Isn't science supposed to contradict religion?

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Religion makes proclamations all the time about principles of physical reality. God exists is a proclamation about physical reality. He created the universe, Earth and man, is a proclamation about physical reality.

If God's existence was a proclamation about physical reality, then it would be scientifically testable. Since physical reality is only meaningful within the confines of this universe, I don't see how a God who exists outside this universe is supposed to be a physical entity within it.

God's status as creator is not put forth as a law of nature, but as a first cause.

No I think God communicated audio-visually with men and women, at least according to your holy book. Sound is vibration of air particles at varying frequencies. Light is the vibration of the electromagnetic field at varying frequencies.

And most importantly of all, he was incarnated in Israel 2000 years ago. But clearly, none of this is what I meant. These are referred to as miracles. They are not general principles for how nature works.

You say that religion makes claims about such principles, but, where are your examples? Have any of the miracles you have listed been disproven? If they are claims of the nature you say they are, then they ought to be falsifiable.

Which is still part of existence.

You're talking to someone who does not think that physical nature is synonymous with all existence.

I think scientists have pretty conclusively demonstrated that people do not come back to life after being crucified

Scientists didn't do that - the Romans knew it. Otherwise they wouldn't use it as a method of execution. :rolleyes:

But the Christian claim of the resurrection is quite falsifiable, in principle. Yet it has not been disproven.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

But the Christian claim of the resurrection is quite falsifiable, in principle.

How?

Lue 24:50 says that Jesus flew off up into the sky, so if the gospels are to be believed, Jesus did not leave a corpse on earth that one could check to see if he had come back to life, having been dead (assuming one could check that reliably anyway after 2,000 years).

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

If God's existence was a proclamation about physical reality, then it would be scientifically testable.

No, if God's existence was a good proclamation about physical reality it would be scientifically testable.

And that is the whole point.

Religion makes claims about physical reality it has no way of demonstrating in any meaningful way.

Húrin wrote: »

Since physical reality is only meaningful within the confines of this universe

Where did you get that from?

Physical reality is meaningful anywhere there are reality. Inside the universe, outside the universe, under the universe. If God exists then he is part of reality by the virtue of existing.

Húrin wrote: »

God's status as creator is not put forth as a law of nature, but as a first cause.

Ok, not sure what point you think you are demonstrating there, but the fact that religion puts God's status forward at all is the problem.

Húrin wrote: »

And most importantly of all, he was incarnated in Israel 2000 years ago. But clearly, none of this is what I meant. These are referred to as miracles. They are not general principles for how nature works.

They are actually, if they actually happened (which I find highly doubtful). If God exists and manipulates nature, than that is the law of nature. X happens unless God decides it doesn't, in which case Y happens.

No you might very well be think that this makes modeling nature (ie science) rather difficult since we can't model God. And with that we are right back to the problem with religion making proclamations about what God does or is supposed to have done. If you can't model it you can't test it, and you certain can't figure out if it actually happened or not.

So even if God exists religion should really stop proclaiming he does since it would be practically impossible to determine in any meaningful way that he does, or anything about him.

Húrin wrote: »

You say that religion makes claims about such principles, but, where are your examples?

God exists. God created the universe. God spoke to Abraham. God descended to Mount Sinia (sp?) to speak to Moses. Seriously, pick a random page in the Bible and you will probably find some mention of God doing something.

Húrin wrote: »

Have any of the miracles you have listed been disproven?

How do you disprove a miracle? Since a miracle is untestable by virtue of being a miracle (you religious types are quite clever about proclaiming things in such a way that you can't be demonstrated to be wrong) how would one demonstrate that a miracle did not take place?

There is a little thing in science call falsifiability. I am being flippant of course, it is the corner stone of modern scientific enquiry.

If it is not possible to demonstrate, even hypothetically, that an aspect of a scientific model is not accurate, then the scientific model is of little worth

Why you ask? Because if you think something might have happened but you can't possibly demonstrate it didn't, then you have no way to rigorously test it did.

If something happens and some one decides to proclaim it as a miracle then you need a way to test it wasn't a miracle and you need to test that rigorously.

If you can't do that (and you can't with miracles by virtue of the explanations being supernatural) then you have no way of determine that the explanation actually explains the event. Something else could explain the event and you could not tell.

Húrin wrote: »

If they are claims of the nature you say they are, then they ought to be falsifiable.

They ought to be falsifiable, but they aren't, which is why they are bad and largely pointless and should be ignored. They are still claims about nature, just pretty dumb ones that no one can verify.

Húrin wrote: »

You're talking to someone who does not think that physical nature is synonymous with all existence.

Fair enough. Come up with a word or term for "all existence" and I will use that instead of "physical nature"

Húrin wrote: »

But the Christian claim of the resurrection is quite falsifiable, in principle. Yet it has not been disproven.

Please explain how the Christian claim of the resurrection can be falsified.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Well, let's take another example -- I reckon most or even all christians believe that praying to their deity is going to help cure their illness, improve their chances of winning the lottery, or make their car journey safer.

No we dont -but we do believe that prayer can help.

Say if you really pissed me off IRL - praying for you might deal with my anger and stop me beating the living s*** out of you.

But praying isnt about asking for physical things it might be about improving the quality of our lives and accepting stuff.

So prayer can be about anger management.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Please explain how the Christian claim of the resurrection can be falsified.

Find the grave of Jesus. That's one way. I'm sure other ways have been tried by the people so inclined (mainly Muslims and Jews through the ages I imagine).

Wicknight, you really don't understand what I mean by "general principle", do you? One off events are not general principles. The Law of gravity is such a principle. Religions do not make claims about natural laws.

They are actually, if they actually happened (which I find highly doubtful). If God exists and manipulates nature, than that is the law of nature. X happens unless God decides it doesn't, in which case Y happens.

No, your Y signifies a one-off event, not a new natural law to replace the old one.

No you might very well be think that this makes modeling nature (ie science) rather difficult since we can't model God. And with that we are right back to the problem with religion making proclamations about what God does or is supposed to have done. If you can't model it you can't test it, and you certain can't figure out if it actually happened or not.

So even if God exists religion should really stop proclaiming he does since it would be practically impossible to determine in any meaningful way that he does, or anything about him.

So why do you insist that religion offer scientific evidence in support of its claims, when religion itself denies that it is in the business of the scientific method of learning?

Really, your idea that religion is trying to compete with science in the study of nature is just aggressive and obtuse. Few, if any, scientists agree with you. If it was true, there would be an observable conflict between science and religion outside atheist polemics.

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

.. by introducing an assertion that we know a deity exists some where in reality who has already decided this question or not and communicated, physically, the answer to us.

Like it or not religion falls smack bang into the realm of science. They are not separate at all, religion makes proclamations about reality, about things that are supposed to exist. Proclamations that over the years have nearly always turned out to be dead wrong.

Religion is basically humans guessing about stuff before we find out, through science, what is actually happening

I can't believe I'm the only one to thank this post. Please tell me we're not falling for the non-overlapping magesteria bullshit?

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

I can't believe I'm the only one to thank this post. Please tell me we're not falling for the non-overlapping magesteria bullshit?

Thats because you were the only person to truly appreciate its comedic value.

I think the overlap with Douglas Adams " Life the Universe and Everything" was just mega.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

....There are no physical pretences. God exists outside the universe...

No god is physical and he exists in your head.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Find the grave of Jesus. That's one way.

Ok, where is the grave of Jesus. Lets dig him up.

Of course we can't, because no one knows where the grave of Jesus is. So that is a dead end.

If it is not possible to falsify something then it isn't falsifiable. And by the way it is up to the person making the claim to figure out a way to falsify it, not everyone else. A scientists would never say "My model predicts that this atom is really 2 atoms with on invisible one, now it is up to the rest of you to figure out how to falisify that model"

Húrin wrote: »

I'm sure other ways have been tried by the people so inclined (mainly Muslims and Jews through the ages I imagine).

And I'm sure the early Christians went to a lot of trouble to imagine a religious event that was impossible to disprove. It is the sign of a cult that knows what they are doing

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight, you really don't understand what I mean by "general principle", do you?

I don't really care what you mean by general principle. It isn't relevant to our discussion and I'm not sure why you introduced it. Science is not about studying reality up to a point, it is about studying reality, one of events included.

Besides, God exists and does stuff is not a one off event. The individual events are once offs, but so is everything else. My egg falling to the floor is a once off, that doesn't mean science has no business trying to figure out why my egg feel to the floor.

Húrin wrote: »

No, your Y signifies a one-off event, not a new natural law to replace the old one.

It is a natural law. If God exists and does stuff that is natural law. The fact that he does it once, or twice, or three times, is irrelevant.

The Big Bang only happened once, and it is certainly part of science.

Húrin wrote: »

So why do you insist that religion offer scientific evidence in support of its claims, when religion itself denies that it is in the business of the scientific method of learning?

Because, as I keep saying, religion makes proclamations about reality and existence.

They, and you, can deny that this has anything to do with science, but that seems more based on ignorance of science than anything else.

It would be like me saying Jesus never existed has nothing to do with Christianity so get off my back. I can keep saying it all I like but there isn't a Christian alive who would agree that it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Húrin wrote: »

If it was true, there would be an observable conflict between science and religion outside atheist polemics.

LOL .. are you claiming there is no observable conflict between science and religion. Really, because you might want to revise that statement before 50 posters here start listing off conflicts between religion and science over that last 4000 years.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, where is the grave of Jesus. Lets dig him up.

Of course we can't, because no one knows where the grave of Jesus is.

We also dont know where Julius Caesars grave is, Charles I or Robert Emmett are buried( or indeed any number of French kings disintered during the French Revolution) but we dont doubt they existed.

What you are looking for is negative proof which you cant have and which you need to close down what you see as a blind alley -scientifically speaking-you want everything nice n'neat.

For you - you need scientific explanations on stuff you cant understand - for you faith doesnt work. Headwrecking is'nt it.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

Headwrecking is'nt it.

Science happily accepts that the pursuit of knowledge is endless.

What is headwrecking is people who find a gap in the understanding of a natural occurrence and claim their three-eyed silver monkey riding on a turtle's back is responsible, and there isn't a damned thing science can do to disprove it.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

Science happily accepts that the pursuit of knowledge is endless.

What is headwrecking is people who find a gap in the understanding of a natural occurrence and claim their three-eyed silver monkey riding on a turtle's back is responsible, and there isn't a damned thing science can do to disprove it.

Tell me the secret of man made fire

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

Tell me the secret of man made fire

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Quote from the Jungle Book Disney musical

Here this should clear it up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ogQ0uge06o

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

Quote from the Jungle Book Disney musical

Here this should clear it up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ogQ0uge06o

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I am always sceptical on how religion actually affects science.

Other then stem cell research I cant think of any real topic of division with mainstream Christian Churches.

Other areas such as abortion spill over lots of areas and are a general society issue that are not specific religious based.

Dave!

CDfm wrote: »

I am always sceptical on how religion actually affects science.

Other then stem cell research I cant think of any real topic of division with mainstream Christian Churches.

Other areas such as abortion spill over lots of areas and are a general society issue that are not specific religious based.

Catholicism: Bread and wine change into flesh and blood.

Science: No, that's bullsh*t.

CDfm

Dave! wrote: »

Catholicism: Bread and wine change into flesh and blood.

Science: No, that's bullsh*t.

But Dave! it doesn't hold up any scientific studies or interfere with them in any way. So its neutral.

What I am saying what are the issues in science that religion interferes with.

Are these issues exclusive to religion or are they shared by society at large -thats all?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

it doesn't hold up any scientific studies or interfere with them in any way. So its neutral.

Are you seriously saying that the instantaneous, energy-free atomic transformation of carbohydrate into protein is not a physical process?

Or are you having a laugh?

MrPudding

Dave! wrote: »

Catholicism: Bread and wine change into flesh and blood.

Science: No, that's bullsh*t.

That is not quite accurate, bread & wine change into flesh and blood whilst giving the outward appearance of not having changed at all. It is actually even more magical than you said.

robindch wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that the instantaneous, energy-free atomic transformation of carbohydrate into protein is not a physical process?

It is not a physical process, it is a magical process. Obviously.

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

That is not quite accurate, bread & wine change into flesh and blood whilst giving the outward appearance of not having changed at all. It is actually even more magical than you said.

Reminds me of the time some years back when a translation company I worked appointed a general manager who surrounded himself with the most frightful set of yes-men. Over a cup of tea, I asked one of the brazilienne translators how wonderful she thought the GM's new clothes were, but she missed the reference. So I pointed her to an internet copy of the Emperor's New Clothes, which she read, and ended up (literally) weeping with laughter for a surprisingly long time

Animal Farm got a look in as well -- they were fun times they were.

JC 2K3

CDfm wrote: »

Science will tell you how to hang a man -religion will debate whether or not its moral.

Actually, religion will generally just debate whether a big man in the sky will punish you for hanging a man.

The only debate in religions like Christianity is clarification of a moral rulebook. Freedom of thought on moral issues is restricted to what you can claim to be the correct interpretation of that religions core text(s). And the only reason to act morally according to such religions is so one will not be punished in the afterlife.

The Mad Hatter

MrPudding wrote: »

That is not quite accurate, bread & wine change into flesh and blood whilst giving the outward appearance of not having changed at all. It is actually even more magical than you said.

It is not a physical process, it is a magical process. Obviously.

MrP

Ah, memories of V for Vendetta...

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

We also dont know where Julius Caesars grave is, Charles I or Robert Emmett are buried( or indeed any number of French kings disintered during the French Revolution) but we dont doubt they existed.

That isn't true, there is always doubt as to whether they existed. But have found enough evidence to convincingly assert they did. But I don't think anyone would bet their lives on it. It is not uncommon to find out that some person or event in history turns out to be not at all like we originally imagined it to be.

But then "Caesar was a man and existed" is not a proposition that requires extra from what we already know about biology and physics. We know humans exist and we have pretty accurate biological models of what they can and can't do. And these models are falsifiable.

"Jesus existed, was a man, died and came back to life" does.

CDfm wrote: »

What you are looking for is negative proof which you cant have and which you need to close down what you see as a blind alley -scientifically speaking-you want everything nice n'neat.

Yes I am asking for negative proof, or at least the ability to test that, and if I "can't have it" then you guys have a big problem because with out it it is impossible to test if what your religion is claiming is actually true.

Without the ability to test that something didn't happen you cannot convincingly assert that you know it did.

CDfm wrote: »

For you - you need scientific explanations on stuff you cant understand

Well yes, that is the whole point. I like to understand things before I proclaim I understand things.

Proclaiming that you understand something you don't actually understand, or saying it is a certain way when you in fact don't have a clue it is that way, is rather silly.

Head wrecking, isn't it.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Dave! wrote: »

Catholicism: Bread and wine change into flesh and blood.

Science: No, that's bullsh*t.

Protestantism all the way! :pac:

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes I am asking for negative proof, or at least the ability to test that, and if I "can't have it" then you guys have a big problem because with out it it is impossible to test if what your religion is claiming is actually true.

Without the ability to test that something didn't happen you cannot convincingly assert that you know it did.


Well yes, that is the whole point. I like to understand things before I proclaim I understand things.

Proclaiming that you understand something you don't actually understand, or saying it is a certain way when you in fact don't have a clue it is that way, is rather silly.

Head wrecking, isn't it.

So your issue is that you can't have scientific proof. That doesnt actually interfere with your quality of life at all or the scientific studies that are undertaken. Its like the Scottish Legal Verdict of Not Proven in your book. Get over it.

For lots of people their faith and the bible is the proof they need. Just like for some Caesars book the Gallic Wars is all they need to believe in Caesar and the Gallic wars. I believe in antibiotics and vaccines and think my GP knows what she talks about.

No one is asking you to believe and I accept your decision not to and feel its very positive the way you discuss it.

CDfm

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Protestantism all the way! :pac:

Anything you do other than sort out 3 Word Story is trolling :pac:

Dades

Something of course you'd never stoop to CDfm... (!)

Goduznt Xzst

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying what are the issues in science that religion interferes with.

eh... evolution? I know your little corner of the internet next door likes to accept that evolution is fact, but there are a lot of religious organizations that refuse to accept it and are trying to keep it out of our schools. On top of this there are your God-of-the-gaps, ID'ers and creationist "scientists" who like to slow everything down (i.e. irreducible complexity) by using these questions as proofs of Gods existence. Rather than working to answer them, they work to prove they can't be answered because "God did it".

Religion has always liked to have its fingers all over government, education and science. Separate it completely from those 3 institutions and I'd be happy to live and let live.

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

eh... evolution? I know your little corner of the internet next door likes to accept that evolution is fact, but there are a lot of religious organizations that refuse to accept it and are trying to keep it out of our schools. .

Do you live in the US? I went to a Catholic school here in Ireland, and we spent quite a bit of time on evolution in biology class. As far as I'm aware, its still part of the curriculm, and haven't heard much about it being in jeopardy