Why does it matter if religion is anti-scientific?

Húrin

Another spin-off from the topic of the week:

It seems that both sides of this debate find the arguments of the other entirely unconvincing. Perhaps they have different understandings of what science is. I do not think that religion is anti-scientific for reasons I have explained in other threads, but I know that atheist polemicists do think this.

So I ask the readers of this forum: does it matter if religion is anti-scientific? If so, why?

Mickeroo

I think it matters because everything from a cup of tea to a super-nova has a scientific explanation.

sink

Not particularly, it's more a personal stance. Religious believers can still be brilliant scientists and what they believe personally doesn't really affect me one way or the other. I'm not anti religious I just can't see how one can both work under the assumptions of the scientific method and at the same stage believe in god. It seems a contradiction that one has to use bent logic to facilitate, something which many seem willing to do. But as I say again, no harm no fowl, believe if you want to believe, but I'll probably never understand.

Húrin

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think it matters because everything from a cup of tea to a super-nova has a scientific explanation.

So you think that all individuals have a moral duty to understand that this fact requires that they become atheists?

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

So you think that all individuals have a moral duty to understand that this fact requires that they become atheists?

Eh? I really don't think it's got anything to do with being an atheist. Religion is not based on science,religion was around thousands of years before modern science so there's no possible way things like the bible or the quran could make sense scientifically. People can be religious and still accept science. When i was a kid i didn't question my religion,but i didn't question science either, because I accepted both to be true. As i got older one stopped making sense and the other didnt change, but thats just me. Science is based on facts,religion based on belief. You can't belive in something you know for a fact is true.

You asked does it matter if religion is anti-scientific, and i think it does just as i think it would matter if the last episode of the simpsons was anti-scientific. What I'm trying to say is i don't think religion is flat out anti-scientific,but if it was then it would matter. Religion only becomes anti-scientific when it's wielded by people who aren't very smart or are tragically small/weak minded like new world creationists.

JimiTime

sink wrote: »

I'm not anti religious I just can't see how one can both work under the assumptions of the scientific method and at the same stage believe in god. It seems a contradiction that one has to use bent logic to facilitate, something which many seem willing to do.

I'm assuming you're agnostic? As obviously your above issue applies to calling oneself atheist also. WN embraces this contradiction (As seen over in the Christianity forum). If you are an atheist, do you accept that your position is also a contradiction using your reasoning?

chozometroid

Are we talking about religion or religious people?

I don't think religion is anti-scientific. It's not as though atheists own science. It's something we all can use.
If someone is religious, they should think that scientists are studying the things God created, and the methods He used to make things work.
The only time religion may seem "anti-scientific" is when you go into the realm of the supernatural, or any other area science is inadequate by it's own defined limitations.
A religious person should accept that science can be used to explain the workings of the observable world, while God always has the ability to play by His own rules, and change things as He wishes. This may be considered anti-scientific because it is beyond the scope of man-made science to explain it.

I was thinking.....how can science recreate an event and test for God? He was there at the time, but He cannot be expected to come back for the experiment. God’s actions/presence cannot be reproduced or tested.
You cannot reproduce a situation where God has acted, and expect to see Him act again. So it's easy then to just find another solution, which does not mean it's the correct one. The evidence can be made to fit whatever models are available.

sink

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm assuming you're agnostic? As obviously your above issue applies to calling oneself atheist also. WN embraces this contradiction (As seen over in the Christianity forum). If you are an atheist, do you accept that your position is also a contradiction using your reasoning?

I'm an atheist insofar as I have never seen anything that convinces me even in the slightest that their is a god, and I work under the assumption there is none. Given that there is no evidence for an interventionist god and the plausibility that feeling gods presence is a product of human cognition I can be extremely certain that such a god does not exist but still to a very very small degree agnostic. However I am ignostic in regards to a deist style god, for without a more precise definition the word 'god' could be applied to a wide variety of possible entities that could exist inside or outside our universe.

I realise that my reasoning relies upon the same human cognition that led to your belief in god and from a completely objective perspective it could too be seen as faulty, but I have to go with my own reasoning for it is not something I am willing to outsource.

Húrin

Guys, thanks for the replies but remember that this thread is not for debating whether religion is inherently anti-science. Nor is it for pointing out that God cannot be disproven by science, which is also the most dull and cliched argument ever.

Perhaps I should make an explanation from the other side. The reason why I feel the need to object to claims that religion/theism is anti-science, is rooted in my great respect for science. I strongly believe that both religion and science can and do work together to improve human civilisation. Thus I am offended by attempts to destroy this relationship, and claims to be speaking for science on the part of those who make such attempts.

pH

chozometroid wrote: »

I was thinking.....how can science recreate an event and test for God? He was there at the time, but He cannot be expected to come back for the experiment. God’s actions/presence cannot be reproduced or tested.
You cannot reproduce a situation where God has acted, and expect to see Him act again. So it's easy then to just find another solution, which does not mean it's the correct one. The evidence can be made to fit whatever models are available.

Exactly, leaving anyone who believes in an interventionist god "doing science" in an untenable position, they've no way of telling if the results of their experiment reflect a natural law or are the result of God's tampering with your experiment.

Unless you're prepared to reject the idea that God intervenes in the natural world, then I'm sorry you can't sincerely do science. This would include a rejection that miracles occur and that prayer works, or that God rewards his worshippers. Once you accept any of these then no matter what experiments you do, no matter how often you repeat them, you can drawn no conclusion other than "That's the way God wanted it to turn out that time"

Here's more thinking on a similar line for those interested

http://www.webindexing.biz/index.php/jons-articles-mainmenu-118/other-mainmenu-88/349-can-a-scientist-be-christian

Húrin

pH wrote: »

Exactly, leaving anyone who believes in an interventionist god "doing science" in an untenable position, they've no way of telling if the results of their experiment reflect a natural law or are the result of God's tampering with your experiment.

This is where repetition of experiments - a standard scientific practice - comes in useful. Inconsistent results can also be caused by purely natural means. That is why you need a large sample to support a theory.

Unless you're prepared to reject the idea that God intervenes in the natural world, then I'm sorry you can't sincerely do science. This would include a rejection that miracles occur and that prayer works, or that God rewards his worshippers. Once you accept any of these then no matter what experiments you do, no matter how often you repeat them, you can drawn no conclusion other than "That's the way God wanted it to turn out that time"

Here's more thinking on a similar line for those interested

http://www.webindexing.biz/index.php/jons-articles-mainmenu-118/other-mainmenu-88/349-can-a-scientist-be-christian

Care to write such sentiments in a letter to any major Christian scientists on the scene these days? I'll pay for the stamps. :pac:

But why does any of this matter? Does it only matter to the theistic scientist who "should" feel torn between her faith and her profession? Or does it matter to all of us?

2Scoops

Húrin wrote: »

So I ask the readers of this forum: does it matter if religion is anti-scientific? If so, why?

As a card-carrying member of reality, I prefer that decisions being made that affect and influence me are based on actual evidence, wherever possible. Simple as that. :pac:

chozometroid

Húrin wrote: »

This is where repetition of experiments - a standard scientific practice - comes in useful. Inconsistent results can also be caused by purely natural means. That is why you need a large sample to support a theory.



Care to write such sentiments in a letter to any major Christian scientists on the scene these days? I'll pay for the stamps. :pac:

But why does any of this matter? Does it only matter to the theistic scientist who "should" feel torn between her faith and her profession? Or does it matter to all of us?

I don't think it matters, because God's intervention appears to usually be on a personal or social level, and compared to the countless number of events, big and small, happening every millisecond, throughout the universe, science can still comfortably assess things. I don't think religion proposes a God who is a constant wrecking ball on the natural world. He can also still intervene on large scale without anyone noticing by affecting the things we consider to be random, but truly are not, to a being with knowledge of all things. Or He can cause someone to be inspired, which can set off a mass chain of cause and effect.

axer

I wouldn't care what religion is or is not as long as it does not affect me. Unfortunately in Ireland religion does affect my life (schools etc).

MrPudding

When something tries to tell people that events happened a certain way, without any evidence and these events fly in the face of all the knowledge humans have worked so hard to develop, and then it also tries to downplay the importance of actual evidence and attempts to make a virtue out of just believing what it says and having faith instead of looking at the actual evidence and thinking critically about what you see, then yes, I think it is anti-science.

MrP

The Mad Hatter

I'm not sure that it matters so much if religion is anti-science, but it is worrying when, as in the cases of creationists and some climate change deniers,* religion is anti-fact.









*Yes, I know not all climate change deniers are religious and vice versa.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm assuming you're agnostic? As obviously your above issue applies to calling oneself atheist also. WN embraces this contradiction (As seen over in the Christianity forum). If you are an atheist, do you accept that your position is also a contradiction using your reasoning?

Is WN me?

If that is the case I've explained a number of times that my atheism is not an assertion that I know gods don't exist, but instead a strong confidence that religious people don't know they do, or to put it another way that the other reasons why they think they would are far more convincing than the idea that they actually do know their particular god is real.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

So I ask the readers of this forum: does it matter if religion is anti-scientific? If so, why?

In the grand scheme of things, no not particularly. The scientific method has developed quite a few safe guards to stop personal opinion of the individual scientists from biasing their results. It would be hard for a religious scientist to hold back science even if they wanted to, which I imagine most don't

It really only matters to the person themselves.

pH

Húrin wrote: »

This is where repetition of experiments - a standard scientific practice - comes in useful. Inconsistent results can also be caused by purely natural means. That is why you need a large sample to support a theory.

It doesn't matter, there's no sample size large enough. Look, you guys believe that god intervenes, that you can pray for and receive things. So there's a religious scientist doing an experiment, and her husband is praying that the experiment is a success and that her hard work will be vindicated. Are you saying that god has a special rule never to answer these types of prayers?

Care to write such sentiments in a letter to any major Christian scientists on the scene these days? I'll pay for the stamps. :pac:

Perhaps you have William Reville, one of Ireland's most esteemed scientists in mind?

Simon.d

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm assuming you're agnostic? As obviously your above issue applies to calling oneself atheist also. WN embraces this contradiction (As seen over in the Christianity forum). If you are an atheist, do you accept that your position is also a contradiction using your reasoning?

I think there is a bit of confusion here with regard to the definition of the term Atheism.. You seem to be taking it to mean "The belief that God does not exist", which is a widely accepted definition of the word...

However many others take the term to mean "An absence of belief in the existence of a God", i.e "A disbelief in the existence of a God", which is in essence an agnostic position.. It all depends on the dictionary you look at!

I think most atheists would consider themselves within the latter (agnostic atheist) position, however I agree that those atheists who actively believe God doesn't exist, hold a similarly unfounded belief like theists..

Zombrex

Simon.d wrote: »

I think there is a bit of confusion here with regard to the definition of the term Atheism.. You seem to be taking it to mean "The belief that God does not exist", which is a widely accepted definition of the word...

However many others take the term to mean "An absence of belief in the existence of a God", i.e "A disbelief in the existence of a God", which is in essence an agnostic position.. It all depends on the dictionary you look at!

I think most atheists would consider themselves within the latter (agnostic atheist) position, however I agree that those atheists who actively believe God doesn't exist, hold a similarly unfounded belief like theists..

As someone once said on the Christianity forum I think, It isn't that I believe I'm right, it is that I believe you [the Christian] are wrong

AtomicHorror

It matters because it fuels a growing culture of accepting information without the need for evidence. Religions don't just make acceptance of information without evidence acceptable. They make it a virtue. Blessed are those who believe without seeing. If it's okay for social authorities like preachers, teachers and priests, it's also okay for the people to whom they are authorities. If it's okay for them, it's okay for some of their friends, and so on. It inevitably spreads, because not asking "why" is far easier than trying to understand it all.

That habit spreads far beyond religion, though it is often still rooted to some vague spirituality. We sadly live in a world in which that sort of acceptance of information, by faith or by authority, does demonstrable harm.

Science education syllabi modified by fundamentalists with no basis in evidence. (Example: creationism in US life science syllabus)

An entire alternative medical industry with no basis in evidence. (Example: homeopathy)

Health scares with no basis in evidence. (Example: MMR/autism scare)

And most worrying is that last example. Falling vaccination rates mean that the pregnant or the immunocompomised, who have done no wrong, are at risk due to someone else's faith in authority. Where the harm done impacts on those who may still value evidence.

uncleoswald

It doesn't really matter to me that religion isn't scientific, beyond the fact that it precludes me from been religious.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It matters because it fuels a growing culture of accepting information without the need for evidence. Religions don't just make acceptance of information without evidence acceptable. They make it a virtue. Blessed are those who believe without seeing. If it's okay for social authorities like preachers, teachers and priests, it's also okay for the people to whom they are authorities. If it's okay for them, it's okay for some of their friends, and so on. It inevitably spreads, because not asking "why" is far easier than trying to understand it all.

That habit spreads far beyond religion, though it is often still rooted to some vague spirituality. We sadly live in a world in which that sort of acceptance of information, by faith or by authority, does demonstrable harm.

Science education syllabi modified by fundamentalists with no basis in evidence. (Example: creationism in US life science syllabus)

An entire alternative medical industry with no basis in evidence. (Example: homeopathy)

Health scares with no basis in evidence. (Example: MMR/autism scare)

And most worrying is that last example. Falling vaccination rates mean that the pregnant or the immunocompomised, who have done no wrong, are at risk due to someone else's faith in authority. Where the harm done impacts on those who may still value evidence.

Good post

This idea that because science isn't telling us what we want to hear it is ok to basically ignore it is becoming some what prevalent in society these days (science is "limited", so that makes it ok seemingly)

In terms of religion this can be relatively harmless, but the general attitude creates an societal acceptance that you don't need to demonstrate something as true, so long as you believe it is that is ok. So you get the (thankfully) limited cases of religious people doing really stupid things like letting their children die because they don't believe in modern medicine.

The argument that people are not claiming these things as scientific in the first place is greatly missing the point. Many of the Christians argued that because "I know God exists" is not a scientific statement they are not being anti-scientific by holding it.

Replace that with a statement about homoeopathy or herbal medicine to see how it doesn't matter whether the statement is supposed to be scientific or not.

Same one can say that they know these rocks channel the evil spirits out of your bones, thus curing your cancer, is not a scientific statement either. It is doubtful that such a thing could be tested scientifically at all (define "evil spirits" for a start).

But would anyone here say that someone holding that view is not being anti-scientific? Would anyone here think it is good that they believe that, they have obviously found a way to over come the limitations of scientific learning to reach a better level of understanding about the world?

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

As someone once said on the Christianity forum I think, It isn't that I believe I'm right, it is that I believe you [the Christian] are wrong

Kudos to whoever they may - I like that.

Ickle Magoo

Húrin wrote: »

Another spin-off from the topic of the week:

It seems that both sides of this debate find the arguments of the other entirely unconvincing. Perhaps they have different understandings of what science is. I do not think that religion is anti-scientific for reasons I have explained in other threads, but I know that atheist polemicists do think this.

So I ask the readers of this forum: does it matter if religion is anti-scientific? If so, why?

Yes & no.

It matters to me personally & is at the very crux of why I am an atheist. I think religion is by it's very nature anti-science. I wouldn't like to live in a world where by science was abandoned for claims of God's work & no sound scientific reasoning or logic was used to explain - or try to explain - important events or structures or whatever. In such a world, progression & development would more than likely be stunted in certain areas by the prohibition and refusal to accept any explanation bar that which is provided in religious scripture.

No - because it doesn't matter how anti-science some religious people are or religion in general, for that matter, as religion no longer has the power to stand in the way of scientific developments and as a mainly democratic world, we are free to reject religious claims. Any issues within scientific advancements are now dealt with by existing law or a court decision looking at the interests of mankind without any kind of self serving agenda restricted by personal belief.

So, I don't think it matters how, or if, religion is anti-science as long as the religious polemics aren't allowed to effect control over scientific aims, supposition or results.

ChocolateSauce

Assuming it is, it matters because science, and not religion, has been the major improver of human existence over the last 4000 years, and anything which inhibits the march of science (as religion has always done, and does so to this day) is inhibiting the progress of humanity.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

As someone once said on the Christianity forum I think, It isn't that I believe I'm right, it is that I believe you [the Christian] are wrong

So more anti-Christian than actually atheist?

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

So more anti-Christian than actually atheist?

I think the [The Christian] bit was just put there by wicknight so we'd know which person was talking to which.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

So more anti-Christian than actually atheist?

I don't see how believing someone is wrong makes you "anti" in that manner.

If someone said the Christian belief system is wrong, you might have a point, but to say you believe Christians are wrong - i.e. Yahweh doesn't exist - is only a statement of (non)belief.

Húrin

Thanks Atomic Horrow, that's the kind of post I was hoping to read.

@ Ickle Magoo, it seems that your observation is more a case of fundamentalist theocracy clashing with science than religion in general doing so.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Assuming it is, it matters because science, and not religion, has been the major improver of human existence over the last 4000 years, and anything which inhibits the march of science (as religion has always done, and does so to this day) is inhibiting the progress of humanity.

Wow, you haven't a clue about history have you! I suppose if you assume that exceptions (Galileo) are actually the rule this might make sense. Feel free to comment. How can you think that humanity has a goal to which we are "progressing" if there is no purpose to the world?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So more anti-Christian than actually atheist?

Not "more" than, that is what a-theist means, a rejection of your beliefs about God.

I imagine you are making a connection between anti-science and anti-Christian, and yes I would agree.

Religious people are anti-science in the same way that atheists are anti-Christian, they reject the principles that each put forward.

I reject the idea that you know your concept of God is real and exists. I reject the idea that you can determine this in any meaningful fashion. You don't know, but you believe you do. And I think you are wrong.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Not "more" than, that is what a-theist means, a rejection of your beliefs about God.

Ah, so an atheist is someone who rejects PDN's beliefs about God? I will add that to my ever-increasing dictionary of the Wicknightian language.

I imagine you are making a connection between anti-science and anti-Christian, and yes I would agree.

You imagine wrong.

Religious people are anti-science in the same way that atheists are anti-Christian, they reject the principles that each put forward.

I find that to be quite a remarkable statement. You think that religious people in general reject the principles of science?

axer

PDN wrote: »

You think that religious people in general reject the principles of science?

Exactly, thats what confuses me about religious people.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Ah, so an atheist is someone who rejects PDN's beliefs about God?

Well yes, what did you think an atheist was?

PDN wrote: »

You imagine wrong.

Ok, you were just shooting the breeze then. Anywhoo, the point still stands.

PDN wrote: »

I find that to be quite a remarkable statement. You think that religious people in general reject the principles of science?

Those that are aware of the principles of science. Those that aren't simply aren't aware of them.

Can you think of one reason you believe God exists that doesn't go against the principles of science?

Ickle Magoo

Húrin wrote: »

@ Ickle Magoo, it seems that your observation is more a case of fundamentalist theocracy clashing with science than religion in general doing so.

Not really, whole religions are built up around & entirely based on, their God & religious followers & the deeds of said God & followers. Religious script has gone from fact; to sacrosanct; to parable; to meaningful but not literally nor historically accurate. The goalposts keep changing as religion strives to defend itself from scientific advancement - that tells me that religion clashes with science - and not just the fundamentalists.

chozometroid

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Religious script has gone from fact; to sacrosanct; to parable; to meaningful but not literally nor historically accurate.

Sorry to go on a tanget, but can you give an example of this?

Ickle Magoo

You can't think of any religious story once considered fact whose validity is now in question?

Most of the "miracles" could be included in that group. Creationism, floods, intelligent design, even Jesus's resurrection - one of the most defining moments in the Christian Holy Book is now debated - even among the Christian population. Something that once would have been seen as heretic.

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

When something tries to tell people that events happened a certain way, without any evidence and these events fly in the face of all the knowledge humans have worked so hard to develop, and then it also tries to downplay the importance of actual evidence and attempts to make a virtue out of just believing what it says and having faith instead of looking at the actual evidence and thinking critically about what you see, then yes, I think it is anti-science.

MrP

Oh I see and when I came back there were stem cells growing in my Petri Dish -explain that ?:D

CDfm

Science should be value neutral at least at it hypoteses stage.

Not all scientists are

chozometroid

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You can't think of any religious story once considered fact whose validity is now in question?

Most of the "miracles" could be included in that group. Creationism, floods, intelligent design, even Jesus's resurrection - one of the most defining moments in the Christian Holy Book is now debated - even among the Christian population. Something that once would have been seen as heretic.

I can see creationism, floods, and ID being rejected by atheists. The debates in those areas won't end.
But.....Jesus' resurrection being debated among Christians? They must not be Christians --maybe religious, but not Christians.
As far as it being debated by the general population....of course, it always has been.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You can't think of any religious story once considered fact whose validity is now in question?

Most of the "miracles" could be included in that group. Creationism, floods, intelligent design, even Jesus's resurrection - one of the most defining moments in the Christian Holy Book is now debated - even among the Christian population. Something that once would have been seen as heretic.

Ickle - I am realy truly amazed at the level of debate about issues cited by atheists and that is not a bad thing.

On the ressurection can you cite a source or post a link.

I dont doubt you - what you say sounds on the level. In the 15 yo atheist thread the OP cited examples on faith matters which certainly were a surprise to me as a catholic and which seemed to fly against church teaching somewhat.But that what he wasa being told.

PDN

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

even Jesus's resurrection - one of the most defining moments in the Christian Holy Book is now debated - even among the Christian population. Something that once would have been seen as heretic.

By 'Christian population' you must be using that term in an incredibly vague cultural sense. Among Christians (those who have a commitment to following Christ) denial of the resurrection would most certainly be seen as heresy and totally incompatible with Christianity.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, what did you think an atheist was?

noun:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Those that are aware of the principles of science. Those that aren't simply aren't aware of them.

Can you think of one reason you believe God exists that doesn't go against the principles of science?

I believe God exists because I have experienced his work in my life, because I experience him answering my prayers, because I see the positive difference he makes in other peoples' lives, and because I read a revelation of Him in the Bible (a book that makes more sense in terms of morality, ethics, and an explanation of why the world is how it is than any other book I've ever read.)

Now, as I see it this discussion can go one of two ways.
a) You can start picking at the above reasons and disagreeing with my interpretation of what I've experienced. If so, fire away, I won't bother replying because I'm pretty sick of such off-topic diversionary tactics.
b) We can keep on topic by discussing whether the above reasons are non-scientific (ie lie outside the area of science) or are anti-scientific (go against the principles of science).

I would contend that my reasons for believing in God are non-scientific. They do not contradict any scientific principle. They are non-scientific in the same way as a discussion as to whether lying is always wrong is non-scientific, or it is non-scientific to wonder whether your girlfriend really loves you. Such questions are not anti-scientific.

I really don't see what the problem is here. You can be religious and be a devoted scientist just as you can be a devoted scientist yet believe in falling in love, or to have a belief that some things are inherently morally wrong. The idea that science is some overarching all-consuming monster that must fight anything that it can't control is one that I find both amusing and frightening. It causes seemingly otherwise rational people to become paranoid and to attack anything that is non-scientific as being antii-scientific. From that it is a short step until the same fundamentalist bigots start decreeing that what they deem to be 'anti-scientific' is therefore hindering humanity and must be eradicated.

Then Hurin's sig quote from Sam Harris becomes rather ominous.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

Wow, you haven't a clue about history have you! I suppose if you assume that exceptions (Galileo) are actually the rule this might make sense. Feel free to comment. How can you think that humanity has a goal to which we are "progressing" if there is no purpose to the world?

Since you want to be nit picky, I'll spell it out clearer still. Religion has always done it, but doesn't do it always. A bit subtle, I know, sorry; I know not everyone gets subtle. If you think Galileo is the exception and not the norm, perhaps it is you who hasn't got a clue about history?

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Since you want to be nit picky, I'll spell it out clearer still. Religion has always done it, but doesn't do it always. A bit subtle, I know, sorry; I know not everyone gets subtle. If you think Galileo is the exception and not the norm, perhaps it is you who hasn't got a clue about history?

I'm starting to wonder if anyone has a clue about history.

Galileo was a devout Catholic believer in Christ who, because of his belief that God created a rational and orderly universe, carried out experiments and greatly advanced the cause of human knowledge.

Of course Gallileo did not come to his conclusions unaided. He built upon the theories of Copernicus - a clergyman. Copernicus' theories had been able to be published in Holland due to the Protestant Reformation allowing more freedom of thought there.

Galileo faced opposition from the Catholic Church because they did not like his theories, not on biblical or religious grounds, but because they contradicted the prevailing scientific orthodoxy of the day which was the teaching of Aristotle. (Remember him? He is one of the Greeks who are trumpeted by atheists as proving that the scientific method didn't develop as a result of Christianity). Indeed, according to the majority of scientists in Galileo's day, he would have been seen as unscientific, or even anti-scientific, because he was refusing to accept scientific orthodoxy.

Of course we might rightly question why the Catholic Church was acting as an enforcer in matters scientific. That was because the Church, for centuries, had been virtually the only people who were bothered about science at all or interested in the advancement of knowledge. So, more by default than anything else, they had come to be seen as the Royal Society & the Nobel Prize Committee of their day.

History is usually fairly complex, with peoples' actions deriving from a multitude of motives. Unfortunately there are those who rewrite history for ideological reasons. Therefore Galileo is often reinvented as a lone free-thinker battling against the nasty religious people. One of my favourite memories here on boards.ie is of the time an atheist seriously tried to argue, "If Galileo was alive today he would be an atheist ..." :pac:

BTW, while we're talking about about Copernicus, Galileo and historical ignorance, there is now a wonderful urban legend going the rounds that Copernicus was killed for believing that the earth orbited the sun. There is a website called echeat.com where people who are too stupid or too lazy to read books can cheat on their essays. I wonder how many have failed exams because, in their dishonesty, they were gullible enough to swallow the 'fact' that Copernicus gave his life for his beliefs? http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=57 I think there must be some echeats in Ireland, because I've seen the same urban legend repeated on this board before now.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

noun:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

And you don't believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings?

PDN wrote: »

I believe God exists because I have experienced his work in my life, because I experience him answering my prayers, because I see the positive difference he makes in other peoples' lives, and because I read a revelation of Him in the Bible (a book that makes more sense in terms of morality, ethics, and an explanation of why the world is how it is than any other book I've ever read.)

Can you demonstrate any of that in a fashion that is verifiable independently from your own subjective assessment or opinion on the matter?

I imagine you will say you can't but that this is why it is non-scientific, something you never claimed otherwise. You are not claiming it is science to start with, which is true, you aren't.

Now here is the kicker. Does that matter?

Does it matter that you cannot verify, to scientific standards, any of what you are asserting/believing is real? Do you think it is important, is it necessary to do this?

Do you need to do any of this science stuff in order to accurately assess something is real to the point where you can say you know it is?

gaynorvader

PDN wrote: »

I'm starting to wonder if anyone has a clue about history.

Galileo was a devout Catholic believer in Christ who, because of his belief that God created a rational and orderly universe, carried out experiments and greatly advanced the cause of human knowledge.

Of course Gallileo did not come to his conclusions unaided. He built upon the theories of Copernicus - a clergyman. Copernicus' theories had been able to be published in Holland due to the Protestant Reformation allowing more freedom of thought there.

Galileo faced opposition from the Catholic Church because they did not like his theories, not on biblical or religious grounds, but because they contradicted the prevailing scientific orthodoxy of the day which was the teaching of Aristotle. (Remember him? He is one of the Greeks who are trumpeted by atheists as proving that the scientific method didn't develop as a result of Christianity). Indeed, according to the majority of scientists in Galileo's day, he would have been seen as unscientific, or even anti-scientific, because he was refusing to accept scientific orthodoxy.

Of course we might rightly question why the Catholic Church was acting as an enforcer in matters scientific. That was because the Church, for centuries, had been virtually the only people who were bothered about science at all or interested in the advancement of knowledge. So, more by default than anything else, they had come to be seen as the Royal Society & the Nobel Prize Committee of their day.

History is usually fairly complex, with peoples' actions deriving from a multitude of motives. Unfortunately there are those who rewrite history for ideological reasons. Therefore Galileo is often reinvented as a lone free-thinker battling against the nasty religious people. One of my favourite memories here on boards.ie is of the time an atheist seriously tried to argue, "If Galileo was alive today he would be an atheist ..." :pac:

BTW, while we're talking about about Copernicus, Galileo and historical ignorance, there is now a wonderful urban legend going the rounds that Copernicus was killed for believing that the earth orbited the sun. There is a website called echeat.com where people who are too stupid or too lazy to read books can cheat on their essays. I wonder how many have failed exams because, in their dishonesty, they were gullible enough to swallow the 'fact' that Copernicus gave his life for his beliefs? http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=57 I think there must be some echeats in Ireland, because I've seen the same urban legend repeated on this board before now.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter the beliefs the scientists at the time held, the fact that religious bodies held them back from expanding on their findings is what implies religion was at least anti-scientific. This does not mean a religious person cannot be scientific, but it can mean that religious beliefs interfere with some scientific processes/thoughts/whatever. This is not confined to relion, however. Scientists can be just as bad. For instance if any scientist accepts any law as being absolute, which many do, that could interfere with furthur/later scientific study. Imagine a scientist believes "e=mc^2, and therefore we can never go past the speed of light QED", and then someone comes along with a theory that the speed of light is not fixed, and can be changed using tachyons or something. The scientist believing in e=mc^2 will probably dismiss this new theory out of hand, this is just human nature, we seek to cling to something solid and tangable, atheists, agnostics and theists alike. I personally like to hold to the idea that science will advance to the point that we can solve all our problems by ourselves. Others choose God, it makes no odds.

On the subject of whether or not it matters that religion is anti-scientific or unscientific I would say it depends. Right now, we are teaching our children that religion is right, without offering any reason, this will encourage a child to just accept things out of hand and in my opinion that is wrong. Children should be encouraged to question everything, that is how they learn, and if they decide that Christianity is the best code to live by, fair dues. It is, after all, a personal choice.

Ickle Magoo

chozometroid wrote: »

I can see creationism, floods, and ID being rejected by atheists. The debates in those areas won't end.
But.....Jesus' resurrection being debated among Christians? They must not be Christians --maybe religious, but not Christians.
As far as it being debated by the general population....of course, it always has been.

Why not Christians? There are plenty of bona fide Christians who are not creationists, who don't believe in a whole raft of other biblical references being literal - is it so different for the resurrection to be seen as a powerful message or story rather than fact?

CDfm wrote: »

Ickle - I am realy truly amazed at the level of debate about issues cited by atheists and that is not a bad thing.

On the ressurection can you cite a source or post a link.

I dont doubt you - what you say sounds on the level. In the 15 yo atheist thread the OP cited examples on faith matters which certainly were a surprise to me as a catholic and which seemed to fly against church teaching somewhat.But that what he wasa being told.

Sure, CDfm.

As well as coming across references to doubt re literal translation in numerous religious sites, I have had regular discussions with Christians I know who have all but completely dismissed most of the Biblical transpiration of events as parables or fables rather than fact. I think the phrase I've heard used was "canteen Christians" - picking & choosing a portion of what they believed in a literal sense rather than the whole - but they still very much consider themselves Christian.

Here's what a quick google brought up re Christians doubting the validity of the resurrection:

http://www.pcusa.org/today/department/bibleexplorations/past/2007/bible-0407.htm

Matthew 28:16–20 Even Christ’s presence will never eliminate our struggles of faith. Both worship and doubt are part of Easter. ‘But some doubted’

Easter’s claims about the resurrection of Jesus are some of the most contested in history. Even some Christians find the resurrection of Jesus the most challenging of Bible miracles to believe. Skepticism about the resurrection on the part of non-Christians is to be expected. But for Christians to doubt whether Jesus really rose from the dead is awkward, embarrassing, unthinkable.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1302

[SIZE=+0]One church member might affirm the objectivity of the presence of the risen Christ as the first fruits of a new creation and still be entirely agnostic over the question of what occurred in the tomb. What was buried was flesh and blood; what confronted the apostles in the resurrection appearances was a new humanity. Who can know -- and who cares -- what happened to the atoms of Jesus’ body?[/SIZE]

http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/2004-04-11-Going-All-In-The-Third-Day-He-Rose-from-the-Dead/

Even some professing Christians say it doesn’t matter. One man put this way: “Without a doubt, Jesus was raised from the dead. It does not matter at all to me if He was ‘physically’ raised from the dead.”

JimiTime

gaynorvader wrote:

Right now, we are teaching our children that religion is right, without offering any reason.

Not sure if I like the word 'religion' there. Anyway, a good Christian parent I'm certainly does offer reasons. I know I was offered reasons.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Not sure if I like the word 'religion' there. Anyway, a good Christian parent I'm certainly does offer reasons. I know I was offered reasons.

Where as I prefer to teach my children that being a decent human being is right.

MrP