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

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Questions of God are questions of metaphysics, questions which are abstract and cannot be observed through the lens of science.

Well I don't think metaphysics can shed any light on the existence of God either.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

God exists, and I'm 100% right! That is not anti-science. Its simply, 'not' science.

It is anti-science.

With such a statement you are saying that no matter what science discovers, from now until the end of time, its is wrong. What ever they come up with, if in 2,000 years someone figures out a way to test does god exist and finds he doesn't, they are wrong. If in 100 years someone figures out a very highly accurate model that demonstrates that the Christian religion is a product of a little bit of the brain misfiring, they are wrong.

I don't care what the science is, its is wrong. I don't need to know what the science is, it is wrong.

In fact that sentence, or something like it, is found throughout religious websites on the web such as Answersingenesis.com

This is how we end up with conflict between science and religion in the first place. Religious statements like that above say that no matter what science tells us now, or in the future, it is wrong and the religion is right because it has already decided it can't be wrong.

JimiTime wrote: »

Its a philosophy based on science.

Well no, it is the philsophy of science. Science is based on it.

Science is a methodology, and there is a whole area of philosophy based round working out that methodology so it can be the best methodology it can be.

Concepts like falsifiability, repeatability, not being able to prove something correct, are all part of the philosophy of science. There are philosophical arguments why they are included in the methodology.

JimiTime wrote: »

Science itself is the modelling and observations of the natural universe.

Yes, and you can't observe and model why falsifiability is a good idea. You don't apply the scientific method to the science of philosophy, it goes the other way around.

We

Jakkass wrote: »

Secondly, are you saying that scientists who are believers aren't as good as other scientists, because I don't think that's accurate either.

Why not?

The scientific method, the rules lets say which all scientists have to obey (if they at all want their work to be acknowledged as scientific) totally contradicts the fundamentals of faith/believing in god.

If you want to a good scientist, you have to acknowledge the fact that nothing can be considered true or even accurate unless it is proven, which involves rigorous testing,questioning and ultimately an indisputable conclusion.

Thus, a scientist who believes in god can only be presumed to have some misconceptions about the scientific method, or simply has no sense of logical reasoning.

Rev Hellfire

We wrote: »

If you want to a good scientist, you have to acknowledge the fact that nothing can be considered true or even accurate unless it is proven, which involves rigorous testing,questioning and ultimately an indisputable conclusion.

I don't recall any respected scientists offering proof of the existence of a particular deity. There's a reason its called faith.

Fanny Cradock

We wrote: »

Why not?

The scientific method, the rules lets say which all scientists have to obey (if they at all want their work to be acknowledged as scientific) totally contradicts the fundamentals of faith/believing in god.

If you want to a good scientist, you have to acknowledge the fact that nothing can be considered true or even accurate unless it is proven, which involves rigorous testing,questioning and ultimately an indisputable conclusion.

Thus, a scientist who believes in god can only be presumed to have some misconceptions about the scientific method, or simply has no sense of logical reasoning.

I'm glad you cleared that up! Though you might want to consider that nothing is proven in science bar mathematical disciplines. It would also be completely against the scientific method if any given theory was considered to have reached an indisputable conclusion.

Húrin

I agree OP. If there was a real conflict between religion and science, it would manifest itself outside of atheist polemics.

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry, I should have clarified I inserted the 'Some'. Maybe it is 'Most'. Point remains though.

I wouldn't be so confident that most scientists are positivists. If they are I don't think that it carries much authority. Scientists are just as philosophically fallible as any of us, and no more immune to cultural determinants.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I know of many who do, but the scientist should be prepared to question everything.

Well, that is good, as long as the scientists is aware that the questioning of metaphysical claims cannot be met using the tools of natural philosophy. Thus the scientist becomes a philosopher, who is prepared to question everything.

darjeeling wrote: »

If so, how could science - which questions everything - and Christianity be fully compatible?

Science questions nature, not 'everything' (though some assert that nature is everything). Remember, science is a branch of philosophy.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But a common theme in "religions", the blanket term, is a tendency to hold some piece of old writing as infallible, to hold faith as a virtue and to hold the authority of some people as unquestionable. This is the antithesis of science.

Earlier in the thread you warned that the notion that "all opinions are equally valid" was eroding scientific authority. Is science really that different? Scientists do not routinely challenge the scientific method.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok ... there is no conflict between science and any religion that says "by the way, all these proclamations, they could all be wrong. We are not sure. This is our best stab at it"

But I can think of very few religions that teach the religion may actually be wrong. Christianity certainly doesn't.

It certainly does, in that it insists that people must be free to choose to believe or not. Most positivists do not seem to have such a liberal approach to epistemology. I've never heard any of them say that people have the legitimate freedom to deny scientific facts, and even to teach these to others.

As AtomicHorror said, he thinks that science is the be-all and end-all.

Morbert

We wrote: »

Thus, a scientist who believes in god can only be presumed to have some misconceptions about the scientific method, or simply has no sense of logical reasoning.

This isn't true at all.

Morbert

Morbert wrote: »

This isn't true at all.

+1

espinolman

I don't see a contest between science and religion at all , well of course that is because i have looked into nuclear physics and quantum mechanics .

Morbert

espinolman wrote: »

I don't see a contest between science and religion at all , well of course that is because i have looked into nuclear physics and quantum mechanics .

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.

The Mad Hatter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

JimiTime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.