The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?"

[NeilC]

You are no more capable of proving or postulating its existence. However that's fine. Philosophically an omnipotent God cannot exist; omnipotence is a nonsense term.

No it cannot be proved nor disproved. As we all know it's unfalsifiable. Which is why science cannot refute it.

 

[NeilC]

Doyle was a spiritualist - perhaps he felt he was "divinely inspired" as he wrote. Perhaps SH is god's word; for real, this time.

Natch. My very point being that their feelings and divine "inspirations" are not enough to establish reality.

The hound of the Baskervilles is as real as Harry Potter's wand, is as real as Jesus' crown of thorns.

If science and reason cannot discern fact from fiction, there's a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

i.e. Are you being sarcastic/satirical? (I gather since that you are not.)

I didn't follow that.

Is it impossible for science to refute anything? Even patently absurd mythology? (Serious question.)

I've since looked up Poe's Law. No I'm not being satirical. I'm making the point that science cannot refute unfalsifiable nonsense like existence of an omnipotent god that "acts in mysterious ways". Poe's law appears to apply to someone parodying an extremist. I don't think the position I've taken is actually an extremist one. Most of the UK claims to be Church of England but don't take it too seriously. Most people I speak to believe in "some kind of god" and they see that god as applying to their CoE faith. So unless most of the UK is extremist I don't think Poe's law applies. But them I'm new to the term.

Science can refute all sorts of things, as long as they are testable. An omnipotent god is not currently one of them.

I'm not attempting to prove the existence of god. That would be a waste of time. So is trying to prove there isn't one.

The OP asked: has science refuted religion? My opinion is that it has not. It has refuted some aspects of some religions but many believers have retreated to the unfalsiable aspects in the main and by definition, they cannot be disproved.

I wasn't aware this was such a contentious position.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The OP asked: has science refuted religion? My opinion is that it has not. It has refuted some aspects of some religions but many believers have retreated to the unfalsiable aspects in the main and by definition, they cannot be disproved.

From an empirical perspective, that is refutation. You've disproven the idea exactly everywhere it counts. That some people persist in their delusion is not your problem.

 

[punshhh]

I've since looked up Poe's Law. No I'm not being satirical. I'm making the point that science cannot refute unfalsifiable nonsense like existence of an omnipotent god that "acts in mysterious ways". Poe's law appears to apply to someone parodying an extremist. I don't think the position I've taken is actually an extremist one. Most of the UK claims to be Church of England but don't take it too seriously. Most people I speak to believe in "some kind of god" and they see that god as applying to their CoE faith. So unless most of the UK is extremist I don't think Poe's law applies. But them I'm new to the term.

Science can refute all sorts of things, as long as they are testable. An omnipotent god is not currently one of them.

I'm not attempting to prove the existence of god. That would be a waste of time. So is trying to prove there isn't one.

The OP asked: has science refuted religion? My opinion is that it has not. It has refuted some aspects of some religions but many believers have retreated to the unfalsiable aspects in the main and by definition, they cannot be disproved.

I wasn't aware this was such a contentious position.

Only here does it seem to be contentious.

I agree with you entirely.

 

[NeilC]

From an empirical perspective, that is refutation. You've disproven the idea exactly everywhere it counts. That some people persist in their delusion is not your problem.

I don't understadn. Could you expand?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

No you cannot conclude that. Well you CAN but it isn't the only conclusion and certainly not the one Christians make. You can also conclude that the Bible is partially allegorical but the main thrust of it is true.

But merely refuting parts of it doesn't necessarily render it all untrue either

Nobody postulated a supernatural basis for Holmes existence. His fictional nature is easily provable. God's isn't.

No, you absolutely can conclude that. If we are using science to adjudge whether the God of the Bible exists or not then we absolutely have to conclude that it does not. The story doesn't fit with what we know via science.

Now if you wish to redefine another God then we can deal with that concept separately but that's the goalposts being moved. The one in the Bible doesn't exist according to science.

And refuting parts of it does render it untrue. You cannot say you have a 12 foot tall pink dragon in your garden except its only 1 foot tall, brown and a dog but the story is still true. Even if you have an 8ft tall pink dragon in your garden your original claim is still false.

Most Christians don't believe that the bible is 100% accurate dictation of the word of god from his mind to paper so you can refute the great flood and other stories but still not refute the entire religion. Science has pushed religion into a smaller and smaller corner but not killed it entirely. The concept of God is not disprovable and religions based on that sort of god can be whittled away all you like but there is still room to believe in the God.

Most Christians don't actually know what they believe in to be honest. They have non-scientific, non-specific meaningless definitions of God(s). Generally they avoid the refutation of their claim by avoiding making a meaningful claim. If your argument is that science cannot debunk a definition of something that people are not prepared to define then fine.

He's openly writing fiction. They're claiming they're writing with divine inspiration. If their god is real the the difference is vast.

It matters not a jot what they claim to be writing. They are writing things which are not true.

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.

Well if you are prepared to argue that reality isn't real then all bets are off. But then science can't debunk anything at all and we have to accept homeopathy, ghosts, astrology and everything else can't be debunked either. However, if we are prepared to accept science can tell us anything about anything then science tells us God doesn't exist.

No it cannot be proved nor disproved. As we all know it's unfalsifiable. Which is why science cannot refute it.

I think you are allowing the religionist goalpost move too easily. We are not talking about any imaginable concept of God that is as yet undefined but specific meaningful definitions of Gods. To the extent that any of these definitions exist then science has shown their descriptions to be of things that do not exist in reality.

 

[Lowpro]

No it cannot be proved nor disproved. As we all know it's unfalsifiable. Which is why science cannot refute it.

Philosophically it can be argued against because the attribute of omnipotence is invalid and ridiculous (check out judebrandos thread on whether an omnipotent God can deliver a book. It becomes the same argument as to whether an omnipotent God can make un unmakeable object)

But science from what I can tell deals with empirical data not supposition directly though a hypothesis may stem from such a supposition. When God is reduced to russels teapot science may be able to answer the existence of the teapot depending on the attributes ascribed. If one was so cavalier to determine the teapot to be undetectable then it becomes ludicrous to assume the existence of the teapot in the first place; same for God. Hiding behind sophistry is a bad sign for the believers argument.

There is more to religion that just gods existence, there is also his agency and that can be disproved. We know God didn't craft man from dirt and breath, but that we are the continuum of biochemistry, the God hypothesis fails here.

 

[Complexity]

Are you saying this galaxy makes us look fat?

Well, it does have a distinct bulge in the middle.

 

[Mashuna]

No it cannot be proved nor disproved. As we all know it's unfalsifiable. Which is why science cannot refute it.

In the same way that last Thursdayism cannot be refuted, or the claim that a special powered leprechaun from another dimension did it. I'm not saying I disagree with you, it's just that if people retreat to that kind of definition, there's not much point to the debate.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No it cannot be proved nor disproved. As we all know it's unfalsifiable. Which is why science cannot refute it.

But one can see that the overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion all gods are mythical human inventions.

 

[Brainache]

Well, it does have a distinct bulge in the middle.

That's just God being pleased to see us...

 

[tsig]

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.

Then how do you know anything about god?

 

[Mashuna]

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.

With the difference that the cat knows of my existence.

 

[Lowpro]

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.

 

[westprog]

What most scientists would argue though is that metaphysics is to all intents and purposes a set of discredited hypotheses

It may be true that metaphysics is a set of discredited hypotheses. Saying that "most scientists" think so is just wishful thinking. The vast majority of scientists don't comment on the subject.

 

[westprog]

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.

Science has been very effective in debunking beliefs in transubstantiation not actually held by anyone.

 

[westprog]

If you insist on reading overly literalistic...

That's the version of science followed by good scientists.

 

[westprog]

In fact, this argument is a non-starter. We know what the claims of science are. We can tell this by reading scientific papers and textbooks. It's a well-defined area. This isn't even a real topic for discussion- pretending that "science" has a position on something with which it is not, in practice, remotely concerned.

 

[Lowpro]

In fact, this argument is a non-starter. We know what the claims of science are. We can tell this by reading scientific papers and textbooks. It's a well-defined area. This isn't even a real topic for discussion- pretending that "science" has a position on something with which it is not, in practice, remotely concerned.

I think the question becomes WHEN the boundaries of metaphysics meets testable claims though. Basically, you can't say that russel's teapot exists but is undetectable because that's nonsensical. But once you say something else like "it orbits Saturn" that is detectable. When you say God created the Earth, we can test that claim (it fails). When you say the soul exists I surmise that it's probably undetectable by fiat. But to say the soul is sympathetic to your actions in reality, well that's much harder to say is undetectable and stands to reason that science can answer it, even if the answer is "we don't know (yet)". This answer is not on even ground with the claim that science makes faith based claims, as claiming you don't know isn't faith based; to claim that it does exist, or you KNOW it exists, is a faith claim. To say it probably doesn't exist due to _____ isn't a faith claim, it's a conclusion based on evidence (likewise, to say it probably exists due to ______), one that may yet be made untenable. But scrutinizing data isn't faith based, neither is science. Science is the process that actually scrutinizes the data you bring to determine whether a soul might or might not exist (no evidence that it might, but then the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence either) The fact that religious people like Dinesh don't seem to care about this obvious fact discredits them.

People like Dinesh refuse to recognize the evidence and refuse to scrutinize it (and I presume due to his intellectual bankruptcy he will only scrutinize it if it supports his position) which is why these debates are useless; because he is useless as a scientist and just stonewalls due to ignorance.

 

[westprog]

he is useless as a scientist and just stonewalls due to ignorance.

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.