Why religion is anti-scientific

Zombrex

I've been banned from the Christianity forum for not agreeing with PDN that I was wrong (rolleyes hardly does justice), but there was a discussion going on in that forum about religion and science that I would like to continue, so if it is already with the Dades I will post my reply to Morbet here -

Morbert wrote: »

That's a debate for another thread (and not with me).

Not at all, it is central to the whole debate.

What science says about the reliability of other methodologies will determine how pro or anti science someone is when adopting these non-scientific methodologies, such as religion or theology, against the judgement science is making on them.

Morbert wrote: »

That it has no predictive, uniform framework, and therefore cannot be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge, which deals with natural (i.e. predictable and uniform) phenomena.

Are you going around in circles on purpose or do you not realise what I'm getting at?

What is wrong about having no predictive, uniform framework, that science doesn't allow things without them to be incorporated into scientific models or theories?

Rather than asking you that again just go get answer which is just a rearrangement of the question, how about I answer that for you. :pac:

The hint was when you said this earlier -

The standards of science are adopted because they produce accurate, useful, and reliable descriptions of all observable phenomena to date

The key word in that sentence being reliable.

What is wrong, according to science, with other methodologies that it does not allow them to be incorporated into scientific models? What is the reason knowledge from them are not allowed being included in theories? What is it saying about other methodology that it doesn't allow to be incorporated?

They are unreliable

The methodologies are unreliable and as such the knowledge gained from them is unreliable. You can't know something from them, at least to the standard that science considers "knowing something" to have any useful meaning.

Which brings me back full circle to my original point.

A Christian (or anyone, I really, this really isn't a theist-athiest thing) who says I know God exists is saying that they have some how, using some method, reliably determined that God exists to the point where they can say they know this to be true.

Science says you can't have done that because methodologies outside of science are inherently unreliable. Which is why science doesn't use them

At this point the person can either

a) agree with science and say yes the unscientific method I used is actually unreliable, science is correct.

b) disagree with science, say that the method they used to determine God's existence is reliable and science is wrong for considering it unreliable.

If they pick (a) they are not being anti-scientific, they are not disagreeing with science, but they also lose the rational for saying they know God exists since it is agreeing that the method they used to determine this is unreliable. They fall back into the "I don't know and I can't find out" category, which is the scientific thing to do

If they pick (b) they are being anti-scientific because they are disagree within science assessment of the non-scientific method they used to determine this knowledge.

robindch

The sheer volume of posting on this topic, together with a flickering life outside of boards, has -- perhaps mercifully -- kept me out of this debate so far.

The fair Ophelia over in B+W did post a list to this article last week sometime which points out that the fundamental disagreements between religious believers and non-believers are frequently less about the process of reasoning itself, and are rather more about what constitutes satisfactory evidence. More here:

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2009/03/irrationality-of-true-faith-head.html

I don't really think reasoning (and its bedfellow, "science" in general) per se really informs many peoples religious beliefs at all. The primary reason for acceptance of one religious dogma or another seems far more frequently just to be an emotional response with just enough "evidence" produced after the fact to tilt the balance in the biased courtroom of the believer's mind.

Rev Hellfire

Religion in itself doesn't have to be against science as long as it recognizes the authority of science when cataloguing the natural world and is willing to take new discoveries on-board and adjust itself accordingly.

The problem is less about religion and more about people who are unwilling to accept that what they held to be true has been proven to be no longer so.

Anyway I'm sure they'll come to miss your electric personality in there soon and you'll be back in knocking heads in no time

Húrin

My condolences on your ban. I hope it lifts soon.

Wicknight wrote: »

There shouldn't be a "god question" yet, we are not nearly at that stage. Assuming something exists and then trying to find a way to study it with science is putting the cart before the horse.

Science should not be about answering the questions of religion. Science should be about studying reality, and if God exists he is part of that.

To say that the God question should not be asked is silly too. We would not have science without religion. Western science was primarily developed by Muslims and Christians.

Science does not study all of reality. Only physical matter and energy within this universe. Where are the projects that go beyond our universe?

Wicknight wrote: »

Well considering that people being free to choose is nothing to do with what I said, it certainly doesn't.

Saying this is 100% correct but you are free to believe it or not is not in anyway the same as saying this might be wrong.

It is certainly a much more liberal attitude than your insistence on the hegemony of the scientific method in the acquisition of all human knowledge.

I still have not been told why this supposed clash between science and religion does not appear outside of atheist polemics. The existence of Christian scientists (I don't mean the denomination) demonstrates that this claim that God is a scientific question is nonsense.

This is because if these people are professional science practitioners, they surely know something more about how science works than the non-scientist atheist who insists that religious people are just ignoring the science in their beliefs. Which brings us back to atheist polemics, which is not science.

It doesn't mean that God is outside science and we should start using other things like theology to come up with ideas about God and such. It means we can't test or model God and we should, if we are being sensible, say we don't know.

In fact we should even be saying "we can't test God". If we are to look at this properly we shouldn't be assuming there is a God out there to find in the first place.

Where is the logical proof that only the scientific method is valid for acquiring knowledge?

Wicknight wrote: »

Is God real? Does he exist?

If he does then where he exists is irrelevant.

There is no reason to say that science can only look inside this universe. Yes we have not figured out a way to do otherwise, but 150 years ago we hadn't figured out a way to look at atoms.

For you this is a matter of faith. To work outside this universe would seem to contradict the nature of physics. The laws of this universe cannot be assumed to apply outside this universe.

Inspecting the content of atoms does not contradict the ancient conception of physics. Science might be able to work outside the universe, but there is no evidence that it ever will.

How dare anyone assume that their god is the god we should be looking for in the first place without any science to back this up.

You guys have built up a very complex detailed description of a god with really nothing to back any of that up. There is no science behind any of it, there is no testable models, there is no reason to say this is what we should be looking for.

It would be like if someone in 1890 said that the electromagnatic force was God, and then we spend the next 100 years trying to find God through that force, never actually finding out what it actually was.

If anyone is serious about discovering the truth in a way that is demonstrative (which I seriously doubt any of you are), they need to go back to the start and look at what things actually are, not what your religion has already decided they are.

Your religion might be completely correct, but you need to build up a scientific model, not simply jump in at the end of the race and try and demonstrate something sicentifically when you haven't demonstrated any of the previous stages first.

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. Given that you seem to be intelligent, you surely know this and are in fact misrepresenting my argument.

I'm not arguing for God of the Gaps (like the electromagnetic force), that religion beats science at its own game, that God can be empirically demonstrated, and thus I am not arguing that science should be used to look for God.

Yes Hurin, you keep going on about these other ways to do things, but you are a bit short in actually putting them forward

You got a better idea of how to discover what is real and what isn't real than science, I'm all ears.

It's not about competing with or bettering science. You think that only one method of epistemology can exist. I am arguing that different methods can coexist for different questions.

You, it seems, are trying to refute this argument by awkwardly stuffing God into the realm of science, an approach that has been discredited for a very long time indeed.

Wicknight wrote: »

Everything in existence I would have thought that would have been obvious.

Other branches of philosophy deal with things like ethics and morals, stuff that doesn't exist in reality. And then there is theology, but sure the less said about that the better.

Ah yes, I see, and God doesn't exist. Very good. Not at all circular argument.
Ethics, society and culture do exist, just not physically.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not asserting that God isn't real, I'm asserting that the previous definitions of "God" are irrelevant. how we have defined God is irrelevant. At this stage how could we possibly know what God actually is? Our definitions are worthless. We need to build up scientific models, one on top of the other. And if we get stuck some where along the line we stop until we figure out how to get passed that. Maybe we never do.

But what religion has done is jumped to the end, and is now saying science cannot investigate this as if that is a fault with science.

You're getting very defensive about science, in the same way I see people getting defensive about their God. Nobody has said that the limitations of science are a fault of science.

Your belief in the supremacy of science is essentially faith-based. You cannot prove it. I'm afraid I cannot muster such faith in the omnipotence of science.

"Maybe we never do" is a surrender to ignorance, and is unacceptable. It is a call for other methods to investigate the questions we have, that science cannot answer.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like Hurin saying science can't study God because he exists outside the universe. If he exists outside the universe and I can't study him with science then Hurin can't say he exists outside the universe, so it becomes irrelevant. Hurin's statement of a fact has no merit.

My claim that God exists outside the universe isn't a statement of fact. It's my opinion, supported by evidence, but it is not a 'fact'.

Mr Quiet

When you can put faith and belief in a test tube, come back and let me know the results?

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

I've been banned from the Christianity forum for not agreeing with PDN that I was wrong (rolleyes hardly does justice)

Great news, I think that forum would be far more fun if the atheists ceased distracting the Christians from their traditional Catholic v Protestant vitriol.

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

Great news, I think that forum would be far more fun if the atheists ceased distracting the Christians from their traditional Catholic v Protestant vitriol.

LOL. Thats it, get the digs in.

robindch

Mr Quiet wrote: »

When you can put faith and belief in a test tube, come back and let me know the results?

An fMRI scanner works much better than a test-tube.

See this paper on some of the things that happen to your brain while you're believing things.

robindch

pH wrote: »

I think that forum would be far more fun if the atheists ceased distracting the Christians from their traditional Catholic v Protestant vitriol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkLFG0CtdEo

Schuhart

robindch wrote: »

I don't really think reasoning (and its bedfellow, "science" in general) per se really informs many peoples religious beliefs at all. The primary reason for acceptance of one religious dogma or another seems far more frequently just to be an emotional response with just enough "evidence" produced after the fact to tilt the balance in the biased courtroom of the believer's mind.

I similarly haven’t really followed that other thread, but I feel your point here is valid.

I feel this can be fleshed out with a rather good post IMHO by PDN a while back, explaining his basis for trusting the scripture. I think the sort of iterative growth of faith is credible.

If the religion is providing a practical good for a person – motivating them to do things that they would otherwise not do, or to feel satisfied in ways they lacked before – then clearly that experiential result will carry them forward. Who wants evidence if the implication of that evidence is “you are meant to be apathetic and unhappy, you stupid person”.

I think the significance of this point is frequently missed by atheists, and I think Dawkins (for example) misses it completely (as I said in a thread here over two years ago I’ve been posting here for two years? How did that happen?)

What’s the point of evidence if its telling you something that you don’t need to know?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

My condolences on your ban. I hope it lifts soon.

Me too, but there seems to be no talking to the mod involved.

Húrin wrote: »

To say that the God question should not be asked is silly too. We would not have science without religion. Western science was primarily developed by Muslims and Christians.

That is some what irrelevant. It is scientifically nonsensical to talk about trying to demonstrate the existence of God when you haven't first build up science of what the phenomena actually is.

People have funny feeling when they walk into a church. Religion say that is God, and lists off a lot of things they claim God does and is. Science is then expected to try and study "God", when in fact they should be trying to study why the person has the funny feeling when they walk into the church. It might be because large uniform structures cause the eyes to relax and releases stress in the brain that causes a slight feeling of euphoria.

The point is that we haven't even got to the God question. There is no reason yet to even attach "God" to the natural phenomena that religion has traditionally associated with God. To accept the religious idea that these phenomena are associated with God, and then try and study that, is some what presumptuous

Húrin wrote: »

Science does not study all of reality. Only physical matter and energy within this universe. Where are the projects that go beyond our universe?

That isn't really true. Theories such as M-theory go beyond the physical matter and energy in this universe.

And we certainly cannot say that science is bound only to this universe simply because we are currently very limited in what we can propose about anything beyond this universe.

But even if this was true the idea that something like theology can study things beyond this universe is laughable. The only way it gets around the limitations science places upon itself is by simply ignoring them. The theological position that God exists "outside" this universe (a concept that is never explained in anything but the most childlike abstract use of the English word "outside" devoid of all literal meaning) is simply made up with no consideration about how we could possibly actually know that is true or not.

Húrin wrote: »

Where is the logical proof that only the scientific method is valid for acquiring knowledge?

Can you explain any other methodology over comes the limitations science recognises in human learning, and how the methodology does this?

Húrin wrote: »

To work outside this universe would seem to contradict the nature of physics.

I'm not following? Can you explain why you assert that?

Húrin wrote: »

The laws of this universe cannot be assumed to apply outside this universe.

The laws of this universe are not assumed to apply "outside" this universe. Scientists have been coming up with brand new laws to apply to the concept of a multi-verse

Húrin wrote: »

I'm not arguing for God of the Gaps (like the electromagnetic force), that religion beats science at its own game, that God can be empirically demonstrated, and thus I am not arguing that science should be used to look for God.

Funny, because I said a similar thing -

Science should not be about answering the questions of religion. Science should be about studying reality, and if God exists he is part of that.


And you said "how dare" I claim that.

So apologies if I misunderstood your argument that was attacking me for agreeing with you. :rolleyes:

Húrin wrote: »

It's not about competing with or bettering science. You think that only one method of epistemology can exist. I am arguing that different methods can coexist for different questions.

And I am still waiting for you to put forward a methodology that over comes the limitations that science recognises in human learning and has tried to deal with.

Put forward the methodology, I will put forward the problems humans have with learning and how science attempts to deal with them, and you can explain how your methodology gets around them or over comes them in a different way to science

Húrin wrote: »

You, it seems, are trying to refute this argument by awkwardly stuffing God into the realm of science, an approach that has been discredited for a very long time indeed.

I'm "stuffing" God into the realm of reality because you guys claim you know he exists. Science is a methodology for studying reality, but based on the rules of science that attempt to deal with the short comings of human learning, a concept such as God cannot be modeled or verified to the standard science would require to say accurately that such a concept is an accurate reflection of reality

You apparently are claiming there are other methodologies that can demonstrate that the human model/concept of "God" is, to a high degree, an accurate reflection of reality, ie we know that our idea of God is what is out there in reality.

Science can't do this, because by its own standards the tests required to determine this cannot be carried out on these models. But your methodology can do this because they have some how got around this problem.

As soon as you want to explain how they did that we can debate that. Until then simply claiming there are other ways is some what pointless because I can't tell if these other ways have over come the limitations of human learning or they are simply ignoring them.

Húrin wrote: »

I'm afraid I cannot muster such faith in the omnipotence of science.

No, you seem to be doing just fine with faith in methodologies that have thrown out the standards that science tries to hold itself to.

It is very easy to over come the limits of human learning, to proclaim things that science itself cannot proclaim because if the standards it puts on itself, when you simply ignore these limitations and convince yourself that you don't need standards.

"Maybe we never do" is a surrender to ignorance, and is unacceptable. It is a call for other methods to investigate the questions we have, that science cannot answer.

Húrin wrote: »

My claim that God exists outside the universe isn't a statement of fact. It's my opinion, supported by evidence, but it is not a 'fact'.

I know it isn't a fact. It fails the requirements to be a 'fact' since it cannot be determined independently of your own opinion. You could just be wrong, and since you have not put forward a way to determine to any degree if you are wrong or not, no one else (and really not yourself either if you are in anyway bothered about truth) can determine if it is actually a fact of reality or not.

My concern isn't this, it is that you guys don't seem to care. All of the above doesn't seem to cause you to stop and "Umm, wait a minute, how do I actually know this isn't a mistake?"

You are simply ignoring the problems with this belief as if they don't exist. You clinge to methodologies that, as far as I can't tell, also ignore these problems and then some how justify that this is ok because these methodologies are old, as if being old some how means something is going to be ok.

Science recognises these problems and attempts to compensate for them by requiring that statements as such are tested to a high standard. You seem to think that me agreeing with this makes me some atheist agenda driven hard ball, when in fact it just makes me sensible.

If I'm wrong, if you do have a methodology that gets over or around the problems with human learning that science attempts to work with, then I apologise. But I would also be very interested in hearing about these methodologies and how they get around them.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote: »

Science is then expected to try and study "God", when in fact they should be trying to study why the person has the funny feeling when they walk into the church.

I think this statement is in the right space (and apologies if I'm cutting across the logic of the dialogue - I haven't read back over the thread in Christianity and what I'm saying may already be covered).

What it reminds me of is a statement in David Hume's Enquiry into Human Understanding where he says that it isn't possible to derive from present reality a god any more powerful than whatever was necessary to create this reality. By this he means (I take it) that we could suggest that the Universe was created by a god who was exactly powerful enough to create this reality. But there would be no basis to suggest this god was all-powerful and all-good and had a purpose for each and every one of us.

All that's fair enough, and I think there's nothing in Hume's statement we'd particularly disagree with. However, I feel his next point was interesting and perceptive. He said something to the effect that, of course, this did not mean that someone who believed that there was a god who was all-powerful and all-good and had a purpose for each and every one of us would behave differently to someone who did not.

Hume does not develop the point (I don't have exact references either, as I tend to get my books from the library), but I feel this is the space that enquiry needs to be in. As you've put it, why might a person get a funny feeling when they walk into the church? What role does that feeling fulfill in their life? That, more than discussion about origins of the Universe or the sheer incredibility of the god concept, would I feel explain to us what religion is.

Which, let me stress, I haven't more than a vague idea about.

Zombrex

It is basically Occam's Razor isn't it?

Why worry about or introduce concepts such as an all powerful god that created and rules the universe when what we are actually trying to explain is certain phenomena that happen to humans that they attribute to, or cause to believe in, through religion, an all powerful god that created the universe.

If you can explain these things without needing to introduce gods then there is no reason to introduce a concept like god in the first place.

A similar thing happens with things like ghosts. When ghost watchers go to a "haunted" house they often try to explain things like a gust of wind or a drop in temperature by trying to study "ghosts", instead of the more obvious thing to do which is to study why there was a gust of wind or a sudden drop in temperature, without introducing the concept of ghosts as all.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

Me too, but there seems to be no talking to the mod involved.

And best not to talk about it here either. I haven't read the thread in question, but at any rate it's boards policy that discussions regarding ban decisions are for the feedback forum only.

That this thread developed into something interesting is what saved it from the lock.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote: »

It is basically Occam's Razor isn't it?

I suppose it is. However, I've always had just an element of doubt when citing Occam's Razor given that William of Ockham was a monk and therefore presumably part of the Christian establishment of his day. Indeed, according to the unquestionably reliable Wikipedia* For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else is contingent. In other words, he was sure that God existed. It's the existence of you and me that caused him doubt.

Hume was an atheist, so I'd feel safer taking him as a source.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you can explain these things without needing to introduce gods then there is no reason to introduce a concept like god in the first place.

Absolutely. But it strikes me that this just repeats what I think is our 'opening bid'. Its pretty clear that the factual claims of religion are flimsy. Yet, despite that flimsiness, most folk hold to a religion.

I'm sure in the course of the last two years (I still can't believe that I've been posting here that long) I've mentioned that the fact the Bible says 'the fool says in his heart there is no god' means that there must have been atheists all along. Yet most folk have ignored us.

So I think the point is more, when there is clearly no material need to introduce a god, why do most folk decide to follow a religion? And if our answer is 'Oh, people are stupid and weak and made out of rats and snails and puppy dog tails, except for atheists who are made out of sugar and spice', I think the question is then 'why are most people made out of rats and snails and puppy dog tails?'

The question to be answer is, IMHO, a social one. What is the social need that theism fills, but atheism (mostly) doesn't?


* Yes, I am being ironic, although I do use Wikipedia a lot.

Valmont

Wicknight wrote: »

A Christian (or anyone, I really, this really isn't a theist-athiest thing) who says I know God exists is saying that they have some how, using some method, reliably determined that God exists to the point where they can say they know this to be true.

I don't think the rationale for belief operates in this precise manner, in fact I doubt many theists think like this at all. It is usually a matter of faith or instinct not a result of some pseudo- scientific theory or method.

espinolman

Science has been suppressed into the ground now for over a hundred years , which has completely stiffled progress , i think we should be asking the question Why is science anti-religious? , and what went wrong with science.

Zombrex

Valmont wrote: »

I don't think the rationale for belief operates in this precise manner, in fact I doubt many theists think like this at all. It is usually a matter of faith or instinct not a result of some pseudo- scientific theory or method.

Well I used to think that but was some what harshly given out to on the Christian forum a few times for supposing that faith is not a rational considered set of logical beliefs, so I am some what forced to go with what I'm being told. PDN even went so far as to say faith was a conclusion based on rational assessment of all available evidence.

espinolman

And how come science has become so arbitrary ?

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

And how come science has become so arbitrary ?

Well because it is lorded over by know it all authoritarians.

Calibos

I've said it here before and actually just read a letter in this weeks new scientist where the writer made the same point that........

Most people seem to use Occams Razor in their thought process......except backwards

ie. Whats the simplest explanation for the ghostly figure that disappeared up the road in front of you?

A. Erroneous interpretation by the prefrontal cortex of the brain of shadows cast at oblique angles melding with the shadow casting branches of a bush as the shape of a ghostly figure before the changing sighting angle causes the subconcious to re-interpret the visual stimuli as 'not a ghostly figure' and the illusion collapses in a flash of concious recognition of the shape of a bush.

Or

B. It was a Ghost

B. is patently the simpler answer!

Zillah

espinolman wrote: »

Science has been suppressed into the ground now for over a hundred years , which has completely stiffled progress , i think we should be asking the question Why is science anti-religious? , and what went wrong with science.

espinolman wrote: »

And how come science has become so arbitrary ?

espinolman wrote: »

Well because it is lorded over by know it all authoritarians.

Do you have several accounts and thought you were logged in to the other one? Anyway, science is not arbitrary or authoritarian, you just don't know what you're talking about. And as we all know, once that happens anything is possible.

Also, stop posting forever.

Zillah

lol

Oh, this too. And this. Awesome.

Ok I'm done.

espinolman

Zillah wrote: »

Anyway, science is not arbitrary or authoritarian, you just don't know what you're talking about. And as we all know, once that happens anything is possible.

Science is arbitrary , it is run by materialistic psychopaths that's why it was used to create nuclear weapons , and i do know what i am talking about , why is science so anti-religious and anti-human .

Dades

espinolman: consider this a troll warning.

If you going to spout CT crap without any backup you can do it elsewhere.

espinolman

Dades wrote: »

espinolman: consider this a troll warning.

If you going to spout CT crap without any backup you can do it elsewhere.

Ok if you want this discussion to be one sided then i won't post on here again
I saw this thread and this is a discussion i am interested in and is all i done was asked a few questions , if we cannot even ask questions on these discussions well then i just don't know.
.

Zillah

Dades: If you want to continue discussing the matter please support what you say with evidence or references.
espinolman: FINE! I will submit to your Nazi alien hegemony and never post again! TYRANT!

May be more of a paraphrasing than a quote.

Science is arbitrary , it is run by materialistic psychopaths that's why it was used to create nuclear weapons , and i do know what i am talking about , why is science so anti-religious and anti-human .

Every scientist is a materialistic psychopath...? Even the hippy humanists who spend all their time and effort trying to cure cancer? THE MONSTERS!

Aside from that: Some scientists developed nuclear weapons. Not all of them. The Manhattan project was quite justified as well, the Nazi were working on it too. You're the US President (not a lizard, by the way), and you have a choice: Develop nuclear weapons or wait for the Nazis to do it first. What's your decision smart guy?

And we're not talking about using them, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a different debate altogether.

Science can be viewed as anti-religious because science tries to build accurate models about the world whereas religions invents ridiculous models to explain the world. Cats and dogs. Of course it's debateable as to what degree they clash, obviously there are some religions with which science can get along, but the above is at the heart of any conflict.

As for anti-human? Really don't know where you're coming from with that. All this modern medicine and useful technology sure does seem to make us better off than our medieval counterparts. Have you been watching The Matrix?

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN even went so far as to say faith was a conclusion based on rational assessment of all available evidence.

Again, I haven't read that thread. But is it fair to say that any attempt to arrive at a conclusion requires some assumption. One possible assumption is that past experience is a guide to what happens in the future. For many purposes, that seems a useful assumption. Is it fair to say that none of us expects to see airliners dropping from the skies because we stopped believing something so heavy could fly.

On the theist side, say you start from the assumption that people are meant to be happy. What it then effectively becomes is one of those discussions about whether religious folk are more fulfilled/joyful/whatever than non-religious folk. Or whether folk find religion useful in particular situations.

So there would seem to be a testable concept in there. For the sake of argument, that material about patients actually doing worse when prayed for would be relevant, and any other stuff that reveals something of the psychology of religion.

I just feel the whole 'where does it all come from' kind of argument, while tremendously popular, is a complete red herring. Theists love it because they can invent an unbridgeable incredulity. Atheists love it because we can so easily expose the position as sentimental nonsense. We'll all know the kind of argument. I think this exchange between Dawkins and Bill O'Reilly illustrates that kind of pointless discussion.

But the ultimate point, as I understand it, is theists would say their faiths contain the rules for a complete human life. So if you want to be a successful person, you should join whatever their particular practice is. Now, that would seem to be broadly testable. If we can assume some reasonable commonsense measure of successful, then presumably we can test as to whether religious folk have that feature.

Clearly, a complication in this is cause and effect. Maybe people drop religion when material needs are satisfied, or vice versa. Yet, presumably that can be controlled for. The point would then be are religious poor folk more satified than religious rich folk.

Anyway, all of which is simply to say that the claim for rationality depends on what that rationality relates to. If PDN's contention is that Christianity provides followers with a quality of wellbeing unavailable outside the faith, then presumably that is testable.

espinolman

I think what i am trying to explain here is fairly on topic . The effects beliefs have on the progress of science is what i am trying to explain .For example i know a psychologist who says that psychology is a science , ok now i told him you know there are some people who claim to remember past lives and some people who claim to have paranormal abilities and he said that is a different subject , now the way a see it if psychology was being scientific it would be using exact scientific methodology to determine if these claims are true or not , but no instead some psychologists refuse to investigate based on their beliefs that there is no soul and that basically people are thinking machines .
I am trying to contribut to the discussion here by suggesting that the progress of science has been stifled by beliefs adopted by some scientific people and i am not saying all scientists but some who are not being truly scientific based on beliefs they have adopted.
So can you see the effect beliefs have on the progress of science!
I will try to explain this better , you see someone has a belief therefore based on that belief they think they do not have to do any investigation to find out what is true or untrue , you see they won't apply scientific methodology because they have a belief .

Zombrex

espinolman wrote: »

I think what i am trying to explain here is fairly on topic .

You haven't really been trying to explain anything, you have been making short pointed assertions with no explanation for why you claimed what you did.

espinolman wrote: »

For example i know a psychologist who says that psychology is a science , ok now i told him you know there are some people who claim to remember past lives and some people who claim to have paranormal abilities and he said that is a different subject

He is correct, it is a different subject.

espinolman wrote: »

now the way a see it if psychology was being scientific it would be using exact scientific methodology to determine if these claims are true or not

They have. They have never been demonstrated to be true. A large number have been demonstrated to be frauds.

Schuhart

espinolman wrote: »

So can you see the effect beliefs have on the progress of science!

Indeed, science is a human process. Its naive to say otherwise. It will contain some of the features of any human organisation.

And, more fundamentally, reality is essentially inexplicable without some kind of bias. That might be a bias against accepting the existence of teapots in orbit around the sun. But, nevertheless, some bias is necessary.

The best expression I think I've seen on this kind of thing is Theodosius Dobzhansky's statement that a theory is accepted if "it makes sense of a multitude of facts which are otherwise meaningless or extravagant".

Now, I know it can be contended that belief in ghosts is just as valid as non-belief. But, to be honest, it would seem reasonable to me that someone starts from the assumption that there are no ghosts. Yes, it keys on what we mean by "meaningless or extravagant". But, you'll understand, we can look back now over a path where holy texts once taken to be literal truths have been shown to be factually wrong.

I haven't made this point particularly well, but I think it still emerges. "Its a ghost" is really just another way of saying "I don't know what this is and never will". Yet, we do actually understand things that were previously believed to require divine control - like the movements of the Sun and Moon.

Zillah

espinolman wrote: »

I think what i am trying to explain here is fairly on topic . The effects beliefs have on the progress of science is what i am trying to explain .For example i know a psychologist who says that psychology is a science , ok now i told him you know there are some people who claim to remember past lives and some people who claim to have paranormal abilities and he said that is a different subject , now the way a see it if psychology was being scientific it would be using exact scientific methodology to determine if these claims are true or not , but no instead some psychologists refuse to investigate based on their beliefs that there is no soul and that basically people are thinking machines .
I am trying to contribut to the discussion here by suggesting that the progress of science has been stifled by beliefs adopted by some scientific people and i am not saying all scientists but some who are not being truly scientific based on beliefs they have adopted.
So can you see the effect beliefs have on the progress of science!
I will try to explain this better , you see someone has a belief therefore based on that belief they think they do not have to do any investigation to find out what is true or untrue , you see they won't apply scientific methodology because they have a belief .

I totally understand where you're coming from. I've had a strong interest in the paranormal for years and people who irrationally dismiss fascinating testimony and evidence irritate me greatly. But you have to understand, people have been claiming to have past lives and psychic powers for centuries, and every single time that science has taken them seriously and investigated it turns out they're crazy, faking or confused. It's like the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, the scientific community get's really sick of people constantly making vague claims as to supernatural powers. They don't want to waste important time and money investigating yet another deluded "psychic". If someone really does have telekinesis they can walk into MIT and start floating pens around the room and they'll near instantly have a multi-million dollar research team investigating their powers. But that doesn't happen because it would appear that human beings can't move objects with their mind.

Yes, we should all keep an open mind, there's all sorts of cool undiscovered stuff out there, but we just can't take these people seriously unless they can show us more than vague claims.

As an aside, I think you'll find you'll usually get a much better response if you explain yourself rather than making hit-and-run comments like "Science is anti-human!" without explaining why you think that.

espinolman

Zillah wrote: »

As an aside, I think you'll find you'll usually get a much better response if you explain yourself rather than making hit-and-run comments like "Science is anti-human!" without explaining why you think that.

Well the way i mean science can be anti-human is that i think science can be used to insinuate that the human spirit does not exist , therefore suffering is an illusion , to justify things like genocide and to make it look like it is ok to do that.

Zillah

Wait, wait. Why does there need to be a spirit for suffering to exist? I assume you mean spirit in the eternal soul sense. I have no belief in the soul and I'm fully aware of the awfulness of human suffering.

PDN

I don't think religion is anti-science. Many religious people (and many non-religious people) simply feel that science has its limitations. That should only be construed as being 'anti-science' if you feel that science is somehow omnipotent and limitless.

I think that there are many topics which are real, but which fall outside the area of science. Issues of ethics and morality, IMHO, are real, but they cannot be measured scientifically.

Science cannot answer the question of whether I love my wife more than she loves me, but does that therefore render the question, or indeed the concept of love as unreal or as meaningless? Do we dismiss love, ethics and morality as simply products of electrical impulses in our brains?

To quote a guy who understood science much more than I do: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of physical materials in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of physical materials." (JBS Haldane)

Zombrex

espinolman wrote: »

Well the way i mean science can be anti-human is that i think science can be used to insinuate that the human spirit does not exist

Isn't that the other way around.

If our physical bodies are not all there is, if we have some non-physical "spirit", then physical suffering (damage to our bodies, both mentally and physically) is ultimately just an illusion of over all suffering because the important bit is the spirit which cannot be harmed. Our bodies suffer but that is not really us suffering, just our bodies which are separate from our spirit.

If on the other hand all we have is our physical bodies then all physical damage to them, and thus the suffering that results, is very important because it is damaging the one thing that we have, it is physically damaging us as a whole

espinolman

Zillah wrote: »

Wait, wait. Why does there need to be a spirit for suffering to exist? I assume you mean spirit in the eternal soul sense. I have no belief in the soul and I'm fully aware of the awfulness of human suffering.

Well it depends on your definition of spirit , now spirit to me would be consciousness or awareness , if there is no consciousness/awareness then there cannot be suffering .

Zombrex

espinolman wrote: »

Well it depends on your definition of spirit , now spirit to me would be consciousness or awareness , if there is no consciousness/awareness then there cannot be suffering .

When has a scientific theory ever said there is no consciousness or self awareness?

espinolman

Wicknight wrote: »

When has a scientific theory ever said there is no consciousness or self awareness?

I am not saying it has , but i think science might be used to insinuate there is no consciousness and self awareness as i explained in my earlier post.

Zombrex

espinolman wrote: »

I am not saying it has , but i think science might be used to insinuate there is no consciousness and self awareness as i explained in my earlier post.

But given that there is no supported scientific theory that supposes that then how can science be used to insinuate such a thing?

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

I don't think religion is anti-science.

Ah come on now, some of it is. For example, fundamental Christian Creationism is about the closest to an inversion of scientific principles as one can get.

In a more general sense, most religions are founded upon the concept of divine revelation, which is the exact opposite of the core principle of science; sceptical inquiry.

Sure most religions and science can get along day to day, but philosophically there are quite a few points of contention.

Pure formless Deism and Science can happily ignore each other entirely when they pass in the corridor, but I wouldn't say the same for anything involving prayer, miracles or holy books.

Science cannot answer the question of whether I love my wife more than she loves me, but does that therefore render the question, or indeed the concept of love as unreal or as meaningless? Do we dismiss love, ethics and morality as simply products of electrical impulses in our brains?

Actually it's quite plausible that some day our neuroscience will be sufficiently advanced to chart the exact biochemical basis for such feelings, and their intensity Your point stands but I felt like pointing that out.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Many religious people (and many non-religious people) simply feel that science has its limitations.

Human learning has limitations, science simply recognises that, unlike some other methodologies that rather ignore these limitations.

The limitations of the human mind was the meaning of the Haldane quote. Haldane was not supposing that there must be more to his mind that simply atoms flying around the place, he was pointing out the inherent problem of humans determining the truth, and absolute truth, about existence it this was the case.

To see the limitations of humans simply as the limitations of science, and to suppose that there are other ways that can ignore these limitations, is anti-scientific in that it is basically saying the assumptions of science are wrong, human learning doesn't have the limitations that science supposes it does, and it is possible to learn and know things about the nature of existence without adhering to the problems of the limitations.

PDN wrote: »

Do we dismiss love, ethics and morality as simply products of electrical impulses in our brains?

You are doing what Wolfsbane was doing on the Creationism thread where he said that evolution says humans are just chemical processes.

To class that someone who thinks these are produces of a material brain is "dismiss[ing]" love ethics and morality as "simply" products of electrical impulses in our brains is to make a value judgement that if they are this then they have less value or importance that some other scenario.

You could do that with anything.

Do we dismiss love, ethics and morality as simply the product of an omnipotent god. Or are they something more than that?

Ultimately these sort of comments are some what pointless. Firstly science is not concerned in producing answers that are pleasing to humans, and to construed that scientific answers are some how less worthy than say theological answers simply because they do not appear satisfactory to humans is rather anti-scientific in of itself.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

To quote a guy who understood science much more than I do: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of physical materials in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of physical materials." (JBS Haldane)

Did JBS Haldane ever wake up with thumping hangover, and a creeping sense of horror as he gradually remembered the night before? I'd regard that experience as some kind of evidence that the working of the brain are a product of chemistry.

espinolman

Wicknight wrote: »

But given that there is no supported scientific theory that supposes that then how can science be used to insinuate such a thing?

Well i can insinuate that right now by saying you are a product of electrical impulses in your brain , therefore you don't exist , which implies self-awareness does not exist.

sink

espinolman wrote: »

Well i can insinuate that right now by saying you are a product of electrical impulses in your brain , therefore you don't exist , which implies self-awareness does not exist.

"I think, therefore I am". Your argument does not make much sense.

Zillah

espinolman wrote: »

Well i can insinuate that right now by saying you are a product of electrical impulses in your brain , therefore you don't exist , which implies self-awareness does not exist.

That makes no sense.

Húrin

espinolman wrote: »

Ok if you want this discussion to be one sided then i won't post on here again
.

You're not helping the debate, nor are you representing the 'religious side'. It's not a matter of atheist scientific intolerance - I think you are asking for a ban as well.

espinolman

Zillah wrote: »

That makes no sense.

Exactly , it does'nt make sense , however if that sort of nonsense is being presented as science this would explain why religious people might become anti-scientific .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

, however if that sort of nonsense is being presented as science

It isn't. Except by you.

Zombrex

espinolman wrote: »

Well i can insinuate that right now by saying you are a product of electrical impulses in your brain , therefore you don't exist , which implies self-awareness does not exist.

depends on what you mean by "you"

surely if I am a product of electrical impulses in my brain then the electrical impulses, and in fact my brain that contains them, are real. My brain, through virtue of being able to produce electrical impulses, is self-aware. I am aware of my own existence, which really means I am aware that my brain, which exists, is producing a complex series of electrical impulses that allow me to think about how my brain is producing a series of complex electrical impulses.

To say that because this happens I am not real nor am I self aware seems rather strange as that seems to be the definition of being both real and self aware

Zombrex

espinolman wrote: »

Exactly , it does'nt make sense , however if that sort of nonsense is being presented as science this would explain why religious people might become anti-scientific .

religious people become anti-scientific because they do not like being told that there are limitations with the things they deeply want to believe they know are true and real.