Sciences vs. Religion

[MorpheusSandman]

And yet what has science ever discovered that wasn't already here or the means to make it were already here? The number of things discovered by accident rather than design are legion.

I have no idea what you think the relevance of this is. Firstly, science has created a great deal of many things that weren't here until we understood through science how reality worked. I didn't notice any rocket ships wandering around until engineers using science decided to make them; a feat that would've been impossible with mere faith/belief that's the bedrock of religion. Secondly, science is really more about understanding than discovery, though they can often go hand in hand. Thirdly, there's no doubt that many great scientific discoveries were achieved by accident, yet the method itself allows such accidents to happen and provides a means of following up on them to understand their significance. I also don't know what you think the significance of this is.

I do have problems with purely theoretical physics which as Morpheus states cannot be tested by current methods still being generally accepted as fact. The day could come when God could be detected but not by science today. I accept God as fact, also accepting that I cannot prove He exists.

Theoretical physics aren't accepted as facts they're accepted as theoretical. All I said was that even in the absence of "proof" there are often epistemological reasons for declaring one theory is more likely to be correct than another. Let's also not forget that gravity and evolution are theories and not facts, since such theories don't really become facts, they merely have different levels of evidence that supports them.

Yes, maybe some day God can be detected; I don't rule out that possibility. Yet, I wonder why anyone would want to accept God as fact until that day gets here; why not accept anything else that can't be proven exists as fact?

[YesNo]

I'd love for you find any place in Platinga's book where he addresses this. I think when many think of the "conflict" between science and religion they tend to think of the conclusions formed by both, eg science's evolution VS religion's creationism. Such things may be "superficial" in that Christians are free to adopt evolution and read Genesis as an allegory. Yet, the biggest conflict I see is NOT in what conclusions either reach, but HOW they reached these conclusions to begin with. Science SHOULD be equated with the scientific method, and NOT with what the scientific method discovers about reality. If you think about this in terms of the Scientific method VS the religious method, then I think you find the really unresolvable conflict.

I intend to give a more detailed report on Plantinga's work. In the preface Plantinga writes: (page xii):

If there were serious conflicts between religion and current science, that would be very significant; initially, at least, it would cast doubt on those religious beliefs inconsistent with current science. But in fact, I will argue, there is no such conflict between Christian belief and science while there is conflict between naturalism and science.

Then he explains how he will address that in the book.

[MorpheusSandman]

Fine, but keep in mind what I said while reading the book. The major conflict I see is between the methods, not necessarily the beliefs themselves. I'll be very curious to hear why he thinks naturalism is in conflict with science.

[Pendragon]

I have no idea what you think the relevance of this is. Firstly, science has created a great deal of many things that weren't here until we understood through science how reality worked. I didn't notice any rocket ships wandering around until engineers using science decided to make them; a feat that would've been impossible with mere faith/belief that's the bedrock of religion.

What I said was that science creates nothing for which God, or Nature, since you will not accept that God exists, has already provided the raw materials. The stuff to make your rocket ships was here. An astounding amount of research, trail and error went into figuring out how to make metal from ore, fuel from oil, natural gasses, coal, water turbines, etc., to make plastic and glass, having the Wright Brothers discover the secrets of flight pitch, roll, and yaw, making a substance that would stand reentry heat and so on. They cannot make something out of nothing. You don't see any significance because you cannot believe that God provided these things for man and gave him the willpower and imagination to create masterpieces from them. Really, it is useless for me to discuss this further. You seem to have made up your mind that I am deluded. I can accept every science in the world, but unless I take God out of the equation I am considered uneducated and wrong. Taking God out of the equation is out of the question, regardless of how it makes me look in your eyes or anyone else's.

God bless and farewell

Pen

[YesNo]

Fine, but keep in mind what I said while reading the book. The major conflict I see is between the methods, not necessarily the beliefs themselves. I'll be very curious to hear why he thinks naturalism is in conflict with science.

What I hear you saying is that you would like to monopolize science and rationality for your particular atheistic metaphysics implying that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational or unscientific. That is the characteristic about new atheists like Dawkins and Dennett that annoys me the most.

Atheists do not own science and rationality. That is their main delusion and the chief one they keep marketing.

That's why I'm reading Plantinga. I would like to see how a philosopher engages in this discussion rationally and so far he is delivering on my expectations. You are welcome to find a copy and read this as well. Whatever I might do to summarize will not be as good as the original.

[JHG]

This thread is a great read - I enjoyed it. Lacking the training to get too specific, I would like to contribute my personal experience to the general conversation.

Like many of us, I am sure, I was born a Christian and rebelled against it later in life. I searched for answers to the many questions that would arise during such a rebellion, but no answer was quite so easy or satisfying as "God." Nonetheless, seeing the inherent contradictions of the established religions and encouraged by the obvious abuses of the religious, I never went back. It was simply too easy.

It is easy to believe in Heaven, and angels, and everlasting life. It is much more difficult, tragically so, to know that death brings the infinite, timeless darkness. In the deepest corner of our minds, we all suspect this is true - but most cannot and will not accept it. This because such a thought imbues a great responsibility: You only have one life. Religion has spent many years and efforts to escape this responsibility. As a tool of rationalization, it is fundamentally wrong.

Knowing that religion is wrong, does that make science right? No, not necessarily. That is a grand example of a false dilemma (as was likely pointed out previously). I suspect the answer is somewhere in between, as is usually the case.

[AuntShecky]

I suspect the answer is somewhere in between, as is usually the case.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is a philospher who was able to reconcile science with religion. The linked article is in my increasingly humble opinion a fair one. (Don't be put off by its writer's error mistaking "formally" for "formerly.")

It seems logical to yours fooly that if human beings are able to evolve physically and mentally, perhaps it's possible that they can also evolve spiritually (despite the stubborn persistnce of evil in the world. As an aside, I found something in that on-line article about Teilhard that was new to me and that is he did not believe mankind would extend its civilization (such as it is) onto other worlds. That reminds of a question that has often occurred to yours fooly: Which is the more frightening prospect: that there exist other planets with sentient beings OR that we humans are utterly and absolutely alone in the infinite universe?

Another thing about Teilhard (which I learned way, way, way back in my school days) is that he disdained the idea of a personal God, including the sentimental fascination with "Bébé Jesu." With that opinion, Teilhard has much in common with Albert ("God does not play dice with the Universe") Einstein. Sparking much controversy with post-WWII mainstream America, Einstein famously denounced belief in a personal God, describing it as "childish" and "naive." At times he declared himself an atheist, and at other times described an experience of ineffable awe upon exploring the mystical secrets of creation. He aligned this type of religious-like experience with that of the philosophy of Spinoza.

Incidentally, I have more respect for those who define themselves as atheists or agnostics than I do for those who proclaim "I'm not religious at all--" while instantly walking it back to add -- "but I AM spiritual." Whenever I hear some airhead startlet on a talk show say something like that, I want to shake her and say, "Oh, really? Then where did all this so-called 'spiritually' come from -- some trendy little boutique on Rodeo Drive?"

Finally, maybe there will someday be reconciliation between science and religion, but such an outcome will demand a little give-and-take on both sides:

"Science without religion is lame;religion without science is blind." --Albert Einstein


http://huumanists.org/publications/j...ard-de-chardin



Auntie

[The Atheist]

Atheists do not own science and rationality. That is their main delusion and the chief one they keep marketing.

Rubbish.

I don't know how many times that fallacy needs to be refuted before people will stop uttering it, but science and rationality have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, and vice versa.

David Icke is an atheist, so are most Buddhists and adherents of psychics and mediums. (despite the obvious contradiction)

Atheism is a lack of belief in god/s. The end.

There is no requirement for atheists to be pro-science, rational, or even clever. They just don't believe in a god.

[MorpheusSandman]

What I said was that science creates nothing for which God, or Nature, since you will not accept that God exists, has already provided the raw materials.

Fair enough, but without our understanding of how nature works, provided by science, we could not make anything to our purpose from nature. Belief in God can not make a rocking chair, much less a rocket ship.

You don't see any significance because you cannot believe that God provided these things for man and gave him the willpower and imagination to create masterpieces from them.

If you believe God provided these thing for man to create masterpieces from you also have to believe he let man struggle in fear, darkness, sickness, and pervasive death for hundreds of thousands of years before we developed modern science and medicine. Why? Further, what's the evidence that God provided these things as opposed to just the matter that was created by a random fluctuation in a quantum field?

Really, it is useless for me to discuss this further. You seem to have made up your mind that I am deluded. I can accept every science in the world, but unless I take God out of the equation I am considered uneducated and wrong. Taking God out of the equation is out of the question, regardless of how it makes me look in your eyes or anyone else's.

Pen, you really should stop taking this so personally. This is a thread about Science VS Religion, so you should expect there would be atheists who would challenge your beliefs and reasons for them. I have never once called you personally uneducated or ignorant, yet you keep implying that I have. As I've said before, everyone is ignorant of some things, some people more than others. I don't know how much you know about anything and vice versa. Part of discussions like these are the attempts made at trying to enlighten each other and ourselves, but that can't happen if someone is insecure about others thinking they're uneducated, wrong, etc.

[MorpheusSandman]

What I hear you saying is that you would like to monopolize science and rationality for your particular atheistic metaphysics implying that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational or unscientific.

Errr, I have no idea how you got this from what I wrote. The scientific method has existed unchanged for hundreds of years and came about in a culture of mass religious belief. The Church was an early patron of science; they thought they could use it to prove God's existence. My whole point was that the conflict I see is between the scientific method and the religious method for forming beliefs. If you don't think there's a conflict, then argue that point; if Plantinga doesn't think there's a conflict, then quote him on why he thinks there isn't. I'm not trying to "monopolize" anything; the scientific method, as it was invented and has stood for hundreds of years, has nothing to do with me or atheism in general.

That's why I'm reading Plantinga. I would like to see how a philosopher engages in this discussion rationally and so far he is delivering on my expectations.

Then I'm sure, being the fair minded truth-searcher you are, you'd also like to see how the many atheists philosophers engage in the same discussion rationally as well; or do you feel that Theologians have a monopoly on what counts as rational when it comes to science VS religion?

You are welcome to find a copy and read this as well. Whatever I might do to summarize will not be as good as the original.

You don't need to summarize; open the book and quote at whatever length you feel is necessary to get the point across. That said, if you can't summarize one is allowed to question whether you've understood the material at all. It strikes me that in your reading of quantum physics you didn't understand anything except the parts you already agreed with. That's not a very objective method for learning anything.

[YesNo]

Rubbish.

I don't know how many times that fallacy needs to be refuted before people will stop uttering it, but science and rationality have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, and vice versa.

David Icke is an atheist, so are most Buddhists and adherents of psychics and mediums. (despite the obvious contradiction)

Atheism is a lack of belief in god/s. The end.

There is no requirement for atheists to be pro-science, rational, or even clever. They just don't believe in a god.

I would like that to be the case, however, the thread is about science and religion. Atheism gets caught in that, because of claims by atheists (such as Dawkins and Dennett and others) that science disproves religion or obsoletes religion in some way. Plantinga disagrees and argues that it is really naturalism that is refuted.

In Plantinga's text he acknowledges your point. Naturalism is a subset of atheism. Not all atheists are naturalists, but all naturalists are atheists as he defines the term on the first page of the Preface:

I take naturalism to be the thought that there is no such person as God, or anything like God. Naturalism is stronger than atheism: you can be an atheist without rising to the full heights (sinking to the lowest depth?) of naturalism; but you can't be a naturalist without being an atheist.

I don't know if that resolves your issue. If you are not a naturalist then the atheism you profess is not the one I am referring to. Indeed, with respect to certain gods, or certain god-like substitutes, such as many worlds, I would be an atheist as well.

[YesNo]

What I find interesting in Plantinga's book, Where the Conflict Really Lies, is how he handles evolution. This is usually the area that is brought up first when someone brings up the conflict between science and theistic religions.

His approach to this problem is to distinguish between evolution as a scientific explanation and evolution with added metaphysics. With the added metaphysics one gets either the theistic guided evolution or the naturalist unguided evolution. Guided evolution is justified in this manner: God can use whatever means he wants to get us to the state we are in today. The core conclusion is that theism is not opposed to evolution (and argues specifically against claims made by Dawkins, Dennett, Paul Draper and Philip Kitcher), but to unguided evolution: (page 63)

"The scientific theory of evolution as such is not incompatible with Christian belief; what is incompatible with it is the idea that evolution, natural selection, is unguided. But that idea isn't part of evolutionary theory as such; it's instead a metaphysical or theological addition."

That resolves the issue of a conflict between theism and evolution. He addresses miracles later which I am still reading.

However, his use of this distinction between guided evolution and unguided evolution comes back later in the text. (I've skimmed ahead.) He will later present his arguments to show that guided evolution is in more harmony with science than unguided evolution which leads to irrationality.

[JHG]

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is a philospher who was able to reconcile science with religion. The linked article is in my increasingly humble opinion a fair one. (Don't be put off by its writer's error mistaking "formally" for "formerly.")

It seems logical to yours fooly that if human beings are able to evolve physically and mentally, perhaps it's possible that they can also evolve spiritually (despite the stubborn persistnce of evil in the world. As an aside, I found something in that on-line article about Teilhard that was new to me and that is he did not believe mankind would extend its civilization (such as it is) onto other worlds. That reminds of a question that has often occurred to yours fooly: Which is the more frightening prospect: that there exist other planets with sentient beings OR that we humans are utterly and absolutely alone in the infinite universe?

Thank you for pointing me to that read, of which I was previously unaware.

I'm not convinced that humans are capable of spritual evolution. It seems to me that this may be an interpretation of the development of the mind, reason, and education. We as society are no longer content to think that a volcano erupts because a demon is dancing inside it, or that a storm is the result of Neptune's unhappiness. Such progress will continue as more and more people step away from mysticism, which is (in my humble opinion) an unfortunate development of a complex mind forced to encounter the unknown. I wouldn't call this evolution, but I may be misinterpreting your assertion.

Another thing about Teilhard (which I learned way, way, way back in my school days) is that he disdained the idea of a personal God, including the sentimental fascination with "Bébé Jesu." With that opinion, Teilhard has much in common with Albert ("God does not play dice with the Universe") Einstein. Sparking much controversy with post-WWII mainstream America, Einstein famously denounced belief in a personal God, describing it as "childish" and "naive." At times he declared himself an atheist, and at other times described an experience of ineffable awe upon exploring the mystical secrets of creation. He aligned this type of religious-like experience with that of the philosophy of Spinoza.

I am glad to see that we are of similar disposition. Rather than pick sides and start firing, as seems to be chic, there needs to be a resolution to remove personal prejudices and search for purity. I believe I am paraphrasing Hume.

Unfortunately, I lack complexity on the works of Spinoza, though it has long been on my reading list. Nonetheless I believe Einstein lends weight to the argument against religion by the undeniability of his genius and incomparable contributions to human progress. Though his apparent lack of commitment to atheism frustratingly leaves that door slightly open.

Incidentally, I have more respect for those who define themselves as atheists or agnostics than I do for those who proclaim "I'm not religious at all--" while instantly walking it back to add -- "but I AM spiritual." Whenever I hear some airhead startlet on a talk show say something like that, I want to shake her and say, "Oh, really? Then where did all this so-called 'spiritually' come from -- some trendy little boutique on Rodeo Drive?"

Agreed 100%. A peeve of mine, also. Such a thing is a vain hope to impress some lowly mind with the illusion of complexity.

[MorpheusSandman]

What I find interesting in Plantinga's book, Where the Conflict Really Lies, is how he handles evolution. This is usually the area that is brought up first when someone brings up the conflict between science and theistic religions.

Did Plantinga fail to address how a great many believers take Genesis literary and argue that God created man from dirt, woman from man's rib, and that the Earth was created 6000 years ago (discerned by tracing time from the point the Bible was written back through history)? Because science is very much in conflict with THAT particular religious belief. Obviously, I stated earlier that many Christians do believe in evolution and take Genesis only to be allegory; so there the conflict goes away. Really, I don't have much to say about Plantinga's discussion of guided VS unguided evolution except to point out that there's not a stitch of evidence that evolution is "guided" in any way. Mutations themselves are random, and 99% of all species every alive have gone extinct, and evolution has produced so many useless by-products that you'd have to ask why in the world any deity would "guide" it in those directions to begin with (ERVs, anyone? Bet Plantinga doesn't address those).

[AuntShecky]

duplicate post