Why does it matter if religion is anti-scientific?

Húrin

Another spin-off from the topic of the week:

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

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

Mickeroo

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

sink

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

Húrin

Mickeroo wrote: »

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

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

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

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

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

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

JimiTime

sink wrote: »

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

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

chozometroid

Are we talking about religion or religious people?

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

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

sink

JimiTime wrote: »

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

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

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

Húrin

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

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

pH

chozometroid wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Húrin

pH wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2Scoops

Húrin wrote: »

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

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

chozometroid

Húrin wrote: »

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



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

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

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

axer

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

MrPudding

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

MrP

The Mad Hatter

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









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

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

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

Is WN me?

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

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

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

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

It really only matters to the person themselves.

pH

Húrin wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Simon.d

JimiTime wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Zombrex

Simon.d wrote: »

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

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

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

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

AtomicHorror

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

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

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

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

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

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

uncleoswald

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

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good post

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

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

Kudos to whoever they may - I like that.

Ickle Magoo

Húrin wrote: »

Another spin-off from the topic of the week:

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

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

Yes & no.

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

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

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

ChocolateSauce

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

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

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

So more anti-Christian than actually atheist?

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

So more anti-Christian than actually atheist?

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

Dades

PDN wrote: »

So more anti-Christian than actually atheist?

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

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

Húrin

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

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

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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

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