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

JimiTime · 02-03-2009 02:43PM

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

And still, what we have is simply something which is 'not' science rather than 'anti' science.

Zombrex · 02-03-2009 02:56PM

JimiTime wrote: »

And still, what we have is simply something which is 'not' science rather than 'anti' science.

Perhaps you have a definition of "anti-science" Jimi that I'm just not following

To me anti science would be a principle or doctrine that is not only not science but is the opposite of science, that goes against scientific principles and standards, that contradicts them.

Personally I can't think of a better example than religious dogma.

You guys seem to be trying to get around this by saying that nothing religion says over laps into realms that science deals with. Considering science tries to deal with everything that doesn't hold very well.

JimiTime · 02-03-2009 03:38PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps you have a definition of "anti-science" Jimi that I'm just not following

Something that is against science. The problem in your reasoning is not your definition of 'anti' science, but rather what you feel is science.

To me anti science would be a principle or doctrine that is not only not science but is the opposite of science, that goes against scientific principles and standards, that contradicts them.

Even if there is an opposite of science, it is not anti science unless it tries to oppose science. In much the same way as an atheist is the opposite of a theist, but is not necessarily 'anti' theist. As I said from the beginning, one can be wholly Christian, and wholly scientific. One can even mix the two, as long as its within the boudries.

Personally I can't think of a better example than religious dogma.

Again, religious dogma 'can' be anti-science, non-science or pro-science. Just because you use the word 'religious' does not mean automatically mean 'anti' science. That is the fallacy. IMO, this whole debate is because there are certain folks who wish to claim intellectual high-ground. As science is held up as mans finest workings, there is some folk who want to say 'Its ours'.

You guys seem to be trying to get around this by saying that nothing religion says over laps into realms that science deals with. Considering science tries to deal with everything that doesn't hold very well.

Well I never said this. Both can overlap, and when they do, that is when you can see if the particular religion, or dogma is actually anti-science or not. Some people just seem intent on wanting to generalise.

Morbert · 02-03-2009 05:01PM

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.

It is very relevant. Whether or not science can investigate the existence of 'God' hinges on how we define God.

You can assert that it means nothing, and that God isn't real, but such assertions are not scientific assertions.

Reality is under no obligation to be how Christians say it should be.

Reality is under no obligation to be how anyone says it should be. The existence of things is not limited to what we can describe and formulate as testable hypotheses. So you cannot say everything that exists can be investigated with the scientific method.

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.

They are not questions of science for reasons I mentioned above and in another post.

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

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.

Sort of? Why sort of? I can easily say it can never investigate the existence of the Christian God. And you can say that Christian claims have no bearing on reality, but that is not a scientific claim.

Húrin · 03-03-2009 01:47AM

Interesting post there Morbert.

Wicknight wrote: »

Considering science tries to deal with everything that doesn't hold very well.

Who says this, besides you and other writers of atheist/naturalist polemics?

Modern science began some 400 years ago as natural philosophy. It was, and remains, just one branch of philosophy. If science dealt with "everything", then there would be no need for the other branches.

Zombrex · 03-03-2009 11:08AM

Húrin wrote: »

Who says this, besides you and other writers of atheist/naturalist polemics?

Modern science began some 400 years ago as natural philosophy. It was, and remains, just one branch of philosophy. If science dealt with "everything", then there would be no need for the other branches.

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.

Zombrex · 03-03-2009 11:15AM

Morbert wrote: »

It is very relevant. Whether or not science can investigate the existence of 'God' hinges on how we define God.

You can assert that it means nothing, and that God isn't real, but such assertions are not scientific assertions.

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.

Morbert wrote: »

So you cannot say everything that exists can be investigated with the scientific method.

I'm not saying that at all.

But "we can't investigate this" is still a question for science. It is not a question that will be answered outside of science.

You can't say before hand that X Y Z exist but we won't be able to investigate them with science. That is meaningless, because without investigating X Y Z we can't say they exist.

Morbert wrote: »

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

That isn't really true. Once off events can and are studied by science. Yes it is a lot harder, but not impossible.

Morbert wrote: »

Sort of? Why sort of? I can easily say it can never investigate the existence of the Christian God. And you can say that Christian claims have no bearing on reality, but that is not a scientific claim.

No, I can claim you cannot say that the Christian god has any bearing on reality. You can't say that that is "God", how could you possibly know? It is not that you are wrong, it is that you couldn't know in the first place. You could, by some fluke, be totally correct. But that doesn't change the fact that the "Christian God" is irrelevant.

The idea that you can claim something exists and then claim it can never be studied by science doesn't make any sense. If it can't be studied with science how can you claim it exists?

gaynorvader · 03-03-2009 11:37AM

Húrin wrote: »

Interesting post there Morbert.

Who says this, besides you and other writers of atheist/naturalist polemics?

Modern science began some 400 years ago as natural philosophy. It was, and remains, just one branch of philosophy. If science dealt with "everything", then there would be no need for the other branches.

Not true, modern science began about 3,000 years ago with Greek Philosophers who tried to gain an understanding of the world around them through developing theories.

True scientists investigating religious beliefs cannot be athiest any more than they can be theist. Both walks of life conflict with scientific pursuit. Anybody trying to use science to prove or disprove something must attempt to do so from a neutral perspective. Therefore a scientist trying to tackle the concept of a god's existance, where we came from, etc., must be agnostic to truly hold to his/her scientific principles.

sink · 03-03-2009 12:14PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

Not true, modern science began about 3,000 years ago with Greek Philosophers who tried to gain an understanding of the world around them through developing theories.

True scientists investigating religious beliefs cannot be athiest any more than they can be theist. Both walks of life conflict with scientific pursuit. Anybody trying to use science to prove or disprove something must attempt to do so from a neutral perspective. Therefore a scientist trying to tackle the concept of a god's existance, where we came from, etc., must be agnostic to truly hold to his/her scientific principles.

To be a scientist one must only follow the scientific method, theological beliefs whether theist or atheist have little impact if the scientific method is followed. Science relies on what there is evidence for and ignores everything else. Science ignores god for this very reason. It does not attempt to disprove god as disproving a negative is logically impossible it simply disregards god due to a lack of supporting evidence.

gaynorvader · 03-03-2009 12:54PM

sink wrote: »

To be a scientist one must only follow the scientific method, theological beliefs whether theist or atheist have little impact if the scientific method is followed. Science relies on what there is evidence for and ignores everything else. Science ignores god for this very reason. It does not attempt to disprove god as disproving a negative is logically impossible it simply disregards god due to a lack of supporting evidence.

I wasn't only referring to proving a god's existence, but also to the questions of life, in which case the investigator's beliefs could come into it.

sink · 03-03-2009 01:12PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

I wasn't only referring to proving a god's existence, but also to the questions of life, in which case the investigator's beliefs could come into it.

The scientific method does not allow for personal beliefs to impact upon the science. It is designed specifically to eliminate personal biases so the truth is revealed.

gaynorvader · 03-03-2009 01:50PM

sink wrote: »

The scientific method does not allow for personal beliefs to impact upon the science. It is designed specifically to eliminate personal biases so the truth is revealed.

I agree wholeheartedly, that was my entire point. A scientist who has strong beliefs is not going to follow the scientific method properly as his/her beliefs are always going to cause them to overlook some facts either consciously or subconsciously.

Morbert · 03-03-2009 02:00PM

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 now arguing about whether or not science is the only trustworthy means of investigation. *shrug* I'm arguing that the the existence of God is not a scientific question, so there is no inherent contest between science and religion. Someone who believes in God is just as capable of becoming an exceptional scientist, in any field, as someone who doesn't.

I'm not saying that at all.

But "we can't investigate this" is still a question for science. It is not a question that will be answered outside of science.

You can't say before hand that X Y Z exist but we won't be able to investigate them with science. That is meaningless, because without investigating X Y Z we can't say they exist.

We don't have to say they exist. We simply have to say that such hypotheses cannot be investigated with the scientific method. I can think of a multitude of things that might possibly exist but can never be investigated with the scientific method.

That isn't really true. Once off events can and are studied by science. Yes it is a lot harder, but not impossible.

I'm going to need an example of some phenomenon that breaks the assumption of uniformitarianism and has been studied by scientists.

No, I can claim you cannot say that the Christian god has any bearing on reality. You can't say that that is "God", how could you possibly know? It is not that you are wrong, it is that you couldn't know in the first place. You could, by some fluke, be totally correct. But that doesn't change the fact that the "Christian God" is irrelevant.

The idea that you can claim something exists and then claim it can never be studied by science doesn't make any sense. If it can't be studied with science how can you claim it exists?

Again, you're arguing that science is the only appropriate and relevant means of establishing statements about reality. Whether or not that is true doesn't change the fact that 'God' is not inherently an anti-scientific concept.

gaynorvader · 03-03-2009 03:01PM

Morbert wrote: »

You're now arguing about whether or not science is the only trustworthy means of investigation. *shrug* I'm arguing that the the existence of God is not a scientific question, so there is no inherent contest between science and religion. Someone who believes in God is just as capable of becoming an exceptional scientist, in any field, as someone who doesn't.

If science is not humanity's only trustworthy means of investigation, what are the other ones?

Morbert · 03-03-2009 03:08PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

If science is not humanity's only trustworthy means of investigation, what are the other ones?

I can't think of any. Why?

Zombrex · 03-03-2009 03:22PM

Morbert wrote: »

You're now arguing about whether or not science is the only trustworthy means of investigation. *shrug*

Not really. I'm arguing over whether or not God's existence is a question for science.

You appear to be saying it isn't because we have already defined God as being non-testable through science. I'm saying that you can't do that because we cannot determine that God is non-testable through science in the first place, so defining him as such is irrelevant. It is the cart before the horse.

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.

Morbert wrote: »

I'm arguing that the the existence of God is not a scientific question, so there is no inherent contest between science and religion. Someone who believes in God is just as capable of becoming an exceptional scientist, in any field, as someone who doesn't.

Depends on what you mean by exceptional scientist.

Someone who states that God exists even though they do not have an science to support that is inherently being unscientific. The consequences of that vary greatly from scientist to scientist. In Creationist Scientists it can be devastating for their science.

Morbert wrote: »

We don't have to say they exist. We simply have to say that such hypotheses cannot be investigated with the scientific method. I can think of a multitude of things that might possibly exist but can never be investigated with the scientific method.

I can think of an infinite number of things that might exist, again that is irrelevant. Christians aren't saying God might exist. They are claiming he does.

Morbert wrote: »

I'm going to need an example of some phenomenon that breaks the assumption of uniformitarianism and has been studied by scientists.

Well quantum physics, which deals in probabilities rather than absolutes.

If you run an experiment that gives you result X it may give you result Y the next time you run it. All you can do is work out the probability of X and Y, not determine what the outcome will be.

And for a long time people though there was a strong limit on how much they could know about atomic particles. But we keep coming up with new, ingenious ways to model them despite this being very difficult. And this all happens inside science. Theology isn't providing alternative answers.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you're arguing that science is the only appropriate and relevant means of establishing statements about reality. Whether or not that is true doesn't change the fact that 'God' is not inherently an anti-scientific concept.

Well like Jimi that just becomes a debate about what "anti" means.

I think a statement someone makes, such as "God exists", which they make in opposition to the scientific method is anti-science.

gaynorvader · 03-03-2009 03:45PM

Morbert wrote: »

I can't think of any. Why?

Because, you should back up your statements with facts, or at least reasoning. Simply saying that science is not the only way of proving/determining things without offering any alternatives is a bit daft.

Morbert · 03-03-2009 04:07PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. I'm arguing over whether or not God's existence is a question for science.

You appear to be saying it isn't because we have already defined God as being non-testable through science. I'm saying that you can't do that because we cannot determine that God is non-testable through science in the first place, so defining him as such is irrelevant. It is the cart before the horse.

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.

You're confusing defining with determining. God can easily be defined as non-testable, and science cannot be used to determine whether or not such a God exists.

Depends on what you mean by exceptional scientist.

Someone who states that God exists even though they do not have an science to support that is inherently being unscientific. The consequences of that vary greatly from scientist to scientist. In Creationist Scientists it can be devastating for their science.

Of course a belief in God is inherently unscientific. Creationism is also unscientific, but the difference is creationism contradicts scientific theories. It is anti-science. A belief in God, on the otherhand, does not have to contradict any scientific theory.

I can think of an infinite number of things that might exist, again that is irrelevant. Christians aren't saying God might exist. They are claiming he does.

So? It doesn't matter if a Christian believes in God because they were compelled by some philosophical argument, or because they flipped a coin and decided to subscribe to some religious faith. All that matters is the question of the existence of God is not a scientific question, and that science cannot be used to investigate the existence of God.

Well quantum physics, which deals in probabilities rather than absolutes.

If you run an experiment that gives you result X it may give you result Y the next time you run it. All you can do is work out the probability of X and Y, not determine what the outcome will be.

This does not break the assumption of uniformitarianism. The laws of quantum mechanics, regadless of their probabilisitc regime, are assumed to be the same across the universe. I have opened, along with this tab, a program that calculates various properties of atomic/molecular structures using the laws of quantum mechanics. I assume the results and statistics are reliable today, just as they were yesterday.

And for a long time people though there was a strong limit on how much they could know about atomic particles. But we keep coming up with new, ingenious ways to model them despite this being very difficult. And this all happens inside science. Theology isn't providing alternative answers.

And?

Well like Jimi that just becomes a debate about what "anti" means.

I think a statement someone makes, such as "God exists", which they make in opposition to the scientific method is anti-science.

The satement "God exists" is not made in opposition to the scientific method.

Morbert · 03-03-2009 04:08PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

Because, you should back up your statements with facts, or at least reasoning. Simply saying that science is not the only way of proving/determining things without offering any alternatives is a bit daft.

Please explicitly quote where I said science is not the only way of determining things.

gaynorvader · 03-03-2009 04:15PM

Morbert wrote: »

[...]

Reality is under no obligation to be how anyone says it should be. The existence of things is not limited to what we can describe and formulate as testable hypotheses. So you cannot say everything that exists can be investigated with the scientific method.

[...]

Maybe I've misinterpreted what you have said, and if that is the case I apologise.

Morbert · 03-03-2009 04:30PM

Apology accepted

gaynorvader · 03-03-2009 04:45PM

@Morbert I would like to know, however, what you mean when you say that God cannot be proven by science?

Fanny Cradock · 03-03-2009 04:57PM

Because science tests that which is in the natural world. If something lies outside of the natural world and in a metaphysical realm, which is the contention of Christianity in relation to God, then science really cant say much about it.

Morbert · 03-03-2009 05:02PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

@Morbert I would like to know, however, what you mean when you say that God cannot be proven by science?

The existence of God can't be investigated with the scientific method. It was a response to the claim that the existence of God can be investigated with the scientific method.

What I did not say was "God can't be investigated with the scientific method, therefore God can be investigated with other methods." In fact, I explicitly stated that I was not commenting on the validity of religious claims. That is a topic for another thread.

gaynorvader · 03-03-2009 05:13PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because science tests that which is in the natural world. If something lies outside of the natural world and in a metaphysical realm, which is the contention of Christianity in relation to God, then science really cant say much about it.

It's possible science can deal with things in the metaphysical realm, just not yet. It is unfair to confine science to the natural world, just because that is as far as we've gotten to date.

Morbert · 03-03-2009 05:34PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's possible science can deal with things in the metaphysical realm, just not yet. It is unfair to confine science to the natural world, just because that is as far as we've gotten to date.

It's not necessarily about different realms. It's about what can and cannot be subjected to the process of observation, induction, experimentation, and affirmation/falsification.

sink · 03-03-2009 05:39PM

Morbert wrote: »

We don't have to say they exist. We simply have to say that such hypotheses cannot be investigated with the scientific method. I can think of a multitude of things that might possibly exist but can never be investigated with the scientific method.

The only things that can't be investigated with the scientific method are things that cannot be observed either directly or through their interaction with other bodies. The only things that can't be examined using science are things which even if they exist, have absolutely no impact upon the reality we can percieve and it would be them same from our perspective as if they didn't exist at all.

Morbert wrote: »

I'm going to need an example of some phenomenon that breaks the assumption of uniformitarianism and has been studied by scientists.

I'm going to need any phenomena that has been observed breaking uniformitarianism.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you're arguing that science is the only appropriate and relevant means of establishing statements about reality. Whether or not that is true doesn't change the fact that 'God' is not inherently an anti-scientific concept.

True it's a nonsence concept. The only thing that isn't nonsence when trying to understand physical reality is science.

Morbert wrote: »

You're confusing defining with determining. God can easily be defined as non-testable, and science cannot be used to determine whether or not such a God exists.

True but it's a pointless concept. I can dream up an infinite number of things and define them as non-testable by science, if it is non-testable by science for all intents and purposes it does not exist.

Morbert wrote: »

Of course a belief in God is inherently unscientific. Creationism is also unscientific, but the difference is creationism contradicts scientific theories. It is anti-science. A belief in God, on the otherhand, does not have to contradict any scientific theory.

True, which is why I generally don't have an issue with religious belief.

Morbert wrote: »

So? It doesn't matter if a Christian believes in God because they were compelled by some philosophical argument, or because they flipped a coin and decided to subscribe to some religious faith. All that matters is the question of the existence of God is not a scientific question, and that science cannot be used to investigate the existence of God.

True again, but in my view they are deluding themselves which they have every right to do. Everyone self deludes to a certain degree otherwise we would all sink into depression.

Morbert wrote: »

The satement "God exists" is not made in opposition to the scientific method.

True it just has complete disregard for it.

We seem to agree on an awful lot!

sink · 03-03-2009 05:49PM

I better clear up something in case anyone doesn't get where i'm coming from.

If god physically exists or interacts with physical reality, god should be able to be tested by science for science observes and tests everything and anyhting that is physical. If god does not exist or does not interact with physical reality there should be no possible way for science to test for god, since there is no physical trace to follow. So saying god can't be testable by science is in my view as good as saying god either does not exist or does not interact with physical reality.

Fanny Cradock · 03-03-2009 05:58PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's possible science can deal with things in the metaphysical realm, just not yet. It is unfair to confine science to the natural world, just because that is as far as we've gotten to date.

Maybe, maybe not. However, science as we know it is concerned with, and can report on, the natural world. So we shouldn't be building any castles in the sky with regards to the possible extension of its boundaries. One doesn't have to be an atheist, a Christian, Muslim or whatever to realise this. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

hivizman · 03-03-2009 06:41PM

sink wrote: »

I better clear up something in case anyone doesn't get where i'm coming from.

If god physically exists or interacts with physical reality, god should be able to be tested by science for science observes and tests everything and anyhting that is physical. If god does not exist or does not interact with physical reality there should be no possible way for science to test for god, since there is no physical trace to follow. So saying god can't be testable by science is in my view as good as saying god either does not exist or does not interact with physical reality.

I think (please correct me if this is wrong) that Morbert is arguing that there is a third possibility, that God may interact with physical reality, but not in a uniform way. A scientific test for the existence of God would have the following structure:

If God exists, then, in situation A, the physical effect X will be observed (this could be expressed in absolute terms or in terms of probabilities).

The "physical effect" could be a measurement on an instrument or something similar - the important thing is that it is capable of being observed by us.

The experimenter sets up situation A. If effect X is not observed, then the scientific conclusion is that (a) something is wrong with the experiment (this is dealt with by repeating the experiment, maybe several times), (b) something is wrong with the logic leading to the prediction that effect X will be observed, or (c) something is wrong with the assumptions on which the experiment is based - for example, the assumption that God exists.

On the other hand, if effect X is observed, this could be interpreted as (a) something is wrong with the experiment, (b) the assumptions and logic are valid (in particular, God does exist), or (c) there is an alternative explanation for effect X that does not involve the assumption that God exists.

If one of the necessary attributes of God is that God is free to act as God wills, and thus God does not behave in a predictable way, we have a problem, because the fact that the predicted effect X is not observed, even after many repetitions of the experiment, may be interpreted not as evidence that God does not exist, but rather that God exists but is exercising God's freedom to act and hence behaving unpredictably. Perhaps God is angry at our lack of faith and is messing up our experiments, or perhaps God is causing the "wrong" results to test our faith. No doubt other stories are possible.

The trouble with this is that any result of a scientific test can be rationalised away by an appeal to God's freedom to act in unpredictable ways. So either this freedom is not a necessary characteristic of God, or God's existence can't be tested using the standard methods of science. However, this is still consistent with the belief that God acts on the physical world.

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

Comments