# Reading > Religious Texts >  Sciences vs. Religion

## mkotova

Can religion and science co-exist? Does one hinder the progress of the other? Copernicus and Galilei tried to make people see reason that one does not hinder the other. Did they succeed? 
Copernicus: it is an endeavor to seek truth in everything
Galilei: "If we have these gifts from God (intellect, curious), why should we not use them and just let them sit"

----------


## cafolini

They have always co-ex-isted as they do today and will do tomorrow. Neither ever had to justify the other.

----------


## mal4mac

Religion and science cannot co-exist. Religion involves believing stuff without evidence. Science is about believing the evidence. Science should be used to “cure” the world of religion, not co-exist with it, apart from treating the religious kindly until they are cured. 

“I hope for a world in which everyone is rational and believes things only when there is evidence in favor of them... And does not believe things because of tradition, authority, scripture, revelation… but only because of evidence.” - Richard Dawkins, http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_a...state-vanguard

----------


## YesNo

It looks like this is a duplicate thread. 

I agree with cafolini. Science and religion do coexist. There is no problem with their coexistence.

In the other thread, mortalterror pointed out that the claim that they don't coexist was created in the 19th century by atheists. This "conflict thesis" is no longer widely supported: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

In that Wikipedia article is the following:

_Biologist Stephen Jay Gould said: "White's and Draper's accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and use the same myths to support their narrative, the flat-earth legend prominently among them". In a summary of the historiography of the Conflict Thesis, Colin Russell said that "Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship"._
Gould's use of the word "myths" above is appropriate.

----------


## mal4mac

Richard Dawkins, and others, have demolished Gould's "two magisteria" position. Religion does not, and cannot, be divorced from scientific matters or the material world. Dawkins writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." Gould's observation that "These two magisteria do not overlap..." does not consider the claims of many religions upon material reality, such as miracles or prayer.

----------


## YesNo

> Richard Dawkins, and others, have demolished Gould's "two magisteria" position. Religion does not, and cannot, be divorced from scientific matters or the material world. Dawkins writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." Gould's observation that "These two magisteria do not overlap..." does not consider the claims of many religions upon material reality, such as miracles or prayer.


Dawkins is no authority for me on anything, scientific or religious. His claims need evidence and your quote provides none. 

I don't see any inherent conflict between religion and science. There have been and are differences between people both within and across each of these two legitimate areas of human activity, but overall there is no need to remove one to benefit the other. They both lead to truth and the good life.

There is, however, a heated conflict between atheism and theistic religions. That certainly exists. However, it is a 19th=century atheistic myth that there exists some sort of conflict between science and religion and somehow atheists are on the side of science. Considering how 20th century science demolished materialistic determinism, I don't see atheists on the side of science except as one other their delusions.

----------


## James Ada

Can not co-exist?

Let me explain God in simple mathematics (without surpassing the laws of maths or science).

(I can also explain it using numerous different methodologies but I believe this extremely summarised and simplified explanation will be sufficient)


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12……....…

Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one.

But in truth……..

Only one number does exist

The number "1"

E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

That is because "1" explains itself and every other number. In fact, every number is a repetition (more precisely a reproduction) of the number "1".

Not only does it explain every whole number but it also explains every type of number.
For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".

50% = 
1/2 = 
0.5 OF 1

"1" is the core of our mathematical numeric system. This is also the reason why binary system (the language of computers) is so successful.

What's so special about "1" is it is also complete

1 = 100%

In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end.
In maths this is signified with brackets ( )

( <------bound, beginning

) <------end, finish

*****(We do not use the brackets because we consider it common knowledge.)
In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths. That is why brackets are done first in arithmetical equation
e.g 
(3+2) x (3+1) = 20 
or
(5) x (4) = (20)
5x4=20 


One is 100% completely bounded and ended to itself.

(1) or (100%)


Hence this instantly means "(1)", the number "1" is the finite because of is finite restriction.

ANYTHING that can be calculated is. 

There is also another restriction of the number (1)

That is because by itself can not do much. 

It needs a medium or a language to communicate.

x, ÷ , √ , Etc are all fancy and group methods of doing the core symbols of maths. 

Addition and subtraction

Just like (1), 

(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.

Example

3x2 =6

(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)

So inside every (1) we have (+|-).
E.g 
Man = (1)
And he has (+|-) within himself. 

Scientifically we know we are living in 1 (E=mc2)

My question is say we calculated everything that exists in our (1) universe.
Hypothetically lets say 
everything = (100)

What would be 

1 + (100) = ?

It can not be 101
Reason
Everything has already been calculated and it equalled (100)

Let me rephrase the question 

from my brief explanation above what would be

1 + (finite)
1 + (maths)
1 + (1)
1 + (universe)
1 + (everything)
1 + (100%)
1 + (E=mc2)
1 + (+|-) 


????

It must be something outside of the bound and end (brackets)
Our concept of this is called 
Absolute Infinity
∞ 
Something beyond all bounds and ends

So in an equation
1 + (1) = ∞ 
Or as explained before the core language of (1) is maths (+|-) 

The theory of Absolute Infinity
1 + (+|-) = ∞

What so special about this equation?

It explain outside of our brackets
God is complete 1 
100%
Yet he is incomprehensible 
∞ 

It explains that we have the option I'd either choosing a + path or - negative

If on the day of judgment "=" our good deeds out way our bad
1 + (+>-) = + ∞ 
You will end up in eternal positive or heaven
Respectively 
1 + (+<-) = - ∞ 
Hell

God 1 = ∞
Created +
Everything (+-)
__________________

Quote: “If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light.”

So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.
1 + (1) = ∞
__________________

Mathematics studies the (+ | – ) laws to understand the (1) value.

Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | – ) laws.
__________________

Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.

The equation covers this aspect quite easily….

A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.
It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.

+ ( + | – ) This is the equation of Quantum mechanics,

And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies
__________________

Prisca Theologia

+(+|-) Atheist, understand natural law exist and Quanta

(1=∞) Pantheist, the universe is God

(1= ∞) Buddha said, look within yourself (1) and find your personal (∞) nirvana.

1 + (+|-) = ∞ Christianity, 
father 1 = ∞ 
holy spirit + 
son (+|-)

(holy spirit is the deliverer of the law, the son is earthly bound (+-) son

Islam
Surah 112
Say he is one
1 
on all whom depend + 
he begets not, 
nor is begotten 
(+|-) 
and none is like him ∞

__________________

Cantor actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)

I'm merely saying the same thing.
It doesn't matter if you call this concept Allah, God, Absolute Infinite. Whats important to understand is that a concept beyond anything calculable (including all the potential infinities) does exist, as Cantor proclaimed

----------


## mal4mac

> I don't see any inherent conflict between religion and science. There have been and are differences between people both within and across each of these two legitimate areas of human activity, but overall there is no need to remove one to benefit the other. They both lead to truth and the good life.


Science is evidence based, religion is not. The more rational they are, the less part irrational things will play in their life. So little children drop belief in such entities as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy as they become more rational. When people become more rational, more scientific, they start dropping beliefs in such entities as Zeus and Yahweh, for which there is no good evidence. This is indicated by 97% of FRS not being religious, as reported in Dawkins, "the God Delusion".

----------


## YesNo

> Science is evidence based, religion is not. The more rational they are, the less part irrational things will play in their life. So little children drop belief in such entities as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy as they become more rational. When people become more rational, more scientific, they start dropping beliefs in such entities as Zeus and Yahweh, for which there is no good evidence. This is indicated by 97% of FRS not being religious, as reported in Dawkins, "the God Delusion".


They are both evidence based. You might as well say there is a conflict between science and literature or science and art. All of these human activities deserve respect and approach truth in their own ways. 

The reason atheists pick on religion rather than literature or art is because they represent a competing set of religious opinions that are opposed to opinions offered by theistic religions. It is dishonest, if not irrational, to pit science against religion when what is at stake are missionaries promoting their different world views. Theists are no less rational than atheists. They are no less scientific than atheists. 

Atheists present a spaghetti monster view of the universe. The entities that atheists use to caricature the Gods of theists don't exist, but neither does that spaghetti monster universe of materialistic atoms deterministically interacting. Because that spaghetti monster universe doesn't exist, I don't see the point of atheism. Why pay attention to a religion or metaphysics whose view of the universe has been scientifically falsified?

Here's a further question that makes me suspicious of atheists, especially people like Dawkins. _Why does it bother atheists so much that other people believe differently than they do?_

----------


## SentimentalSlop

Science and religion can easily coexist. Being a Christian, none of my Catholic beliefs conflict with any scientific anything. Sadly, I think it is more the science community that has a problem with religion than the other way around. And why listen to Dawkins? He's a scientist, not a philosopher. He seems to me a bitter old man who's afraid to believe in something better. It's kind of sad. He's completely lost the child-like awe that opens up new perceptions. 

I don't think science disproves religion, but even makes better arguments for it. It is strange, after all, how the world is so mathematically precise, and yet we believe that it was formed from some big accident. I mean, maybe, but one has to ask themselves why the earth came about so precise through such a random explosion, if that was the case.

----------


## mal4mac

> Science and religion can easily coexist. Being a Christian, none of my Catholic beliefs conflict with any scientific anything.


You accept things without sufficient evidence, scientists receive years of training which encourages them to not do this. I can't see how they can compartmentalise their life into an "evidence based" aspect and "tooth fairy" aspect without doing great damage to their psyche. Fortunately only 3% of them attempt this.

----------


## mal4mac

> I don't think science disproves religion, but even makes better arguments for it. It is strange, after all, how the world is so mathematically precise, and yet we believe that it was formed from some big accident. I mean, maybe, but one has to ask themselves why the earth came about so precise through such a random explosion, if that was the case.


Scientists don't make any scientific arguments for God; that would be to explain a mystery ("origin of the Big bang") by a concept without experimental backing ("God"). Scientists aren't in the business of doing that. There are some speculative hypotheses that look very promising, and that have no need to involve fictional characters ("Multiverse").

Science and religion can't coexist they can only, perhaps, exist as two non-overlapping magisteria (to use Gould's phraseology.) Though I take Dawkin's view that we can drop, and would be best advised to drop, one of these magisteria.

----------


## YesNo

> Scientists don't make any scientific arguments for God; that would be to explain a mystery ("origin of the Big bang") by a concept without experimental backing ("God"). Scientists aren't in the business of doing that. There are some speculative hypotheses that look very promising, and that have no need to involve fictional characters ("Multiverse").
> 
> Science and religion can't coexist they can only, perhaps, exist as two non-overlapping magisteria (to use Gould's phraseology.) *Though I take Dawkin's view that we can drop, and would be best advised to drop, one of these magisteria.*


There is no need to follow Dawkins. There is also no need to drop either science or religion. It won't happen anyway. They are not at odds. 

However, considering how science has discredited the materialistic determinism that grounds atheism, it might be rational and scientific to drop atheism as perhaps the least likely of any religion out there.

----------


## Eman Resu

> There is no need to follow Dawkins. There is also no need to drop either science or religion. It won't happen anyway. They are not at odds. 
> 
> However, considering how science has discredited the materialistic determinism that grounds atheism, it might be rational and scientific to drop atheism as perhaps the least likely of any religion out there.




I dunno - American politics has become a religion to some people. Maybe we should dispense with politics, and revert to the sort of theocratic government which existed in the Sumerian city-states prior to the politico-military leadership which arose 4,500 years ago. Look at the advantages - a government controlled by God, who never spoke, except through His priests, who were part and parcel to the citizenry, and who generally invoked the will of the people, and beautiful temples instead of that hideous pseudo-neoclassical White House. Not only would "hitting the opposition with a Bill" cease completely, since laws would be written on clay tablets, but we could turn the Pentagon into a dynamite roller rink.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Scientists don't make any scientific arguments for God; that would be to explain a mystery ("origin of the Big bang") by a concept without experimental backing ("God"). Scientists aren't in the business of doing that. There are some speculative hypotheses that look very promising, and that have no need to involve fictional characters ("Multiverse").
> 
> Science and religion can't coexist they can only, perhaps, exist as two non-overlapping magisteria (to use Gould's phraseology.) Though I take Dawkin's view that we can drop, and would be best advised to drop, one of these magisteria.


I'm not saying science has any business in talking about God. Science can only talk about material things. All I'm saying is that science and religion do not contradict. I live comfortably with both (like most other Christians) and have no problem at all. I don't have to drop neither. How about that?

----------


## mal4mac

> I'm not saying science has any business in talking about God. Science can only talk about material things. All I'm saying is that science and religion do not contradict. I live comfortably with both (like most other Christians) and have no problem at all. I don't have to drop neither. How about that?


What about water turning into wine during RC services? A bit of chemical analysis might help prove that. Of course you will now say that performing such tests destroys the magic, which is like parents saying to children that Santa will not come if you stay up and watch.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

It's wine turning into Christ's blood, not water turning into wine. How am I supposed to take you seriously if you get that important detail messed up?

----------


## mal4mac

> It's wine turning into Christ's blood, not water turning into wine. How am I supposed to take you seriously if you get that important detail messed up?


Woops. Got me! I know that. Call it a senior moment. It's a bit difficult keeping all the different mythological ideas straight. Anyway, how about analysing the wine/blood before and after? And checking the wafer to see if it turns into some part of the human body?

----------


## YesNo

> I dunno - American politics has become a religion to some people.


We're not supposed to discuss politics here, but religion is acceptable. I view Dawkins' atheism as a religion anyway. 

As far as not knowing, I didn't understand the significance of this thread's topic either until further into it. However, the concept that there is some sort of conflict between religion and science is a 19th century atheist myth. There isn't any such conflict. 

It is hard to understand how anyone could be an atheist. What atheists claim is that there is no God-like reality of any sort, anywhere, within the universe or without. How could they possibly know such a thing? 

They can't, but if they could get science to construct a theory that explained everything without needing any choice to be made, they could explain the universe without needing anything that could be called a God. This would justify their atheism and discredit theism. To even hope that science could do such a thing, they assumed the universe was deterministic and materialistic. So Draper and White in the 19th century, confident enough in science to deliver the explanation that suited them, started the science vs religion conflict.

Ironically, about the same time in the 19th century electromagnetic fields were being described. Fields are not materialistic particles. Then in the early 20th century quantum physics put a foundation on the new physics and introduced indeterminism. It also described quantum reality as not materialistic in any sense that word had in the past. 

At this point, the project that atheists hoped would prove their ideology had failed. Even worse for atheists, it also became known in the second half of the 20th century that the universe had a beginning. Chance, a bogus cause at best, had even less time than was originally thought to get us to the state we are in now.

Today, looking at the supposed science vs religion conflict, about 150 years after the original claim that such a conflict existed, one can see that the problem is really atheism. Atheism's antagonism to theistic religion is well known, but the unhealthy relation of atheism to science still needs to be understood. As I see it, atheism, with its insistence on determinism to justify its own atheology, has been a drag on science boxing it in conceptually.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Woops. Got me! I know that. Call it a senior moment. It's a bit difficult keeping all the different mythological ideas straight. Anyway, how about analysing the wine/blood before and after? And checking the wafer to see if it turns into some part of the human body?


It's not something to be analyzed. We don't believe that it's the same body he had 2000 years ago. We believe that he is taking upon himself a new body and new blood in the material presence of bread and wine. We're not supposed to taste human flesh and blood lol.

----------


## JCamilo

to quote Aquinas: Christ's body is substantially present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a thing is". And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.

It is obviously symbolic, not physical at all to be detected by a chemical analyse. 

I however would like to ask: What theists claim is that there is a God-like reality of any sort, anywhere, within the universe or without. How could they possibly know such a thing? 

Btw, Materialism is quite strong on Religious philosophy, christian even. The clear influence is in the story of St.Thomas. He is a materialist. Obviously, the Catholic Church continual quest for miracles and evidences, are also a materialist influence. Materialsim is simple one of the ways philosophy approaches any theme. And thinking there is no atheism idealism is quite a hindsight. Charles Darwin for example, became and atheist due the death of his daugther. He just lost faith on God. He didnt build an empirical explanation at all such as "god does not exist because i have not found empircal evidence" on him. He just didnt like God anymore, a typical crisis of Faith rather some - i would say - theory of composition for atheism 101, where all steps towards atheism are logical explained with a precision that brings a bird to saw nevermore.

----------


## mal4mac

> It is hard to understand how anyone could be an atheist. What atheists claim is that there is no God-like reality of any sort, anywhere, within the universe or without. How could they possibly know such a thing?


How do you know there aren't tooth fairies or unicorns? I don't see any gods around here, just as I don't see other mythical figures striding down the streets. I don't know absolutely for sure that they don't exists, they might all be living together in Oz, which for some reason is hidden from me. But until I am given a Ryan air flight to Oz I'll continue being an atheist.




> Ironically, about the same time in the 19th century electromagnetic fields were being described. Fields are not materialistic particles. Then in the early 20th century quantum physics put a foundation on the new physics and introduced indeterminism. It also described quantum reality as not materialistic in any sense that word had in the past.


None of these observations make it any more likely that Santa exists. Electromagnetic & quantum fields are useful models, by using them we can predict how material objects will interact. This has enabled us to develop many useful objects, like the computer you are using at this moment. The god concept has not allowed us to develop anything useful.




> At this point, the project that atheists hoped would prove their ideology had failed.


Hardly. The number of declared atheists in Scotland has risen from 27% to 37% in the last decade, and remember that Scotland used to be a stronghold for extreme protestantism. To get an idea about what Scottish religion was like in the 18th century try reading "The View from Castle Rock" by the new Nobel prize winner Alice Munro. From that situation to 37% atheist... it gives me hope that places like USA might get to 37% in the not too distant future.




> ...the unhealthy relation of atheism to science still needs to be understood. As I see it, atheism, with its insistence on determinism to justify its own atheology, has been a drag on science boxing it in conceptually.


It's easy to understand, scientists require evidence. Why does atheism require determinism? It's simply a disbelief in gods. The world can be as indeterministic as you like and still not require any gods. All the leading quantum physicists were atheists, so atheism was hardly a drag on the development of quantum theory!

----------


## Delta40

> We're not supposed to discuss politics here, but religion is acceptable. I view Dawkins' atheism as a religion anyway. 
> 
> As far as not knowing, I didn't understand the significance of this thread's topic either until further into it. However, the concept that there is some sort of conflict between religion and science is a 19th century atheist myth. There isn't any such conflict. 
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could be an atheist. What atheists claim is that there is no God-like reality of any sort, anywhere, within the universe or without. How could they possibly know such a thing? 
> 
> They can't, but if they could get science to construct a theory that explained everything without needing any choice to be made, they could explain the universe without needing anything that could be called a God. This would justify their atheism and discredit theism. To even hope that science could do such a thing, they assumed the universe was deterministic and materialistic. So Draper and White in the 19th century, confident enough in science to deliver the explanation that suited them, started the science vs religion conflict.
> 
> Ironically, about the same time in the 19th century electromagnetic fields were being described. Fields are not materialistic particles. Then in the early 20th century quantum physics put a foundation on the new physics and introduced indeterminism. It also described quantum reality as not materialistic in any sense that word had in the past. 
> ...


Atheists make no such claims. Atheists simply reject the proposition that a god exists until such time as there is evidence to suggest otherwise. An atheist may have any number of ideas regarding the origins of the universe, simply not believing in a god doesn't tell you anything about what an atheist DOES believe.

On the physics front: I think you need to get up-to-date. Have you heard of Lawrence Krauss? We now know it is entirely possible for a universe to come from nothing, and our universe actually looks like a universe that came from nothing. The OBSERVABLE universe had a beginning ( big bang) but it's not as if there was a state of complete non-existence before that. Things existed, matter actually predates the big bang, and we don't know if that state of existence ever actually began. In fact, since energy is neither created nor destroyed, that would mean energy at least has always existed, making a first cause unnecessary. 

And even if existence itself did begin to exist and we had no idea how it started, that wouldn't make it reasonable to assume it was a god any more than it would be reasonable to assume it was a transcendent, cosmic purple dragon. A gap in our scientific knowledge is not justification to insert anything you can imagine.

----------


## mal4mac

> It's not something to be analyzed. We don't believe that it's the same body he had 2000 years ago. We believe that he is taking upon himself a new body and new blood in the material presence of bread and wine. We're not supposed to taste human flesh and blood lol.


Where is he then? If he has a new bodily presence then we should be able to go up to him and shake his hand. It's an intriguing myth! Does the wafer and wine tasted by all the congregations get "teleported" to one spot and used to generate Christ's new body. (Dan Brown please note - this is my idea and I'll be watching for copyright violations.)

----------


## mal4mac

> to quote Aquinas: Christ's body is substantially present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a thing is". And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.
> 
> It is obviously symbolic, not physical at all to be detected by a chemical analyse.


OK, so it's nothing that exists, like a unicorn. This differs from SentimentalSlops account, does this bit of Aquinas still hold in the modern Roman Catholic church? Or do they have a hard story for the cleverer priests (Aquinas) and an easy story for the congregation ("It's really Christ's body!")?




> Charles Darwin for example, became an atheist due the death of his daugther. He just lost faith on God. He didnt build an empirical explanation at all such as "god does not exist because i have not found empircal evidence" on him.


That's wrong, he states in his autobiography that lack of evidence was the main factor in his growing disbelief. 

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me." - Charles Darwin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio..._Autobiography

He thought, as a young man, following William Paley's theory, that the complexity of nature could only be explained through supposing "God the designer". But through a lifetime of empirical research became convinced that natural selection was the better explanation. This, surely, was the main factor undermined his belief in God. Many Christians have lost children and remained Christians, which is hardly surprising as they think their loved one has gone to heaven.

----------


## mal4mac

> On the physics front: I think you need to get up-to-date. Have you heard of Lawrence Krauss? We now know it is entirely possible for a universe to come from nothing, and our universe actually looks like a universe that came from nothing. The OBSERVABLE universe had a beginning ( big bang) but it's not as if there was a state of complete non-existence before that. Things existed, matter actually predates the big bang, and we don't know if that state of existence ever actually began. In fact, since energy is neither created nor destroyed, that would mean energy at least has always existed, making a first cause unnecessary.


Actually these ideas were around in the 1980s when I was doing my physics degrees, so don't give Krauss too much credit! (Though he is an excellent guy!) 

I don't think atheists need to strain to provide alternative explanations of cosmic origins. Christians can just point out they are speculative, and they would be correct, and physicists would agree with them. Of course, they are interesting speculations, and speculating is part of the scientific process, but only a small part and not generally encouraged. (Boy do I know that! Being too interested in speculation derailed my physics career...)

For instance if a Christian asks, "If God didn't cause the universe then what did", you can just respond, "Why couldn't the universe have been around forever", and quickly get back on the tack that they can't respond to, that is, "Where is the evidence for God!"

----------


## Delta40

> Actually these ideas were around in the 1980s when I was doing my physics degrees, so don't give Krauss too much credit! (Though he is an excellent guy!) 
> 
> I don't think atheists need to strain to provide alternative explanations of cosmic origins. Christians can just point out they are speculative, and they would be correct, and physicists would agree with them. Of course, they are interesting speculations, and speculating is part of the scientific process, but only a small part and not generally encouraged. (Boy do I know that! Being too interested in speculation derailed my physics career...)
> 
> For instance if a Christian asks, "If God didn't cause the universe then what did", you can just respond, "Why couldn't the universe have been around forever", and quickly get back on the tack that they can't respond to, that is, "Where is the evidence for God!"


I don't feel under any obligation to disprove the existence of God - the burden of proof lies with the person making the fantastic claim. I haven't seen any evidence that a God exists - just a book handed down through history like Grimms Fairy Tales, which proves zilch. In fact, as far as I'm concerned it calls the claim into question even more since here we are in the 21st century relying on the word of earlier man whose understanding was far more limited than it is now. We have a duty to put all claims under the microscope and advance forward. That the human race is diverse in its beliefs yet continues to survive and evolve anyway is proof enough for me.

----------


## cacian

> It's wine turning into Christ's blood, not water turning into wine. How am I supposed to take you seriously if you get that important detail messed up?


that sorcery isn't it? how does water ever turn into wine? the ingredients are missing. where is the grapes in there? even science would tell you that.
water on its own does not make wine and neither would Jesus turn it into win.e if he could then he would saved himself from dying. that's magic or that's Merlin for you. that's what a sorcerer does. turn things into things and save you from dying everytime.

----------


## Delta40

> that sorcery isn't it? how water ever turning into wine? the ingredient are missing even science would tell you that.
> water on its own does not make wine and neither would Jesus turn it into wine if he could then he would saved himself from dying. that's magic or that's Merlin for you. that's what a sorcerer does. turn things into things and save you from dying everytime.


Lol. Yeah, if a woman did that she would've have been burnt at the stake!!! Now I know why the RCC can't have a female Pope!

----------


## JCamilo

> OK, so it's nothing that exists, like a unicorn. This differs from SentimentalSlops account, does this bit of Aquinas still hold in the modern Roman Catholic church? Or do they have a hard story for the cleverer priests (Aquinas) and an easy story for the congregation ("It's really Christ's body!")?


She did said actually it is not his real body and blood, so she is saying the samething. Also, the church always said it was symbolic and breed and wine still the same. You are just firing at the wrong place. 





> That's wrong, he states in his autobiography that lack of evidence was the main factor in his growing disbelief.


Meh, First at not momment Darwin mentions it is the main factor. Second, he is reflecting after his disbelief is set. Third he is saying he disbelief in the gospels and christianity. Fourth, read the article and notice how until Anne Death the majority his questions about God are in the realm of morality and how when she dies he questions how a god can allow evil. He is only materialist when considering God's influence on natural world and questioning OT, since Noah flood and such were the basic "myths" Llyel debunked.

There is letters, diary entries, etc. that show the importancy of Anne's death on Darwin's resolution, how this moved his foward to abandon all religiosity and embrace firmly the research since he knew Anne disease was genetical. Certainly, both the theory and the skepticism were there before, but It is Anne's death that changes his spirt and then, it was easier for him to rationalize and do this "futher reflecting".





> He thought, as a young man, following William Paley's theory, that the complexity of nature could only be explained through supposing "God the designer". But through a lifetime of empirical research became convinced that natural selection was the better explanation. This, surely, was the main factor undermined his belief in God. Many Christians have lost children and remained Christians, which is hardly surprising as they think their loved one has gone to heaven.



He never claime Natural Selection was a better explanation to "existence of god". It is about God's interference on Evolution. He was refusing ID already. And you may notice, Darwin was quite worried about people going to hell and if Anne - naughty girl - would go to hell. It is even in the article that Darwin some of it:

"There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed." 

Darwin is worried with the evil caused by such designer. It is his main question because he never found any evidence to disproof god at all or claimed to do so. This is man who saw his daugther suffer because the design is flawed. A man thinking about the origem of evil and considering all his friends will be in hell. This is not a materialist.

----------


## mal4mac

> There is letters, diary entries, etc. that show the importancy of Anne's death on Darwin's resolution, how this moved his foward to abandon all religiosity and embrace firmly the research since he knew Anne disease was genetical. Certainly, both the theory and the skepticism were there before, but It is Anne's death that changes his spirt and then, it was easier for him to rationalize and do this "futher reflecting".


Maybe Anne's death spurred him on to become more public about his disbelief. He was notorious for keeping his opinions to himself, not publishing "Origin" until long after his views were formed, and only under pressure from friends who were afraid that Wallace would steal his thunder. Note that his wife refused to have some parts of his autobiography published after his death, so it's likely she influenced him not to speak about his beliefs before his death. 

The wikipedia article says "His faith in Christianity had already dwindled away and he had stopped going to church." before the death of Anne. There is a strong sense of his belief dwindling away as he repeatedly looked at the poor evidence of the scriptures, and other sources, and finding no good evidence for God or the Christian "revelations". The moral impact of Anne's death might have had a "final straw" aspect that drove him to become more public, but all the evidence is that lack of evidence in the Christian revelations were the main factors in his disbelief, and certainly this is more in the character of the man. He was the "scientist's scientist" who spent decades doing pain-staking research to provide incontrovertible evidence of evolution by natural selection. Doesn't it seem likely that his disbelief came from similar pain staking research into the evidence for Christian revelation - and that his rejection of Christianity came form him not finding anything like sufficient evidence? He wasn't some romantic fool who reasoned "My child is dead, therefore God doesn't exist," on some kind of swooning whim.

----------


## JCamilo

> Maybe Anne's death spurred him on to become more public about his disbelief. He was notorious for keeping his opinions to himself, not publishing "Origin" until long after his views were formed, and only under pressure from friends who were afraid that Wallace would steal his thunder. Note that his wife refused to have some parts of his autobiography published after his death, so it's likely she influenced him not to speak about his beliefs before his death.


Darwin never went public about anything. He crumbled down under pressure and Anne death wasnt more public than anything. His wife didnt pressure him, he had a limited circle already. Anne death was just too much form and his formal rupture with religion. His wife's censorship shows more she was protecting Darwin image than changing his tougths. 




> The wikipedia article says "His faith in Christianity had already dwindled away and he had stopped going to church." before the death of Anne.


There is his questioning, Anne death was the decisive factor. Not his research. 




> There is a strong sense of his belief dwindling away as he repeatedly looked at the poor evidence of the scriptures, and other sources, and finding no good evidence for God or the Christian "revelations".


It is not about evidence of god, which he never found to the end of his life yet, still considered it possible. Darwin was questioning christian morality, organized religion not god's existence. 




> The moral impact of Anne's death might have had a "final straw" aspect that drove him to become more public,


He didnt became public. You should read more biographies about Darwin. 




> but all the evidence is that lack of evidence in the Christian revelations were the main factors in his disbelief, and certainly this is more in the character of the man.


There is no evidence that what turned him was the lack of evidence. Quite the contrary, he died claiming there was no evidence to believe or disbelieve and supporting agnosticism. You are confusing that Darwin found evidences (not lack) that natural selection dismissed a ID God - which is what he claims - to extend it to a more spiritual/moral god, which is what he believed or considered and that Anne's death changed his view. The ID God (or the Jaheh like god) was done, but a spiritual god remained. 




> He was the "scientist's scientist" who spent decades doing pain-staking research to provide incontrovertible evidence of evolution by natural selection. Doesn't it seem likely that his disbelief came from similar pain staking research into the evidence for Christian revelation - and that his rejection of Christianity came form him not finding anything like sufficient evidence? He wasn't some romantic fool who reasoned "My child is dead, therefore God doesn't exist," on some kind of swooning whim.


Except only creationist strawman will claim natural selection disproves God. It does not, So obviously Darwin work as scientist cannot be the reason your claim. And his change of posture with Anne, more clear questioning and mentioning that one of the reasons behind his research was to give men knowledge to avoid pain like Annes shows her importance.

By the way, Evolution is romantic, he is the guy who considered his wife's reaction before publishing and 20 years research. Darwin is a romantic fool.

----------


## mortalterror

> Hardly. The number of declared atheists in Scotland has risen from 27% to 37% in the last decade, and remember that Scotland used to be a stronghold for extreme protestantism. To get an idea about what Scottish religion was like in the 18th century try reading "The View from Castle Rock" by the new Nobel prize winner Alice Munro. From that situation to 37% atheist... it gives me hope that places like USA might get to 37% in the not too distant future.


Actually Mal4mac, 37% of Scotland is non-religious, which usually means that they eschew the formal institutions but often retain a personal non-denominational spirituality. Your interpretation that they are all atheist is a misreading of the statistics. For purposes of comparison, America has a demographic of 16.1% Unaffiliated. Of that unaffiliated group 1.6% is atheist, 2.4% is agnostic, 6.3% is secular unaffiliated, and 5.8% is religious unaffiliated. Non-religious does not necessarily mean Atheist. For instance, there was a study of prison inmates that found an unusual number of non-religious prisoners, in spite of the incentive they have to lie and claim to be religiously reformed:




> In the federal prisoner statistics, a full 20% of the respondents either answered "none" or provided no response to the question on religious affiliation. Based on response patterns to similar questions on nationwide surveys, it is likely that all or nearly all of these persons would be in the "nonreligious" category (or the "atheists" category, to use the terminology from the atheist web page itself). Even without adding the ".209%" of the population that specifically identified themselves as atheists, the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population.
> http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html (Based on a study by Denise Golumbaski, who was a Research Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The data was compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997.)


But that doesn't mean that 20% of American prison inmates are atheists.

----------


## mal4mac

> Actually Mal4mac, 37% of Scotland is non-religious, which usually means that they eschew the formal institutions but often retain a personal non-denominational spirituality.


I don't think it "usually means that" at all, and certainly not in a Scottish context.

"Spiritualty" is a term used by atheists to mean "higher aspects of the mind". So that 37% might still be thought of as atheists even if some define themselves as "spiritual". Actually "non-religious" is a stronger term as it means they aren't Buddhists, or members of some other non-God based religion. But not many Scots were ever Buddhist, so I think 37% atheist is probably a pretty good estimate from the fact that 37% ticked the non-religious box. England and Wales aren't far behind "In the 2011 Census, 14.1 million people, about a quarter of the entire population (25%) of England and Wales, said they had no religion, a rise of 6.4 million since 2001." 




> Your interpretation that they are all atheist is a misreading of the statistics. For purposes of comparison, America has a demographic of 16.1% Unaffiliated. Of that unaffiliated group 1.6% is atheist, 2.4% is agnostic...


If you read Russell and Dawkins you will see that the broadest definition of "atheist" includes what others might consider agnostics. So what definition of atheist was used in that list?

Actually across the EU, in 2010, only 51% said yes to the question, "Do you believe there is a God?" (This is heavily skewed by the big Catholic countries.) Given this, and the rate of people becoming atheists, it might be that atheists are now a majority in Europe!

----------


## mal4mac

> It is not about evidence of god, which he never found to the end of his life yet, still considered it possible. Darwin was questioning christian morality, organized religion not god's existence.


Another quote from the autobiography:

"At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God...This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists." 

Summary: Darwin saw no evidence for the existence of God.

Being a good scientist he would never bluntly state, "there is no God", just as he would not state, "there is no tooth fairy", as evidence *might* turn up. But, by the everyday definition, I'd call him an atheist.




> "... he died claiming there was no evidence to believe or disbelieve and supporting agnosticism. You are confusing that Darwin found evidences (not lack) that natural selection dismissed a ID God - which is what he claims - to extend it to a more spiritual/moral god, which is what he believed or considered and that Anne's death changed his view. The ID God (or the Jaheh like god) was done, but a spiritual god remained.


In the above quote he dismissed all Gods (Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc, ...) because the "inner beliefs" held by these believers cannot all be correct at the same time. What is this "spiritual god"? Have you a quote of him expressing belief in such a thing?




> By the way, Evolution is romantic, he is the guy who considered his wife's reaction before publishing and 20 years research. Darwin is a romantic fool.


Given the intense discrimination against atheists at that time he was hardly a fool, just very cautious.

----------


## mortalterror

> You accept things without sufficient evidence, scientists receive years of training which encourages them to not do this. I can't see how they can compartmentalise their life into an "evidence based" aspect and "tooth fairy" aspect without doing great damage to their psyche. Fortunately only 3% of them attempt this.


Mal4Mac, I'm looking at your numbers and they don't add up. I'm afraid you are misreading your statistics again. It's true that there is a distinct difference in percentage of scientists who believe in God versus the percentage of the general public, but your numbers are way off. I'd need to see the actual survey questions that got Dawkins to that 3% figure but I'm guessing that it was a result of push polling and too narrowly defining questions or definitions. In point of fact, the majority of scientists actually practice some form of religion. Consider this pew research poll:



> A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/s...ts-and-belief/


Alright, now lets look at what the scientists actually believe.



> Given their much lower levels of belief in God or a higher power, it is not surprising that the percentage of scientists who are unaffiliated with any religion is much higher than among the general public. Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll (48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared with only 17% of the public. Thus, it follows that most faith traditions are represented in smaller numbers in the scientific community than in the public as a whole. For instance, the scientific community is far less Protestant (21%) and Catholic (10%) than the general public, which is 51% Protestant and 24% Catholic. And while evangelical Protestants make up more than a fourth of the general population (28%), they make up only a small slice (4%) of the scientific community. One notable exception is Jews, who make up a larger proportion of the scientific community (8%) than the general population (2%).
> 
> http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/s...ts-and-belief/


Okay, so looking at this graph, we can clearly see that 17 percent of scientists are atheists which is a significant departure from the 2 percent of the general population who are atheists. What is really interesting is that this religious attitude gap hasn't grown or shrunk in almost a hundred years.



> The recent survey of scientists tracks fairly closely with earlier polls that gauged scientists views on religion. The first of these was conducted in 1914 by Swiss-American psychologist James Leuba, who surveyed about 1,000 scientists in the United States to ask them about their views on God. Leuba found the scientific community equally divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.
> 
> More than 80 years later, Edward Larson, a historian of science then teaching at the University of Georgia, recreated Leubas survey, asking the same number of scientists the exact same questions. To the surprise of many, Larsons 1996 poll came up with similar results, finding that 40% of scientists believed in a personal God, while 45% said they did not. Other surveys of scientists have yielded roughly similar results. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/s...ts-and-belief/


The answer to that is possibly because scientists tend to view science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria and not in conflict with one another.



> The Pew Research Center poll of scientists also found that levels of religious faith vary according to scientific specialty and age. For instance, chemists are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in the other major scientific fields. Meanwhile, younger scientists (ages 18-34) are more likely to believe in God or a higher power than those who are older.


Unless scientists lose their religion in old age, then this newest generation may actually be getting more religious, and we may see a trend in that direction. But what the poll also shows is how different scientific subjects are an indicator of how religious the scientists might be. This shows that scientists religious beliefs are less likely to be swayed do to pure reason and scientific method than by a culture of their peers.

Another interesting fact is that doctors tend to be more religious than the general population.



> The first study of physician religious beliefs has found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife. The survey, performed by researchers at the University and published in the July issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that 90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults. Fifty-five percent of doctors say their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml


Physicians are educated, intelligent, trained scientists but their job often requires things like compassion, morality, empathy, and charity which synch up well with a religious lifestyle.

----------


## mal4mac

> Mal4Mac, I'm looking at your numbers and they don't add up. I'm afraid you are misreading your statistics again.


It's you misreading forum posts again. As I said, the 3% figure relates to FRS scientists, and is correct. It's mentioned in the "The God Delusion", with details. That said, for really eminent American scientists (NAS members, equivalent to FRS) Dawkins quotes a figure of only 7% believing in God, quoted from a paper in Nature. 

Your figures include the views of mediocre scientists, who may just be "going along with" the general population for an easy life. I've been around mediocre scientists for much of my life, and their general intellectual ability isn't anything to write home about. FRS and NAS levels scientists are, generally, in an entirely different league.

----------


## JCamilo

> Another quote from the autobiography:
> 
> "At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God...This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists." 
> 
> Summary: Darwin saw no evidence for the existence of God.


Only if you do not know how to read. He says "Inteligent god" and ends with " evidence of what really exists.", which is not the same "what not exist as you claim". 

Darwin clearly argued evolutionists could believe in god, since his theory had no bearing on its existence, and you are trying to imply it is the reason behind his lack of faith. Of course, makes a lot of sense. The motive that lead him to not believe in God is motive that he see as not enough to stop others from beliving in god. Good Logic. 




> Being a good scientist he would never bluntly state, "there is no God", just as he would not state, "there is no tooth fairy", as evidence *might* turn up. But, by the everyday definition, I'd call him an atheist.


Good, so Dawkins is a bad scientist? 






> In the above quote he dismissed all Gods (Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc, ...) because the "inner beliefs" held by these believers cannot all be correct at the same time. What is this "spiritual god"? Have you a quote of him expressing belief in such a thing?


He didnt dismissed a single god there. The last sentence is agnostic as it gets. He leaves an opening "I do not know" And he is specifically talking about meddling active god. 






> Given the intense discrimination against atheists at that time he was hardly a fool, just very cautious.


He was a romantic fool. Being Atheist is a romantic foolishness. 

You clearly want to find a tale of Darwin's that does not exists. He was a deist, he dismissed ID God figures or OT god, with constant interference even before his research, as he was inspired by Lyell, his friend, which already disproved biblical literalism. But he remained with questions - and accepting God part there - about afterlife, mortality, the human part, evil and good. A typical deist intelectual position of his time. Those questions will end after Anne death (it was not a cosmic event, that just turned him in one day but a long grieving process) Darwin no longer question those positions. There is no afterlife, no Hell, nothing as this. And that have nothing to do with his research, as Natural Selection cannot change anything about it, as Darwin reckons. 

As this what lasted was the question of universe begin, which Darwin didn't had a position, which is basically why he called himself agnostic. But it is pretty much, what makes Darwin show no signal of faith ever again, was the experience with Anne. Not a result of scientific research or materialism. Darwin's spiritualism ended there. And you quoting Wikipedia about him specifically mentioning ID God will not change it.

----------


## Volya

Why can't religion and science co-exist? To believe otherwise is stupidity really, and is the kind of attitude that arrogant, militant atheists take. You can be a Christian and believe in evolution, the Big Bang, all that kinda stuff; and similarly you could be an atheist and still believe the world is flat.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> She did said actually it is not his real body and blood, so she is saying the samething. Also, the church always said it was symbolic and breed and wine still the same. You are just firing at the wrong place.


That's not what I said. It is "literally" his body and blood. That is Catholic doctrine. Anyone who doesn't believe it should not receive the Eucharist at mass. This is emphasized relentlessly, and it's the sole focus of the service. That is why we bow before the tabernacle (where the consecrated host is housed) before getting in and getting out of the pews. We also have Eucharistic adoration where the consecrated host (Christ's body) is in an ornate structure called a monstrance where we can spend time in Christ's physical presence. It is by no means symbolic. It is Christ, according to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Mere symbolism of the bread and wine is a Protestant approach to communion. That is why they are not permitted to go up and receive communion at a Catholic mass.

@Cacian 
Turning water into wine is not sorcery if it is through God. Christians believe in miracles, and we believe that when a Christian person performs a miracle, it is by God's power and not theirs, but God has only used them as an instrument to demonstrate his power at that moment when performing the miracle. Any miracle performed without the aid of God is devilish. The devil can perform miracles, too.

----------


## Eman Resu

> That is why they are not permitted to go up and receive communion at a Catholic mass.



Non-Catholics who believe in the Transubstantiation, and who have the consent or dispensation from the Diocese, can participate in the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist, but it is, in part, for the protection of non-Catholics that they're not permitted to participate - see 1 Corinthians 11:29-30.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Non-Catholics who believe in the Transubstantiation, and who have the consent or dispensation from the Diocese, can participate in the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist, but it is, in part, for the protection of non-Catholics that they're not permitted to participate - see 1 Corinthians 11:29-30.


That's true, but generally non-Catholics are not admitted to communion. If they believe in Transubstantiation, they're usually encouraged to become Catholic.

----------


## mortalterror

> It's you misreading forum posts again. As I said, the 3% figure relates to FRS scientists, and is correct. It's mentioned in the "The God Delusion", with details. That said, for really eminent American scientists (NAS members, equivalent to FRS) Dawkins quotes a figure of only 7% believing in God, quoted from a paper in Nature. 
> 
> Your figures include the views of mediocre scientists, who may just be "going along with" the general population for an easy life. I've been around mediocre scientists for much of my life, and their general intellectual ability isn't anything to write home about. FRS and NAS levels scientists are, generally, in an entirely different league.


But the methodology of the survey, and the questions which got them to the 7% figure are flawed.



> Are you confused? How can scientists be so like other Americans in one survey and so different in another? We can find part of the explanation in the considerable differences between the questions asked by Gallup and those asked by Leuba.
> 
> The wording of questions in any survey can influence the results. Gallup's questions are quite straightforward, well designed to reveal people's attitudes towards evolution. For reasons that will become important later in this article, a question that requests an opinion on only one issue is superior to one which queries attitudes about two or more.
> 
> First, let's look at Leuba's questions, which are, to be charitable, ambiguous. The "personal belief" question attempts to ascertain belief not just in some sort of God, but a very specific kind of personal God.
> 
> 1. I believe in a God in intellectual and effective communication with humankind, i.e., a God to whom one might pray in expectation of receiving an answer. By "answer", I mean more than the subjective psychological effects of prayer. 
> 
> 1. I believe in a [personal] God...
> ...


The manner in which the survey was conducted and it's subsequent interpretation shows a pronounced bias. It's designed to overestimate atheism.

----------


## Eman Resu

> That's true, but generally non-Catholics are not admitted to communion. If they believe in Transubstantiation, they're usually encouraged to become Catholic.


They are as a general rule, but those not born into the Catholic Faith who genuinely do believe in Transubstantiation, but who _cannot_ convert - either owed to Matrimonial vows outside the R.C. Church, or because of an inability to be Confirmed (e.g. a Christian not Baptised into Catholicism who cannot support the Vatican stance on abortion) - haven't (at least not since the Third Nicean Council, at the beginning of the eight century) been denied the Sacrament as far as I'm aware, solely on the grounds of denominationalism.

Beyond this, battlefield Communion for non-Catholics who profess belief in Transubstantiation and who are, "in imminent danger," has a relatively long history with Priests, as does the Sacrament of Extreme Unction in similar circumstances.

----------


## mal4mac

> Only if you do not know how to read.


Nope, I think *you're* misreading that passage, or reading it in another way. 




> Darwin clearly argued evolutionists could believe in god, since his theory had no bearing on its existence, and you are trying to imply it is the reason behind his lack of faith. Of course, makes a lot of sense.


Nope, I'm arguing that he didn't see sufficient evidence for God. 




> Good, so Dawkins is a bad scientist?


Dawkins doesn't believe beyond all doubt that there is no God, read "The God delusion" to see his subtle view.




> You clearly want to find a tale of Darwin's that does not exists. He was a deist,...


You are producing no quotes that show this, here's another direct quote from his autobiography, "the mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." He's an agnostic in the same sense as Russell and Dawkins. Because Russell and Dawkins don't want to be labelled as wishy-washy, dithering agnostics they call themselves atheists (because their position is very near strict atheism).

----------


## dralexisnoble

> I dunno - American politics has become a religion to some people. Maybe we should dispense with politics, and revert to the sort of theocratic government which existed in the Sumerian city-states prior to the politico-military leadership which arose 4,500 years ago. Look at the advantages - a government controlled by God, who never spoke, except through His priests, who were part and parcel to the citizenry, and who generally invoked the will of the people, and beautiful temples instead of that hideous pseudo-neoclassical White House. Not only would "hitting the opposition with a Bill" cease completely, since laws would be written on clay tablets, but we could turn the Pentagon into a dynamite roller rink.


Here here! I'm for everything but the abolishment of the White house and clay tablets. The roller rink, however, is a must!

----------


## mal4mac

> But the methodology of the survey, and the questions which got them to the 7% figure are flawed.


Are they? Your link is far from convincing. The original survey was published in Nature, were your accusations of bias published in a journal of equivalent stature?

----------


## JCamilo

> That's not what I said. It is "literally" his body and blood. That is Catholic doctrine. Anyone who doesn't believe it should not receive the Eucharist at mass. This is emphasized relentlessly, and it's the sole focus of the service. That is why we bow before the tabernacle (where the consecrated host is housed) before getting in and getting out of the pews. We also have Eucharistic adoration where the consecrated host (Christ's body) is in an ornate structure called a monstrance where we can spend time in Christ's physical presence. It is by no means symbolic. It is Christ, according to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Mere symbolism of the bread and wine is a Protestant approach to communion. That is why they are not permitted to go up and receive communion at a Catholic mass.


I have no idea how you use literary "We're not supposed to taste human flesh and blood lol" if saying literary is the body and blood of Jesus would imply it is blood and flesh and not wine and breed. And Catholicism let clear it is wine and breed, not blood or fresh also. You may say the presence of Christ is literal, but not, which is what a chemical test would discover, that it is literary the body of christ - which is what you said and made mention in my answer. 

And this is obviously a symbolism, using wine and breed to represent christ presence is symbolic. Specially considering I am talking from a non-beliver point of view.

----------


## JCamilo

> Nope, I think *you're* misreading that passage, or reading it in another way.


Sure. 





> Nope, I'm arguing that he didn't see sufficient evidence for God.


No, you are not just doing it. You claim he is an atheist, which implies he does not believe in god and not that he found litte evidence. You also claimed stuff as he dismissed all gods. You also said the lack of evidence make his disbelief - which implies not believing - grow.... and I not going to keep quoting you. You are obviously not arguing Darwin was agnostic, but that he is atheist and tried to imply his studies lead to it. So I repeat: 

"Darwin clearly argued evolutionists could believe in god, since his theory had no bearing on its existence, and you are trying to imply it is the reason behind his lack of faith. Of course, makes a lot of sense."




> Dawkins doesn't believe beyond all doubt that there is no God, read "The God delusion" to see his subtle view.


There is probally no god is a blunt way to say there is no god, because nobody is foolish enough to fail for Dawkins embroidment of speech. 






> You are producing no quotes that show this, here's another direct quote from his autobiography, "the mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." He's an agnostic in the same sense as Russell and Dawkins. Because Russell and Dawkins don't want to be labelled as wishy-washy, dithering agnostics they call themselves atheists (because their position is very near strict atheism).


"
You are producing no quotes to help yourself either and he remains agnostic because - it is in the wiki entry, so you can read it - 'I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic' (and a few other. Just go and read). He is not like Russell at all.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> I have no idea how you use literary "We're not supposed to taste human flesh and blood lol" if saying literary is the body and blood of Jesus would imply it is blood and flesh and not wine and breed. And Catholicism let clear it is wine and breed, not blood or fresh also. You may say the presence of Christ is literal, but not, which is what a chemical test would discover, that it is literary the body of christ - which is what you said and made mention in my answer. 
> 
> And this is obviously a symbolism, using wine and breed to represent christ presence is symbolic. Specially considering I am talking from a non-beliver point of view.


Like I said, it is not the same body and blood he had 2000 years ago. We know the bread and wine is not supposed to taste different before or after it is consecrated. It is through _faith_ that we believe Christ is present in the bread and in the wine. We take what Christ said at the Passover meal literally. His physical body and blood is now, here on earth, the consecrated bread and wine.

At Catholic mass, we state this in the _Epiclesis_: Therefore, O Lord, we pray: may this same Holy Spirit graciously sanctify these offerings, that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the celebration of this great mystery, which he himself left us as an eternal covenant.

Catholics believe it literally. I can't repeat this enough. It is doctrine, and it's in the catechism. Protestants have fell away and see the bread and wine as merely symbols, so that is why a good number of them believe that us Catholics are idolaters.

----------


## Eman Resu

> I have no idea how you use literary "We're not supposed to taste human flesh and blood lol" if saying literary is the body and blood of Jesus would imply it is blood and flesh and not wine and breed. And Catholicism let clear it is wine and breed, not blood or fresh also. You may say the presence of Christ is literal, but not, which is what a chemical test would discover, that it is literary the body of christ - which is what you said and made mention in my answer. 
> 
> And this is obviously a symbolism, using wine and breed to represent christ presence is symbolic. Specially considering I am talking from a non-beliver point of view.



Nope - there's nothing symbolic about Transubstantiation; the Catholic belief is that the Eucharist _becomes_ the body (and, concomitantly, the blood) of Christ, although to all outward appearances the Host remains unchanged.

Schroeder's translation from the original Latin of Session 13 (Chapter IV) of the Third Tridentine Council is quite good, really:


http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT13.HTM

"But since Christ our Redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread, it has, therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy council now declares it anew, that *by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood*. This change the holy Catholic Church properly and appropriately calls Transubstantiation."

----------


## JCamilo

Substance is not a material trait. See Aquinas about it: 

"I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.

Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament."

There is more places on his suma 528 where he make up the difference between Substance and Dimension, Substance is clearly different from presence on space, which is Dimension hence the conclusion "Christ body it is not present in the sacrament" , so the two parts of his body - blood and flesh are not there, unlike wine and breed. (Obviously, a christian believes he is there spiritually and do not believe they drink blood and flesh). 

Aquinas adds: 

'"The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But Christ's body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ's body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye."

Which is enough to show what the Trent Council will come with. 

So, when we see the Council the following: 

"Therefore, our Savior, when about to depart from this world to the Father, instituted this sacrament, in which He poured forth, as it were, the riches of His divine love towards men, making a remembrance of his wonderful works,[8] and commanded us in the participation of it to reverence His memory and to show forth his death until he comes[9] to judge the world. But He wished that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls,[10] whereby they may be nourished and strengthened, living by the life of Him who said: He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me,[11] and as an antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins.

He wished it furthermore to be a pledge of our future glory and everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one body of which He is the head[12] and to which He wished us to be united as members by the closest bond of faith, hope and charity, that we might all speak the same thing and there might be no schisms among us."

Where it calls it as a symbol. It does more than once in the text. And mentions the "spiritual food". Being symbolic does mean being false or unreal. Means one thing represents another. Obviously for a christian Christ is present and according the Church the changes are not physical but on "substance", the wine remais wine ,the breed remain breed. For anyone, wine and breed represents Christ presence - either you are christian or not - and symbolism is exactly when 

"the art or practice of using symbols especially by investing things with a symbolic meaning or by expressing the invisible or intangible by means of visible or sensuous representations: as
a : artistic imitation or invention that is a method of revealing or suggesting immaterial, ideal, or otherwise intangible truth or states
b : the use of conventional or traditional signs in the representation of divine beings and spirits'

Since substance is invisible, then we do have exactly the merriam-webster definition of symbolism.

----------


## Eman Resu

> Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament."


It's accepted as such by Roman Catholics. Julius III's dictum at the Tridentine Council was made ex cathedra, and as such carries with it the understanding of 'interpretatio cessat in claris.' Read into Canon three centuries after the Summa Theologia was written, Aquinas' thoughts on the Eucharist - as moving as they might have been to Julius III - can't change what is, in this instance, "clear text."

I doubt that anyone here - Catholic or otherwise - would seek to deny your right to whatsoever interpretation you choose, nor to offer you any disrespect regarding your belief that Transubstantiation doesn't exist as viewed through the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. Likewise, I'll assume that you'd offer no disrespect to anyone who embraced Transubstantiation as fact through their beliefs.

----------


## JCamilo

Of there is no offense. 

Anyways, Aquinas is not here to change his future, it is to illustrate the meaning of Substance, in the text which refers to Christ body as having non physical presence (or the traditional physical presence that can be validade by empirical evidence, which was the proposal of the chemestry exame. The Church expect to have "wine and breed" as result and this in no way disprove the transubustantiation), which Julius confirms. It also confirms the symbolic nature of those elements in the sacrament (which from the logic does not imply it is false, the symbol is the thing in such rituals). 

Simple as put, it is like an object (you, me) etc, to have more than one part. Substance , an excential invisible part and some material part. By mentioning - in the part you quoted - substance, they suggest that other part, a left over of sorts, is absent. This left over is what implies that to our mundane senses - it is wine and breed. Obviously, this show those guys are in no way ignorant, completely fools and had phylosophy and mostly, logic, present in their doctrines to the point they understood empirism quite well and analysed their miracles with that in view as well (which made Mal4mac challenge a bit foolish, the church had the answer well build 700 or more years ago for him).

This is Pope Paul VI, 1965. 

'46. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new "reality" which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.'

He uses the other symbolism a few times (he mentions it but consider a mistake praying with focus on Symbolism), uses here sign and end telling us, the body is present but not in the way bodies are in a place. He basically - even the use of substance - repeats and confirms Aquinas and the kind of interpretation I have. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pa...terium_en.html

and this is Vatican site compedium: 

"282. How is Christ present in the Eucharist?

1373-1375
1413

Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and incomparable way. He is present in a true, real and substantial way, with his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity. In the Eucharist, therefore, there is present in a sacramental way, that is, under the Eucharistic species of bread and wine, Christ whole and entire, God and Man.

283. What is the meaning of transubstantiation?

1376-1377
1413 

Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered."

----------


## mal4mac

So are the carbon atoms in the wafer swapped with carbon atoms from Christ's body? Is Christ in bodily form in heaven teleporting his carbon atoms to the wafer and swapping these atoms with the wafer's carbon atoms? Does Christ allow for scientific advance? Given the current availability electron microscopes invisible transubstantiation might need to take place at the atomic level. As all carbon atoms are the same, why bother doing this? Is there an extra undetectable "spiritual oomph" in Jesus' carbon atoms? If so, how does this "spiritual oomph" work itself out in the human body? If it cures diseases, or improves complexion, such things should be detectable.

----------


## JCamilo

You are being childish and illogical. It is clear stated the change is not physical, nothing happens with atoms. Dont you think the first time a priest said to some pagan guy with a bigger sword "this is the body and blood of jesus" the guy didnt tasted and said "wine and breed for me"?And neither it is meant to cure diseases, it is more a way to fasten the bound with the community and the community with Jesus.

----------


## mal4mac

I'm being childish and illogical  :Smile:  One of the posters said, "His physical body and blood is now, here on earth, the consecrated bread and wine." I'm just trying to draw out the implications of that. I think the whole discussion is daft, like arguing over how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Symbolic or real, big end of the egg or small end of the egg. I wish I had Swift's satirical gifts.

----------


## JCamilo

There is nothing wrong with her sentence. The discussion is not daft, what matters is not how many angels but to which tune they are dancing.

----------


## Eman Resu

> I wish I had Swift's satirical gifts.


Oh, I don't know - Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's satire regarding _The Lady's Dressing Room_ wasn't bad either.

----------


## YesNo

> On the physics front: I think you need to get up-to-date. Have you heard of Lawrence Krauss? We now know it is entirely possible for a universe to come from nothing, and our universe actually looks like a universe that *came from nothing*.


It was in a post Orphanpip made some years ago on Lit Net featuring Lawrence Krauss that got me interested in the Big Bang. I didn't realize it previously that there was scientific evidence that the universe came from nothing. 

The way I see it now, rather than promoting atheism, this view of the big bang confirms what I understand to be a theistic, specifically Catholic, version of creation.

In any case, with the universe only 13.7 billion years old, chance has even less time to operate to get us to the state we are in now. 




> And even if existence itself did begin to exist and we had no idea how it started, that wouldn't make it reasonable to assume it was a god any more than it would be reasonable to assume it was a transcendent, cosmic purple dragon. A gap in our scientific knowledge is not justification to insert anything you can imagine.


I suppose it could be a purple dragon. Wouldn't you like to know if it is or not? 

I see atheism as boxing in science with an assumption that there is nothing conscious out there besides ourselves and that any evidence from our own consciousness should be dismissed. The same thing goes for determinism. Science is still in a conceptual box that assumes determinism in spite of the fact that this has been discredited.

----------


## YesNo

> I however would like to ask: What theists claim is that there is a God-like reality of any sort, anywhere, within the universe or without. How could they possibly know such a thing?


I assume you were referencing my previous post.

A theist would get enough evidence for assuming there are gods or other conscious agents able to make choices from the evidence that human consciousness exists and that humans can make choices. Using the mediocrity principle we can assume there is nothing special or unique about our consciousness.

This existence of consciousness and choice is a challenge for atheists and illustrates the conceptual box they have put science in. It is not science as such that requires this conceptual box. It is atheism that requires it. Science looks for patterns in repeatable events. It does not have to be deterministic nor unconscious. 

Determinism was one way to remove choice. When that failed early in the 20th century, chance was relied on as a way out. When it was found that chance didn't have enough time because the universe was too young, random multiverse ideas were proposed. These are not agnostic scientific conjectures, but atheistic conjectures boxing science into its atheology.

----------


## Delta40

> I suppose it could be a purple dragon. Wouldn't you like to know if it is or not? 
> 
> I see atheism as boxing in science with an assumption that there is nothing conscious out there besides ourselves and that any evidence from our own consciousness should be dismissed. The same thing goes for determinism. Science is still in a conceptual box that assumes determinism in spite of the fact that this has been discredited.


What evidence from our own consciousness? Look, I endure Christians endlessly cherry picking passages from the Bible to substantiate their arguments and negating ones which cannot withhold scrutiny and now you say that atheists box in science. Perhaps you're suggesting that both camps are guilty of the same practice to suit their own ends. Does that make us fallible humans with a single common denominator or are you going to stick to your 'right to bear arms' guns and say no?

----------


## YesNo

> How do you know there aren't tooth fairies or unicorns? I don't see any gods around here, just as I don't see other mythical figures striding down the streets. I don't know absolutely for sure that they don't exists, they might all be living together in Oz, which for some reason is hidden from me. But until I am given a Ryan air flight to Oz I'll continue being an atheist.


I don't see any evidence for "many worlds" either. Since the many worlds idea cannot derive the Born probabilities, why is it even discussed as an interpretation for quantum mechanics? 

I don't think you support many worlds based on previous posts, but I am bringing this up to compare the many worlds idea with the tooth fairy. They are at the same level of explanation. Why is one considered more reasonable for "scientists" to discuss?




> None of these observations make it any more likely that Santa exists. Electromagnetic & quantum fields are useful models, by using them we can predict how material objects will interact. This has enabled us to develop many useful objects, like the computer you are using at this moment. *The god concept has not allowed us to develop anything useful.*


The various god concepts, used by theistic religions, have built communities of believers who love their god. Even if one does not believe in any gods that is very useful. Just look at state atheisms to see the mess that godless ideologies have made. What is useless is atheism.




> Hardly. The number of declared atheists in Scotland has risen from 27% to 37% in the last decade, and remember that Scotland used to be a stronghold for extreme protestantism. To get an idea about what Scottish religion was like in the 18th century try reading "The View from Castle Rock" by the new Nobel prize winner Alice Munro. From that situation to 37% atheist... it gives me hope that places like USA might get to 37% in the not too distant future.


I don't think the tendency you are viewing is really a growth of atheism so much as a growth of people who don't care about religion one way or the other. Depending on the question I might be placed in that category, but I don't think you would call me an "atheist". 

What atheists need to be worried about is that very group they think is on their side. It could very easily turn against them and become anti-atheists, although not specific believers in any named God.





> It's easy to understand, scientists require evidence. Why does atheism require determinism? It's simply a disbelief in gods. The world can be as indeterministic as you like and still not require any gods. All the leading quantum physicists were atheists, so atheism was hardly a drag on the development of quantum theory!


The determinism is required to remove choice. Choice requires some sort of consciousness. That consciousness leads to these gods.

Based on modern science, given that quantum physics has establish indeterminism, what is your justification that no God could possibly exist? I am not talking about satirizing other religious groups. I am asking for a justification why atheism has even a chance of being true in a universe in which consciousness exists.

In the 19th century, Draper and White, who created the science vs religion conflict could rely on determinism and the hope that science would create a deterministic theory that did not need superhuman agents. That determinism is gone. What do atheists rely on now?

----------


## YesNo

> What evidence from our own consciousness? Look, I endure Christians endlessly cherry picking passages from the Bible to substantiate their arguments and negating ones which cannot withhold scrutiny and now you say that atheists box in science. Perhaps you're suggesting that both camps are guilty of the same practice to suit their own ends. Does that make us fallible humans with a single common denominator or are you going to stick to your 'right to bear arms' guns and say no?


I don't have a religion to defend. I am concerned with civil liberties and science. Were it Christians who were boxing in science insisting that we find some God to their liking, I would be equally annoyed. 

Yes, we are fallible.

----------


## Volya

I'm still not seeing a good reason why religion and science aren't compatible (in general).

----------


## mal4mac

> I don't think the tendency you are viewing is really a growth of atheism so much as a growth of people who don't care about religion one way or the other. Depending on the question I might be placed in that category, but I don't think you would call me an "atheist".


The box ticked by 37% in the 2011 British Survey was "non-religious". They ticked the box, so they cared! If you ticked that box I'd call you an atheist as only religions posit Gods.

----------


## mal4mac

> I'm still not seeing a good reason why religion and science aren't compatible (in general).


They are not compatible because having faith in a religion is irrational, because there is insufficient evidence for any religion. Believing in all sorts of irrational stuff leads to social & mental incoherence, and that is not a recipe for happiness. In the past, when the religious have gained power, they have burned heretics for irrational reasons. Such a world was an irrational, incoherent world, leading to great unhappiness. So religion is not compatible with science because it leads to social incoherence and presages a new dark age, just like the old dark age. To resolve this incoherence we need to argue religion out of existence, it has no good existence claims, so this should be possible!

----------


## Eman Resu

> They are not compatible because having faith in a religion is irrational, because there is insufficient evidence for any religion. Believing in all sorts of irrational stuff leads to social & mental incoherence, and that is not a recipe for happiness. In the past, when the religious have gained power, they have burned heretics for irrational reasons. Such a world was an irrational, incoherent world, leading to great unhappiness. So religion is not compatible with science because it leads to social incoherence and presages a new dark age, just like the old dark age. To resolve this incoherence we need to argue religion out of existence, it has no good existence claims, so this should be possible!



Be careful what you wish for. Remember that during those "dark ages" - from the Council at Constantinople in 719, until the Council at Paris in 1212 - nearly five decades - that the _only_ thing which saved the written word from extinction was the decree that harming books carried with it the Church's anathema.

----------


## mal4mac

> Be careful what you wish for. Remember that during those "dark ages" - from the Council at Constantinople in 719, until the Council at Paris in 1212 - nearly five decades - that the _only_ thing which saved the written word from extinction was the decree that harming books carried with it the Church's anathema.


Saving their own dark books from extinction. Big deal. They had already driven the written words of the ancients almost to extinction, and banned non-Christian works. Fortunately the Arabs were more enlightened about keeping alive ancient works.

----------


## Eman Resu

> Saving their own dark books from extinction. Big deal. They had already driven the written words of the ancients almost to extinction, and banned non-Christian works. Fortunately the Arabs were more enlightened about keeping alive ancient works.



Far be it from me to trot out John William Draper's assertions that the "Arabs" burned the Library at Alexandria. That notwithstanding, vast numbers of classical texts in history and the sciences were copied out at monasteries throughout Europe in those "Dark Ages," and the works which ended up on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum did so _after the Middle Ages had ceased to be_ - at the hands of Pope Paul IV and the Council (the Pauline Index itself was 1559) . Truth be told, if you can read this, thank a thirteenth century Carthusian scribe.

----------


## mal4mac

The Christians got nasty in Alexandria as well, murdering Hypatia, for instance. A female intellectual! That really wound them up. Drapers views are questionable, I thought the consensus, now, was that there wasn't one burning of the library but several, and it's uncertain what actually happened (reports are hard to come by!) If it wasn't for the dark ages I might be reading this by the light of Arcturus. Anyway, all this is beside the point, *today's* religion is irrational and not compatible with science. Liberal secular humanists, like Dawkins or Stephen Fry, are not going to be burning any books or Christians.

----------


## Volya

> They are not compatible because having faith in a religion is irrational, because there is insufficient evidence for any religion. Believing in all sorts of irrational stuff leads to social & mental incoherence, and that is not a recipe for happiness. In the past, when the religious have gained power, they have burned heretics for irrational reasons. Such a world was an irrational, incoherent world, leading to great unhappiness. So religion is not compatible with science because it leads to social incoherence and presages a new dark age, just like the old dark age. To resolve this incoherence we need to argue religion out of existence, it has no good existence claims, so this should be possible!


This is just incredibly offensive and narrow-minded. I am an agnostic-atheist myself but to dismiss other peoples beliefs as 'mental incoherence' is just plain wrong. I have friends who are Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, and we all agree that the Big Bang, evolution, gravity, any kind of generally accepted science, is all perfectly okay by each of our own religious beliefs.

Also, I daresay Richard Dawkins wouldn't be averse to burning Christians or the Bible. He is not a very nice man.

----------


## Eman Resu

> The Christians got nasty in Alexandria as well, murdering Hypatia, for instance. A female intellectual! That really wound them up. Drapers views are questionable,


Indeed they are; it was offered tongue-in-cheek.





> I thought the consensus, now, was that there wasn't one burning of the library but several, and it's uncertain what actually happened (reports are hard to come by!)



Yep - that is the current view; studies have discovered several separate foundations, in fact.





> If it wasn't for the dark ages I might be reading this by the light of Arcturus. Anyway, all this is beside the point, *today's* religion is irrational and not compatible with science. Liberal secular humanists, like Dawkins or Stephen Fry, are not going to be burning any books or Christians.



Tomás de Torquemada really was the first (1480s) to actively encourage the destruction of scientific books in the name of Catholicism (and by that time, that old thief Gutenberg was already taking credit for the accomplishments of Johannes Füst and Peter Schöeffer, et al, and printed books were becoming far-flung as Mankind brushed away the last of the Middle Ages' dust and opened the way for the Renaissance), and really did so in the name of Ferdinand, who exerted considerable pressure upon Pope Julius II (and, in fact, Sixtus IV actually tried the put an end to the Inquisition only a few years beforehand, but was pressured into withdrawing his Bulla of 1477 at the behest of the Spanish Crown, who genuinely used the Inquisition to personal political advantage) to do so.

I can't say that I agree with your assessment of modern Catholicism as being any more "irrational" than increasing to 17 trillion dollars, the debt ceiling of a country _whose GDP is 1.5 trillion dollars less than that,_ or becoming a martyr in the hope of attaining "sensual Paradise" [as in Sunan Ibn Majah] populated by seventy-two virgins (imagine, for a moment, the incredible expenditure of energy and patience required to "educate" 72 wholly inexperienced woman - dear God, that's not Paradise - that's a nightmare!), or any of a thousand other "irrational" elements of the modern secular world, but you've certainly as much right to your opinion as does anyone else. Some wag once said, "everyone believes in God on their deathbed;" why should believing any _earlier_ be seen as "irrational?"

----------


## mal4mac

> This is just incredibly offensive and narrow-minded. I am an agnostic-atheist myself but to dismiss other peoples beliefs as 'mental incoherence' is just plain wrong.


Now you're suffering from mental incoherence.




> Also, I daresay Richard Dawkins wouldn't be averse to burning Christians or the Bible. He is not a very nice man.


And I find that view very offensive, you have no reason to say that. But what can we expect from the incoherent?

----------


## Volya

I'd rather be incoherent than an arrogant jerk who has no respect for other peoples beliefs.

----------


## mal4mac

Well you obviously have no respect for my beliefs, and are very arrogant. Should we form a club?

----------


## Eman Resu

> Well you obviously have no respect for my beliefs, and are very arrogant. Should we form a club?


I try to respect other views, but as to the club, will there be a secret handshake?

----------


## Eman Resu

...and what about bowling shirts with the club name on them?

----------


## mal4mac

> I try to respect other views...


We'll help you with that problem.

----------


## Eman Resu

> We'll help you with that problem.



Oh, trying to see new perspectives, affording respect for other people and not forcing my views on others isn't a problem, thanks. I'm not a scientist; I'm only a Christian.

----------


## mal4mac

> ...and what about bowling shirts with the club name on them?


No name, just any cartoon that might get you kicked out of the bowling arena. Jesus & Mo for me:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2013/05/15/stupid/

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> They are not compatible because having faith in a religion is irrational, because there is insufficient evidence for any religion. Believing in all sorts of irrational stuff leads to social & mental incoherence, and that is not a recipe for happiness. In the past, when the religious have gained power, they have burned heretics for irrational reasons. Such a world was an irrational, incoherent world, leading to great unhappiness. So religion is not compatible with science because it leads to social incoherence and presages a new dark age, just like the old dark age. To resolve this incoherence we need to argue religion out of existence, it has no good existence claims, so this should be possible!


Maybe religion is irrational to you, but remember that humans are irrational creatures. Maybe there is a reason for that? Maybe there's a type of reason greater than human reason? You know, there's so much us humans don't understand, and yet we have the gall to say that there is no God. How can we possibly know that when our minds are so limited? Does that not strike you as conceited?

----------


## Delta40

> How can we possibly know that when our minds are so limited? Does that not strike you as conceited?


It is the same with science. So much is yet to be discovered....

----------


## mal4mac

> Maybe religion is irrational to you, but remember that humans are irrational creatures. Maybe there is a reason for that? Maybe there's a type of reason greater than human reason?


Once you admit & admire irrationality any excess is permitted. Why not believe in astrology or Zeus? They are just as irrational as Christian beliefs. Why not get really irrational and hold all these views at the same time? They contradict each other? This shouldn't bother an irrationalist. 




> You know, there's so much us humans don't understand, and yet we have the gall to say that there is no God. How can we possibly know that when our minds are so limited? Does that not strike you as conceited?


Again, sigh, who says that? There is insufficient evidence for God, just as there is insufficient evidence for the tooth fairy, therefore the rational persons holds that there is no God, just as there is no tooth fairy. Is it conceited not to believe in the tooth fairy?

----------


## JCamilo

That is like saying, because you love someone, support a football team or admire a opera - all irrational feelings - you must believe in all things imaginary (which are not the same as irrational). Poor argument and rather ilogical. I suppose you believe in astrology and Zeus now?

----------


## mal4mac

> That is like saying, because you love someone, support a football team or admire a opera - all irrational feelings - you must believe in all things imaginary (which are not the same as irrational) ...


Love has a rational explanation, it's a combination of sexual attraction and friendship, both readily explained by evolutionary theory. Supporting English football teams is an irrational action that I have cured myself of. For instance, I followed none of the recent England football's team qualification fiasco, apart from catching the appalling racist remarks of their idiot manager. 

You need to be careful with the broad and narrow definitions of rationality (You are assuming I'm using the narrow definition, I'm not, I'm using the broad definition.) Watching an Opera, if you like Opera, or think you could like Opera, is a rational act because it is a "sensible, sane, moderate, not foolish or absurd or extreme" thing to do. Believing in God is not sensible or sane, it's foolish and absurd, and often leads to immoderate, extreme actions.

----------


## JCamilo

Love is not the same as physical atraction, which is what you described but do you understand even having faith will be explained by evolutionary theory just like any emotions. And still, being irrational is absolutely normal and healthier. And still: we can be picky with our irrationalities.

Watching Opera can lead to extreme actions. People cry rivers of tears. There is sane, moderate, sensible, not foolish religious people. Aquinas's first cause is rational, it is logical and yet you keep saying there is no logical reason to believe in God. This is very irrational, a bit of absurd claim, since you just ignore a historical fact. 

As you finding ridiculous people who is religious, it is ridiculous to not support a football team, even if your option is the English team.

----------


## mal4mac

> Love is not the same as physical atraction, which is what you described but do you understand even having faith will be explained by evolutionary theory just like any emotions. And still, being irrational is absolutely normal and healthier. And still: we can be picky with our irrationalities.


I said love came from a physical reaction & friendship... maybe that's not quite correct in all cases, so I'll broaden it to say it comes from a physical & social reaction. Yes indeed "having faith" can be explained by evolutionary theory. On a recent video, Dawkins says he likes the idea that faith comes from inappropriate attribution of agency. For instance, if you hear the grass move, it's likely to be just the wind blowing, but it's probably of an evolutionary advantage to attribute agency to the movement, that is, assume a carnivore is behind you and run like hell. 99 times out of 100 it will be the wind, but it's worth running like hell 100 times for the one time it is a jaguar. Some people inherited the tendency to attribute agency to *everything*, so if a volcano erupts, "someone did it". Obviously not a jaguar, must be something bigger, must be God. So evolution installs irrational tendencies, sometimes, and they need to be opposed by rationality.




> Watching Opera can lead to extreme actions. People cry rivers of tears. There is sane, moderate, sensible, not foolish ...


Not in England  :Smile:  But I'll give you this, I think it's a positive thing. Some extreme actions are not good though, like burning heretics.




> Aquinas's first cause is rational, it is logical and yet you keep saying there is no logical reason to believe in God. This is very irrational, a bit of absurd claim, since you just ignore a historical fact.


Aristotle's physics is considered absurd *today* because it obviously doesn't work, we can excuse Aristotle because not much was known about science, he had an excuse for his ignorance. I'm not sure if Aquinas was mad, bad, or ignorant; but today we can certainly relieve our ignorance. Just as Newton's ideas can be explained to 14 year olds, Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence have been shown to be vacuous today (i.e., irrational.) Dawkins does a reasonable job of this in "the God Delusion", though you can pick up many books of popular philosophy that do a decent demolition job.

The first cause argument comes from the idea that nothing is caused by itself, every effect has a prior cause. This infinite regress is terminated by a first cause: God. The first cause argument makes the entirely unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress, that God himself does not need to be caused.

----------


## YesNo

> The box ticked by 37% in the 2011 British Survey was "non-religious". They ticked the box, so they cared! If you ticked that box I'd call you an atheist as only religions posit Gods.


Is that is all they had to do? Just tick a box for which religion they belonged to? I would probably have to tick the "non-religious" box depending on what the other boxes were. 

It is irrational to assume that makes me an atheist. 

People like Dawkins need to be careful that those "non-religious" people they are counting on for support don't turn anti-atheist.

----------


## YesNo

> They are not compatible because having faith in a religion is irrational, because there is *insufficient evidence* for any religion. Believing in all sorts of irrational stuff leads to social & mental incoherence, and that is not a recipe for happiness. In the past, *when the religious have gained power, they have burned heretics for irrational reasons*. Such a world was an irrational, incoherent world, leading to great unhappiness. So religion is not compatible with science because it leads to social incoherence and presages a new dark age, just like the old dark age. To resolve this incoherence we need to argue religion out of existence, it has* no good existence claims*, so this should be possible!


When people say there is insufficient evidence for something, they are saying there is no evidence _that they accept_ for something. This is the one of the problems with atheism's relationship with science. It would be the same problem no matter what religion dominated science. Atheists refuse to look at evidence that counters their belief system. They then use their influence to insist that scientists in general refuse to do so as well. 

What science needs is a tolerant agnosticism, not atheism. Scientists need to have open minds. 

Let us also not forget that when atheists gain power, they behave badly as well. To refuse to acknowledge the problems of state atheism and only focus on the problems of other religions opens atheists to the charge of hypocrisy and even bigotry.

Does atheism itself have any "good existence claims"? If atheists cannot _argue_ other religions out of existence, is it acceptable, should atheists get political power, in the name of "science", in the name of "reason", in the name of whatever bogus idealism they currently embrace, to try to _force_ other religions out of existence?

----------


## mal4mac

> Atheists refuse to look at evidence that counters their belief system.


Hardly. There are many atheists who have studied the supposed evidence in great detail, as a quick Google search will show you.




> What science needs is a tolerant agnosticism, not atheism. Scientists need to have open minds.


The best scientists do, they always keep open the *possibility* that Santa exists, they always remain open to new evidence.




> To refuse to acknowledge the problems of state atheism and only focus on the problems of other religions opens atheists to the charge of hypocrisy and even bigotry.


How can you have 'state atheism'? You can't have a state whose only policy is "Don't believe in God!"




> Does atheism itself have any "good existence claims"?


As its only claim is for the non-existence of something, it's ridiculous to expect an existence claim!




> And if atheists cannot _argue_ religion out of existence, is it acceptable, should atheists get political power, in the name of "science", in the name of "reason", in the name of whatever bogus idealism they currently embrace, to try to _force_ other religions out of existence?


I would argue no, but that's because I'm a liberal. You can be a liberal atheist, Stalinist atheist, or an atheist of any political persuasion. You can also be a liberal Christian, in which case no force is necessary on either side, but a lot of lively arguments may be expected, and should be encouraged  :Smile:

----------


## Eman Resu

Can religion and science co-exist? They do; now more than ever, they're _entirely_ interrelated. From an article in Physics For The Terminally Stupid Magazine, "How exactly do you produce a Higgs boson?"


_"There are a few ways to produce Higgs bosons at the Tevatron at Fermilab which collides protons and antiprotons together. The primary way is when a gluon, which is the particle that holds the quarks together inside a proton, begins to collide with a different gluon from the antiproton. Some of the time, when these gluons have enough energy, and when there is a quantum fluctuation like a roll of a dice choosing a particular number, the gluons will exchange a top quark, and the top quarks will merge, and transform into a Higgs boson."_



I guess that since the God Particle depends upon quantum fluctuation, it could be said that the variance which creates this merging of top quarks is... well, you can figure this out by yourself:

God's Particle depends upon
Two errant quarks to marry,
The force which causes this is called
The Blessed Mergin' Vary.

----------


## YesNo

Nice one about the Mergin' Vary, Eman Resu.

----------


## Eman Resu

> Nice one about the Mergin' Vary, Eman Resu.



Thanks; when I read that I kind of lepton it.

----------


## Melanie

If "Science" is responsible for all of creation, then why did "It" choose our planet ONLY?? Science has no intelligence and can't choose, of course. And I'm well aware that all the elements needed are in place here…but why? Why not other places in the universe? You may say there could be others in other universes but why only our planet in all this vastness around us? Why such a perfect design here only? Think about the complexities of that design…why? Just "Why" about everything. 

God is the answer to "Why?".

----------


## Ecurb

Science is not "responsible for all creation". Instead, science is a method, or a department of knowledge in which observed facts have been logically arranged and systematized, and are subject to verification or falsification. 

You are correct, Melanie, that the universe SEEMS miraculous, and inspires awe and wonder. However, God is only one of a great many possible answers to the question, "Why"?

----------


## cafolini

> Science is not "responsible for all creation". Instead, science is a method, or a department of knowledge in which observed facts have been logically arranged and systematized, and are subject to verification or falsification. 
> 
> You are correct, Melanie, that the universe SEEMS miraculous, and inspires awe and wonder. However, God is only one of a great many possible answers to the question, "Why"?


God is the only answer and science is one of the Gifts of God and doesn't have any saying about Who God is or What He's supposed to do.

----------


## Ecurb

If God is the only answer, does that mean there is only one question? My only point was that the universe existed before science did – so “science” could not possibly be responsible for all creation.

----------


## Melanie

I agree that science could not possibly be responsible for creation. The word "science" isn't in the Bible because the word didn't exist but science existed and science was created by God, whether there was a name for it or not.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> When people say there is insufficient evidence for something, they are saying there is no evidence _that they accept_ for something... Atheists refuse to look at evidence that counters their belief system... What science needs is a tolerant agnosticism, not atheism. Scientists need to have open minds.


I absolutely agree with your first sentence, which is why I think it behooves people to consider what constitutes good and bad evidence to begin with, rather than just talking about good and bad evidence in the abstract. This is what I love about LessWrong and Bayesian Epistemic Rationalism. If you read that site from the beginning, you'll see how Yudkowsky builds from the ground up a way of assessing evidence in a manner that is as objective as we humans can get. I say AS objective, because Bayes itself acknowledges, in the existence of priors, the subjective nature of human experience, how every piece of evidence we observe is affected and affects our previous experiences and evidence. 

That said, I completely disagree either that atheists refuse to look at the evidence that contradicts their belief system, or that scientists aren't open-minded. For the former, the people that write about atheism generally do so in the context of addressing the arguments and evidence from theism! Dawkins, eg, expresses his atheism through his attack on the "evidence" put forward for ID and Creationism, and how evolutionary biology is far superior in its evidence to either. Indeed, take way Dawkins' critiques of ID/Creationism and you take away the very basis for which we know him as an atheist! You can say the same thing about Krauss and Creationist cosmology, or Shelly Kagen and theistic morality, etc. In regards to scientists, having somewhat open minds is really part and parcel of what they do. As I've said before, however dogmatic individual scientists are, the nature of the scientific method and peer-review is very much a "watch dog" over that dogma turning into blind authority. If science didn't have an open mind, Darwin's theories never would've gained an ounce of footing to begin with, as the idea, back then, would've seemed far too absurd to even other scientists.

----------


## Melanie

Here's something God designed that scientists don't have a clue about. It just so happens to be at the core of creation.

Watch this TED video about the uncertainty of scientists as to the location of electrons and their "mysterious" behavior:

http://www.dump.com/locationelectrons/

This video is a scientific explanation that SCREAMS a Higher Power.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Here's something God designed that scientists don't have a clue about... This video is a scientific explanation that SCREAMS a Higher Power.


This is just the classic God of the Gaps (we don't know something, so God!), and is plain false is well. Science has an incredibly accurate probabilistic model of how electrons behave, and we have a perfectly deterministic one if we accept those models as real without adding anything unnecessary to them. It turns out, the reason they seem weird to us is because we are made up of particles ourselves, and one particle system cannot observe another without both of them being affected. Our "confusion" was entirely over not considering ourselves in the equation. Take ourselves into account and the weirdness goes away. Even if we DIDN'T know these things and DIDN'T have that model, our ignorance creating a mystery would never be evidence of a "higher power." See here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/hs/think_like_reality/ 

Again, to quote the relevant: 


> Reality has been around since long before you showed up. Don't go calling it nasty names like "bizarre" or "incredible"... Quantum physics is not "weird". You are weird. You have the absolutely bizarre idea that reality ought to consist of little billiard balls bopping around, when in fact reality is a perfectly normal cloud of complex amplitude in configuration space. This is your problem, not reality's, and you are the one who needs to change.
> 
> Human intuitions were produced by evolution and evolution is a hack. The same optimization process that built your retina backward and then routed the optic cable through your field of vision, also designed your visual system to process persistent objects bouncing around in 3 spatial dimensions because that's what it took to chase down tigers... When you go down to the fundamental level, the level on which the laws are stable, global, and exception-free, there aren't any tigers. In fact there aren't any persistent objects bouncing around in 3 spatial dimensions. Deal with it.
> 
> Calling reality "weird" keeps you inside a viewpoint already proven erroneous. Probability theory tells us that surprise is the measure of a poor hypothesis; if a model is consistently stupid - consistently hits on events the model assigns tiny probabilities - then it's time to discard that model. A good model makes reality look normal, not weird; a good model assigns high probability to that which is actually the case. Intuition is only a model by another name: poor intuitions are shocked by reality, good intuitions make reality feel natural. You want to reshape your intuitions so that the universe looks normal. You want to think like reality.

----------


## Melanie

> ...Science has an incredibly accurate probabilistic model of how electrons behave...


How can "probabilistic" be "incredibly accurate"?? Interesting leap of faith you have there.




> ...and we have a perfectly deterministic one IF we accept those models as real…


"IF"???…..another leap of faith. You might as well throw in a leap of faith in a Higher Power while you're at it….just to be fair. Gotta' just love how God has a few mysteries that He's keeping scientists in the dark about (as well as all of us). He wouldn't want to unleash ALL of his secrets…that would be too much power in the wrong hands. 




> Even if we DIDN'T know these things and DIDN'T have that model, our ignorance creating a mystery would never be evidence of a "higher power."


You just don't see it do you. You are saying that if you don't know these answers (which you don't) and don't have an accurate model (which you called probabilistic), are ignorant (your words not mine), and can't answer the mysteries…...then you would not be open-minded to another leap of faith concept ? Wait. Didn't you just tell YesNo that scientists are open-minded?

POST #100 from MorpheusSandman to YesNo…."I completely disagree either that atheists refuse to look at the evidence that contradicts their belief system, or that scientists aren't open-minded."

----------


## YesNo

> Science has an incredibly accurate probabilistic model of how electrons behave, and *we have a perfectly deterministic one* if we accept those models as real *without adding anything unnecessary to them*.


The many worlds model doesn't add the needed assumption that allows it to generate the Born probabilities. Therefore it cannot construct a wave function. Therefore it is not an interpretation for how electrons behave. To believe in many worlds requires a "leap of faith", to use Melanie's term.

Considering the absurdity of many worlds and the absurdity of even wanting a strict determinism like it proposes, I think theistic beliefs are more reasonable and more scientific since they fit reality better.

This particular thread is about science vs religion. However, science and religion are not at odds, especially not today with the introduction of fields as part of reality, the understanding that the universe is not deterministic and the realization that the universe is incredibly young. What are actually at odds are science and pseudo-science. I would put beliefs like many worlds in the pseudo-science category.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> How can "probabilistic" be "incredibly accurate"??


If a system is innately probabilistic from our perspective then an accurate model would be probabilistic as well, the same way a coin flip is 50/50 or a die roll is 1/6. Are these probabilistic models not "incredibly accurate"? 




> "IF"???..another leap of faith.


I don't see that as a leap of faith at all. So far, every time we've accurately modeled reality it's been of real phenomena. People's reluctance to accept QM models as "real" stems from them upsetting their subjective perceptions/experience of what reality is. So, if you believe the models over our historically fallible perceptions, then the models are deterministic; if you believe our historically fallible perceptions, then you have some explaining to do. How many instances do we need of our perceptions being wrong and our scientific models being right before we start to trust our scientific models over our perceptions? You might as well say it's a "leap of faith" to believe the sun will rise tomorrow. 

Nevertheless, it's foolish to put all "leaps of faith" under the same label as if the leaps are of equal length. Historically, people proposing gods behind natural phenomena are batting a perfect 0%, while science discovering natural causes behind natural phenomena are batting a perfect 1.000. So, now we find ourselves in the midst of another "mystery;" please explain to me why it's an equal "leap" to go with the theory that has been consistently WRONG, as opposed to going with the theory that has been consistently RIGHT? The sun rising is the same thing; sure, maybe the sun WON'T rise tomorrow, and maybe it's a "leap of faith" to believe it will, but to propose that both leaps of faith (it rising VS it not rising) are equal is patently absurd. 




> You just don't see it do you.


Apparently you don't get it either. How is "I don't know" evidence for the theory that "God did it?" Especially from a historical perspective we've used gods to explain tons of things we didn't understand--lightning, the "movements" of the planets/stars, storms, waves, mountains, etc.--and have been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME! That's not a good track record for gods being behind what we don't understand. However, we do understand quantum mechanics. Engineers use the models in several facets of modern technologies, like GPS and quantum computing. The models work, they're scary accurate. The debate is over how to interpret what they mean and, as I said, if you trust the models are representing real things, then they are deterministic and only become indeterministic from our perspective because we are bound up in the system we're observing.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The many worlds model doesn't add the needed assumption that allows it to generate the Born probabilities. Therefore it cannot construct a wave function. Therefore it is not an interpretation for how electrons behave.


Better to have an interpretation that simply says "there's more we don't know" (MW) than to have an interpretation that says "we know everything, but please ignore all of the absurdities and contradictions and violations of scientific, rational, and logical principles that our assumptions create" (CI). 




> Considering the absurdity of many worlds and the absurdity of even wanting a strict determinism like it proposes, I think theistic beliefs are more reasonable and more scientific since they fit reality better.


Yes, an invisible superman behind everything we don't understand is "more reasonable" and "fits reality better" than believing that our QM models are real. I would love for you to explain how theism is the least bit "scientific." How is "we don't understand something, so God did it" scientific? 




> However, science and religion are not at odds


http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html




> ...realization that the universe is incredibly young.


14 billions years old is young?

----------


## YesNo

> Better to have an interpretation that simply says "there's more we don't know" (MW) than to have an interpretation that says "we know everything, but please ignore all of the absurdities and contradictions and violations of scientific, rational, and logical principles that our assumptions create" (CI).


Many worlds can't even face the facts that we do know.




> Yes, an invisible superman behind everything we don't understand is "more reasonable" and "fits reality better" than believing that our QM models are real. I would love for you to explain how theism is the least bit "scientific." How is "we don't understand something, so God did it" scientific?


It is far more reasonable than gazillions of parallel universes that in the end don't explain anything anyway.




> 14 billions years old is young?


Considering that the universe was previously viewed as eternal, 13.7 billion years is very young. In particular, it is too young, far too young, for chance to fill in the gaps and explain how we got to where we are today. The only God of the gaps is _chance_, but with the universe being so young, that God did not have time to do anything. Something else must be at work.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Many worlds can't even face the facts that we do know.


This is plain false, but don't let that stop you from saying it over and over and over and over and over and over. 




> It is far more reasonable than gazillions of parallel universes that in the end don't explain anything anyway.


And, again, you're judging MW based on its complex consequences (the "gazillions of parallel universes") rather than its simple assumptions, the same simple assumptions that are consistent with everything we know about physics and history; and, again, you're ignoring that great complexity arising from simple premises is what we see all throughout nature within our own universe, not simplicity arising from complexity like Copenhagen; and, again, you're ignoring that MW's problem (Born) is much less significant than CI's multiple problems. 




> In particular, it is too young, far too young, for chance to fill in the gaps and explain how we got to where we are today. The only God of the gaps is _chance_, but with the universe being so young, that God did not have time to do anything.


This is plain false, but don't let that stop you from saying it over and over and over and over and over and over.

I can't help but notice how you failed to meet this challenge: "I would love for you to explain how theism is the least bit "scientific." How is "we don't understand something, so God did it" scientific?"" 

You did nothing to explain how theism was "scientific." All you did was pull out a big, honking argument from incredulity fallacy ("I can't imagine how a 14 billion year old universe could've created everything by chance, so God did it.").

----------


## YesNo

> This is plain false, but don't let that stop you from saying it over and over and over and over and over and over.


I don't mind repeating myself. Thanks for giving me the opportunity. I usually try to do it in different ways so I see it from a different angle.




> I can't help but notice how you failed to meet this challenge: "I would love for you to explain how theism is the least bit "scientific." How is "we don't understand something, so God did it" scientific?"" 
> 
> You did nothing to explain how theism was "scientific." All you did was pull out a big, honking argument from incredulity fallacy ("I can't imagine how a 14 billion year old universe could've created everything by chance, so God did it.").


I don't know a lot about religion, and I can't speak for any particular theism, but I suspect the theisms that present God using the names of Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Rama, Krishna, Saraswati, and the like, are not interested in their Gods being some "God of the gaps" or some "Intelligent Designer" of machines. They think more highly of their Gods than that. 

The God of the gaps has a name. It is called "Chance" and it is the God determinists invoke when they can't explain something. They expect people to accept their God without question, but considering how young the universe is, arguments that this Chance God exists or could have achieved what they claim it did requires a statistical argument that they conveniently refuse to provide.

This is from the link that you cite:

_Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so._ 
That is exactly what those believing in the Chance God need to calculate. Instead of satirizing the "creationists", they need to get off their butts and show that whenever they claim something occurred by chance that there is a statistical likelihood that it could actually occur by chance.

Here's another quote:

_Merely because one cannot believe that, for example, homeopathy is no more than a placebo does not magically make such treatment effective._
Homeopathy could well be a placebo effect without there being any "magic" involved. However, if the universe were deterministic and our consciousness made no difference since we are just machines, ideas these self-proclaimed "rationalists" tend to believe in, there should be _no_ placebo effects. _None at all._ The existence of these effects means that the consciousness of the patient cured the patient, not the drug, because that patient didn't get the drug. 

The general belief systems of theists are not in conflict with the data that science provides today. Their Gods are not spaghetti monsters, but they don't have to be in a universe where fields are possible. Their Gods are not deterministic, but they don't have to be because quantum physics has found uncertainty at the core of matter. 

Again, I can't speak for specific theisms, but science doesn't stand in the way of these religions.

What I do find amazing is the extent today that atheists have to go to maintain their beloved mechanistic determinism. If there is anything that has been falsified by modern science it is this atheistic metaphysics.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I don't mind repeating myself.


Obviously. You don't mind repeating yourself even after you've been factually corrected. It vividly reminds me of Creationists who say "evolution has no idea where life came from so evolution is wrong!," then have it explained to them that evolution only seeks to explain why living things change, not where they come from, yet continue to state "evolution has no idea where life came from so evolution is wrong!" Your "evolution = abiogenisis" fallacy is "Bell disproves Many Worlds," amongst others. 




> ...I suspect the theisms that present God using the names of Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Rama, Krishna, Saraswati, and the like, are not interested in their Gods being some "God of the gaps" or some "Intelligent Designer" of machines. They think more highly of their Gods than that. 
> 
> The God of the gaps has a name. It is called "Chance" and it is the God determinists invoke when they can't explain something.


Firstly, not a single thing in your post addressed my challenge to explain how theism was "scientific;" secondly, remember that "chance/coincidence" is not a "God" or "God of the gaps," IT'S THE DEFAULT POSITION BECAUSE IT'S THE NULL HYPOTHESIS! You yourself brought up the null hypothesis in the Lost & Found thread and was advocating its usage until you learned that the null hypohtesis and chance/coincidence are the same thing. It reminds me of when you were advocating Richard Feynman as an authority until you learned he was a MW advocate. 




> That is exactly what those believing in the Chance God need to calculate. Instead of satirizing the "creationists", they need to get off their butts and show that whenever they claim something occurred by chance that there is a statistical likelihood that it could actually occur by chance.


This just shows that you know nothing of probabilities, and it's just the classic, teleological, "argument from big numbers" fallacy. If I go out and look up at the sky, the probability that I will see the exact cloud formation I do is incredibly small; If I'm driving home and note the license plate numbers of every car in front of me, the probability that I would've encountered precisely those license plates is incredibly small; if you calculate every outcome of every game in Vegas over the course of a single night, the probability of that outcome is astronomically small. Every single one of these three "incredibly small probability" events have one thing in common: they all happened by CHANCE. Unless you think there is some "grand design" in me seeing the cloud formation, or those license plates, or those Vegas outcomes, then you, also, would agree it was "chance." Remember, chance is the "null hypothesis," it's the claim that "there is no meaning/design/causal connection between these events." In order to argue it ISN'T chance requires more than just the big probabilities against those events happening. Just because we, as humans, find big probabilities against things that are relevant to us makes zero difference in whether there's some meaning, design, or causal connection in what we experience, including life itself. 




> However, if the universe were deterministic and our consciousness made no difference since we are just machines, ideas these self-proclaimed "rationalists" tend to believe in, there should be _no_ placebo effects. _None at all._


Firstly, the universe being deterministic has nothing to do with whether or not our "consciousness" makes a difference. If you program an AI, the programming itself is what defines the AI! Defines what it thinks, says, and does. Our consciousness, if it is a real, physical thing as rationalists believe, would, itself, define what we think, say, and do. Just because we're deterministic would not change in the slightest how important our consciousness is to us. Secondly, I have no idea how/why you're making the connection between "the ideas rationalists believe in" and "there shouldn't be a placebo effect." As a rationalist myself, I believe that the human mind, consciousness, is a very real thing and what it thinks has a profound effect on how it feels and what it does. Just as thoughts can convince a person that they're sick, and, because thoughts are real things, can even MAKE them sick; thoughts can also convince a person that they'll get better if they take something and, because thoughts are real things, can actually GET better. 




> The general belief systems of theists are not in conflict with the data that science provides today.


What "general belief systems?" It seems unfair to define "general belief system" as "anything in religion not in conflict with science." Meanwhile, Christian beliefs that see The Bible as the inerrant Word of God would believe that the blood of birds and incantations cure leprosy. What has happened in the wake of modern science (not to mention modern morality) is that people progressively shear away from their "general belief systems" those parts of their holy texts that are in direct conflict with science and modern morality; or, if they're like many fundamentalists in the US, they deny modern science, like evolution, in favor of believing the Genesis version of creation. One doesn't have to look hard to find religious beliefs that are, indeed, in direct conflict with science. What's more, the process that generates such beliefs are in direct conflict with the scientific method. There are no religious beliefs that have been reached because of the scientific method, unless you believe The Bible, which, conveniently, is no longer susceptible to the same modern method. 




> What I do find amazing is the extent today that atheists have to go to maintain their beloved mechanistic determinism. If there is anything that has been falsified by modern science it is this atheistic metaphysics.


Speaking of something you've said repeatedly despite having been corrected...

Atheistic metaphysics have NOTHING TO DO WITH DETERMINISM. In fact, with the lone exception of a disbelief in gods, an atheistic metaphysics ENTAILS NOTHING ELSE. I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who believe in Copenhagen or another indeterministic interp. of QM. If science came together tomorrow and definitively determined that the world was indeterministic IT WOULD NOT CHANGE MY ATHEISTIC BELIEFS ONE IOTA. I don't know ANY atheist whose atheism is bound up in their belief in determinism. 

There's also some wonderful irony to the above. Back when Newton first came along with his deterministic physics, most religious institutions and believers thought that this determinism was evidence FOR God's grand ordering of the cosmos. Likewise, when quantum physics seemed to show that things were indeterministic at the quantum level, many theists saw this as a challenge to this supposed Godly order, as they could see no reason why God would "play dice" in Einstein's phrasing. Really, I find it funny that you are SO SURE that indeterminism is evidence for theism while determinism is evidence for atheism. Personally, I see both as being COMPLETELY NEUTRAL on the atheism VS theism front.

Typically, though, you've convinced yourself that I believe in determinism because determinism is absolutely crucial to my metaphysical beliefs. This is just you projecting how YOUR mind works onto me. YOU have metaphysical beliefs and refuse to accept anything that goes against them. YOU put inordinate amount of evidential pressure on something like MW while completely ignoring all of the problems in indeterministic QM. I, on the other hand, am happy to accept anything, be it determinism, indeterminism, theism, etc. as long as the winds of evidence are blowing in that direction. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be a rationalist. You, as a non-rationalist, believe that everyone thinks like you, that they have the same biases that are making them believe these things you don't believe. If you genuinely, honestly, appraised the evidence you'd understand why I believe what I do. You may still disagree with me, but you wouldn't be cooking up this cockamamie notions that I'm so desperate to maintain my atheistic metaphysics that I'm deluding myself into believing in determinism. I know why you believe what you do; you WANT to believe in indeterminism because you WANT to believe that human consciousness isn't a deterministic machine because THAT would make you feel insignificant. YOU are a classic victim of wishful thinking. I don't see how there can be any progress in our conversations until you get over this bias/fallacy.

----------


## YesNo

> You don't mind repeating yourself even after you've been factually corrected.


What facts?




> In order to argue it ISN'T chance requires more than just the big probabilities against those events happening.


Instead of "chance" one should simply say one doesn't know. 




> As a rationalist myself, *I believe that the human mind, consciousness, is a very real thing* and what it thinks has a profound effect on how it feels and what it does. Just as thoughts can convince a person that they're sick, and, because thoughts are real things, can even MAKE them sick; thoughts can also convince a person that they'll get better if they take something and, because thoughts are real things, can actually GET better.


I see that we agree on something.




> What "general belief systems?" It seems unfair to define "general belief system" as "anything in religion not in conflict with science."


I don't see science standing in the way of these religious beliefs. It does stand in the way of determinism.




> One doesn't have to look hard to find religious beliefs that are, indeed, in direct conflict with science. What's more, the process that generates such beliefs are in direct conflict with the scientific method. There are no religious beliefs that have been reached because of the scientific method, unless you believe The Bible, which, conveniently, is no longer susceptible to the same modern method.


The determinism of many worlds is in direct conflict with modern science, specifically, the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. If it is OK for many worlds to be in conflict with science, it should be OK for these religious groups to differ as well.




> If science came together tomorrow and definitively determined that the world was indeterministic IT WOULD NOT CHANGE MY ATHEISTIC BELIEFS ONE IOTA. I don't know ANY atheist whose atheism is bound up in their belief in determinism.


Atheism seems bound up with determinism, however, I agree that not all atheists are determinists. A mechanistic view of the universe seems to require determinism. 




> Typically, though, you've convinced yourself that I believe in determinism because determinism is absolutely crucial to my metaphysical beliefs. This is just you projecting how YOUR mind works onto me. YOU have metaphysical beliefs and refuse to accept anything that goes against them. YOU put inordinate amount of evidential pressure on something like MW while completely ignoring all of the problems in indeterministic QM. *I, on the other hand, am happy to accept anything, be it determinism, indeterminism, theism, etc. as long as the winds of evidence are blowing in that direction.* If I wasn't, I wouldn't be a rationalist.


Well, the scientific evidence *is* in favor of indeterminism. Why don't you accept it?




> you WANT to believe in indeterminism because you WANT to believe that human consciousness isn't a deterministic machine because THAT would make you feel insignificant.


It is not that complicated. My own experience tells me that I do make choices, no matter how restricted these may be. So, if I believed in determinism, I would have to deny the evidence of my experiences without any good scientific reason to do so.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> What facts?


That Bell does nothing to disprove MW. If you don't know why then you either haven't been reading what myself and others have said, you don't understand what MW is, what Bell is, or you don't understand what you've been reading. Take your pick; but it is a factually factual fact that Bell does nothing to disprove MW. 




> Instead of "chance" one should simply say one doesn't know.


The question isn't about absolute knowledge but about the most reasonable initial assumption. Chance/Coincidence is the null hypothesis, it's the most reasonable initial assumption. We should assume that something is chance until we have data that suggests otherwise. 




> I don't see science standing in the way of these religious beliefs.


WHAT religious beliefs? You keep lumping all religious beliefs under one label and acting as if they're all the same. Any time a religious belief has something to say about external reality, I very much think science is "standing in its way" to the extent that no religious beliefs hold up to rigorous, scientific testing. 




> The determinism of many worlds is in direct conflict with modern science, specifically, the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics.


This is one of those factually incorrect things you like to repeat ad nauseam. Many Worlds explains the Uncertainty Principle, it is not in conflict with it. 




> Atheism seems bound up with determinism


Why does it seem this way? Have you taken a poll of atheists to see how many are determinists VS indeterminists? 




> Well, the scientific evidence *is* in favor of indeterminism. Why don't you accept it?


Because it's not. The scientific evidence is in favor of determinism appearing indeterministic because of us being part of the systems we're observing and our perspectives being limited because of it. 




> It is not that complicated. My own experience tells me that I do make choices, no matter how restricted these may be.


And your own experience tells you the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. How many times does science have to show that our experiences are limited because of our perspective? If the world was deterministic, you would only know if your brain was infinite in its ability to computer those processes, but it's not. Do you know that our brains make choices before we're even aware of it? http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind...ore-you-decide

The "good evidence" to deny your experience are the QM formulas themselves (Shrodinger and Heisenberg). Take them as real, as all mathematical models of all natural phenomena has been throughout history, and don't unnecessarily add anything to them, as per Occam's Razor, and you get the determinism of MW. You actually have to unnecessarily add something to them, like a collapse, or unreasonably assume they're "non-real" in order to get indeterminism; and your "reward" for unnecessarily assuming they're non-real and unnecessarily adding a collapse are all of these seemingly irresolvable paradoxes like the non-locality of Bell (ironically, Bell's non-locality is SUPPOSED to be a challenge for CI, NOT for MW!), or the inexplicable mechanism behind the indeterminate collapse itself. 

In your desperate attempt to maintain indeterminism, which you feel is necessary for free-will/consciousness, you hand-wave all of the problems and paradoxes that the one-world interps. of QM create, the same problems that physicists have been baffled by for almost a century. Instead, you could just obey Occam's razor, assume the reality of the wavefunction, and you end up with an interp. that is compatible with everything else we know about physics. No irresolvable paradoxes and mysteries. Of course, you don't WANT to do that because you WANT to believe in indeterminism.

----------


## YesNo

> That Bell does nothing to disprove MW. If you don't know why then you either haven't been reading what myself and others have said, you don't understand what MW is, what Bell is, or you don't understand what you've been reading. Take your pick; but it is a factually factual fact that Bell does nothing to disprove MW.


What you are presenting are dogmas that you believe in. There is nothing factual about them. 

The experiments that show correspondences between entangled particles separated and then measured show, to my satisfaction, that MW cannot realign the assumed split of these worlds in a way that would guarantee this correspondence can be preserved. That is enough to falsify the claim the MW is any more "local" than any other interpretation. 

Now, you need to show how that correspondence can be maintained.




> The question isn't about absolute knowledge but about the most reasonable initial assumption. Chance/Coincidence is the null hypothesis, it's the most reasonable initial assumption. We should assume that something is chance until we have data that suggests otherwise.


It is best to say that one does not know. There is no reasonable initial assumption. One doesn't actually know that chance was involved.

However, if one wants to claim some event occurred by chance, then one can test that. Just compute the probability that such an event occurred by chance. If the probability is too small, then one would have to reject that chance was the cause. When one rejects chance, all one knows is that something else was involved. We may not be able to find out what it was.




> WHAT religious beliefs? You keep lumping all religious beliefs under one label and acting as if they're all the same. Any time a religious belief has something to say about external reality, I very much think science is "standing in its way" to the extent that no religious beliefs hold up to rigorous, scientific testing.


From my perspective, the differences are minor. Essentially religions guide a born again, kundalini or enlightenment experience using their various traditions, faiths and scriptures.




> This is one of those factually incorrect things you like to repeat ad nauseam. Many Worlds explains the Uncertainty Principle, it is not in conflict with it.


It does not. Science is not in conflict with religion but with pseudo-science such as many worlds that calls metaphysical dogmas "facts" and speculations "science". 




> And your own experience tells you the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. How many times does science have to show that our experiences are limited because of our perspective? If the world was deterministic, you would only know if your brain was infinite in its ability to computer those processes, but it's not. Do you know that our brains make choices before we're even aware of it? http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind...ore-you-decide


I'm aware of what is presented in that link. I looks to me that it shows that our consciousness is larger than our immediate awareness. It might even be useful as evidence that our consciousness is not generated by our brains.

To pursue this further, what or who prompted the brain to decide to do something? Why do we still call it our decision?




> The "good evidence" to deny your experience are the QM formulas themselves (Shrodinger and Heisenberg). Take them as real, as all mathematical models of all natural phenomena has been throughout history, and don't unnecessarily add anything to them, as per Occam's Razor, and you get the determinism of MW.


Once many worlds removes the assumption that allows the Born probabilities to be computed, and supposedly gains some bogus Occam's Razor advantage, it loses touch with reality and scientific evidence. When it claims it is saying something significant about quantum physics, it becomes pseudo-science. Many worlds cannot generate a single wave function let alone make anything "real".




> You actually have to unnecessarily add something to them, like a collapse, or unreasonably assume they're "non-real" in order to get indeterminism; and your "reward" for unnecessarily assuming they're non-real and unnecessarily adding a collapse are all of these seemingly irresolvable paradoxes like the non-locality of Bell (ironically, Bell's non-locality is SUPPOSED to be a challenge for CI, NOT for MW!), or the inexplicable mechanism behind the indeterminate collapse itself.


The issues with wave function collapse have been addressed by consistent histories. There is no need for many worlds anymore.




> In your desperate attempt to maintain indeterminism, which you feel is necessary for free-will/consciousness, you hand-wave all of the problems and paradoxes that the one-world interps. of QM create, the same problems that physicists have been baffled by for almost a century. Instead, you could just obey Occam's razor, assume the reality of the wavefunction, and you end up with an interp. that is compatible with everything else we know about physics. No irresolvable paradoxes and mysteries. Of course, you don't WANT to do that because you WANT to believe in indeterminism.


Why do you want determinism so badly?

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> What you are presenting are dogmas that you believe in. There is nothing factual about them.


 :Banghead:  This is not dogma. This is a fact that any theoretical physicist would confirm. I repeat, it is a factually factual fact that Bell does nothing to disprove MW. If you don't know why then you either haven't been reading what myself and others have said, you don't understand what MW is, what Bell is, or you don't understand what you've been reading. It's your insistence on repeating crap like this that makes me feel you're being intentionally dishonest or a troll. 




> It is best to say that one does not know. There is no reasonable initial assumption.


 :Banghead:  Pure BS. You yourself were promoting the null hypothesis and now you're backing away from it. The road you're going down would mean we could never assume chance for anything, like the order the leaves fell of a tree. There must be some grand purpose behind it. What nonsense. 




> However, if one wants to claim some event occurred by chance, then one can test that. Just compute the probability that such an event occurred by chance. If the probability is too small, then one would have to reject that chance was the cause. When one rejects chance, all one knows is that something else was involved. We may not be able to find out what it was.


 :Banghead:  This is not how one tests chance and again shows you know nothing of science or probabilities. I already explained this earlier, which is proof positive you don't read or understand what anyone writes. To copy/paste what I wrote just a few posts ago: 

If I go out and look up at the sky, the probability that I will see the exact cloud formation I do is incredibly small; If I'm driving home and note the license plate numbers of every car in front of me, the probability that I would've encountered precisely those license plates is incredibly small; if you noted every outcome of every game in Vegas over the course of a single night, the probability of that outcome is astronomically small. Every single one of these three "incredibly small probability" events have one thing in common: they all happened by CHANCE... In order to argue it ISN'T chance requires more than just the big probabilities against those events happening.




> From my perspective, the differences are minor. Essentially religions guide a born again, kundalini or enlightenment experience using their various traditions, faiths and scriptures.


 :Banghead:  THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE TRADITIONS, FAITHS, AND SCRIPTURES BEING COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE! You said, and I quote, "I think theistic beliefs are more reasonable and more scientific (than MW) since they fit reality better," yet you haven't done a single, solitary thing to show how ANY religious beliefs are the LEAST bit scientific.




> It does not. Science is not in conflict with religion but with pseudo-science such as many worlds that calls metaphysical dogmas "facts" and speculations "science".


 :Banghead:  It does so. Many Worlds doesn't call anything a "fact" because it's a F'ING INTERPRETATION! It "interprets" the wavefunction as real and it "interprets" things like the Shrodinger equation and Uncertainty Principle as being a complete-in-themselves description of reality. Those are its "interpretations." You will not find a single MW advocate claiming any of its claims as factual. I dare you to. 




> I looks to me that it shows that our consciousness is larger than our immediate awareness.


 :Smilielol5:  Consciousness IS awareness!




> To pursue this further, what or who prompted the brain to decide to do something?


Oh, I don't know, how about those deterministic particles the brain is made up of? 




> Once many worlds removes the assumption that allows the Born probabilities to be computed, and supposedly gains some bogus Occam's Razor advantage, it loses touch with reality and scientific evidence.


 :Banghead:  It's actually Copenhagen that, once it adds the assumption that allows the Born probabilities to be computed, loses touch with reality and scientific evidence. You seem to keep forgetting the little problem CI has of being completely and inexplicably irreconcilable with everything else we know about physics. MW is compatible with those things, so MW is completely "in touch" with reality and the scientific evidence; CI is not. 




> The issues with wave function collapse have been addressed by consistent histories.


Which still has the problem of erroneously assuming the wave equations are inexplicably unreal. Explain to me how we can have models of unreal things. Once you figure out how to do that, I may take CH seriously. 




> Why do you want determinism so badly?


 :Banghead:  I don't. To repeat what I said earlier: 

You've convinced yourself that I believe in determinism because determinism is absolutely crucial to my metaphysical beliefs. This is just you projecting how YOUR mind works onto me. YOU have metaphysical beliefs and refuse to accept anything that goes against them. YOU put inordinate amount of evidential pressure on something like MW while completely ignoring all of the problems in indeterministic QM. *I, on the other hand, am happy to accept anything, be it determinism, indeterminism, theism, etc. as long as the winds of evidence are blowing in that direction. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be a rationalist.*

I'll repeat further: I DON'T GIVE A FLYING RAT'S *** FLIP TAIL DONKEY HONK ABOUT DETERMINISM. If the collective sciences came together tomorrow and said to me "the universe is indeterministic! We've established this fact beyond doubt!" I'd give a shrug and a nod and say "OK." and would believe the universe was indeterministic and go about my daily life. The universe being (in)deterministic MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, NADA, ZERO, ZILCH, SQUATOLA TO ME! I merely BELIEVE it's deterministic because MW is the best current interpretation of QM we have for the millions of reasons I've given. If a better, indeterministic interpretation comes along, I will believe it. Again, it's YOU who have this desperate need to believe in indeterminism, so you've done everything in your power to discredit MW and ignore all the problems with all of the indeterministic interps. of QM. You are one the most obvious victims of Confirmation bias I've ever seen.

----------


## YesNo

> THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE TRADITIONS, FAITHS, AND SCRIPTURES BEING COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE! You said, and I quote, "I think theistic beliefs are more reasonable and more scientific (than MW) since they fit reality better," yet you haven't done a single, solitary thing to show how ANY religious beliefs are the LEAST bit scientific.


The religious experiences that these traditions are concerned with can be viewed as non-deterministic resonances, or dances, between people and some divine reality. Since we know their experiences are real, the only question is whether that divine partner is real. 

If science had validated mechanistic determinism, one might be able to claim that those believers were dancing by themselves with only an imaginary partner. However, that is not what happened. What happened was mechanistic determinism was falsified. That leaves open the question whether this divine partner is real or not. 

Given the existence of these experiences and the falsification of mechanistic determinism, I find these theistic beliefs more reasonable and a better fit to reality than any atheistic objections to them. This voids any imaginary conflict between science and religion that atheists like to promote.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> What happened was mechanistic determinism was falsified.


Blatantly false. 




> Given the existence of these experiences and the falsification of mechanistic determinism, I find these theistic beliefs more reasonable and a better fit to reality than any atheistic objections to them.


Even ignoring the blatant falsity that determinism was falsified, whether _you_ find theistic beliefs to be _"reasonable"_ STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM BEING THE LEAST BIT SCIENTIFIC! Do you know what the scientific method is? Please explain to me how ANY religious belief is compatible with that method. 

What's more, chance, coincidence, the "null hypothesis," does not depend upon determinism to exist (indeed, why would things NOT seem more random and meaningless in an indeterministic universe?); so explain to me how, even in an indeterministic universe, "Goddit" "fits reality better" and "is more reasonable" than chance? And you can't use the "argument from big probabilities" as I've already explained twice.

----------


## YesNo

> Even ignoring the blatant falsity that determinism was falsified, whether _you_ find theistic beliefs to be _"reasonable"_ STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM BEING THE LEAST BIT SCIENTIFIC! Do you know what the scientific method is? Please explain to me how ANY religious belief is compatible with that method.


What I can say is many worlds is not scientific. I don't even think it is rational. 

The view of reality that religious people provide, based on the religious experiences that people actually have, makes more sense given the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, the current knowledge that the universe had a beginning and the existence of reality in the form of fields. 




> What's more, chance, coincidence, the "null hypothesis," does not depend upon determinism to exist (indeed, why would things NOT seem more random and meaningless in an indeterministic universe?); so explain to me how, even in an indeterministic universe, "Goddit" "fits reality better" and "is more reasonable" than chance? And you can't use the "argument from big probabilities" as I've already explained twice.


I look at "chance" and "determinism" as paired metaphors. They depend on a mechanistic view of reality in which consciousness and choice are ignored. I don't think either one is more than an approximation to anything real.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> What I can say is many worlds is not scientific. I don't even think it is rational.


Let's see: 

Actual scientists say: Many Worlds is scientific
Actual rationalists say: Many Worlds is rational 

YesNo says: Many Worlds isn't scientific, but religion is
YesNo says: Many Worlds isn't rational, but Deepak Chopra is

Hmmmm, I wonder whom we should believe here? 




> The view of reality that religious people provide, based on the religious experiences that people actually have, makes more sense given the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, the current knowledge that the universe had a beginning and the existence of reality in the form of fields.


Again, this does not demonstrate how religion is the least bit scientific as you claimed it was. By this rationale, the flying spaghetti monster is also scientific. You have in no way connected The Uncertainty Principle to being evidence for God. 




> I look at "chance" and "determinism" as paired metaphors. They depend on a mechanistic view of reality...


How in the hell does "chance" depend upon a "mechanistic reality?" 

Plus, let me get this straight; you think there's no such thing as chance, correct? So everything from the way a leaf falls, to specific cloud formations, to the roll of a die, to the fact that I farted at the same time my team scored... none of those things happen by chance? There's some deep meaning and connection behind them all?

----------


## YesNo

> Plus, let me get this straight; you think there's no such thing as chance, correct? So everything from the way a leaf falls, to specific cloud formations, to the roll of a die, to the fact that I farted at the same time my team scored... none of those things happen by chance? There's some deep meaning and connection behind them all?


If you believe in determinism, how does chance fit in that at all?

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> If you believe in determinism, how does chance fit in that at all?


First, let me define what I mean by chance. 

By chance, I mean an event that, even if it is deterministic in an objective manner, we experience it probabilistically or indeterministically because of our limited experience (as in MW) or limited knowledge (what card in poker will come next) or limited ability to calculate (the coin flip) the deterministic forces. In MW the universal wavefunction may be objectively deterministic but it is subjectively indetermistic; "chance" is, essentially, not knowing whether "you" will see the cat alive or dead, since you can never see it both alive AND dead. In poker, even though the next card is decided after the shuffle, we can not KNOW what that card is; so "chance" arises from our ignorance. For a coin flip, even if we say that there are deterministic physical forces (General Relativity) controlling what side it lands on, we can not calculate them all in order to predict what side it lands on; so "chance" arises from our inability to calculate the deterministic forces. 

What's more, in each of these cases (MW, coin flip, next poker card), there is nothing besides those deterministic, non-anthropomorphic, non-agent, non-intentional, forces "controlling" what happens. So by "chance" I also mean a lack of connection between the event and some other "cause" (be that cause supernautral or otherwise). In order for someone to establish a cause BESIDES chance requires the scientific method of removing variables and testing to see if there are connections between events and proposed causes. You can't just experience the event, and then say "God" (or whatever) after the event occurs, because that's when you end up with fake causality and crap theories like phlogiston. God is basically phlogiston; it's something people evoke after the event has happened, but never use to make advanced predictions. That Phlogiston article precisely articulates what's wrong with the "God" hypothesis in all cases.

----------


## YesNo

What you describe, MorpheusSandman, is classical determinism where chance is based on ignorance of the deterministic forces. However, that determinism has been falsified through standard quantum mechanics. It has been replaced by uncertainty, not chance. I know you don't accept that it has been falsified, but I do and I have made my case in other posts.

I look at many worlds the way some might look on those who believe the earth is flat, or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. These theories are interesting because they offer one a challenge to show why these views are wrong clarifying one's understanding of science. Other than that they have no value. 

Let me suggest that you try to find a way to maintain an atheistic metaphysics in a consistent histories interpretation. At least then you won't be starting off opposed to modern science which can be used against your overall position.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> However, that determinism has been falsified through standard quantum mechanics.


And this is a flat-out, false lie; one of the many that you insist on repeating ad nauseam. It's a false lie that no theoretical physicist would ever make, even those that believe in Copenhagen. Go ahead, I dare you to find one. 




> I know you don't accept that it has been falsified, but I do and I have made my case in other posts.


You've made it badly, all based on a perpetual, willful misunderstanding of QM and MW that's been pointed out by four different posters. 




> I look at many worlds the way some might look on those who believe the earth is flat...


No scientists believe the earth is flat; the majority of theoretical physicists (more probably if you just polled the leading th. phs.) believe in MW. You might try explaining why that is.

----------


## Melanie

The title of this thread is flawed…Sciences vs Religion. It takes two extraneous subjects and attempts to relate them. Through observation and experiment, "Science" studies and defines what's already been created in the physical and natural world. But science hasn't got all the answers as to "why" these things have a certain structure or behave in a certain way. For instance, they know that Quantum Magnetics underlies our universe. But they don't know why particles are charged. They don't know why objects with mass & energy attract each other gravitationally. Religion acknowledges the creator of Quantum Magnetics, and that the creator holds the answers to "Why". Religion is based sometimes on faith and sometimes on the obvious. Science is based on the obvious only, and with many unanswered "whys". Therefore, there's really no battle between science and religion. When Science defines what's been created, religions agree and also give credit to the creator.

----------


## Skrat99

Rather than cut and paste here, I'll suggest a visit to a website that may be able to help you out--check out theentrant.tateauthor.com in the "About the Author" section, sub-section, "The 'Science Good, Religion Bad' Misnomer." In essence, your perspective is just as religious and belief-based as any robes and candles cult. For example, your whole story begins with a form of cosmic evolution, akin to Tryon's dogma: "The universe began from a quantum fluctuation of a preexisting vacuum or state of nothingness." Is that science?

----------


## Melanie

…"may be able to help me out"?…my perspective is like "any robes and candles cult"?…my "whole story"?…"akin to Tryon's dogma?" I suggest, if you want to perpetuate good discussion, that you muster up some self-control and refrain from your emotionally charged, condescending stockpile of insults. Whatever else you had to say in your post got lost in the insults. Aretha has a message for you in a word: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The title of this thread is flawedSciences vs Religion. It takes two extraneous subjects and attempts to relate them.


Most all religions comment on the natural world, and most all religions comment on it with remarkable ignorance and idiocy, which should be enough for any honest person to doubt the rest of what the religion claims. The Bible even depicts scientific experiments to prove its truthfulness. See here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/




> But science hasn't got all the answers as to "why" these things have a certain structure or behave in a certain way.


Erroneously assumes there IS a "why". Just because we can ask a question doesn't mean the question has an answer. 




> Religion acknowledges the creator of Quantum Magnetics, and that the creator holds the answers to "Why".


Religion proposes a creator of QM without a stitch of evidence or valid reason for doing so. Try again.

----------


## Melanie

> "...most all religions comment on it with remarkable ignorance and idiocy…


You must be related to Scrat99. Sorry, but I don't discuss anything with those who have a stockpile of condescending insults peppering their post.




> [melanie] erroneously assumes there IS a "why". Just because we can ask a question doesn't mean the question has an answer.


You erroneously assume; not all questions have an answer. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean the question has no answer. God tells us He knows all of the answers to all of our questions and that someday when we are face to face with Him we will also know all the answers..."For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood." 1Corinthians 12:13





> Religion proposes a creator of QM without a stitch of evidence or valid reason for doing so. Try again.


I see you still haven't read Josh McDowell's "Evidence Demands a Verdict". It doesn't matter how often a believer "tries again". If you're spiritually deaf then you won't hear anything. Here's what god says about that: http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topic...itual-Deafness

----------


## YesNo

I see this thread is active again.

Just to summarize my view on the OP, science is at odds with only one "religion" and that would atheism. The other religions have more substance and have better things to do. 

This thread had led me onto other topics and so I'm grateful to all those who participated.

I'm currently reading D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley's _The Undivided Unviverse_ which presents Bohm's interpretation of QM. Chapter 13 is a critique of many worlds. I also looked at Michael Redheads' _From Physics to Metaphysics_ which introduced me to the idea of relational ontology.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I don't discuss anything with those who have a stockpile of condescending insults peppering their post.


Some insults are true. The people that wrote most holy texts were demonstrably ignorant about how the physical universe functioned, so they made stuff up, and sometimes the stuff they made up was idiotic, like the Biblical cure for leprosy. 




> Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean the question has no answer.


I didn't say the question didn't have an answer, but you asked the question seemingly assuming that it did. I was merely asserting that it may not. What's more, answering "God" doesn't really prevent us from asking how/why God exists (assuming s/he/it does). It's what you call an infinite regress (asking why to the why to the why to the why ad infinitum), and in such situations it seems "God" is nothing but a semantic stop-sign.




> I see you still haven't read Josh McDowell's "Evidence Demands a Verdict". It doesn't matter how often a believer "tries again". If you're spiritually deaf then you won't hear anything.


I see you haven't read Yudkowsky on understanding just what is evidence The phrase "evidence demands a verdict" is nonsensical when we're talking about reality being the "evidence" itself, because then the question is "evidence for what?" Which is where hypothesis and theory comes in, as well as our means for testing what evidence supports which hypotheses and theories. As for being "spiritually deaf," if that means not assuming there's supernatural agency behind the currently unexplained, then I'm happy to be deaf, since being otherwise would ignore hundreds of years of scientific progress to the contrary (ie, supernatural answers behind natural phenomena turning out to be wrong).

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Just to summarize my view on the OP, science is at odds with only one "religion" and that would atheism.


Speaking of ignorance and idiocy, here's another steaming pile from our resident savant.

----------


## Melanie

To correct my typo…..Josh McDowell's "Evidence THAT Demands A Verdict" is the correct title.

----------


## Calidore

Historically, a god or gods have always been used as answers when we didn't have the real ones yet, but eventually we have. We know what the sun, stars, moon, lightning, wind, etc. are now. We know how the Earth was created. Not having an answer _now_ doesn't mean there isn't one or that we won't have it eventually.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> To correct my typo…..Josh McDowell's "Evidence THAT Demands A Verdict" is the correct title.


You've read the Christian apologist, now read the atheist response: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

----------


## Melanie

Why? I've already got a well-rounded view, know the viewpoints of unbelievers, and don't need to be "enlightened" by an atheist. I've made my educated choice and couldn't be more sure of my decision based on years and years of study.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Sure you have. I'd be willing to be my life savings that you, like all theists I encounter, went into your "study" already knowing the answer and proceeded to be victims of confirmation bias. Even based on a brief reading of your own reference book (McDowell's), it seems to be the exact same thing. Filled to the brim with anything that could possibly support what a believer wants to believe, and giving it utmost credence while ignoring (or glossing over) any and all disconfirming evidence.

----------


## Frostball

Besides, being so sure that nothing could ever change your mind is not the right attitude. You should always allow whatever you currently believe to be open to question, no matter how many years you've spent studying said belief. To say that you are very sure of your belief is one thing, but to say that _nothing_ could convince you that you are wrong is the defense of one who simply wants to believe what they want to believe.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Besides, being so sure that nothing could ever change your mind is not the right attitude.


Indeed. To quote Yudkowsky: 


> This is why rationalists put such a heavy premium on the paradoxical-seeming claim that a belief is only really worthwhile if you could, in principle, be persuaded to believe otherwise. If your retina ended up in the same state regardless of what light entered it, you would be blind. Some belief systems, in a rather obvious trick to reinforce themselves, say that certain beliefs are only really worthwhile if you believe them unconditionally no matter what you see, no matter what you think. Your brain is supposed to end up in the same state regardless. Hence the phrase, "blind faith". If what you believe doesn't depend on what you see, you've been blinded as effectively as by poking out your eyeballs.


Of course, one of the "tricks" of having your brain end up in the same state of belief is confirmation bias. You go into an issue already "knowing" the answer, so you accept very loosely evidence that supports that answer and ignore or put undue pressure on contradictory evidence.

----------


## Tor_Hershman

Just google 
youtube Giordano Bruno awesome history 
for a real hoot.

How many ever heard of Giordano Bruno before this post?
The Pope doesn't want you to have heard of he, that's why most ain't.

Better yet here's the URL
youtube.com/watch?v=2j2NKHgZrGo

----------


## Varenne Rodin

God is like Santa, only some people never came to the awareness that they're both fairytales. Parents and churches told them there was a god. They believe the stories without evidence. They believe them even though human beings are fallible and frequently make mistakes. They believe that a bunch of people living in deserts, without internet, without electricity, without powerful telescopes, without paved roads or floors, with no awareness that the earth was round, with no running water, with no toilets, with poop on their butts, with peyote buttons and shrooms; they believe that these backward, naive, underdeveloped ancient humans somehow communicated with an invisible man in the sky and then wrote his words in a book.

If people living in the middle east tried to do this again today, if they claimed Jesus/Yahweh was speaking to them now, and that he was commanding them to write a new bible, the bible part 2, we would ALL collectively laugh our asses off at such nonsense. The middle east of today may seem uncivilized to some, but the people living there now are lightyears ahead of the old bible-writing shepherds of yore, and we still would not buy tales of religious discovery from them. Modern Christians would think it ridiculous, yet somehow can't make the connection to the ridiculousness of a dark and depressing age supposedly figuring out the meaning of life by magic.

----------


## YesNo

God, Santa or many worlds or Matrix-like universes or block universes of space-time or determinism: There are people who will believe in anything, especially after they think about it for some time, even if they are so-called "scientists". 

That doesn't mean they're wrong. The real problem is how to tell if something can be dismissed or not. The fact that the idea occurred thousands of years ago among people who didn't have access to the internet is not real evidence that it is wrong.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Well, large portions of the bible have been proven very wrong. Large portions of it are open to interpretation and manipulation. With that being the case, I might as well not believe a single thing in it. Even if there is still some minute possibility that it is not wrong, it is still infinitely improbable. We have much more evidence that there is no god and that magic never happened here than we have that there is a god. It is equally likely AND unlikely that there are hundreds of gods. So, for the majority of the planet to pick one idea from a time and population with a narrow view, and to say THIS IS IT! THE ONE TRUE GOD! THE REAL ANSWER...it's preposterous. It's egotistical and naive, sadly. It's unfortunate that as a species we're held back from seeking real answers because of this veil of delusion that's binding us all. If there's a god, I want evidence of that. I demand evidence of that. I won't blindly put my faith into a flimsy premise. We've been here for a while. God hasn't shown himself. Until he does, we should be a more open-minded society. Maybe we're missing out by putting all of our eggs into one basket.

----------


## The Atheist

> It's unfortunate that as a species we're held back from seeking real answers because of this veil of delusion that's binding us all.


I agree with your perspective on religion, but I think you're overselling its ability to hold anyone back. I'm guessing you might be from USA, because the rest of the western world is largely irreligious, and even in USA and the fundies trying to teach creationism, it doesn't hold back scientific progress in any way.

Islam is a different story, however.

----------


## YesNo

> Well, large portions of the bible have been proven very wrong. Large portions of it are open to interpretation and manipulation. With that being the case, I might as well not believe a single thing in it. Even if there is still some minute possibility that it is not wrong, it is still infinitely improbable. We have much more evidence that there is no god and that magic never happened here than we have that there is a god. It is equally likely AND unlikely that there are hundreds of gods. So, for the majority of the planet to pick one idea from a time and population with a narrow view, and to say THIS IS IT! THE ONE TRUE GOD! THE REAL ANSWER...it's preposterous. It's egotistical and naive, sadly. It's unfortunate that as a species we're held back from seeking real answers because of this veil of delusion that's binding us all. If there's a god, I want evidence of that. I demand evidence of that. I won't blindly put my faith into a flimsy premise. We've been here for a while. God hasn't shown himself. Until he does, we should be a more open-minded society. Maybe we're missing out by putting all of our eggs into one basket.


One of the big things some religious traditions got right is that the universe had a beginning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_creation), although they did not get the date correct (assuming we have it correct today). Just because they got that right doesn't mean one has to believe everything else presented by each of those religions. They can't all be literally true, but the universe having a beginning presents a challenge to those don't believe in any sort of God to explain why it began at all. 

I agree with you that it is inappropriate for one group to try to force their cultural ideas about God(s) on others. That goes as well for cultural ideas that claim there are no Gods. The most tolerant answer is no one knows and each of us are welcome to live our lives as we see fit. 

The main evidence for or against gods comes from how we interpret our own experience and the metaphysics we find believable. There is no obvious reason why we are here at all and yet we are. As far as "delusion" and "evidence" goes, I can't think of anything more delusional or supported by no real evidence than some of the pseudo-science that gets promoted today. I'm particularly thinking of things like "many worlds" and "superdeterminism".

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> the universe having a beginning presents a challenge to those don't believe in any sort of God to explain why it began at all.


No more than it presents a challenge to those who believe in a God. 




> As far as "delusion" and "evidence" goes, I can't think of anything more delusional or supported by no real evidence than some of the pseudo-science that gets promoted today. I'm particularly thinking of things like "many worlds" and "superdeterminism".


And, again, the non-scientist who doesn't even understand the relevant science gets to decide what is pseudo-science rather than actual scientists, and that's not egotistical or naive in the slightest.

----------


## YesNo

> No more than it presents a challenge to those who believe in a God.


It would depend on what those beliefs are. If the belief system insists on a different time frame, then it has been invalidated. If it emphasizes the key point that the universe had a beginning, then the religious belief system just has to associate the beginning of the universe with its own creation story. 

The atheist on the other hand has to come up with a process explaining how this beginning occurred without any choice being made by some superhuman agent (God, demigod, or demon). For the atheist, the universe's beginning has to occur by chance. Not only that, since the current evidence puts a range within a few hundred million years on the age of the universe, change within the universe has to be explained without superhuman agency as well, that is, by chance not choice. The problem for the atheist, given the age of the universe, is to show that 13.7 billion years is enough time for chance to do its magic.

The scientific evidence for the big bang is just one of the discoveries that changed the relationship between science and religion. They are not in such opposition as the title of the thread assumes. Or to put this another way, we are no longer in the first half of the 19th century when that opposition was being promoted.




> And, again, the non-scientist who doesn't even understand the relevant science gets to decide what is pseudo-science rather than actual scientists, and that's not egotistical or naive in the slightest.


We all get to make up our own minds on what is pseudo-science and what is real science as well as who are the pseudo-scientists and who are the real scientists. This also illustrates that the tension is not between science and religion, but between science and pseudo-science.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> If it emphasizes the key point that the universe had a beginning, then the religious belief system just has to associate the beginning of the universe with its own creation story.


This is irrelevant to my point. The "First Cause" problem is synonymous with the problem of infinite regress, which simply means someone can always ask "how/why" to whatever cause is found or even proposed. God doesn't get around this. For most it's nothing more than a semantic stop-sign, a way of halting the questioning process; but for a thinking person there's nothing to prevent us from asking why God can exist without having been created (or with no beginning) but universes can't. The only thing that a believer has accomplished by saying "God!" is to back the question up another step, regardless of whether it's even the correct answer or not. 




> The atheist on the other hand has to come up with a process explaining how this beginning occurred without any choice being made by some superhuman agent (God, demigod, or demon).


No, they don't. The only thing an atheist has to do is note that there's not a stitch of evidence for any supernatural hypothesis, and certainly not enough to believe in one. They don't actually have to propose an alternate origin to the universe; they can be completely agnostic on the issue. You never seem to understand that atheism only entails the disbelief in God, nothing more. 




> For the atheist, the universe's beginning has to occur by chance.


Wrong again. An atheist can believe in a deterministic process that we don't understand that creates universes in a way we don't understand. 




> Not only that, since the current evidence puts a range within a few hundred million years on the age of the universe, change within the universe has to be explained without superhuman agency as well, that is, by chance not choice. The problem for the atheist, given the age of the universe, is to show that 13.7 billion years is enough time for chance to do its magic.


I have no idea what you're saying with your first sentence. The response to your second sentence is given above (though it find it odd to think that a 13.7 billion year old universe somehow argues for a supernatural creator, assuming life and us were its ultimate purpose: why in the cosmos would they need 14 billions years?)




> We all get to make up our own minds on what is pseudo-science and what is real science


No we don't, and how asinine of you to say so. What is and isn't science/pseudo-science is not subjective, no more than what is/isn't a mammal is subjective. These are clearly defined terms, and either a subject fits within one category or the other, there are no grey areas. They certainly are not terms that a non-scientist who has repeatedly demonstrated their gross ignorance of a subject gets to use because one subjects accommodates their beliefs and another doesn't.

----------


## mal4mac

Our current universe is 13.7 billion years old according to extrapolation of observations of galactic red shifts, and other such indirect time/distance methods. According to General Relativity theory, time began with the Big Bang, *but* General Relativity is only a theory, and we know it breaks down at Quantum dimensions, i.e., it isn't a theory of the very early moments of the universe, and we haven't any observations going back that far, so we know *nothing* about these first moments, we don't know if there was something before these moments, what happened in these moments, or anything else about them.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Exactly, mal4mac (though I'd be cautious with the "it's only a theory" talk, since "scientific theories" mean a "rigorously tested hypothesis that has withstood every attempt at falsification," not in the same way that, say, conspiracy "theories" are "only theories"). Most scientists are quick to point out that we know the universe had a beginning _to its expansion,_ but that everything "before" that is speculation based on other things we know. EG, quantum field theory can explain how we COULD get a universe from mere quantum fluctuations, but not, necessarily, that we did.

----------


## YesNo

> This is irrelevant to my point. The "First Cause" problem is synonymous with the problem of infinite regress, which simply means someone can always ask "how/why" to whatever cause is found or even proposed. God doesn't get around this. For most it's nothing more than a semantic stop-sign, a way of halting the questioning process; but for a thinking person there's nothing to prevent us from asking why God can exist without having been created (or with no beginning) but universes can't. The only thing that a believer has accomplished by saying "God!" is to back the question up another step, regardless of whether it's even the correct answer or not.


It is not so much a first cause as whether some form of consciousness _made a choice_ out of which our universe arose. That consciousness could be eternal.

By the way, the many worlds approach is also a way to halt the questioning process, but having the "correct answer" is what is important. We are betting our lives on the answer we each choose to follow.




> No, they don't. The only thing an atheist has to do is note that there's not a stitch of evidence for any supernatural hypothesis, and certainly not enough to believe in one. They don't actually have to propose an alternate origin to the universe; they can be completely agnostic on the issue. You never seem to understand that atheism only entails the disbelief in God, nothing more.


Our existence is the evidence. If atheistic metaphysics were correct, we would not be here at all.




> Wrong again. An atheist can believe in a deterministic process that we don't understand that creates universes in a way we don't understand.


I agree that the atheist needs either (1) chance or (2) an unknown deterministic process. Since that deterministic process is unknown, I restrict the options to chance. Since the universe has been in existence for less than 14 billion years, I eliminate chance as well. There is not enough time.

An atheist cannot have some agent making a choice, which is the only remaining alternative, since the atheist doesn't believe in the existence of such agents. 




> I have no idea what you're saying with your first sentence. The response to your second sentence is given above (though it find it odd to think that a 13.7 billion year old universe somehow argues for a supernatural creator, assuming life and us were its ultimate purpose: why in the cosmos would they need 14 billions years?)


I don't know why the cosmos needs 14 billion years for consciousness to reach the state we are in now. What seems reasonable is that it would take an eternity if it were up to chance. And even then it wouldn't happen. 




> No we don't, and how asinine of you to say so. What is and isn't science/pseudo-science is not subjective, no more than what is/isn't a mammal is subjective. These are clearly defined terms, and either a subject fits within one category or the other, there are no grey areas. They certainly are not terms that a non-scientist who has repeatedly demonstrated their gross ignorance of a subject gets to use because one subjects accommodates their beliefs and another doesn't.


I think it might be useful to view pseudo-science in terms of social psychology, specifically cognitive dissonance. Scientific evidence shows that the universe has only a short existence. Scientific evidence shows there is uncertainty at the quantum level. Both of these discoveries fit better into a religious context than they do into an atheistic context. Because of the need to resolve cognitive dissonance atheistic metaphysics gets transformed into pseudo-scientific speculations such as many worlds and superdeterminism.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> It is not so much a first cause as whether some form of consciousness _made a choice_ out of which our universe arose. That consciousness could be eternal.


I'm not sure why you think a consciousness "making a choice" out of which the universe arose is NOT a question of the First Cause. Anyway, you'd have to demonstrate how a consciousness could be eternal or exist outside the bounds of spacetime, especially when we only know of/experience consciousness via spacetime and our material brains. 




> By the way, the many worlds approach is also a way to halt the questioning process,


It doesn't halt anything. MW proponents would still be "questioning" a model for early cosmology, quantum gravity, and the origin of the Born probabilities. All QM interpretations lead to more questions; MW just leads to fewer that seem more solvable. 




> Our existence is the evidence. If atheistic metaphysics were correct, we would not be here at all.


Our existence isn't evidence for squat except that we exist. It's as much evidence for God as fire is evidence for phlogiston. And feel free to prove that atheistic metaphysics renders our existence impossible. 




> Since the universe has been in existence for less than 14 billion years, I eliminate chance as well. There is not enough time.


What makes you say there's not enough time? 




> An atheist cannot have some agent making a choice, which is the only remaining alternative, since the atheist doesn't believe in the existence of such agents.


An atheist could be agnostic on the issue of possible agents outside our universe that aren't, in themselves, supernatural. 




> I think it might be useful to view pseudo-science in terms of social psychology, specifically cognitive dissonance. Scientific evidence shows that the universe has only a short existence. Scientific evidence shows there is uncertainty at the quantum level. Both of these discoveries fit better into a religious context than they do into an atheistic context. Because of the need to resolve cognitive dissonance atheistic metaphysics gets transformed into pseudo-scientific speculations such as many worlds and superdeterminism.


This is you being your typical non-sequitor self. It has nothing to do with what I said. Many Worlds is not pseudo-science. It's not even science; it's an interpretation of science. Scientists don't call it a theory or a hypothesis, they call it what it is, an interpretation. Like all interpretations, it fits the existing evidence. Like all interpretations, it creates other questions/problems that need to be addressed by science. The point, though, is that it creates FEWER problems than other interps., it is compatible with what else we know, and obeys Occam's Razor and other mathematical models for how we should treat competing interpretations that fit the evidence.

----------


## YesNo

> I'm not sure why you think a consciousness "making a choice" out of which the universe arose is NOT a question of the First Cause. Anyway, you'd have to demonstrate how a consciousness could be eternal or exist outside the bounds of spacetime, especially when we only know of/experience consciousness via spacetime and our material brains.


The reason I am not interested in a first cause is because the universe is not eternal and I am not promoting any particular theology. All I am interested in is the existence of a choice that was responsible for the initial expansion of our particular universe. Once I have that choice, I can assume there was a consciousness underlying it. That consciousness would be outside our universe. Since there may be many universes, this does not have to be a first cause nor be associated with any specific deity.

I think our particular forms of awareness are generated by the brain, but I don't see why our consciousness as a whole is. Nor do I think our consciousness is specific to each of us. My reason for thinking that is because of the existence of psychic phenomena. These should not exist at all, that is, we should not hear any reports of them, if consciousness were totally generated and hence individuated by each of our brains.




> It doesn't halt anything. MW proponents would still be "questioning" a model for early cosmology, quantum gravity, and the origin of the Born probabilities. All QM interpretations lead to more questions; MW just leads to fewer that seem more solvable.


I view many worlds as a way to resolve the cognitive dissonance associated with the discovery of uncertainty at the quantum level. That discovery means that the project of materialistic reductionism failed. 




> Our existence isn't evidence for squat except that we exist. It's as much evidence for God as fire is evidence for phlogiston. And feel free to prove that atheistic metaphysics renders our existence impossible.


If I am right about atheistic metaphysics, that it cannot rely on choices, then there is no way for us to get here at all. Our existence, or the existence of anything for that matter, invalidates it.




> What makes you say there's not enough time?


I haven't calculated the likelihood that by chance alone the universe could have gone counter to entropy and created more complexity rather than the expected less. I'll leave it up to you to provide the calculations that it is possible. What we know about the age of the earth and the universe is that this had to occur within a finite amount of time.




> An atheist could be agnostic on the issue of possible agents outside our universe that aren't, in themselves, supernatural.


I don't know what "supernatural" means. From my perspective everything is natural. If something exists or happens, that's the way it is and we have to face the evidence and not try to cover it up because it doesn't fit our metaphysics. 

The way I see it, if there are agents outside our universe, friendly or not, who make choices, then atheism is false. Atheism is not agnosticism.

Some atheists (Sam Harris, for example) even claim that we aren't agents, that our ability to make a choice is an illusion. My view of the matter is that the belief in determinism is itself an illusion generated by a need to resolve cognitive dissonance.




> This is you being your typical non-sequitor self. It has nothing to do with what I said. Many Worlds is not pseudo-science. It's not even science; it's an interpretation of science. Scientists don't call it a theory or a hypothesis, they call it what it is, an interpretation. Like all interpretations, it fits the existing evidence. Like all interpretations, it creates other questions/problems that need to be addressed by science. The point, though, is that it creates FEWER problems than other interps., it is compatible with what else we know, and obeys Occam's Razor and other mathematical models for how we should treat competing interpretations that fit the evidence.


I don't think many worlds is an interpretation of anything, but it might be an example of cognitive dissonance. Rather than accepting the evidence from quantum physics, many worlds tries to rework that evidence to generate results that are more in line with its preferred metaphysics. That is how they try to resolve the dissonance.

You might want to consider chapter 13 of Bohm and Hiley's "The Undivided Universe". They present a detailed critique of many worlds. David Bohm had his own interpretation of quantum mechanics and, whether one accepts it or not, his take on other interpretations needs to be considered. 

One of the conclusions is the following:

_In view of all these unresolved problems we have been led to ask why the many worlds interpretation seems to be so attractive to some physicists._
I think the reason why can be obtained from social psychology which Bohm and Hiley weren't considering.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The reason I am not interested in a first cause is because the universe is not eternal and I am not promoting any particular theology.


The first cause deals with, quite simply, the cause behind our universe's existence; whether that's God, quantum fluctuations, or your "conscious choice" by some unspecified consciousness is irrelevant. 




> I think our particular forms of awareness are generated by the brain, but I don't see why our consciousness as a whole is.


Consciousness has always been equated with awareness; I have no idea how/why you're separating "forms of awareness" from "consciousness as a whole." 




> My reason for thinking that is because of the existence of psychic phenomena. These should not exist at all, that is, we should not hear any reports of them, if consciousness were totally generated and hence individuated by each of our brains.


WHAT psychic phenomena? 




> I view many worlds as a way to resolve the cognitive dissonance associated with the discovery of uncertainty at the quantum level.


I know you do, but like with most everything when it comes to MW you're wrong. You missed the point again, however. You said MW halts the questioning process. This is demonstrably wrong. No MW proponent has halted anything. 




> If I am right about atheistic metaphysics, that it cannot rely on choices, then there is no way for us to get here at all. Our existence, or the existence of anything for that matter, invalidates it.


I'm simply not following your train of reasoning here: WHAT atheist metaphysics? What about it not relying on choices? What about choices being needed for us to get here? 




> I haven't calculated the likelihood that by chance alone the universe could have gone counter to entropy and created more complexity rather than the expected less.


Oh, I see, you're another one that has a complete misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. 2L says that entropy happens in a closed system over time. The universe as a whole is a closed system. However, there are systems within systems, and even if the TOTAL entropy of the system increases, this does not mean that a particular system within the system cannot generate more complexity. What is needed is, primarily, a perpetual energy source; we have one, it's called the sun. 
 
I don't know how you think it's even possible for someone to calculate the probabilities that it's possible after it's already happened. 




> if there are agents outside our universe, friendly or not, who make choices, then atheism is false. Atheism is not agnosticism.


These agents need not be gods, though; at least, they need not be anything like the gods we've imagined. Atheism could still be correct in rejecting the man-made gods. 




> I don't think many worlds is an interpretation of anything


You're wrong. I don't know how else to say it. MW doesn't rework anything. It interprets the QM models that exist. It takes Schrodinger as real as takes Heisenberg as expressing our subjective uncertainty due, in fact, to the entropy inherent in QM. 




> You might want to consider chapter 13 of Bohm and Hiley's "The Undivided Universe".... One of the conclusions is the following:
> 
> _In view of all these unresolved problems we have been led to ask why the many worlds interpretation seems to be so attractive to some physicists._


So what unresolved problems did they mention? The only one I know about is the Born Probabilities.

----------


## Pendragon

> You're wrong. I don't know how else to say it. MW doesn't rework anything. It interprets the QM models that exist. It takes Schrodinger as real as takes Heisenberg as expressing our subjective uncertainty due, in fact, to the entropy inherent in QM.


How about "I cannot agree. IMHO, you are wrong."

The greatest statement on this kind of discussion was made by Charles Schultz through Snoopy. Snoopy is writing theological book and titles it "Has It Ever Occurred to You That You Could Be Wrong?"

You see when people ask for others to quit being close minded and consider something from another point of view, what they really mean is "Change over to what I believe."

There is a balance between science and religion in that both attempt to answer sometimes impossible questions.

Science want nothing that cannot be proven, even if that requires speculation, use of possible scenarios, and a lot of unsure statements such as "This MAY HAVE been the earliest ancestor of homo sapiens." They call it "Educated Guess" or drawing inference from known fact to postulate a theory, and a theory is just that, a theory.

Religion takes it for granted that God exists. From there comes everything, creation, evolution, space, the universe, man and beast. An all powerful God can do anything. I paraphrase here which I hope doesn't offend but Muslims have a saying I love: "As for Allah it is enough for Him to say "Be" and it is." Religion has an explanation for everything: God did it all.

The balance is that we who believe in God cannot prove to people who will not listen. that God even exists.
You who put your faith in science postulate things that no believer in God will ever accept.

Yet consider: Science has proof that the animals today evolved from animals long gone. I accept that. It doesn't mean I don't think God created everything. But he placed them here on earth and they continually evolved to survive an ever-changing environment. That is evolution from the original creation. It doesn't invalidate science at all.

Fossil remains show us that there were human-like creatures that evolved into homo sapiens. Consider: The Bible says "God created man from the dust." It never says what he looked like at the time. 

Well, I'm not here to preach, so I will close.

God bless one and all

Pen

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> How about "I cannot agree. IMHO, you are wrong.


Because him being wrong isn't my opinion, it's a fact. Saying "Many Worlds isn't an interpretation of science" is as much opinion as saying "the Earth is flat." I don't care if you phrase it "I think the Earth is flat." The Earth is not flat; Many Worlds is not not an interpretation of QM. YesNo has had no less than 4 different posters across multiple threads tell him he doesn't know what the bleep he's talking about, yet he persists in repeating the same falsities ad nauseam, even after they've been pointed out to him. He also has this remarkable ability of completely avoiding the points being made by other posters. Half of his responses are non-sequitors. He's every bit as bad as YECs arguing against evolution; just maybe slightly less abrasive. 

Look, I know good and well the difference between opinion and fact. Me saying "Many Worlds is most likely true given the current state of evidence" is an opinion based on what I know of the matter; YesNo's "Many Worlds isn't an interpretation of QM" is a flat-out falsity. 




> The balance is that we who believe in God cannot prove to people who will not listen. that God even exists.


The problem is not that non-believers will not listen, the problem is that believers have a very tenuous grasp on what they think of as "proof" or even "evidence." Generally, the kinds of things believers accept as proof of God are things they wouldn't accept if a believer in a different God claimed as evidence as well. What's more, it tends to be the kind of evidence that is easily classified under various logical fallacies. It's also the kind of evidence that, when science DOES apply its rigors to it, falls apart completely, such as the major studies on intercessory prayer.




> You who put your faith in science postulate things that no believer in God will ever accept.


I put my faith in science for the same reason I put my faith in the sun rising tomorrow; because it's proven reliable and consistent over time. Every time religion has had "God did it" as a cause behind natural phenomena, science came along and explained what REALLY did it. Science is batting 1000 right now; the supernatural is batting 0. You mention you accept evolution, yet The Bible says nothing about evolution. It says man was created fully formed from dust, not that we evolved from hominids going all the way back to single-celled organisms. What's more, if you believe that, you'd equally have to believe that God allowed his creation to wallow in mostly abject suffering for millions of years before he even chose to reveal himself or "inspire" man to invent things like modern medicine.

----------


## Vota

We know so much and yet so little.

Anyone claiming their way is the only way, or the best way, is the first person you need to be very wary of. Philosophers and scientists have been coming up with "theories" and debunking each others "theories" since the beginning of philosophical discussion. Many atheists, and many scientists are atheists(philosophers as well), say that religion is a joke. I find it a joke that neither of these two disciplines can provide a concrete, factual answer as to how we got here. Big Bang. You cannot create matter from nothing. Well, like uh, ya....grumble grumble, still better than that God idea. IS it? Let's use Occam's Razor. It seems reasonable to me that when you have to justify the creation of the universe, the earth, man, animals, everything, that God created it is the simplest explanation. Now I'm not saying I believe this, but science and philosophy is a never-ending rabbit hole of theories and conjecture. The ENTIRE foundation of philosophy and science rests upon first principles, axioms, whatever you want to call them, and yet they cannot explain this. In this sense philosophy and science are founded on their faith in the truth of first principles in which they cannot prove. Yet atheists and scientists recoil at the word faith which is EXACTLY what belief in first principles is. If you believe in science then you believe in first principles. If you believe in first principles then you believe in things which cannot be proven. You can try to escape the word all you want, but in the end its the same thing as believing in a God that created all and is all. Faith. Scientists have "faith" in the scientific method. Observation and experimentation. They also love to infer a great many things that they cannot prove. Trilobite evolution is a fun one. 

At this juncture in my life I am skeptical of both camps. What I am willing to commit to, is the belief that it is the pinnacle of ignorance and vanity for anyone to think they have the answer, that they have the brain power and capacity in their feeble mind to truly understand the scope, the grandeur of design of this universe, or universes. I'm willing to say that better minds have tried and none have been up to the task so far. 

I'm all for science. I like this computer. I like my car. I like all the things science has made possible, and I am very excited to see what scientists can come up with over the rest of my life. Space fascinates me. The idea of alien contact blows my mind. Quantum computers, etc. Yet, who knows? Nobody knows for sure. Maybe God knows. Maybe gods know? Who knows? I know one thing though, you don't. You, as in every other human being on this planet. Maybe I'm wrong thinking that. Like I said, you have to be wary of anyone claiming they have the answer to anything so complex as the meaning of life.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I find it a joke that neither of these two disciplines can provide a concrete, factual answer as to how we got here. Big Bang. You cannot create matter from nothing.


Science knows both how we got here as a species, how the universe got to where it is from the big bang, and how a universe can come to be from quantum fields (see Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing"). What has religion given us? A myth about man being formed from dirt and woman from a rib? 




> Let's use Occam's Razor. It seems reasonable to me that when you have to justify the creation of the universe, the earth, man, animals, everything, that God created it is the simplest explanation.


No. It may SEEM like God is a simple explanation, but that's because linguistic simplicity covers up ontological complexity. See this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/ 

What we see in nature is complexity coming from simplicity; whether it's in the form of evolution creating the diversity it did, stars/planets creating galaxies, or particles becoming atoms becoming molecules. So, given this "simplicity to complexity" paradigm, the notion that a complex being outside spacetime (how does consciousness function outside of space and time, btw?) created something also complex like the universe is a direct violation of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor would favor a theory such as the universe coming into being out of a quantum field fluctuation, which we know can happen, given the qualities quantum fields possess. What's more, we also know quantum fields exist, and that they are incredibly simple in and of themselves. So, if we're talking Occam's Razor, quantum fields slit God's throat with it. 




> science and philosophy is a never-ending rabbit hole of theories and conjecture.


The difference is that science progresses in measurable ways, while philosophy (and religion) arguably don't progress at all. In fact, the only way philosophy progresses is when it incorporates the advances of modern science. There is no "rabbit hole" of science. It answers certain questions definitively and then moves on to the next one. We have a complete model of how most all objects move/behave via Einstein, and a complete model of how incredibly small objects move/behave via Schrodinger. Are there lingering mysteries? Yes, but the lingering mysteries are things that philosophers and religions didn't even know existed until science answered the questions that philosophers and theologians spent centuries pondering. 




> Yet atheists and scientists recoil at the word faith which is EXACTLY what belief in first principles is. If you believe in science then you believe in first principles. If you believe in first principles then you believe in things which cannot be proven.


The problem is that you can't lump every kind of "faith" under one category and try to equalize it. Me having "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow is not the same as me having "faith" a fairy is going to land on my nose within the next 10 seconds. One is based an absolute consistency of sense experience, the other is not. Similar, when you say "faith in science," it's having faith in something that's proven time and again its value in answering basic questions about how reality functions in provable ways. 

Are there are always unprovable first principles? Yes, but even some of these are more sensible than others. Me believing that rockets have been to the moon because I've seen them take off, land, seen pictures taken from space, seen astronauts talk about what it's like, etc. is all predicated on me trusting my senses; but that's really what all "first principles" come back to. On some level, we trust what we sense, and, further, we trust that our senses interact in particular ways with reality that by asking certain questions we can answer them by seeing how our senses change. EG, to believe "light interacts with my shoelaces and enters my eye and tells me "my shoelaces are untied,"" we can take away any of these elements--light, eyes, tied laces--and see how our senses change. With no light and no eyes we see nothing, with tied shoelaces we see tied, rather than untied, shoelaces. This changing perception by changing various elements about ourselves/reality are the kind of "first principles" we put "faith" in, and it's very different than the kind of "faith" religious believers have. Religious believers are usually very good about doing their darndest to make their "faith" unfalsifiable, which is the exact opposite of science. 




> What I am willing to commit to, is the belief that it is the pinnacle of ignorance and vanity for anyone to think they have the answer, that they have the brain power and capacity in their feeble mind to truly understand the scope, the grandeur of design of this universe, or universes. I'm willing to say that better minds have tried and none have been up to the task so far.


I think the pinnacle of ignorance is for someone to say we understand EVERYTHING, yet, no scientist or atheist I know of says this. Rather, it's usually the theists that are both supremely ignorant about what we DO know, and supremely confident that, somehow, in some way, God is behind it all. Great minds have certainly "tried," but each generation of great minds build off those of the past and make distinct progress. The problem is that a great many (most?) are unaware of that progress. Just like you saying that you can't create matter from nothing. Well, yes you can, in a way. Quantum fields, which have no matter, merely potential energy, can, indeed, create matter, gravity, time, and space. Does this change what you think about needing God to create a universe? Probably not, if you have the mind most believers possess. Most believers, when such scientific revelations happen, will merely say "but you don't know where the quantum fields came from! Ha! God must've created that!" so it becomes the classic "God of the gaps" game.

----------


## Vota

You seem pretty convinced that you have the answers.

I don't have a better reply, than more power to you.

----------


## Frostball

> So, if we're talking Occam's Razor, quantum fields slit God's throat with it.


This gave me chills. Spectacular wordplay.

----------


## Pendragon

People who believe in Science have to accept many things they have never confirmed for themselves as fact because someone with a lot of degrees at the end of his or her name said so. Have you ever seen what they refer to as "The God Particle?" The scientists aren't even sure they have but believe it. If science always is to be trusted remember "Piltdown Man?" That a dinosaur skeleton in the Smithsonian went over ninety years with the wrong legs? That they cannot cure the common cold? That they now have decided that Pluto isn't a planet after all? You have to accept what you cannot confirm for your self and sometimes what cannot be reproduced because it was discovered by accident and they haven't found where the deviation is that allowed their discovery in the first place. I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm saying some things science teaches must be accepted without proof positive. Sometimes they keep at it and right the errors, sometimes the error is just accepted until some person most of the scientists think is a screwball manages to catch the error.

Religion is hard to deal with because there is no proof. I'm a minister, and I say that right up front. I cannot prove God exists or heaven (or hell) is real.

Science is something that has a mass effect on us all. The laws of nature apply to everyone. The discoveries of today will affect the world for years to come.

Religion is personal. I can preach to a crowd of 250 people but unless they experience something that convinces them personally of a need for God in their life, nothing I say or do will make a difference. So I preach for the ones who have had that experience. In the average 250 people in a congregation two thirds are just there to say they attend church. So I preach for the one third. I am concerned about even a single person.

Science writes you off it you don't agree as ignorant, foolish, etc. Not all of us. I know the failures of Religion, the many arguments over whose God is God, etc. But like I said, it's personal. Thomas Jefferson said, "“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” 

Likewise it does me no injury if the people who put their faith in science abound. It doesn't change my beliefs or make me a fool.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Vota

It was late last night where I live, so I did not feel the inclination to field a systematic response to your post against mine Morpheus, but having some free time today I decided I would.

1. "Science knows both how we got here as a species". The Theory of Evolution is still a theory. There are no cat-dog hybrids. There is a great deal of variation within species, but each species is still recognizable what it is, and not something new. Evolution seems to have a really hard time dealing with this. Also, when you go back to Trilobites, people ASSUME that they evolved from arthropods, and yet considering the hard shell, complex eye structure of the trilobite, we should have some sort of evidence of an arthropod/trilobite mix. As far as I know we do not. I am only just delving into this so if you have a Definite proof that there is I would encourage it.

2. "What we see in nature is complexity coming from simplicity". Do we? The Trilobite is a very complex animal with no "Direct precursor" that can be adequately proven. 

3. "how does consciousness function outside of space and time, btw?" I wouldn't know and with my feeble understanding of this universe and it's overriding laws I am willing to admit my ignorance and would not claim to have an answer to this, but neither does any scientist. 

4. "quantum field fluctuation, which we know can happen, given the qualities quantum fields possess"-QFT, emphasis on the T, Quantum Field "T"heory. Also there are many criticisms such as the problem of quantum gravity, why the constants of cosmology have the values they have. One must also consider that QFT omits gravity, which is a GIGANTIC gaping hole in the theory. General Relativity and Quantum Theory don't sync up nicely which leads to string theory and other theories. So what you have is an unproven theory that people are trying to shore up with other theories. This is not convincing and certainly not simple.

5. "science progresses in measurable ways, while philosophy (and religion) arguably don't progress at all"-keep in mind that science and philosophy were indistinguishable in the beginning. Science would not exist without philosophy. Science is awesome, no denying that, but science still cannot answer the most fundamental questions. Why are we here? There are no definite answers, no observable proof based on the scientific method. There's distance and time, and theories, but that's what they are, theories. What is consciousness? What is moral? Science is amazing, but it isn't the end all be all and does not disprove of the existence of God or gods nor answer the fundamental questions. You can say what you want, but all you will produce are theories, many with gaping holes in them.

6. "We have a complete model of how most all objects move/behave via Einstein"-The Theory of General Relativity is still a theory. If it wasn't it would have been renamed The Fact of General Relativity. Also, why the probs with QFT?

7. "One is based an absolute consistency of sense experience"-our senses are horribly inconsistent. What we see, or think we see can be terribly inaccurate. What we hear, taste, touch, feel are all subjective. Science by it's very method is subjective relying on observation and experiment, which means that it fundamentally has the weakness of sense bias and inconsistency. Science has proven how woefully inadequate are senses are in knowing the truth, and what's ironic is that science is limited by the very limitations we all inherently possess. It was created by people with woefully inadequate access to the truth of what things really are. This gets really complex. 

8. "I think the pinnacle of ignorance is for someone to say we understand EVERYTHING, yet, no scientist or atheist I know of says this." No, they only imply by saying there is no God which is the same as stating that you "know" God does not exist. Atheists by this very declaration imply that they have access to 100% empirical proof of the nature and origin of the universe which would disprove the existence of a creator, which they do not. Having this sort of proof is the only acceptable answer to the question of "Does God exist", and presently no such factual data, evidence, or theory exists. How can one make such a claim without proof? It comes down to "beliefs" that are based on science. Science doesn't have ALL the answers and many would say it still can't answer the most important questions. 

9. "Rather, it's usually the theists that are both supremely ignorant about what we DO know, and supremely confident that, somehow, in some way, God is behind it all."-I could flip this, "Rather, it's usually the scientists and atheists that are both supremely ignorant about what we DO NOT know, and supremely confident that, somehow, in some way, theories are behind it all".

10. "Just like you saying that you can't create matter from nothing. Well, yes you can, in a way. Quantum fields, which have no matter, merely potential energy, can, indeed, create matter, gravity, time, and space."=I already mentioned the various issues with basing anything off QFT. Until the issues are resolved you cannot claim this. Also, QFT has a gigantic problem with vacuum values.

11. "Does this change what you think about needing God to create a universe? Probably not, if you have the mind most believers possess. Most believers, when such scientific revelations happen, will merely say "but you don't know where the quantum fields came from! Ha! God must've created that!" so it becomes the classic "God of the gaps" game."

You insult people that believe as having someone how a weaker or incorrect mind or belief system. There are many scientists, doctors, and even philosophers that believe in some sort of higher power. It's just as feasible that God created everything, as it is feasible that one in countless theories might be the correct explanation "of it all".

I would add that I consider myself an agnostic because I am not convinced by either side. Both sides have their positive, strong points, but neither side can claim they are necessarily right or that the other is wrong.

----------


## Frostball

I really can't help but address some of these points.

God Particle isn't what physicists call it, it's the Higgs Boson, and it has nothing to do with god at all. It has to do with physics.

Piltdown man was a hoax, yes, and for a time the scientific community accepted it. And so what? It was a short time, and who was it who figured out it was a hoax? Priests? Nuns? It was other scientists. The only cure for bad science is good science. Mistakes are inevitable. The same goes with the dinosaur. It's not as though all fossils come in neat packages with instructions. It's incredibly difficult, and mistakes are bound to happen. Once again, who finds these mistakes? It's the people who spend their lives studying the subject.

There is no such thing as a single 'common cold'. It's a virus that's constantly changing. As yet, there aren't any cures for any viruses, period. There are preventative measures, and we can help the body's own immune system to fight them off. But you know what? Science is working on it. In a race between prayer and science to find a way to cure viruses, I know who I'd put my money on.

The reason Pluto's classification changed is because we discovered other objects that are nearly the size of pluto and have elongated orbits just like pluto. Faced with these discoveries there were two options, either call these new objects planets, giving us something like 15-20 planets, or classify pluto along with them, as dwarf planets. It's not like Pluto changed, this is just a naming system--a nomenclature.

"Theory of evolution is just a theory." Give me a break, hasn't everybody learned this by now? When will people stop saying this? A scientific theory is an explanation that has withstood the test of time and countless attempts to disprove it. Theory is the ultimate pinnacle of a hypothesis; it doesn't get any better than that. There is nothing higher than a theory. Evolution is a theory, and a fact. The theory of a heliocentric earth is "still" a theory. Gravity is a still a theory, and a fact. Einstein's laws of relativity are, yes, "still" theories, yet if we didn't account for exactly what general relativity explains in our GPS satellites, GPS would not work. So it's not as though we aren't sure this stuff is really true or not. When scientists use the word theory they aren't using it in the colloquial sense that people often use it, the way that is something like a hunch, or a guess. The closest thing to that in scientific terminology would be a hypothesis.

The great, great, majority of atheists do not claim to know there is no god. It is almost always the case that an atheist posits that there is not enough evidence to justify a reasonable belief in god. Absolute certainty is generally the realm of "true believers".

These are the points I just had to speak to. Really, they were low hanging fruit.

----------


## Vota

If you aren't aware of the conundrums inherent with the theory of evolution then you really should become acquainted with them, and if you are, then you believe a theory is a fact that has some glaring inconsistencies.

"There is nothing higher than a theory."-no, give me a break.

"Einstein's laws of relativity are, yes, "still" theories, yet if we didn't account for exactly what general relativity explains in our GPS satellites, GPS would not work." Gps satellites and the creation and existence of this universe are two different things. How do you account for the glaring problems with relativity and QFT? The issues with QFT in and of itself? 

"It is almost always the case that an atheist posits that there is not enough evidence to justify a reasonable belief in god."-definition of atheist, Merriam-Webster: one who believes that there is no deity. Wikipedia definition: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

So what we have here is a case of you misusing the term atheist, or confusing it with agnostic, or willfully creating your own definition for atheist/atheism. Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. Period.

"Really, they were low hanging fruit."-here's a stool for ya.

----------


## Frostball

I can give you a break, but really, there isn't anything higher than a theory. What would it be? A super theory? Theories never turn into laws, that's just now how it works.

The fact that you talk about cat/dog hybrids shows a great ignorance of what evolution is, and how it really works. Everything we have ever discovered fits in perfectly with evolution. There are countless intermediate species between every species, and more are found all the time. Every time an intermediary species is found evolution deniers just point and say "Look, now there's TWO gaps".

I didn't say anything about QFT and I don't know enough about it to speak on it. Einstein's theories have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. I was merely showing yet another example of a theory about which there is no doubt to it's truth. A hypothesis only finally becomes a theory when every scientist in the field has tried as hard as he can and failed to disprove it, and when it makes useful predictions.

The entire reason it's done this way is because there is no such thing as being absolutely certain, so science never says "This is 100% correct" but can only say that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for something, that it has led to a great many useful predictions, and that if it were found to be incorrect it would be worldview shattering. That's about as strong as science can ever get on something, and that's the level things like heliocentrism, evolution, and atomic theory are all on. Yes, the earth could be flat, we could be wrong and all our senses could have been lying to us all along. I don't know about you, but I don't think that's the case. I can't be certain, but certainty isn't important.

Ah, great, your dictionary definition proved me wrong. I guess you just win, then. But really, if you go out and talk to atheists, or even take a poll, I assure you, the great majority of people who identify as atheists are agnostic atheists--that is, they don't believe in a god but don't claim to be certain about it. Dictionaries might need to catch up to how people are using the term. Dictionaries don't decide the definition of words as if they are an authority proclaiming them. Rather it's how people use words that dictionaries base their definitions on. You're putting the cart before the horse.

----------


## Vota

It's pointless arguing with you.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> You seem pretty convinced that you have the answers.


I don't know what you mean by "the" answers. I have "some" answers, just like science has "some" answers. Only religion claims to have "the" answer in the form of God. To believers, God is THE answer to every major question. Science is pretty clear about what answers it has and which it doesn't have. 




> This gave me chills. Spectacular wordplay.


Thank you.  :Smile:

----------


## Vota

"Science is pretty clear about what answers it has and which it doesn't have."

This is extremely debatable.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Pendragon, I'll avoid the points that Frostball already addressed, since I agree with him. Pluto, especially, is not an example of changing science but changing terminology, and is a good reason to subscribe to reductionism and avoid the fallacies of linguistic compression.




> I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm saying some things science teaches must be accepted without proof positive.


Science doesn't really seek "positive proofs;" proofs reside in the realm of math. Popper's notion of scientific falsification is much more accurate. It simply states that Science seeks theories that are able to be falsified through experiment, and the theories that are "left standing" are those that have withstood our best attempts at falsifying them. I understand what you're saying about about us laymen having to accept what scientists say without being able to confirm it ourselves, yet when you see things like, eg, a rocket ship to the moon, and understand that such a thing was only made possible via our understanding of physics--gravity, combustion, rocket design, etc.--it's hard to explain how we could accomplish such a thing if scientists DIDN'T actually know what they were talking about. Plus, I think most of us would anticipate that if we got into the relevant scientific fields, we could confirm most of what science claims it knows. 

Again, it goes back to what I was saying about the differences in faiths. If I put my faith in science/scientists even if I haven't confirmed what they've said for myself, I do so for several reasons: 1) Science has consistently taken what it's claimed to know and done remarkable things with that knowledge. 2) The scientific method itself offers a means for TESTING claims, and scientists spend a lot of time trying to falsify the hypotheses of other scientists. 3) Science has no obvious agenda for claiming it knows things it doesn't, because other scientists can get famous simply by proving them wrong, and such a thing would humiliate those claiming to know thing they didn't. I guess this is just a long way of saying that I see science as having a built-in system that prevents the kind of liberal hogwash spouting that's so prevalent in pseudo-sciences and gurus and, yes, religion. You ask a scientist how they know something and they can typically back it up with heaps of confirmable facts, tests, experiments, etc.; ask a religious guru how they know something and they, well, can't. 




> Religion is personal. I can preach to a crowd of 250 people but unless they experience something that convinces them personally of a need for God in their life, nothing I say or do will make a difference. So I preach for the ones who have had that experience.


The problem, though, is that religion doesn't STAY personal. People's religious beliefs inevitably affect others, whether that's in something as simple as one believer shunning non-believers, or something as large as religious institutions trying to get Creationism taught in schools alongside evolution. If people had "religious experiences" and accepted this as proof of a personal God in their life and that was it, I'd have no problem. The problem begins when it doesn't end there, when you get people who promote their religion's versions of history or science over ACTUAL history or science, or their religion's morality over ACTUAL morality. I mean, I'm sympathetic to, say, Blake or Stevens' ideas on religion, where religion is more about art, the creator "God" within man that allows us to have transcendental experiences with nature and life and others, the parts that speak to the eternal aspects of our humanity. However, I, like Blake, feels compelled to rage against the OT lawgiver God, who's really a product of man's attempt to control his fellow man via religion. That's the line, I think, that I've drawn with religion between its positive and negative qualities.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Vota, similar with Pendragon, I'll avoid the points Frostball has covered since I'd just be restating the same thing. You very much need to learn the difference between a scientific "theory" and the more colloquial notion of "theory," because Frost is right that "theory" is the end-point of science. Theories never graduate to laws or facts. I also think you need to do more research into evolution, since most of your points ("cat-dog") reveal your ignorance of the matter and sounds like you're getting your information from equally ignorant Creationist websites. 




> "how does consciousness function outside of space and time, btw?" I wouldn't know and with my feeble understanding of this universe and it's overriding laws I am willing to admit my ignorance and would not claim to have an answer to this, but neither does any scientist.


Most scientists would claim that every aspect of consciousness we can study is linked with brain activity, and because the brain is a physical thing that requires both matter and spacetime to function, there's no reason to think consciousness can exist outside of either. 




> 4. "quantum field fluctuation, which we know can happen, given the qualities quantum fields possess"-QFT, emphasis on the T, Quantum Field "T"heory. Also there are many criticisms such as the problem of quantum gravity, why the constants of cosmology have the values they have. One must also consider that QFT omits gravity, which is a GIGANTIC gaping hole in the theory.


One thing to understand is that gravity itself is really just the relationship between matter and spacetime: matter tells spacetime how to curve, spacetime tells gravity how to move, as John Archibald Wheeler put it. Gravity is how we describe this relationship. However, in quantum fields there is no fixed matter or spacetime, merely fluctuations. So any gravity on this level would be in a similar state of flux. General relativity doesn't "communicate" with QM because GR is describing how matter/spacetime functions on a macro level, and as you get further down its laws break down into quantum chaos. What this tells us is that GR is only a partial description of reality at a certain level. We're still looking for more fundamental theories, yes, but right now we have these two theories that work quite well at two different levels. My own speculation is that looking for "quantum gravity" is going about things the wrong way; it would make more sense to look for something on the quantum level that could eventually scale up to gravity as we know it, just like how we know particles can scale up to, say, molecules. 




> 5. "science progresses in measurable ways, while philosophy (and religion) arguably don't progress at all"-keep in mind that science and philosophy were indistinguishable in the beginning. Science would not exist without philosophy. Science is awesome, no denying that, but science still cannot answer the most fundamental questions. Why are we here? ... What is consciousness? What is moral?


I'm well aware that science was born out of philosophy and even promoted/patronized by religion early on. It's equally true to say that it's grown into its own distinct entity; though I'm very much of the mind that the right philosophy is still relevant in science. As for science asking fundamental questions, most of those fundamental questions are wrong questions. They reveal more about our flawed thinking than they do about the failures of science. 




> our senses are horribly inconsistent. What we see, or think we see can be terribly inaccurate. What we hear, taste, touch, feel are all subjective.


I almost entirely agree, except with the "our senses are subjective" part. The correct word is "relative," not "subjective." Our senses are feeding us information from reality that interacts without brains in particular ways. If the information was completely inaccurate we probably wouldn't have so much sense correspondence. IE, If my eyes are wrong about there being a wall 6 feet away from me, I probably wouldn't be able to walk over to it, touch it, smell it, taste it (ew), etc. Whatever the limitations and failures of our senses, they're really all we have in our attempt at mapping the territory of reality. So it's fine to be aware of our senses' limitations and the subjective components in perception, but we must also keep in mind that this is all we have, so it's imperative to try and understand precisely what those limitations and subjectivities are. 




> 8. "I think the pinnacle of ignorance is for someone to say we understand EVERYTHING, yet, no scientist or atheist I know of says this." No, they only imply by saying there is no God which is the same as stating that you "know" God does not exist.


Most atheists I know of say they see no (compelling) evidence for God, and therefor do not believe one exists; yet, equally, most atheists and scientists I know would be open to evidence/proof of such a God. Lawrence Krauss once humorously quipped that if one night he walked out and the stars had rearranged themselves to spell out "God was here," that he'd have to seriously reconsider the possibility of God's existnece. I've often said that if another Jesus appeared and was performing miracles in a way that baffled modern medical science, then I'd have to reconsider my position. The problem, however, is that no evidence like this exists, and all of the evidence that DOES exist points away from such things. EG, the lack of correlation between prayer having positive affects on patients in various major studies on intercessory prayer. If God exists, and if prayer did what it was claimed to do, then those studies should've turned up some correlation. Likewise, there are plenty of things in The Bible that play by modern science's rules of falsification and provability, but you don't see anyone going around replicating such experiments. 

So, I don't think it's a matter of atheists or scientists saying "we know God doesn't exist and we can prove it," but rather most saying that there's no compelling evidence for his existence, and that the evidence that IS out there seems to point away from God. Obviously, this isn't enough for proof, but, again, you could say the same thing about any mythological characters. We can't "PROVE" Santa or Easter Bunnies or fairies or Bigfoot doesn't exist, all we can say is that there's no good evidence. 




> 9. "Rather, it's usually the theists that are both supremely ignorant about what we DO know, and supremely confident that, somehow, in some way, God is behind it all."-I could flip this, "Rather, it's usually the scientists and atheists that are both supremely ignorant about what we DO NOT know, and supremely confident that, somehow, in some way, theories are behind it all".


And your flipping is wrong. Again, scientists know more than most precisely what we do and do not know. They're working on the parts that we do not know as we speak. And no scientists would say "theories" are behind what they do not know; that's preposterous. Theories are our attempts to explain what is going on in reality. 




> 10. "Just like you saying that you can't create matter from nothing. Well, yes you can, in a way. Quantum fields, which have no matter, merely potential energy, can, indeed, create matter, gravity, time, and space."=I already mentioned the various issues with basing anything off QFT. Until the issues are resolved you cannot claim this.


The issues you mentioned have nothing to do with quantum fields being able to create matter and spacetime. 




> 11. "Does this change what you think about needing God to create a universe? Probably not, if you have the mind most believers possess. Most believers, when such scientific revelations happen, will merely say "but you don't know where the quantum fields came from! Ha! God must've created that!" so it becomes the classic "God of the gaps" game."
> 
> You insult people that believe as having someone how a weaker or incorrect mind or belief system. There are many scientists, doctors, and even philosophers that believe in some sort of higher power. It's just as feasible that God created everything, as it is feasible that one in countless theories might be the correct explanation "of it all".


That isn't an insult, I've seen that exact response more times than I care to count. Of course "many" scientists doctors and philosophers believe in a higher power; what does this have to do with anything? Even great minds can have flaws. In fact, the reason I promote the website Lesswrong so much (as you may have noticed through my links) is because it addresses the flaws WE KNOW occur in our brains' cognition. Besides this, it's also a fact that there is much less belief amongst scientists than other people, and much, much less belief amongst top scientists. Finally, no, it isn't "just as feasible that God created everything." Firstly, we don't even know God exists; secondly, assuming he does, we know nothing about him; thirdly, amongst the things we wouldn't know is how he could create anything "out of nothing;" fourthly, we have no idea how such an anthropomorphic being could exist outside the bounds of matter and spacetime. Basically, there's no even remotely falsifiable/testable model for God existing or creating anything. This is not the case with quantum fields. We know they exist; we know how they function; we know that within that functioning there exists the potential to create matter and unvierses. That we don't know EVERYTHING about them seems rather trivial in light of us knowing NOTHING about God, even down to whether or not he exists. To state that it's "equally feasible" that something we know nothing about could've created everything VS something that we know a great deal about is just plain wrong. 




> "It is almost always the case that an atheist posits that there is not enough evidence to justify a reasonable belief in god."-definition of atheist, Merriam-Webster: one who believes that there is no deity. Wikipedia definition: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> So what we have here is a case of you misusing the term atheist, or confusing it with agnostic, or willfully creating your own definition for atheist/atheism. Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. Period.


Errr, Wikipedia itself says there are two meanings of the word atheism: the first deals with the "rejection of believe in deities," and the second deals with "the position that there are no deities." Something like Dictionary.com lists both as well. I rather like the model that uses a/theism to deal with BELIEVE and a/gnosticism to deal with KNOWLEDGE. So an "agnostic athiest" says "I don't believe in God, but do not claim to know he doesn't exist," while a "gnostic atheist" says "I don't believe in God and would claim to know he doesn't exist." I consider myself in the former "agnostic atheist" camp. But, as I've said before, agnostics themselves can range all the way from "pretty sure God exists" to "pretty sure God doesn't exist." Really, I wish people could just express their level of belief/disbelief in probabilities. Like, I'd say I'm about 99% God doesn't exist, and I preserve that extra 1% only on the basis that there is still, indeed, a lot we don't know, and it's possible, though I see no reason to think it likely, that God might exist out there in that 1% of what's unknown. 




> This is extremely debatable.


How so? Scientists are usually quick to admit what they know and what they don't.

----------


## Pendragon

> Science doesn't really seek "positive proofs;" proofs reside in the realm of math.


What you are saying is God is not quantifiable. There is no mathematical equation for God.

I don't need God to be quantifiable, I accept His existence based on personal experience.

I just wanted to point out that science does not negate God, nor does God negate science.

I see, however, that short of me saying, "OMG you're right! Science explains everything! God is not needed" you will continue to demean everything I say.

I have no problem with you or your beliefs. You seem to have one with mine. I have no quarrel with any of you.

God bless

Pen

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> What you are saying is God is not quantifiable. There is no mathematical equation for God.


No, this isn't what I said. I was pointing out that science doesn't work on proofs but on falsifiability. 




> you will continue to demean everything I say.


What in the world in my post "demeaned everything you said?"

----------


## mal4mac

> ... Frost is right that "theory" is the end-point of science. Theories never graduate to laws or facts. I also think you need to do more research into evolution...


Nope, observations are the end point of science. Without observations theories are just that - theories - without any basis in reality. 

Then agin, I might accept that "theories with overwhelming evidence in their favour" are end-points in science. Although, even then, they are not *final* end points. For instance, Newtonian mechanics looked like a final end point before certain observations were made that Newtonian mechanics could not explain and Einsteinian mechanics could. But Newtonian mechanic sis a sorta end point - in non-relativistic and non-quantum realms.

String theory is not an end point in physics - observations are needed. Nobel prizes are awarded only when the observations are in - like Higgs came up with the theory of the Higgs boson in the 1960s, but only gets the Noble prize now after the observations have confirmed its existence.



> Most scientists would claim that every aspect of consciousness we can study is linked with brain activity, and because the brain is a physical thing that requires both matter and spacetime to function, there's no reason to think consciousness can exist outside of either.


In this case I think there are enough observations - at the very least we observe our own consciousness for sure! Also our consciousness is always obsrved to "come along with our body". There is no observational evidence at all for consciousness floating around free of bodies - no angels, spirits, or whatever. Consciousness always seems to need an active human brain. What's lacking here is an adequate theory - just how does consciousness emerge from brain activity? 




> Lawrence Krauss once humorously quipped that if one night he walked out and the stars had rearranged themselves to spell out "God was here," that he'd have to seriously reconsider the possibility of God's existnece.


Dawkins pulled him up on that one, suggesting aliens with a sense of humour would be a far more likely explanation. Conjurers with space ships and a bunch of mirrors. Krauss had to agree...




> Of course "many" scientists doctors and philosophers believe in a higher power; what does this have to do with anything? Even great minds can have flaws.


Many scientists, doctors and philosophers don't have great minds! I'm reading C.P. Snows excellent novel "the search", a wonderful account of what a life in science is actually like, and one character makes the point that "It's too easy, any duffer can do it." Dawkins make the same point in his autobiography, although he then goes on to show how he isn't a dullard. Science certainly has great minds (Einstein, Darwin...) but everyday science is not difficult, and dullards get to occupy most professorial roles. So the universities are full of rather mediocre minds, hard working dullards. Sometimes their dull minds turn to religion... And as for doctors and philosophers, most aren't even good enough to be dull scientists.

----------


## YesNo

> The first cause deals with, quite simply, the cause behind our universe's existence; whether that's God, quantum fluctuations, or your "conscious choice" by some unspecified consciousness is irrelevant.


The critical element is whether a choice was made to get our universe going. If there was a choice then there was enough consciousness to make that choice. That is all one needs, a choice.




> Consciousness has always been equated with awareness; I have no idea how/why you're separating "forms of awareness" from "consciousness as a whole."


The brain, or more correctly, our bodies, modify our awareness. Some of us are color blind. Others are not. That would be how our individual bodies produce part of our awareness. Our memories, on the other hand, I don't think are completely generated by our brains, nor stored there. 




> WHAT psychic phenomena?


The typical psychic phenomena: out of body experiences, remote viewing, near death experiences, intuition, whatever gives someone an experience that should not occur at all if our consciousness were limited to what our brains could produce.




> I know you do, but like with most everything when it comes to MW you're wrong. You missed the point again, however. You said MW halts the questioning process. This is demonstrably wrong. No MW proponent has halted anything.


If you can find a copy of Bohm and Hiley's "The Undivided Universe", we could go over chapter 13 which provides a critique of many worlds. 




> I'm simply not following your train of reasoning here: WHAT atheist metaphysics? What about it not relying on choices? What about choices being needed for us to get here?


If there is some agent making a choice that was responsible for the expansion of our universe or even evolutionary change, then that agent could be viewed as a God. It doesn't matter whether that God looks like quantum fluctuations or something else. It made a choice. Atheistic metaphysics assumes there are no Gods. It cannot tolerate any such agents.




> Oh, I see, you're another one that has a complete misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. 2L says that entropy happens in a closed system over time. The universe as a whole is a closed system. However, there are systems within systems, and even if the TOTAL entropy of the system increases, this does not mean that a particular system within the system cannot generate more complexity. What is needed is, primarily, a perpetual energy source; we have one, it's called the sun.


The sun is not a perpetual energy source.




> I don't know how you think it's even possible for someone to calculate the probabilities that it's possible after it's already happened.


The question is could it have happened by chance without any agent (aka "God") making a choice? What are the odds? A atheistic position relies on chance and determinism. It does not rely on choices by agents. Since we are here, we happened. What are the odds that we are here totally by chance?




> These agents need not be gods, though; at least, they need not be anything like the gods we've imagined. Atheism could still be correct in rejecting the man-made gods.


I reject a lot of man-made Gods, but I am not an atheist because I really don't know what's out there. However, an atheistic position as distinct from an agnostic position, is that all of these agents must be rejected. It is way too extreme for me to accept.

The various religions acknowledge the existence of consciousness(es) that they can relate to and have cultural traditions that show their members how to establish such relationships. 

This is why science and religion are not in opposition to each other. Science tries to get information about the universe; religion tries to build relationships with their various Gods. There is no opposition between these two. There is, however, opposition between theistic religion and atheism because atheists don't believe such relationships can be established. 





> You're wrong. I don't know how else to say it. MW doesn't rework anything. It interprets the QM models that exist. It takes Schrodinger as real as takes Heisenberg as expressing our subjective uncertainty due, in fact, to the entropy inherent in QM. 
> 
> So what unresolved problems did they mention? The only one I know about is the Born Probabilities.


Bohm and Hiley differentiate many worlds as presented by Everett from the one presented by people like Deutsch. The original position Everett took is linked to many minds. They point out hidden assumptions in these two divergent views showing that many worlds fails to fulfill its own claims that it wins some Occam's Razor contest for fewest assumptions. They also look at the Born probabilities from a way that might be more favorable to your position. 

That's what I remember at the moment. 

If you can get hold of the book, perhaps it would be interesting to read this together. At least then we would have a text to refer back to when we have disagreements on what many worlds claims.

----------


## YesNo

> Consciousness always seems to need an active human brain.


One of the examples Sam Harris mentioned in "Free Will" is whether we want to grant a fly enough free will to make a choice. For some odd reason, he seems to think we want to reserve free will only to our own species. Basically, is a fly consciousness enough to choose to get out of the the way when I try to swat it?

I can't speak for others who think we have adequate free will, but I have no problem with the fly having enough free will to choose to fly away and hence enough consciousness to do so. 

There is research on slime mold making a choice based on patterns it left (external memory): http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...s-slime-molds/ Not only does slime mold not have an _active human_ brain, it doesn't have a _brain_ at all.

----------


## Vota

("cat-dog")-poor choice on my part, but considering how long many animals and specifically insects have been around on this planet, you would think there would be examples of species that have evolved into a new species vs. adaptations within the species. From what I have seen, it appears that The Theory of Evolution has ALOT of inference going on, which bugs me. I admit I am just getting started on my understanding of evolution, but I'm seeing alot of conflicting information. It's much the same with science vs. religion and whether God exists and how we got here etc. I'm trying to formulate beliefs and opinions, but its difficult sifting through all the information, and from what I have seen, I'm not convinced by either side.

Granted, I believe in science. I believe in technology. I believe that science, mathematics, physics, biology, cosmology etc, is making constant progress, and if we don't destroy ourselves with these advancements, then we are in for some interesting revelations in the future.

I mostly have a problem with people that poo-poo religious beliefs. I recently watched a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Hamm, and I couldn't help thinking that throughout the whole debate neither side really effectively refuted the other side, but that Nye attempted to make creationists look essentially stupid or as lacking a background in science, when in fact Hamm made it quite clear that his side was all for science and that he understood science very well.

Its things like that, that get me irritable with Atheists and some scientists. Not everyone that is not up on the cutting edge of science is ignorant when it comes to the topic of creation or the existence of God, because scientists do not have these answers, and until science can irrefutably, observably prove what they have to say about it, then anything they have to say is not the final word nor any more true than what a religious person has to say about it. We know the sun exists. It shines everyday. This is observable and repeatable. No such claims by scientists can be made concerning the creation of the universe and God. They have some pretty good theories, but The Big Bang isn't actually observable in the sense of seeing it actually happen, or what was going on before it happened, its all theory atm. 

This is why I find it almost inconceivable to make the claim that there is no God vs. saying you aren't sure because there isn't enough compelling evidence. There is a difference between an atheist and an agnostic, and it seems many atheists are trying to skirt around the fact they do not believe in God or gods, which is to say that they maintain a certainty of viewpoint on the non-existence of supernatural entities or forces until new evidence sheds lights on the subject, vs. saying they aren't sure and so claim that they are undecided, which would be the stance of the agnostic. There is a significant difference, and it just seems to me that the former is both arrogant and ignorant. The latter may be ignorant, but I would posit not arrogant because the very belief of the possibility of something superceding human authority is not arrogant in and of itself. 

If someone put a gun to my head right now and asked me, given all that I know and have experienced, which would I choose, a future without science, or a future without religion, I would choose without religion, BUT that doesn't mean I would be happy about making such a choice or even that I think that would be good for me or the world in the long run. Mainly because who the **** am I to be the judge of that, let alone anyone else?

That's kinda where I stand with all this stuff.

P.S. I would be totally willing to swear off any thoughts about religion if science can irrefutably prove there is no God and can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how the universe came into existence. I would also admit that legitimate alien contact would very probably cause a massive reduction in my interest in the religious and spiritual, if not my complete separation from it. 

It is interesting when I think about it, that if God was proven to exist and/or manifested itself, provided it wasn't a higher level ET pulling one on us, I would still not eschew science because its too useful to live without. I certainly couldn't type this if it wasn't for science and I certainly am not for religion OVER science.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Then agin, I might accept that "theories with overwhelming evidence in their favour" are end-points in science.


These are usually what theories ARE, so that's what I meant. However, even without observation there are means of favoring certain theories and interpretations over others (Occam's Razor being one, Bayes another, Solomonoff another). For any given set of observations there's always multiple theories one could concoct to explain them, and often it's not always feasible to test between them. 




> There is no observational evidence at all for consciousness floating around free of bodies - no angels, spirits, or whatever... What's lacking here is an adequate theory - just how does consciousness emerge from brain activity?


As for the former, most would cite NDEs and OBEs as evidence for out-of-body consciousness, though I'd contend that brain activity can still account for such experiences. As for the latter, I suspect that consciousness is not "one thing" but rather a great many things. The problem is that we've yet to reduce the one word to its constituent parts and understand that X brain activity corresponds to Y aspect of consciousness. I also suspect that consciousness is a spectrum rather than a binary thing, so animals with lesser intelligence have a degree of consciousness, the same way that children are generally less aware than adults. 




> Many scientists, doctors and philosophers don't have great minds! ...And as for doctors and philosophers, most aren't even good enough to be dull scientists.


 :Yesnod:

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The critical element is whether a choice was made to get our universe going.


That's the critical element TO YOU. Not everyone shares your biased concern about "choice" in relation to cosmology. 




> Our memories, on the other hand, I don't think are completely generated by our brains, nor stored there.


Evidence? 




> The typical psychic phenomena: out of body experiences, remote viewing, near death experiences, intuition, whatever gives someone an experience that should not occur at all if our consciousness were limited to what our brains could produce.


There's absolutely nothing about these things that "should not occur if consciousness was limited to our brains." Dreams, especially lucid dreaming, allow us to imagine ourselves outside our bodies somewhere else besides in our beds sleeping; yet I've heard very few people theorize that dreaming is happening anywhere but inside the mind of the dreamer. NDEs and OBEs are much the same; the conscious brain shuts down so other parts reconstruct the scene based on its memories and imaginations of it and puts the experiencer "there." There's nothing about any of this that's beyond the ability of the brain and, what's more, rigorous studies of these phenomena have failed to confirm any genuine out-of-body consciousness by, eg, having the NDEer correctly noting details about the space they couldn't otherwise have known. One such researcher placed a scrolling neon sign high up in an operating room with random messages changing every day. No NDEer has yet identified the message; I wonder why? 




> The sun is not a perpetual energy source.


Technically you're correct in that the sun will eventually die out itself, but it's perpetual _enough_ to generate the kind of energy over a long enough period of time to generate complexity within its part of the overall system. 




> The question is could it have happened by chance without any agent (aka "God") making a choice? What are the odds?


As I've explained to you thoroughly before, the odds against us (or anything) being here has nothing to do whether or not chance, determinism, or agents were involved. This is not how probability works. 




> However, an atheistic position as distinct from an agnostic position, is that all of these agents must be rejected.


As I said elsewhere, I find it useful to keep a/theism about belief and a/gnosticism about knowledge, so you can be an "agnostic atheist" and say "I don't believe in any Gods because I see no evidence for them, but I do not state that they certainly don't or can't exist." To me, this 4-way system better reflects how people actually think than the 3-point system of theist/agnostic/atheist. 




> This is why science and religion are not in opposition to each other. Science tries to get information about the universe; religion tries to build relationships with their various Gods.


Except that this is not all religion attempts to do. It also lays down laws, morality, history, and, yes, natural science. The on-going conflict between Creationism and evolution is a direct example of religion conflicting with science. 




> Bohm and Hiley differentiate many worlds as presented by Everett from the one presented by people like Deutsch. The original position Everett took is linked to many minds. They point out hidden assumptions in these two divergent views showing that many worlds fails to fulfill its own claims that it wins some Occam's Razor contest for fewest assumptions. They also look at the Born probabilities from a way that might be more favorable to your position. 
> 
> That's what I remember at the moment.


What you remember isn't enough because you're just stating conclusions. Unless you can present a paraphrase of their arguments, there's nothing I have to respond to. It surprises me you can't remember anymore; it seems as if all you were concerned with was whether or not they agreed with you, but not in WHY they agreed with you. That seems to suggest confirmation bias on your part.

----------


## Pendragon

> What in the world in my post "demeaned everything you said?"


More the condescending tone of your remarks than anything actually said. You seem to equate belief in God with stupidity. I assure you, I am not stupid, nor crazy. I resent being talked down to. 

God bless

Pen

----------


## YesNo

> If someone put a gun to my head right now and asked me, given all that I know and have experienced, which would I choose, a future without science, or a future without religion, I would choose without religion, BUT that doesn't mean I would be happy about making such a choice or even that I think that would be good for me or the world in the long run. Mainly because who the **** am I to be the judge of that, let alone anyone else?


There's no need to choose between science and religion. They are very different human activities and can live in harmony. 

If someone put that gun to my head and asked which would I choose, a future without atheism or a future without religion, I would choose a future without atheism. And that is what is at stake here. It is not science vs religion, but atheism vs religion.

----------


## YesNo

> There's absolutely nothing about these things that "should not occur if consciousness was limited to our brains." Dreams, especially lucid dreaming, allow us to imagine ourselves outside our bodies somewhere else besides in our beds sleeping; yet I've heard very few people theorize that dreaming is happening anywhere but inside the mind of the dreamer. NDEs and OBEs are much the same; the conscious brain shuts down so other parts reconstruct the scene based on its memories and imaginations of it and puts the experiencer "there." There's nothing about any of this that's beyond the ability of the brain and, what's more, rigorous studies of these phenomena have failed to confirm any genuine out-of-body consciousness by, eg, having the NDEer correctly noting details about the space they couldn't otherwise have known. One such researcher placed a scrolling neon sign high up in an operating room with random messages changing every day. No NDEer has yet identified the message; I wonder why?


How does a remote viewer know something about a location without physically being there? If the viewer's consciousness is totally generated by a particular brain, the viewer should not know anything about that location.

Now let me draw the conclusion--if our consciousness is limited to our brains no one should ever--_not even once_--report a successful remote viewing experience. Since they have been reported, an individual's consciousness is not totally generated by the brain.




> Technically you're correct in that the sun will eventually die out itself, but it's perpetual _enough_ to generate the kind of energy over a long enough period of time to generate complexity within its part of the overall system.


How does that happen? The earth has been around for about 5 billion years. There is a limited amount of time. Could we get to our present state with only chance or deterministic laws causing the change?




> As I've explained to you thoroughly before, the odds against us (or anything) being here has nothing to do whether or not chance, determinism, or agents were involved. This is not how probability works.


The point is we are here. There are theories that we got here through only chance and deterministic laws, without the aid of any choices made by agents. 

What I am asking is provide the odds that we could get to our present state using only chance and determinism in a 5 billion year period. It is a test of an hypothesis. Nothing more.




> As I said elsewhere, I find it useful to keep a/theism about belief and a/gnosticism about knowledge, so you can be an "agnostic atheist" and say "I don't believe in any Gods because I see no evidence for them, but I do not state that they certainly don't or can't exist." To me, this 4-way system better reflects how people actually think than the 3-point system of theist/agnostic/atheist.


I am only interested in beliefs. As a belief, is it possible for atheism to allow for _agents to make choices_? These agents could be at any level from slime mold through humans to more powerful agents that could be perceived as deities. 

I maintain that if atheism allows for any such agents, then it is no longer atheism. I suspect that ultimately atheism would have to claim that even we are totally determined and cannot make any choice whatsoever, that is, that no agents exist at all. Since we exist and we make choices, our own existence and behavior is evidence that falsifies atheism.




> Except that this is not all religion attempts to do. It also lays down laws, morality, history, and, yes, natural science. The on-going conflict between Creationism and evolution is a direct example of religion conflicting with science.


Don't forget that atheism has itself behaved badly. Check out the Khmer Rouge or North Korea for recent examples.




> What you remember isn't enough because you're just stating conclusions. Unless you can present a paraphrase of their arguments, there's nothing I have to respond to. It surprises me you can't remember anymore; it seems as if all you were concerned with was whether or not they agreed with you, but not in WHY they agreed with you. That seems to suggest confirmation bias on your part.


Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are what I think are responsible for the creation of pseudo-science. 

I don't know of any specific scientific datum that provides me with any dissonance tension at the moment. That is, I have no problem with current scientific evidence, from quantum mechanics through modern brain scans to big bang cosmology, and so it is unlikely that I would need to present a pseudo-scientific perspective to counter scientific evidence.

However, I don't understand the theories presented in _The Undivided Universe_ which ultimately are Bohm's interpretation for quantum mechanics. You don't have to read this book. It may be difficult for you to get at your library.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> ("cat-dog")-poor choice on my part, but considering how long many animals and specifically insects have been around on this planet, you would think there would be examples of species that have evolved into a new species vs. adaptations within the species... I admit I am just getting started on my understanding of evolution, but I'm seeing alot of conflicting information.


The thing about evolution that a great many don't get is that small changes between one generation turns into huge changes over the course of, say, 1000 generations. You're very rarely going to have speciation within one generation. However, there have been plenty of observed instances. If you're just getting started, I highly recommend either reading a reputable textbook, or reading on a website like TalkOrigins which has a prolific database and a solid FAQ with links to further information. 




> I mostly have a problem with people that poo-poo religious beliefs. I recently watched a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Hamm, and I couldn't help thinking that throughout the whole debate neither side really effectively refuted the other side, but that Nye attempted to make creationists look essentially stupid or as lacking a background in science, when in fact Hamm made it quite clear that his side was all for science and that he understood science very well.


The Nye/Hamm debate was terrible for both sides. Neither were good debaters and neither did a good job at addressing the others' points. However, debates are, in general, an awful way at really gauging either side of the debate; the format forces participants to truncate arguments that typically require a much more amount of time to properly dig into. However, Nye is hardly alone in thinking Young Earth Creationists are stupid; practically every scientist thinks this. The evidence for an old Earth and evolution are simply so overwhelming that YECs have to either ignore or excuse mountains of data to believe what they do. Nye's points about yearly ice layers, tree rings, and carbon dating can't be answered by YECs, and Hamm's "points" about historic evidence is a non-starter if we consider something like Nye's Crime Scene Investigation (a point I wish he'd pushed further). Hamm TRIED to argue that there was some "controversy" about dating methods, but there's really not. Carbon dating is not perfectly accurate, but neither is it off by large factors that would suggest things were millions of years old if they were only a few thousand. 

I do want to stress, though, that it's possible to be religious without buying into the idiocy of YEC. Scientists like Michael Behe and Francis Collins and others are theists, as are many biologists that accept evolution, deny YEC, but still believe in a God of some sort. The mistake that YEC make is in reading the entire Bible literally, and such an approach is not supportable either by what we know via modern science or what we know about The Bible's literary origins. A great many of its books and stories are adapted from myths that already had a long history at the time: Noah being an adaptation of Gilgamesh's flood is one such obvious example. Likewise, origin myths were pervasive in cultures before the OT was written. Change a few elements and you end up with Genesis. The point being that such stories were meant as religiously inspired art, as allegories, no different than, say, Paradise Lost. Believers run into their greatest problems in trying to treat The Bible literally. 




> They have some pretty good theories, but The Big Bang isn't actually observable in the sense of seeing it actually happen, or what was going on before it happened, its all theory atm.


You do know it was a Catholic priest that first proposed The Big Bang Theory, right? Anyway, yes, it's true that such a thing is not directly observable; however, such theory do have testable, observable consequences. EG, if there was a Big Bang we'd expect our universe to be expanding, and thanks to astronomical observations and things like redshift, we know this is true. Further, we can model that expansion and "rewind it" backwards to a point where our current models break down. So such things aren't just "a theory" as in "a guess," they're founded on confirmed predictions. 




> This is why I find it almost inconceivable to make the claim that there is no God vs. saying you aren't sure because there isn't enough compelling evidence. There is a difference between an atheist and an agnostic...


I already addressed this in a previous post towards you. To copy/paste: "I rather like the model that uses a/theism to deal with BELIEVE and a/gnosticism to deal with KNOWLEDGE. So an "agnostic athiest" says "I don't believe in God, but do not claim to know he doesn't exist," while a "gnostic atheist" says "I don't believe in God and would claim to know he doesn't exist." I consider myself in the former "agnostic atheist" camp. But, as I've said before, agnostics themselves can range all the way from "pretty sure God exists" to "pretty sure God doesn't exist." Really, I wish people could just express their level of belief/disbelief in probabilities. Like, I'd say I'm about 99% God doesn't exist, and I preserve that extra 1% only on the basis that there is still, indeed, a lot we don't know, and it's possible, though I see no reason to think it likely, that God might exist out there in that 1% of what's unknown."




> I would be totally willing to swear off any thoughts about religion if science can irrefutably prove there is no God and can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how the universe came into existence.


You might consider asking yourself how science could irrefutably prove there is no God or how the the universe came into existence. With the former, as long as there's something we don't know, believers can always say that God exists "out there." With the latter, apart from us being able to create a new universe in a lab, I don't see how such a thing is feasible. Like I said, we already know that quantum fields are capable of producing a universe, so why is not logical to just assume they did rather than assuming that God exists and assuming he created quantum fields and assuming that he then created a universe either from the quantum fields or own his own? The former is just so much simpler, hence Occam's Razor.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> More the condescending tone of your remarks than anything actually said. You seem to equate belief in God with stupidity.


I just carefully reread my last reply to you and I can't, for the life of me, understand what you're hearing as a "condescending tone." You said that the things science say must be accepted "without proof positive," and I responded by saying that science doesn't really seek proofs, and then explained why I was more willing to believe what scientists said. Then, to your point about religion being personal, I laid out my problems with religion when it doesn't stay personal, which, surely, you must agree happens. 

I don't equate belief in God with "stupidity," but I do equate it with irrationality; that said, I think ALL people are irrational because irrationality is hard-wired into our brains. I tend to find that non-believers tend to only be slightly less irrational about that one subject, but not less irrational about anything else. I also think religious believers tend to be more ignorant (and ignorance isn't stupidity since everyone is ignorant about something; I know practically nothing about, say, medicine or law or politics or history) about science and, specifically, where science conflicts with their beliefs.

----------


## Vota

That was a good post Morpheus. I personally don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, nor that everything the bible says should be taken literally, but I'm open to listening to people, in this case Nye vs. Hamm.

I do feel that Hamm trying to discredit the reliability and accuracy of carbon dating, or snow layers was abit much. I understand the concept of half-lives and it doesn't take faith to accept dating methods of various sorts.

At this point I'm pretty much just keeping open as best as I can and holding off on coming to definite conclusions unless I am REALLY certain.

Whether God exists and created this universe may never be answered or refuted in my lifetime so I may have to hang in limbo there.

----------


## Frostball

"Keep an open mind - but not so open your brain falls out" --quote attributed to various people, including Richard Feynman and Bertrand Russell.

----------


## Pendragon

> I also think religious believers tend to be more ignorant (and ignorance isn't stupidity since everyone is ignorant about something; I know practically nothing about, say, medicine or law or politics or history) about science and, specifically, where science conflicts with their beliefs.


Ignorance isn't stupidity? Huh. Since ignorance means "lack of knowledge: it sounds like stupidity to me, which no one likes to be called. Perhaps "uneducated about certain things" might be a better way to say it, because it leaves room for people to educate themselves if they chose. For me "ignorance" indicates a total lack of willingness to change belief. That isn't me.

For my part, I tend to find people for whom science is a religion arrogant, and rabidly arrogant at that. 

A middle of the road is best, but neither will bend as a general thing. 

Some religious people deny science, which is not what I have presented, because it is foolish to deny what you can observe and science explains. The earth goes around the sun. The earth is NOT flat. Animals and humans evolve.

Science lovers put their trust in chance for the creation of the universe. That is irrational due to the multiplicity of coincidences that must come up positive to make complex organisms from chance alone. 

Let us agree to disagree. I still bear you no ill will. I would not that we part as enemies.

God bless

Pen

----------


## Frostball

Ignorance is "lack of knowledge or information" which is entirely different from stupid. It means exactly what you said you would prefer, "uneducated about certain things." That really is exactly what ignorance means. Everybody is ignorant about some things, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, in fact it's unavoidable. I think once again this is because in colloquial usage people just say "That person is ignorant" to mean the person is an all around stupid person. They are using the word wrong if that's what they are trying to say.

----------


## The Atheist

> Science lovers put their trust in chance for the creation of the universe. That is irrational due to the multiplicity of coincidences that must come up positive to make complex organisms from chance alone.


You're making several errors here.

First off, scientists are not putting any trust in chance for creation of the universe. They don't put any trust in anything, in fact.

We know the universe exists, what it looks like, most of its physical characteristics, and its current behaviour. From those, scientists paint a picture of what is likely to have happened. Experiments at CERN and other places are helping us learn about the creation of the universe, but we are still ignorant about it to a large degree. 

Given that it was >13 billion years ago, I don't think anyone has a problem with that ignorance. We may never know exactly how it happened, but suggesting anyone is putting trust in one specific formation theory is incorrect. Sure, there was a Big Bang, but why is the question that matters.

The other error is that evolution & abiogenesis couldn't have happened due to the almost infinite mathematical odds against it.

Again, we know that life did aruse because we are here, so the only question is actually abiogenesis. Mathematical models are available showing that the amount of time available was sufficient to bring about evolution as we see it every day. The christian argument against the time is constantly hampered by conveniently ignoring data. Viruses, for instance, can create amazing mutational shifts in extremely short periods of time, of which some may become successful and permanent.

In the case of the start of living organisms, no, we cannot say with any degree of certainty how it came about, so there is room in there for a creator.

If a creator's only action was to spark life then sit back and watch it evolve for 3 or 4 billion years, it wouldn't be much of a creator, in my opinion, but I agree the option is open for it to be there.

Scientifically, that's the only gap you have left.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Pen, I think both Frost and The Atheist thoroughly addressed all your points. I DID mean "ignorance" as Frost defined it; in fact, the reason for my parenthetical definition is so you wouldn't think I was using it insultingly. If I say I'm ignorant about politics, and I am, then all that means is that I haven't studied that subject. Stupidity suggests both a lack of knowledge and a lack of an ability to learn; often these are related, but not always. Ignorance is just an inevitable result of living finite lives where nobody can devote the necessary time to every subject under the sun. Also, I don't know why you would bear me any ill will, or think that I bore you ill will, just because we disagree; as I said in my last post, I think you're reading hostility in my posts where none is or was intended. I'm just arguing points, not people. 




> Science lovers put their trust in chance for the creation of the universe. That is irrational due to the multiplicity of coincidences that must come up positive to make complex organisms from chance alone.


There was a previous thread where YesNo and I debated this point quite thoroughly; if you care I could hunt for it, as I'd hate to try and repeat all the points I made. Perhaps the most salient one most simply stated is this: once an event is happened, the probability of it happening is 100%. Looking back retrospectively and calculating the odds against it doesn't really give us any relevant information. Consider if you were watching cars go by on a high way and started writing down license plates; do this for 100 cars, calculate the total number of possible combinations, and then figure out how likely it is you saw the EXACT combination you saw. OF COURSE the probability would be miniscule, but what does this tell us about what you saw? Absolutely nothing. Similarly, even though the probability of complex organisms arising "from chance alone" is incredibly small, that likewise doesn't tell us anything since we already know life is here. 

That said, there are certain things that make such an event more likely than you might imagine. EG, when most look back and calculate the probability against it happening, they often forget to take into account how many trial runs such an event had. Given early earth conditions and how many biochemical interactions were happening, there were likely countless possibilities for such a thing to happen. I mean, the odds of rolling 20 dice simultaneously and them all landing on 6 is small; but if you have enough trials, it will happen eventually. What's more, modern interpretations of quantum mechanics, like MW, make such things not only possible, but inevitable, since every possible outcome happens in some world; we would just happen to find ourselves in the world(s) where life (and us) happened.

----------


## YesNo

> The other error is that evolution & abiogenesis couldn't have happened due to the almost infinite mathematical odds against it.
> 
> Again, we know that life did aruse because we are here, so the only question is actually abiogenesis. Mathematical models are available showing that the amount of time available was sufficient to bring about evolution as we see it every day.


Do you have a link to support that there was sufficient time for this to occur by chance alone so that no agent of any sort was involved?




> If a creator's only action was to spark life then sit back and watch it evolve for 3 or 4 billion years, it wouldn't be much of a creator, in my opinion, but I agree the option is open for it to be there.
> 
> Scientifically, that's the only gap you have left.


The only challenge worth presenting to a religious person is whether they can actually establish a relationship between themselves and some consciousness that they refer to as God.

----------


## YesNo

> Ignorance is "lack of knowledge or information" which is entirely different from stupid.


There is no need to become defensive. If someone objects to the use of a word because they sense a personal attack is involved, stop using it in an argument. Think of another way to make the point.

----------


## YesNo

> *There was a previous thread where YesNo and I debated this point quite thoroughly;* if you care I could hunt for it, as I'd hate to try and repeat all the points I made. Perhaps the most salient one most simply stated is this: *once an event is happened, the probability of it happening is 100%*. Looking back retrospectively and calculating the odds against it doesn't really give us any relevant information. Consider if you were watching cars go by on a high way and started writing down license plates; do this for 100 cars, calculate the total number of possible combinations, and then figure out how likely it is you saw the EXACT combination you saw. OF COURSE the probability would be miniscule, but what does this tell us about what you saw? Absolutely nothing. Similarly, even though the probability of complex organisms arising "from chance alone" is incredibly small, that likewise doesn't tell us anything since we already know life is here. 
> 
> That said, there are certain things that make such an event more likely than you might imagine. EG, when most look back and calculate the probability against it happening, they often forget to take into account how many trial runs such an event had. Given early earth conditions and how many biochemical interactions were happening, there were likely countless possibilities for such a thing to happen. I mean, the odds of rolling 20 dice simultaneously and them all landing on 6 is small; but if you have enough trials, it will happen eventually. *What's more, modern interpretations of quantum mechanics, like MW, make such things not only possible, but inevitable*, since every possible outcome happens in some world; we would just happen to find ourselves in the world(s) where life (and us) happened.


Just for the record, we have never discussed anything in any thread "thoroughly". 

Although the probability of an event happening is 100% after it has happened, the question is: how did that event happen? Specifically, in this case, were there agents involved who could make choices or not. When I refer to agents, I don't just mean deities, but any agents of whatever sort from slime molds (who apparently can make decisions) to humans to agents we are unaware of. So go back to this event and ask the question: could it have occurred without the involvement of any agents? If no agents were involved, it happened entirely by chance. If one finds that very unlikely then one has an argument for some sort of agency involved that made choices.

More reasonable and scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics would disagree with the pseudo-science of many worlds. If you are relying on many worlds then the grounds for your position is no stronger than that of someone promoting young earth creationism. Many worlds makes atheism look bad in the same way that young earth creationism makes Christianity look bad.

----------


## Pendragon

> You're making several errors here.


 So you keep telling me. The feeling is mutual, as I think you are making errors as well.





> The other error is that evolution & a bio-genesis couldn't have happened due to the almost infinite mathematical odds against it.


 And yet God alone knows how many times I have heard this type of argument "the chance is so miniscule" to protest against the existence of God. We had a thread here once on evolution versus creation that went on forever, and this was the general tone for the disapproval of belief in God. You seem more likely to stick to your belief without destroying mine. I agree with that. Others on here could tell you I have reproved Christians, Islams, or what ever if their way of debate is to call names and bad mouth. I am sorry for the misunderstanding, here in Southwest VA "ignorance" does indeed mean "stupid". I do apologize. 






> In the case of the start of living organisms, no, we cannot say with any degree of certainty how it came about, so there is room in there for a creator.


And you proved me right. If I don't agree with on everything, I do think this: Chance is a pretty much infinite rage of possibilities. So that the earth came about by some not as yet understood phenomena and that it was created by God are both in there. 

God Bless

Pen

----------


## The Atheist

> So you keep telling me. The feeling is mutual, as I think you are making errors as well.


Well, I've pointed out what yours are, so you could certainly help me by telling what errors you think I'm making.




> And yet God alone knows how many times I have heard this type of argument "the chance is so miniscule" to protest against the existence of God.


There's a big difference. I've seen people displaying algorithms to show that the time, sporadic mutations becoming successful, and all the other factors of evolution actually work on a mathematical model.

That's real, concrete mathematics. I'm not saying the maths make evolution true, but it shows that it is a possible outcome.

I don't know how one would ascribe a mathematical value to the existence of god/s, so I wouldn't try that approach. I just ask for one piece of reliable evidence. Just one.




> You seem more likely to stick to your belief without destroying mine.


What beliefs do you think I have?

I try very hard not to have any at all, beyond "reality actually exists" or cogito ergo sum. Everything else is subject to testing and replication.

You may think I "believe" in science, but that would be incorrect. I believe things that have been subjected to that testing and replication. Cogito ergo sum. 




> And you proved me right. If I don't agree with on everything, I do think this: Chance is a pretty much infinite rage of possibilities. So that the earth came about by some not as yet understood phenomena and that it was created by God are both in there.


Sure they are - that point is fine, but as I already said, if the god's action is limited to tinkering with the spark of life and/or the universe, then you're not far from Spinoza's god. 




> God Bless
> 
> Pen


As always, a pleasure!

You think we'd both be old enough not to write this stuff any more, wouldn't you?

Something about old dogs & new tricks, I suspect.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> So go back to this event and ask the question: could it have occurred without the involvement of any agents? ...If one finds that very unlikely then one has an argument for some sort of agency involved that made choices.


You still don't understand that retrospectively calculating the odds against an event happening _is in no way evidence for any agents being involved._ This is the point I thoroughly explained that you never addressed. Take my license plate example: 100 observed license plates for which there are 6^100 possible combinations, yet you saw one of them. So the odds are one in 6^100 you saw what you did. Does the astronomical odds against seeing that combination even suggest that some agent was behind producing the exact combination you saw? Of course not! All that's necessary is for something to be _possible_, and you and every theist has utterly failed at arguing how it's impossible that we got here via the random events of the universe eventually leading to life, to evolution, to us. 




> More reasonable and scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics would disagree with the pseudo-science of many worlds.


It's not pseudoscience, you annoying twit. You can't produce a single authority that says it is. You've repeatedly demonstrated you don't even understand what it is. You couldn't even paraphrase the criticisms Bohm had against it. What's more, anyone that promotes "remote viewing" (something which the scientific community HAS definitively labeled as "pseudoscience" after several multi-million dollar studies and not a single positive result that found its way to peer-review) and Deepok Chopra is in no position to claim anything as psuedoscience. You're just talking out your ***, like usual. 

If it weren't for your insistence on repeating lies like this, I wouldn't even respond to you anymore. But someone has to take the time to make sure others less knowledgeable don't fall for your crap; the same way so many scientists now have to spend their time fighting off nonsense like YEC.

----------


## Pendragon

> You're just talking out your ***, like usual.


And demeaning comments like this have no place in our discussions on this thread. If you disagree with some one or think their statements have no merit, say so. No need to resort to this type of inflammatory statement.




> Well, I've pointed out what yours are, so you could certainly help me by telling what errors you think I'm making.


Respectfully, you have pointed out where YOU consider me in error.


Allow me to do the same. You discount God and think He has no place in the Universe. It is a mistake to discount what you do not understand and do not believe. There is always room to wiggle, and you could be wrong. I believe in God but do not discount science's explanations for many things. If I cannot see how something is probable simply because it is possible, I try to do research.

God bless

Pen

PS Yeah, we are getting too old for this, mon ami!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Ecurb

> What beliefs do you think I have?
> 
> I try very hard not to have any at all, beyond "reality actually exists" or cogito ergo sum. Everything else is subject to testing and replication.
> 
> You may think I "believe" in science, but that would be incorrect. I believe things that have been subjected to that testing and replication. Cogito ergo sum. 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Since you ask, it appears that you believe in replicants, the super-human cyborgs from Blade Runner. At least, you believe in replication, possibly performed by the Tyrell Corporation in the production of replicants.

I suppose it is possible, instead, that you believe in Calvins replicator (from Calvin and Hobbes). Most of us remember how Calvin made replicas of himself who could attend school in his stead. Unfortunately, Calvins plan backfired, because his replicas were as bratty as he is. 

It is vaguely possible that you mean you believe in testing that can be duplicated or reproduced to give credence to the first results. However, to say that you dont believe in science, but believe in experimental tests that can be duplicated is equivalent to saying, I dont believe in science, I believe in science (or the scientific method). 

There are two problems with this approach. First, nothing can be replicated. All events are unique (Im leaving many worlds out of the equation here this refers only to our universe). Experiments can approximate one another, but cannot duplicate one another. It is true, of course, that approximately repeatable experiments can falsify our ideas about how nature works (can falsify the laws of nature which we have invented to describe and predict events). However, the laws, which are human inventions, do not take precedence over the events they describe or predict, and the events themselves cannot be repeated. 

Second, how would your belief system allow anyone to operate in the world? Would we believe that John Kennedy has been assassinated only if he could be brought back to life and killed again? Would we have to divorce our wives and remarry before honoring our vows? Everything that happens is unique. We limit our knowledge of the world if we refuse to believe history. Even science involves not only repeatable experiments, but observation of non-repeatable events. The eruption of Mt. St. Helens happened whether we can repeat it or not. If Caesar said, Et tu, Brute, he said it only once. No testing and replication can either confirm or refute this historical anecdote. If (as is not the case) my wife gave me a kiss this morning, she gave me a kiss -- however unlikely that event is to be "replicated".

----------


## The Atheist

> ....irrelevant material excised....


A very quick point:

I did not mention anything about having any kind of belief in testing & replication.

If you actually read a post for a change, instead of assuming you know what it says, you will see I said that things are *subject* to testing & replication, not *I believe in*. Subtle difference, but I'm sure with the help of dictionary.com or some other resource, you'll catch up.




> Allow me to do the same. You discount God and think He has no place in the Universe. It is a mistake to discount what you do not understand and do not believe.


I think you're still getting my stance wrong. 

For instance, I could see where a god could fit quite nicely into the universe. I just see nothing to support the idea.

As to discounting things I don't understand, that's also incorrect.

Like you, if I don't understand something, I will try to learn about it and find explanations. So far, there are actually quite a few things that come into that category. Things like:

Gravity
Black holes
Dark matter/energy

and most of quantum physics, which is often counter-intuitive.

In the meantime, I accept that they occur/exist, but can't see where they fit any god hypothesis, so I wait for science to explain them.

----------


## YesNo

> You still don't understand that retrospectively calculating the odds against an event happening _is in no way evidence for any agents being involved._


Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am looking for. We know we are here. We know about how long the earth has been around (say 5 billion years). There are two competing claims: (1) it is *likely* that these events occurred by chance, vs (2) it is *unlikely* that chance could have done this. Based on what I have read from both sides on the internet, it seems to me highly unlikely these events occurred by chance. 

This doesn't prove that agents were involved, but it undermines the metaphysics that no agents whatsoever exist. The agents I am referring to need not be Gods, but slime molds (recently found to be rather intelligent even though they don't have any brain to speak of), microorganisms who I suspect make a choice every time they "replicate", as well as humans and anything else in the environment that ultimately "selects" them by its own existence and choices. 

What I am looking for is a non-deterministic biological approach, with all the expected evolutionary processes, rather a deterministic chemical-physical approach to explaining the universe we are part of. The deterministic approach has failed to deliver its promise anyway.




> It's not pseudoscience, you annoying twit. You can't produce a single authority that says it is. You've repeatedly demonstrated you don't even understand what it is. You couldn't even paraphrase the criticisms Bohm had against it. What's more, anyone that promotes "remote viewing" (something which the scientific community HAS definitively labeled as "pseudoscience" after several multi-million dollar studies and not a single positive result that found its way to peer-review) and Deepok Chopra is in no position to claim anything as psuedoscience. You're just talking out your ***, like usual.


Bohm and Hiley's view of many worlds was quite negative. True, they didn't use "pseudo-science". If you agree to read this text, I don't mind discussing it with you in a separate thread.

I'm using term _pseudo-science_ to characterize theories that claim to have the authority of science, and yet present views that undermine the data collected by science. I think cognitive dissonance underlies why this occurs. I apply the term to young earth creationism because it does not accept the data about the age of the earth. I apply the term to many worlds because it does not accept the data supporting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. 

I don't know much about remote viewing. I am aware that people call these sorts of ideas "pseudo-science", but I don't know what scientific facts they are setting up a theory to counter. Mostly these groups just report events that they have observed and then the "scientists" freak out and say they could not have occurred, yadda, yadda, yadda. 

Personally, I have more admiration for someone who reports an event than for someone who has to dismiss it because of the dissonance the data causes to their belief systems.

----------


## Ecurb

> I did not mention anything about having any kind of belief in testing & replication.
> 
> If you actually read a post for a change, instead of assuming you know what it says, you will see I said that things are *subject* to testing & replication, not *I believe in*. Subtle difference, but I'm sure with the help of dictionary.com or some other resource, you'll catch up.


As you kindly point out in your latest post, you made two mistakes. First, you said, "Everything else (other than "reality exists") is subject to testing and replication." Since neither the assassination of Kennedy nor whether I smooched my (or anyone else's) wife this morning is subject to "testing and replication", this is clearly either incorrect or extremely limiting.

You then say, "I believe things that have been subjected to testing and replication." I'll grant that you didn't say, "I believe ONLY THOSE things....." So you have some wiggle room about whether you can believe any of those inumerable thngs that are not subject to "replication", which include everything that happens in this universe, including the results of scientific experiments, which are all unique. As mal4mac pointed out earlier in this thread, observations are the basis of (he said, "science", but I would say, "knowledge"). Observations of unique events (i.e. all events) are not "replicatable". What is replicatable is a failure to falsify a scientific theory through observing similar events (experiments) that have the potential to falsify the theory.

Scientific theories are not facts. They are explanations of facts, or predictions about facts, or ways of organizing and thinking about facts. The facts (i.e. what actually happens) are not subject to testing and replication, because they are unique, happen in time and space, and have already happened.

----------


## Pendragon

Take Lewis Carroll

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."  :Willy Nilly:  :Willy Nilly:

----------


## The Atheist

> The facts (i.e. what actually happens) are not subject to testing and replication, because they are unique, happen in time and space, and have already happened.


Had you ever considered not being deliberately obtuse?

No? I'm not surprised - I guess it becomes a habit after a while and saves on reading contextually.




> Take Lewis Carroll


I would, except he used to carry around a lot of pictures of little naked girls, so I'm not sure I could take him many places.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

----------


## Ecurb

> Had you ever considered not being deliberately obtuse?
> 
> .


Have you ever considered not being undeliberately obtuse? I suppose not.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> And demeaning comments like this have no place in our discussions on this thread. If you disagree with some one or think their statements have no merit, say so. No need to resort to this type of inflammatory statement.


Listen, I've been over this with YesNo ad nauseam across countless threads. He's had no less than 4 different posters tell him he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to quantum physics, yet he insists on making insulting claims like "Many Worlds is pseudoscience" without even understanding what MW is or being able to cite any authorities that support him. It's flat-out exhausting to argue with him because about 95% of the time he completely ignores what you say and responds with non-sequitors in between stating lies and falsities that he's been informed are lies and falsities. He'll endlessly repeat points he's made even after you've responded to them thoroughly. His "probability" argument in this thread is one which I've already responded to in another that, like usual, he completely ignored and has continued to make the same "point" as if I never said anything. His style was so frustrating that one actual physics student gave up addressing him (Cioran). After a while, one suspects that he's just a dishonest troll trying to convince naive minds that don't know any better, because his points may sound "reasonable" to anyone that knows little about these subjects. 

So please don't think that what I'm saying about YesNo is extended to you or anyone else in this thread, and also don't think that it comes out-of-the-blue for no reason. I can link you to at least 4 other threads where we've been over this, and I can show you points I've made that he's ignored while continuing to repeat his same arguments over and over. Whatever his beliefs, it's the exact same tactics I see Creationists using; even after a point of theirs has been thoroughly refuted, they'll continue to make the point in hopes of convincing people that don't know any better.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> There are two competing claims: (1) it is *likely* that these events occurred by chance, vs (2) it is *unlikely* that chance could have done this. Based on what I have read from both sides on the internet, it seems to me highly unlikely these events occurred by chance.


Again, we've been over this. You say "happen by chance," but I don't think you know what that really means. You agreed in a previous thread (probably before you knew what you were talking about) that the null hypothesis is the default position, and the null hypothesis is "chance." To move away from the null hypothesis requires more than just calculating the odds against something happening, yet this is all you're describing. There's no way to calculate the probability that something happened "by chance," there is only the probability of it happening for whatever reason. The probability against seeing those 100 license plates "by chance" is 6^100, which means it's astronomically unlikely. This in no way suggests it DIDN'T happen by chance, and to even begin arguing that requires more than just the probability of happening at all. So no matter how unlikely it is that life and us got here by the "chance" processes of evolution and natural selection, that's in no way evidence for or against agents being involved. Until you get this fundamental point I don't see any reason to continue. 




> Bohm and Hiley's view of many worlds was quite negative. True, they didn't use "pseudo-science".


Not a single theoretical physicist would describe MW as "pseudoscience." Only someone like yourself that has no clue what it is would say that. What's more, only someone with no clue about the subject, in general, would be incapable of paraphrasing an argument against it that you read. 




> I'm using term _pseudo-science_ to characterize theories that claim to have the authority of science, and yet present views that undermine the data collected by science.


That's pretty close to the actual definition, and under that definition falls something like remote viewing. 




> I apply the term to many worlds because it does not accept the data supporting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.


Yes it does! MW explains what is happening to cause Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle! In fact, the only real difference between CHI and MW is that the former says that a "collapse" is causing HUP while the latter says that decoherence is causing HUP. The former has no foundation either in the math or observations and conflicts with everything else we know about physics; the latter is actually taking the math as real, fits the observations, and doesn't conflict with everything else we know about physics. 




> I have more admiration for someone who reports an event than for someone who has to dismiss it because of the dissonance the data causes to their belief systems.


Dude, there have been multiple multi-million dollar government funded studies done on remote viewing, and all of them were shut down due to a lack of results, after which the scientific community labeled it as "pseudoscience." I'm not dismissing it "because it causes dissonance with my belief system," there's already pretty definitive scientific data out there!

----------


## Pendragon

> I'm not sure I could take him many places.
> 
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.


Just humor, mon ami. Running low on points as it matters little, we are at an impasse, because I'm not going to change and neither are you, which is as it should be. One should stand on their own principals, or one has no principals.

And Morpheus: I understand the frustration of dealing with someone who depends on the same old unsubstantiated points. I still say your comment was uncalled for.

I try to let people know I believe God created the world, but certain scientific facts do not change. Evolution is a fact, not just a belief. Laws of physics do not change. But as the Bible says "With MEN these things are impossible. But with God all things are possible." Humanity is required to follow only what can be done within the boundaries of science and physics. God by definition is not subject to these, but goes beyond them.

So I cannot defy gravity, go faster than the speed of light, produce more energy than I expend, be unaffected by inertia and friction, etc. But God as all powerful can. 

I know this probably doesn't fit into your world view. That's fine. No fuss from me. I just believe what I believe, as do you. 

God bless both of you

Pen

Oh, and Lewis Carrol posed his "naked little girls" with wings and gauze, showing no indecency and with parental permission. To him they were fairies and other fantasy beings. Yeah, perhaps he was weird, you never know. But he was pretty careful about the pictures.

----------


## YesNo

> As mal4mac pointed out earlier in this thread, observations are the basis of (he said, "science", but I would say, "knowledge"). Observations of unique events (i.e. all events) are not "replicatable". What is replicatable is a failure to falsify a scientific theory through observing similar events (experiments) that have the potential to falsify the theory.
> 
> Scientific theories are not facts. They are explanations of facts, or predictions about facts, or ways of organizing and thinking about facts. The facts (i.e. what actually happens) are not subject to testing and replication, because they are unique, happen in time and space, and have already happened.


I woke up this morning realizing that I think I understand this and agree with you. _Facts_ are unique. They can't be replicated. One can, however, replicate the _failure to falsify a theory_ by doing an experiment again. I suspect one could also replicate _falsifying a theory_. 

Correct me if I got this wrong.

----------


## YesNo

> Dude, there have been multiple multi-million dollar government funded studies done on remote viewing, and all of them were shut down due to a lack of results, after which the scientific community labeled it as "pseudoscience." I'm not dismissing it "because it causes dissonance with my belief system," there's already pretty definitive scientific data out there!


If you look at the bottom of the Wikipedia article you originally cited there is a reference to Michael Persinger's work that "suggests positive results": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_...ecent_research

I wonder if the term "pseudo-science" could be extended to the dismissal of data as well as the construction of theories specifically designed to counter established data. 

All I need is one example of a psychic exhibiting remote viewing for my argument about consciousness not being totally generated by the individual brain to make sense. If consciousness were totally generated by an individual brain, such events should not occur _at all_.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> If you look at the bottom of the Wikipedia article you originally cited there is a reference to Michael Persinger's work that "suggests positive results":


Yes, one guy with "research" that "suggests positive results" obviously outweighs multi-million dollar studies done by multiple governments and shut down due to lack of results. You, of course, are not in any way a victim of confirmation bias, though. 




> All I need is one example of a psychic exhibiting remote viewing for my argument about consciousness not being totally generated by the individual brain to make sense.


Yep, that's all you need. Good luck finding what governments with millions of dollars in research couldn't.

----------


## The Atheist

> Just humor, mon ami. Running low on points as it matters little, we are at an impasse, because I'm not going to change and neither are you, which is as it should be. One should stand on their own principals, or one has no principals.


Other than your spelling (is that American?) I agree. I always get deeply concerned when a principal contacts me - it means one of the kids is in it again!

What a lot of people don't understand - and Richard Dawkins is among them - is that there is nothing wrong at all with religion until it head-butts with science. This is something the Catholic Church realised a long time ago. It is the _people_ within religion who try to use it as a battering ram to force their beliefs onto others that are the problem.

I know you're not one of them.




> Oh, and Lewis Carrol posed his "naked little girls" with wings and gauze, showing no indecency and with parental permission. To him they were fairies and other fantasy beings. Yeah, perhaps he was weird, you never know. But he was pretty careful about the pictures.


He may well have been just on a different plane of existence to the rest of us. Had he not been attracted to fairies, we might not have had Alice. I don't *believe* there are any accusations of abuse around him anyway.

----------


## Pendragon

TheAtheist, Hello, mon ami!

Yes I am American, but that was more depending on auto-correct than spelling goof~! The Principal always made me nervous as well. I stand on my principles,  :Biggrin:

----------


## Vota

Question for you Pendragon. How can you believe God created the world, but then state evolution is a fact? This would imply that you believe man is a product of evolution and not a direct creation of God's. The Holy Bible makes it very explicit that God created Adam, and then Eve from one of his ribs. 

I'm just curious how you differentiate between the creation of the world and the appearance of man, and how you accept God creating the earth, but accept science's theory of evolution? The juxtaposition between the two is pretty big from my point of view.

I want you to know that I am just curious how you reconcile your beliefs with science here and your reasoning for these statements you have made.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> What a lot of people don't understand - and Richard Dawkins is among them - is that there is nothing wrong at all with religion until it head-butts with science. This is something the Catholic Church realised a long time ago. It is the _people_ within religion who try to use it as a battering ram to force their beliefs onto others that are the problem.


Although I agree with you in the abstract, the question becomes: how can religion--which deals with everything from history, to law, to morality, to metaphysics--stay "merely personal" and NOT affect the society in which it operates? While the conflicts between science and religion are amongst the most obvious clashes that display the harmful effects religion can have, certain civil struggles like same-sex marriage and feminism are also in large part due to religious conservatism, where a great many feel homosexuality is a sin and women have certain "places" in society. What I would say, however, is that I feel that these negative aspects would probably exist without religion (especially since I feel religion is man-made and merely an expression of what people feel about these issues anyway); but I also feel that religion gives people a sense of security in their opinions, as if those opinions aren't "their own," so much, but are decreed by an omnipotent, omniscient God who wrote them down in a Holy Book.

----------


## Pendragon

> Question for you Pendragon. How can you believe God created the world, but then state evolution is a fact? This would imply that you believe man is a product of evolution and not a direct creation of God's. The Holy Bible makes it very explicit that God created Adam, and then Eve from one of his ribs. 
> 
> I'm just curious how you differentiate between the creation of the world and the appearance of man, and how you accept God creating the earth, but accept science's theory of evolution? The juxtaposition between the two is pretty big from my point of view.
> 
> I want you to know that I am just curious how you reconcile your beliefs with science here and your reasoning for these statements you have made.


God created man, animals, plants, etc. Yet obviously the ones here now are not the same as the originals. For example, we know a modern horse came down to us from a Eohippus. Big cats came down from Sabretooth tigers. Man has gone through quite a few changes, although with some of their fossil evidence, I wonder if perhaps that single skeleton was merely a diseased or odd looking person. If we took the Elephant Man's skeleton alone, we might think man was deformed badly. If we took Robert Wadlow's we would think men almost nine feet high. If we went by Jyoti Amge and He Pingping (which gives us both sexes) we would think man was barely 2 feet tall and less than 20 pounds.

We know animals migrate and have to change to do so. When I was in elementary school, armadillos were only in Arizona and New Mexico near the southern border. Now they are seen around Nashville, a much colder clime for which they would have to adjust. The Coyote was a western pest, now they howl in the mountains here in Virginia just up the road a mile or so from where I sit typing this.

Why would it be odd to think things evolve from their creation point. If you believe that chance is the father of the universe, then what chance made had to evolve. As I believe it all began with God, the same applies. Things change adapt evolve from their creation and will continued to do so until their place in nature is no longer there.

Maybe I'm a bit strange, but I hope this answers your question.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## The Atheist

> Although I agree with you in the abstract, the question becomes: how can religion--which deals with everything from history, to law, to morality, to metaphysics--stay "merely personal" and NOT affect the society in which it operates?


Some churches seem to manage it - or get very close to the ideal - while many christians treat their faith that way.

The Anglican church is the best example of a religion which tends to stay arm's length from insanity & interference.

They have their petty squabbles over gayness and women bishops, but they generally keep their religion under their hats.

Rastafari would be another [almost] harmless religion.

Few & far between, I'll grant you.

----------


## Vota

"Yet obviously the ones here now are not the same as the originals."

The Bible says God created man, not a chimpanzee or a neanderthal. From Adam and Even you get the whole lineage of their tribe. This directly conflicts with the theory of evolution. There is no evolution going on here except that descendants lives' gradually became less and less long-lived. If you believe in the theory of evolution AND that God created man then you either believe in God, but not Judeo-Christian God, or there is a direct conflict here.

"Why would it be odd to think things evolve from their creation point."

The thing is, in the bible they don't. In most religions they don't. I guess knowing what religion or spiritual system you proscribe to would clear this up. For some reason I assumed you believed in Jehova, but if you don't then that would clear things up.

Do you believe that God, or an all-powerful benevolent force exists and presides over the universe, but independent of any particular belief system? If so, then I could see how that would not necessarily conflict with evolution.

Thanks.

----------


## Vota

Another thought popped into my head. My philosophy professor made a comment that there are potentially as many religions as there are people that hold religious beliefs because everyone practices their religion THEIR way. I think it would be amazing indeed if you could find a single person that completely, perfectly, and literally lived their life according to their specific religion's or belief system's codes. I doubt such a person truly exists, for even one transgression, one violation of the prescribed codes however trivial would be this person's conscious or subconscious decision to do what they want regardless of any outside moral or civic influence.

Some of this sounds like some info I was reading about Sartre yesterday. Its funny how things you read sometimes work their way into your consciousness without you even realizing it.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Some churches seem to manage it - or get very close to the ideal - while many christians treat their faith that way.


I'm still skeptical. Assuming the people of such churches vote, and assuming their religion has opinions on what they're voting on, their religions really aren't keeping out of society.

----------


## The Atheist

> I'm still skeptical. Assuming the people of such churches vote, and assuming their religion has opinions on what they're voting on, their religions really aren't keeping out of society.


I know it's different in your neck of the woods, but among christians down this end of the world, few few of their votes are swayed by their religious belief.

Our former Prime Minister, for example, was a fairly forthright agnostic/atheist, yet a massive number of christians voted for her, while the christian party polled under 1%.

A lot of religion in the western world outside of USA is actually both liberal and quiet.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Fair enough. Perhaps it's just the prevalence of religious extremists in certain parts of the world that have engendered the notion that such "religious poisoning" (as Hitchens called it) is as prevalent everywhere.

----------


## Pendragon

> The Bible says God created man, not a chimpanzee or a neanderthal. From Adam and Even you get the whole lineage of their tribe. This directly conflicts with the theory of evolution. There is no evolution going on here except that descendants lives' gradually became less and less long-lived. If you believe in the theory of evolution AND that God created man then you either believe in God, but not Judeo-Christian God, or there is a direct conflict here.


Man didn't descend from chimpanzees Volta. A Neanderthal is a man. 'chuckle' A few people still look like Neanderthal's. Check professional wrestler "Hacksaw" Jim Dugan!




> The thing is, in the bible they don't. In most religions they don't. I guess knowing what religion or spiritual system you proscribe to would clear this up. For some reason I assumed you believed in Jehova, but if you don't then that would clear things up.


Citation please for this Bible statement. What religions think I am unconcerned. If horses have not evolved show me an Eohippus. Among their fossils appear not a single modern horse. Among fossils of mammoths, sabretooths, giant sloths appear no modern elephants, current big cats, or two toed or three toed sloths. They evolved and changed. 

For the record I believe in Jehovah. You seem to say He couldn't allow animals and humans to adapt to changing environments. Tell me, what right do you have to say Jehovah is so limited in power that He cannot allow change? With God all, and when it says "all" it means "all" things are possible.




> Do you believe that God, or an all-powerful benevolent force exists and presides over the universe, but independent of any particular belief system? If so, then I could see how that would not necessarily conflict with evolution.
> 
> Thanks.


Abraham Lincoln was asked during the Civil War if he believed God was on the Union Side. He stated: "I am not concern about God being on our side, I am concerned with being on God's side, because God's side is right." As for belief systems, to which are you referring? Christianity has as many beliefs as there are stars in the sky. The Jews also worship Jehovah, but Jewish sects are many. Islam believes in the same God as Christians and Jews whom they call Allah. How many interpretations of what Allah desires are there?

God operates outside of belief systems or even among Christians the vast majority would be wrong and a small group right. God is subject to no laws. We cannot limit God.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## glennr25

Science is a liar...sometimes. Take for example the pyramids of Egypt. To this day mainstream scientists are convinced that the pyramids were built with primitive tools such as hammers and chisels. However, there is massive amounts of evidence that shows they had to have had much more advanced technology to move these massive stones miles and miles, and then shape them into bricks as big as minivans. What scientists can't explain, they usually give up trying to come up with a viable explanation, or come up with something that makes no sense at all. Nicola Tesla was shunned from the scientific community when he tried to convince the world that AC power was more efficient and cost-effective than Edison's DC power. So you see, science, in many ways, is no different than religion at all. Both are flawed.﻿

----------


## The Atheist

> Science is a liar...sometimes. Take for example the pyramids of Egypt. To this day mainstream scientists are convinced that the pyramids were built with primitive tools such as hammers and chisels. However, there is massive amounts of evidence that shows they had to have had much more advanced technology to move these massive stones miles and miles, and then shape them into bricks as big as minivans.


Quite right - it was aliens. I thought everyone knew that.

Maybe if you checked what scientists involved with the pyramids actually say about their construction, you wouldn't make such ill-informed comments.

Also, please note that science does not lie. Cannot in fact. Scientists lie all the time - some to try to find fame, others a following. Just look at Michael Behe as a glowing example. Unquestionably a scientist, he lies all the damned time.

Science itself cannot lie, because it's a process, not an entity.




> What scientists can't explain, they usually give up trying to come up with a viable explanation, or come up with something that makes no sense at all.


Utter nonsense, the evidence is enormously overwhelming that that's not what happens at all.

How many billion dollars have we spent on the LHC at CERN? The global array? Space exploration? Molecular biology?

And where have all the scientific discoveries from? Pasteur? Rutherford? Curie? Fleming?

Every scientific achievement has come about because scientists didn't know, so tried to find out - and we're still doing it, with CERN finding out new information and confirming or refuting theories in sub-atomic physics.




> Nicola Tesla was shunned from the scientific community when he tried to convince the world that AC power was more efficient and cost-effective than Edison's DC power. So you see, science, in many ways, is no different than religion at all. Both are flawed.﻿


I'm glad you mention that, because it's a perfect example of science changing and winning.

----------


## glennr25

> Quite right - it was aliens. I thought everyone knew that.
> 
> Maybe if you checked what scientists involved with the pyramids actually say about their construction, you wouldn't make such ill-informed comments.
> 
> Also, please note that science does not lie. Cannot in fact. Scientists lie all the time - some to try to find fame, others a following. Just look at Michael Behe as a glowing example. Unquestionably a scientist, he lies all the damned time.
> 
> Science itself cannot lie, because it's a process, not an entity.
> 
> 
> ...



Where did I say in my post that aliens were responsible for building the pyramids, or was that your own scientific theory? Science can't lie? Aristotle thought the Earth was the center of the universe, it was later disproved by another popular scientist, Galileo. But then Galileo thought comets were optical illusions, and that there was no way the moon could cause the ocean's tides, of course, his theory was later disproved by another well known scientist, Isaac Newton, who, mind you, would later die eating mercury. They all used science to come up with their theories. Thus science is wrong sometimes. Science is a tool, just like religion. If a smart guy tells you the Earth is flat, by God you believe him!

Here's a good article about the many lies of science: http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/...f-science.html

----------


## The Atheist

> Where did I say in my post that aliens were responsible for building the pyramids, or was that your own scientific theory?


You didn't say it was aliens, but if it wasn't humans, who else is there? You say - with no evidence whatsoever - that the pyramids couldn't have been built with primitive tools. We know for sure Egyptians only had primitive tools, so if there's another explanation, I'd be glad to hear it.




> Science can't lie? Aristotle thought the Earth was the center of the universe, it was later disproved by another popular scientist, Galileo.


Aristotle was a *scientist*, he was not science. But your example does again beautifully describe how science works - one scientist proposes a silly theory, another comes along and science changes. Bingo! Now, we all know - well, all except for the guy who used to try to tell us the earth is centre of the universe - that the universe does not revolve around planet Earth. 




> But then Galileo thought comets were optical illusions, and that there was no way the moon could cause the ocean's tides, of course, his theory was later disproved by another well known scientist, Isaac Newton, who, mind you, would later die eating mercury.


Apart from the idiotic premise that Newton died from eating Mercury, you're showing very nicely how science changes. As with the above example of Aristotle, science changed after developments by later scientists. You're contradicting yourself most brilliantly!

Newton possibly did die from mercury poisoning, but that's not by eating, it would be to do with chemical experiments and not recognising how poisonous is. SCIENCE has since taught us that mercury is a dangerous poison.




> Here's a good article about the many lies of science: http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/...f-science.html


Riiiight.

Yeah, that contradicts science alright. All those guys with Nobel prizes and PhDs in science, and you're listening to some bloke who writes a blog.

Sounds legit.

----------


## glennr25

Science changes. Really? Is that the best you can do? Rats change, birds change, planets change, everything changes. You have to be a bit more specific.

As for the guy in the blog. I'll believe him over all those hotshot scientists out to pad their million dollar homes any day of the week. By the way if you did a little research you'll find that Denis Rancourt is a SCIENTIST.

----------


## The Atheist

> Science changes. Really? Is that the best you can do? Rats change, birds change, planets change, everything changes. You have to be a bit more specific.


My apologies, but I can't be more specific than that. It's why science claims things as "theory", like evolution. Every scientist agrees it happened, but there are trillions of pieces of information to piece together, and since we lack evidence for a lot of it, the theory can only ever keep changing and improving.

If you want something rigid and inflexible to rule your world, try religion!




> As for the guy in the blog. I'll believe him over all those hotshot scientists out to pad their million dollar homes any day of the week.


Yep, those scientists are so damned rich! Look at how many of them there are on the Forbes rich list! 

As to money, check out how much your blogger pal makes from the ads splattered all over his site.

Look, you're welcome to believe what you like, but your nonsensical posts are not really arguing a point so much as going "Waaa, I hate science!".

I'll never understand why people feel that way, but since you're typing messages on a keyboard attached to/inside a computer, using the internet, powered by electricity, fibre-optic cables, servers and binary codes all given to us by science, it all seems a bit hypocritical.

----------


## glennr25

> My apologies, but I can't be more specific than that. It's why science claims things as "theory", like evolution. Every scientist agrees it happened, but there are trillions of pieces of information to piece together, and since we lack evidence for a lot of it, the theory can only ever keep changing and improving.
> 
> If you want something rigid and inflexible to rule your world, try religion!
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those scientists are so damned rich! Look at how many of them there are on the Forbes rich list! 
> 
> As to money, check out how much your blogger pal makes from the ads splattered all over his site.
> ...



If you practiced what you preached and did a bit of research, you would have found that Denis Rancourt is a well-known scientist. He is not just some blogger. 

Where did I say I hate science? I'm a science-fiction writer. Take a gander at the quote below--from one of the most popular science fiction books ever written.

----------


## The Atheist

Oh, quelle surprise!

It's not as though the author of the blog, one Denis G Rancourt has anything to be a little sour grapes about, is it?

Maybe you should donate to his legal defence fund? Is your posting merely an attempt to gain hits and money for his legal fund?

Are you, in fact, Dennis G Rancourt?

----------


## glennr25

You keep making baseless assumptions. Hey! Kinda like a scientist.

----------


## glennr25

We can keep arguing about this until the cows come home. The fact remains, religion and science are both institutions. These institutions are governed by people, not robots, not angels, not aliens from Planet X. And just like any institution there are things that are left unexplored to keep its reputation intact. So when a Nikola Tesla, or Denis Rancourt, or Jesus comes along and tries to explore those taboo areas and show people the truth, they are automatically shunned and disbarred from the institution. 

Science can be good but it can be bad too. Religion can be good but can also be bad. 

The person who is trying to discern between the two has to take it upon themselves to make a decision. Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church. 

It should be done on their own.

----------


## The Atheist

> You keep making baseless assumptions. Hey! Kinda like a scientist.


Completely wrong again, sorry.

Like science, I am asking questions rather than assuming.

Have you ever considered being right about something? It's free of charge, you know.




> We can keep arguing about this until the cows come home.


Looks like you're determined to. Fine by me - my job means I can take a quick 5 minutes here anytime I feel like it, and because you keep making totally erroneous posts, I'll keep playing.




> The fact remains, religion and science are both institutions.


And there you go - 100% incorrect again.

You yourself say it even!




> These institutions are governed by people, not robots, not angels, not aliens from Planet X. And just like any institution there are things that are left unexplored to keep its reputation intact. So when a Nicola Tesla, or Denis Rancourt, or Jesus comes along and tries to explore those taboo areas and show people the truth, they are automatically shunned and disbarred from the institution.


More nonsense.

You say people rule science? Point to them. Tell me which institution and people "govern science". 

Note: your pal Rancourt has been barred from one university. He is still able to pursue scientific interests and publish his work. He is not in any meaning of the word "barred" from science. Even complete muppets like Behe are not barred from science. Laughed at, sure, but not barred.




> Science can be good but it can be bad too. Religion can be good but can also be bad. 
> 
> The person who is trying to discern which to believe has to take it upon themselves to make a decision. Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church. 
> 
> It should be done on their own.


I'd answer that, but since it doesn't meet the standard of "better than word salad" I won't try.

----------


## glennr25

People don't rule science? Are you kidding me? Do you actually believe this stuff yourself? Tell that to the thousands of Japanese civilians that died when the atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. 

As for Rancourt, his reputation has been taken away from him, thus his future as a practitioner of science is rather bleak. The powers that be decided to make a mockery of him because he wanted to tell the TRUTH.

----------


## The Atheist

> People don't rule science? Are you kidding me? Do you actually believe this stuff yourself? Tell that to the thousands of Japanese civilians that died when the atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


Which scientist was piloting the Enola Gay that day? Which scientific institution ordered it to drop the bombs?

Seriously, your posts are becoming crazier by the post.

You credit science with the Hiroshima bombing, despite the fact that the attack was ordered by, and committed by, non-scientists, while laughingly deriding science on that keyboard I mentioned above. (That you also had no answer to.)




> As for Rancourt, his reputation has been taken away from him, thus his future as a practitioner of science is rather bleak. The powers that be decided to make a mockery of him because he wanted to tell the TRUTH.


Well, of course. It's always about THE TRUTH, isn't it?

Tell me. 

How come your boy Rancourt - a scientist - is believable when all other scientists are not?

Be honest - what relationship do you have to Rancourt? Why are you supporting him so fervently, accepting his word as THE TRUTH, while simultaneously calling all other scientists cheats & frauds?

Thanks in advance - I think you really should clear that up.

----------


## YesNo

> We can keep arguing about this until the cows come home. The fact remains, religion and science are both institutions. These institutions are governed by people, not robots, not angels, not aliens from Planet X. *And just like any institution there are things that are left unexplored to keep its reputation intact.* So when a Nicola Tesla, or Denis Rancourt, or Jesus comes along and tries to explore those taboo areas and show people the truth, they are automatically *shunned* and disbarred from the institution. 
> 
> Science can be good but it can be bad too. Religion can be good but can also be bad. 
> 
> *The person who is trying to discern between the two has to take it upon themselves to make a decision.* Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church. 
> 
> It should be done on their own.


I agree. We are the ones responsible for the decisions we make and the authorities we accept. I view shunning and sarcasm as hints of underlying irrationality.

----------


## glennr25

Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion. Again, decide for yourself what you want to believe. I'm not trying to bash anyone's beliefs.

http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-...ther-religion/

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Here's a good article


I'm sorry, I must've missed where the goodness was. It got lost amongst a bunch of lies, idiocy, fallacies, and irrationality.

----------


## glennr25

> Which scientist was piloting the Enola Gay that day? Which scientific institution ordered it to drop the bombs?
> 
> Seriously, your posts are becoming crazier by the post.
> 
> You credit science with the Hiroshima bombing, despite the fact that the attack was ordered by, and committed by, non-scientists, while laughingly deriding science on that keyboard I mentioned above. (That you also had no answer to.)
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course. It's always about THE TRUTH, isn't it?
> ...


The Enola Gay was the vehicle. Science is the reason the atom bomb exists in the first place. How many people did the Nazis kill while trying to "advance" science? 

I'm not saying he's believable. He created a shadow of a doubt on various topics covered within the institution of science, and he's been shunned from the scientific community. To me, when you try to silence someone because he's writing about things he BELIEVES (key word) in, then it's obvious the institution is trying to discredit him. Where else have we heard this before?

----------


## The Atheist

So, you do like some scientists - those with an anti-science agenda.

I love the way you're disproving all of your own premises by posting the ravings of *scientists* who write anti-science agendas. You're making it awfully plain that you're willing to sacrifice your anti-scientist scruples as long as they agree with your rather silly premises.

Anyway, from the link you generously provided, your guy makes good points.

Except that numbers 1-10 are all actually false.

You know, quite a few scientists are anti-science. Even Nobel chemistry prize winner, Kary Mullis is both anti-AGW and an AIDS denier, *and* he has seen little green men from outer space. I really do recommend you use him rather then the two feebletons you've picked so far. 

Mullis has gravitas, and demonstrably no need of sour grapes; he achieved the pinnacle of success in science and has nobody to be beholden to.

Check him out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis

----------


## The Atheist

> I'm sorry, I must've missed where the goodness was. It got lost amongst a bunch of lies, idiocy, fallacies, and irrationality.


Ah, you obviously saw all the same mistakes I did!

----------


## The Atheist

> The Enola Gay was the vehicle. Science was the reason the atom bombs existed in the first place. How many people did the Nazis kill while trying to "advance" science?


Oh yeah, Godwin the thread. That'll turn out well.




> To me, when you try to silence someone because he's writing about things he BELIEVES in, then it's obvious the institution is trying to discredit him. Where else have we heard this before?


Al Qaida? NAMBLA? The KKK? Stormfront?

I give up, which one do you mean?

----------


## glennr25

> I'm sorry, I must've missed where the goodness was. It got lost amongst a bunch of lies, idiocy, fallacies, and irrationality.


Of course it did. Isn't that what any true believer of religion would say to back their beliefs?

----------


## glennr25

I'll leave you with Einstein's own view on religion and science and then I'm off to bed. As you're reading, note how he hints at the possibility of religion and science working together for the betterment of humankind. This is a quote taken directly from the text:

"During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively.

One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Isn't that what any true believer of religion would say to back their beliefs?


Probably, but there's a difference: what the guy says in that article is demonstrably false, not just "I don't believe it because I don't want to" false. I mean, it's false like saying the sun is made out of cheese is false. Your anti-science stance is cute, but unlikely to convince anyone with half a brain in their head.

----------


## YesNo

> Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion. Again, decide for yourself what you want to believe. I'm not trying to bash anyone's beliefs.
> 
> http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-...ther-religion/



I liked this line from the cite you mentioned about the High Priests of science:

_Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts._
That should be a good reminder to question authority more.

----------


## glennr25

> Probably, but there's a difference: what the guy says in that article is demonstrably false, not just "I don't believe it because I don't want to" false. I mean, it's false like saying the sun is made out of cheese is false. Your anti-science stance is cute, but unlikely to convince anyone with half a brain in their head.


I never said I was anti-science. I'm a social sciences graduate myself, I think the scientific method is an awesome tool for mankind. But just like any tool it can be misused. Do you really think science, because of its way of doing things, is incorruptible? Is any creation of man in this world incorruptible? Is science at the end of the day not a creation of man? When a scientist tells the public that their method of scientific research should not be questioned, is that not man acting the part of God? That, because science is a perfect thing, there can be no mistakes. Everything must be taken as fact. That sounds more like a god complex to me, someone's--or more than one person's--fetish of having control over weaker minds. And what better way is there to carry out your fetish then by using quite possibly the greatest discovery of humankind.

----------


## glennr25

> I liked this line from the cite you mentioned about the High Priests of science:
> 
> _Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts._
> That should be a good reminder to question authority more.


Agreed.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I liked this line from the cite you mentioned about the High Priests of science:
> 
> _Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts._


Why am I not surprised that you like a quote that's a flat-out lie? Peer-review and the scientific method itself guarantee against the opinions of scientists being "received as sermons" or "quoted like sacred texts." That some scientists say some quotable things is no different than quotable things being written by novelists or poets or philosophers or anyone; nobody, however, considers them "sacred texts." That's just ridiculous.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I never said I was anti-science.


Sure, and Bill O'Reilly never said he was anti Obama. 

Of course, science can be misused; nobody would question that. I don't know what about the scientific method is "corruptible." Even when there have been "corrupt" goings-on in science it was usually rooted out by other scientists doing what they were supposed to do. You never see the religious rooting out the corruptions in their organizations; on the contrary, they go to great lengths to cover it up and suppress (see the Catholic "guide" on how to deal with/hide/cover-up child molestation by Priests). Anyway, scientists don't "tell the public that their method of research should not be questioned," that's just another lie you made up. Scientists submit to the peer-review process that requires their research be picked apart by exacting critics that only exist to point out flaws in what they've done. Only after they've passed this process and, usually, after their results have been repeated, THEN their research may get published and brought to public attention. Obviously, any member of the public is free to look at the research themselves. There are dozens of online archives and journals where such stuff is published. None of it is hidden. There's no scientist Shaman shouting to the public the truth he's been divinely given after meeting God in a dream or by going up on a mountain. It's also hard to have a "god complex" in a field where your peers' only purpose is to bring you down, and every scientist has pursued dead ends or had flawed research or met with some resistence. This isn't to say they often don't have inflated egos, but you also find that in every single field known to man. I also fail to see how science is "controlling weaker minds," when they can't even get the majority of the US population to believe in evolution, probably the most strongly supported scientific theory there's ever been.

----------


## glennr25

> Sure, and Bill O'Reilly never said he was anti Obama. 
> 
> Of course, science can be misused; nobody would question that. I don't know what about the scientific method is "corruptible." Even when there have been "corrupt" goings-on in science it was usually rooted out by other scientists doing what they were supposed to do. You never see the religious rooting out the corruptions in their organizations; on the contrary, they go to great lengths to cover it up and suppress (see the Catholic "guide" on how to deal with/hide/cover-up child molestation by Priests). Anyway, scientists don't "tell the public that their method of research should not be questioned," that's just another lie you made up. Scientists submit to the peer-review process that requires their research be picked apart by exacting critics that only exist to point out flaws in what they've done. Only after they've passed this process and, usually, after their results have been repeated, THEN their research may get published and brought to public attention. Obviously, any member of the public is free to look at the research themselves. There are dozens of online archives and journals where such stuff is published. None of it is hidden. There's no scientist Shaman shouting to the public the truth he's been divinely given after meeting God in a dream or by going up on a mountain. It's also hard to have a "god complex" in a field where your peers' only purpose is to bring you down, and every scientist has pursued dead ends or had flawed research or met with some resistence. This isn't to say they often don't have inflated egos, but you also find that in every single field known to man. I also fail to see how science is "controlling weaker minds," when they can't even get the majority of the US population to believe in evolution, probably the most strongly supported scientific theory there's ever been.


Here we go again with the peer review and journals argument. For someone that has so much hate toward textual information, you tend to use it quite a lot as evidence in your arguments.

----------


## glennr25

Fact is people (yes, scientists included) write crap sometimes. Take a gander at this peer review study that reveals the flaws of the peer review system. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bo...laws-1.2054004

----------


## The Atheist

> Your anti-science stance is cute, but unlikely to convince anyone with half a brain in their head.


The juxtaposition of your sentence and the next post is pure gold.

----------


## glennr25

> The juxtaposition of your sentence and the next post is pure gold.


The fact that you believe Morpheus' assumption about my stance as it pertains to science proves my point.

----------


## The Atheist

> I never said I was anti-science. I'm a social sciences graduate myself,...


 :FRlol: 

Priceless! That is the best of the day and I've already seen some hysterically funny ones this morning.




> When a scientist tells the public that their method of scientific research should not be questioned, is that not man acting the part of God?


Cite where that actually ever happened, please, and who said it.




> That, because science is a perfect thing, there can be no mistakes. Everything must be taken as fact.


Utter fabrication.

You yourself have posted several examples of how science has changed upon presentation of new evidence, so your comment is both self-contradictory and incorrect.




> That sounds more like a god complex to me, someone's--or more than one person's--fetish of having control over weaker minds. And what better way is there to carry out your fetish then by using quite possibly the greatest discovery of humankind.


More word salad.

----------


## The Atheist

> The fact that you believe Morpheus' assumption about my stance as it pertains to science proves my point.


Try reading the thread in order - the next post wasn't by you.

Your anti-science stance isn't an assumption, but a self-proven fact from your posts and links.

----------


## glennr25

> Try reading the thread in order - the next post wasn't by you.
> 
> Your anti-science stance isn't an assumption, but a self-proven fact from your posts and links.


Because I question the practitioners of science, I'm automatically anti-science? Wow, and here I thought religion was the one that crucified people for their beliefs. Guess I was wrong.

----------


## glennr25

Here let me refresh your memory. This is one of my earlier posts.


I'll leave you with Einstein's own view on religion and science and then I'm off to bed. As you're reading, note how he hints at the possibility of religion and science working together for the betterment of humankind. This is a quote taken directly from the text:

"During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively.

One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

----------


## glennr25

Or how about this one.


We can keep arguing about this until the cows come home. The fact remains, religion and science are both institutions. These institutions are governed by people, not robots, not angels, not aliens from Planet X. And just like any institution there are things that are left unexplored to keep its reputation intact. So when a Nicola Tesla, or Denis Rancourt, or Jesus comes along and tries to explore those taboo areas and show people the truth, they are automatically shunned and disbarred from the institution.

Science can be good but it can be bad too. Religion can be good but can also be bad.

The person who is trying to discern between the two has to take it upon themselves to make a decision. Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church.

It should be done on their own.

----------


## The Atheist

> Because I question the practitioners of science, I'm automatically anti-science?


Your dishonesty is tending towards the ridiculous stage now.

You're anti-science, because you keep attacking it.

These are *just a few* of your comments so far in this thread:

_How many people did the Nazis kill while trying to "advance" science? 

Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion

Tell that to the thousands of Japanese civilians that died when the atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. 

I'll believe him over all those hotshot scientists out to pad their million dollar homes any day of the week.

Here's a good article about the many lies of science

What scientists can't explain, they usually give up trying to come up with a viable explanation, or come up with something that makes no sense at all._

From six different posts. If you need more, I'm happy to find them.

----------


## glennr25

> Your dishonesty is tending towards the ridiculous stage now.
> 
> You're anti-science, because you keep attacking it.
> 
> These are *just a few* of your comments so far in this thread:
> 
> _How many people did the Nazis kill while trying to "advance" science? 
> 
> Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion
> ...


All I'm saying is that science isn't perfect because of PEOPLE--just like religion. You should really learn to read between the lines.

----------


## YesNo

> Why am I not surprised that you like a quote that's a flat-out lie? Peer-review and the scientific method itself guarantee against the opinions of scientists being "received as sermons" or "quoted like sacred texts." That some scientists say some quotable things is no different than quotable things being written by novelists or poets or philosophers or anyone; nobody, however, considers them "sacred texts." That's just ridiculous.


When I read the part about "sacred texts", it reminded me of Yudowsky's LessWrong, or perhaps they should be called "MoreWrong", blog posts. What makes these texts "sacred" has little to do with what is good about religion, but rather the dogmatic qualities one often associates with religions.

Here's RationalWiki's account of Yudkowsky: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky

Now, I don't trust RationalWiki. Take what they say about Yudkowsky cautiously. After all, any site that has to market itself as "rational" suggests to me there is an unhealthy irrational current running through it.

----------


## The Atheist

> All I'm saying is that science isn't perfect because of PEOPLE--just like religion.


I don't have a problem with that statement, although linking it to religion is spurious, because *nothing* is perfect, therefore science is just like everything else in life & the universe.

So far, so good.




> You should really learn to read between the lines.


Nonsense.

You're trying to cover an egregious anti-science position by saying that one needed to read between the lines to "get it". The only thing between your anti-science lines were more anti-science lines.

Anyway, you've retracted into a position of "science isn't perfect" and I doubt anyone will disagree with that.

----------


## The Atheist

> Now, I don't trust RationalWiki.


Colour me amazed.

When did you trust rational Wiki, by the way?

----------


## glennr25

> I don't have a problem with that statement, although linking it to religion is spurious, because *nothing* is perfect, therefore science is just like everything else in life & the universe.
> 
> So far, so good.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You're trying to cover an egregious anti-science position by saying that one needed to read between the lines to "get it". The only thing between your anti-science lines were more anti-science lines.
> ...


It's funny that you have to resort to bashing my intellect and yet you have no evidence to prove my statements false. Why leave out all my other posts? Or was it your decision to ignore those statements because you don't believe them?

----------


## Ecurb

I hope that the scientific peers criticizing journal articles are more precise in both their reasoning and rhetoric than The Atheist. Since this is (supposedly) a literary board, I’ll offer a few examples of The Athiest’s rhetorical style. Note to any students: this is not a style you would want to copy, as it is trite, mean-spirited and irrational. Here are two examples from The Atheist’s recent posts:




> I love the way you're disproving all of your own premises by posting the ravings of scientists who write anti-science agendas.
> 
> 1.Priceless! That is the best of the day and I've already seen some hysterically funny ones this morning


With his typical disregard for the meaning of words, The Atheist writes “I love…” when he means, “I dislike and disapprove of…”. He then writes, ”Priceless”, when he means “worthless”, followed by, “I’ve… seen some hysterically funny ones…” when he means, “I’ve seen some stupid (or irrational, or incorrect) ones”. Note to The Atheist: writing “funny” things entertains readers, writing “stupid” things does not. Calling anything with which you disagree, or which you find irrational “funny” is simply a disagreeable attempt to get your readers to laugh at the person you are debating. Reasonable readers see it as evidence that you are a poor rhetorician. 

The Atheist then goes on to prove that glennr25 is “anti-science”. How? He quotes glenn as writing, “Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion.” Why is this “anti-science”? Couldn’t a religious person say, instead, that glenn’s comment it is “anti-religion”?

One more point: “religion” is a complex set of human behaviors. The Christian Protestant EMPHASIS on “belief” being the defining characteristic of religion is not universal. Religion generally includes emphases on rituals, rites, social behaviors, laws etc. The Fundamentalist emphasis on “belief” has (it is true) created a (minor) tension between science and religion. Fundamentalists are required by custom to deny global warming, evolution of species, and (I forget what else).

These denials (I think) communicate group solidarity. If some people prove their willingness to suffer for the group by torturing themselves (The Sun Dance), and others by fasting on Ramadan, Fundamentalists inveigh against obvious scientific theories. The more obvious and accepted the theory – the more group solidarity is demonstrated by objecting to it.

In addition (to Morpheus): Of course it is true that religions often have an impact on society’s laws, mores, and politics. However, we should be careful not to fall into the error of thinking that the falsity of the postulates disproves the conclusion. That’s (I forget the logical error, something about the antecedent, you probably know). Of course I agree that we should refrain from stoning adulterers to death, and should be able to make reasonable arguments to that effect without reference to Allah. However, we cannot assume that since God does not exist, it is OK to murder, steal, commit adultery or covet our neighbors’ goods. We humans made religion – but religion also made us. Our Western laws and mores are so entangled with religious thought that WE can never be free from it, while we remain ourselves. In part at least, God did CREATE MAN – although we created Him first. Man is a cultural creature – we create culture, and culture creates us.

p.s. Oh no! Now glenn just called one of The Atheist's posts "funny"! It's contagious!

----------


## glennr25

> I hope that the scientific peers criticizing journal articles are more precise in both their reasoning and rhetoric than The Atheist. Since this is (supposedly) a literary board, I’ll offer a few examples of The Athiest’s rhetorical style. Note to any students: this is not a style you would want to copy, as it is trite, mean-spirited and irrational. Here are two examples from The Atheist’s recent posts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With his typical disregard for the meaning of words, The Atheist writes “I love…” when he means, “I dislike and disapprove of…”. He then writes, ”Priceless”, when he means “worthless”, followed by, “I’ve… seen some hysterically funny ones…” when he means, “I’ve seen some stupid (or irrational, or incorrect) ones”. Note to The Atheist: writing “funny” things entertains readers, writing “stupid” things does not. Calling anything with which you disagree, or which you find irrational “funny” is simply a disagreeable attempt to get your readers to laugh at the person you are debating. Reasonable readers see it as evidence that you are a poor rhetorician. 
> 
> The Atheist then goes on to prove that glennr25 is “anti-science”. How? He quotes glenn as writing, “Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion.” Why is this “anti-science”? Couldn’t a religious person say, instead, that glenn’s comment it is “anti-religion”?
> 
> ...



Astute observation, Ecurb. I am not defending religion at all in my debates. All I'm doing is trying to bring a little perspective to the discussions. There is nothing wrong with someone believing in God or someone who believes in evolution as long as they came to that conclusion without being manipulated by someone of authority. I am looking at this from a top-down perspective, analyzing the points and flaws of both sides. Neither is perfect, therefore neither one should hold supremacy over the other.

As for the use of "funny" in my last post, it was an attempt to point out the ambiguity of the term when it is presented with no facts. You got it, hopefully The Atheist does as well.

----------


## The Atheist

> It's funny that you have to resort to bashing my intellect and yet you have no evidence to prove my statements false.


It would be funny if it were true.

Where have I bashed your intellect? I accused you of dishonesty, not stupidity. More false claims. You haven't even gone back Newton eating mercury, either.




> Why leave out all my other posts? Or was it your decision to ignore those statements because you don't believe them?


Do you really want me to quote them all? I'm confident an independent reader will see your posts as I have.

Wouldn't it make much better sense to for you answer the questions I've put to you? Like this:

_Cite where that actually ever happened, please, and who said it._

When you made this statement:

_When a scientist tells the public that their method of scientific research should not be questioned...._

I suggest that has never happened, yet you write it as fact. I ask for a cite and you ignore it, as you've done consistently throughout the thread.

Face it - you lost your argument, you changed your position, the time to walk away is about three posts ago.

----------


## glennr25

> It would be funny if it were true.
> 
> Where have I bashed your intellect? I accused you of dishonesty, not stupidity. More false claims. You haven't even gone back Newton eating mercury, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really want me to quote them all? I'm confident an independent reader will see your posts as I have.
> 
> ...


Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

----------


## The Atheist

> I hope that the scientific peers criticizing journal articles are more precise in both their reasoning and rhetoric than The Atheist.


So do I.

I doubt anyone here thinks I'm a scientist writing peer reviews, so why you'd expect me to write like one is a little perplexing. 

Man, times are hard when that's all you have.. Not to mention that what I'm replying to doesn't come anywhere near the description of science needing review.




> Since this is (supposedly) a literary board,....


You're wrong there as well, sorry, it isn't metaphorical use at all - I do find anti-science posts backed up by statements like "Newton died from eating mercury" to be actually humorous in the extreme.

I also find your desperate attempt to defend glenn's nonsense by cherry-picking one of a large number of quotes to be pretty funny, too.

You really need to find better ammo.

 :Wink: 

You couldn't pay for one-liners like that.

----------


## The Atheist

> Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU


Oh wow. Your intellectual dishonesty actually knows no bounds.

Nowhere on that clip does Bill Nye say "My method of scientific research should not be questioned." or anything remotely like it. 

Are you an evolution denier as well?

----------


## glennr25

> Oh wow. Your intellectual dishonesty actually knows no bounds.
> 
> Nowhere on that clip does Bill Nye say "My method of scientific research should not be questioned." or anything remotely like it. 
> 
> Are you an evolution denier as well?


Bill Nye is trying to stop people from teaching their kids about God, thus he is saying that the theory of evolution holds supremacy over creationsim. Do a little better at analyzing what he's trying to say while you're watching, it helps.

----------


## glennr25

Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo 

I find Krauss' observation of teaching kids about God the equivalent to that of child abuse rather disturbing.

----------


## The Atheist

> Bill Nye is trying to stop people from teaching their kids about God, thus he is saying that the theory of evolution holds supremacy over creationsim. Do a little better at analyzing what he's trying to say while you're watching, it helps.


The humour just keeps on keeping on! 

In no way does what Nye says about teaching creationism even get close to your statement. (ToE does hold sway over Creationism, btw, but it's not a "you cannot question science" position.)

Your next example's no better, no matter that his idea is flawed anyway.

Can I get you a shovel to widen the hole you find yourself stuck in?

----------


## glennr25

Stephen Fry might be the only atheist I've come across that doesn't show his/her irrationality when discussing the topic. And trust me, I have many friends that are atheists, so I'm not exaggerating. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqibqD4fJZs

----------


## The Atheist

> Stephen Fry might be the only atheist I've come across that doesn't show his/her irrationality when discussing the topic. And trust me, I have many friends that are atheists, so I'm not exaggerating.


No, and it's not as though you haven't established a track record of exaggerating....

I'm a big fan of Stephen Fry myself. What kind of scientist is he?

(If you want a thread on atheism/atheists, that's a different subject and you'll find two ready-made allies in Ecurb and JBI, so maybe you should have a go at that after your spectacular and ongoing failure in this thread.)

----------


## glennr25

> No, and it's not as though you haven't established a track record of exaggerating....
> 
> I'm a big fan of Stephen Fry myself. What kind of scientist is he?
> 
> (If you want a thread on atheism/atheists, that's a different subject and you'll find two ready-made allies in Ecurb and JBI, so maybe you should have a go at that after your spectacular and ongoing failure in this thread.)


I'm a fan of Stephen Fry as well. He may not be a scientist, but he approaches the topic much more rationally than other so called "scientists." He's providing his opinion and not trying to sway the opinion of the public to his beliefs. 

As for the allies bit, why turn an honest discussion into a battle of sorts? What do you hope to accomplish by doing that?

----------


## Ecurb

> So do I.
> 
> You're wrong there as well, sorry, it isn't metaphorical use at all - I do find anti-science posts backed up by statements like "Newton died from eating mercury" to be actually humorous in the extreme.
> 
> I also find your desperate attempt to defend glenn's nonsense by cherry-picking one of a large number of quotes to be pretty funny, too.
> 
> You really need to find better ammo.
> 
> .


You are easily amused. When are the stand-up comedians going to catch on and quip, "Newton died from eating mercury."?

I never defended glen. Instead, I pointed out your logical errors and rhetorical deficiencies. 

No need for better ammo. Arguing with you is like shooting an unarmed man. Victory is easy, but there's not much glory in it.

----------


## The Atheist

I'm trying to help you out, because it looks like you need some. Honest discussion? You haven't been honest the entire time you've been posting in this thread, so don't come that rot.

Also, the title of this thread is *Sciences vs Religion*. You're the one trying to turn the discussion into something else. I'm quite happy to stick to science, but as you admit, Fry is no scientist. That makes me think you want to move the goalposts to atheism. If not, stop posting on a different subject.

This forum business is pretty simple once you get the hang of it: different subject = new thread.

----------


## The Atheist

> Arguing with you is like shooting an unarmed man.


Yet you keep missing so badly.

Try reading your own posts to see where you went wrong, but if, like glenn, you're incapable of seeing your own nonsense for what it is, I'll gladly re-post to elucidate you on yourself.

The day you even understand logic, let alone point out deficiencies in mine, will be a long time coming, toots.

The feeble effort above where you cherry-picked one of many examples in a failed attempt to "attack logic" is testament to your own intellectual dishonesty, so please do keep trying. You're probably impressing the hell out of yourself.

----------


## glennr25

> I'm trying to help you out, because it looks like you need some. Honest discussion? You haven't been honest the entire time you've been posting in this thread, so don't come that rot.
> 
> Also, the title of this thread is *Sciences vs Religion*. You're the one trying to turn the discussion into something else. I'm quite happy to stick to science, but as you admit, Fry is no scientist. That makes me think you want to move the goalposts to atheism. If not, stop posting on a different subject.
> 
> This forum business is pretty simple once you get the hang of it: different subject = new thread.


But isn't atheism a religion of sorts? I mean just because you BELIEVE that no God exists doesn't mean that it can't be labeled as a religion; since the very term emphasizes in the belief of one thing or the other. Buddhists don't believe in God but do you not consider Buddhism a religion? In fact one of the smartest people ever to walk the earth also believed atheism was a religion. His name was Einstein. 

"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men."

Source: Albert Einstein, in Living Philosophies: The Reflections of Some Eminent Men and Women of Our Time, edited by Clifton Fadiman (Doubleday, 1990), p. 6

----------


## The Atheist

> But isn't atheism a religion of sorts? I mean just because you BELIEVE that no God exists doesn't mean that it can't be labeled as a religion; since the very term emphasizes in the belief of one thing or the other.


Oh dear, you really are a bit behind the times aren't you?

That idea doesn't wash, I'm afraid, and we have a thread on that very topic, so I'm not going to re-hash it all again here.

The short answer is, atheism is not a religion nor is it about a belief that no god exists. For an in-depth look, feel free to go to the thread itself: http://www.online-literature.com/for...actually-means!

----------


## Ecurb

> The feeble effort above where you cherry-picked one of many examples in a failed attempt to "attack logic" is testament to your own intellectual dishonesty, so please do keep trying. You're probably impressing the hell out of yourself.


If someone (namely you) makes an error in logic, it does not constitute "cherry-picking" to point it out. I didn't search all of your posts to find an error -- it was right there in one of your most recent posts. Are you suggesting that it's OK for someone to say one stupid, incorrect thing, so long as he also says two or three correct ones? That makes no sense. 

AS for "science vs. religion", it's a silly discussion. Of course penicillon cures a strep throat better than prayer. Every reasonable person knows that. Indeed, the reason some attempts to manipulate the physical world are called "religious" and others are called "scientific" is that there is evidence that some of them work, and no (or little) evidence that others do. I'll add that bleeding didn't work very well, either, and it was more akin to a scientific approach to healing than it was to a religious one (albeit a primitive and incorrect scientific approach). 

My objection to your approach, Atheist, is that it is not only nasty, but naive and unsophisticated. I'll grant that if you're arguing with a naive and unsophisticated evolution denier, you may have a more persuasive argument than he does. But so what? Why bother? Isn't it time to move on? ONe hundred years ago, it might have been reasonable to inveigh against Christianity, because it was such a dominant belief system. I'll give Voltaire a pass. But shouldn't we be in a post-religious age by now?

We are not only in a post-religious age (in my case, I don't think any of my grandparents were religious, let alone my parents), but we are also in a post-modern age. Modernist faith in grand scientific theories that can represent all knowledge and explain everything has been replaced by the notion that master narratives of that sort reflect the prejudices of dominant institutions and point of views of particular scientific paradigms. Localized and contingent theories have gained cache; reality only exists from a particular perspective, within a particular paradigm. 

It seems to me that someone calling himself "The Atheist" and arguing for science and atheism on the internet is fighting a battle that is long over, and claiming as his own victories that were won 100 years ago. The modernist faith The Atheist has in "science" is also dated. Since Religion is one of The Humanities (at most Universities), and studied as a cultural achievement along with literature and art history and music, it seems strange to me that someone would come to a message board devoted to admiring and discussing the Humanities and (instead) denigrate and dismiss them. What's next? A thread about "science vs. fiction"? How about "science vs. poetry"?

----------


## glennr25

So all atheists believe for a FACT that God doesn't exist? Then my friends were misinformed because they tell me there is no PROOF that a God or Gods exist. Two different things. Just because you don't have proof of something doesn't necessarily make it fact. A police officer can have no proof that someone is responsible for killing someone else with a gun, but it doesn't make it a fact.

----------


## The Atheist

> If someone (namely you) makes an error in logic, it does not constitute "cherry-picking" to point it out. I didn't search all of your posts to find an error -- it was right there in one of your most recent posts. Are you suggesting that it's OK for someone to say one stupid, incorrect thing, so long as he also says two or three correct ones? That makes no sense.


First off, it is only your opinion that it constitutes an error, and you prove that with your next paragraph - it is illogical to believe that prayer is better than medicine, so it's not any kind of stretch to be offended by science being compared to religion.

You're the best thing in the thread, though. At least glenn is just using a flawed argument - all you're doing is making things up try to force errors in my posts.

And failing rather badly.

You should probably realise this isn't your third-form biology class and you will be called if you blatantly misrepresent what someone else has posted. 
.



> My objection to your approach, Atheist, is that it is not only nasty, but naive and unsophisticated.


Ah, at last the true agenda raises its ugly head. I offend your sophisticated outlook. 

Like I said, this isn't your third-form class. If you want sophistication, stick to _Salon_. Why would you expect to find it on an open forum?

Who's naive here?




> But shouldn't we be in a post-religious age by now?


Well, I said forty years ago that religion would be dead by the 21st century, so I guess we're both wrong.

It doesn't seem all that post-religious to me when we are still battling to get christianity out of schools in 2014: http://www.3news.co.nz/Parents-disag...3/Default.aspx

Or the ongoing battle against evolution in US schools. I wasn't aware christians had given that fight up?




> It seems to me that someone calling himself "The Atheist" and arguing for science and atheism on the internet is fighting a battle that is long over, and claiming as his own victories that were won 100 years ago.


Ah, the irony. You accuse me of rhetoric then post such a non-rhetorical post. (I am being sarcastic now!)

Where have I claimed any battle winning? You're making it up again because you have no real argument.

Please do carry on; the ability to recognise when one has been out-pointed to TKO is lacking on the internet.

----------


## The Atheist

> So all atheists believe for a FACT that God doesn't exist?


I did suggest you read the thread. Thanks for not bothering.

Still wrong, but further from the correct position than you were the first time. You're actually getting worse at this, and I would have bet that wasn't possible.

Plus, if want to retain any of your lost credibility, the place to discuss [/B]what "atheism" means is in that thread[/B], not this one.

Please do try to keep up, there's a good chap.

Then my friends were misinformed because they tell me there is no PROOF that a God or Gods exist. Two different things. Just because you don't have proof of something doesn't necessarily make it fact. A police officer can have no proof that someone is responsible for killing someone else with a gun, but it doesn't make it a fact.[/QUOTE]

----------


## glennr25

I want to make one more point and then I'm done with the topic for good since I have to get back to my work. 

When someone starts an argument on which should be more recognized over the other, religion or science (and it doesn't necessarily have to be about those two subjects, it can be an argument on what color is better, red or blue?) then I think that's where the underlying problem lies. You know there are believers of science and you know there are believers of religion, a simple thread titled "Science vs. Religion" automatically creates a conflict between the two, thus not allowing for both sides to come to an understanding. We are in the year 2014, these silly little debates should not be occurring in the first place. We should all work together for the common good of mankind instead of wasting time squabbling about whose belief is strongest. Religion and science can co-exist, but will you allow them to? That's the question both camps should be striving to answer.

----------


## The Atheist

> Religion and science can co-exist, but will you allow them to?


As you can see from my exchanges with Pen, I'm quite happy for them to co-exist.

What gets my goat is people making silly and flawed attacks on science.

Nice to see you finally come to your senses.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The juxtaposition of your sentence and the next post is pure gold.


 :Wink:   :Biggrin5:

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> When I read the part about "sacred texts", it reminded me of Yudowsky's LessWrong, or perhaps they should be called "MoreWrong", blog posts.


I link to the Yudkowsky articles that I agree with because it saves me the trouble of typing the same thing myself; not because I find his writings "sacred texts." Every time he starts writing about art I have to face palm, and I'm very dubious of his various positions on social matters and politics. I'm also rather clueless about cryonics, or even AI and the technological singularity, so I have no idea of the accuracy of what he says on those matters; but, guess what, neither do any of the non-AI researchers writing Rational Wiki. It would be one thing for an actual AI researcher to engage with Yudkowsky's claims, but it's nonsense that complete non-experts are trying to do so. 

What I find nearly flawless in Yudkowsky are his epistemological, linguistic, neurological, and metaphysical philosophies. I link to them because they illuminate many of the problems that people have when these subjects come up. You're free to disagree with them/him, but not once have I ever posted an article that you've actually engaged with. Normally, at best, you pick one sentence and write a whole post that does nothing but demonstrate your lack of comprehension. You've certainly never demonstrated that Yudkowsky is actually wrong. 




> Here's RationalWiki's account of Yudkowsky: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky


Yes, I've read it; it's full of lies and half-truths written by people who have clearly not read much of the blog. EG, this statement: "Yudkowsky... is indeed opposed to the scientific method in favor of his interpretation of Bayes' theorem" is a flat-out lie, and almost hilariously wrong for anyone who has actually read a significant portion of his blog. Yudkowsky is constantly praising the values of science and its discoveries. The majority of his epistemological philosophy requires science in order to function. The "citation" that rationalwiki links to is an article where Yudkowsky is discussing one subject where the philosophical approach to science comes in conflict with the philosophical approach to Bayes, and in that instance he stresses why we should listen to Bayes (really, why we should utilize Bayes IN science; he's not actually saying we should reject science altogether, that would be preposterous).

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> For someone that has so much hate toward textual information, you tend to use it quite a lot as evidence in your arguments.


I have no idea what you're talking about re my hate towards "textual information." 




> All I'm saying is that science isn't perfect because of PEOPLE--just like religion.


I think everyone, including atheists and scientists, would agree that science "isn't perfect because of people." However, there are honest and dishonest ways of showing the flaws that exist in science; all of your methods have been dishonest in the extreme, many of them flat-out lies. 




> The person who is trying to discern between the two has to take it upon themselves to make a decision. Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church.
> 
> It should be done on their own.


We make decisions based on the information we have, so while I agree we shouldn't just blindly believe whatever we're told by anyone, the fact is that science, by and large, have the facts, experiments, engineering, technology, etc. to back up their claims. You can doubt that science understands gravity all you want, but you're going to have an awful hard time explaining how we made it to the moon; you can question science's understanding of electricity and binary logic, but you'll have an awful hard time explaining computers. Like I said, our entire modern world is a testament to the proof that science, by and large, knows of what they speak. This doesn't mean there aren't bad scientists, scandals, unanswered questions, etc., but all of these things are like pointing out paint chips in the Sistine Chapel. Religion, in comparison, is a crumbling ruin. 




> Bill Nye is trying to stop people from teaching their kids about God, thus he is saying that the theory of evolution holds supremacy over creationsim.


Errr, the theory of evolution DOES hold supremacy over creationism in every way one theory can hold supremacy over another. Evolution is just about the most supported theory in the history of science; Creationism is completely unfalsifiable, and its various lies and propaganda have been displayed several times, such as: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo...81149B&index=6




> I find Krauss' observation of teaching kids about God the equivalent to that of child abuse rather disturbing.


And another lie. Krauss has never said anything about "teaching kids about God" being child abuse, but rather teaching them Creationism over evolution is child abuse. Even though I think his "child abuse" claim is overreaching, his basic point that teaching children such falsities rather than the truth puts them at an intellectual and scholastic disadvantage is actually true. It's not terribly different than parents that are arrested for withholding medical treatment for their children in favor of "faith healing." 




> But isn't atheism a religion of sorts?


I think it's a religion in the same sense that people say politics are religion or art is a religion or football is a religion. What they mean is it's metaphorically LIKE religion. But religion typically requires supernatural beliefs about the origin of life/the universe, typically accompanied by various rituals, laws, holy texts, etc. While you can point out that atheism has things LIKE those things, they invariably differ in key elements.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> In addition (to Morpheus): Of course it is true that religions often have an impact on societys laws, mores, and politics. However, we should be careful not to fall into the error of thinking that the falsity of the postulates disproves the conclusion. Thats (I forget the logical error, something about the antecedent, you probably know).


Yeah, Denying the Antecedent: If A, then B; not A, therefor not B. I definitely agree with you that even if we conclude there's no God we shouldn't conclude that any of the conclusions in The Bible about anything (moral or otherwise) are wrong. The key, however, is in not allowing people to justify their morality or philosophy via their religion alone and then having that affect public policy. Issues like same-sex marriage and Creationism in schools are simply modern iterations where people's religious beliefs are in direct conflict with public policy in an obviously negative way. There is no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage (even though certain people can couch them in secular terms, they stem from the same place).

----------


## glennr25

Morpheus, just because you believe in one theory over another doesn't make it supreme over the other theories. Archaeological evidence keeps popping up that proves accounts written in the bible. But of course that kind of evidence does not fit to your belief system so it is automatically worthless. 

Abraham’s home city of Ur was excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley, with surprising evidence of near-luxury.

The customs of Patriarchal times, as described in the Bible, are endorsed by archaeological finds at such places as Ur, Mari, Boghazkoi, and Nineveh. These were written records from that day—not just put down in writing many centuries later. They bear the marks of eyewitness reporting.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Morpheus, just because you believe in one theory over another doesn't make it supreme over the other theories.


No, being rigorously tested and refined for over 100 years without falsification compared to not being testable at all makes one theory supreme over another. 




> Archaeological evidence keeps popping up that proves accounts written in the bible. But of course that kind of evidence does not fit to your belief system so it is automatically worthless.


Well, there's that (that it doesn't fit with my belief system), and also that it's fictional and doesn't exist; certainly not for Creationism, at least (that some of the Bible is historical I haven't disputed, but there's no evidence for any of its miraculous claims--Noah's Ark, eg.--and surprisingly none for things like the Jews Exodus from Egypt). 




> They bear the marks of eyewitness reporting.


Eye witness resporting is amongst the weakest forms of evidence on its own. Most of the innocent people in prison were put there by mistaken eye witnesses.

----------


## glennr25

> No, being rigorously tested and refined for over 100 years without falsification compared to not being testable at all makes one theory supreme over another. 
> 
> Well, there's that (that it doesn't fit with my belief system), and also that it's fictional and doesn't exist; certainly not for Creationism, at least (that some of the Bible is historical I haven't disputed, but there's no evidence for any of its miraculous claims--Noah's Ark, eg.--and surprisingly none for things like the Jews Exodus from Egypt). 
> 
> Eye witness resporting is amongst the weakest forms of evidence on its own. Most of the innocent people in prison were put there by mistaken eye witnesses.



Rigorously tested and refined, yup, that's it, because scientists are incapable of lying. They are the beacon of hope for all of mankind and everything they write is truth. Are you serious?

Yes, that's exactly what it sounds like. Because it's in a book you believe it to be fiction. Thanks for admitting that for me. Now let's imagine the tables were turned. What if science was the the one that was discovered before religion and it was written into a book? Would you believe in science less because of that?

"Eye witness reports is amongst the weakest forms of evidence," Even when archaeological finds prove it to be true? Wow.

----------


## The Atheist

> What if....


... I make a really silly hypothesis? Will that make my argument stronger?

Alas, no.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Rigorously tested and refined, yup, that's it, because scientists are incapable of lying.


A scien_tist_ is certainly capable of lying; to think that 99.9% of all scientists in biology, medicine, archaeology, etc. are lying is the thinking of a conspiracy theory wackjob. 




> Because it's in a book you believe it to be fiction.


That's not what I said at all. When it's written in a book in a way that bears remarkable resemblances to writings we know to be fiction (Noah's ark bearing striking resemblances to Gilgamesh's flood, eg), then it's probably fiction. I already said I admit that SOME of the Bible functions as legitimate history, while others are allegory, some fictional, some history mixed with allegory and fiction. 




> "Eye witness reports is amongst the weakest forms of evidence," Even when archaeological finds prove it to be true? Wow.


Archaeology hasn't proved any Biblical miracles true, certainly not Creationism.

----------


## YesNo

> *I link to the Yudkowsky articles that I agree with because it saves me the trouble of typing the same thing myself;* not because I find his writings "sacred texts." Every time he starts writing about art I have to face palm, and I'm very dubious of his various positions on social matters and politics. I'm also rather clueless about cryonics, or even AI and the technological singularity, so I have no idea of the accuracy of what he says on those matters; but, guess what, neither do any of the non-AI researchers writing Rational Wiki. It would be one thing for an actual AI researcher to engage with Yudkowsky's claims, but it's nonsense that complete non-experts are trying to do so. 
> 
> What I find nearly flawless in Yudkowsky are his epistemological, linguistic, neurological, and metaphysical philosophies. I link to them because they illuminate many of the problems that people have when these subjects come up. You're free to disagree with them/him, but not once have I ever posted an article that you've actually engaged with. Normally, at best, you pick one sentence and write a whole post that does nothing but demonstrate your lack of comprehension. You've certainly never demonstrated that Yudkowsky is actually wrong. 
> 
> 
> *Yes, I've read it; it's full of lies and half-truths written by people who have clearly not read much of the blog. EG, this statement*: "Yudkowsky... is indeed opposed to the scientific method in favor of his interpretation of Bayes' theorem" is a flat-out lie, and almost hilariously wrong for anyone who has actually read a significant portion of his blog. Yudkowsky is constantly praising the values of science and its discoveries. The majority of his epistemological philosophy requires science in order to function. The "citation" that rationalwiki links to is an article where Yudkowsky is discussing one subject where the philosophical approach to science comes in conflict with the philosophical approach to Bayes, and in that instance he stresses why we should listen to Bayes (really, why we should utilize Bayes IN science; he's not actually saying we should reject science altogether, that would be preposterous).


Although I don't agree with Yudkowsky's many worlds view, the RationalWiki article on him sounded to me more irrational than not. I left the article thinking it's a good thing I don't spend much time on the RationalWiki site.

I also agree with you that quoting someone you find expresses your viewpoint is acceptable. I do the same. It does save time.

----------


## Ecurb

> You accuse me of rhetoric then post such a non-rhetorical post. 
> .


I never "accused (you) of rhetoric", possibly because I know what the word means. I accused you of rhetorical incompetence.

----------


## glennr25

> Although I don't agree with Yudkowsky's many worlds view, the RationalWiki article on him sounded to me more irrational than not. I left the article thinking it's a good thing I don't spend much time on the RationalWiki site.
> 
> I also agree with you that quoting someone you find expresses your viewpoint is acceptable. I do the same. It does save time.


I think the very moment you name a site "Rational," you lose credibility points from people that know better.

----------


## glennr25

> A scien_tist_ is certainly capable of lying; to think that 99.9% of all scientists in biology, medicine, archaeology, etc. are lying is the thinking of a conspiracy theory wackjob. 
> 
> That's not what I said at all. When it's written in a book in a way that bears remarkable resemblances to writings we know to be fiction (Noah's ark bearing striking resemblances to Gilgamesh's flood, eg), then it's probably fiction. I already said I admit that SOME of the Bible functions as legitimate history, while others are allegory, some fictional, some history mixed with allegory and fiction. 
> 
> Archaeology hasn't proved any Biblical miracles true, certainly not Creationism.


Did I say 99.9% of scientists were lying? All it takes is one person of authority to sway the opinions of those around him/her. If you don't believe me read this article on the flaws of peer review papers: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bo...laws-1.2054004

OK, fair enough, archaeology hasn't proven any Biblical miracles to be true, I agree. But science hasn't proven them to be false either. Maybe one day they will, but I doubt it since science in it of itself is limited to human thinking.

----------


## The Atheist

> I never "accused (you) of rhetoric", possibly because I know what the word means. I accused you of rhetorical incompetence.


You really are at the bottom of the barrel if the best you can come up with one weak opinion on what constitutes incompetence. (and "rhetoric" for that matter)

I tend more to think of incompetence as failing miserably when trying to attack someone, using erroneous conclusions and assumptions, but that's just me.

Please do carry on ignoring the other points I made.

----------


## The Atheist

> But science hasn't proven them to be false either.


Are you serious?

Science hasn't proven a made up story false? 

Tell you what - you propose a mechanism for science to prove Hogwarts does not exist and I'll get it right on to proving Moses did not part the Red Sea, Noah did not float a boat and god did not send 42 she-bears to eat kids who called one of his pals "baldy".

----------


## glennr25

> Are you serious?
> 
> Science hasn't proven a made up story false? 
> 
> Tell you what - you propose a mechanism for science to prove Hogwarts does not exist and I'll get it right on to proving Moses did not part the Red Sea, Noah did not float a boat and god did not send 42 she-bears to eat kids who called one of his pals "baldy".


Now you're just being silly. Show me where science proves that God isn't real. I'll wait.

----------


## glennr25

> Are you serious?
> 
> Science hasn't proven a made up story false? 
> 
> Tell you what - you propose a mechanism for science to prove Hogwarts does not exist and I'll get it right on to proving Moses did not part the Red Sea, Noah did not float a boat and god did not send 42 she-bears to eat kids who called one of his pals "baldy".


Double post.

----------


## The Atheist

> Now you're just being silly. Show me where science proves that God isn't real. I'll wait.


Why don't you try reading the posts instead of making yourself look even more foolish?

Nobody has suggested science proves god isn't real - the only time that idea has even been mentioned in the thread is when *you've* typed it.

You are the one asking "science" to disprove events that are almost certainly fictional.

I ask again - how do you think something can be proven not to have happened? Feel free to use any of the following to show a mechanism for scientific investigation to prove them false:

Thor
Zoroaster
Mithras
Osiris
Ganesha
The King of Brobdingnag

Away you go.

----------


## glennr25

> Why don't you try reading the posts instead of making yourself look even more foolish?
> 
> Nobody has suggested science proves god isn't real - the only time that idea has even been mentioned in the thread is when *you've* typed it.
> 
> You are the one asking "science" to disprove events that are almost certainly fictional.
> 
> I ask again - how do you think something can be proven not to have happened? Feel free to use any of the following to show a mechanism for scientific investigation to prove them false:
> 
> Thor
> ...


Almost certainly fictional, nice. That explains it all, I'm convinced those stories never took place now.

I would read all the posts, but I don't have time to sift through all the pages since I came into the discussion late. I read in a post on the atheism thread where someone (I forget who) said that ALL atheists know for a FACT that there is no God. Where has this person found this divine knowledge, I ask? Because not even Einstein (who is considered the smartest man ever to walk the Earth by many great minds--religious and scientific and everyone in between) wasn't able to tell for sure. If you can *almost* certainly prove that Noah didn't build an ark, that no great flood ever occurred, that Moses never set God's people free, then you can *almost* certainly for a fact believe God never existed, am I right? Aren't those stories interconnected in one way or another with the belief of God?

----------


## The Atheist

Is your theme song Chumbawumba's Tub-thumping?




> Almost certainly fictional, nice. That explains it all, I'm convinced those stories never took place now.


Yes, almost certainly fictional. How do we know that?

The Flood: No geological records have been found indicating a worldwide flood. Given that our geological knowledge is comprehensive, I'm happy to go with "almost certainly fictional."

2 King 2:24. Heck, you're welcome to say that one's true and I'll let you have it. If it were my god, I'd prefer to think 42 bears ripping little children apart for calling some old guy baldy was allegorical, but if you want to claim it's not fictional, that's fine by me.

Parting of the Red Sea: First off, as done to death in another thread, there is no archeological evidence of Israelites in Egypt, let alone an exodus. 




> I would read all the posts, but I don't have time to sift through all the pages since I came into the discussion late.


And what the heck, you cherry-pick really well, so why read for context or accuracy? (see below)

Protip: if joining a discussion, it's essential to see what was said first. You seem to have plenty of time to type, so maybe you could have spent some of that time reading instead, then you don't make so many errors.




> I read in a post on the atheism thread where someone (I forget who) said that ALL atheists know for a FACT that there is no God.


Bingo! There's your cherry right there.

I gave you the thread, which posts lots of evidence that that premise is entirely false. That post was made by someone who has no idea what they're talking about, so it's not much of a stretch to see why it would appeal to you.

Go and read the thread, because you're just digging the hole ever deeper in search of an escape.

And it ain't happening.

----------


## glennr25

> Is your theme song Chumbawumba's Tub-thumping?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, almost certainly fictional. How do we know that?
> 
> The Flood: No geological records have been found indicating a worldwide flood. Given that our geological knowledge is comprehensive, I'm happy to go with "almost certainly fictional."
> 
> 2 King 2:24. Heck, you're welcome to say that one's true and I'll let you have it. If it were my god, I'd prefer to think 42 bears ripping little children apart for calling some old guy baldy was allegorical, but if you want to claim it's not fictional, that's fine by me.
> ...


No, of course not, there isn't any historical accounts of a great flood ever occurring that spans different texts and eras. All of that is just made up nonsense.

I'm not cherry-picking at all, this is something I read in the link you pasted, then I read you agreeing with the statement wholeheartedly. Do you retract that statement somewhere? If so please send me the link.

----------


## The Atheist

> I'm not cherry-picking at all,...


The only person you might be fooling with that statement is yourself.




> ...this is something I read in the link you pasted, then I read you agreeing with the statement wholeheartedly. Do you retract that statement somewhere? If so please send me the link.


Read the thread from the start. Laziness is not an excuse for cherry-picking a mis-informed post made by someone who is not an atheist.

----------


## glennr25

> The only person you might be fooling with that statement is yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the thread from the start. Laziness is not an excuse for cherry-picking a mis-informed post made by someone who is not an atheist.


If you want me to read a thread from the start why not just give me a link to the first page in the first place?

----------


## The Atheist

> If you want me to read a thread from the start why not just give me a link to the first page in the first place?


This has officially past the extreme stupidity barrier and I'm done with it. Not only are your posts dishonest, you can't even make up a decent lie.

I gave you a link to page 1 of that thread.

Like this:




> For an in-depth look, feel free to go to the thread itself: http://www.online-literature.com/for...actually-means!

----------


## glennr25

> This has officially past the extreme stupidity barrier and I'm done with it. Not only are your posts dishonest, you can't even make up a decent lie.
> 
> I gave you a link to page 1 of that thread.
> 
> Like this:


Oh, I see, you were quoting someone from another thread. That's my mistake. I thought it was from the same thread. You say that atheists don't believe in anything. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it's not a religion. A lack of something is the same as not believing in it. It's not logical to twist the definition of something to fit your needs. 

I've read about atheism, and most seem to believe there are two groups: the gnostic and the agnostic atheists. The gnostic atheist thinks he/she can prove that there is no God or gods while the agnostic atheist doesn't know for sure. 

If you are a gnostic atheist (correct me if I'm wrong) then you believe you can prove that God doesn't exist. That is a belief. Because no human on this planet can prove how the universe came to be, if there's parallel worlds, or if even there is a God. You're placing your system (for lack of a better word) above that of all other religions. That sounds like something religions would do.

----------


## AuntShecky

I usually leave contentious threads alone, but nevertheless thought I'd make a coupla comments before the thread devolves into ad hominem rants or illustrates Godwin's Law and the administrators shut this puppy down.

1. It's fruitless to contrive a debate pitting science vs. religion. It's the proverbial comparison between apples and oranges-- two different things, LitNutters. The first discipline comes from reason, the second from intuition, or if you will,"faith."

2. Across the human spectrum, reason may be dominant in some people whereas intuition influences others. Science and religion are not necessarily exclusive all the time, as a person can respect each of those concepts. F. Scott Fitzgerald once remarked that holding two conflicting opinions at the same time is a sign of intelligence.

3. If one's faith depends on empirical proof, then his faith is nothing. That didn't come from an early Church father or a present-day evangelical, but noted atheist Douglas ("The Hitchhiker's Guide to the the Galaxy")Adams.

4. Some religious people hold science in high regard; whereas others, such as "Creationists" reject science completely. This group includes the "climate change deniers."

5. Many scientists recognize the difference between the two realms of reason and faith and yet treat the latter concept with respect. An example of this was all over the news last year, when in their research about the origin of the universe, physicists were beginning to close in on a crucial missing piece of the puzzle which they called --without irony--"the God Particle."

6. Reasonable persons of faith recognize that the Scriptures which provide form for their beliefs should not be taken literally, that the Creation story is allegorical. You don't have to have a Ph.D. to know that the earth is older than 6,000 years.The compilers of The New Testament alluded to the figurative nature of scriptural text: "He spoke in parables."

7. Reasonable persons of both science and religion (and those in-between) acknowledge the fact that whether humans were created or evolved, most of us were given brains with the expectation that we use them.

----------


## glennr25

Yes there are good cases for both Science and Religion, I agree. But to say that one is superior to the other is utter nonsense. It's that kind of thinking that tends to create unnecessary conflicts in the world

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> All it takes is one person of authority to sway the opinions of those around him/her.


I don't know how you think this "swaying of opinions" can happen when the name of the game is observation, prediction, testability, and repeatability. A great many scientists do nothing by attempt to repeat the results of others, so in such cases there would be no "swaying of opinions," either they could reproduce the results or they couldn't. While there are SOME areas of science that rely on a certain amount of opinion (the interpretations of quantum mechanics being one example), even there scientists are quick to distinguish between theory (a tested/supported hypothesis) and interpretation (an opinion on how to consider the observations). So you don't hear scientists going around declaring their opinion as fact on such matters. 




> OK, fair enough, archaeology hasn't proven any Biblical miracles to be true, I agree. But science hasn't proven them to be false either.


Errr, there's no way to prove that most of the things written in The Bible didn't happen. What we can say is that, eg, archeology shows no sign of a Global flood and, what's more, all the data in existence is inconsistent of what we'd expect if such a thing happened. Same thing with the Jews' exodus from Egypt. Really, besides saying "there's no evidence that such things happened," there's no way to "prove" they didn't.

----------


## glennr25

> I don't know how you think this "swaying of opinions" can happen when the name of the game is observation, prediction, testability, and repeatability. A great many scientists do nothing by attempt to repeat the results of others, so in such cases there would be no "swaying of opinions," either they could reproduce the results or they couldn't. While there are SOME areas of science that rely on a certain amount of opinion (the interpretations of quantum mechanics being one example), even there scientists are quick to distinguish between theory (a tested/supported hypothesis) and interpretation (an opinion on how to consider the observations). So you don't hear scientists going around declaring their opinion as fact on such matters. 
> 
> Errr, there's no way to prove that most of the things written in The Bible didn't happen. What we can say is that, eg, archeology shows no sign of a Global flood and, what's more, all the data in existence is inconsistent of what we'd expect if such a thing happened. Same thing with the Jews' exodus from Egypt. Really, besides saying "there's no evidence that such things happened," there's no way to "prove" they didn't.


Well, I posted a link to an article showing how flawed the whole peer review system is. Not sure if you read it or not, but this scientist from Harvard wrote up a study on a new anti-cancer drug, only thing was that it was fake. He then went ahead and sent it out to over 300 journals, more than half of them accepted the study without checking for flaws. This shows that journals--for the sake of keeping their readership--are accepting papers just for the idea alone. Not saying this happens all the time, but it's a problem that should definitely be looked into. Here's the link so you can read up on it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bo...laws-1.2054004

Of course, and I'm not saying the flood ever happened. Both sides make good points and bad points. The fact is that we will probably never know for sure. Hopefully, one day evidence does turn up that shows it did or didn't happen. Science and religion aren't bad for society. Both have done great things and bad things for mankind. We have to look at the bigger picture instead of saying who's right and who's wrong. There are things science or religion will never explain because they are both limited to human thinking. I think if scholars and scientists got together and put away their differences, it would definitely make it a lot easier to try and figure out the mysteries of the universe. 

EDIT: Found a good article about the great flood. Robert Ballard (you might know him as the scientist who found the Titanic) has unearthed evidence that a Great Flood did happen in the Black Sea around 5,000 BC: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evi...ry?id=17884533

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Well, I posted a link to an article showing how flawed the whole peer review system is.


Quite hilariously, that paper proves something quite different: 


> In the end, what he concluded was that “a huge proportion” of the journals *were not ensuring their papers were peer reviewed.*


The problem, quite clearly, isn't in the "peer review system," it's with the magazine that AREN'T DOING PEER REVIEWS AT ALL! 




> Of course, and I'm not saying the flood ever happened. Both sides make good points and bad points.


There are no "good points" for a world wide flood. There's not a stitch of evidence it happened and all the evidence that exists is irreconcilable with such an event. Your attempt at putting religion and science on the same level ground with platitudes like "they've both done good things and bad things for society" is rather feeble. Science has given us the modern world as we know it, with advances in technology, medicine, and understanding that far surpass anything religion has ever given us. Show an unbiased observer two different world: one with only religion, the other with only science, and one would be foolish to think they'd choose the former. 




> Found a good article about the great flood. Robert Ballard (you might know him as the scientist who found the Titanic) has unearthed evidence that a Great Flood did happen in the Black Sea around 5,000 BC: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evi...ry?id=17884533


Actually, because of the prevalence of "great floods" in many mythologies and religions that were circulating around the same time and place that the OT was written, a great many historians have assumed that some major flood probably happened at some point in history in that era. However, Noah (and Gilgamesh) are examples of how a historical event gets subsumed by fiction and allegory. This is not unlike how Shakespeare fictionalizes his historical kings, or modern Hollywood just fictionalized the 47 Ronin. These things are based on real people and real events, but have become so distorted by fiction it's hard to separate the two. That said, we can draw some reasonable limits, such as calling the notion that the flood was worldwide, lasted for 40 days, and that someone built an enormous ark that housed two of every living creature, almost certainly fictional.

----------


## YALASH

Peace be on all.
The source of religion and science is same God.
Religion comes with words of God.
Science is working of same God.
Science leads to 'should be'.
Religion takes to 'is'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelat...edge_%26_Truth

----------


## YesNo

Nice poem YALASH. The first four lines I can agree with or make sense out of immediately. The last two I'm still thinking about. I don't know much about Islam, but Mirza Tahir Ahmad's book referenced in the link might be a good place to start.

----------


## Ecurb

Here's a more nuanced take on the question of fading religious faith, from Adam Gopnik in last week's New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all

Among Gopnik's points: Arguments in favor of naturalism (as opposed to super naturalism) have existed for centuries. One point of interest is how society and culture changes to make these arguments acceptable.

He discusses how physics is more compatable with religion than evolutionary biology.

He talks about how specifically atheistic arguments have been ineffective compared to (his example) Gibbon's discussion of the worldly mechanisms by which Christianity triumphed in Rome.

He says, "...we arrive at what the noes ("no" to God)... really have now, and that is a monopoly on legitimate forms of knowledge about the natural world." Herein lies my disapproval of "The Athiest". His argument is already won. Beating religious folks over the head with it is like the Seattle Seahawks challenging a Pop Warner football team to a game, and then tauntng the 100-pound kids after every bone-jarring tackle.

I'm not sure about Gopnik's conclusion -- which is that life has become so pleasant that we no longer need the opiate of God. However, by reading and commenting on the article, perhaps we can raise the level of this discussion (which wouldn't be difficult).

----------


## glennr25

> Here's a more nuanced take on the question of fading religious faith, from Adam Gopnik in last week's New Yorker:
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all
> 
> Among Gopnik's points: Arguments in favor of naturalism (as opposed to super naturalism) have existed for centuries. One point of interest is how society and culture changes to make these arguments acceptable.
> 
> He discusses how physics is more compatable with religion than evolutionary biology.
> 
> He talks about how specifically atheistic arguments have been ineffective compared to (his example) Gibbon's discussion of the worldly mechanisms by which Christianity triumphed in Rome.
> ...


Oh, I agree completely. Religion is definitely starting to lose its luster. People are starting to figure out that over time it's been used to manipulate more than anything else. Manipulation is at the heart of every human endeavor, unfortunately. That is not to say that religion hasn't done great things for mankind. Music, poetry, architecture are just some of the things that religion has had a hand in over the centuries. But then you get to the bad, like the crusades for example, which is still affecting us to this very day, or the discovery of the New World, and those tend to overshadow the accomplishments. The same could be said for science, we've had great advancements in technology in such a short time, but those same advancements give us drones, nuclear bombs, missiles that can hit targets from half way around the world.

----------


## YesNo

> Here's a more nuanced take on the question of fading religious faith, from Adam Gopnik in last week's New Yorker:
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all


The link looks like it could be a refreshing way to rationalize this thread. However, it appeared to me to be mainly assertions strung together with rhetoric to make it look like Adam Gopnik was just saying the obvious. 

Some of the assertions amused me such as the view that Lennon, far from being the atheist that he sounded like in "Imagine", was as New Age nutty as I am.

Others like his comment about Einstein's God being close enough to a theologian's God to be tolerated I think were plain nutty. Einstein's God doesn't exist. Quantum physics, or rather Bohr's interpretation of quantum physics, falsified it.

Some things about our getting ever more prosperous that we will become more and more atheistic made me think he might be mistaken on more than one level, the most ominous of which is that we may be on the edge of an economic crash. What happens then?

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Herein lies my disapproval of "The Athiest". His argument is already won. Beating religious folks over the head with it is like...


Really? The major majority of the world population is still religious, and as threads like these are a testament too, there are still plenty of believers out there espousing their religion as a worldview. Given that this thread is titled "science vs religion" it seems strange to accuse anyone of "beating the other side over the head" with what has "clearly already won." If science had "clearly already won," then these threads wouldn't exist. Nobody starts threads over "geocentrism VS heliocentrism."

----------


## The Atheist

> Really? The major majority of the world population is still religious, and as threads like these are a testament too, there are still plenty of believers out there espousing their religion as a worldview. Given that this thread is titled "science vs religion" it seems strange to accuse anyone of "beating the other side over the head" with what has "clearly already won." If science had "clearly already won," then these threads wouldn't exist. Nobody starts threads over "geocentrism VS heliocentrism."


I'm lookin' for a "bravo" emoticon, but I don't see one, so:

Bravo!

----------


## YesNo

Someone brought this to my attention. It is an interview with Alvin Plantinga by Gary Gutting titled "Is Atheism Irrational":

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...ype=blogs&_r=0

Plantinga has a book called "Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism" which sounds relevant to this thread although I haven't read it yet.

----------


## Ecurb

> Really? The major majority of the world population is still religious, and as threads like these are a testament too, there are still plenty of believers out there espousing their religion as a worldview. Given that this thread is titled "science vs religion" it seems strange to accuse anyone of "beating the other side over the head" with what has "clearly already won." If science had "clearly already won," then these threads wouldn't exist. Nobody starts threads over "geocentrism VS heliocentrism."


Actually, if you go to certain internet discussion boards, you can probably find your geocentrism thread, along with threads about the existence of sasquatch and alien space ships. The reason (as Gopnik points out) that the science vs. religion question is no longer important is that religion no longer affects science in a meaningful way. Ill grant that there are occasional issues in the public education system here in the U.S., but they are confined to the education of children. At the Universities in which science is actually practiced and at which future scientists receive their training, religion no longer affects how science is done or taught. Individual scientists may still be religious, but science itself is a post-religious process and institution.

In addition, wherefore the missionary zeal? I can understand why Christian missionaries feel called upon to proselytize. They think they are saving souls. But does rejection of the supernatural save anyones soul? In past centuries Christian missionaries travelled the world attempting to convert the benighted savages. Here in the Americas (and elsewhere) such conversions were often promoted by the scourge and the flame, as well as by bribes of food and goods. As recently as 100 years ago children were forcibly taken from their parents to Indian schools where they were taught literacy, Christianity, English, and Western Ways (including science). Why? Well it was obvious that the illiteracy and lack of Christianity in native cultures was leading to economic hardship, moral turpitude and intellectual ignorance among the Natives. This was a horrible injury to natïve children that could be rectified by education. 

The ethnocentrism, bigotry and inhumanity shown by those running the Indian Schools does not automatically suggest that they were evil men. Christianity was a motive for some of them, but not all of them. Some educators were probably motivated by a faith in science. If they could just forcibly remove Native Children from their own culture, they could prevent the ignorance which they saw as a terrible injury to children. Nonetheless, this attitude was smug, self-centered, ethnocentric and bigoted. The Native children were ignorant of Western ways, of Chriastianity and of Science -- but they were no more uneducated than Western children. 

I dont mean to suggest that anyone here has advocated the forcible education of the religious. However, I see ethnocentric bigotry in these threads similar to that of which the educators of the past were guilty. Cultural differences in and of themselves need not be eradicated. We can fight specific battles  against teaching Creationism to school children, for example. But we need not convert the religious in order to do that. 

In addition, as Gopnik points out, the statistics about how many people here in North America and Western Europe are religious are questionable. A vocal minority of Christians in the U.S. identify as Fundamentalists (maybe 15% of the population). The rest of those who identify themselves as Christians (or Jews, or Muslims) are often as willing to accept science as you or I. 

So the battlefield is controlled by the scientists. Some refugees from the religious army have escaped destruction, and gone guerilla, fighting minor skirmishes far from the centers of scientific progress. Its reasonable to keep them under control (on the subject of public education, for example), but unreasonable to think we should hunt them down and educate (eradicate?) them. It is also unreasonable for us to belittle them or their culture. 

(Of course there are parts of the world where this issue is more pressing, but even there I'm not sure the "science vs. religion" debate is a significant way in which to combat stonings, oppression, and other social problems associated with (if not necessarily due to) religion. Moral problems should be addressed in moral terms.)

----------


## YesNo

> In addition, wherefore the missionary zeal? I can understand why Christian missionaries feel called upon to proselytize. They think they are saving souls. But does rejection of the supernatural save anyone’s soul?


You're right. This makes no sense. It is irrational behavior.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The reason (as Gopnik points out) that the science vs. religion question is no longer important is that religion no longer affects science in a meaningful way. Ill grant that there are occasional issues in the public education system here in the U.S., but they are confined to the education of children. At the Universities in which science is actually practiced and at which future scientists receive their training, religion no longer affects how science is done or taught.


Universities and science/scientists rely on money to function. Much of that money comes from donations. People tend to donate to the fields they have interest in or feel are worthwhile. How many wealthy religious believers are there out there? How many will donate to a university science department if they feel that department is turning out results that conflict with their beliefs? Conversely, how many will donate to dishonest institutes like Discovery that disseminate lies and propaganda to convince the ignorant of their beliefs, and how many of those who are hooked will themselves grow up to be religious and withhold their own donations to science departments? How much time does people like Dawkins spend fighting the lies Creationists spread to the public about evolution? How much BETTER would his time have been spent by actually focusing on evolutionary biology and how it can benefit humanity? How far advanced would stem cell research be right now were it not for the resistance mostly from religious fundamentalists? 

I think you (and Gopnik probably) grossly miscalculate the affect religious beliefs can have on science and society at large. Societies naturally direct their time, money, and energy into fields it feels are worthwhile, and while mostly everyone feels science is worthwhile, when it comes into conflict with religious beliefs we've seen the directly deleterious impact it can have. To assume that science is free to go about what it does without a care in the world strikes me as quite naive since science requires the support of others in society, just like every institution. In fact, consider how much money gets spent on religious even in a year, and then imagine how much scientific research that money could support. I don't think such things are trivial matters. 

So, perhaps given the above, you'll discern my answer for "wherefore the missionary zeal?" Besides these larger, social reasons for my participation in debates about religion and science, I also have personal reasons, insofar as I've directly experienced the sickness that's produced when one's beliefs cut against the grain of how reality functions. While I wouldn't claim everyone has those same personal negative experiences with religion (in fact, I'd probably admit that, for most, religion may even promote mental health, even if it's via untruths), I know a great many do, and for those I do feel a certain moral responsibility in saying "there is another way; trade in the 10 Commandments for the 12 Virtues of Rationality."




> Moral problems should be addressed in moral terms.)


When people's morality comes from their holy texts, I don't see any way not to address it in religious terms.

----------


## Pendragon

Religion is not faulty, a lot of people who claim to follow it are. I never got a response from the person I asked to give me a citation where the Bible indicates evolution is wrong. In God I trust, in those who claim God is their foundation, often not so much.

Look, everything has a beginning. Then evolution changes things by environment changes that force adaptation. Question though for the scientists; what was the disaster that caused the death of the dinosaurs and early mammals that hit so fast that mammoths are found still with food in their mouths? Whatever it was, to you who like myself believe God created them caused major changes to take place rather swiftly in order to survive.

Why do you deny what can be proven? God chooses evolution to refine His product, that is how I feel. God place medications here for illness, but science made the discovery of how to use it. There were things to create homes, heat, vehicles, etc. Man learned to use what God supplied.

Denying science a place in God's kingdom is ludicrous. Knowledge is often mention favorably in the Bible, especially in Proverbs where knowledge and foolishness are contrasted. 

My belief in God as all powerful does not and should not exclude science. I can use this computer because someone discovered the way to use and store data. I can use prayer, because to me God exists. If I need medication to control my bipolar, I don't allow prayer to cause me to refuse the relief medication can give me. I believe God could heal me if He chooses. But not to use the medication He allowed man to discover is foolish in the extreme.

Well, I have probably ticked off both sides. But God Bless.

Pen

----------


## Ecurb

It is true that Universities rely on public funding and religion influences the public. I have no expertise as to the extent that religion (in this manner) influences scientific funding  my guess is: not very much. The amount of money spent funding Creation Science is probably a drop in the bucket, as well as coming from private instead of public sources. If religious people want to fund Creation Science, I see no problem with that. Ill grant that its probably a waste of money, but so is buying big-screen TVs and seeing the 7th "Batman" movie. In addition, theres some value to diversity -- of the many seemingly whacky theories that are funded, perhaps one will prove valuable. I think creation science, searching for sasquatch, and looking for alien spaceships is a waste of time and money  but I dont see any real harm in it (as long as its privately funded). 

You correctly point out some specific fields which may have been held back by religious opposition  like stem cell research. But, as we agreed previously, it does not follow that because the objections are based on flawed premises, the objections themselves are unreasonable. Religious faith has been the primary mover in political movements objecting to slavery, too. It seems to me that there are some potentially reasonable, non-religious objections to stem cell research, too.

So as to the issue of the effect of religion on modern science, our disagreement is one of degree, not of kind  and it would take more research than I am willing to do to resolve it in any reasonable way. Ill grant the (minor) impact. 

As far as having personal reasons for your missionary zeal  I think thats fair. To return to my Native American analogy  its one thing for white educators to demand that Natives renounce their superstitious ways and send their kids off to boarding school to be assimilated into a Christian and Scientific society, and another for Hopi parents to decide to do it on their own, and try to persuade their Hopi friends to do the same. The first case demonstrates bigoted ethnocentrism; the second shows reasonable self-criticism. 

Thats why I object when some posters mock the beliefs of others (as in, Thats hilarious.  The humour just keeps on keeping on.) That rhetorical style is a form of bullying. Returning to the analogy, suppose a white man heard the Hopi creation story of how the people emerged from the underworld through a hole in the ground and responded, Thats hilarious! The humour just keeps on coming. Suppose that same man then started war whooping and performing a fake Hopi Snake Dance to mock Hopi culture. Such a man would be obnoxious. Outsiders should treat the culture of others with some respect  although they can disagree with allegedly factual claims Native Speakers make. Members of the culture (even some who have renounced parts of that culture) have a bit more latitude to criticize the culture, because they are criticizing themselves. Black people can use the N word, when white people should not. 

Finally, I agree that when people's morals come from religion, there is no way to address it other than in religious terms. That's why I see your approach as ineffective. Alternative theologies or textual interpretations are more likely to change the moral postition of fundamentalists than arguments about science vs. religion.

----------


## YesNo

> That’s why I object when some posters mock the beliefs of others (as in, “That’s hilarious.” – “The humour just keeps on keeping on”.) *That rhetorical style is a form of bullying.* Returning to the analogy, suppose a white man heard the Hopi creation story of how “the people” emerged from the underworld through a hole in the ground and responded, “That’s hilarious! The humour just keeps on coming.” Suppose that same man then started war whooping and performing a fake Hopi Snake Dance to mock Hopi culture. Such a man would be obnoxious. Outsiders should treat the culture of others with some respect – although they can disagree with allegedly factual claims Native Speakers make. Members of the culture (even some who have renounced parts of that culture) have a bit more latitude to criticize the culture, because they are criticizing themselves. Black people can use the “N” word, when white people should not.


It_ is_ bullying. It _is_ verbal abuse. 

What the abuser does is demonstrates that he or she has run out of something reasonable to say, is hostile, and easily gets out of control. If you are debating this kind of person, you just have to stand back and let them talk. They are their own worst enemies, because they demonstrate their own irrationality. In particular, when atheists do this they are setting themselves up for cultural criticism, as you have been providing, since they are giving evidence that they are irrational when they brag about the supposed superiority of their rationality over others.

The main question that I would have for theists is whether their particular religious practices actually lead them to a divine reality. I am more interested in how effective those practices are since there is not enough time to practice all of them. 

The main question that I would have for atheists is whether their position is consistent or "rational" even when they are not bullying others. Their practice is supposedly "being reasonable" or "being scientific". How consistent and how scientific then are those beliefs?

----------


## The Atheist

> That’s why I object when some posters mock the beliefs of others ....


Nice strawman you make there, Ecurb.

When Hopi Indians demand that my children be taught Hopi fairy tales as fact, I will indeed mock their beliefs.

When blacks demand an end to scientific research and abortion, I will indeed mock their beliefs. (if there is such a thing)

Meanwhile, you're typing through a hole in your head.

----------


## The Atheist

> It_ is_ bullying. It _is_ verbal abuse.


Huh. Mocking an irrational belief is bullying, but standing and verbally abusing young women having an abortion isn't.

Who knew?

----------


## Vota

Pendragon, I never responded because I was taken aback by you asking me to cite what I said. I had assumed you knew specifically what I was referring to, and so I refrained until I recently came back to peruse the thread and you said you never got a response.

Genesis

1:20

And God said Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

1:21

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that is was good.

1:24

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.----one could make the case that each use of "kind" in these passages could refer to variation of species.

2:7

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed of life; and man became a living soul.----BUT, then God created man out of basic elements, shaped it's genetic dna, grew it without the female egg and her dna, and then grew it into a man in double quick time.

2:22

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.----Again God makes a woman without a fertilized egg, so perhaps some kind of cloning from the dna in Adam's rib? Either way, it's double quick time and doesn't provide any room for evolution.

Now I claim that The Theory of Evolution, and The Holy Bible's account of the creation of the plants, animals, and men/women of the earth, directly conflict with each other. In passages 2:7 and 2:22 it specifically states that God directly created man, and then a woman from that man's, Adam, rib. This directly conflicts with evolution. I don't see anyway of trying to explain these two passages as being long periods of time for natural selection to occur, or the fusing of 2 chromosomes to create the off-shoot that would become man. I guess one might try to make the case that Adam was a neanderthal or whatever the main ancestor is that we and chimps evolved from, but the Bible looks pretty literal here. Also, nowhere does it state in the generations of Adam and Eve's children any evolving or changing other than shorter life spans. Adam and Eve had cattle, and their children traded, and were social, and had spoken and written language; they were not super primitives akin to packs of chimpanzees or the like.

This was my original point and why I asked how you reconcile God, The Bible, and The Theory of Evolution.

----------


## Pendragon

Volta

This of course speaks of creation. I said I believed in creation by God. Where does it say animals cannot change? They produce "after their kind." The point of creation is that the original species is created. There is no "one creature becomes something wildly different". They evolve along their own species. A Sabretooth is still a big cat even if it has evolved and spawned other, modern big cats. Giant Sloths no longer exist but two-toed and three toed sloths do. Eohippus vanished but modern horses are now here. Man has changed as well, not from an ape--which Darwin did not claim anyway--but from one equipped to stand a harsher life to modern man in a modern world.

Evolution doesn't remove creation, it provides a scientific look at the progression of each species since creation.

Let me ask you this: These animals are mentioned in the Bible:

Unicorn many places, but Job 39:9-10 especially
Sytar Isiah:13:21 and other places
Leviathan Job 41:1 among other places
Behemoth Job 40:15
Cockatrice Isiah 11:8 and other places
Dragon all throughout the Bible

What are they and where are they today?


Whew: Confusing to me is that if you tell a creationist that evolution is demonstrable, they begin to cry foul.
If you tell scientific people that you believe God was the spark of life, the beginning of all things, and science tells what happened since, you are told you are mixed up.

Two camps--two immovable stances. 

Oh, well, I cannot fully agree with either, but I have made my stand and I stick with what I believe.

God bless

Pen

----------


## Ecurb

> When Hopi Indians demand that my children be taught Hopi fairy tales as fact, I will indeed mock their beliefs.
> 
> .


I doubt the Hopi have sent a delegation to England to demand that The Atheist's children be taught Hopi myths as fact. Yet (in an attempt to mock Hopi myths) The Atheist calls those myths "fairy tales". He thus demonstrates his ignorance of literary genres, which wouldn't be so bad were it not so hackneyed. How many times has The Atheist called myths "fairy tales" on these boards? Dozens? How many times have other atheists used that same trite comparison? Thousands?

Mockery can be an effective rhetorical tactic -- but only if it is funny, or witty, or original. Since The Atheist mentions "straw men", perhaps, like another straw man, he should visit the Emerald City to ask The Wizard for the help he so sorely needs.

----------


## mal4mac

> ... what was the disaster that caused the death of the dinosaurs and early mammals that hit so fast that mammoths are found still with food in their mouths?


Mammoths were not early mammals. They came a long time after the meteor struck. Last I read, it was a combination of the retreat of the ice age and the advance of man that most likely did for the mammoths. But I'm not up with the details of current "mammoth lore", so I stand to be corrected on these matters.

Large herbivores are always eating, so if it fell off a cliff I wouldn't be surprised if it had food in its mouth.

----------


## The Atheist

> Mockery can be an effective rhetorical tactic -- but only if it is funny, or witty, or original.


Seems to be working pretty well on you, so it's fine so far.

I must note that the mockery in this thread has been aimed at ridiculous posts rather than religion, as you can find by checking back. I haven't mocked Pen, or even Yes/No.

I've mocked Yes' silly "arguments" and I've mocked your irrelevant attempts to get at me, and glenn's absurd attempts to paint science as whatever he failed to paint it as. 

Which is why you've tried to turn the obvious strawman around. You know what it means, and you know you used one, so the egg is all on one face only so far.

Yours. 

Au revoir!

----------


## The Atheist

I'll just drop this here to show just how post-religious the world outside Ecurb's house is: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2...has-profe/?wtf

_The board of trustees is requiring professors and staff to sign a statement saying that they believe Adam and Eve were created in an instant by God and that humans shared no ancestry with other life forms._

Shall we touch on that abortion situation as well, since it got ignored when I first mentioned it?

----------


## The Atheist

This stuff is jumping out at me today! More post-religion world where gays are accepted universally and Jesus loves LGBT: http://news.msn.com/in-depth/no-long...oin-trail-life

Just as well I can't be bothered searching for evidence.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> It is true that Universities rely on public funding and religion influences the public. I have no expertise as to the extent that religion (in this manner) influences scientific funding  my guess is: not very much. The amount of money spent funding Creation Science is probably a drop in the bucket, as well as coming from private instead of public sources. If religious people want to fund Creation Science, I see no problem with that. Ill grant that its probably a waste of money, but so is buying big-screen TVs and seeing the 7th "Batman" movie. In addition, theres some value to diversity -- of the many seemingly whacky theories that are funded, perhaps one will prove valuable. I think creation science, searching for sasquatch, and looking for alien spaceships is a waste of time and money  but I dont see any real harm in it (as long as its privately funded).


Well, your guess is only that: a guess. It generally takes millions to run institutes like Discovery (and, just quickly checking Wikipedia, it seems they run at about $4 million annually), and if you think millions are "drops in the bucket" to the thousands of scientists out there that struggle even for a few thousand to get research projects off the ground. Anyway, we very much differ on how much of a "problem" we have such things. Buying a big-screen TV and seeing the new Batman movie are not "wastes of money" if they satisfy the person buying/seeing them, which is really all that technology and art is good for. However, when there's an institution whose aim is to debunk evolution, prove Creation, and spread lies and propaganda about both, it's satisfying/helping nobody and actually hurting the progress of science and the good that science could be doing for people. Yes, there's value to diversity, but not when it comes to our attempts to understand how reality works and how to manipulate it to our benefit; in that arena, religion and any other superstitions/magical beliefs have no value, certainly not when compared to science. Anything that's not capable of revealing truths/facts and engineering those things to society's benefit is, conversely, harming the one thing that can. You see no harm in it, but imagine the millions (if not billions) that go to such delusive projects that could be going to science/scientists that may discover the cure for cancer through stem-cell research. 




> It seems to me that there are some potentially reasonable, non-religious objections to stem cell research, too.


I don't see what they are. Most of the objections lie in the notion that the minute a sperm meets an egg God injects a soul into the fetus, which obviously has not the slightest basis in reality and an entire basis in religious belief. 




> To return to my Native American analogy  its one thing for white educators to demand that Natives renounce their superstitious ways and send their kids off to boarding school to be assimilated into a Christian and Scientific society, and another for Hopi parents to decide to do it on their own, and try to persuade their Hopi friends to do the same. The first case demonstrates bigoted ethnocentrism; the second shows reasonable self-criticism.


Well, this is a public debate/discussion forum. Anyone reading it is absolutely free to buy into/reject the arguments of either side. Neither the Atheist or myself have the power to demand anyone renounce their religions or superstitious ways, but insofar as we see it valuable/desirable for them to do so, I really don't see any problem with mockery. People are equally free to mock my arguments or beliefs or lack thereof in converse. While I rarely adopt such a style myself, it does have its place when it comes to tackling the most frustrating and ignorant posters (which are, thankfully, fewer on here than most other forums I'm a part of). 




> That rhetorical style is a form of bullying.


Oh, now, come on; given the anonymity and freedom of the internet I have difficulty describing any action as "bullying" that doesn't cross-over into real life (like, say, kids on FB taking their online bullying into the school). Outside of that, people are free to leave any message board where they feel they're being "bullied" or treated unfairly and go somewhere else. What's more, in a forum like this, there are about equally as many posters arguing for one side as for the other, so it's hard to "bully" when there are equal numbers. What's more, mods and admins tend to restrict the harshest direct attacks, ad hominem, flaming, etc. Things like "that argument is ridiculous!," if bullying at all, must surely be considered the most minor kind of bullying imaginable given the severity of bullying that actually takes place offline and elsewhere online. 




> Finally, I agree that when people's morals come from religion, there is no way to address it other than in religious terms. That's why I see your approach as ineffective. Alternative theologies or textual interpretations are more likely to change the moral postition of fundamentalists than arguments about science vs. religion.


If people understand their morals are rooted in their religious beliefs, but then are lead to question those beliefs because of the ways in which science contradicts those beliefs, then I think that CAN be an effective way to change them. After all, science has probably done more to convert theists to atheists and engender the kind of modern freedom skeptics have than anything else. In the past, because of the overwhelming authority of religion (especially the church), most atheists/skeptics had to remain quite anonymous or subtle in their unbelief; now, because religion has a formidable challenger to their authority in science, atheists and skeptics have become far more emboldened to speak up and out. As is typical when any majority rule is challenged, the rulers see this as an affront to their rights (which are actually ruling privileges), rather than the minority claiming the rights that were denied to them for so long (same thing happened with every 20th century civil rights movement).

----------


## Ecurb

OK, Morpheus! You win. The Atheist is not guilty of bullying, only of ATTEMPTED bullying. I'll grant that he probably doesn't ACTUALLY bully anyone. Nonetheless, when he ridicules religion in an ethnocentric and bigoted fashion, he gives atheism a bad name. I'll bet some educated, liberal Christians object when some internet poster calls himself 
THE Christian, and then attacks all non-Christians with threats of hellfire and damnation. Attempted bullying may be worse in some ways than actual bullying. Is the intent of the guilty party ameliorarted by his rhetorical incompetence?

A quick google reveals that in the U.S. about 3% of GDP is spent on scientific research, which amounts to about $510 billion. $4 million is .000008 of $500 billion. Of course we can argue about how money should be spent -- but relgiously oriented research comprises such a small percentage that surely there are other, more significant wasted funds. When you spend $500 billion, some of it will be misspent. (By the way, I agree that it's reasonable to argue about PUBLIC funding, but if private sources want to support Discovery, what can we do about it? Also, if we fund only mainstream scientific projects, wouldn't that retard the progress of science by limiting the "Scientific Revolutions" Kuhn talks about? By the way, acc. the web site I found, more scientific research is privately funded than publicly funded.)

Since I support both abortion rights and stem cell research, I don't want to get pulled into an argument on the other side. However, since you ask, it is reasonable to argue against abortion by suggesting that if we agree to value human life, any support for abortion is dependent on suggesting that at some point the fetus is not human. Traditional dividing lines include birth, viability, and "quickening". Nonetheless, ANY dividing line is at least somewhat arbitrary -- and the least arbitrary is conception. Every dividing line beyond that is subject to "slippery slope" objections. If we decide abortion is morally unacceptable, we should reconsider the moral acceptability of stem cell research. (I'm better at arguing in favor of postions with which I AGREE -- but this argument doesn't seem completely unreasonable.)

As to whether science vs. religion arguments are a reasonable or effective way to change the moral positions of believers: I'll grant that it is possible that pointing out scientific inaccuracies in the Bible might convert some Christians. However, science prvides no alternative moral compass. In order to argue about morality, we must make a moral argument, not a scientific one. You are correct, though, in suggesting that the first step might be declaring moral arguments based on the indisputable truth of the Bible (or some other religious text) unreasonable.

----------


## Ecurb

> I'll just drop this here to show just how post-religious the world outside Ecurb's house is: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2...has-profe/?wtf
> 
> _The board of trustees is requiring professors and staff to sign a statement saying that they believe Adam and Eve were created in an instant by God and that humans shared no ancestry with other life forms._


Horrors! Bryan College -- that great center of scientific research -- has demanded acceptance of Fundamentalist positions. The College was named after William Jennings Bryan, twice a candidate for the Presidency and later the Secretary of State, under Wilson. Bryan later lectured on the Chatauqua circuit and wrote best-selling books and pamphlets decrying Darwinian Evolution. Most famously, Bryan acted for the Prosecution in the Scopes Monkey trials, where he was humiliated on the witness stand by the famous atheist attorney Clarence Darrow. 

I would object if Bryan College ALLOWED the teaching of Darwinian Evolution. It would be an insult to the man after whom that influential institution of higher learning was named. What's the point of a Bryan College that teaches Darwinism?

In other science-reigion news, the Instute for Advance Studies, at Princeton, issued a press release yesterday stating that it's members unanimously support the theory that the earth -- far from being a spheroid hurtling through the universe -- is actually the back of a giant turtle.

----------


## The Atheist

> ...bits not answering questions about "post-religion" removed....


Nice of you to give me such a good write up, and I'm delighted that I'm giving atheists a bad name, but I'd much rather you answer the questions.

Note that I didn't ask about christians objecting to abortion - your reading comprehension letting you down again, sweetie? - I asked how old men screaming abuse at young women seeking abortions fitted into the wonderful "post religion" world that seems to be only in your head.

I imagine you must also realise that christians have perpetrated actual violence against doctors who perform abortions, have carried out attacks on abortion clinics and have subverted legislation in states of USA to make abortion more difficult to obtain.

All in the name of an invisible sky-fairy. I can see why you're giving that one the swerve.

Please do go on, though.

----------


## The Atheist

> Horrors! Bryan College -- that great center of scientific research -- has demanded acceptance of Fundamentalist positions.


We all know who Bryan was, so regurgitating the obvious is pointless.

You do, however, nicely move the goalposts by talking about teaching evolution, which is barely mentioned.

You really do have a comprehension problem. I hope that third-form class you teach is in something other than English.

(What's an "Instute"?)

I see you avoided the other link. It's ok - I don't wonder why that is.

----------


## mal4mac

> We all know who Bryan was...


Not outside the USA. I don't expect you to have heard of second rate British politicians/lawyers. Being interested in Evolution, the name kind of rang a bell with me, but I needed the reminder about his involvement in the monkey trial (Darrow, of course, is first rate, so I didn't need a reminder about him...)

----------


## The Atheist

> Not outside the USA.


Well, I'm in New Zealand and knew all about him, but I have done a bit of work on Scopes.




> I don't expect you to have heard of second rate British politicians/lawyers.


Unfortunately, I probably have. I won't mention any names, however, since politics is verboten and your damned Law Lords are still hearing cases in the Privy Council. (Aren't the politicians *all* second-rate? Don't answer that!)

----------


## Ecurb

> Note that I didn't ask about christians objecting to abortion - your reading comprehension letting you down again, sweetie? 
> I asked how old men screaming abuse at young women seeking abortions fitted into the wonderful "post religion" world that seems to be only in your head.
> 
> .


How kind of you to call me, "Sweetie". You are correct that I wasn't responding to you. You are not the only person in the world. I was responding to Morpheus. I didn't (and won't) respond to your question about screaming abuse at young girls who are considering abortions because I don't want to discuss it with you. Other than that, I shall be glad to agree with it all, just like Elinor Dashwood agreed with Robert Ferrars:




> Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.

----------


## The Atheist

> I didn't (and won't) respond to your question about screaming abuse at young girls who are considering abortions because ....


...it doesn't conform to your Utopian "post-religion" world that exists somewhere in your head.

Nice of you to mention rationality in that context.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Nonetheless, when he ridicules religion in an ethnocentric and bigoted fashion, he gives atheism a bad name. I'll bet some educated, liberal Christians object when some internet poster calls himself THE Christian, and then attacks all non-Christians with threats of hellfire and damnation.


There's a theory in sociology that states the minority are incapable of bullying because they are, in a larger social context, powerless. So even if, eg, a black man hates all white people, his "racism" is so impotent that it's really a misuse of the term racism (which typically includes a larger social component) that we shouldn't even consider it as such. Atheists are still quite in the minority, and the notion that one of them speaking up on an anonymous internet message is "bullying" in any meaningful sense of the term is, IMO, a bit ridiculous; nor do I think it gives "atheism" a bad name since atheism entails nothing but a disbelief in god(s). So that one atheist bullies or even mass murders means relatively little to atheism, in general. The latter notion is just one of those tics of habit where people try to associate characteristics, behaviors, actions, etc. with one aspect where there is no relevant connection (as any large studies on atheism across countries confirms). Besides, there are plenty of Christians that employ the exact same tactic on several message boards I'm apart of (go to IMDb's Religion, Faith, and Spirituality board and observe the abominable behavior of certain Christians like Erjen, Blade, and Ada); I don't think such actions speak poorly of Christianity, I just think those people are horrible human beings regardless of their beliefs. 




> A quick google reveals that in the U.S. about 3% of GDP is spent on scientific research, which amounts to about $510 billion. $4 million is .000008 of $500 billion.


I mentioned one notable (or rather notorious) religious organization; There are surely thousands of them if we include churches, TV networks, etc. Religion is surely a multi-billion dollar industry, so that ratio of yours is undoubtedly not representative of the total picture. 




> However, science prvides no alternative moral compass. In order to argue about morality, we must make a moral argument, not a scientific one. You are correct, though, in suggesting that the first step might be declaring moral arguments based on the indisputable truth of the Bible (or some other religious text) unreasonable.


Obviously science can't really address normative ethics, that's what philosophy's for, but people need to wake up to the truthful realization that there is no objective, absolute morality. As uncomfortable as this notion makes people (Theologians like William Lane Craig love to prey on people's wrong intuitions that objective morality exists), it's much better to accept that than to assume that the morality chosen by individuals and accepted by the society are somehow divine edicts from a supernatural being. Really, it's as simple as accepting that evolution has programmed us to survive and reproduce, and that it's easier to do both within a social structure where the whole strengthens the individual and vice-versa, and, to quote WH Auden, we must love one another or die.

----------


## The Atheist

> Obviously science can't really address normative ethics, that's what philosophy's for, but people need to wake up to the truthful realization that there is no objective, absolute morality. As uncomfortable as this notion makes people (Theologians like William Lane Craig love to prey on people's wrong intuitions that objective morality exists), it's much better to accept that than to assume that the morality chosen by individuals and accepted by the society are somehow divine edicts from a supernatural being.


The best part is that many christians don't even get it regarding morality. They will point to the 10 Commandoes and say "an eye for eye" and seek capital punishment, while completely ignoring Jeebus' own demand that only those free of sin should be chucking bricks.

If they actually lived up to the morality Jesus tried to pass on, it wouldn't be so bad, but when the army is full of christians toting guns, it's pretty obvious they neither understand their own prophet, nor read the bible.




> Really, it's as simple as accepting that evolution has programmed us to survive and reproduce, and that it's easier to do both within a social structure where the whole strengthens the individual and vice-versa, and, to quote WH Auden, we must love one another or die.


Bingo!

It is that simple. 

The trick is getting them to accept it, and on that, I give you a very slim chance. Even lots of atheists are scared by the idea of a completely human-designed code of ethics, even though that's exactly what we have now.

----------


## Pendragon

People screaming at women having abortions is hard on the Christian movement. I personally believe abortion is wrong, but if I want the freedom to believe that, I have to accept these women's right to make a choice. When we cry "Freedom" it isn't just for a select group.

Ecurb, could you in good faith back the Westboro Baptist Church and their vitriolic spewing of hate at Serviceman's funerals?? Or the so-called Christians who in the name of preventing abortions, murder Doctors and staff of abortion clinics or blow the clinic up? And yet you cannot see God as the spark of life which then evolved as needed to deal with a changing earth?

Pangera split up and drifted apart to form our continents today. Upon completion of this, animals in new circumstances had to evolve to survive. If you think different here's scripture for you. Gen.1 [9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. One landmass, the rest ocean. 

You appear to take any criticism as a personal attack while spewing rhetoric. My advice is to educate yourself. Nothing I have learned to accept about science has weakened my faith in God. But it is foolish to deny what is demonstratively true. The Earth is not flat. The Earth revolves around the sun. The speed of light is a constant. The Earth is very old and fossil remains are difficult to refute unless you run a museum which destroys any evidence that doesn't suit your plans. 

The Earth periodically changes, ice-ages come and go. The jet stream moves, it has moved a lot in my lifetime. I'll be 54 this year. Global Warming may cause a very destructive mess.

Wake up, Ecurb, it's later than you think.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Ecurb

I've been alive for some decades now, and have yet to see any continents "drifiting", Pendragon. So there. Also, we've had the coldest winter in decades here in the U.S. So much for global warming!

Actually, Pendragon highlights one of my objections to The Atheist. Pendragon assumes that anyone who objects to The Atheist's positions (or, in my case, literary style) must be a science-denier and relgious fanatic. I am neither. I accept the scientific canon as much as most reasonable people do -- that is, I think it is the most accurate description of and explanation for reality that we can currently produce. 

Also, morpheus, I question your proposed approach to morality. It is probably true that we are "programmed" to propogated our genes (assuming that "programmed" is used metaphorically). It is probably also true that since morals (and religion) are "inherited" (not genetically, of course, but they are generally passed from parents to children) those moral tenets which promote genetic success will tend to spread, while those that inhibit it will tend to be eliminated. Indeed, this is one argument in favor of traditional morality (wheher religious or not): it has stood the test of time.

However, it would be a mistake to think (with Auden's quote) that because we must love one another or die, we "should" love one another. Efficacy (of whatever kind) and morality are separate issues. Surely every one agrees that if Auden's quote were "we must torture other people to death or die", we could hardly use the fact that torturing others was essential to our survival to justify it as morally correct. I'll agree that we should love one another (except for The Atheist), but cannot agree that Auden's reason grants moral credence to that proposition.

----------


## Pendragon

> Pendragon assumes that anyone who objects to The Atheist's positions (or, in my case, literary style) must be a science-denier and relgious fanatic. I am neither. I accept the scientific canon as much as most reasonable people do -- that is, I think it is the most accurate description of and explanation for reality that we can currently produce.


Whoa. Time out. Do not presume to tell me what I am thinking. I in no way called you a religious fanatic. I pointed out that there are religious fanatics and asked if you in good faith would back them in their actions. I don't believe you would any more than I would or I would not have asked, I was sure you agreed. I didn't call you a science denier, but said you question something that can be proven true.

As for disagreements with TheAtheist or Morpheus,I disagree with many statements here, but 
if I cannot be civil and extend a olive branch to one an all, I would count myself as fallen from grace. I did say Morpheus should not have said one thing he did, and when he disagreed, I let it go, causing hurt feelings isn't worth the fight.

Look, you can still fit the puzzle pieces together from continental drift. The rocks along continental edges match up. As I quote from scripture waters gathered IN ONE PLACE and the dry land appeared. Tell me that the waters are all in one place now. The difference between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans should take care of that.

I always encourage people to stick to their own principles or they will have no principles.

Good Bless

Pendragon

----------


## YesNo

> Huh. Mocking an irrational belief is bullying, but standing and verbally abusing young women having an abortion isn't.


Three quick points:

1) When have I ever said that verbally abusing women having an abortion is OK? 

2) How does appealing to people who abuse others, in any way whatsoever, excuse an individual who also engages in verbal abuse?

3) Regarding "irrational" beliefs, after deterministic materialism was falsified by quantum physics in the early 20th century, how does atheism now rationally justify its own beliefs?

Ecurb is providing valuable feedback to atheists. He is letting them know that when they present their arguments in ways that look like bullying and appear irrational, this makes atheism look bad. It should be obvious that he's right.

How does this relate to the science vs religious theme? In my view the real disagreement is between atheism and religion, not science and religion. Atheism unjustly claims for itself the ideas of rationality and the scientific method. Atheists think they are defending science when they attack religions. They are simply defending their own irrational ideology.

----------


## The Atheist

> Three quick points:
> 
> 1) When have I ever said that verbally abusing women having an abortion is OK?


You didn't - you just ignored the point.




> 2) How does appealing to people who abuse others, in any way whatsoever, excuse an individual who also engages in verbal abuse?


Pretty sure if you check the thread I haven't abused anyone. (Maybe Ecurb, but it's mutual, and irrelevant as he isn't a christian) Some of the more idiotic "arguments" presented have been subject to abuse, but quite rightly so, I feel. Don't confuse derision of an idea with abuse of the poster. 




> 3) Regarding "irrational" beliefs, after deterministic materialism was falsified by quantum physics in the early 20th century, how does atheism now rationally justify its own beliefs?


What beliefs are these?

I don't know of any beliefs at all that pertain to atheism, which is a lack of belief in something. Haven't we covered this point ad nauseum several times? Claiming atheism is a belief in anything is just ignorance of what the word means. I do recommend you read the thread I linked for Glenn if you want to revisit that idea.




> Ecurb is providing valuable feedback to atheists. He is letting them know that when they present their arguments in ways that look like bullying and appear irrational, this makes atheism look bad. It should be obvious that he's right.


In all seriousness, it's people like Ecurb that convince me I'm on the right track.

Anyone who thinks we're living in a "post-religion" world is so misguided I wouldn't want to agree with them on anything at all. I'm actually staggered someone who goes outside his/her house could even posit such a thing.




> How does this relate to the science vs religious theme?


It's not, but you, Glenn and Ecurb seem to think it does, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.




> In my view the real disagreement is between atheism and religion, not science and religion.


Good spot!




> Atheism unjustly claims for itself the ideas of rationality and the scientific method.


Who and where was that claim made? I've never seen atheism claim anything, and I've taken great pains to point out that atheism embraces lots of non-science types - david Icke's an atheist and he's not exactly a science fan. Wiccans & Buddhists are mostly atheist, but don't call for sceintific enquiry of their claims.

If you think anyone has made a claim anywhere that rationality and the scientific method has any relationship to atheism, please post the evidence of get off the claim.

Just because some individual atheists use the scientific method doesn't mean its a trait of atheism. Just as I don't judge all christians by Jack Chick/Benny Hinn/etc.




> Atheists think they are defending science when they attack religions.


I can't speak for others, but I don't think science needs any defence. I will attack people who misuse science or make untrue claims about it, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with why I attack religion.




> They are simply defending their own irrational ideology.


What ideology is that?

----------


## The Atheist

> People screaming at women having abortions is hard on the Christian movement. I personally believe abortion is wrong, but if I want the freedom to believe that, I have to accept these women's right to make a choice. When we cry "Freedom" it isn't just for a select group.


So far, I have you, Pope Franky and the former Archbishop Rowan Williams on my list of christians who live what they preach.

There are a few others, but few & far between, unfortunately. (Not that I expect Franky to take your position on abortion, but I can't see him standing and throwing blood-soaked dolls at young women either.)




> Nothing I have learned to accept about science has weakened my faith in God. But it is foolish to deny what is demonstratively true. The Earth is not flat. The Earth revolves around the sun. The speed of light is a constant. The Earth is very old and fossil remains are difficult to refute unless you run a museum which destroys any evidence that doesn't suit your plans. 
> 
> The Earth periodically changes, ice-ages come and go. The jet stream moves, it has moved a lot in my lifetime. I'll be 54 this year. Global Warming may cause a very destructive mess.


Are you actually Rowan Williams in disguise?

That is exactly the kind of answer he'd give.

Bravo!

(While I'm obviously never going to share your opinions, I admire your attitude.)

----------


## Ecurb

To Pendragon: I apologize for misinterpreting your post. I could see your questions were rhetorical, and assumed (incorrectly, it appears) that you were suggesting that I approve of abusing women getting abortions. 

As for my comment that we are in a post-religious era, obviously relgion still plays an important role in human life. I was specifically referring to the impact of religion on SCIENCE. I stand by my statement that-- in general -- science is now in a post-religious stage, although the occasional Bryan College or Discovery Institute are (minor) exceptions to that reality. I have no problem being civil, either. With one exception.

----------


## The Atheist

> As for my comment that we are in a post-religious era, obviously relgion still plays an important role in human life. I was specifically referring to the impact of religion on SCIENCE.


Yet that's nothing like what you said. Shall I refresh your memory?




> We are not only in a post-religious age (in my case, I don't think any of my grandparents were religious, let alone my parents), but we are also in a post-modern age.


Not even slightly related to science.

But your goalpost-shifting is acknowledged. I agree that science is indeed more or less post-religion.

Nice of you to see sense at last.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> If they actually lived up to the morality Jesus tried to pass on, it wouldn't be so bad, but when the army is full of christians toting guns, it's pretty obvious they neither understand their own prophet, nor read the bible.


There are two great films that imagined what it would be like for a Jesus-like figure to return to the present day: one is Luis Bunuel's Nazarin (Bunuel was an atheist who was obsessed with religion; he made several great films on the subject), and another is Roberto Rossellini's Europa '51 (though the latter was said to have been inspired by Saint Francis of Assissi, whom Rossellini had already made a film about). Both film depict these figures as being persecuted again, with the latter even having its protagonist committed to a mental institution for leaving her bourgeois life (after the death of her son) to help the poor and downtrodden. Who was it that said if Jesus came back today they'd crucify him again?

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> However, it would be a mistake to think (with Auden's quote) that because we must love one another or die, we "should" love one another. Efficacy (of whatever kind) and morality are separate issues.


I'm actually having this discussion on another forum right now; basically my position is that there IS no way to justify any normative ethical system because every such system will rest on assumptions that can't be proved by the system itself. Things like "it's better to live than die" and "it's better to live well than live poorly" are, themselves, merely assumptions for which nothing objective can justify us believing in them beyond our feelings and belief in them. However, once we DO agree with them, there are ways that are more and less efficacious (to use your word) in bringing them about. Moral issues about the correct course of action to take when one or one's social group feels threatened are some of the trickiest to deal with, and it's surely why "might makes right" reigns in nature and even has throughout human nature and history. Essentially, I don't think when it gets down to it you can justify any "shoulds" (or "oughts" to use the philosophical term) because all such things are necessarily subjective.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> after deterministic materialism was falsified by quantum physics in the early 20th century


There's one of your lies you love repeating. 




> In my view the real disagreement is between atheism and religion, not science and religion. Atheism unjustly claims for itself the ideas of rationality and the scientific method.


Science is innately atheistic. What I mean by that is that it does not assume the existence of Gods in order to go about its business. It addresses how material reality works on its own terms without getting into the philosophical issues that people's belief in god(s) rest on. That said, religion VS science and religion VS atheism reside in two main areas: 

1. Religion conflicts with science when science falsifies certain aspects of religious belief, mainly those about how material reality functions and how history happened, such as how the universe and human life came about or whether there was a mass Jewish exodus from Egypt. 

2. For theists that accept science (like Pen), the only place where most atheists and theists differ is that atheists think that science's approach to and understanding of reality is sufficient and as complete as we can get; whereas theists contend that science is only, by its nature, addressing a limited portion/aspect of reality, while their religious beliefs are addressing the rest of reality that is inaccessible to science. 

These are the two major conflicts I see between religion and science, and religion and atheism. As I've also said before, the religious method of generating beliefs (faith) is innately incompatible with science that relies on hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, empiricism, peer-review, repeatability, falsification, etc. I think all of these issues have been broached in this thread.

----------


## Pendragon

> Who was it that said if Jesus came back today they'd crucify him again?


They certainly would. Because people haven't changed all that much. They dislike being told to live in a peaceful manner, or to love their neighbor as themselves.

In God I trust. In the majority of those who claim to be the Children of God, not so much. 

Gal.5 [15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

This is the reason many do not trust religion because those who claim it fight all the time among each other while professing to believe the same things.

Science is there is provide answers on what is already here, to question how we reached this point, and discover things to improve the future. My belief that God made everything doesn't conflict with this view. Science has never discovered anything that wasn't here and just waiting to be discovered. Sometimes they have used the raw materials to create new things, but it is discovering how to manipulate what is already here.

Energy, I am reliably told, cannot be created or destroyed but it can be used. Example: Using water to generate electricity. The energy is there in the form of rushing water. Using turbines turned by the water, that energy is transformed into electricity.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Oedipus

> They certainly would. Because people haven't changed all that much. They dislike being told to live in a peaceful manner, or to love their neighbor as themselves.
> 
> In God I trust. In the majority of those who claim to be the Children of God, not so much. 
> 
> Gal.5 [15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
> 
> This is the reason many do not trust religion because those who claim it fight all the time among each other while professing to believe the same things.
> 
> Science is there is provide answers on what is already here, to question how we reached this point, and discover things to improve the future. My belief that God made everything doesn't conflict with this view. Science has never discovered anything that wasn't here and just waiting to be discovered. Sometimes they have used the raw materials to create new things, but it is discovering how to manipulate what is already here.
> ...


Behind this is the ontological principle, of course - and the conclusion drawn somehow, that science hasn't created anything devalues it; or that is the implication _I_ read... Since you believe in _transfiguration_ of matter: what if the foundations of the principle itself (shaky, we may be assured, even at the present!) were - transfigurated into water? Than, this cascading new waterfall would be a sight: these are the waters of knowledge, flowing into their old basin of error.

----------


## Ecurb

> Yet that's nothing like what you said. Shall I refresh your memory?
> "We are not only in a post-religious age (in my case, I don't think any of my grandparents were religious, let alone my parents), but we are also in a post-modern age."
> 
> Not even slightly related to science.
> 
> But your goalpost-shifting is acknowledged. I agree that science is indeed more or less post-religion.
> 
> Nice of you to see sense at last.


This post demonstrates two weaknesses in The Atheist's posting style. First, he quotes me out of context. That's the problem with the "quote and respond" method of argumentative posting favored by many internet regulars. If anyone is interested (which I doubt) he or she can go to the post The Atheist quoted (#280) and see that the context is in a discussion of "As for "science vs. religion", it's a silly discussion." In addition, the interesting portion of my post (coming just after the part The Atheist quoted) is, "Modernist faith in grand scientific theories that can represent all knowledge and explain everything has been replaced by the notion that master narratives of that sort reflect the prejudices of dominant institutions and point of views of particular scientific paradigms. Localized and contingent theories have gained cache; reality only exists from a particular perspective, within a particular paradigm." So as faith in universal religious truths has declined over the last century, so has faith in universal scientific truths. 

The Atheist then claims I shifted the goal posts. The metaphor is revealing. Posting about anything (philosophy, literature, religion) is compared to a competitive game (acc. The Atheist), like football, in which there are winners and losers. However, since my point is now clear, perhaps we can talk about something else. 

As for Morpheus' idea that all normative ethical systems are "subjective" -- I agree and disagree. I remember saying earlier in this thread that God created humans (although we created Him first). In other words, the nature of humans is to be culturally (as well as biologically) constituted creatures. We are created by our cultures -- most dramatically (for example) by language. To speak more directly to Morpheus' point: it is reasonable to "objectively" call something a grammatical error, even though our grammar is culturally constituted and somewhat arbitrary. Likewise, it is reasonable to call something objectively morally unacceptable, but only within a particular, culturally constituted context. Even we atheists have had our ethical systems shaped by Western Religion -- and so it is (in part) that God created us.

We cannot reason our way to normative ethics. AS GK Chesterton once wrote, "You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.” Logic is the science of non-contradiction, and the traditional tool of philosophers. As we fans of literature are probably aware -- we can also approach ethics analogically. "What would Jesus do?" is the Christian analogical approach to ethics. Atheists might admire Jesus, or they might admire other literary figures. Emulating them constitutes the analogical approach to ethics.

----------


## missylovalova

> Can not co-exist?
> 
> Let me explain God in simple mathematics (without surpassing the laws of maths or science).
> 
> (I can also explain it using numerous different methodologies but I believe this extremely summarised and simplified explanation will be sufficient)
> 
> 
> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12....
> 
> ...


Like a boss.

----------


## YesNo

> Who and where was that claim made? I've never seen atheism claim anything, and I've taken great pains to point out that atheism embraces lots of non-science types - david Icke's an atheist and he's not exactly a science fan. Wiccans & Buddhists are mostly atheist, but don't call for sceintific enquiry of their claims.
> 
> *If you think anyone has made a claim anywhere that rationality and the scientific method has any relationship to atheism*, please post the evidence of get off the claim.
> 
> Just because some individual atheists use the scientific method doesn't mean its a trait of atheism. Just as I don't judge all christians by Jack Chick/Benny Hinn/etc.


The Wikipedia article on science vs religion shows how atheists through the "conflict thesis" attempt to pit science against religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio...on_and_science

This has been going on since the 19th century and persists even though the conflict thesis "has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science". I agree with you that atheism should not be linked with "rationality" and the "scientific method", but I don't think that is how atheists such as Dawkins see it.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> ...it is reasonable to "objectively" call something a grammatical error, even though our grammar is culturally constituted and somewhat arbitrary. Likewise, it is reasonable to call something objectively morally unacceptable, but only within a particular, culturally constituted context.


Yes, but, as you point out, such objectivity is only possible in a context where there is mutual, social agreement on what is correct and incorrect. In poker, a king is higher than a queen according to the agreed-upon rules of the game; the rules themselves are arbitrary, not based on anything objective in reality, but they make the game possible to be played. If someone wants to question WHY a king is higher than a queen, a player has no recourse but to point to the rulebook and say "because it says so and we agree." It's these fundamental rules that I referred to as being subjective, mutually agreed-upon. If society agrees that murder is wrong, then we can, in a sense, say that a willfull murderer is immoral objectively, but that objectivity is founded upon a purely subjective standard; primarily that, as I outlined earlier, it's better to live than die, and it's better to live and work together than in conflict with each other. Murder violates those subjective, social, mutual agreements, and that's how it can become "objectively" wrong. 

But this kind of objectivity that requires subjective, socially assumed standards is quite different than saying that, eg, the sun is objective, in that it's something outside the self that exists and that we have access to via our senses. A great many people confuse these two different kinds of objectivity, and they reinforce it by thinking that the "rules of the game" themselves are divinely objective, emanating from some source outside themselves; and it makes them very uncomfortable to realize that these "rules" are no such thing, that they are free to choose to agree with them or not, and that they vary tremendously from society to society, from historically until now. This seems, to me, to be at the core of the drama behind Hamlet, in that Hamlet has this sudden realization that everything people think of as "is," as being "objective truth," is as subjective, relative, and manipulated (and manipulatable) as fiction itself. 




> We cannot reason our way to normative ethics. AS GK Chesterton once wrote, "You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.


I love Chesterton. Probably my favorite "philosopher," Eliezer Yudkowsky, said about the same thing here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nf/the_parable_of_hemlock/ 

Quoting: "The Bayesian definition of evidence favoring a hypothesis is evidence which we are more likely to see if the hypothesis is true than if it is false. Observing that a syllogism is logically valid can never be evidence favoring any empirical proposition, because the syllogism will be logically valid whether that proposition is true or false. Syllogisms are valid in all possible worlds, and therefore, observing their validity never tells us anything about which possible world we actually live in. This doesn't mean that logic is uselessjust that logic can only tell us that which, in some sense, we already know. But we do not always believe what we know. Is the number 29384209 prime? By virtue of how I define my decimal system and my axioms of arithmetic, I have already determined my answer to this questionbut I do not know what my answer is yet, and I must do some logic to find out."

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The Wikipedia article on science vs religion shows how atheists through the "conflict thesis" attempt to pit science against religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio...on_and_science


ATTEMPTED to pit science against religion? Draper's book that coined the phrase was a history of such conflicts. There was no "attempt" to pit them against each other, there was a document of the ways in which they HAD conflicted with each other. Even today, the conflict between evolutionary science and creationism is an example of such a conflict. You keep claiming that there IS no conflict between religion and science while seemingly glossing over/ignoring these very real conflicts. I don't get it; selective blindness? The theological attempts to reconcile the two seem to me to be desperate maneuvers from theists who realize they're losing the conflicts and, in fear of losing even more, are attempting to say there ARE no conflicts. Kinda like the bully who, as soon as the bullied starts turning the tables, extends his hand and laughs it off saying he was only kidding around. Even the concepts that have attempted to reconcile them, like Non-Overlapping Magisteria, seem grossly out of step with how religion actually functions historically and today: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions...ondisprovable/

----------


## The Atheist

> This post demonstrates two weaknesses in The Atheist's posting style. First, he quotes me out of context.


Please don't lie; my quote was completely in context.

Just to go back to the humour for a second; there are few things funnier than a bloke caught with his pants down trying to convince everyone it's actually a new fashion.

But hey, keep trying.

----------


## The Atheist

> The Wikipedia article on science vs religion shows how atheists through the "conflict thesis" attempt to pit science against religion:


Which has nothing to do with the point I made.

Is goalpost-shifting an Olympic sport now?

Couple of superb candidates in this thread.

----------


## Pendragon

> Behind this is the ontological principle, of course - and the conclusion drawn somehow, that science hasn't created anything devalues it; or that is the implication _I_ read... Since you believe in _transfiguration_ of matter: what if the foundations of the principle itself (shaky, we may be assured, even at the present!) were - transfigurated into water? Than, this cascading new waterfall would be a sight: these are the waters of knowledge, flowing into their old basin of error.


Again may I ask you to not tell me what I am thinking?! Nothing was even implicated that I felt what science HAS created things out of things that are here are worthless. There are elements that can only be found by scientific research, they are not immediately noticeable. 102 Nobelium for example reads "no isotopes" on the Periodic Table. If science never made anything of value I wouldn't be typing this on a Toshibia Laptop.

----------


## Oedipus

> Again may I ask you to not tell me what I am thinking?! Nothing was even implicated that I felt what science HAS created things out of things that are here are worthless. There are elements that can only be found by scientific research, they are not immediately noticeable. 102 Nobelium for example reads "no isotopes" on the Periodic Table. If science never made anything of value I wouldn't be typing this on a Toshibia Laptop.


"Science is there is provide answers on what is already here... Science has never discovered anything that wasn't here and just waiting to be discovered. Sometimes they have used the raw materials to create new things, but it is discovering how to manipulate what is already here." 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/implication

----------


## YesNo

> Which has nothing to do with the point I made.
> 
> Is goalpost-shifting an Olympic sport now?
> 
> Couple of superb candidates in this thread.


What point were you trying to make? I'm perfecting willing to consider atheism to be both unscientific and irrational.

----------


## Oedipus

> What point were you trying to make? I'm perfecting willing to consider atheism to be both unscientific and irrational.


Thanks for the laugh.

----------


## The Atheist

> Thanks for the laugh.


Aaargh! You beat me to it!

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I'm perfecting willing to consider atheism to be both unscientific and irrational.


You just shocked everyone reading this thread.

----------


## Pendragon

> "Science is there is provide answers on what is already here... Science has never discovered anything that wasn't here and just waiting to be discovered. Sometimes they have used the raw materials to create new things, but it is discovering how to manipulate what is already here." 
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/implication


I could return the favor and give you a definition that would be suitable, but arrogance just isn't me.

OK. If Science can discover things that are not here or created with raw materials that are already here, then the people who run the paranormal sights are perfectly justified in claiming they have discovered ghosts through EVPs and blurry photographs. It's the same difference.

When science cloned a sheep, the genetic makeup of a sheep was already there. Science took what was there and successfully made a copy from the original. Unfortunately, age of the sheep remained standard to the original, causing the clone to age rapidly. With the discovery of splitting the atom, the raw materials were here. They had to be refined and enriched by scientific means, but nothing was made that the raw materials were not already here.

Even if you believe in chance evolution, the big bang, etc. the materials used in scientific discoveries were here already. Science takes what is and works with it doing research and experimentation to make something new. Plastic. Computer chips. X-ray machines. Hybrid vegetables. WMDs. Biodiesel fuel. They discover fossils and ancient cities to learn about the past. Whether God created the originals or chance the end result doesn't change.

Gravity would work just as well without Newton. But we might not understand how it works without him. Without Einstein's Theory of Relativity life would go on as always. But the discovery unlocked mysteries. If Carter had never found King Tut the Egyptian Pharaoh would still have lived. But the discovery helped understand ancient Egypt. If the Rosetta stone had never been found, hieroglyphics would still exist but without the stone who knows if we would ever be able to read them? Just think mon ami.

God Bless

Pendragon

----------


## AuntShecky

> I could return the favor and give you a definition that would be suitable, but arrogance just isn't me.
> 
> OK. If Science can discover things that are not here or created with raw materials that are already here, then the people who run the paranormal sights are perfectly justified in claiming they have discovered ghosts through EVPs and blurry photographs. It's the same difference.
> 
> When science cloned a sheep, the genetic makeup of a sheep was already there. Science took what was there and successfully made a copy from the original. Unfortunately, age of the sheep remained standard to the original, causing the clone to age rapidly. With the discovery of splitting the atom, the raw materials were here. They had to be refined and enriched by scientific means, but nothing was made that the raw materials were not already here.
> 
> Even if you believe in chance evolution, the big bang, etc. the materials used in scientific discoveries were here already. Science takes what is and works with it doing research and experimentation to make something new. Plastic. Computer chips. X-ray machines. Hybrid vegetables. WMDs. Biodiesel fuel. They discover fossils and ancient cities to learn about the past. Whether God created the originals or chance the end result doesn't change.
> 
> Gravity would work just as well without Newton. But we might not understand how it works without him. Without Einstein's Theory of Relativity life would go on as always. But the discovery unlocked mysteries. If Carter had never found King Tut the Egyptian Pharaoh would still have lived. But the discovery helped understand ancient Egypt. If the Rosetta stone had never been found, hieroglyphics would still exist but without the stone who knows if we would ever be able to read them? Just think mon ami.
> ...



I agree with every word you've said right there^, dear Pen.

But allow me to throw another point in here, if I may, although in full awareness that somebody will shoot it down.

In earlier times, people believed that rotten and maggot-infested meat was the result of spontaneous generation rather than cause by colonies of bacteria and egg-laying flies. Before Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) invented the microscope, there had been no evidence of microorganisms, including the ones which caused disease. Microbes existed before humans had the technology to "prove" their existence.

Empirical evidence, therefore, can only be realized with the technology with which to perceive it. As your post explains, in ancient times, natural phenomena existed outside the realm of human knowledge. According to that logic, one can have the opinion that there is --at present-- no empirical envidence of the existence of God or the inherent "truth" of religion, BUT the lack of evidence does not _necessarily_ mean that neither exists. 

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen." (St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, 11: 1.)

God bless you too, Pen!

----------


## russellb

It seems to me that both the 'God hypothesis' (and one may, say, accept Dawkin's framing of this in the God Delusion-he is not an 'igtheist') and the atheist hypothesis are competing philosophical models that are both consistent with the phenomenal world. Now it is said that the burden of proof is on the theist because she is making a positive claim. But to bring science into it, is there a burden of proof on the atheist to explain how science is in fact possible? Newton would not have believed that science and religion were in conflict he would have said i think that the latter explains the rational and 'certainly ordered universe that science in fact describes. I believe that cosmologists think that the laws of physics might have been radically different right at the start of the universe (the fact that the the universe has a beginning is a plus for theists and Anthony Flew talks about the idea of the Big Bang being implicated in his switch from atheism to 'deism'). It seems to me that atheists might have to postulate an 'ultimate' that offers no explanation for a law based universe, so called 'lawless laws,' and that nor do theories of 'multiverse' really get away from the problem of an inexplicable 'ultimate'. 'God' is not an empirical concept but i think that the 'God hypothesis' is a rational way of making sense of the empirical world...

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> It seems to me that both the 'God hypothesis' (and one may, say, accept Dawkin's framing of this in the God Delusion-he is not an 'igtheist') and the atheist hypothesis are competing philosophical models that are both consistent with the phenomenal world.


The challenge isn't in creating "models that are consistent with the phenomenal world," the challenge is in creating models that make predictions about the phenomenal world we otherwise couldn't make unless the hypothesis were true. Phlogiston and combustion are both "consistent" with the phenomenon of fire, but only one of these allows us to predict under what circumstances fire will and won't happen. In this respect, The God hypothesis is not really a useful model as it makes no predictions. It just, phlogiston-like, plugs in "God" as the cause behind every known phenomena until we discover its true cause. It's the classic God of the gaps. 




> But to bring science into it, is there a burden of proof on the atheist to explain how science is in fact possible?


I assume by "explaining how science is possible" you mean the classic origins/first cause argument, of how the universe got to be like it was in a way we could study it through science. In a sense, science does have a "burden" to explain, but no more/less than it has a burden to explain anything else about reality. The important point to make, though, is that science's current inability to explain ultimate origins is not an argument for God, any more than the inability to explain fire until combustion was an argument for phlogiston. 




> 'God' is not an empirical concept but i think that the 'God hypothesis' is a rational way of making sense of the empirical world...


It's an anthropomorphic way of making sense of the world, and anthropomorphic way that has been proven wrong as it pertains to local phenomena (fire, storms, sunrise/sunset, etc.) so many times I have no idea why people persist in thinking that it won't be equally wrong in explaining the ultimate origins. We have so many reasons for NOT thinking God is behind ultimate origins, not least amongst them is the inexplicable notion of how a consciousness could operate sans-spacetime, much less how such a high-level organized being like "God" could exist without being comprised of much simpler parts like everything else we see in the universe (including us: molecules to atoms to particles). Such aspects of God are as inexplicable as ultimate origins, and it makes infinitely more sense to postulate the universe came to be simply through a simple and eternal quantum field (which we at least know exists) than proposing that this complex conscious being, which we can't explain, created the quantum field and everything else. It's simply Occam's Razor. God may seem simple, but that's because words and our anthropomorphism hides the complexity; just how general relativity seems complicated to us (because it's such an un-human concept) yet is a quite, quite simple formula.

----------


## AuntShecky

> It's an anthropomorphic way of making sense of the world, and anthropomorphic way that has been proven wrong as it pertains to local phenomena (fire, storms, sunrise/sunset, etc.) so many times I have no idea why people persist in thinking that it won't be equally wrong in explaining the ultimate origins.


But how is science NOT "an anthropomorphic way of making sense of the world"? Last time I checked, most scientists were undeniably human.




> We have so many reasons for NOT thinking God is behind ultimate origins, not least amongst them is the inexplicable notion of how a consciousness could operate sans-spacetime, much less how such a high-level organized being like "God" could exist without being comprised of much simpler parts like everything else we see in the universe (including us: molecules to atoms to particles).


That statement presupposes that the essence of God is pure matter. Could He (or She) not be pure energy, i.e. "spirit"? If that is the case, the particles-atoms-molecules criteria simply do not apply.




> Such aspects of God are as inexplicable as ultimate origins,


Why can't we accept that such aspects of God are "inexplicable"? Cf. the closing chapters of the Book of Job--"Where were you when I made the world?" Perhaps human knowledge has not yet evolved to the point at which we can understand everything; certainly our technology hasn't developed a reliable mechanism for detecting spiritual phenomena. This is similar to the fact that no humans knew of the existence of microorganisms before the invention of the microscope.




> and it makes infinitely more sense to postulate the universe came to be simply through a simple and eternal quantum field (which we at least know exists)


Except this assertion disregards cause and effect, a proven reality of the universe, which holds true for everything from gravity through evolution. To deny the existence of something simply because we have not yet gathered evidence and thus declare that it does not exist smacks somewhat of intellectual arrogance. 

All of us, including yours fooly, should probably acquire a little humility.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> But how is science NOT "an anthropomorphic way of making sense of the world"? Last time I checked, most scientists were undeniably human.


I think you misunderstand what anthropomorphism means; it means attributing human thoughts/emotions/wills behind decidedly inhuman phenomena. You're probably familiar with a version of this in literature known as the pathetic fallacy, where writers see emotions behind events in nature that are really just projections of their own emotions. So, for early man to see lightning as a sign that there was an angry God hurling lightning bolts at them was to anthropomorphize nature, to see a human will/consciousness behind things that have none. From our best current scientific understanding, the universe likely arose from the random events of quantum mechanics, a fluctuating sustaining itself long enough to expand into spacetime and matter. This is a decidedly non-human account of origins, as opposed to a creator willing everything into existence. 




> That statement presupposes that the essence of God is pure matter. Could He (or She) not be pure energy, i.e. "spirit"? If that is the case, the particles-atoms-molecules criteria simply do not apply.


Before one should even entertain this notion, would it not be necessary to prove that there even IS such a thing as "pure energy" or "spirit?" The closest thing we've gotten to pure energy is, again, quantum fields; but these fields are not conscious, they don't make choices or will things, they just endlessly fluctuate in a probability space. So where's the evidence that, one, spirits even exist and, two, that they go around creating universes? Is this not just needlessly complicating matters? Like supposing that fire works by combustion AND by phlogiston? 




> Why can't we accept that such aspects of God are "inexplicable"?


Why should we accept that God even exists when we can't explain anything about him? Why even propose his possible existence at all? You do realize that this line of thinking pretty much opens the flood gates for making the argument for ANY possible beings, from other cultures' gods, to polytheism, to unicorns to dragons to fairies to whatever? 




> Except this assertion disregards cause and effect, a proven reality of the universe, which holds true for everything from gravity through evolution.


Causation is only applicable within the bounds of matter and spacetime. In quantum fields, matter (particles) pops in and out of existence at apparent random and their existence is usually too brief for gravity to have any effect (it's important to understand the interdependent relationship between matter, gravity, and spacetime). So in such a context causation can be violated because the means by which we understand causation are absent. Such a context is also essentially "timeless" since "time" itself is just a reference point for observing material events within space. So once you reach such a starting place, I don't know why either it's not sufficient on its own to explain origins, or why you'd need God. It's also worth reading this on the matter: http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/




> To deny the existence of something simply because we have not yet gathered evidence and thus declare that it does not exist smacks somewhat of intellectual arrogance. 
> 
> All of us, including yours fooly, should probably acquire a little humility.


FWIW, I don't "deny the existence of God" so much as I assert "there's absolutely no reason, scientifically or logically, to entertain the notion God exists, and a great many reasons not to." This certainly doesn't mean that God definitively doesn't exist, but the only arguments one can make for God's existence could be equally made for the existence of any mythical/physical being, and God can't be used to adequately explain anything we don't know. As for humility, I think a certain kind of humility is good, but not the kind that uses a professed humility to believe or disbelieve whatever it wants to. Another good article on the subject: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/

----------


## AuntShecky

RE: anthropomorphism. Yes, going over the top with personification is indeed the Pathetic Fallacy in poetry, but in religious beliefs, the human mind cannot think in purely abstract terms. For instance, try to conjure up a mental picture of "loneliness." You can't. The only thing you can do is think of some poor schlub looking all forlorn as he sits alone in a darkened room, or some similar scenario attempting to depict social isolation. 

Before man developed instruments to measure and ultimately explain the weather, mythology with all its anthromorphic tendencies provided a way to fill in the gap. Given what little earlier civilizations had to work with, postulating an angry bearded guy hurling down thunderbolts was the best they could come up with at the time. Give the Greeks credit for their inventiveness and the Romans for knowing how to steal a useful notion when they saw it. This isn't an indictment of either civilization's intelligence but rather an acknowledgment that they did use the brains they were born with, albeit with a limited scientific vocabulary.

Again, man had no choice but to explain the inexplicable in human terms, that's what I meant by anthropomorphism (human-centered, changing the non-human into human form.) Physical scientists are in many ways more articulate than those in the so-called "soft sciences," who often use abstract jargon. This is because when explaining their stuff to dumb-cluck laymen such as yours fooly, these scientists use simple, everyday, concrete terms -- comparing their data to soccer balls (as Prof. Higgs does in his first chapter in his book about the God Particle) or the life-nurturing swamp beneath the miasmic air of the young earth as "primordial soup."



> would it not be necessary to prove that there even IS such a thing as "pure energy" or "spirit?" The closest thing we've gotten to pure energy is, again, quantum fields; but these fields are not conscious, they don't make choices or will things, they just endlessly fluctuate in a probability space. So where's the evidence that, one, spirits even exist and, two, that they go around creating universes?


You can't really blame us for suspecting that beyond the strictly material realm, something strange is going on. The Uncertainty Principle may indicate that the workings of the universe are subject to pure chance; however the chances can be manipulated! Without insinuating in any way that non-human phenomena have minds of their own, I find it "awesome" in the true sense of the word that the very act of observing can affect the observed reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

We don't have any evidence yet that energy has anything akin to consciousness. On the other hand, photons seem so capricious that we in our anthropomorphic way would almost describe as coy or playful:




> *from Google* Nov 5, 2012 ... While scientists know light can act like both a wave and a particle, they've . . . revealed light to act either like a particle, or a wave, but never the two at once. . . called photons. . . So far, both aspects of light's nature haven't been observed at the same time.





> Why should we accept that God even exists when we can't explain anything about him? Why even propose his possible existence at all?


Because molecules, atoms, nucleii, protons, electrons, neutrons,particles all existed before mankind had the capacity even to imagine them. DNA was "imagined" before it was eventually found. The mistake is to declare outright that "X" doesn't, shouldn't, couldn't possibly exist and thus decide never to look for "it."




> You do realize that this line of thinking pretty much opens the flood gates for making the argument for ANY possible beings, from other cultures' gods, to polytheism, to unicorns to dragons to fairies to whatever?


I think of these mythological beings, rich in imagery and folklore as they are, as primitive attempts to explain the inexplicable (as well as a way of experimenting with and flexing the imaginative, intuitive, and affective parts of the human brain.) The myths, like modern religon, provided a backdrop to cope with the uncertainties, and let's face it, the utter miseries of human existence. Rather than a belief in a deity opening up the floodgates to centaurs and dragons et al, I think that mythology was an early glimmering of man's sense of something missing in his interior life. Maybe the floodgates opened the _other_ way: primitive beliefs did not lead a straight line to a belief in the Judeo-Christian God, but I suggest that they might have been proto-beliefs, similar to the way that Edison's thousand failed experiments eventually led to the working model of the incandescent bulb.




> Causation is only applicable within the bounds of matter and spacetime. In quantum fields, matter (particles) pops in and out of existence at apparent random and their existence is usually too brief for gravity to have any effect (it's important to understand the interdependent relationship between matter, gravity, and spacetime). So in such a context causation can be violated because the means by which we understand causation are absent. Such a context is also essentially "timeless" since "time" itself is just a reference point for observing material events within space. So once you reach such a starting place, I don't know why either it's not sufficient on its own to explain origins, or why you'd need God. It's also worth reading this on the matter: http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/


Recently Stephen J. Hawking disdains the concept of cause and effect in the creation of the universe, but his most famous book, _A Brief History of Time_ asserts, if I'm not mistaken, that time and space and everything in it began at the Big Bang. (And incidentally, even though my puny little bit of gray matter is like a dust particle next to Hawking's cerebrum, I do find it odd that he allows for the existence for extraterrestrials but not the Big ET upstairs.)

For Einstein, time itself is not merely a "reference point for observing material events within space," it is a dimension, just as much as the other familiar three dimensions. I guess Al was just kidding when he said that "God doesn't play dice with the Universe." If it's not God who's not playing dice, then who isn't it? Er...




> FWIW, I don't "deny the existence of God" so much as I assert "there's absolutely no reason, scientifically or logically, to entertain the notion God exists, and a great many reasons not to." This certainly doesn't mean that God definitively doesn't exist, but the only arguments one can make for God's existence could be equally made for the existence of any mythical/physical being, and God can't be used to adequately explain anything we don't know. As for humility, I think a certain kind of humility is good, but not the kind that uses a professed humility to believe or disbelieve whatever it wants to. Another good article on the subject: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/




Oh, I realize that this is your position and I truly respect you for it. I _do_ think you have sufficient humility in asserting that you don't have all the answers. Yours fooly hasn't any answers, either. And I'll confess to you that in my ever-increasing humble opinion I think that the A/A faction (Atheists and Agnostics, not Alcholics Anonymous) has a point in condemning institutional religion for causing so many wars and misery over the millennia. They are also correct in fighting against the extreme, almost inhumane positions of fundamentalists on some social issues, countering the faith-based climate change deniers, as well as mocking the wacko concepts of Creationists (museums with cavemen hobnobbing with dinosaurs and so forth.) 

Before I close this reply, I'd better get to the point I wanted to make when I first clicking on this thread today, and that is to recommend a remarkable novel published almost thirty years ago. The book is _Roger's Version_ by John Updike, and its central theme is the very question we LitNutters have been debating on this very thread. 

Updike's novel presents a scenario in which the wide abyss between science and religion begins to converge when a young graduate student approaches Roger, the protagonist/narrator, who is a theology professor at a New England college. The grad student believes that he can prove the existence of God with a computer. This is an Updike novel, don't forget, so there's plenty of illicit and taboo sex, (possible) betrayal, social criticism with the character of Roger's niece, a victim of poverty and (collaterally) racism. But what about the grad student? Does he make the discovery of the ages, or can he only get so far before. . .or when he approaches Zero Hour, does he lose his nerve? Keep in mind the title -- Roger's _Version_ -- he is an unreliable narrator, his may or may not be an accurate depiction of the events (much like the pre-canonical books of the Bible.)

Many versions. In His Kingdom there are many mansions. In the debate between science and religion, many viewpoints, which someday may indeed converge in a meeting of the minds.

Auntie

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> ...the human mind cannot think in purely abstract terms... Before man developed instruments to measure and ultimately explain the weather, mythology with all its anthromorphic tendencies provided a way to fill in the gap... This isn't an indictment of either civilization's intelligence... Again, man had no choice but to explain the inexplicable in human terms...


Perhaps the mind can't think in PURELY abstract forms, but it can understand how abstractions inform what they see. As you say, anthropomorphism was way of explaining the "gaps" in our knowledge back then, but it's equally used now. If people don't/can't understand origins via quantum fields, they propose conscious creator Gods; it's the same principle, and if people were wrong THEN, what makes you think they aren't wrong now? In fact, man has been absolutely consistently wrong in proposing conscious agents as the causes behind natural phenomena that you'd think it would be most logical to assume there aren't any. 

Of course it's not an indictment against earlier civilizations' intelligence, but it is indicative of one of the many reality-distorted biases that human brains are born with that prevent us from understanding how reality actually works. Our intuitions can be very useful things, but they can also lead us astray. In fact, most great scientific discoveries happened in spite of our intuitions rather than because of them. As long as people understand that the reality of objects moving according to the abstract principles of gravity is what's really going on, rather than some God blowing them about, that's all that's important. 




> You can't really blame us for suspecting that beyond the strictly material realm, something strange is going on. The Uncertainty Principle may indicate that the workings of the universe are subject to pure chance...


I don't blame people for having the biases they were born with through billions of years of evolution, but I do blame them for holding on to those biases, refusing to let go, even after they've been proven wrong so consistently. There is a whole area of study in neuroscience today built around understanding these biases and how they cause us to misconstrue/misinterpret reality, and while one doesn't have to become an expert in the field, at least recognizing that such things exists and making an effort to avoid such pitfalls would be positive, as oppose to this silly clinging to intuitions and the innate "rightness" of whatever our brains cook up. 

As for the Uncertainty Principle (TUP from now on), this is actually something I know quite a bit about, and it's not mysterious in the least, once you understand it. Rather, it's just another example of us being victims of our own innate intuitions about what reality is/how it function. I wrote a basic introduction to the issues here. Although in that intro I only present the "facts," my opinion is that the Many Worlds interpretation is most likely correct and makes sense out of all the "mysteries" of QM. It certainly doesn't provide any evidence for conscious energy or supernatural/extra-material beings/entities/existence. 




> Because molecules, atoms, nucleii, protons, electrons, neutrons,particles all existed before mankind had the capacity even to imagine them. DNA was "imagined" before it was eventually found. The mistake is to declare outright that "X" doesn't, shouldn't, couldn't possibly exist and thus decide never to look for "it."[/COLOR]


Obviously I wouldn't deny that things exist that we don't yet have the power to discover them, as was the case with many of the things you listed. But of all the things we've discovered, the vast majority we didn't imagine BEFORE they were found, and even of those we did imagine beforehand (like atoms), nobody had the gall to proclaim exactly what they were and how they behaved before we discovered them. It's one thing to speculate that maybe the matter we see is made up of smaller components, and quite another to proclaim that these smaller components are a certain way. That's my issue with most God concepts; it isn't in the "maybe there's some greater intelligence out there or beyond all this," it's all of the specific conceptions of what God is, what he wants, what he did/does that ends up being the foundation of religions. I see nothing wrong with the initial speculation, nor the notion of just keeping an open mind to the potential of finding such a being, but this obsession with there being one, of finding one, of reading all science as if there WAS one (ala Creationism) is going far beyond those bounds. 





> I think that mythology was an early glimmering of man's sense of something missing in his interior life.


Indeed. I very much like Blake and Stevens thoughts on religion, in how it was how man embodied his inner life, stretching out towards social ideals and even science. Blake, despite his atheism, saw Jesus as "God" because he was both a man and storyteller, and, for Blake, man's ability to create was the only real "God" worth worshiping, and Jesus symbolized that quality for him. In that sense, religion and mythology can represent a society's culture better than anything else because it encompasses so much, but, as Stevens said in Notes Towards a Supreme Fiction, "It must change," because man and societies change; yet many are preoccupied with desperately grasping onto the aspects of regions that are corpses (its science, much of its history and morality). 




> For Einstein, time itself is not merely a "reference point for observing material events within space," it is a dimension, just as much as the other familiar three dimensions. I guess Al was just kidding when he said that "God doesn't play dice with the Universe." If it's not God who's not playing dice, then who isn't it? Er...


I don't think there's really a contradiction since a "reference point" can be a "dimension." As for "God not playing dice," Einstein was actually referring to the apparent indeterminism of Quantum Physics. Einstein's God was not the personal Judeo-Christian God, though, but rather represented the order and harmony of the universe (given that, one can understand his distaste for Copenhagen's interpretation of QM). That said, Einstein was on the wrong path towards disproving quantum indeterminism, as Bohm definitively showed. I've often wondered what he would've thought of Everett... 




> And I'll confess to you that in my ever-increasing humble opinion I think that the A/A faction (Atheists and Agnostics, not Alcholics Anonymous) has a point in condemning institutional religion for causing so many wars and misery over the millennia. They are also correct in fighting against the extreme, almost inhumane positions of fundamentalists on some social issues, countering the faith-based climate change deniers, as well as mocking the wacko concepts of Creationists (museums with cavemen hobnobbing with dinosaurs and so forth.)


As long as we agree on this, then the rest is less important. If God doesn't exist, then, to me, someone believing he does is a relatively minor error compared to those that both believe he does and then use this fictional God to justify all kinds of atrocities. Of course, as Stalin et al. show, any idealism, even those not religious, can be just as horrific. 




> Before I close this reply, I'd better get to the point I wanted to make when I first clicking on this thread today, and that is to recommend a remarkable novel published almost thirty years ago. The book is _Roger's Version_ by John Updike, and its central theme is the very question we LitNutters have been debating on this very thread.


Thanks for the rec. It's been a while since I've actually read a novel (been immersed in poetry the last several years), but I'll definitely make it a point to read that soon.  :Smile:

----------


## Pendragon

So what is the difference between purely theoretical physics and a belief in something equally difficult to prove such as the existence of God? I will tell you. It is the starting principle. If one denies that God could possibly create the universe, then all people who believe that He did are labeled superstitious and/or ignorant. If one does not accept the starting point of purely theoretical physics, i.e. a reoccurring theme in science know as "maybe" or "possibly" then God become reality to those people. Neither can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are right. Assuming science has all the answers is foolish, for they will admit that there are things they cannot explain. Assuming religion has all the answers is equally foolish because we don't have an answer that will stand a reasonable doubt. "To thine own self be true." said Shakespeare. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Romans 14:5 Stand on what you believe or you have no beliefs to stand on. God Bless, Pen

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Pen, the difference is that in all science, theoretical physics or otherwise, various "maybes" and "possblys" are worked towards some empirical testing, subject to falsification, and without such nobody inside or outside of science accepts them as facts, proof, or anything else. Obviously there's much in modern theoretical physics that remains untestable given the current state of technology, yet science is not resting on its theoretical laurels; it's invented things like the Super Hadron Collider, and working towards inventing quantum computing, to make such testing possible. Yet, until then, we can at least analyze the various theories and see how well they fit the facts, what problems they create, what assumptions they make, how simple they are, etc. So one can critique them even without being able to currently test them. 

On the other hand, religion isn't and never has been subject to such a process. People claim things about God, get a lot of people to believe it, and that's that. No testing, no falsification, not even any attempts at such things (and the few attempts that are made are failures; like intercessory prayer studies, or the hunt for Noah's ark). Like I said to Auntie, it's one thing to speculate that maybe there's an omnipotent, omniscient creator/intelligence out there, but quite another to insist there is and, what's more, to insist that any Holy Book is THE word of that being in which all true morality, history, and science has been recorded. While both science and religion may start from the same place of speculation, of maybes and possiblys, they certainly don't proceed in remotely the same fashion. 

Again, I wouldn't deny that God could not possibly create the universe, but I do maintain that, firstly, there's no good evidence God exists and, secondly, there's no good evidence that an intelligence created the universe. One can propose an infinite amount of hypotheses for how everything got here, but even without being able to definitively rule out/prove any of them, we can certainly say that some are far more likely than others given the current state of evidence and factoring in things like Occam's Razor, rationalism, and the history behind such potential answers. Likewise, I (nor no atheist I know) claims that science has all the answers, but at least science tends to be more honest in what it does and doesn't know; and when it comes to what we don't know it has proven far more reliable for figuring it out than religion or any other institution for that matter. 

You say that "If one denies that God could possibly create the universe, then all people who believe that He did are labeled superstitious and/or ignorant," but let me ask you this: of all the people that believe God created the universe, how many of them know the first thing about quantum fields? I'm guessing a vanishingly small amount, probably less than 1%. Even as Auntie stated, Gods have ALWAYS been used to fill the gaps in our knowledge, and such gaps are, essentially, our ignorance. I mean, one can't study God and get any closer to an idea of how the universe actually came about; on the other hand, the study of quantum fields can (and has) given us a very good idea of how our universe could've come about from those fields alone. Such "maybes" and "possiblys" couldn't have even existed were it not for the study of science, the extrapolation of what's known into realm of what's possible given what's known. Religion doesn't really work this way, at all. It neither extrapolates from what's known to what's unknown, nor does it speculate on what's unknown and move towards finding a means to test it.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> So what is the difference between purely theoretical physics and a belief in something equally difficult to prove such as the existence of God? I will tell you. It is the starting principle. If one denies that God could possibly create the universe, then all people who believe that He did are labeled superstitious and/or ignorant. If one does not accept the starting point of purely theoretical physics, i.e. a reoccurring theme in science know as "maybe" or "possibly" then God become reality to those people. Neither can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are right. Assuming science has all the answers is foolish, for they will admit that there are things they cannot explain. Assuming religion has all the answers is equally foolish because we don't have an answer that will stand a reasonable doubt. "To thine own self be true." said Shakespeare. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Romans 14:5 Stand on what you believe or you have no beliefs to stand on. God Bless, Pen



And then there is a third option, don't commit to a belief at all. Why would you stand on what you believe just for the sake of pride or some other emotion?

----------


## YesNo

I've started reading Alvin Plantinga's _Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion & Naturalism_. 

He's a Christian philosopher and his theme is that "there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism."

Naturalism is a subset of atheism.

So far what he mentions agrees with what I have thought regarding science vs religion: it is really an issue between science vs atheism (or naturalism). What I am looking for is how a philosopher goes about arguing his position.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> I've started reading Alvin Plantinga's _Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion & Naturalism_. 
> 
> He's a Christian philosopher and his theme is that "there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism."
> 
> Naturalism is a subset of atheism.
> 
> So far what he mentions agrees with what I have thought regarding science vs religion: it is really an issue between science vs atheism (or naturalism). What I am looking for is how a philosopher goes about arguing his position.


Of the three, Science is the only objective party. By all rights it should care not what direction it goes nor be allied with either Religion or Naturalism. My own thoughts on the subject are that Science & Religion are not compatible disciplines... unless of course there is a God. :Smile: 

And sorry to disappoint, we atheists are not at odds and certainly not conflicted with most Science. We are however, probably not going to take christian apologists like Alvin Plantinga very seriously.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I've started reading Alvin Plantinga... He's a Christian philosopher and his theme is that "there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism." ...it is really an issue between science vs atheism (or naturalism).


This is nonsense, of course. There is a deep discord in the methods by which both science and religion goes about forming beliefs, that I detailed in my post to Pen above. I'd love for you find any place in Platinga's book where he addresses this. I think when many think of the "conflict" between science and religion they tend to think of the conclusions formed by both, eg science's evolution VS religion's creationism. Such things may be "superficial" in that Christians are free to adopt evolution and read Genesis as an allegory. Yet, the biggest conflict I see is NOT in what conclusions either reach, but HOW they reached these conclusions to begin with. Science SHOULD be equated with the scientific method, and NOT with what the scientific method discovers about reality. If you think about this in terms of the Scientific method VS the religious method, then I think you find the really unresolvable conflict. 

The notion that naturalism is just a "subset of atheism" and has nothing to do with science is equally preposterous. Naturalism's popularity owes everything to science discovering natural explanations behind phenomena people had previously attributed to the supernatural. While naturalism is obviously atheistic, the order of events does not go like this: atheism -> naturalism, but rather like this: science -> naturalism -> atheism. The discoveries of science leads to naturalism, which leads to atheism.

----------


## Pendragon

And yet what has science ever discovered that wasn't already here or the means to make it were already here? The number of things discovered by accident rather than design are legion.

Accepting God doesn't mean I intend to be ignorant of science. The laws of nature and physics are there whether or not one believes in God or science. When I worked in a cabinet factory and would ticket the loads to go to the next department the principle of inertia was an everyday battle. When I fell from a roof as a boy, gravity made sure to bust a leg. Said leg has medical screws in it, no dancing around a fire or whatever. 

I do have problems with purely theoretical physics which as Morpheus states cannot be tested by current methods still being generally accepted as fact. The day could come when God could be detected but not by science today. I accept God as fact, also accepting that I cannot prove He exists. Science uses experiments and repetition to discover things of which they cannot necessarily provide proof. Sometimes the discovery of some tiny cell, particle, or bacteria is so minute as to be unable to be photographed or a sample cannot be saved as proof. Now mind you I don't say they do not exist, I say proof is hard to provide, and sometimes we must take the word of the scientists doing the experiments that this was discovered or that this happened. 

Science lets us know the hows and whys of our planet to serve humanity with ever increasing harnessing of the earths resources already here.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> And yet what has science ever discovered that wasn't already here or the means to make it were already here? The number of things discovered by accident rather than design are legion.


I have no idea what you think the relevance of this is. Firstly, science has created a great deal of many things that weren't here until we understood through science how reality worked. I didn't notice any rocket ships wandering around until engineers using science decided to make them; a feat that would've been impossible with mere faith/belief that's the bedrock of religion. Secondly, science is really more about understanding than discovery, though they can often go hand in hand. Thirdly, there's no doubt that many great scientific discoveries were achieved by accident, yet the method itself allows such accidents to happen and provides a means of following up on them to understand their significance. I also don't know what you think the significance of this is. 




> I do have problems with purely theoretical physics which as Morpheus states cannot be tested by current methods still being generally accepted as fact. The day could come when God could be detected but not by science today. I accept God as fact, also accepting that I cannot prove He exists.


Theoretical physics aren't accepted as facts they're accepted as theoretical. All I said was that even in the absence of "proof" there are often epistemological reasons for declaring one theory is more likely to be correct than another. Let's also not forget that gravity and evolution are theories and not facts, since such theories don't really become facts, they merely have different levels of evidence that supports them. 

Yes, maybe some day God can be detected; I don't rule out that possibility. Yet, I wonder why anyone would want to accept God as fact until that day gets here; why not accept anything else that can't be proven exists as fact?

----------


## YesNo

> I'd love for you find any place in Platinga's book where he addresses this. I think when many think of the "conflict" between science and religion they tend to think of the conclusions formed by both, eg science's evolution VS religion's creationism. Such things may be "superficial" in that Christians are free to adopt evolution and read Genesis as an allegory. Yet, the biggest conflict I see is NOT in what conclusions either reach, but HOW they reached these conclusions to begin with. Science SHOULD be equated with the scientific method, and NOT with what the scientific method discovers about reality. If you think about this in terms of the Scientific method VS the religious method, then I think you find the really unresolvable conflict.


I intend to give a more detailed report on Plantinga's work. In the preface Plantinga writes: (page xii):

If there were serious conflicts between religion and current science, that would be very significant; initially, at least, it would cast doubt on those religious beliefs inconsistent with current science. But in fact, I will argue, there is no such conflict between Christian belief and science while there _is_ conflict between naturalism and science.
Then he explains how he will address that in the book.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Fine, but keep in mind what I said while reading the book. The major conflict I see is between the methods, not necessarily the beliefs themselves. I'll be very curious to hear why he thinks naturalism is in conflict with science.

----------


## Pendragon

> I have no idea what you think the relevance of this is. Firstly, science has created a great deal of many things that weren't here until we understood through science how reality worked. I didn't notice any rocket ships wandering around until engineers using science decided to make them; a feat that would've been impossible with mere faith/belief that's the bedrock of religion.


What I said was that science creates nothing for which God, or Nature, since you will not accept that God exists, has already provided the raw materials. The stuff to make your rocket ships was here. An astounding amount of research, trail and error went into figuring out how to make metal from ore, fuel from oil, natural gasses, coal, water turbines, etc., to make plastic and glass, having the Wright Brothers discover the secrets of flight pitch, roll, and yaw, making a substance that would stand reentry heat and so on. They cannot make something out of nothing. You don't see any significance because you cannot believe that God provided these things for man and gave him the willpower and imagination to create masterpieces from them. Really, it is useless for me to discuss this further. You seem to have made up your mind that I am deluded. I can accept every science in the world, but unless I take God out of the equation I am considered uneducated and wrong. Taking God out of the equation is out of the question, regardless of how it makes me look in your eyes or anyone else's. 

God bless and farewell

Pen

----------


## YesNo

> Fine, but keep in mind what I said while reading the book. The major conflict I see is between the methods, not necessarily the beliefs themselves. I'll be very curious to hear why he thinks naturalism is in conflict with science.


What I hear you saying is that you would like to monopolize science and rationality for your particular atheistic metaphysics implying that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational or unscientific. That is the characteristic about new atheists like Dawkins and Dennett that annoys me the most. 

Atheists do not own science and rationality. That is their main delusion and the chief one they keep marketing. 

That's why I'm reading Plantinga. I would like to see how a philosopher engages in this discussion _rationally_ and so far he is delivering on my expectations. You are welcome to find a copy and read this as well. Whatever I might do to summarize will not be as good as the original.

----------


## JHG

This thread is a great read - I enjoyed it. Lacking the training to get too specific, I would like to contribute my personal experience to the general conversation.

Like many of us, I am sure, I was born a Christian and rebelled against it later in life. I searched for answers to the many questions that would arise during such a rebellion, but no answer was quite so easy or satisfying as "God." Nonetheless, seeing the inherent contradictions of the established religions and encouraged by the obvious abuses of the religious, I never went back. It was simply too easy.

It is easy to believe in Heaven, and angels, and everlasting life. It is much more difficult, tragically so, to _know_ that death brings the infinite, timeless darkness. In the deepest corner of our minds, we all suspect this is true - but most cannot and will not accept it. This because such a thought imbues a great responsibility: You only have one life. Religion has spent many years and efforts to escape this responsibility. As a tool of rationalization, it is fundamentally wrong.

Knowing that religion is wrong, does that make science right? No, not necessarily. That is a grand example of a false dilemma (as was likely pointed out previously). I suspect the answer is somewhere in between, as is usually the case.

----------


## AuntShecky

> I suspect the answer is somewhere in between, as is usually the case.


Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is a philospher who was able to reconcile science with religion. The linked article is in my increasingly humble opinion a fair one. (Don't be put off by its writer's error mistaking "formally" for "formerly.")

It seems logical to yours fooly that if human beings are able to evolve physically and mentally, perhaps it's possible that they can also evolve spiritually (despite the stubborn persistnce of evil in the world. As an aside, I found something in that on-line article about Teilhard that was new to me and that is he did not believe mankind would extend its civilization (such as it is) onto other worlds. That reminds of a question that has often occurred to yours fooly: Which is the more frightening prospect: that there exist other planets with sentient beings OR that we humans are utterly and absolutely alone in the infinite universe?

Another thing about Teilhard (which I learned way, way, way back in my school days) is that he disdained the idea of a personal God, including the sentimental fascination with "Bébé Jesu." With that opinion, Teilhard has much in common with Albert ("God does not play dice with the Universe") Einstein. Sparking much controversy with post-WWII mainstream America, Einstein famously denounced belief in a personal God, describing it as "childish" and "naive." At times he declared himself an atheist, and at other times described an experience of ineffable awe upon exploring the mystical secrets of creation. He aligned this type of religious-like experience with that of the philosophy of Spinoza.

Incidentally, I have more respect for those who define themselves as atheists or agnostics than I do for those who proclaim "I'm not religious at all--" while instantly walking it back to add -- "but I AM _spiritual_." Whenever I hear some airhead startlet on a talk show say something like that, I want to shake her and say, "Oh, really? Then _where_ did all this so-called 'spiritually' come from -- some trendy little boutique on Rodeo Drive?"

Finally, maybe there will someday be reconciliation between science and religion, but such an outcome will demand a little give-and-take on both sides:

*"Science without religion is lame;religion without science is blind." --Albert Einstein*


http://huumanists.org/publications/j...ard-de-chardin



Auntie

----------


## The Atheist

> Atheists do not own science and rationality. That is their main delusion and the chief one they keep marketing.


Rubbish.

I don't know how many times that fallacy needs to be refuted before people will stop uttering it, but science and rationality have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, and vice versa.

David Icke is an atheist, so are most Buddhists and adherents of psychics and mediums. (despite the obvious contradiction)

Atheism is a lack of belief in god/s. The end.

There is no requirement for atheists to be pro-science, rational, or even clever. They just don't believe in a god.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> What I said was that science creates nothing for which God, or Nature, since you will not accept that God exists, has already provided the raw materials.


Fair enough, but without our understanding of how nature works, provided by science, we could not make anything to our purpose from nature. Belief in God can not make a rocking chair, much less a rocket ship. 




> You don't see any significance because you cannot believe that God provided these things for man and gave him the willpower and imagination to create masterpieces from them.


If you believe God provided these thing for man to create masterpieces from you also have to believe he let man struggle in fear, darkness, sickness, and pervasive death for hundreds of thousands of years before we developed modern science and medicine. Why? Further, what's the evidence that God provided these things as opposed to just the matter that was created by a random fluctuation in a quantum field? 




> Really, it is useless for me to discuss this further. You seem to have made up your mind that I am deluded. I can accept every science in the world, but unless I take God out of the equation I am considered uneducated and wrong. Taking God out of the equation is out of the question, regardless of how it makes me look in your eyes or anyone else's.


Pen, you really should stop taking this so personally. This is a thread about Science VS Religion, so you should expect there would be atheists who would challenge your beliefs and reasons for them. I have never once called you personally uneducated or ignorant, yet you keep implying that I have. As I've said before, everyone is ignorant of some things, some people more than others. I don't know how much you know about anything and vice versa. Part of discussions like these are the attempts made at trying to enlighten each other and ourselves, but that can't happen if someone is insecure about others thinking they're uneducated, wrong, etc.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> What I hear you saying is that you would like to monopolize science and rationality for your particular atheistic metaphysics implying that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational or unscientific.


Errr, I have no idea how you got this from what I wrote. The scientific method has existed unchanged for hundreds of years and came about in a culture of mass religious belief. The Church was an early patron of science; they thought they could use it to prove God's existence. My whole point was that the conflict I see is between the scientific method and the religious method for forming beliefs. If you don't think there's a conflict, then argue that point; if Plantinga doesn't think there's a conflict, then quote him on why he thinks there isn't. I'm not trying to "monopolize" anything; the scientific method, as it was invented and has stood for hundreds of years, has nothing to do with me or atheism in general. 




> That's why I'm reading Plantinga. I would like to see how a philosopher engages in this discussion _rationally_ and so far he is delivering on my expectations.


Then I'm sure, being the fair minded truth-searcher you are, you'd also like to see how the many atheists philosophers engage in the same discussion rationally as well; or do you feel that Theologians have a monopoly on what counts as rational when it comes to science VS religion? 




> You are welcome to find a copy and read this as well. Whatever I might do to summarize will not be as good as the original.


You don't need to summarize; open the book and quote at whatever length you feel is necessary to get the point across. That said, if you can't summarize one is allowed to question whether you've understood the material at all. It strikes me that in your reading of quantum physics you didn't understand anything except the parts you already agreed with. That's not a very objective method for learning anything.

----------


## YesNo

> Rubbish.
> 
> I don't know how many times that fallacy needs to be refuted before people will stop uttering it, but *science and rationality have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism*, and vice versa.
> 
> David Icke is an atheist, so are most Buddhists and adherents of psychics and mediums. (despite the obvious contradiction)
> 
> Atheism is a lack of belief in god/s. The end.
> 
> There is no requirement for atheists to be pro-science, rational, or even clever. They just don't believe in a god.


I would like that to be the case, however, the thread is about science and religion. Atheism gets caught in that, because of claims by atheists (such as Dawkins and Dennett and others) that science disproves religion or obsoletes religion in some way. Plantinga disagrees and argues that it is really naturalism that is refuted. 

In Plantinga's text he acknowledges your point. Naturalism is a subset of atheism. Not all atheists are naturalists, but all naturalists are atheists as he defines the term on the first page of the Preface:

_I take naturalism to be the thought that there is no such person as God, or anything like God. Naturalism is stronger than atheism: you can be an atheist without rising to the full heights (sinking to the lowest depth?) of naturalism; but you can't be a naturalist without being an atheist._
I don't know if that resolves your issue. If you are not a naturalist then the atheism you profess is not the one I am referring to. Indeed, with respect to certain gods, or certain god-like substitutes, such as many worlds, I would be an atheist as well.

----------


## YesNo

What I find interesting in Plantinga's book, _Where the Conflict Really Lies_, is how he handles evolution. This is usually the area that is brought up first when someone brings up the conflict between science and theistic religions. 

His approach to this problem is to distinguish between evolution as a scientific explanation and evolution with added metaphysics. With the added metaphysics one gets either the theistic _guided evolution_ or the naturalist _unguided evolution_. Guided evolution is justified in this manner: God can use whatever means he wants to get us to the state we are in today. The core conclusion is that theism is not opposed to evolution (and argues specifically against claims made by Dawkins, Dennett, Paul Draper and Philip Kitcher), but to unguided evolution: (page 63)

"The scientific theory of evolution as such is not incompatible with Christian belief; what is incompatible with it is the idea that evolution, natural selection, is _unguided_. But that idea isn't part of evolutionary theory as such; it's instead a metaphysical or theological addition."
That resolves the issue of a conflict between theism and evolution. He addresses miracles later which I am still reading.

However, his use of this distinction between guided evolution and unguided evolution comes back later in the text. (I've skimmed ahead.) He will later present his arguments to show that guided evolution is in more harmony with science than unguided evolution which leads to irrationality.

----------


## JHG

> Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is a philospher who was able to reconcile science with religion. The linked article is in my increasingly humble opinion a fair one. (Don't be put off by its writer's error mistaking "formally" for "formerly.")
> 
> It seems logical to yours fooly that if human beings are able to evolve physically and mentally, perhaps it's possible that they can also evolve spiritually (despite the stubborn persistnce of evil in the world. As an aside, I found something in that on-line article about Teilhard that was new to me and that is he did not believe mankind would extend its civilization (such as it is) onto other worlds. That reminds of a question that has often occurred to yours fooly: Which is the more frightening prospect: that there exist other planets with sentient beings OR that we humans are utterly and absolutely alone in the infinite universe?


Thank you for pointing me to that read, of which I was previously unaware. 

I'm not convinced that humans are capable of spritual evolution. It seems to me that this may be an interpretation of the development of the mind, reason, and education. We as society are no longer content to think that a volcano erupts because a demon is dancing inside it, or that a storm is the result of Neptune's unhappiness. Such progress will continue as more and more people step away from mysticism, which is (in my humble opinion) an unfortunate development of a complex mind forced to encounter the unknown. I wouldn't call this evolution, but I may be misinterpreting your assertion.





> Another thing about Teilhard (which I learned way, way, way back in my school days) is that he disdained the idea of a personal God, including the sentimental fascination with "Bébé Jesu." With that opinion, Teilhard has much in common with Albert ("God does not play dice with the Universe") Einstein. Sparking much controversy with post-WWII mainstream America, Einstein famously denounced belief in a personal God, describing it as "childish" and "naive." At times he declared himself an atheist, and at other times described an experience of ineffable awe upon exploring the mystical secrets of creation. He aligned this type of religious-like experience with that of the philosophy of Spinoza.


I am glad to see that we are of similar disposition. Rather than pick sides and start firing, as seems to be chic, there needs to be a resolution to remove personal prejudices and search for purity. I believe I am paraphrasing Hume.

Unfortunately, I lack complexity on the works of Spinoza, though it has long been on my reading list. Nonetheless I believe Einstein lends weight to the argument against religion by the undeniability of his genius and incomparable contributions to human progress. Though his apparent lack of commitment to atheism frustratingly leaves that door slightly open.





> Incidentally, I have more respect for those who define themselves as atheists or agnostics than I do for those who proclaim "I'm not religious at all--" while instantly walking it back to add -- "but I AM _spiritual_." Whenever I hear some airhead startlet on a talk show say something like that, I want to shake her and say, "Oh, really? Then _where_ did all this so-called 'spiritually' come from -- some trendy little boutique on Rodeo Drive?"


Agreed 100%. A peeve of mine, also. Such a thing is a vain hope to impress some lowly mind with the illusion of complexity.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> What I find interesting in Plantinga's book, _Where the Conflict Really Lies_, is how he handles evolution. This is usually the area that is brought up first when someone brings up the conflict between science and theistic religions.


Did Plantinga fail to address how a great many believers take Genesis literary and argue that God created man from dirt, woman from man's rib, and that the Earth was created 6000 years ago (discerned by tracing time from the point the Bible was written back through history)? Because science is very much in conflict with THAT particular religious belief. Obviously, I stated earlier that many Christians do believe in evolution and take Genesis only to be allegory; so there the conflict goes away. Really, I don't have much to say about Plantinga's discussion of guided VS unguided evolution except to point out that there's not a stitch of evidence that evolution is "guided" in any way. Mutations themselves are random, and 99% of all species every alive have gone extinct, and evolution has produced so many useless by-products that you'd have to ask why in the world any deity would "guide" it in those directions to begin with (ERVs, anyone? Bet Plantinga doesn't address those).

----------


## AuntShecky

duplicate post

----------


## AuntShecky

> Fair enough, but without our understanding of how nature works, provided by science, we could not make anything to our purpose from nature. Belief in God can not make a rocking chair, much less a rocket ship.


How about an ark? At least that's the story. Russell Crowe got the specs directly from the Boss upstairs.Oh, but I kid.




> _I take naturalism to be the thought that there is no such person as God, or anything like God. Naturalism is stronger than atheism: you can be an atheist without rising to the full heights (sinking to the lowest depth?) of naturalism; but you can't be a naturalist without being an atheist._


Admitting that this is the first I've heard of Plantinga, I think I'm gonna have to disagree with the notion that "you can't be a naturalist without being an atheist."

The aforementioned *Teilhard* was a naturalist as well as a paleonthologist, definitely not an atheist.

*John J. Audobon* was an ornithologist, author, artist, and non-atheist.Here are a couple of Audobon's statements:



> There is but one kind of love; God is love, and all his creatures derive theirs from his; only it is modified by the different degrees of intelligence in different beings and creatures."





> I pointed out to [a young artist] that nature is the great study for the artist, and assured him that the reason why my works pleased him was because they are all exact copies of the works of God, — who is the great Architect and perfect Artist; and impressed on his mind this fact, that '''nature indifferently copied is far superior to the best idealities.'''


And this one is sweet, as well as gently witty:



> ''Thank God it has rained all day.''' I say thank God, though rain is no rarity, because it is the duty of every man to be thankful for whatever happens by the will of the Omnipotent Creator; yet it was not so agreeable to any of my party as a fine day would have been.


The founder of the Sierra Club, *John Muir*(1838-1914) was perhaps one of our country's best-known naturalists. Having grown up in a strict Scottish-Protestant family, he dutifully memorized Bible verses, but by late in life, his beflief in a "conventional" Creator waned. According to one of the on-line biographies, He said "I never truly abandoned creeds. . .they went away on their own accord." Yet, he still retained enough belief to give credit where credit was due (to You-Know-Who) and blamed the blameworthy (us.):



> “God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand tempests and floods. But he cannot save them from fools.”


 If Muir was sincere with that statement--and there's no reason to believe that he wasn't-- then I would say that he was only half-way out of the atheist closet.

So you can't be a naturalist without being atheist? Well, maybe there are at least two and a half who contradict that notion.

----------


## The Atheist

[QUOTE=YesNo;1257037]Not all atheists are naturalists, but all naturalists are atheists as he defines the term on the first page of the Preface:[/qQUOTE]

Bingo.




> Indeed, with respect to certain gods, or certain god-like substitutes, such as many worlds, I would be an atheist as well.


All believers of every kind are atheist in the case of most gods. Christians are entirely atheistic on Egyptian, Greek & Norse gods, among others.

It's always the last one that causes the trouble.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Did Plantinga fail to address how a great many believers take Genesis literary and argue that God created man from dirt, woman from man's rib, and that the Earth was created 6000 years ago (discerned by tracing time from the point the Bible was written back through history)? Because science is very much in conflict with THAT particular religious belief. Obviously, I stated earlier that many Christians do believe in evolution and take Genesis only to be allegory; so there the conflict goes away. Really, I don't have much to say about Plantinga's discussion of guided VS unguided evolution except to point out that there's not a stitch of evidence that evolution is "guided" in any way. Mutations themselves are random, and 99% of all species every alive have gone extinct, and evolution has produced so many useless by-products that you'd have to ask why in the world any deity would "guide" it in those directions to begin with (ERVs, anyone? Bet Plantinga doesn't address those).


Finally, I run across somebody on a forum who understands the nature of Evolution.

You are correct, _metaphorically speaking_... evolution has no central nervous system; it does not think or calculate possibilities, it has no pity or conscience, it cares not whether a living thing survives or bites the dust. In fact evolution ends in extinction, every single time. Furthermore, on the surface of it, it appears that life on Earth is incredibly diverse, but in fact evolution operates within a narrow spectrum of options.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

I understand evolution much less than a few other posters on this forum who have written about it at length (OrphanPip is one), and even someone like an actual evolutionary biologist I know on another forum (IMDb) named RedRuth, but thanks for the compliment.  :Smile:

----------


## Pendragon

> Further, what's the evidence that God provided these things as opposed to just the matter that was created by a random fluctuation in a quantum field?


Where is the evidence it was created by a random fluctuation in a quantum field? Using chance to explain the complexity of the universe to me sounds a little off. Whenever people claim things like ESP, clairvoyance, out of body, remote viewing (none of which I have the slightest use for and consider a waste of the resources devoted to research them!) chance is the first thing you rule out. If it is to be eliminated to prove a person naming cards he or she cannot see, why should it be accepted to explain how the universe began? The staggering number of factors that have to be positive for two brown eyed people to produce a blue eyed girl alone makes chance what my old Math Professor called "a hellacious number."




> Pen, you really should stop taking this so personally. This is a thread about Science VS Religion, so you should expect there would be atheists who would challenge your beliefs and reasons for them.


Touche. However, you have talked about superstitions, irrationality, and ignorance in people who think God had anything to do with the creation process. I believe He did. You are aware that this is my standpoint. A generalized disparaging comment that hits a personal viewpoint then becomes personal. If I made a general remark that atheists were a blasphemous lot bound for hell on the fast track *(I'm not saying that by the way, it isn't my place to judge any person)* you being an atheist could consider that an attack on your belief system, and knowing that I know how you believe, might just feel like a personal attack.

And as I said, it is pointless to argue when neither accepts the possibility of the other actually being correct, or only one of the two in the discussion will grant the other the possibility of being correct.

You see with me, chance is a tricky thing. Given infinite time and infinite diversity there has to come a chance (even in one in a gazillion) that allows for a specific occurrence to take place. I submit that everything could have happened by chance. The ratio would for me be too large to type here. 

Yet you will not give that same scenario to God, because bad things happen to good people.

Just listen a moment:

I started preaching when I was 19 and was fully ordained in my early twenties. I was a traveling Evangelist, which doesn't pay the bills, so I held down a full time job in a cabinet factory. I have a wife, and at one time we had three kid under the age of five at home. I worked very hard, I preached everywhere I could get a pulpit, and no distance was too much even though I had to drive at my own expense.

I was in a car crash in '92 which badly injured my neck and back. The high paying job I had at the factory was discontinued and I had a considerable cut in salary, which meant my wife had to work and we had three small kids. ] worked days and she worked nights which was bad for our relationship.

Then my genetic bomb went off and my bipolar put me in a mental hospital five times in one year. I became completely disabled due to the unreliability of when an attack could strike. It made me unemployable. I went back to school and studied computer programing which I hoped would allow me to work from home. No. It didn't. I was excommunicated from the churches where my support base was.

If anyone has a right to say there is no God I qualify. But I still believe, I will not quit. I write a blog for no pay, I hold services in my home or other people's homes, I make the best of what life gives me. But I couldn't make it without God.

Have I ever considered just quitting and saying something like: "I gave you all I had, God. I traveled and preached, I lead people to you, I prayed for people, and I promised to stand on your word. And how do I get repaid? You took everything from me, leaving me damaged goods. I'm done." Yes. But I cannot and will not.

Let me ask you. If you woke up tomorrow and your whole world had crashed, science cast you out as crazy, and everything you believed was turned upside down to the point that you began to doubt if science was correct about anything could you still hang on? With your support base destroyed, with people mocking your ideas when they used to pack places out to here you expound, could you continue to keep going?

Just think about it, mon ami.

God Bless

Pendragon

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Where is the evidence it was created by a random fluctuation in a quantum field? Using chance to explain the complexity of the universe to me sounds a little off. Whenever people claim things like ESP, clairvoyance, out of body, remote viewing... chance is the first thing you rule out.


A good laymen's introduction to the evidence for how quantum fields can create universe is in Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing. Given what we know of how quantum fields works, universes seem an inevitable product of them. Also, it's not just about chance but about chance combined with a number of trials. This should not be so alien/foreign since it's how evolution itself works: random mutations and natural selection. In the case of universe the randomness is what happens at the quantum level while the natural selection is what happens via whatever mathematical laws they bring about. The analogy with things like ESP et al. is a little off; firstly, life exists on a much higher level of organization than do quantum reality. To explain the difference, imagine the difference between rolling one die and rolling 1,000,000 dice simultaneously; in the former, while the "average" may be 3.5, the actual roll could just as likely be 3.5x smaller (a 1) or almost 60% larger (a 6). On the other hand, it would be extremely unlikely for the "average" of the 1,000,000 dice to come out at either extreme, and will be much closer to the 3.5 average. This is what life is like on OUR level, though even more extreme. We are the product of randomness tending towards a mean because of the huge aggregation/organization of particles. 

That said, one doesn't really "rule out" chance when it comes to ESPs, but rather chance is the assumed null hypothesis and only if someone displays abilities that break significantly away from the average would someone consider that they had legitimate abilities. Not surprisingly, nobody has ever demonstrated this in any controlled experimental setting. 




> However, you have talked about superstitions, irrationality, and ignorance in people who think God had anything to do with the creation process.


Actually, I think all humans are irrational and ignorant to varying degrees, atheist or not. In fact, most atheists I know aren't really any more rational than theism because very often their rejection of religion has nothing to do with rationality. To me, rationality is something that one must really work at to refine because brains are innately irrational, and much of it involves fighting most every natural instinct/intuition we have. This goes far beyond the issue of belief or disbelief in Gods. Superstitions would merely be one form of irrationality and that certainly isn't limited to religion or Gods. Similarly, everyone is ignorant of something, it's only a question of how much our ignorance on any subject is affecting our beliefs about that subject. It just seems to me that God too frequently seems to be the God of the gaps for people, the thing we use to explain our ignorances away. I remember once watching a discussion between Richard Dawkins and some Cardinal; the Cardinal was a scientist himself and said that his conception of God was not of one we should use of explaining gaps in our knowledge, but a God of excess and gratuity, of going above and beyond what we needed to explain or know or even to live. You may try to find/watch the video yourself, as it was very civil and enlightening. 




> Just listen a moment: 
> 
> ...
> 
> Let me ask you. If you woke up tomorrow and your whole world had crashed, science cast you out a crazy, and everything you believed was turned upside down to the point that you began to doubt if science was correct about anything could you still hang on? With your support base destroyed, with people mocking your ideas when they used to pack places out to here you expound, could you continue to keep going?


Our stories our not terribly dissimilar, though our ultimate conclusions are. I was raised in a very devout Christian home and believed strongly until I came to my teens and found myself debilitated by chronic migraines, which slowly took everything in my away, from school to friends to sports to literature etc. and I found myself completely alone, isolated, and spending most of my days in excruciating pain. Simultaneously, I started having doubts about what I'd been told to believe all my life, which lead me to really start studying (if informally) philosophy, epistemology; I especially wanted to know what the RIGHT way was to reason and form beliefs, because surely there had to be something better than just strongly believing what you were told to believe. 

My apostasy was a long and painful one, because my physical pain was very much echoed by the mental pain of what I felt to be my disillusionment, of, to use a phrase I quoted from Yeats in another thread, raving into the desolation of reality. The more I studied, the more I debated (with myself and others), the less I could find any substantial basis for my old faith, and while I continue to read the works of theologians periodically, to engage in the latest ideas and reasons put forth from admittedly very fine thinkers like Plantinga and Craig, I come back to the rationalism that I learned mostly through Lesswrong.com as being the only thing that has the consistency I think is necessary for truths. 

As for your hypothetical, I have no idea how to imagine that scenario as I am not really "in" the world of science, I merely try to learn from the best of current scientific knowledge, so I'm already an outsider of sorts. I don't set my beliefs on any one scientific theory, thought, or explanations, and if the winds of evidence are blowing in another direction, I let myself be a leaf that is blown with it. This is one of the key virtues of rationalism, that one does not hang onto beliefs that seem to be unlikely in the face of new evidence, so as long as one has such a perspective it's hard to imagine a scenario where I'd be "cast out as crazy" or my whole world would be "turned upside down." When you make truth your God, and have a good understanding of rationalism that allows your mind to accept whatever at the time seems most likely the case, such upsettings can't happen. You can't turn to ruin a rationalist's mind any more than you can turn to ruin water. To quote Bruce Lee: "you put water into a cup it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; water can flow or it can crash; be water, my friend." I'll also add that, however strong and inflexible rocks seem, and however weak and flexible water may seem, water always wins in the end. Faith, to me, seems like rocks that can't help but we withered by change; while rationalism is like water that adapts to whatever changes come about.

----------


## YesNo

> Did Plantinga fail to address how a great many believers take Genesis literary and argue that God created man from dirt, woman from man's rib, and that the Earth was created 6000 years ago (discerned by tracing time from the point the Bible was written back through history)? Because science is very much in conflict with THAT particular religious belief. Obviously, I stated earlier that many Christians do believe in evolution and take Genesis only to be allegory; so there the conflict goes away. *Really, I don't have much to say about Plantinga's discussion of guided VS unguided evolution except to point out that there's not a stitch of evidence that evolution is "guided" in any way.* Mutations themselves are random, and 99% of all species every alive have gone extinct, and evolution has produced so many useless by-products that you'd have to ask why in the world any deity would "guide" it in those directions to begin with (ERVs, anyone? Bet Plantinga doesn't address those).



There is not a "stitch of evidence" for the many worlds position you maintain, but that doesn't stop you from promoting it.

Regarding the distinction between guided and unguided evolution, Plantinga is simply doing what philosophers do. They make distinctions to help us see the issues better. What he is saying is something rather simple. A theistic position is not in opposition to evolution, but to unguided evolution. 

He argues against Dawkins, Dennet and others who claim in their various ways that evolution is in opposition to theism. It isn't. What is in opposition is their individual version of unguided evolution.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> There is not a "stitch of evidence" for the many worlds position you maintain, but that doesn't stop you from promoting it.


Yes there is, but that doesn't stop you from repeating lies like this. 




> Regarding the distinction between guided and unguided evolution, Plantinga is simply doing what philosophers do.


Talking out his posterior? Yes, that's that most philosophers do, even the "great" ones. 




> He argues against Dawkins, Dennet and others who claim in their various ways that evolution is in opposition to theism. It isn't. What is in opposition is their individual version of unguided evolution.


It's worth pointing out the irony that you'll take a Christian apologist's views on evolution more seriously than an actual evolutionary biologist like Dawkins. Evolution is in direct opposition to a literal reading of Genesis, a view that many theists hold. I don't know why you keep trying to sweep this under the rug, or why in the world Plantinga would. At least you (or he) hasn't pulled a "No True Scotsman" fallacy yet. The random nature of evolutionary mutation is a key component in evolutionary theory; how in the world Plantinga gets from such randomness to "guided" you'll have to explain.

----------


## YesNo

> Admitting that this is the first I've heard of Plantinga, I think I'm gonna have to disagree with the notion that "you can't be a naturalist without being an atheist."
> 
> The aforementioned *Teilhard* was a naturalist as well as a paleonthologist, definitely not an atheist.


I don't know much about Plantinga either. I did read the link you posted about Teilhard. He seemed to me to be a theist. 

The word "naturalism" is used in a technical way by Plantinga. It is not the position of someone who studies nature, but someone who has a specific metaphysics which could be characterized as materialistic and atheistic where mind is a consequence of matter, but he does not include all atheists. For example, I suspect he does not include atheists who hold panpsychism as their philosophy of mind, but I'm not sure. It seems to me he needs to have all mental activity reduced to neurons firing.

Ultimately, he is setting that specific atheistic group ("naturalism") up for a fall by assuming their unguided evolution is true with their god of the gaps (Chance) to show that their own mental positions (reduced to neurons firing) cannot be trusted to be rational.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Ultimately, he is setting that specific atheistic group ("naturalism") up for a fall by assuming their unguided evolution is true with their god of the gaps (Chance) to show that their own mental positions (reduced to neurons firing) cannot be trusted to be rational.


CS Lewis made this same arguments decades ago; I discussed it at length a long time ago on another forum (I'll try to find the link), but suffice it to say it's a position that was easily refutable then as it is now, though maybe Plantinga has some new spin on it. Lewis' formulations was founded on a misunderstanding of what "chance" means in a naturalistic philosophy as well as what rationality even is (namely, he assumed that rationalism was some absolute, a priori thing as opposed to a means of labeling the mental processes that exist based on the experiences they produce regardless of how they came to be).

----------


## YesNo

> All believers of every kind are atheist in the case of most gods. Christians are entirely atheistic on Egyptian, Greek & Norse gods, among others.
> 
> It's always the last one that causes the trouble.


There are two problems with a general, anti-all-gods atheism. 

The_ first_ is our ignorance. Naturalism (as Plantinga uses it) claims to know more than it does. Although the myths about Gods portray them as material objects of some sort, with the discovery of real fields in the 19th century, there is more to reality than material objects. With matter and energy being placed on two sides of an equal sign, matter itself is not intuitively obvious anymore. 

It is best to hold one's fire and aim at specific Gods that one is culturally opposed to. 

The_ second_ is when we reject one set of Gods we create others that we refuse to see as Gods. For example, anything that stimulates a feeling of self-righteousness is a God who grounds our ethics. I think Hitchens claimed that North Korea did not represent an atheistic state because it had converted itself into a sort of religion. To some extent I agree with him. What he misses is that it was atheism that generated that alternate religion once it became politically dominate. There will always be some God standing as long as there are self-righteous human beings.

The same thing would hold for the ideas such as many worlds. They are new Gods that come out of atheism. We are blinded from seeing these things as Gods because they lack the _personal_ aspect of the old Gods. When these new Gods are no longer personal, they bring over all the bad features one objected to in the old religion (specifically, dogmatism and true believer self-righteous behavior) without any of the good features (specifically, grounding love relationships with others through worshiping the personal Gods).

Again, it is best to hold one's fire and aim at specific Gods that one is opposed to. The Gods I prefer taking aim at are those that can be described as de-personalized Gods. The others, out of humility, I leave alone.

----------


## The Atheist

> There are two problems with a general, anti-all-gods atheism.


You're doing it again...

Atheism isn't anti-anything. Lack of belief is not anti, it isn't denial or rejection. 




> It is best to hold one's fire and aim at specific Gods that one is culturally opposed to.


Atheism isn't a cultural opposition either. Even if it were I can't for the life of me see why that would be anyway.

I don't believe in all gods equally. Makes no difference to me whether it's the Abrahamic god, Vishnu, Ganesha, Thor and Zeus. There is exactly the same amount and quality of evidence for all of them. 




> The same thing would hold for the ideas such as many worlds. They are new Gods that come out of atheism.


...and again....

Many worlds has nothing to do with atheism. Some atheists may believe it's true, but other atheists believe the world is run by lizards dressed as humans.

Neither proposition has any effect at all on the lack of belief in god/s.

As it happens, I'm agnostic on the multiverse.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The same thing would hold for the ideas such as many worlds. They are new Gods that come out of atheism.


And I will continue to state, with every post in which you repeat lies like this, that you know nothing of quantum physics or MW and your ignorance on said subjects have been repeatedly pointed out by multiple posters and you've either ignored them or launched into non-sequitors. I don't know who you think you're fooling with this attempt. Either people already agree with you, in which their critical mind is turned off and you're preaching to the choir; or they don't agree with you, in which case you won't convince them; if they're in the middle and undecided, then I would truly love to hear from any that have been persuaded by your blatantly ignorant, lie-filled rhetoric.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Many worlds has nothing to do with atheism....
> 
> As it happens, I'm agnostic on the multiverse.


However much MW has nothing to do with atheism it has far less to do with being a "God" or a "religion." MW is nothing more or less than the interpretation that the mathematical quantum physics models are real (meaning they're describing real objects) and complete (meaning that we don't add anything unprovable to the equations like the "collapse" of Copenhagen). How in the world YesNo turns THIS into an atheistic "God" or "religion" is beyond me. The fact that he's been repeatedly corrected on his mistakes and has either ignored them or replied with non-sequitors implies to me that he's now being intentionally dishonest. He's clearly made up his mind on such matters and is only concerned with reading people that agree with him rather than engaging with those that don't (hence him taking the word of a Christian apologist about evolution more seriously than actual evolutionary biologists).

----------


## YesNo

> However much MW has nothing to do with atheism it has far less to do with being a "God" or a "religion." MW is nothing more or less than the interpretation that the mathematical quantum physics models are real (meaning they're describing real objects) and complete (meaning that we don't add anything unprovable to the equations like the "collapse" of Copenhagen). How in the world YesNo turns THIS into an atheistic "God" or "religion" is beyond me. The fact that he's been repeatedly corrected on his mistakes and has either ignored them or replied with non-sequitors implies to me that he's now being intentionally dishonest. He's clearly made up his mind on such matters and is only concerned with reading people that agree with him rather than engaging with those that don't (hence him taking the word of a Christian apologist about evolution more seriously than actual evolutionary biologists).


I was reading the chapter on miracles in Plantinga's _Where the Conflict Really Lies_ that made me think that the structure of those "worlds" in the many worlds metaphysics is performing a function that a God would perform in other metaphysical systems: it is _sustaining_ the many worlds reality. The reality that is being conserved, maintained, sustained is a deterministic universe. 

Now I don't happen to believe in that metaphysics and quantum uncertainty confirms my disbelief in it. So I have no reason to believe in the existence of their God (those many worlds). Even the Schrodinger equation that many world proponents parade as "evidence" cannot be constructed within the many worlds metaphysics since they can't construct the coefficients for that equation. Because of that, they don't really have the Schrodinger equation to support their position. If they ever did get a functioning equation, they would have to copy the coefficients from other interpretations, such as Copenhagen, who can deal with the principle of uncertainty. 

Without physical evidence and in light of the vacuous mathematics, I simply conclude the many worlds metaphysics is a delusion. That means I go beyond agnosticism with respect to those many worlds. I am an atheist with respect to them and I ground that atheism upon scientific theory and evidence. 

Admittedly, these worlds are not a God in the sense that we normally view a God. The Gods that people normally follow in a traditional religious context are _personal_. That is, one can relate to those personal Gods and those Gods are free to relate back. If one could not, why bother worshiping them? That believers experience that their act of worship is effective is their evidence for the existence of those Gods. They don't need an equation to represent a de-personalized God, least of all an equation that they can't get to work.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

^ Case in point. Interested parties should note how his post has almost nothing to do with what I actually said and everything he says about QM and MW is wrong (and I mean provably, demonstrably, "would not be found in a single physics textbook or be said by any competent physicist" wrong). 

Some obvious examples: 

1. "Shrodinger equation... can't be constructed in MW," 

This is patently false. What he means, I suspect, is that the Born equations can't be constructed, and that's a different thing entirely. Wikipedia phrases the difference like this: "The Schrödinger equation details the behavior of (wavefunction) but says nothing of its _nature_... In 1926, just a few days after Schrödinger's fourth and final paper was published, Max Born successfully interpreted (wavefunction) as the probability amplitude..." About that "probability amplitude," MW, in taking Shrodinger as REAL says "we don't know where it comes from;" Copenhagen, in applying a "collapse," not justified by any math or experimental evidence, says: "It comes from observation (but don't ask how)." 

The big question is whether one finds the "incompleteness" of MW or the "paradoxes" of Copenhagen more defensible. It would be one thing if YesNo said "I'm able to reconcile myself to Copenhagen's paradoxes more than MW's incompleteness." That would be fine, understandable, even somewhat rational. But this constant, ignorant attack on MW as a "religion" or "God" with "no evidence" that's "not even an interpretation" followed by statement after statement that ranges from flat-out false (ie, Schrodinger doesn't support MW), to dishonest half-truth reveals his irrational bias. It's not like it's completely unacceptable for someone to favor Copenhagen or criticize MW, but I take umbrage at the ignorant and dishonest way YesNo continues to go about it even after he's been corrected and failed to provide any authoritative support for any of his claims.

2. "the structure of those "worlds" in the many worlds metaphysics is performing a function that a God would perform in other metaphysical systems: it is sustaining the many worlds reality." 

This is absolutely absurd. One thing YesNo has never understood is that the "many worlds" themselves, perhaps counter-intuitively, are not all that important to MW, they're just a consequence of MW's very reasonable assumptions. The worlds themselves have no "godlike" role and have nothing to do with what "sustains" MW as an interp. To criticize MW, one has to dispute the assumptions, not the consequences. YesNo almost never disputes the assumptions as I don't believe he even understands them.

3. "Without physical evidence and in light of the vacuous mathematics, I simply conclude the many worlds metaphysics is a delusion... I am an atheist with respect to them and I ground that atheism upon scientific theory and evidence."

YesNo does not understand the difference between "factual models," "theories," and "interpretations" as it pertains to science. Factual models are descriptive, theories are predictive and require evidence, and interpretations take the same models and ask how we should consider them without the ability to make predictions. All "interpretations" of QM have the same "factual models," the difference lies in how they interpret them. They're all consistent with the actual data. So this demand for "physical evidence" for MW is absurd because there's no physical OR mathematical evidence for Copenhagen OR ANY OTHER QM INTERPRETATION. He has absolutely NO "scientific theory or evidence" on which to ground his objection to MW because there are none, they don't exist. ANY theoretical physicist would tell you this. 

At this point, I'd almost be willing to pay YesNo to go on a physics forum and try to debate this. Just because maybe after dozens of posters have pointed out his ignorance he'll finally get it through his head that the problem is with him and not with MW or its proponents.

----------


## Vota

"Woops. Got me! I know that. Call it a senior moment. It's a bit difficult keeping all the different mythological ideas straight. Anyway, how about analysing the wine/blood before and after? And checking the wafer to see if it turns into some part of the human body?"

LOL. Really?

----------


## cacian

> They have always co-ex-isted as they do today and will do tomorrow. Neither ever had to justify the other.


I say religion is a branch of science only science does not know it yet.

----------


## YesNo

I agree with cafolini that neither science nor religion had to justify the other. I can sort of see religion as a branch of science as cacian mentions if one looks at religion as a way to explore one's personal consciousness by paying attention and is not concerned with precisely reproducible results.

----------


## Melanie

Most compelling evidence for Creation from a scientific perspective. This NAILS IT!!! 
Beautifully presented. You won't be sorry you took your time to watch it! 
From a former atheist, former evolutionist, and engineer in the US Military Space Program.

What Astronomy is Not Telling Us.

"Our Created Solar System"
Click on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI

----------


## HCabret

> Most compelling evidence for Creation from a scientific perspective. This NAILS IT!!! 
> Beautifully presented. You won't be sorry you took your time to watch it! 
> From a former atheist, former evolutionist, and engineer in the US Military Space Program.
> 
> What Astronomy is Not Telling Us.
> 
> "Our Created Solar System"
> Click on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI


i'm convinced. And all it took was a youtube video.

----------


## YesNo

> Most compelling evidence for Creation from a scientific perspective. This NAILS IT!!! 
> Beautifully presented. You won't be sorry you took your time to watch it! 
> From a former atheist, former evolutionist, and engineer in the US Military Space Program.
> 
> What Astronomy is Not Telling Us.
> 
> "Our Created Solar System"
> Click on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI


The video shows that some theories about the solar system have problems, but it doesn't convince me that the specific stories in Genesis are the only alternatives to the deterministic/chance mythologies that atheists like to believe in. Remove atheistic metaphysics and pseudo-science and there are many different theistic perspectives that would help us to understand our role in the universe.

----------


## Melanie

The video is purposefully not focused on "specific stories in Genesis". It's purpose is to focus moreso on debunking scientific theories of evolution using scientific facts. Thank you for watching it YesNo.

----------


## HCabret

> The video is purposefully not focused on "specific stories in Genesis". It's purpose is to focus moreso on debunking scientific theories of evolution using scientific facts. Thank you for watching it YesNo.


Im convinced. Science is the tool of satan and all believers in satanist evolution should burn. Jesus hates evolution and science and the bible is god-given proof that evolution is false. Our tax-payer funded atheist public school indoctrinators would like our children to believe that dogs came from a rock billions of years ago and that people came from monkeys. Both are false! In fact, dogs did not come from rocks, and monkeys evolved side by side with modern humans, nor did any other life. Life generated through the organic material remnants of super massive stars which had gone nova. But that is godless hogwash! The BIBLE IS PROVEN FACT AND IF YOU ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE GOD AND HIS PLAN YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Most compelling evidence for Creation from a scientific perspective. This NAILS IT!!! 
> Beautifully presented. You won't be sorry you took your time to watch it! 
> From a former atheist, former evolutionist, and engineer in the US Military Space Program.
> 
> What Astronomy is Not Telling Us.
> 
> "Our Created Solar System"
> Click on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI



Oh goodness... it's 2014, and at times I think it might as well be 1014.

Though it is encouraging that YouTube is being utilized by God to spread the word about "Intelligent Design"... but it begs the question; does God use a PC, or Apple?

----------


## mal4mac

> Most compelling evidence for Creation from a scientific perspective. This NAILS IT!!! 
> Beautifully presented. You won't be sorry you took your time to watch it! 
> From a former atheist, former evolutionist, and engineer in the US Military Space Program.


Why would you take an astronomy lesson from an engineer? That's like having your appendix removed by the X ray technician. I'm upset that Professor Brian Cox is always pushing out astronomy programmes when's he's an experimental particle physicists. But some engineer doing the same is even worse!

----------


## Melanie

You two are grabbing at straws because...
you either can't find fault with the content or have no idea what the content is.

*Iain* can only attack the tool used to deliver the information and 
*mal4mac* can only attack the intelligence of an Aerospace Engineer 
who is "merely" part of the team responsible for all space exploration…as if he
hasn't read anything about space…yeah right mal.

When you have something to say about the content delivered then I look forward to your comments.
Try familiarizing yourselves with the content first please.

----------


## YesNo

> You two are grabbing at straws because...
> you either can't find fault with the content or have no idea what the content is.


I think you are right about that. The content is what matters, not who is saying it or how it is being said.

I disagree with the video where it implies that the universe could be much younger than it is. One can have a transcendent Consciousness no matter how young or old the universe is. The video brings up good points about what beliefs drive some of the explanations we hear as "science". It is good to see those explanations questioned. 

You cited a video in a different thread that got me thinking more about neo-Darwinist explanations of a slow, random change based on mutations. That lead to finding Foster's research on E. coli and hypermutation. Here is the article I'm still thinking about**: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989722/ 

The slow, random change idea is supposed to find an explanation that does not involve consciousness, but relies on the twin atheistic deities of Determinism and Chance. Chance is the back-up deity that fills in the gaps that Determinism can't explain. Supposedly these two unconscious deities can avoid the need for consciousness. That's at least how the mythology goes.

----------


## 108 fountains

I watched the first 40 minutes or so of the video. That was enough for me. The content can be summarized fairly easily: There are aspects of the solar system that science has been unable to explain satisfactorily; therefore, the Bible must be taken literally, i.e., God created the universe in six days approximately 6000 years ago.

----------


## Melanie

*YesNo*, you used the words "implies" and "belief" but Psarris is presenting facts not beliefs, all of which he presents in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI. I can't attempt to present his abundance of proof in this post. I can tell you're aware of the content though and I respect you for that.

Regarding Mutation, how can accidental copying mistakes create massive volumes of information in the DNA of living things such as creating a microbiologist from changing billions of DNA letters in a microbe without instructions of how to control their use or when. Mutations are known for their destructive effects like human diseases. They are rarely helpful. And "How can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?" ~_An Impossible Conundrum for Evolution_

*108 Fountains*…thank you for familiarizing yourself with the facts and then making an informed opinion. Thumbs up.

----------


## Frostball

> *YesNo*, you used the words "implies" and "belief" but Psarris is presenting facts not beliefs, all of which he presents in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI. I can't attempt to present his abundance of proof in this post. I can tell you're aware of the content though and I respect you for that.
> 
> Regarding Mutation, here are some questions to evolutionists…how can accidental copying mistakes create massive volumes of information in the DNA of living things such as creating a microbiologist from changing billions of DNA letters in a microbe without instructions of how to control their use or when. Mutations are known for their destructive effects like human diseases. They are rarely helpful. And "How can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?" ~_An Impossible Conundrum for Evolution_
> 
> *108 Fountains*…thank you for your comment


You understand natural selection, right? There can be 1000 harmful mutations in a population, but if just one of them is beneficial, that one might help the organism survive and therefore the mutation might stick around longer than the others that got no mutation or got a harmful mutation. The beneficial mutation is selected, naturally, based on the environmental conditions. So that pretty much answers how an "accidental copying" as you put it can create all the complexity we know today. It's a step by step process that builds off of what came before, and over extreme lengths of time, can produce quite complex things like you and me.

----------


## Melanie

> You understand natural selection, right? There can be 1000 harmful mutations in a population, but if just one of them is beneficial, that one might help the organism survive and therefore the mutation might stick around longer than the others that got no mutation or got a harmful mutation. The beneficial mutation is selected, naturally, based on the environmental conditions….


Natural selection does not explain the origin of the diversity of life. It's a selective process, not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest but not where the genes and organisms came from in the first place. Life and death by survival of the fittest does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. Mutations are copying mistakes, things like DNA "letters’"exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc. They are rarely beneficial.

----------


## Frostball

> Natural selection does not explain the origin of the diversity of life. It's a selective process, not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest but not where the genes and organisms came from in the first place. Life and death by survival of the fittest does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. Mutations are copying mistakes, things like DNA "letters’"exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc. They are rarely beneficial.


Well like I said, even though they are rarely beneficial if there are 1000 harmful mutations, and 1 beneficial mutation, that one will be selected by the environment. In what way can this not explain the diversity of life? You admit mutations happen. Mutations are random, but there is a mechanism by which certain mutations are selected for, and that mechanism is the environment naturally selecting which organisms survive. The result of this is that species slowly evolve over time to adapt to their environment.

----------


## Melanie

Yes, parts of each species adapt to their environment. That's pretty obvious. But those minor back-and-forth variations in species' parts doesn't explain the origin of species itself. Example…bird's beaks change back and forth as they adapt to their environment but that doesn't explain the origin of beaks nor the origin of birds.

----------


## mal4mac

> You two are grabbing at straws because...
> you either can't find fault with the content or have no idea what the content is.


I can't read or watch everything, produce a positive review from a top astronomer and I might take a look.




> *mal4mac* can only attack the intelligence of an Aerospace Engineer 
> who is "merely" part of the team responsible for all space exploration…as if he
> hasn't read anything about space…yeah right mal.


I'm not questioning his intelligence, I'm questioning his expertise. Imagine some naturalists flying above Africa, studying Elephant migration. Who would you trust to give you a description of Elephant migration in Africa? The aeronautical engineer who designed the plane, or one of those naturalists. However intelligent the engineer, I'll be asking the naturalist. I might consider your recommendations on poetry Melanie, but by not being able to distinguish between an engineer and an astronomer, I think you are showing your total lack of knowledge in this area, so I'll give this video a miss.

----------


## Melanie

> I can't read or watch everything...I'll give this video a miss.


Your loss. It's nothing but factual. Facts are facts. Doesn't take anything special except putting it all together in an excellent presentation. It's not post worthy why you "can't read or watch everything" because that choice is expected of most. It's there for those who want to learn what astronomers are not telling us. In fact, that's part of the title. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI

----------


## mal4mac

> Yes, parts of each species adapt to their environment. That's pretty obvious. But those minor back-and-forth variations in species' parts doesn't explain the origin of species itself. Example…bird's beaks change back and forth as they adapt to their environment but that doesn't explain the origin of beaks nor the origin of birds.


A lot of work has been done on the origin of birds:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6196/562

But I suggest you begin by reading Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" to get some feel for how new species emerge.

----------


## mal4mac

> Your loss. It's nothing but factual. Facts are facts. Doesn't take anything special except putting it all together in an excellent presentation. It's not post worthy why you "can't read or watch everything" because that choice is expected of most. It's there for those who want to learn what astronomers are not telling us.


Facts can be distorted, and any old theory spun out of them. There are a hundred crank papers on the internet juggling such "facts" for every decent paper. I'll wait until a peer reviewed paper in Nature appears.

----------


## Melanie

Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins. In almost every post. Dawkins is your alpha and omega. Not mine. I'll look at your link.

I read your link…okay, birds came from Dinosaurs haha. First they say 10 million years ago. Then they changed their mind to 50 million years ago. They're confused from the get-go. My video explains clearly and precisely why the creation of the solar universe is not nearly that old even.

----------


## Frostball

> Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins. In almost every post. Dawkins is your alpha and omega. Not mine. I'll look at your link.


In what other post was Dawkins mentioned?

----------


## Melanie

Frostball, see post #451 from mal4mac to you

----------


## Frostball

> Omg, Frostball, you've never seen mal4mac mention Dawkins before? I'll let you find his posts with Dawkins mentioned yourself…it won't take you long.


Well, I don't know about that, but we were talking about evolution and mal4mac suggested a book by a more or less well respected biologist. Seems perfectly on point to me.

Just out of curiosity I checked out mal4mac's recent posts and used the find function to look for "dawkins" and the only instance of it on the first page was the one he just made. I even looked at the second page, and there wasn't an instance of "dawkins" there either. It only shows the first section of every post, but still, I don't see any evidence of your claim.

----------


## Melanie

frost ball…see post 451 from mal4mac to you

----------


## Frostball

> frost ball…if you use the search box above it will only give you the name of the thread where dawkins is mentioned. Then you have to go to the thread and scroll through the thread to find his posts (dawkins name will be highlighted). You can also go to mal4mac's profile and scroll through his religious posts to find them. 
> 
> Why do you want proof of this??? This thread is about something much more important that how many times mal4mac says Dawkin's name. I'm not going to waste my time to do it for you. Let's stay on topic okay? No offense.


Hah! You're the one who decided to bring the entirely irrelevant fact of how often mal4mac mentioned Dawkins. As far as searching for mal4mac mentioning dawkins I'm talking about when you click on his name and you can see all the recent posts he's made. It doesn't show the entire post, but if it was indeed true that he talks about Dawkins all the time you would expect it to happen in the beginning of the post at least once. But no, I looked at several pages and the only single instance of "dawkins" was the one he made just now. I'm calling you out on a claim you made and you say we should stay on topic? Come on!

It wouldn't even matter if he DID refer to Dawkins often, so you trying to say that was worse than off topic, it was completely irrelevant.

----------


## mal4mac

> I read your link…okay, birds came from Dinosaurs haha. First they say 10 million years ago. Then they changed their mind to 50 million years ago. They're confused from the get-go.


That's because scientists are always refining their theories because new evidence is always appearing. They didn't just 'change their mind' on a whim, they took into account many new facts & theories and came up with a more acceptable theory. They made a rough estimate when they started, now they have a better estimate. Actually the biblical estimate might be thought of as the first rough estimate, i.e., "more than 4000 years ago". Fair enough to start with, I guess, but a lot more evidence has piled up in the last 2000 years, so we can make better estimates (if still a bit rough...)

----------


## mal4mac

> frost ball…


I haven't mentioned Dawkins much recently, but in the last conversation with Melanie I did mention him a lot.

----------


## HCabret

> Your loss. It's nothing but factual. Facts are facts. Doesn't take anything special except putting it all together in an excellent presentation. It's not post worthy why you "can't read or watch everything" because that choice is expected of most. It's there for those who want to learn what astronomers are not telling us. In fact, that's part of the title. This link starts in the middle for some reason. Please move bottom dot to the beginning of the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI


facts are stubborn things. And are also subjective things.

----------


## HCabret

> Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins. In almost every post. Dawkins is your alpha and omega. Not mine. I'll look at your link.
> 
> I read your linkokay, birds came from Dinosaurs haha. First they say 10 million years ago. Then they changed their mind to 50 million years ago. They're confused from the get-go. My video explains clearly and precisely why creation is not nearly that old even.


Richard Dawkins is a moron, but that doesn't mean evolution doesn't still occur. Do you know anything about background microwave radiation?

----------


## Melanie

*mal4mac*, thank you for clearing up your Lit-Net history for Frostball

*NCaberet* - posts 435 and 437 cover my thoughts about evolution. Regarding CMB, it's an assumption as to where it came from and how old it is but, no, I didn't know anything about it until you mentioned it. Thank you. I'll read more.

It appears that only 2 people are able to discuss "What Astronomy is Not Telling Us About
Our Created Solar System"…thank you YesNo and 108Fountains since they are the only
ones that watched this video:

What Astronomers Are Not Telling Us
"Our Created Solar System"
Click on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI

----------


## HCabret

> *NCCaberet* - posts 435 and 437 cover my thoughts about evolution


i understand that you have an unfavorable opinion of evolution.i don't believe in gravity, but it exists. you can have what ever opinion on evolution you want, but it still happens regardless. i watched the video. it did not change MY opinion. saying that "neptune is far away from the sun, so it should be cold, but it isnt." That isnt proof that either the Bible is right, nor that evolution is wrong. In fact, it has nothing to do with either. Genetics and Astrophysics are too completely different fields of study. Genetics does not concern itself with the temperature of planets and astrophysics does not deal in the reproduction of genetic material. I'm sure that Io is an anomaly, as is Titan and Venus and Europa. Al have varying surface temperatures and are all at different distances from the sun. The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.

----------


## mal4mac

> It appears that only 2 people are able to discuss "What Astronomy is Not Telling Us About
> Our Created Solar System"…


Here's a real astronomer, Phil Plait, demolishing Spike's ideas:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...to_evolve.html

I don't want to beat my head against a wall so I'll be avoiding the video.

----------


## Melanie

> Im convinced. Science is the tool of satan and all believers in satanist evolution should burn. Jesus hates evolution and science and the bible is god-given proof that evolution is false. Our tax-payer funded atheist public school indoctrinators would like our children to believe that dogs came from a rock billions of years ago and that people came from monkeys. Both are false! In fact, dogs did not come from rocks, and monkeys evolved side by side with modern humans, nor did any other life. Life generated through the organic material remnants of super massive stars which had gone nova. But that is godless hogwash! The BIBLE IS PROVEN FACT AND IF YOU ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE GOD AND HIS PLAN YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!





> i understand that you have an unfavorable opinion of evolution.i don't believe in gravity, but it exists. you can have what ever opinion on evolution you want, but it still happens regardless. i watched the video. it did not change MY opinion. saying that "neptune is far away from the sun, so it should be cold, but it isnt." That isnt proof that either the Bible is right, nor that evolution is wrong. In fact, it has nothing to do with either. Genetics and Astrophysics are too completely different fields of study. Genetics does not concern itself with the temperature of planets and astrophysics does not deal in the reproduction of genetic material. I'm sure that Io is an anomaly, as is Titan and Venus and Europa. Al have varying surface temperatures and are all at different distances from the sun. The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.


umi believe in evolution according to God's plan within species, adapting to their environmentbut not turning into new specieslike dinosaurs becoming birds...no proof of that...nuff said. Regarding the planets in the video, sounds like you skimmed over the video and missed a lot.

----------


## Melanie

> I don't want to beat my head against a wall...


Aw c'mon, make my day  :Smile:  (just joking)

I find it odd that you worked so hard all day at trying to find people and articles to "demolish" 
my factual video, "What You Aren't being Told About Astronomy…Our Created Solar System"
yet, you haven't watched it yourself and have no desire to form your own opinion. 
Do you always search out the naysayers and mindlessly jump on the bandwagon with them?
Good luck with that.

----------


## YesNo

> Here's a real astronomer, Phil Plait, demolishing Spike's ideas:
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...to_evolve.html
> 
> I don't want to beat my head against a wall so I'll be avoiding the video.


After reading that blog post, I don't think he demolished anything. So, his main concern is that Psarris used the word "evolution" to describe change. And what's wrong with that? In the context evolution is the correct term to use. It did make me wonder why astronomers themselves like to call the change they describe "evolution".

----------


## YesNo

> You understand natural selection, right? There can be 1000 harmful mutations in a population, but if just one of them is beneficial, that one might help the organism survive and therefore the mutation might stick around longer than the others that got no mutation or got a harmful mutation. The beneficial mutation is selected, naturally, based on the environmental conditions. *So that pretty much answers how an "accidental copying" as you put it can create all the complexity we know today.*  It's a step by step process that builds off of what came before, and over extreme lengths of time, can produce quite complex things like you and me.


The problem is that it doesn't explain the complexity especially as a species goes against entropy and becomes more, not less, complex. It just claims to explain it. Consider Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium for evidence that the change happens rather abruptly in contrast to what a neo-Darwinist would want to see happen.

Also consider the experiments on E. coli by Patricia Foster. There we see hypermutations occurring in a small population of the group that is being stressed by a change of food in its environment. Based on this, both the random and slow characteristics of mutations can be dismissed. They are part of a group's coordinated attempt to survive where individuals willingly risk hypermutation so the group survives. It really has little to do with that mythical selfish gene.

----------


## HCabret

> um…i believe in evolution according to God's plan within species, adapting to their environment…but not turning into new species…like dinosaurs becoming birds...no proof of that...nuff said. Regarding the planets in the video, sounds like you skimmed over the video and missed a lot.


I still maintain that evolution is not something anyone can either believe in or not believe in. Regardless of any literature claiming to take any sort of position on evolution, it still happens. I don't believe in gravity, but it exists regardless of my opinion about gravity. Dinosaurs into Birds? You don't know very much about taxonomy do you? Are humans animals?

----------


## Hwo Thumb

This thread is 31 pages long, so I'm probably restating what's been said. Nonetheless, I am compelled to go on a rant, because people are stupid.

Disregarding the fact that there is no such thing as "science vs religion," on evolution:

Why is it that every time the subject of creationism vs evolution rears its head, I always want to beat myself to death out of embarrassment for sharing a planet with creationists? As a friend of mine once quite eloquently put the matter, "I believe in God. I don't understand God. I don't believe in evolution, I understand evolution. Belief implies that there's something to be contested."

Why is it that Darwinists can come to the fight armed to the teeth with statistics, fossil records, hard, observable science, and a mountain of evidence, and all creationists bring is a fundamentalist view of an ancient book, and yet we still somehow think there's even a fight to be had?

Why is it that I'm told by my fellow Christians that I'm a ****ty person for believing in evolution, but if I tell them that they're stupid for _not_ believing in evolution, I'm being uncivilized?

Why is it that it's perfectly okay for creationists to blatantly ignore proof of evolution, (Lenski experiment, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, genetic tests, etc.) and still insist that creationism is a viable method for conducting scientific inquiry? (When your science relies on ignoring the facts, it's not science, it's faith)

Why is it that anyone can be stupid enough to call science "faith" when it is literally the exact opposite, and I'm still expected to treat them with any shred of respect?

Why is it that anyone can be stupid enough to call faith "science" when it is literally the exact opposite, and I'm still expected to treat them with any shred of respect?

Why is it that anyone can be stupid enough to claim that the purpose of science is to destroy faith, and I'm still expected to treat them with any shred of respect?

To make a long story short (too late!) why the hell is this an argument? Evolution is as concrete and observable as gravity. Faith is the guess of a tiny, insignificant primate's attempt to understand its purpose in existing. The two are unrelated, and should never mix.

----------


## Melanie

*YesNo*, Two excellent intelligent posts 459 and 460, thank you for your input

*HCabret* (it's about time i got your name right), yes, you mentioned earlier that gravity happens as does evolution. Regarding Dinos to birds, you must have missed my conversation with mal4mac in post 450 and his article link.

*HwoThmb*,I'm so impressed by all the "stupid people" you know. Meanwhile, I searched your post for something intelligent. You were correct that there are 31 pages in this thread. You're good at counting. You obviously didn't read any of it though. You asked, Why is it that Darwinists have a mountain of evidence and creationists only have an ancient book? You missed the link that I posted that would show you how flawed your question is. It's called "What You Aren't being Told About Astronomy…Our Created Solar System". Click on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI

----------


## mal4mac

> I find it odd that you worked so hard all day at trying to find people and articles to "demolish" 
> my factual video, "What You Aren't being Told About Astronomy…Our Created Solar System"
> yet, you haven't watched it yourself and have no desire to form your own opinion. 
> Do you always search out the naysayers and mindlessly jump on the bandwagon with them?.


Do you mindlessly watch any old stuff that is put in front of you? Do you never take note of what expert critics say?

I found Phil Plait's article, and read it, in a couple of minutes, so I didn't work that hard. It's a shame that those without any expertise in science are always being taken in by such cranks, and then help spread their nonsense across the internet. "The blind leading the blind" Matthew 15:13-14, Luke 6:39-40. 

Melanie, I suggest you start reading a good science column or two, like Phil Plait's. 

Let's see what Plait says in his article, it should make anyone realise Spike is not worth watching:

"Last year, I took creationist Spike Psarris to task for misusing the term "evolution" when it comes to astronomy. Psarris has a series of videos out about creationist astronomy. In them, he uses the term evolution to stir emotions in creationists, and not for what it actually means. He then tried to squirm out of that, saying astronomers use the term evolution all the time. I then showed where he was being very deceptive there, trying to distract his readers away from the point that he was seriously misusing the term... Astronomers use it to mean change, usually in individual bodies (stars, planets, galaxies), while biologists use it to talk about change in species."

Now as a trained scientist I know that Plait is right, the term "evolution" is used in very different ways in biology and astronomy. As Spike is equating the two uses of the term, I also know that he is seriously, almost unbelievably, ignorant (or deceitful) about some very basic scientific concepts, and therefore certainly not worth listening to.

----------


## YesNo

> Do you mindlessly watch any old stuff that is put in front of you? Do you never take note of what expert critics say?
> 
> I found Phil Plait's article, and read it, in a couple of minutes, so I didn't work that hard. It's a shame that those without any expertise in science are always being taken in by such cranks, and then help spread their nonsense across the internet. "The blind leading the blind" Matthew 15:13-14, Luke 6:39-40. 
> 
> Melanie, I suggest you start reading a good science column or two, like Phil Plait's. 
> 
> Let's see what Plait says in his article, it should make anyone realise Spike is not worth watching:
> 
> "Last year, I took creationist Spike Psarris to task for misusing the term "evolution" when it comes to astronomy. Psarris has a series of videos out about creationist astronomy. In them, he uses the term evolution to stir emotions in creationists, and not for what it actually means. He then tried to squirm out of that, saying astronomers use the term evolution all the time. I then showed where he was being very deceptive there, trying to distract his readers away from the point that he was seriously misusing the term... *Astronomers use it to mean change*, usually in individual bodies (stars, planets, galaxies), while biologists use it to talk about change in species."
> ...


You're missing the point. Plait put his foot in his mouth when he complained about Psarris using the word "evolution" and received criticism as a result. Plait was trying to counter that criticism through sarcasm. Rather than arguing rationally against Psarris, he tried to demonize him. 

Why are astronomers themselves using the term "evolution"? Can't they think up something else if they mean something so different? And then why is this particular astronomer, who seems to enjoy culture wars, complaining when Psarris uses the technical term?

One of the ideas that Psarris left with me was the notion that if something can't be explained along comes an asteroid to make it all work the way it is supposed to. This sounds to me like saying, "And then a miracle happened." Usually, you need Gods of some sort to effect a miracle, but in this case I can mythologize the unconscious deity Chance as the cause of the miracle. The main deity, Determinism, needs a way out and so calls in his deity of the gaps to solve the problem.

----------


## YesNo

> Why is it that every time the subject of creationism vs evolution rears its head, I always want to beat myself to death out of embarrassment for sharing a planet with creationists? As a friend of mine once quite eloquently put the matter, "I believe in God. I don't understand God. I don't believe in evolution, I understand evolution. Belief implies that there's something to be contested."


The creationism vs evolution debate is a smokescreen, a major part of the science vs religion smokescreen, which was primarily set up by atheists beginning in the 19th century. The real debate is between atheists and theists.




> Why is it that Darwinists can come to the fight armed to the teeth with statistics, fossil records, hard, observable science, and a mountain of evidence, and all creationists bring is a fundamentalist view of an ancient book, and yet we still somehow think there's even a fight to be had?


The problem is that neo-Darwinists, those who believe that genes through random mutations slowly and unconsciously drive evolutionary change, do not have the fossil record on their side. If you get a chance, read the introductory chapters of Niels Eldredge's _Reinventing Darwin_ and consider how the sedimentation layers in which fossils occur with long periods of equilibrium punctuated by brief periods of change could have happened under neo-Darwinism. 

From what I can see from Foster's work with E. coli, they do not even have evidence about how mutations actually occur on their side.




> Why is it that I'm told by my fellow Christians that I'm a ****ty person for believing in evolution, but if I tell them that they're stupid for _not_ believing in evolution, I'm being uncivilized?


You are probably arguing about two different things. You just need to clarify better what each of your positions are. 

It is easy to believe in evolution and the best evidence for it is that we can see common features between different species. Neo-Darwinism, on the other hand, wants to claim there is no consciousness in the process, not even on the part of the species themselves, not even on the part of the individual members of the species. It is all in the genes and is based on random changes. 




> Why is it that it's perfectly okay for creationists to blatantly ignore proof of evolution, (Lenski experiment, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, genetic tests, etc.) and still insist that creationism is a viable method for conducting scientific inquiry? (When your science relies on ignoring the facts, it's not science, it's faith)


As I see it, it is neo-Darwinism that is ignoring the facts. The fossil evidence showing punctuated equilibrium falsifies the slow, random mutation theory underlying neo-Darwinism. The hypermutation in the Foster studies falsifies the slow, random mutation theory as well.

----------


## Melanie

*mal4mac*, I'm so encouraged by your astronomer's validation of Psarris' video "Our Created Solar System" without him even realizing he did it!! Think about it. The video is 1 1/2 hours long and jam packed with information supporting our Created Solar System and What Astronomers are Not Telling Us, and the only gripe your astronomer can come up with is…drumroll…SEMANTICS?#!? over one word, "evolution" that Psarris uses to describe naturalistic astronomy. That's like analyzing great works of Literature via spelling *chuckle*. If you watch the magnitude of Psarris' video the compare it to your astronomer's criticism it's clear Plait can't deny any of the the scientific findings Psarris presented supporting creation. Here's what Psarris has to say about your astronomer's accusations: http://kgov.com/spike-psarris-and-phil-plait

----------


## 108 fountains

Actually, while the video outlines flaws in various theories put forward by scientists to explain certain aspects of the solar system, it offers no direct or objective information supporting a Created Solar System. The subtitle of the video, “What You Aren’t Being Told about Astronomy,” is misleading. The opening credits themselves note that most of the “photographs, animations, and other graphics… come from NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration), JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory), and/or the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey).” No one is trying to keep the flaws in scientific theories secret as the subtitle suggests; all the information about flaws in the scientific theories is put out openly by scientists themselves.

That is what scientists do – they put forward a theory (a better word is hypothesis) for explaining natural phenomena, test the hypothesis using observations and experiments, gather evidence, and attempt to objectively analyze the evidence from their observations and experiments. Then they evaluate the hypothesis - accept it, reject it, or attempt to modify it based on their analyses. Scientists accept the fact that they do not have satisfactory explanations for every natural phenomenon. Scientific research is the ongoing process of testing, observing, collecting data, analyzing and evaluating evidence, and revising hypotheses as knowledge and understanding of the subject matter increases. 

As the narrator in the video points out (from information freely available), despite advances in astronomy, there are many phenomena in the solar system that scientists do not fully understand. The narrator then leaps to the conclusion that because there are gaps in our knowledge about these phenomena, then we must acknowledge that the universe was created by God in six days approximately six thousand years ago, according to a literal interpretation of the Bible. He presents absolutely no direct or objective evidence to support this conclusion; he simply asserts that the Biblical narrative must be true because a number of scientific theories are imperfect.

If someone wishes to believe in Creationism, I try to respect that (although I cannot agree). But I have a problem with people who try to prove their beliefs are “correct” or “superior” to mine. The video in question is purposely misleading and draws unfounded conclusions.

----------


## YesNo

> If someone wishes to believe in Creationism, I try to respect that (although I cannot agree). But I have a problem with people who try to *prove their beliefs* are “correct” or “superior” to mine. The video in question is* purposely misleading* and draws unfounded conclusions.


I disagree with the "purposely misleading" part of your conclusion. I thought Psarris was trying to present his case as well as he could. There is nothing wrong with that. He presented his evidence and drew his conclusions. 

By the way, I thought some of the evidence he presented was interesting, in particular, the evidence about geomagnetism. I was expecting Plait to address the evidence when I saw mal4mac's link. But it doesn't matter. I will have to look into geomagnetism further on my own. 

Although I agree with you about creationism, I deliberately try not to have any "problem" with people who disagree with me. I want them to try to prove their beliefs. What they usually do in the process is help me clarify my own positions. Some of them, like Plait, also offer amusement. My point: Neither Psarris nor Plait are problems. They are opportunities.

As a side note, I think Melanie is right in claiming that Plait witlessly validated Psarris' evidence by not addressing it and wasting time with the "evolution" non-issue.

----------


## mal4mac

> *mal4mac*... The video is 1 1/2 hours long and jam packed with information supporting our Created Solar System and What Astronomers are Not Telling Us, and the only gripe your astronomer can come up with isdrumrollSEMANTICS?#!? over one word, "evolution" that Psarris uses to describe naturalistic astronomy.


If the guy who designed the X ray machine mistakes kidneys for tonsils, do you think I'm going to listen to him rattle on for two hours about parts of the human body? (Why am I listening to him anyway? Shouldn't I be listening to an anatomy professor?) 

Psarris makes a mistake I wouldn't have made as a 12 year old - when I first got interested in Darwinian evolution and Stellar evolution. Psarris' mistake is just *so* dumb, that I'm out the door even before entering the room.

----------


## 108 fountains

YesNo,

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate you reigning me in because I truly wish to be respectful of others’ belief systems. I generally just stick to the forums on literature, but this thread and others like it drew my attention recently. 

I did not intend to say that the entire video was purposely misleading, only the parts, as noted in the subtitle “What You Aren’t Being Told about Astronomy,” where it insinuates that there is some kind of conspiracy among scientists to withhold information on the inconsistencies between observed data and scientific theories. There is no such conspiracy, and to insinuate otherwise is misleading. 

I also don’t have a problem with people trying to prove their beliefs, but I do have a problem with people who assert their beliefs are morally superior to mine or that their point of view is the only correct point of view. Even attempting to explain one’s own point of view will be offensive to some who have deeply held beliefs inconsistent with that point of view – that’s one reason why I generally shy away from threads like this one; I’m not going to convince anyone that their beliefs are wrong, and I feel morally disinclined to do so anyway. 

I’ve seen some of your comments in this thread and in some of the similar threads, and I really applaud your open-mindedness, your genuineness, and your search for truth. In many ways, your comments remind me of my own thinking about 40 years ago. Despite my Catholic upbringing, I had given up belief in angels and devils, a Creator God, and all the other ideas that accompany a literal interpretation of the Bible at about the same time as I stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. In college, I started reading about Buddhism and was particularly attracted to the ideas found in Zen Buddhism. 

I spent more than half of the next 35 years living and working in countries where Buddhism was the predominant religion. During that time, I gradually lost my enthusiasm for Buddhism for several reasons – the popular practice of Buddhism in the countries where I lived included veneration of gods and goddesses and ritual practices that I considered to be based on myth and superstition similar to other religions; I found that in some places, most notably in Sri Lanka, Buddhist practitioners were as close-minded and intolerant of other religions as other religions themselves (although I think that the intolerance I saw there was more of an ethnic than a religious issue); and most importantly, I found that I disagreed with the Buddhist notion that life is illusory and defined by suffering. 

For a long time, I was able to find comfort in ideas that might best be described as equivalent to Brahmanism as described in the Upanishads – and similar, I think, to the concept you describe in some of your comments about a kind of spiritual consciousness that pervades the universe. But in recent years, I am coming more and more to the conclusion that this life, the here and now, is all there is, and I am becoming more and more comfortable with the notion that this life is wondrous and beautiful as it is, without the embellishments of myth and superstition. 

The universe is filled with amazing things – some of them are described in Melanie’s video. Others, such as the nature of time, space, gravity, and energy and their relations to each other with respect to quantum mechanics and relativity theory, we are just beginning to learn about. Still others, like the love between two people, our dreams and our longings, our music and our literature, our cognitive abilities to question, to reason, and to learn and our quest to understand, and our desire to seek ultimate truth and meaning – all of these, I believe, are wondrous, beautiful aspects of life, and they are all here right now before our very eyes; we do not need to look any further beyond ourselves and the material universe to find them or to explain them.

Now that I’ve stated my beliefs, I’m sure I have offended some people. I apologize for that, but I feel I have as much right to share my beliefs as others. 

I am mulling the idea of making one more post to this thread in response to the latest link that Melanie posted. I went through it last night, clicking on the various other links and articles it led to. What I found struck me as disturbing and even frightening, but I will leave that for another post – or maybe best not to comment on it at all.

----------


## mal4mac

> ... our music and our literature, our cognitive abilities to question, to reason, and to learn and our quest to understand, and our desire to seek ultimate truth and meaning – all of these, I believe, are wondrous, beautiful aspects of life.


Partly I agree with you, but life can also be a pain, and the quest to understand a depressing, angst ridden journey. I actually now think our desire to seek ultimate truth and meaning isn't useful. These days I'm not seeking ultimate meaning, just looking for the next good read. Maybe it will be wondrous and beautiful, and even surprise me in being so (like Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls", for me, today.)

----------


## HCabret

> Partly I agree with you, but life can also be a pain, and the quest to understand a depressing, angst ridden journey. I actually now think our desire to seek ultimate truth and meaning isn't useful. These days I'm not seeking ultimate meaning, just looking for the next good read. Maybe it will be wondrous and beautiful, and even surprise me in being so (like Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls", for me, today.)


read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene or The Long Way by Bernard Moitessier.

----------


## Calidore

> As a side note, I think Melanie is right in claiming that Plait witlessly validated Psarris' evidence by not addressing it and wasting time with the "evolution" non-issue.


I have to agree that Plait's hammering on the use of the word "evolution" rather than presenting scientific evidence vs. Psarris' creation evidence didn't make him look good, and the sniggering, condescending hipster tone of his writing made him look even worse. What's the difference between a strident, holier-than-thou Christian and a smug, deeper-thinker-than-thou atheist? I wouldn't want either of them at my party.

If you can slog through Plait's "review" to the end, he does finally make an actual point about the content of the video: that it's basically "God of the gaps" stuff, pointing out things we don't understand and conveniently omitting the word "yet."

The crux of the distinction between the two camps is that the scientists start with questions and seeks the answers, while creationists start with their answer and look for questions that they can point at that answer (while never questioning the answer itself).

----------


## 108 fountains

I clicked on this link that Melanie provided to support “the scientific findings Psarris presented supporting creation.” http://kgov.com/spike-psarris-and-phil-plait
What I found was all sorts of articles citing natural phenomena or experimental observations that scientists have found surprising and/or difficult to explain and then asserting that these discoveries are somehow evidence supporting creationism and the literal interpretation of the Bible. 

I agree that it is important to be aware of and to explore discrepancies and flaws in scientific theories and hypotheses – scientists do that all the time so that they can modify of replace the theory or hypothesis to better fit the observed evidence. That is a process called learning. 

It’s fine, in my opinion, to replace the scientific hypothesis with a new hypothesis based on Biblical creationism, but then (again, in my opinion) the new Biblical creationist hypothesis should be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as the scientific hypothesis – i.e., it should be supported by observable evidence.

The author of one of the articles in Melanie’s link references NASA scientists who have discovered evidence that Mars may at one time have been subjected to great flooding that was “possibly global in extent.” The article then goes on to state, “And the same scientists mock anyone who offers evidence that the Earth (which is more than two-thirds covered in ocean water that averages a depth of 2.5 miles) could ever have been flooded.”

Okay, so let’s put forward the hypothesis that the entire Earth was underwater during the great Biblical flood…. 

The hypothesis leads to many questions, such as the following, that should be responded to with observable evidence:

-	Is there any evidence to answer the question of how Noah collected kangaroos, wombats, and koala bears from Australia, panda bears from China, tigers, water buffalo, pangolins, lemurs, and Asian elephants from India and Southeast Asia, snow leopards and yaks from the Himalayas, sun bears, gibbons, civets, porcupines, and monitor lizards from Southeast Asia, polar bears, caribou, reindeer, walruses, and the various species of seals and penguins from arctic regions, orangutans from the Indonesian islands, kinkajous, vampire bats, chinchillas, marmosets, tamarins, sloths, anteaters, jaguars, alpacas, llamas from South America, gorillas, chimpanzees, baboons, lions, giraffes, zebras, hyenas, cheetahs, gazelles, springboks, impalas, bongos, African elephants, meerkats, aardvarks, and wildebeasts from Africa. There are five species rhinoceros – is there any evidence to explain how Noah was able to collect all five species from Africa, India, and Southeast Asia? 

-	For that matter, is there any evidence that he would have known about the existence of these animals? 

-	For that matter, is there any evidence that he was aware of the existence of the Western Hemisphere, of Australia, of the Indonesian islands, or the Arctic regions? 

-	Is there any evidence that he traveled to these places or had the capability of traveling to these places to collect these animals? According to the Bible, God gave Noah a seven-day notice before the flood – is there any evidence to suggest that Noah, assisted by his wife and three sons and their wives could have travelled and collected all these animals in seven days. 

-	Is there any evidence to answer the question of how these eight people kept the animals caged and fed, not only for the 40 days that it rained, but for the additional 150 days they spent on the ark, according to the Bible, until the waters receded? (Actually, the Bible is a little confusing about the period of time they spent on the ark – it mentions that Noah waited another 40 days before he sent out a raven and then a dove and then another 7 days before the dove came back with an olive branch, but I’ll go with the 190 days as the minimum.)

-	Is there any evidence that Noah was aware of the dietary needs of animals not endemic to the Middle East (for example, did he know that koala bears eat mainly eucalyptus leaves or that pandas eat bamboo almost exclusively or that he would need about four tons of bamboo for two pandas to survive 190 days?)

-	Two gorillas would require about three tons vegetation to survive 190 days. Four elephants (2 African elephants and two Asian elephants) would eat approximately 140 tons of vegetation over a 190 day period. Is there any evidence that Noah was capable of stockpiling 140 tons of vegetation just for the elephants? What about adding on the amount of food necessary for the gorillas and all the other herbivores?

-	Lions eat approximately 500 pounds of meat per month, and tigers eat approximately 200 pounds of meat per month. Is there any evidence that Noah was able to provide the two tons of meat that two tigers and two lions would need to survive for 190 days? What about meat for all the other carnivores?

-	Is there any evidence to answer the question of how Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives were able to take all the pairs of animals he had collected back to their endemic regions after the flood? 

-	Many (most?) creationists also believe that man coexisted with dinosaurs. One Brachiosauras weighed between 35 and 90 tons and ate several hundred pounds of vegetation per day. One Tyrannosauraus weighed from 5 to 7 tons, and ate… I was unable to find an estimate for how much meat T. Rex ate, but it was likely a substantial amount. Likewise, it seems unnecessary to mention all the other species of dinosaurs.

-	Another Biblical fact to consider: God actually commanded Noah to take one pair of every unclean animal and seven pairs of every clean animal. This would have increased the number of animals on the ark significantly (although I don’t know if polar bears, gorillas, or dinosaurs were considered clean or unclean.)


-	Some creationists hypothesize that Noah did not need to bring all these animals on board the ark because they “evolved” and dispersed across the globe later. The creationist websites I visited give dates of between 2200 and 2500 BC for the date of the Great Flood. Is there any evidence anywhere that all these species evolved and dispersed over a period of just a few thousand years? (Frankly, I find the reliance on rapid evolution after the flood to be a disingenuous argument, given that creationists dismiss the idea that evolution of all species could have occurred over a time period of billions of years.) 

-	Similarly, according to the Bible, after the flood, the three sons of Noah and their wives and their descendants populated the Earth. Is there any evidence to suggest how these six humans and their descendants managed to form all the various ethno-linguistic groupings on Earth in just a couple thousand years? 

Science does not hold all the answers (yet), but in my opinion, neither does the Bible. I have no problem with creationists believing whatever it is they want to believe, but when they begin attacking scientific theories and hypotheses using scientific evidence and observations, then they should be prepared for reciprocal scrutiny from scientists.

----------


## 108 fountains

Just one more thing… The National Zoo in Washington, DC, currently holds about 1800 animals from about 300 species. The Zoo has more than 450 full-time staff, including keepers, curators and scientists. There were eight people in the ark, including a 600-year-old man, to take care of the animals there. Something to think about.

----------


## AuntShecky

> Just one more thing… The National Zoo in Washington, DC, currently holds about 1800 animals from about 300 species. The Zoo has more than 450 full-time staff, including keepers, curators and scientists. There were eight people in the ark, including a 600-year-old man, to take care of the animals there. Something to think about.


There's no need to think about it. Aside from the most fervent Fundamentalists, no one over the age of eight really takes the Noah's Ark story literally. Figuratively, maybe.

And by the bye, I don't get the question "Do you _believe_ in evolution?" as if evolution were an "ism" or some kind of religion. It is my understanding that evolution is an arrangement of facts presented as possible evidence for the rise of various biologic species on earth. The system is so inherently consistent that it is convincing, but one is free to accept evolution as truth or not. It is not something to "believe" in. And I still can't see how evolution is necessarily the antithesis of religion.
They're apples and oranges. (Or jellyfish and lemurs.)

----------


## mortalterror

> Maybe it will be wondrous and beautiful, and even surprise me in being so (like Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls", for me, today.)


 I'm so glad you are enjoying it. I think it's far better than A Farewell to Arms or The Sun Also Rises but like A Moveable Feast doesn't get it's just due of praise.

----------


## mal4mac

> It is my understanding that evolution is an arrangement of facts presented as possible evidence for the rise of various biologic species on earth. The system is so inherently consistent that it is convincing, but one is free to accept evolution as truth or not.


Evolution is a fact. You are free to accept the fact that the earth moves round the sun or not. But you would look rather silly if you didn't accept it. If you completely trust astronomers when they tell you the earth moves round the sun, why wouldn't you completely trust biologists when they tell you evolution happened? One isn't "free to accept evolution as truth or not" unless you deny science itself, and throw doubt on every other scientific fact, like an extreme flat earther. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lligent_design

----------


## YesNo

> Evolution is a fact. You are free to accept the fact that the earth moves round the sun or not. But you would look rather silly if you didn't accept it. If you completely trust astronomers when they tell you the earth moves round the sun, why wouldn't you completely trust biologists when they tell you evolution happened? One isn't "free to accept evolution as truth or not" unless you deny science itself, and throw doubt on every other scientific fact, like an extreme flat earther.


What is up for questioning, however, is _neo-Darwinism_ as Thomas Nagel puts it, or _ultra-Darwinism_, as Niles Eldredge calls it, or more generally _naturalism_ as Alvin Plantinga refers to it. 

Neo-Darwinism is the view that random mutations in a selfish gene are all that drives evolution. It is a form of materialistic reductionism. What that does is moves the subject of evolution from the species further past the individual in the species where Darwin placed it to the gene inside a cell. It also doesn't fit the fossil record which is best mapped in terms of species.

The problem with atheism and science is that atheists think science is on their side and that it is opposed to religion like they are. It isn't. 

This delusion gives some atheists a belief that they can pontificate to others on what science is all about. This is a form of proselytizing. That is why questioning scientific presentations is important and why I like to hear people with alternate metaphysics provide their interpretations.

----------


## mortalterror

> Evolution is a fact. You are free to accept the fact that the earth moves round the sun or not. But you would look rather silly if you didn't accept it. If you completely trust astronomers when they tell you the earth moves round the sun, why wouldn't you completely trust biologists when they tell you evolution happened? One isn't "free to accept evolution as truth or not" unless you deny science itself, and throw doubt on every other scientific fact, like an extreme flat earther. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lligent_design


While I believe in evolution, I still recognize that science and logic have certain built in limitations. Many atheists when they remove their faith in the infallibility of God tend to move it over to science as a foundational belief. But if they knew a bit more about science, they would probably be aware that as a human institution it suffers many of the same foibles as others have in the past. Scientists like priests are only human, and humans make mistakes.

A while back I collected some of my more thoughtful posts about religion, organized them into categories and set up links to them in my blog. I have a whole section devoted to this very subject.

Science No Substitute

Science is Amoral, Can Cause Harm, and Needs Ethical Guidance
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost....postcount=1857
Modern Science and Technology caused the Holocaust
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost....postcount=1997
Scientists Disagree with Each Other, and Science is not always objective or clear
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost....postcount=2385
Science is Flawed, subject to fraud, scandal, and perversion, not the source of absolute truth
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost....postcount=2386
Science and religion not at odds, Scientists are as likely to be Religious as Atheist
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost....6&postcount=98
Scientists Not More Atheist than a Century Ago
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost....2&postcount=66
Uncertainty is a Prerequisit of all Knowledge and The Bible Evolves like the Constitution
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost....&postcount=250

----------


## mal4mac

MT - I can't log on to that forum, and I'm not going to as I'm trying to discourage you from posting links  :Tongue: . 

I agree with some of those headings, but certainly not: 

"Modern Science and Technology caused the Holocaust"

It was Nazi ideology caused the holocaust, I just don't get how you can say this!

"Science and religion not at odds" 

Then why does Dawkins get into all those arguments with religious types?

"Scientists are as likely to be Religious as Atheist"

If you define "scientist" as anyone who can polish a test tube, this might be true in America. But if you're talking *serious* FRS level scientists this is far from true! (About 97% FRS are atheists.)

----------


## mortalterror

> MT - I can't log on to that forum, and I'm not going to as I'm trying to discourage you from posting links .


Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize people had to be logged into that forum to view my links. I guess I need to copy them here then.

This first comment was prompted by a fellow saying that science objectively improves human life as opposed to religion which can only subjectively improve it. My retort:

Well, I guess that depends which end of the science you are on.

What about the atomic bomb? Agent orange? Zyklon B? The machine gun? Sarin gas? Crack cocaine? Napalm? Chlorine and mustard gas? Attack drones?

Science also played a hand in the perpetuation of slavery, rationalized racism, and streamlined the mass extermination of people. Anthropology, craniometry, phrenology, anthropometry, ethnology, polygenism, and eugenics were used to justify racism, slavery, the Holocaust, imperialism, and apartheid.



> In the United States, scientific racism justified Black African slavery to assuage moral opposition to the Atlantic slave trade. Alexander Thomas and Samuell Sillen described black men as uniquely fitted for bondage, because of their "primitive psychological organization".[57] In 1851, in antebellum Louisiana, the physician Samuel A. Cartwright (1793–1863), considered slave escape attempts as "drapetomania", a treatable mental illness, that "with proper medical advice, strictly followed, this troublesome practice that many Negroes have of running away can be almost entirely prevented". The term drapetomania (mania of the runaway slave) derives from the Greek δραπετης (drapetes, "a runaway [slave]") + μανια (mania, "madness, frenzy")[58] Cartwright also described dysaesthesia aethiopica, called "rascality" by overseers. The 1840 United States Census claimed that Northern, free blacks suffered mental illness at higher rates than did their Southern, enslaved counterparts. Though the census was later found to have been severely flawed by the American Statistical Association, John Quincy Adams, and others, it became a political weapon against abolitionists. Southern slavers concluded that escaping Negroes were suffering from "mental disorders".[59][60]
> 
> At the time of the American Civil War (1861–65), the matter of miscegenation prompted studies of ostensible physiological differences between Caucasians and Negroes. Early anthropologists, such as Josiah Clark Nott, George Robins Gliddon, Robert Knox, and Samuel George Morton, aimed to scientifically prove that Negroes were a human species different from the white people species; that the rulers of Ancient Egypt were not African; and that mixed-race offspring (the product of miscegenation) tended to physical weakness and infertility. After the Civil War, Southern (Confederacy) physicians wrote textbooks of scientific racism based upon studies claiming that Black freemen (ex-slaves) were becoming extinct, because they were inadequate to the demands of being a free man — implying that Black people benefitted from enslavement. In 1850 Louis Agassiz commissioned a series of daguerreotypes of slaves of Columbia South Carolina for studying of races http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism


Dr. Mengele was a scientist, and he justified sticking foot long needles into the bellies of pregnant women, or sewing twins together on the grounds that it was for the good of science. Science without religion is barbaric. It teaches the scientist that people are just things to be used like a chair or a compass.

(youtube video of a Russian scientists experiment keeping the head of a dog alive after separating it from the dogs body)

Your assumption that science is an unqualified good needs some fine tuning. Perhaps, it would be more fair to say that science is an amoral tool like a hatchet or a gun which can be used for both good and evil.

----------


## mortalterror

Modern Science and Technology caused the Holocaust

There is more than a wholly fortuitous connection between the applied technology of the mass production line, with its vision of universal material abundance, and the applied technology of the concentration camp, with its vision of a profusion of death. We may wish to deny the connection, but Buchenwald was of our West as much as Detroit's River Rouge -- we cannot deny Buchenwald as a casual aberration of a Western world essentially sane. -Edmund Stillman & William Pfaff, The Politics of Hysteria (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 30-31.

`It bears,' he wrote, `witness to the advance of civilization'. It was an advance, let us add, in a double sense. In the Final Solution, the industrial potential and technological know-how boasted by our civilization has scaled new heights in coping successfully with a task of unprecedented magnitude. And in the same Final Solution our society has disclosed to us it heretofore unsuspected capacity. Taught to respect and admire technical efficiency and good design, we cannot but admit that, in the praise of material progress which our civilization has brought, we have sorely underestimated its true potential. The world of the death camps and the society it engenders reveals the progressively intensifying night side of Judeo-Christian civilization. Civilization means slavery, wars, exploitation, and death camps. It also means medical hygiene, elevated religious ideas, beautiful art, and exquisite music. It is an error to imagine that civilization and savage cruelty are antithesis ... In our times the cruelties, like most other aspects of our world, have become far more effectively administered than ever before. They have not and will not cease to exist. Both creation and destruction are inseparable aspects of what we call civilization. -Richard L. Rubenstein, The Cunning of History (New York: Harper, 1978), pp. 91, 195.

I propose that the major lesson of the Holocaust is the necessity to treat the critique seriously and thus to expand the theoretical model of the civilizing process, so as to include the latter's tendency to demote, exprobate and delegitimize the ethical motivations of social action. We need to take stock of the evidence that the civilizing process is, among other things, a process of divesting the use and deployment of violence from moral calculus, and of emancipating the desiderata of rationality from interference of ethical norms or moral inhibitions. As the promotion of rationality to the exclusion of alternative criteria of action, and in particular the tendency to subordinate the use of violence to rational calculus, has been long ago acknowledged as a constitutive feature of modern civilization -- the Holocaust-style phenomena must be recognized as legitimate outcomes of civilizing tendency, and its constant potential.
-Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust 1989 p.29

The self-imposed moral silence of science has, after all, revealed some of its less advertised aspects when the issue of production and disposal of corpses in Auschwitz has been articulated as a `medical problem'. It is not easy to dismiss Franklin M. Littell's warnings of the credibility crisis of the modern university: `What kind of a medical school trained Mengele and his associates? What departments of anthropology prepared the staff of Strasbourg University's "Institute of Ancestral Heredity"?' 37 Not to wonder for whom this particular bell tolls, to avoid the temptation to shrug off these questions as of merely historical significance, one needs search no further than Colin Gray's analysis of the momentum behind the contemporary nuclear arms race: `Necessarily, the scientists and technologists on each side are "racing" to diminish their own ignorance (the enemy is not Soviet technology; it is the physical unknowns that attract scientific attention) ... Highly motivated, technologically competent and adequately funded teams of research scientists will inevitably produce an endless series of brand new (or refined) weapon ideas'. -Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust 1989 p30-31

Bureaucracy's double feat is the moralization of technology, coupled with the denial of the moral significance of nontechnical issues. It is the technology of action, not its substance, which is subject to assessment as good or bad, proper or improper, right or wrong. The conscience of the actor tells him to perform well and prompts him to measure his own righteousness by the precision with which he obeys the organizational rules and his dedication to the task as defined by the superiors. What kept at bay the other, `old-fashioned' conscience in the subjects of Milgram's experiments, and effectively arrested their impulse to break off, was the substitute conscience, put together by the experimenters out of the appeals to the `interests of research' or the `needs of the experiment', and the warnings about the losses which its untimely interruption would cause. -Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust 1989 p.161

----------


## mortalterror

Scientists Disagree with Each Other, and Science is not always objective or clear

This comment was prompted by a fellow telling me that scientists always weigh evidence objectively, readily admit when they are wrong and change their minds, and if he presented evidence to Neil Degrasse Tyson that contradicted a popular scientific belief, Neil would agree with his evidence acknowledge the mistake:

You make a number of assumptions. First, that a man will always admit when he is wrong. Second, that he will agree he indeed is wrong when provided with proof. Third, that you would have enough quantity and quality proof to sway his opinion. Fourth, that everyone else will see things as you do and accept your standards of proof. Fifth, that the proof of a given proposition is objective and identifiable, that there are neither shades of grey nor alternative explanations. Sixth, that a liar will always be found out. Seventh, that Tyson has an interest in the truth, which outweighs competing interests. Eighth, that a scientific truth, once discovered, immediately gains widespread acceptance.

That is naive and not how science works. He could just as easily preserve his credibility by making you look wrong as he could lose credibility by a perceived cover up. You just have to look at the history of scientific disagreements with all the mud slinging and back stabbing that goes on. There's the controversy between Newton and Leibniz over who discovered Calculus, Peary and Cook over who was first to the North Pole, Adams or Le Verrier on who discovered Neptune, Edison vs Tesla and Westinghouse on electricity, Tesla vs Marconi on the radio, Alexander Graham Bell and Antonio Meucci on the telephone, Cope and Marsh on dinosaur bones.



> The Bone Wars, also known as the "Great Dinosaur Rush",[1] refers to a period of intense fossil speculation and discovery during the Gilded Age of American history, marked by a heated rivalry between Edward Drinker Cope (of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia) and Othniel Charles Marsh (of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale). Each of the two paleontologists used underhanded methods to try to out-compete the other in the field, resorting to bribery, theft, and destruction of bones. Each scientist also attacked the other in scientific publications, seeking to ruin his credibility and have his funding cut off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_Wars


And that's mostly where scientists blackened each others eyes over things they mostly agreed upon but couldn't decide who should get the credit. When they actually disagree about fundamental points of science things can get downright nasty. There's the controversy of Derek Freeman and Margaret Mead over Samoan anthropology, Hobbes-Wallis over squaring a circle, etc.

You have scientists championing peculiar and wrong headed pet theories all the time, like Newton did with Alchemy. The authoritative force of a major scientific personality lends credence to otherwise easily discredited ideas. For decades, people searched for the planet Vulcan because the mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier proposed it's existence to account for peculiarities in Mercury's orbit. Flaws in Galen's medical theories remained unaddressed until the Renaissance because he was considered an unquestionable authority.

There was the example of an academic feud where Edward Teller (father of the H bomb) testified that J. Robert Oppenheimer (father of the A bomb) was a communist security risk and should be taken off all scientific government projects. You have the example of Wilson, Watson, and Crick all winning Nobel prizes for the discovery of DNA while minimizing and downplaying the contributions of Rosalind Franklin. Freud's disagreements with his disciple Jung about the collective unconscious. The Einstein Bohr debates about measuring electrons lasted for three decades.

Ignaz Semmelweis was the first doctor to propose washing hands before surgery as a way to limit the spread of disease. For that, he was fired, shunned by the medical community. Prominent medical doctors disputed his findings, and he eventually had a mental break down, was admitted to an asylum where he was beaten to death by the guards. It wasn't until after his death that his ideas were accepted.

Then there are all the ways that results are "swayed" and "massaged" to be more palatable and serve the interests of whoever funds the science. As Aldous Huxley wrote in 'Science, Liberty and Peace', "The man who pays the piper always calls the tune."



> Unfortunately, censorship of scientists and the manipulation, distortion, and suppression of scientific information have threatened federal science in recent years.
> 
> This problem has sparked much debate, but few have identified the key driver of political interference in federal science: the inappropriate influence of companies with a financial stake in the outcome.
> 
> A new UCS report, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose, shows how corporations influence the use of science in federal decision making to serve their own interests.
> Methods of Abuse
> 
> The report describes five basic methods that corporations use to influence the scientific and policy-making processes:
> 
> ...


Corporations and politicians both tend to employ or fund teams of scientists which are highly motivated to find scientific results that flatter the opinions of their masters. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an employee of corporations like Fox who pay his salary and he is beholden to making them happy either by agreeing with them or by omitting where he disagrees with them.

----------


## mortalterror

Scientists Disagree with Each Other, and Science is not always objective or clear

This comment was prompted by a fellow telling me that scientists always weigh evidence objectively, readily admit when they are wrong and change their minds, and if he presented evidence to Neil Degrasse Tyson that contradicted a popular scientific belief, Neil would agree with his evidence acknowledge the mistake:

You make a number of assumptions. First, that a man will always admit when he is wrong. Second, that he will agree he indeed is wrong when provided with proof. Third, that you would have enough quantity and quality proof to sway his opinion. Fourth, that everyone else will see things as you do and accept your standards of proof. Fifth, that the proof of a given proposition is objective and identifiable, that there are neither shades of grey nor alternative explanations. Sixth, that a liar will always be found out. Seventh, that Tyson has an interest in the truth, which outweighs competing interests. Eighth, that a scientific truth, once discovered, immediately gains widespread acceptance.

That is naive and not how science works. He could just as easily preserve his credibility by making you look wrong as he could lose credibility by a perceived cover up. You just have to look at the history of scientific disagreements with all the mud slinging and back stabbing that goes on. There's the controversy between Newton and Leibniz over who discovered Calculus, Peary and Cook over who was first to the North Pole, Adams or Le Verrier on who discovered Neptune, Edison vs Tesla and Westinghouse on electricity, Tesla vs Marconi on the radio, Alexander Graham Bell and Antonio Meucci on the telephone, Cope and Marsh on dinosaur bones.



> The Bone Wars, also known as the "Great Dinosaur Rush",[1] refers to a period of intense fossil speculation and discovery during the Gilded Age of American history, marked by a heated rivalry between Edward Drinker Cope (of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia) and Othniel Charles Marsh (of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale). Each of the two paleontologists used underhanded methods to try to out-compete the other in the field, resorting to bribery, theft, and destruction of bones. Each scientist also attacked the other in scientific publications, seeking to ruin his credibility and have his funding cut off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_Wars


And that's mostly where scientists blackened each others eyes over things they mostly agreed upon but couldn't decide who should get the credit. When they actually disagree about fundamental points of science things can get downright nasty. There's the controversy of Derek Freeman and Margaret Mead over Samoan anthropology, Hobbes-Wallis over squaring a circle, etc.

You have scientists championing peculiar and wrong headed pet theories all the time, like Newton did with Alchemy. The authoritative force of a major scientific personality lends credence to otherwise easily discredited ideas. For decades, people searched for the planet Vulcan because the mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier proposed it's existence to account for peculiarities in Mercury's orbit. Flaws in Galen's medical theories remained unaddressed until the Renaissance because he was considered an unquestionable authority.

There was the example of an academic feud where Edward Teller (father of the H bomb) testified that J. Robert Oppenheimer (father of the A bomb) was a communist security risk and should be taken off all scientific government projects. You have the example of Wilson, Watson, and Crick all winning Nobel prizes for the discovery of DNA while minimizing and downplaying the contributions of Rosalind Franklin. Freud's disagreements with his disciple Jung about the collective unconscious. The Einstein Bohr debates about measuring electrons lasted for three decades.

Ignaz Semmelweis was the first doctor to propose washing hands before surgery as a way to limit the spread of disease. For that, he was fired, shunned by the medical community. Prominent medical doctors disputed his findings, and he eventually had a mental break down, was admitted to an asylum where he was beaten to death by the guards. It wasn't until after his death that his ideas were accepted.

Then there are all the ways that results are "swayed" and "massaged" to be more palatable and serve the interests of whoever funds the science. As Aldous Huxley wrote in 'Science, Liberty and Peace', "The man who pays the piper always calls the tune."



> Unfortunately, censorship of scientists and the manipulation, distortion, and suppression of scientific information have threatened federal science in recent years.
> 
> This problem has sparked much debate, but few have identified the key driver of political interference in federal science: the inappropriate influence of companies with a financial stake in the outcome.
> 
> A new UCS report, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose, shows how corporations influence the use of science in federal decision making to serve their own interests.
> Methods of Abuse
> 
> The report describes five basic methods that corporations use to influence the scientific and policy-making processes:
> 
> ...


Corporations and politicians both tend to employ or fund teams of scientists which are highly motivated to find scientific results that flatter the opinions of their masters. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an employee of corporations like Fox who pay his salary and he is beholden to making them happy either by agreeing with them or by omitting where he disagrees with them.

----------


## mortalterror

Science is Flawed, subject to fraud, scandal, and perversion, not the source of absolute truth

Science gets things wrong all the time, Flint. Looking to it for absolute authority and truth is a losing game. You have the guys who deny climate change publishing their science on the one hand, and then articles come out about mainstream Global warming scientists doctoring their research. Back in October there was all that news about a faked cancer study.



> A cancer drug discovered in a humble lichen, and ready for testing in patients, might sound too good to be true. That's because it is. But more than a hundred lower-tier scientific journals accepted a fake, error-ridden cancer study for publication in a spoof organized by Science magazine.
> 
> The fake study points to a "Wild West" of pay-to-publish outlets feeding off lower tiers of the scientific enterprise by publishing studies without any appreciable scrutiny, say research ethics experts. (See "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?")
> 
> Some 8,250 "open-access" scientific journals worldwide are now listed in a directory supported by publishers. Unlike traditional science journals that charge for subscriptions or fees from those wishing to read their contents, open-access journals make research studies free to the public. In return, study authors pay up-front publishing costs if the paper is accepted for publication.
> 
> "From humble and idealistic beginnings a decade ago, open-access scientiﬁc journals have mushroomed into a global industry, driven by author publication fees," says journalist John Bohannon, writing in the Science magazine report of his survey-style spoof of review practices at such journals.
> 
> The cover of Science magazine.
> ...


I punched Science scandals into google and an alarming number of articles showed up from the Sokal Affair:



> The Sokal affair, also known as the Sokal hoax,[1] was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".[2]
> 
> The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in the Social Text Spring/Summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[3][4] On its date of publication (May 1996), Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense...structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics".[2]
> 
> The resultant academic and public quarrels concerned the scholarly merit of humanistic commentary about the physical sciences; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors and readers of Social Text; and whether the journal had exercised appropriate intellectual rigor before publishing the pseudoscientific article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair


to The Schon Scandal:



> The Schön scandal concerns German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön (born 1970 in Verden) who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs with semiconductors that were later discovered to be fraudulent.[1] Before he was exposed, Schön had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics and the Braunschweig Prize in 2001 as well as the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002, which was later rescinded.
> 
> The scandal provoked discussion in the scientific community about the degree of responsibility of coauthors and reviewers of scientific papers. The debate centered on whether peer review, traditionally designed to find errors and determine relevance and originality of papers, should also be required to detect deliberate fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal


And this article from The Scientist on the Top Science Scandals of 2012:



> A widely discussed research study published this year showed that more than sloppy mistakes or accidental omissions, retracted papers are most likely to be withdrawn from publication because of scientific misconduct or knowlingly publishing false data. In fact, more than 65 percent of the 2,000 or so papers studied were retracted because of poor ethical judgment. According to that report, high impact journals have been hardest hit by the increasing rate of retractions over the past decade.
> 
> In light of these findings, researchers and other observers have proposed several initiatives to help the scientific community with its apparent honesty issues. One suggestion was the creation a Retraction Index. Unlike the Impact Factor, which is based on a journal’s citation rate, the Retraction Index would indicate the number of retractions a journal has for every 1,000 papers published. Following suit, Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky at Retraction Watch blog suggested creating a Transparency Index, which could include a score for how well a journal controls its manuscript review process, including how it conducts peer review, whether supporting data are also reviewed, whether the journal uses plagiarism detecting software, and a number of other measures. Finally, the lab-services start-up Science Exchange and the open access journal PLOS ONE have collaborated to suggest the Reproducibility Initiative, which would provide a platform for researchers to submit their studies for replication by other labs for a fee. Studies that are successfully reproduced will win a certificate of reproducibility.
> 
> Still, The Scientist found no shortage of stories to discuss in this year’s roundup of misconduct stories. Here are a few of the most glaring examples of scientific fraud in 2012:
> 
> 10 years of fabrication
> 
> This year, University of Kentucky biomedical researcher Eric Smart was discovered to have falsified or fabricated 45 figures over the course of 10 years. His research on the molecular mechanisms behind cardiovascular disease and diabetes was well regarded, despite his having used data from knockout mouse models that never existed. “Dr. Smart’s papers were highly cited in the specific caveolae/cardiovascular research field,” Philippe Frank of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia told The Scientist. Smart resigned from his university post in 2011, when the investigation in his misconduct started, and agreed to exclude himself from federal grant applications for the next 7 years. He now teaches chemistry at a local school.
> ...


Apparently, this kind of thing happens all the time.

Also Flint, Science isn't always rational, logical, or objective. Consider the findings of Thomas Kuhn who wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:



> The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a 1962 book about the history of science by Thomas S. Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge and triggered an ongoing worldwide assessment and reaction in—and beyond—those scholarly communities. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science". Normal scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving" of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.[1]
> 
> For example, Kuhn's analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler, solutions that might be developed at some point in the future. Kuhn called the core concepts of an ascendant revolution its "paradigms" and thereby launched this word into widespread analogical use in the second half of the 20th century. Kuhn's insistence that a paradigm shift was a mélange of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not a logically determinate procedure, caused an uproar in reaction to his work. Kuhn addressed concerns in the 1969 postscript to the second edition. For some commentators it introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science while for others the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn's introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Str...ic_Revolutions


Scientific consensus can often be achieved in some weird ways, such as through the cult of personality that hovers around famous scientists like Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein. Galen and Aristotle's errors went unchallenged until the Renaissance because they were advanced for their time, and much of what they said was true; so other scientists put their faith in all of the men's theories.



> Kuhn made several notable claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way; that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing accounts of reality which cannot be coherently reconciled. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely on full "objectivity"; we must account for subjective perspectives as well, all objective conclusions, being ultimately founded upon subjective conditioning/worldview. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn


In fact, you might even question whether the majority of American scientists are atheist because they've been indoctrinated into that society by their peers and elders. This jump to atheism in the sciences is a relatively recent trend over the last couple of decades, and it may just be another temporary fad specific to a culture. Sort of like how, there is some reason to think that universities often espouse a liberal bias reflected in who they hire and what they teach their students; or how a lot of ancient Greek philosophers were homosexual, but homosexuality was not a prerequisite to being a good philosopher. Atheism may be incidental to the logic, objectivity, and scientific rationalism they've been trained in and more a vestige of their human culture, scientific role models, peer pressure, etc. Basically, I'm saying that if all of your teachers are Jesuits you might become a Catholic scientist.

----------


## mortalterror

Science and religion not at odds, Scientists are as likely to be Religious as Atheist




> Well, Issac Newton did believe in Christianity but also believed in things like alchemy. (I'm halfway done with the JRE with Louis Theroux by the way)
> 
> I stand by my claim that religion held back scientific advancements.


Like I said, you don't understand the history of science. Science and religion have rarely been at odds and more often religion and science have helped each other than conflicted. You are operating under a biased assumption called the Conflict Theory propagated by 19th century Atheists Draper and White to discredit religion. It's been disproved for nearly a century and no modern historian of science believes it, but the myth persists just like young Earth creationism because a certain stubborn part of the population won't let it go.



> The conflict thesis, which states that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science, remains generally popular for the public; most historians of science no longer support it.[1][2][3][4] Other contemporary scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould, Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio...on_and_science





> All I really care about is what we believe NOW. 
> 
> Modern scientists are for the most part agnostics/atheists because they have MUCH more data to work from that people before the 20th century.


Let's examine that thought. According to the Pew Research Organization scientists are about 50/50 in terms of agnosticism and belief in God. That's far less religious than the general populous but still just a draw. Also, the rates of atheism and agnosticism haven't changed in the scientific professions for a century, so there is no relation between the progress of scientific knowledge and disbelief. 



> A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/s...ts-and-belief/


Let's see the actual breakdown of what scientists believe.



> http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/s...ts-and-belief/


Okay, so looking at this graph, we can clearly see that 17 percent of scientists are atheists which is a significant departure from the 2 percent of the general population who are atheists. What is really interesting is that this religious attitude gap hasn't grown or shrunk in almost a hundred years.



> The recent survey of scientists tracks fairly closely with earlier polls that gauged scientists’ views on religion. The first of these was conducted in 1914 by Swiss-American psychologist James Leuba, who surveyed about 1,000 scientists in the United States to ask them about their views on God. Leuba found the scientific community equally divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.
> 
> More than 80 years later, Edward Larson, a historian of science then teaching at the University of Georgia, recreated Leuba’s survey, asking the same number of scientists the exact same questions. To the surprise of many, Larson’s 1996 poll came up with similar results, finding that 40% of scientists believed in a personal God, while 45% said they did not. Other surveys of scientists have yielded roughly similar results. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/s...ts-and-belief/


The answer to that is possibly because scientists tend to view science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria and not in conflict with one another.



> The Pew Research Center poll of scientists also found that levels of religious faith vary according to scientific specialty and age. For instance, chemists are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in the other major scientific fields. Meanwhile, younger scientists (ages 18-34) are more likely to believe in God or a higher power than those who are older.


Unless scientists lose their religion in old age, then this newest generation may actually be getting more religious, and we may see a trend in that direction. But what the poll also shows is how different scientific subjects are an indicator of how religious the scientists might be. This shows that scientists religious beliefs are less likely to be swayed do to pure reason and scientific method than by a culture of their peers.

Another interesting fact is that doctors tend to be more religious than the general population.



> The first study of physician religious beliefs has found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife. The survey, performed by researchers at the University and published in the July issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that 90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults. Fifty-five percent of doctors say their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml


Physicians are educated, intelligent, trained scientists but their job often requires things like compassion, morality, empathy, and charity which synch up well with a religious lifestyle.




> My main problem with religion is that the tool they use to understand the universe is a book from the bronze age.
> 
> ONE of the tools that modern science is using is one of these bad boys:
> 
> How anybody can see more awe/truth in ancient texts when compared to JUST the Hubble telescope is beyond me.


So no love for the Vatican Observatory?




> In the 18th century, the Papacy actively supported astronomy, establishing the Observatory of the Roman College in 1774. In 1789-1787, the Specola Vaticana in the Tower of the Winds within the Vatican was established under the direction of Msgr. Filippo Luigi Gilii (1756-1821). When Msgr. Gilii died, the Specola was closed down, as inconvenient to students in the city, and with the dome of St. Peter's obstructing its view. Its instruments were transferred to the College Observatory. A third facility, the Observatory of the Capitol, was operated from 1827 to 1870.
> Father Angelo Secchi SJ relocated the College Observatory to the top of Sant'Ignazio di Loyola a Campo Marzio (Church of St. Ignatius in Rome). In 1870, with the capture of Rome, the College Observatory fell into the hands of the Italian Government. Out of respect for his work, however, Father Secchi was permitted to continue using the Observatory. After Secchi's death in 1878, though, the Observatory was nationalized by the Italian government and renamed the Regio Osservatorio al Collegio Romano ("Royal Observatory at the Roman College"), putting an end to astronomical research in the Vatican.
> In 1891, however, Pope Leo XIII issued a Motu Proprio re-founding the Specola Vaticana (Vatican Observatory) and a new observatory was built on the walls at the edge of the Vatican.[3] The new Vatican Observatory remained there for the next forty years.
> By the 1930s, the smoke and sky-glow of the city had made it impossible to conduct useful observations in Rome.[1] Pope Pius XI relocated the Observatory to Castel Gandolfo, which is 25 kilometres (16 mi) southeast of Rome. By 1961, the same problems of light pollution made observing difficult at Castel Gandolfo. The Observatory then established the Vatican Observatory Research Group, with offices at the Steward Observatory of the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona.[1]
> D.K.J. Q'Connell produced the first color photographs of a green flash at sunset in 1960.[4] In 1993, VORG completed construction of the 1.8 metres (71 in) Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope, which is at Mount Graham near Safford, Arizona. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Observatory



Gregor Mendel, father of genetics, friar, demonstrated the laws of inheritance in pea plants

Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Adam sedgwick.JPG Anglican priest and geologist whose, A Discourse on the Studies of the University discusses the relationship of God and man. In science he won both the Copley Medal and the Wollaston Medal.

Angelo Secchi (1818-1878) Angelo Secchi,[S.J.] was a Catholic priest and Italian astronomer and physicist. He "worked in stellar spectroscopy, made the first systematic spectroscopic survey of the heavens, pioneered in classifying stars by their four spectral types, studied sunspots, solar prominences, photographed solar corona during the eclipse in 1860, invented the heliospectroscope, star spectroscope, telespectroscope and meteorograph. He also studied double stars, weather forecasting and terrestrial magnetism. He became director of the Vatican Observatory at the age of 32." He has been called the "father of Astrophysics."

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) A Catholic priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., was a French philosopher of science and religion who trained as a paleontologist and geologist. He took part in the discoveries of the Peking Man and Piltdown Man in China. His main work is The Phenomenon of Man, an magnum opus that tried to build an entire theology on the theory of evolution. The evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote of Chardin's ideas that "Teilhard was a creationist, but one who understood that the Creation is realized in this world by means of evolution."

Georges Lemaître (1894–1966) Roman Catholic priest who was first to propose the Big Bang theory.

Mary Celine Fasenmyer (1906-1996) Member of the Sisters of Mercy known for Sister Celine's polynomials. Her work was also important to WZ Theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ers_in_science

----------


## mortalterror

Scientists Not More Atheist than a Century Ago




> In my opinion humans are now moving above the organised religion stage, my guess is that in 20 years - observance levels will have plummeted.


Unlikely. 83% of Americans are involved in a formal religion. A further 6% of unaffiliated Americans hold some sort of spiritual belief. 

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Only 1 in 10 Americans hold no religious or spiritual ideology. That's similar to the number of Americans who are homosexuals, and nobody is claiming that in 20 years we will all be gay. There are always going to be a certain number of people who fall outside of the mainline cultural norms. Many of the current crop of atheists are only atheists because of a misguided sense of individuality, a longing to be different, outsider complexes where they feel rejected by society and adopt counter culture tendencies as a defense mechanism. If most of society were atheists, their contrarian nature would push them to adopt religious attitudes.

Some people think that the slightly shrinking religious portion of the population is do to the progress of reason, science, and our access to information which somehow "disproves" religious ideology. However, the proportion of scientists who hold religious beliefs hasn't budged in a century.



> The recent survey of scientists tracks fairly closely with earlier polls that gauged scientists’ views on religion. The first of these was conducted in 1914 by Swiss-American psychologist James Leuba, who surveyed about 1,000 scientists in the United States to ask them about their views on God. Leuba found the scientific community equally divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.
> 
> More than 80 years later, Edward Larson, a historian of science then teaching at the University of Georgia, recreated Leuba’s survey, asking the same number of scientists the exact same questions. To the surprise of many, Larson’s 1996 poll came up with similar results, finding that 40% of scientists believed in a personal God, while 45% said they did not. Other surveys of scientists have yielded roughly similar results. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/s...ts-and-belief/


More than half of scientists hold spiritual beliefs. Most just don't interpret religious teachings literally. Scientists tend to believe less than the general public, but that is largely a matter of the subculture (peers and teachers) rather than the impact of science itself on their beliefs. The actual percentage varies depending on which scientific discipline you poll, with biologists being the lowest and mathematicians who deal with subjects like probability being higher. 



> The Pew Research Center poll of scientists also found that levels of religious faith vary according to scientific specialty and age. For instance, chemists are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in the other major scientific fields. Meanwhile, younger scientists (ages 18-34) are more likely to believe in God or a higher power than those who are older. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/s...ts-and-belief/


And it's not a matter of intelligence either. Doctors are significantly more likely to be religious than the general population.



> The first study of physician religious beliefs has found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife. The survey, performed by researchers at the University and published in the July issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that 90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults. Fifty-five percent of doctors say their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml


Physicians are educated, intelligent, trained scientists but their job often requires things like compassion, morality, empathy, and charity which synch up well with a religious lifestyle. 

There is a diminishing population of religious people, but they are not becoming atheists. They are becoming agnostics and unaffiliated. They are unsure, and uninformed. You know how every election cycle we have Republicans, Democrats, Third Partiers, and a big block of non-voters or Undecided? Well, if religion were an election then the growing block of non-religious people would be the non-voting apathetic and the uninformed Undecided. They aren't lit up by the lights of reason, they are extinguished by the despair, nihilism, relativism, and existential angst of our modern philosophy and culture.

----------


## mortalterror

Uncertainty is a Prerequisit of all Knowledge and The Bible Evolves like the Constitution




> so when it breaks, if you can't fix it yourself, do you employ the services of someone who better understands the [s]magic[/s] science that makes it work...to fix it? and if there is no one available, rather than praying for a miracle, have you ever empowered yourself by doing some research and maybe learning how to fix it yourself?


I don't have a problem with science, but you seem to have a problem with uncertainty and the possibility that uncertainty can exist in spite of scientific method or empiricism. I will try to put this another way.



> Professor of Mathematics and philosopher of science at University of Oxford John Lennox has stated, "Faith is not a leap in the dark; it’s the exact opposite. It’s a commitment based on evidence… It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding intelligent discussion.”
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#E...idity_of_faith
> 
> The view that faith underlies all rationality holds that rationality is dependent on faith for its coherence. Under this view, there is no way to comprehensively prove that we are actually seeing what we appear to be seeing, that what we remember actually happened, or that the laws of logic and mathematics are actually real. Instead, all beliefs depend for their coherence on faith in our senses, memory, and reason, because the foundations of rationalism cannot be proven by evidence or reason. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality
> 
> Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found? I am, therefore, myself a complete empiricist so far as my theory of human knowledge goes. I live, to be sure, by the practical faith that we must go on experiencing and thinking over our experience, for only thus can our opinions grow more true; but to hold any one of them--I absolutely do not care which--as if it never could be reinterpretable or corrigible, I believe to be a tremendously mistaken attitude, and I think that the whole history of philosophy will bear me out. There is but one indefectibly certain truth, and that is the truth that pyrrhonistic scepticism itself leaves standing,--the truth that the present phenomenon of consciousness exists. That, however, is the bare starting-point of knowledge, the mere admission of a stuff to be philosophized about. The various philosophies are but so many attempts at expressing what this stuff really is. And if we repair to our libraries what disagreement do we discover! Where is a certainly true answer found? Apart from abstract propositions of comparison (such as two and two are the same as four), propositions which tell us nothing by themselves about concrete reality, we find no proposition ever regarded by any one as evidently certain that has not either been called a falsehood, or at least had its truth sincerely questioned by some one else. The transcending of the axioms of geometry, not in play but in earnest, by certain of our contemporaries (as Zöllner and Charles H. Hinton), and the rejection of the whole Aristotelian logic by the Hegelians, are striking instances in point.
> -William James, The Will to Believe, section V-VI http://educ.jmu.edu/~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html


The idea that I am trying to get across to you is one of human limitations. One where a belief in science is possible, but with limiting factors as to it's scope. That not just science but all areas of human knowledge are faulty in fact. And that the belief that science has all the answers is a relatively recent trend in history known as Scientism.



> Scientism is a term used, often pejoratively,[1][2][3] to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[4] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."[5] An individual who subscribes to scientism is referred to as a scientismist.[6][7][8][9][10] The term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[11][12] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[13] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[14] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[15] and Tzvetan Todorov[16] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[17]
> 
> Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses:[18][19][20]
> 
> To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[21] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[22] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.
> To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[20] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[15] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."[23][24]
> 
> The term is also used to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.[25][26][27]
> 
> ...


I'm also talking about the foundations of human knowledge.



> Foundationalism is theories of knowledge resting justified belief upon some secure foundation of certainty.[1] Its main rival is coherentism, whereby a body of knowledge, not requiring a secure foundation, can be established by the interlocking strength of its components, like a puzzle solved without prior certainty that each small region was solved correctly.[1]
> 
> Identifying the other options to be either circular reasoning or infinite regress, thus the regress problem, Aristotle found the clear winner to be foundationalism, which posits basic beliefs underpinning others.[2] Descartes, the most famed foundationalist, discovered a foundation in the fact of his own existence and the "clear and distinct" ideas of reason,[1][2] whereas Locke saw foundation in experience. A foundation reflects differing epistemological emphases—empiricists emphasizing experience, rationalists emphasizing reason—but may blend both.[1]
> 
> In the 1930s, debate over foundationalism revived.[2] Whereas Schlick viewed scientific knowledge like a pyramid where a special class of statements does not require verification through other beliefs and serves as a foundation, Neurath argued that scientific knowledge lacks an ultimate foundation and acts like a raft.[2] In the 1950s, foundationalism fell into decline largely via Quine,[2] whose ontological relativity found any belief networked to one's beliefs on all of reality, while auxiliary beliefs somewhere in the vast network are readily modified to protect desired beliefs.
> 
> Classically, foundationalism had posited infallibility of basic beliefs and deductive reasoning between beliefs—a strong foundationalism.[2] Since about 1975, weak foundationalism emerged.[2] Thus, recent foundationalists have variously allowed fallible basic beliefs, and inductive reasoning between them, either by enumerative induction or by inference to the best explanation.[2] And whereas internalists require cognitive access to justificatory means, externalists find justification without such access. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism


But I suspect that you already understood that.

When I make an attempt at levity, you view that as a weakness in my argument, and assume that I don't know how computers and other machines work. But that is not my point.




> how convenient. but i don't understand. surely the whole point is that if God gave the initial advice then nothing needs to be changed? after all, he understands exactly how _everything_ works.


In certain philosophies that's how it works. God is like a watchmaker who builds creation, sets it moving, and then is largely hands off. Some people believe that God gave inspiration to the writers of the scriptures and then never contacted man again. They might cite the last verses of Revelations to their case:



> For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book


Though opponents of that theory could argue either that the writer of Revelations had no authority to write a period to divine revelation, or that his words only applied to the Bible, or were warnings against false prophets. But if you are a follower of Islam you think that Mohammad was the final prophet and there was one last book, ditto Joseph Smith and the Mormons. And it doesn't even apply to the Jews who don't believe in the New Testament or followers of other faiths like Hinduism.Still others believe in continuous revelation, that the scriptures never stopped, that there are more prophets all the time. It just depends which philosophy or religion you subscribe to.

It's a rather complicated point in Theology. There exists the idea that the Bible is complete with everything we need to understand inside of it, but that our human limitations keep us from fully understanding the hidden meanings. That as time goes by we are meant to find new interpretations to old questions and improve our knowledge of the book through continued study, just like evolution. He supplies the ingredients, sets up some ground rules for them to interact, and then they become ever more complex. We began as fish, then reptiles, mammals, and then from apes we became fully human. If you understand evolution surely you could understand how interpretation of the Bible could improve without changing the original document. Our religion evolves like our biology.

The other way of looking at it is that God is perfect, but his messengers aren't. Their word is inspired but they are limited by how much of God's word they can understand. The concepts and phrases they use to describe their revelations and prophecies are of their time, and only through understanding what their words and ideas meant to the original creators of the documents can we properly interpret them. The Supreme Court does this with the Constitution all of the time. Do you believe the Constitution should be interpreted as the founding fathers interpreted it, as a modern man should interpret it, as tradition has interpreted it, or do you subscribe to the belief that they were limited men of their time who could not have foreseen modern events? Same thing.




> what you are describing sounds like people continually adopting discoveries about how everything works simply to avoid looking like they don't chat to the big guy upstairs who knows exactly how everything works.


I'm sure that happens from time to time as well. But if you try and think of the Bible as a Christian's constitution and maybe the pope and bishops as the executive and supreme court, and new interpretations as amendments, then you might have a working model for how the system works, at least in Judeo-Christian religions. The Supreme Court doesn't claim to have a telephone to George Washington but we accept their judgements about abortion and stem cells.

----------


## Poetaster

Both science and religion are mere footnotes to the broader subject philosophy. And philosophy allows no arrogance, only rational and mature discussion.

----------


## mal4mac

> ... philosophy allows no arrogance, only rational and mature discussion.


I agree. Mortal Terror seems to think that pouring the contents of wikipedia, and another forum, into a thread is rational discussion. It isn't.

----------


## YesNo

I thought mortalterror presented his positions clearly and rationally. 

When atheists use the word "rational" I assume they don't know what they are talking about, but are simply employing a rhetorical technique to try to discredit someone else without having to engage in any real argument. It just makes them look irrational.

Regarding the topic of science and religion, I agree with Alvin Plantinga, _Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism_, that the real conflict is between science and "naturalism". Naturalism is a reductive materialism that I suspect, in spite of what Thomas Nagel hopes (_Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False_), is the only reasonable (rational) ground for atheism. Any conflict between science and theistic religion is superficial and easily resolved. 

So, my position is essentially that atheists are the ones who have a real problem with science.

I also think the culture underlying science would do well to avoid naturalism because its restrictive and largely refuted metaphysics is a ball and chain on modern science.

----------


## Poetaster

I was taking so side, merely after 33 pages, this topic does not seem to have a conclusion, and neither side are going to settle agreed because both have agendas and philosophies reinforcing both attitudes. I'm an atheist, but I cannot help (for it would be intellectually dishonest to say otherwise) that theists have philosophies that are thought out and make sense from their perspective. 

It isn't about Science vs Religion, both are used to horrible ends. Both 'groups' should admit that ultimately we do not really know a lot at all. If we did know there would be no need for debate. If anyone doesn't at least admit that, they are not worth paying attention to. After that admitting, the debate can become more mature and constructive.

----------

