Science Versus Religion! The Contest that isn't really there.

The Mad Hatter · 28-02-2009 08:52PM

Morbert wrote: »

wut?

I agree that science and religion are not in conflict. But I will also say that science is the only real reason that atheism is a valid and respectable belief. Without evolution, it would be very hard to be an atheist. Maybe that's why creationists hate it so much.

I was an atheist long before I understood the theory of evolution...

espinolman · 28-02-2009 09:44PM

Morbert wrote: »

wut?

I agree that science and religion are not in conflict. But I will also say that science is the only real reason that atheism is a valid and respectable belief. Without evolution, it would be very hard to be an atheist. Maybe that's why creationists hate it so much.

Well i think god could evolve species over thousands and millions of years.
I used to not believe in religion but after i looked into theoretical nuclear physics and quantum mechanics my worldview changed.

Morbert · 28-02-2009 10:14PM

espinolman wrote: »

Well i think god could evolve species over thousands and millions of years.
I used to not believe in religion but after i looked into theoretical nuclear physics and quantum mechanics my worldview changed.

Why?

espinolman · 28-02-2009 10:59PM

Morbert wrote: »

Why?

Well it's hard to explain but all the matter in the universe could fit onto the head of a pin ,there is no such thing as the physical universe , i mean someone thought this universe up.

The Mad Hatter · 28-02-2009 11:04PM

espinolman wrote: »

Well it's hard to explain but all the matter in the universe could fit onto the head of a pin ,there is no such thing as the physical universe , i mean someone thought this universe up.

Morbert · 28-02-2009 11:06PM

espinolman wrote: »

Well it's hard to explain but all the matter in the universe could fit onto the head of a pin

I presume you're talking about the early history of the universe. My area of research is physics (specifically quantum mechanics) so I'll probably be able to understand your argument if you present it.

espinolman · 28-02-2009 11:25PM

Morbert wrote: »

I presume you're talking about the early history of the universe. My area of research is physics (specifically quantum mechanics) so I'll probably be able to understand your argument if you present it.

Well you know with the nuclear accelerators the way they found the results of the experiments were dependant on the attitude of the observer ,the observer determines the result of the experiment , well that would indicate the universe might be a product of thought. By the way my intention in posting here is not to present an argument .

Zombrex · 01-03-2009 01:29AM

Húrin wrote: »

It certainly does, in that it insists that people must be free to choose to believe or not.

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.

Zombrex · 01-03-2009 01:32AM

espinolman wrote: »

Well you know with the nuclear accelerators the way they found the results of the experiments were dependant on the attitude of the observer ,the observer determines the result of the experiment , well that would indicate the universe might be a product of thought. By the way my intention in posting here is not to present an argument .

think you might be getting that wrong. it is not the attitude of the observer (the scientist) that determines anything. It is the type of observation

so for example if your observation is attempting to determine the position of a particle it is impossible to know the velocity of it. And vice versa

it has been demonstrated experimentally that until a particle is observed the properties of the particle are in a state of quantum flux. It isn't that they are set to something and we just don't know what it is, but they are are not set to anything with 100 percent. The nature of the observation sets these properties to something.

Zombrex · 01-03-2009 10:06AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats the the crux of it. Some who want to live by the philosophy of science, seem to want to hog science to themselves.

What a bizarre statement

JimiTime wrote: »

They seem to want to make up a rule that unless you 'live' by the scientific method in all thinking, you are 'anti' science. That is such a fallacy. I have no issue with someone wishing to live by this philosophy, but to then say that everyone else is anti-science, just gets annoying really.

I don't think they did say everything else is anti-science. Religion is though, at least most religion

JimiTime wrote: »

And if you live by the philosophy of science and have not witnessed the spiritual first hand, it will be easily dismissed.

Actually the idea it is "spiritual" should be dismissed either way, since science instructs that human observation is inherently untrustworthy.

You think you have experienced or witnessed the spiritual. You could be wrong.

With no way to verify this externally to your own assessment your assessment, with no way to determine how wrong or right you might be, it becomes rather pointless.

Modern society works for the precise reason that we do not do that for the vast majority of things. We do not take individual personal assessment of how electromagnetism works, or how the combustive engine functions.

We don't do this because people can, and often are, wrong. If 5 people witness electrify and 5 of them come up with 5 explanations of what is happening, we are no closer to understanding what is actually happening.

Yet for some reason people expect us to do this with religion and the spiritual.

If you cannot demonstrate why you are right and a Hindu is wrong when it comes to spiritual matters, then it is as pointless as 5 people coming with 5 ideas about the electricity.

JimiTime wrote: »

I asked over on the atheist forum a long time ago about if God was revealed would you worship him, and not one said yes IIRC. There was alot of 'He'd have alot to answer for', and 'well no, he's still a vindictive yadda yadda'. That thought me a valuable lesson. Its not just belief thats the issue.

Wouldn't that demonstrate that the reason atheists do not accept that your god is real is not really about being afraid to face the fact they would have to submit to him if he was real?

Whether or not you worship God really has little to do with the question of if he exists. One is an ethical issue the other a scientific one.

The Christian assumption that you would just have to worship him wouldn't you demonstrates more the mindset of Christians TBH than anything about the nature of God.

Zombrex · 01-03-2009 10:16AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Bravo, a good post JimiTime.

Questions of God are questions of metaphysics, questions which are abstract and cannot be observed through the lens of science. Some people don't want to consider this an option though.

We can only observe what is in the natural world through science, nobody has ever proposed that God is a natural being in any shape or form but rather supernatural.

If God is real he is a property of existence, in the same way a quark is or a mountain

The argument that God is for metaphysics rather than physics is simply a diversion from the fact that physics hasn't found your god yet.

You can certainly debate the existence of god in philosophical circles but that doesn't mean God is not a question for science, or that determining philosophically that God should exist means particularly much without scientific confirmation. You could just be wrong

espinolman · 01-03-2009 12:23PM

Wicknight wrote: »

think you might be getting that wrong. it is not the attitude of the observer (the scientist) that determines anything. It is the type of observation

Well the way i have it figuered is the physical universe cannot exist independantly of the observer therefore there must be an actual god.

Zombrex · 01-03-2009 04:38PM

espinolman wrote: »

Well the way i have it figuered is the physical universe cannot exist independantly of the observer therefore there must be an actual god.

it does exist independently of the observer, it just doesn't exist in one spot at the same time.

Say an electron is floating in space. At any particular point in space there is an odds that it will be there. The majority of the odds will be locations close to where it should be, but there is also odds that it exists on the other side of the universe.

When the electron is actually observed (interacts with something) what is known as the wave function collapses, and you "find" the electron in one specific place.

The important point is that it isn't that it was always there, we just hadn't found it yet. It actually existed in this quasi real state of existing in all space with varying degrees of likelihood.

so if one considers God an observer this is actually an argument against his existence, since the electron exists in this fuzzy quantum state until we observe it.

Morbert · 01-03-2009 10:20PM

espinolman wrote: »

Well the way i have it figuered is the physical universe cannot exist independently of the observer therefore there must be an actual god.

There is nothing in quantum mechanics which says the universe cannot exist independantly of an observer. Observation is not an act of bringing something into existence. Observation is instead an act of 'state reduction' where the quantum wavefunction of a system - the function describing the probabilities of observables - changes from a superposition of states to a single state.

It is a strange process, but an obersver does not have to be a thinking entity, and it does not ever create existence.

Morbert · 01-03-2009 10:23PM

Wicknight wrote: »

You can certainly debate the existence of god in philosophical circles but that doesn't mean God is not a question for science

But how can God be a question for science? I would agree that any answers to the question of God, because they are not scientific, are often unsatisfying, but I don't see how an answer could ever be tested by the scientific method.

Zombrex · 01-03-2009 10:47PM

Morbert wrote: »

But how can God be a question for science? I would agree that any answers to the question of God, because they are not scientific, are often unsatisfying, but I don't see how an answer could ever be tested by the scientific method.

but that is some what independent to the issue.

If God exists he exists. Anything that exists is within the realms of science, as in this is what science is to be used for. .

If we can't test or model God then that is that.

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.

You don't set out with science to find something we have already assumed exists. You set out to explain phenomena. So you look at what people mean when they say "God". Nice feelings people have when they walk in a church. Feelings of things making sense when put in a religious frame work

All the things humans say is the interaction of God on them or the universe, you set out to explain those and you take it as far as you can.

And you recognise when you have gone as far as you can go.

But this is unsatisfactory for people who really want an answer, irrespective of how good that answer is. So you get claims that we can still discover God we just can't use science to do it, we must use something else. which is all a bit silly.

Morbert · 02-03-2009 01:29AM

Wicknight wrote: »

but that is some what independent to the issue.

If God exists he exists. Anything that exists is within the realms of science, as in this is what science is to be used for. .

If we can't test or model God then that is that.

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.

Scientists employ a very stric methodology, and existence is not a sufficient criterion when deciding whether or not something can be addressed with the scientific method. Reputable experimentation of predictions is an essential step. The question of God cannot be formulated scientifically, so it cannot be said to lie within the realm of science.

It doesn't necessarily mean theology or philosophy are sufficient either, it just means God, as described by the major religions, is not a scientific concept.

As for being sensible by saying we don't know; I agree. In fact, I would also say it is quite reasonable to assume God doesn't exist. But it is not a scientific conclusion.

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.

You don't set out with science to find something we have already assumed exists. You set out to explain phenomena. So you look at what people mean when they say "God". Nice feelings people have when they walk in a church. Feelings of things making sense when put in a religious frame work

All the things humans say is the interaction of God on them or the universe, you set out to explain those and you take it as far as you can.

And you recognise when you have gone as far as you can go.

But this is unsatisfactory for people who really want an answer, irrespective of how good that answer is. So you get claims that we can still discover God we just can't use science to do it, we must use something else. which is all a bit silly.

Well science can be used to study the origin and development of religion, but that doesn't mean it can be used to shed light on the question of God.

A Primal Nut · 02-03-2009 01:40AM

I don't know if you can totally discredit the idea of some God or spirituality existing but its clear there is a clash between mainstream organised religions and science in at least one aspect.

In Religions, humans are somehow special, the only ones to get into heaven and made in the image of God.

In Science, and Biology in particular, humans are simply another life form, the most intelligent to ever exist on the earth, but so were chimpanzees before we came around. Its possible there are more intelligent lifeforms on other planets or in the future in this planet. The fact we are here isn't exactly an accident, but rather because we are so good at surviving, but its not true that there aren't better survival machines possible or that we had to exist. In order for Christianity to be true, we have to exist.

Fanny Cradock · 02-03-2009 02:16AM

People might be interested in the views of certain luminaries when asked the question: Does science make belief in God obsolete?

http://www.templeton.org/belief/

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I don't know if you can totally discredit the idea of some God or spirituality existing but its clear there is a clash between mainstream organised religions and science in at least one aspect.

In Religions, humans are somehow special, the only ones to get into heaven and made in the image of God.

While heaven is important, there seems to be a common misconception about it from Christians and non-Christians alike. Ultimately, heaven is not what the bible suggests our final destination will be. It's all about new creation on earth. Also, I don't believe that the bible says anything about this being a place only for humans.

sink · 02-03-2009 02:52AM

The existence of god is a physical question, either god exists in physical reality or god does not. Natural science studies everything that physically exists, if god physically exists then god should be studied as part of natural science. If god does not physically exist then god can't be studied as part of natural science.

Morbert · 02-03-2009 02:57AM

sink wrote: »

The existence of god is a physical question, either god exists in physical reality or god does not. Natural science studies everything that physically exists, if god physically exists then god should be studied as part of natural science. If god does not physically exist then god can't be studied as part of natural science.

How would you investigate the existence of God using the scientific method?

sink · 02-03-2009 03:04AM

Morbert wrote: »

How would you investigate the existence of God using the scientific method?

That is the same as asking 'How do you investigate something that does not exist using the scientific method?'. The answer is you can't, natural science can only investigate that which physically exists.

Morbert · 02-03-2009 04:09AM

sink wrote: »

That is the same as asking 'How do you investigate something that does not exist using the scientific method?'. The answer is you can't, natural science can only investigate that which physically exists.

It is very possible for scientists to investigate the existence of things regardless of whether or not they actually exist, provided these things can be formulated as a scientific hypothesis. It is possible, for example, to investigate the existence of the luminiferous aether, or perpetual motion machines, or J.J. Thomson's plum pudding atom, or Lamarckian inheritance, or the geocentric solar system, or the steady state universe, or the black hole in my living room etc. These are all scientific concepts which have spawned predictions, even if those predictions failed experimental tests. So it is not a case of "Something can be studied by the scientific method iff it exists".

Secondly, uniformitarianism is a very specific assumption of science. If some entity or phenomenon contradicts this assumption, then it cannot be investigated with the scientific method regardless of whether or not it exists.

Slav · 02-03-2009 10:53AM

sink wrote: »

That is the same as asking 'How do you investigate something that does not exist using the scientific method?'. The answer is you can't, natural science can only investigate that which physically exists.

Your statement is OK to some extent for the 19th century science but not for the modern one.

Zombrex · 02-03-2009 11:14AM

Morbert wrote: »

Reputable experimentation of predictions is an essential step. The question of God cannot be formulated scientifically, so it cannot be said to lie within the realm of science.

But that is a different issue. That is simply because religion has gone way to far in claiming things about God. We can't test them because they have gone so far up the road of assumption that they build on no framework.

It would be like a 12th century monk trying to formulate a theory of sub atomic particles without any of the research done in the next 8 thousand years.

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.

Morbert wrote: »

It doesn't necessarily mean theology or philosophy are sufficient either, it just means God, as described by the major religions, is not a scientific concept.

Yes but you need to throw out "God as described by the major religions", because all that is useless, even if it does turn out to be true.

Morbert wrote: »

As for being sensible by saying we don't know; I agree. In fact, I would also say it is quite reasonable to assume God doesn't exist. But it is not a scientific conclusion.

It is as scientific as any conclusion that something doesn't exist can be. Invisible pink unicorns for example. Science isn't really in the habit of saying something doesn't exist.

Húrin · 02-03-2009 12:37PM

sink wrote: »

The existence of god is a physical question, either god exists in physical reality or god does not. Natural science studies everything that physically exists, if god physically exists then god should be studied as part of natural science. If god does not physically exist then god can't be studied as part of natural science.

God does not exist in the physical universe. Which is what Christianity has always claimed anyway.

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.

Yes, how dare anyone think about God without asking you.

This is one of the aspects of naturalism that I dislike: the implied, and often openly stated, will to prohibit the investigation of questions simply because people aren't using the naturalist's favourite method of natural philosophy.

Morbert · 02-03-2009 01:37PM

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is a different issue. That is simply because religion has gone way to far in claiming things about God. We can't test them because they have gone so far up the road of assumption that they build on no framework.

It would be like a 12th century monk trying to formulate a theory of sub atomic particles without any of the research done in the next 8 thousand years.

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.

The problem isn't simply a need for more rigour, or a more developed body of scientific knowledge. The problem is the assumption of uniformitarianism is used in the scientific method. God is not defined as such, so his existence won't ever be able to be tackled with the scientific method.

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.

The existence of God is a question of reality. But scientsist don't investigate such questions. You seem to be implying that only entities that adhere the assumptions of science should exist. I don't see any motivation for such a belief other than the desire for convenience.

Yes but you need to throw out "God as described by the major religions", because all that is useless, even if it does turn out to be true.

That might be the case. Remember that I am simply arguing that religious claims are not scientific claims. I have not said anything about the validity of religious claims.

It is as scientific as any conclusion that something doesn't exist can be. Invisible pink unicorns for example. Science isn't really in the habit of saying something doesn't exist.

The existence of invisible pink unicorns isn't a scientific question either. But science often falsifies proposals about the existence of things. See my post to sink for examples.

sink · 02-03-2009 01:46PM

Morbert wrote: »

It is very possible for scientists to investigate the existence of things regardless of whether or not they actually exist, provided these things can be formulated as a scientific hypothesis. It is possible, for example, to investigate the existence of the luminiferous aether, or perpetual motion machines, or J.J. Thomson's plum pudding atom, or Lamarckian inheritance, or the geocentric solar system, or the steady state universe, or the black hole in my living room etc. These are all scientific concepts which have spawned predictions, even if those predictions failed experimental tests. So it is not a case of "Something can be studied by the scientific method iff it exists".

Secondly, uniformitarianism is a very specific assumption of science. If some entity or phenomenon contradicts this assumption, then it cannot be investigated with the scientific method regardless of whether or not it exists.

All of those hypothesis you rightly pointed out made predictions about physical reality. So my statement was poorly worded, something has to have the potential for empirical attributes in order for it to be scientifically investigated. That which has no empirical attributes, or at least no hypothesized ones, can't be investigate by natural science and for all intents and purposes does not exist from a scientific perspective. If god physically exists he should have physical attributes which natural science can investigate.

Zombrex · 02-03-2009 01:59PM

Húrin wrote: »

God does not exist in the physical universe. Which is what Christianity has always claimed anyway.

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.

Besides where Christians claim God exists is also irrelevant. You guys could just be wrong. God, if he exists, is under no requirement to be where you think he is.

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, how dare anyone think about God without asking you.

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.

Húrin wrote: »

This is one of the aspects of naturalism that I dislike: the implied, and often openly stated, will to prohibit the investigation of questions simply because people aren't using the naturalist's favourite method of natural philosophy.

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.

Zombrex · 02-03-2009 02:30PM

Morbert wrote: »

The problem isn't simply a need for more rigour, or a more developed body of scientific knowledge. The problem is the assumption of uniformitarianism is used in the scientific method. God is not defined as such, so his existence won't ever be able to be tackled with the scientific method.

But that is my point. "God is not defined as such" is irrelevant.

How religious people have already defined "God" is irrelevant. Forget it. Throw it out. It means nothing. Reality is under no obligation to be how Christians say it should be.

I'm not saying science will find God. I'm not saying they can if he exists and if they don't he doesn't exist. But all these things are questions for science.

Science explores reality as best it can. You can't say it won't find something.

You can sort of say it won't find the thing that Christians say exists, but that is some what irrelevant since what Christians claim has no bearing on reality.

Science Versus Religion! The Contest that isn't really there.

Comments