Sciences vs. Religion

[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,...

:lol:

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

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.

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.

Anyway, you've retracted into a position of "science isn't perfect" and I doubt anyone will disagree with that.

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”?

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!


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.

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.

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.

;)

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/forums/showthread.php?54929-The-FINAL-Thread-on-what-quot-atheist-m-quot-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-disagree-over-religious-classes/tabid/423/articleID/331813/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.;) :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=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&list=PL6719053C6581149B&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 scientist 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 scientist 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/bogus-science-paper-reveals-peer-review-s-flaws-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
Zoroaster
Mithras
Osiris
Ganesha
The King of Brobdingnag

Away you go.

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.

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.



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.



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.

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/forums/showthread.php?54929-The-FINAL-Thread-on-what-quot-atheist-m-quot-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/bogus-science-paper-reveals-peer-review-s-flaws-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/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?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/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533Actually, 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/Revelation,_Rationality,_Knowledge_%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/critics/atlarge/2014/02/17/140217crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=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/critics/atlarge/2014/02/17/140217crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=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).

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/critics/atlarge/2014/02/17/140217crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=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/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_php=true&_type=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." (http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues/)


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/2014/mar/02/bryan-college-draws-takes-stand-creation-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-longer-loyal-to-scouts-boys-join-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/2014/mar/02/bryan-college-draws-takes-stand-creation-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 centuryThere'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.

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

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……....…

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

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/Relationship_between_religion_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/Relationship_between_religion_and_scienceATTEMPTED 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_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/

[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.

God Bless

Pendragon


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)):

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. (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?77047-which-should-win&p=1244091&viewfull=1#post1244091) 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. :)

[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.:)

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 (http://huumanists.org/publications/journal/phenomenon-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/journal/phenomenon-pierre-teilhard-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 (http://huumanists.org/publications/journal/phenomenon-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]

Not all atheists are naturalists, but all naturalists are atheists as he defines the term on the first page of the Preface:[/qQUOTE]

Bingo.

[QUOTE=YesNo;1257037]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. :)

[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=Gr8Az3QQZdIi'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=Gr8Az3QQZdIfacts 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 evolutioni 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_astronomy/2010/10/11/creationists_still_cant_seem_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 :) (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_astronomy/2010/10/11/creationists_still_cant_seem_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."

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.

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_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Int elligent_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_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Int elligent_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.php?p=16268928&postcount=1857
Modern Science and Technology caused the Holocaust
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost.php?p=16276206&postcount=1997
Scientists Disagree with Each Other, and Science is not always objective or clear
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost.php?p=16314236&postcount=2385
Science is Flawed, subject to fraud, scandal, and perversion, not the source of absolute truth
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost.php?p=16314340&postcount=2386
Science and religion not at odds, Scientists are as likely to be Religious as Atheist
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost.php?p=16048606&postcount=98
Scientists Not More Atheist than a Century Ago
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost.php?p=14984212&postcount=66
Uncertainty is a Prerequisit of all Knowledge and The Bible Evolves like the Constitution
http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost.php?p=15029824&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 :p.

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 :p.
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.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/996cf0494e0dc59d5115f14d3190e73e/tumblr_n32nlrpNr21s73qs0o1_500.gif
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:

Corrupting the Science. Corporations suppress research, intimidate scientists, manipulate study designs, ghostwrite scientific articles, and selectively publish results that suit their interests.

Shaping Public Perception. Private interests downplay evidence, exaggerate uncertainty, vilify scientists, hide behind front groups, and feed the media slanted news stories.

Restricting Agency Effectiveness. Companies attack the science behind agency policy, hinder the regulatory process, corrupt advisory panels, exploit the "revolving door" between corporate and government employment, censor scientists, and withhold information from the public. http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html
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:

Corrupting the Science. Corporations suppress research, intimidate scientists, manipulate study designs, ghostwrite scientific articles, and selectively publish results that suit their interests.

Shaping Public Perception. Private interests downplay evidence, exaggerate uncertainty, vilify scientists, hide behind front groups, and feed the media slanted news stories.

Restricting Agency Effectiveness. Companies attack the science behind agency policy, hinder the regulatory process, corrupt advisory panels, exploit the "revolving door" between corporate and government employment, censor scientists, and withhold information from the public. http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html
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.

Image courtesy Science/AAAS

"The goal was to create a credible but mundane scientific paper, one with such grave errors that a competent peer reviewer should easily identify it as flawed and unpublishable," Bohannon says. Of 255 open-access journals that said they would review his study, 157 accepted the fake study for publication. "Acceptance was the norm, not the exception," he writes.

Science Spoofs Not New

Spoof studies intended to spotlight problems with individual journals and their review practices have made news before. New York University physicist Alan Sokal spoofed the cultural studies journal Social Text in 1996 with a crackpot physics treatise. And last month, Serbian academics spoofed a Romanian journal with a similarly ludicrous data-processing paper.

But the Bohannon study, which claimed to have discovered a cancer-fighting, lichen-derived drug ready for immediate testing on patients, represents a first systematic test of review practices, or their absence, across many journals at once, says research ethics expert Nicholas Steneck of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...review-cancer/
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.

Record-setting retractions

Setting the record for the most publications up for retraction by a single author, Japanese anesthesiologist Yo****aka Fujii fabricated data in a whopping 172 papers. Beginning his career in falsification in 1993 while at the Tokyo Medical and Dental University, he continued it at the University of Tsukuba, and at Toho University in Tokyo, where he was finally dismissed in February 2012. According to investigations, Fujii never actually saw the patients he reported in his clinical studies, failed to get ethical review board approval for his research, and misled co-authors, sometimes including their names without their permission or knowledge. Although the retractions are not expected to have a large impact on the field—many of them had low citation rates—Fujii used the publications to further his career, publishing a total of 249 papers.

False forensics

The results from roughly 34,000 criminal drug cases were put into question earlier this year, when forensic chemist Annie Dookhan at the shuttered Department of Public Health Lab in Massachusetts was discovered to have falsified records on samples she was assigned to process. Instead, she forged signatures and did not perform tests she recorded as complete, according to investigations. Suspicions may have first arisen due to her impressive output—she claimed to have processed 9,000 samples in a year, whereas colleagues only averaged around 3,000. As a result of her actions, a number of defendants may have been wrongly imprisoned, while others who may have been rightly accused were freed. This month, Boston police warned of an expected spike in crimes due to the large number of convicted drug offenders who will be released because of Dookhan’s misconduct.

Creative reviewing strategies

Rather than falsify data in order to get published, researchers have taken a new tack this year by writing glowing expert reviews for their own papers. When asked by journal editors to suggest names of experts in their field who were not involved in their research, at least four submitting authors suggested names and emails that then forwarded back to their own inboxes. The trend, first reported by Retraction Watch, was caught by one journal editor when author Hyung-In Moon, assistant professor at Dong-A University in Busan, South Korea, offered up names of reviewers with Google and Yahoo rather than university email accounts. “It should be a wake-up call to any journals that don’t have rigorous reviewer selection and screening in place,” Irene Hames, a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics, told The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articl...ndals-of-2012/
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/files/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-2.png 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?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/PopeScope_GroundLevel.jpg/640px-PopeScope_GroundLevel.jpg

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
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Gregor_Mendel.png
Gregor Mendel, father of genetics, friar, demonstrated the laws of inheritance in pea plants
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Adam_sedgwick.JPG/70px-Adam_sedgwick.JPG
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.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Angelo_Secchi.jpg/70px-Angelo_Secchi.jpg
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."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/Teilhard_de_Chardin%281%29.jpg
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."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Lemaitre.jpg/70px-Lemaitre.jpg
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_Christian_thinkers_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/img/major_religious_traditions.gif
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 magic 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#Epistemological_validity_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]

For sociologists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization of the modern West.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
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.