Or believe.
you are because I am.
I will be when you are not
you are because I am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism

All jolly nice.... except these are concepts that are constructs of the overly fecund imagination of humans. Unfortunately they are as real as square circles.

The human brain can imagine and express in words and even draw impossible things....nevertheless they remain impossible.

What is amazing about human brains and languages is that we can describe in words and even draw images representing the CONCEPTS in our brains but what is astounding is that many of these may not have any basis in fact and are even frequently IMPOSSIBLE.

Have a look at the drawing below while you are also thinking about things like Square Circles and the Penrose Stairs.

The omni-all God is the exact same concept as the image below....impossible… but yet there it as an exquisite illustration of what goes on in human imaginations.

 

[punshhh]

Is there actually anything interesting in this "great debate"? From what I can see in this thread there seems to be plenty of the usual rubbish.

And ... Why does it always seem that there are just a bunch of retarded apologists who get to act as spokepersons for everything religious?

There may be a few posters who would do a good job of defending the religious corner. But it appears they've pretty much given up on debating religion in the religion and philosophy sub forum.

It is left to a handful of philosophers, open minded thinkers and mystics to step in. Merely to point out that to assume that what science has worked out about existence is the be all and end all is a rather short sighted view and smacks of religious faith.

 

[punshhh]

All jolly nice.... except these are concepts that are constructs of the overly fecund imagination of humans. Unfortunately they are as real as square circles.

The human brain can imagine and express in words and even draw impossible things....nevertheless they remain impossible.

What is amazing about human brains and languages is that we can describe in words and even draw images representing the CONCEPTS in our brains but what is astounding is that many of these may not have any basis in fact and are even frequently IMPOSSIBLE.

Have a look at the drawing below while you are also thinking about things like Square Circles and the Penrose Stairs.

The omni-all God is the exact same concept as the image below....impossible… but yet there it as an exquisite illustration of what goes on in human imaginations.


[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Escher_Waterfall.jpg[/qimg]

I realise we may be on opposing sides in this thread.

However I have little to disagree with the points you make on this issue and when I suggest that God may refer to an advanced alien or AI. You do not disagree with me.

So any defense I may appear to be making on behalf of religion is really to tease out the issue rather than support their position. A position which they are at liberty to take, provided they do not dump the consequences of it on their fellow man.

 

[Leumas]

There may be a few posters who would do a good job of defending the religious corner. But it appears they've pretty much given up on debating religion in the religion and philosophy sub forum.

It is left to a handful of philosophers, open minded thinkers and mystics to step in. Merely point out that to assume that what science has worked out about existence is the be all and end all is a rather short sighted view and smacks of religious faith.

That would be stupid.... but science is based upon saying we do not know when we do not, and what is more important is that it never says we know unless we have solid evidence and verified explanations for the evidence that has passed among many tests the trial of predictive-ability.

What most scientists would argue though is that metaphysics is to all intents and purposes a set of discredited hypotheses that have served their role during the infancy of humanity but it is about time we grew up. It is fine for a kid to believe in toy-delivering myths but it is not becoming of adults.

Science has enabled humanity to GROW and thus we need to mature and stop relying on age old twaddle which is the product of primitive people's imaginations during the infancy of their consciousness.

But it is obvious many people need to have a night light to scare away the monsters under the bed no matter how old they are.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

There may be a few posters who would do a good job of defending the religious corner. But it appears they've pretty much given up on debating religion in the religion and philosophy sub forum.

It is left to a handful of philosophers, open minded thinkers and mystics to step in. Merely to point out that to assume that what science has worked out about existence is the be all and end all is a rather short sighted view and smacks of religious faith.

I don't actually think that so many people believe that what science has worked out is the be all and end all etc. On the other hand, the term science can be interpreted very, very broadly, and with that make any serious inquiry a scientific or quasi-scientific endeavor.


And as an aside, do you have a problem with anything that smacks of religious faith for the sole reason of smacking of religious faith? For example, for being too short sighted?

 

[Explorer]

Merely to point out that to assume that what science has worked out about existence is the be all and end all is a rather short sighted view and smacks of religious faith.

Science is a methodology, an analytical tool, not a belief system.

It does not rely on faith, quite the opposite. It relies on testing faith.

An hypothesis starts with a thought experiment. Those thoughts may have been generated by information derived from prior tested and proven facts, but any new hypothesis based on that, has to be subjected again to the routine of experimentation and peer review, before it becomes fact.

Science and individual scientists, will never make any claim to know everything about how the universe works, only how some parts of it works. Science thrives and flourishes as a consequence of this. It works by being adaptable, and self critical (characteristics mainly absent from faith systems), and is driven and motivated by the unknown. It does not worship the unknown, it seeks only to explain it.

 

[NeilC]

It's self-evident that science has not refuted religion and quite probably can never do so given how people define gods. Also religion is somewhat flexible and pragmatic in that it will adapt to new knowledge and shift the goals accordingly.

Science has refuted some beliefs in some religions, such as Noah's Ark, the age of the Earth etc and seems to have had a negative impact on the number of believers and the depth of belief of those remaining, certainly in the West anyway. One could argue that democracy and freedom of expression have had just as great an impact in that it is now possible to argue the other side without fear of severe recrimination.

 

[Roboramma]

Then please free to show the demonstration

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.

The question of whether or not the wine someone is drinking is literally the blood of christ is one that science can deal with, in exactly the same way that it can assess whether or not a homeopathic medicine is effective.

 

[Leumas]

I realise we may be on opposing sides in this thread.

However I have little to disagree with the points you make on this issue and when I suggest that God may refer to an advanced alien or AI. You do not disagree with me.
So any defense I may appear to be making on behalf of religion is really to tease out the issue rather than support their position. A position which they are at liberty to take, provided they do not dump the consequences of it on their fellow man.

There are four types of things people can think about

1. Realistic things
2. Imaginative but possible things
3. Imaginative but unlikely things with a spectrum of improbability
4. Imaginative but impossible things

If one conjectures a god who created everything ex nihilo then it is an impossible thought just like the many that can be generated by our fertile imaginations. For example square circles.

A pink elephant is imaginative and quite possible. I can imagine a genetic mutation that could possible result in a pink elephant.

If someone hypothesizes dragons then strictly speaking these are possible but due to some features like breathing fire they are quite improbable.... not impossible strictly speaking.... but not credible. I can hypothesize how they might possibly breath “fire” but the physicality makes them quite low on the probability spectrum.

If someone hypothesizes that an Alien race genetically manipulated animals to create humans and they are the gods of myths then again that is not impossible but highly improbable.

My reason for the improbability is the fossil record of human evolution from apes which would hardly be necessary if Aliens molded us unless these are the stages of their R&D .

Additionally, if Aliens evolved to then come here and help us LEAPFROG over evolution then why can't we have just evolved like they did but not yet at that stage? Why do we need to hypothesize the leapfrog at all? What use is that kind of thought?

But even if an Alien did generate (notice I say generate rather than create) humanity, it is really just pathetic to occupy ourselves with worshiping it because it is just as worthy of worship as I would be if I manage to create a race of conscious robots.... not at all.

Besides, should the ants in an ant farm aquarium bother to worship the kid playing with them? What difference would it do to the kid if they did or did not?

If Aliens did progenerate us then they must have done it for a purpose and since they are not palpable anywhere in this reality not even as ants might see the kid, then what is the purpose we are serving them? And do I really want to be a TOOL?

But in the end…. the kid could not, even if he wanted to and ever became aware of individual ants in his farm, help them to evade parasites or death or illness or venge their injustices against each other.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

It's self-evident that science has not refuted religion

I disagree. Each meaningful definition of religion has been scientifically refuted as has each meaningful God concept. That people choose to ignore that or redefine what they meant to try to get around it doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

 

[NeilC]

That people choose to ignore that or redefine what they meant to try to get around it doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

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?

 

[Humes fork]

No, science makes no claims. It measures, tests, predicts out comes based on the accumulation of data.

If you insist on reading overly literalistic...

Religion works on personal perception, which means science has no quantifiable data to work with.

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.

Hence why you will never see a scientific paper describing the evidence for the non existence of God. Which leads directly back to the statement pauite made - that neither philosophy intersects the other

"God" is a poor hypothesis.

 

[Leumas]

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.

Logic which is part of science dictates that the definition of Omnipotent whether works in mysterious or obvious ways renders the concept either useless or pointless or just paradoxical.


Epicurus explained it best....here is my slight rewarding of it:

• Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then s/he/it is not omnipotent and therefore no god.
• Is God able, but not willing to thwart evil? Then s/he/it is malevolent and thus no god.
• Is God both able and willing to stop evil? Then s/he/is is a moron since s/he/it is obviously failing and consequently not a god.

Of course the usual theist retort is FREE WILL. But what they always forget is...what about the free will of the victims? Did a child who is being hacked to death or raped or enslaved have any free will? Are people drowned in a tsunami or buried alive in an earthquake or starved to death in a famine given any free will?

Is god under some kind of PRIME DIRECTIVE..... then again s/he/it is no god.

Why does s/he/it (supposedly) interfere with free will capriciously in such vague ways and never in a decisively obvious manner not open to interpretations and conjectures (e.g. uselessly and meaninglessly showing his face or his mother's to some hick…. Or helping some football player to win)?

So as you can see the fact that there is evil in the world (the Theodicy problem) negates that there is a significant deity.

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?

Again Logic.... human kind is clearly not saved.... so he obviously failed in the declared objective and thus is not omnipotent or is a liar about his objective. And that is not to mention the obviously moronic mysterious means of attempting to achieve his objective.

 

[Humes fork]

Am I the only one who thinks Shermer was a rather poor speaker at this debate? He didn't seem to have practiced he opening statement very much.

 

[NeilC]

Logic which is part of science dictates that the definition of Omnipotent whether works in mysterious or obvious ways renders the concept either useless or pointless or just paradoxical.


Epicurus explained it best....here is my slight rewarding of it:

• Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then s/he/it is not omnipotent and therefore no god.
• Is God able, but not willing to thwart evil? Then s/he/it is malevolent and thus no god.
• Is God both able and willing to stop evil? Then s/he/is is a moron since s/he/it is obviously failing and consequently not a god.

Of course the usual theist retort is FREE WILL. But what they always forget is...what about the free will of the victims? Did a child who is being hacked to death or raped or enslaved have any free will? Are people drowned in a tsunami or buried alive in an earthquake or starved to death in a famine given any free will?

Is god under some kind of PRIME DIRECTIVE..... then again s/he/it is no god.

Why does s/he/it (supposedly) interfere with free will capriciously in such vague ways and never in a decisively obvious manner not open to interpretations and conjectures (e.g. uselessly and meaninglessly showing his face or his mother's to some hick…. Or helping some football player to win)?

So as you can see the fact that there is evil in the world (the Theodicy problem) negates that there is a significant deity.


Again Logic.... human kind is clearly not saved.... so he obviously failed in the declared objective and thus is not omnipotent or is a liar about his objective. And that is not to mention the obviously moronic mysterious means of attempting to achieve his objective.

I'm sorry but they are not examples of science refuting religion. Your definition of saved or your idea of God's time-scales may not be at all relevant here.

Epicurus's logic is not science refuting religion, it's a philosophical/theological argument. Just because science uses logic doesn't mean that all logical arguments are science. I would say it's not even a terribly good one in this context because of the "mysterious ways" clause". Human's earthly perception of God's will is incomplete. What may appear to be illogical will be made clear in Heaven or on Judgement day or whatever. That you personally don't understand the basis on which He chooses to interfere with the universe or free will is neither here nor there given that you are merely one of His creations and he is the almighty god of the universe and everything in it.

Also I take issue with Epicurus' logic. It does not automatically follow that "Then s/he/it is malevolent and thus no god". He could be malevolent and still a god or he could just appear to be malevolent to you but not be so in the grand scheme of things, and still be a god. Epircurus assumes god works on human level logic and I wasn't aware that claim was made by most religions.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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?

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. If that God does not exist then none of the above quoted can have taken place.

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

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