Do science and religion contradict
In this discussion I will briefly explain my personal beliefs then include some quotes that back my opinion. In the primacy of modern science, Roman Catholicism was it's founder. Men who were incredibly influential in science like Roger Bacon were active participants of the church. Theology was commonly called "The Queen of Science" and it still is. God guided mans discoveries, because through them we can see Him.
Opposite to [Godliness] is atheism in profession, and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels), and just two eyes and no more on either side of the face, and just two ears on either side of the head, and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes, and one mouth under the nose, and either two fore legs or two wings or two arms on the shoulders and two legs on the hips, one on either side and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, and within transparent juices with a crystalline lens in the middle and a pupil before the lens, all of them so truly shaped and fitted for vision that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a being who made all things and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.
? Isaac Newton
"The fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoin their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'cannot hear the music of the spheres."
-Einstein
The first thing we could say was simply: I believe in God, the Father, the almighty creator of heaven and earth. The next step at least for our contemporary consciousness was doubt. There is no god; there is only an impersonal law that directs the fate of the world according to cause and effect. And yet, we may with full confidence place ourselves into the hands of the higher power who, during our lifetime and in the course of the centuries, determines our faith and therewith our world and our fate.
The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you,
-Werner Heisenberg
"The God who had revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the same as the God of nature."
"uniformity is intended and accomplished by the same Wisdom and Power of which uniformity, accuracy, symmetry, consistency, and continuity of plan are important attributes,"
-James Maxewell
"The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible; therefore I devoted the next few months to the study of this work."
-Nikola Tesla
There are many others like Buzz Aldrin who partook of communion on the Moon, these men were not perfect in their theology, but science and spirituality cannot be separate and only through Jesus can man be saved.
Opposite to [Godliness] is atheism in profession, and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels), and just two eyes and no more on either side of the face, and just two ears on either side of the head, and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes, and one mouth under the nose, and either two fore legs or two wings or two arms on the shoulders and two legs on the hips, one on either side and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, and within transparent juices with a crystalline lens in the middle and a pupil before the lens, all of them so truly shaped and fitted for vision that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a being who made all things and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.
? Isaac Newton
"The fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures whoin their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'cannot hear the music of the spheres."
-Einstein
The first thing we could say was simply: I believe in God, the Father, the almighty creator of heaven and earth. The next step at least for our contemporary consciousness was doubt. There is no god; there is only an impersonal law that directs the fate of the world according to cause and effect. And yet, we may with full confidence place ourselves into the hands of the higher power who, during our lifetime and in the course of the centuries, determines our faith and therewith our world and our fate.
The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you,
-Werner Heisenberg
"The God who had revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the same as the God of nature."
"uniformity is intended and accomplished by the same Wisdom and Power of which uniformity, accuracy, symmetry, consistency, and continuity of plan are important attributes,"
-James Maxewell
"The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible; therefore I devoted the next few months to the study of this work."
-Nikola Tesla
There are many others like Buzz Aldrin who partook of communion on the Moon, these men were not perfect in their theology, but science and spirituality cannot be separate and only through Jesus can man be saved.
Comments (145)
From the evolution of tetrapods.
Are you a young earth or old earth creationist?
This is a philosophy site not a site for proselytizing.
All you've done here again is provide a series of claims - this time in the form of cherry picked, disembodied quotes. There needs to be demonstration that any of the claims are true.
Here's a cherry picked quote response for you from Christian author and cleric Bishop Spong:-
Science is just a tool, an approach for acquiring reliable knowledge and getting things done. It doesn't really share space with religion, which serves other functions.
Religion has not yet provided any vaccines to say viruses via their holy books nor has it really invented anything of notable use which science has such as electricity, the combustion engine, the aeroplane so in effect religion can hold humanity back via its dogmas which is what happened during the dark ages.
For me as a god believer it allows me to be more contemplative rather than preachy which is how you appear here. Even to me God is mysterious and raises more questions than he answers.
Not all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped. Examples from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_featuring_external_asymmetry
Birds
- the crossbill has an unusual beak in which the upper and lower tips cross each other
- the wrybill is the only species of bird with a beak that is bent sideways (always to the right)
- many owl species, such as the barn owl, have asymmetrically positioned ears that enhance sound positioning
Beasts (Mammals)
- Honey badgers of the subspecies signata have a second lower molar on the left side of their jaws, but not the right
- the caribou or reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) has asymmetrical antlers. Adult males, in particular, usually possess one brow tine formed into a "shovel" shape
- the narwhal has a helical tusk on its [u]upper left jaw[/u]
- the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) has a single nostril on its upper left head. The right nostril forms a phonic lip. The source of the air forced through the phonic lips is the right nasal passage. While the left nasal passage opens to the blow hole, the right nasal passage has evolved to supply air to the phonic lips
- the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) has complex and asymmetrical coloration on its head, with the jaw dark grey on one side and white on the other
Men (Humans)
- Humans show a systematic aurofacial asymmetry, meaning that the face (eyes, nose and mouth) are displaced to the left with respect to the midplane between the ears. In young children this asymmetry is on average 4 degrees and is easily recognized
Because thats not religions goal . Religion and science coexist, religion isnt the entirety of science though.
One of the problems that I have with your question is that there are many different religions in the world. Are you referring to just Roman Catholicism, or all Christian religions, or some/any of the other religions in the world?
Then in your case, isn't the answer to your title question, "Somewhat, yes."?
I don't think Science and Religion contradict. They have different methods in their pursuit of knowledge. Science uses hypothesis, observation, evidence and verification for arriving at their knowledge, theories and answers. Religion is based on an individual's faith on the doctrine and belief of their Gods.
In history they shared and filled each other's shortcomings. Religious people tried to borrow scientific methods to justify and strengthen their arguments and claims. Science used Religious beliefs and entities such as God, as the creator of the universe etc, for the answers they cannot find.
Many famous scientists in history were not atheists or anti religious as your quotes, because they too were human beings with flesh and bones. When their bodies getting old nearing, feeling death they needed something to rely on spiritually. Even when they are young and healthy, all humans think about death and question their aftermath of deaths. Nothing really tells them about these topics apart from religion. Science was their academic and rational pursuit for truth in the material world. Religion was the therapy for human conditions and existence.
About those 'quotes'...
Wikiquote says the one attributed to Heisenberg is misattributed.
The second 'quote' has no attribution and Google doesn't seem to recognize it.
Finally, Einstein also said:
You can also see science purely as a methodology for discovering truths about the world, but often when people say "science," they also are referring to a set of metaphysical beliefs, e.g. physicalism, reductionism, etc. It really depends on who is using the term and what they mean by it. Some "science says," claims obviously contradict virtually all forms of religion.
But plenty of people have a religion that is totally compatible with their view of science.
It's all the false religions and all the pseudo science that conflict. :wink:
The concept of hell is interesting actually.
If there were real hell for the dead, then some might find it consoling and comforting. Because if they are sent to hell, ok they might suffer horrendous punishments in there, but at least they may find a way to escape back to the earth, or immigrate from the hell to some other parallel universe to continue their new expat times.
And there are also some groups of people who enjoy the physical pain for their pleasure. For them hell punishment could be a godsend? :D
The real worry for the dead could be that there is no guarantee even for hell. An abrupt and eternal transition from a being to non-being is more depressing than possibility of being thrown into hell? Even suck, this world is the best place to be? :D
What is religion's goal?
That is they each address different things.
Interesting topic.
(BTW, you might want maybe to edit and complete the title of the topic as follows: "Do science and religion contradict each other?")
About Newton's quote: I wouldn't expect from any scientist or scientific mind, even in those early stages of Science, to use the symmetry of the birds --in fact, any symmetry in nature-- as an evidence of the existence of God. I find that too naive.
About Einstein's quote: He speaks about fanatic atheists. All fanatics are "slaves" of their beliefs.
In fact, whoever is guided by subconscious, emotions, irrationality and false data is as "slave" of them.
Fanatics are guided by hate towards something. Atheists are not necessarily guided by hate towards theists or theism in general. They may be just guided by rationality and pure logic. In fact, they can be even considered more rational and scientifically-minded than theists, because they base their beliefs on lack of hard evidence about the existence of a God. Whereas theists seem to ignore that lack and are based on other things --personal experience of God, religious emotions, deeply rooted beliefs, etc.-- which cannot be used in any way as a valid evidence of the existence of God and might even have nothing to do with rational thinking.
About Heisenberg's quote: "I believe in God, the Father, the almighty creator of heaven and earth."
I wonder who is really talking here? These words sound as coming from a priest teaching the Bible or Christianity, and indeed in a very authoritarian and hypnotic kind of way. Reason is totally absent here. Common reality is totally absent here. What is here are only deeply nurtured beliefs, most probably coming from childhood, having being raised in a zealously religious environment. (I can't even imagine my father, who was a deeply religious person, talking like that.)
I don't want to comment on other quotes. It already seems as if I'm trying to find faults and criticize everything that I read so far. But I'm not. In fact, I'm rather surprised to read all that, as I already mentioned in my comment of Newton's quote.
As for my opinion and answer to the topic is this: "No. Science and religion do not contradict themselves." They are totally different areas of study and knowledge. They are totally different frames of reference. They have totally different foundations. They are describing and talking about totally different things. They are experienced in a totally different manner and context.
The theological definition of salvation is the deliverance from sin and its consequences.
Have you been delivered from sin and its consequences? If not, do you know anyone who has been?
There is no test that allows us to confirm or refute the existence of God. So the question of whether God exists or not is not something that science can answer. Belief in God is a matter of faith.
Religion can specify rules about what is right and wrong, which science can not prove or disprove.
Science can test the validity of some statements. It is possible that a statement made by a religion can be shown to be incorrect by science (i.e. there is a contradiction).
So science and religion can contradict each other for some statements. But there are other statements that science can't test (e.g. moral rules) so there can't be a contradiction for these statements.
Heisenberg was essentially Christian Platonist in his views, he used to carry a copy of the Timeaus around in his University days and remained Lutheran (unlike Neils Bohr who was atheist although not evangelically so). Newton devoted enormous amounts of time in later life to his rather eccentric commentaries on matters biblical and alchemical, although those writings are not regarded as much more than historical curiosities nowadays. James Clerk Maxwell and Michael Faraday were both groundbreaking scientsts and devoutly religious, as this interesting New Atlantis essay shows.
There's a great deal of pseudo-scientific nonsense spouted by the 'new atheists' such as Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris who all mistakenly believe that 'science disproves God' or some such, leading none other than Peter Higgs (of Higgs Boson fame), no believer himself, to describe Richard Dawkins as a 'secular fundamentalist'.
I think the most important and difficult aspect of the question is to recognise the symbolic nature of most religious texts and also their existential implications, what they mean in terms of the living of life. Science itself is pretty removed from that dimension of existence.
Some claim that Dawkins and crew believe that science disproves God but when you try to find them saying some such its not easy to find. What do they call that, a strawman argument?
Without having to dig for quotes do most secular/atheist scientists claim that science can offer explanations regarding various phenomena that were previously undertaken by religion ?
New atheists like Dawkins claim there is evidence, like natural selection, that explains phenomena that were previously undertaken by religion, yes.
I could only find religious believers saying that Dawkins claims science disproves God. Dawkins himself says thing like:
Thats a far cry from claiming that science disproves God. But then believers are not known for their honesty.
The God Delusion (Dawkins) and Breaking the Spell (Dennett) are mainly about that, predicated on the claim that the theory of evolution undercuts the rationale for divine creation.
From Wikipedia:
Quoting The God Delusion | Wikipedia
It's simply not tenable to hold that Dawkins does not see science as undermining religion and the belief in God. Hell, just read the title of his book, "The God Delusion."
You almost made it to October. :razz:
Science undermines religion and the belief in God.
Science disproves God.
Do you guys actually think these two claims are the same?
It's easy to intuit that science may tend to undermine religion. How can science disprove the existence of God? No one says that, other than believers fallaciously trying to invalidate atheist arguments.
You're making a strained epistemological argument. When Dawkins says God can't be disproved with certainty, that hardly is a nod in favor of possible theism. He's making claims about certainty consistent with his scientific epistemology. That is, nothing can be known with certainty to the scientist. But this isn't a solipsistic claim because he does believe we can "know, " just not with certainty.
Like this: We know things about the universe exclusively through science. Through science we have no knowledge of God. We therefore know God doesn't exist.
We say what we know: "God doesn't exist."
We say "OJ killed Nicole."
Admitting each could be wrong doesn't mean we know nothing or suggest we truly harbor meaningful doubt regarding their veracity. Dawkins knows there is no God to the same degree he knows his hand is before him, but both could be wrong.
Do you believe those two statements are synonymous?
Here's a brief breakdown on the strength of Dawkins' atheism:
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/atheists/richard_dawkins_existence_of_god_scale.html
If we suggest that Dawkins is an agnostic because he's left open the possibility that the earth might be flat, pigs might fly, and God msy possibly exist, the only true atheist would be the dogmatic atheist, who rejects the existence of God regardless of the evidence, but that would reject the scientific epistemology most atheists rely upon
What's the purpose of presenting your position on a subject, ask for comments, etc. if you are not going to respond to them?
I also find it quite rude to not reply to comments from participants to yor topic who are addressing to you.
That's an F !
I appreciate your honesty, not that it was a big ask. I don't appreciate the claim that some atheists are as bad as religious fundamentalists and then put words in their mouths to indicate that that is in fact the case. I'm not a new atheist fan, by the way, I'm just partial to truth.
Quoting Hanover
I think this is exactly right.
The same problem arises from the atheist camp in trying to define theists as fundamentalists and then attacking that weakest form of theism.
[quote=Maverick Philosopher; https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2014/02/russells-teapot-revisited.html ]If someone asserts that there there is a celestial teapot orbiting the Sun, or an angry unicorn on the far side of the Moon, or that 9/11 was an 'inside job,' one will justifiably demand evidence. "It's possible, but what's your evidence for so outlandish a claim?" It is the same with God, say many atheists. The antecedent probability of God's existence, they think, is on a par with the extremely low antecedent probability of there being a celestial teapot or an irate lunar unicorn, a 'lunicorn,' if you will.
But this is to assume something that a sophisticated theist such as Thomas Aquinas would never grant, namely, that God, if he exists, is just another being among the totality of beings. For Aquinas, God is not an ens (a being) but esse ipsum subsistens (self-subsistent Being). God is not a being among beings, but Being itself. Admittedly, this is not an easy notion; but if the atheist is not willing to grapple with it, then his animadversions are just so many grapplings with a straw man.
Why can't God be just another being among beings in the way an orbiting teapot would be just another being among beings were it to exist? I hope it is clear that my point is not that while a teapot is a material object, God is not. That's true, of course, but my point cuts much deeper: if God exists, he exists in a way different from the way contingent beings exist.[/quote]
Personally, I dont appreciate lies whatever camp they come from. Not sure what you mean by fundamentalism being weakest form of theism. Not important though, just curious.
That in its Christian form, it presents as a naive literalism, where it is argued that the text is the inerrant word of God and it can be understood by a direct interpretation of the words on the page. It's a 19th century creation that is believed by church members, largely in the South, despite it not being taught in most seminaries.
For example, arguments against Creationism are taken as arguments against theism, where only the weakest form of theism demands Creationism be accepted
You don't seem to understand that Dawkins wasn't too concerned about the people who engage in critical thinking regarding the notion of God, as in philosophy of religion. He was more concerned with people whose ability to engage in critical thinking is stunted by religious beliefs.
Quoting Wayfarer
That is just misrepresentation. Have you even read what Dawkins has to say? You come across as a fan of Dawkins detractors, rather than as someone who has charitably read what Dawkins has written.
Do you think that the degree to which religion stunts people's ability to engage in critical thinking is not something to be concerned with?
Human creations such as AI are rapidly moving toward disproving this principle. Once they get the quantum computers figured out, watch out!
Its the characterization of weakness that I dont follow. How does fundamentalism in religious belief lack power or strength compared to religious liberalism, or however you contrast fundamentalism?
It is exactly what he said: 'Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.' But I'm done debating Dawkins, I shouldn't have brought him up - I reference him only as an exemplar of what used to be called 'new atheism', although it's no longer new, and hardly mentioned on this forum.
You should be honest when bringing him up. Its probably a good idea for the moderators of a philosophy forum to be intellectually honest.
Perhaps its followers find that it provides a meaningful way of life. I'm not trying to dissuade them from their views in that regard
But, to the extent a literal fundamentalist wishes to maintain a scientific worldview, that person's epistemology is not internally consistent. Either we look to the universe for empirical evidence and go with our conclusions or we read the Bible and just accept it. Attempting to make the evidence fit the Bible is not a scientific approach.
A fundamentalist who argues with Dawkins that they have a stronger scientific basis in support of Creationism than he does for evolution is silly. That makes that effort, as I say "weak" and therefore subjects theism generally to ridicule, despite that that brand of theism just being a weak form susceptible to attack due to its particular unsupportable claims.
The irony. :groan: You are the one misrepresenting Dawkins, and you are doing so with bald assertions, apart from sources or quotes. Everyone you are disagreeing with has provided sources, with quotes. You have provided neither. Your accusations of intellectual dishonesty are truly absurd at this point.
The manner in which you brought him up is pertinent. The "conflict hypothesis"that religion and science exist in an inherent conflicthas now been dead in the water for quite some time. Yet, as you pointed out, folks like Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris cling to this outdated hypothesis with all of the emotion they can muster. I don't think this is controversial or even overly interesting, but it is true and pertinent to a thread on the topic.
No. attributed claims to Dawkins without source or quotes, then when called on it said, "But I'm done debating Dawkins, I shouldn't have brought him up...", rather than attempt to back up his claim.
I think that I should first back up a bit and point out that atheists such as Harris don't go after fundamentalists because they're easy targets. From what I gather, he's concerned with fundamentalism because he generally considers it the most dangerous (think 9/11) form of theism.
It's interesting to contrast religious liberalism/fundamentalism and science/scientism in terms of power or weakness.
I think everyone can agree that science is valued for its explanatory and predictive power, that it provides a structured framework for identifying and solving problems, that it facilitates technological advancements, etc etc.
I'm not sure what value scientism has as a philosophical position though I think it can interfere with the practice of science by limiting exploration, slowing scientific progress and paradigm shifts, underestimating theory and subjective experience, and neglecting moral and social issues that may arise in science.
Science has power, or rather it has high value. It's unclear what value scientism may have, and it can have a negative impact on science, essentially weakening it.
Considering the power or weakness of religious liberalism and religious fundamentalism, it appears to be the case that the former is on the decline and the latter is on the rise, and the basic reason for that is because religious liberalism is weak tea compared to stricter forms of worship. Stricter worship offers a more potent and fulfilling experience, in other words.
That's why I think religious liberalism is weak compared to religious fundamentalism.
Except for the quote that addresses my complaint.
To quote myself (which includes me quoting Dawkins):
Quoting praxis
Do you believe that Wayfarer was merely paraphrasing and it was a happy coincidence that the paraphrasing supported his assertion so well?
For all I know Dawkins or Harris has made the claim that "science disproves God" and I just can't find it. Can you?
That is not an overlap, it's a contradiction, and 'flat earthism' is pretty poor choice, as there are actuallly people who believe it, and will insist on it despite all available evidence. It is that kind of thinking which gives religion a bad name. More to the point are those who are both scientifically literate and religious, like Georges LeMaitre, who discovered what is now called 'big bang cosmology'.
Quoting praxis
Just peruse the wikiquotes page for Richard Dawkins quotes. There are plenty of examples. He might not use the exact phrase but throughout his popular writing career has held up science as an example of rational thinking and religion as no more than bigotry and superstion, and it's not the least intellectually dishonest to say that. :brow:
I did a page search for "science disproves God" and nope, it's not in any of those quotes.
Quoting Wayfarer
There are no examples of him saying what you claim he says, that science disproves God.
Quoting Wayfarer
And he probably doesn't believe in the tooth fairy. What does that have to do with you saying that he claims that science disproves God?
He doesn't claim that science disproves God. Your saying he does is dishonest.
Your failure to admit the truth is also dishonest.
Religious discourse is a special type of discourse. It's meant to instruct the people in religious themes, praise the religious doctrine and the religious figures, proselytize to outsiders. It's not meant to encourage critical thinking as critical thinking is understood in secular academia.
And clearly, people apparently want and need this type of discourse, otherwise there wouldn't be such things as scientism.
Just as religions must conflict if each claims to be the only correct ideology, science and religion must conflict when their domains overlap if either wants to be seen as legitimate. Religion's static dogma contradicts science's logical and dynamic nature. Scientists know their place they rarely ever touch philosophy, unless it is directly relevant to them. Any scientist sincerely claiming to have solved the meaning of life would be laughed out of the field.
On the other hand, many old-world religions constantly encroach on science's legitimate territory, promoting preposterous and destructive claims. When this occurs, science has a responsibility to disprove religion and put it in its place. That is the only way for the two to coexist. And if they cannot, science will inevitably win, because it is adaptive and produces tangible results that benefit all of society.
That's just a claim that their methods to find "truths" conflict, which needs to be distinguished from the idea that the truths themselves conflict.
Okay, fair enough. I apologize for overlooking that quote.
Quoting praxis
But what assertion are you talking about? You seem to have taken a fairly simple assertion and applied a great deal of pedantry in order to make a mountain out of a molehill. Here is what Wayfarer actually said:
Quoting Wayfarer
Now you apparently read the phrase, that science disproves God or some such, in a very strange way, especially given the context. You want to read it as if Wayfarer were talking about strict proof of Gods non-existence, and as if the new atheists were in violation of a tautology, but obviously thats not what Wayfarer was saying. That your interpretation is strained could have been known by the immediate context, ...or some such. It could also have been known by considering the concluding attribution of secular fundamentalist. No one was talking about strict or formal proof, and neither was there any equivocation on this point.*
Then cited a source to the effect that Dawkins possesses a certainty of 6.9/7 that God does not exist. Dawkins makes this point precisely in order to block the inference that a lack of proof implies a significant possibility of Gods existence. Dawkins thinks the people who harp on this point about proof and complete certainty are misguided (people such as yourself). He thinks there is excessive scientific justification for rejecting the God hypothesis, and that a lack of strict proof is neither here nor there.
So it seems to me that your quibble here amounts to, No, Wayfarer, Dawkins does not believe that science provides a 7/7 certainty that God does not exist. He only believes that it provides a 6.9/7 certainty that God does not exist. How intellectually dishonest of you. Both the quibbling and the interpretation of Wayfarers statement are silly.
* Note too that when one wishes to concisely convey the ancillary point that a group of people believe science provides excessive justification for rejecting God and religion, this phrase is perfectly adequate: that science disproves God or some such. That is a much smoother and easier way to convey the simple idea than anything else that comes readily to mind. It is not Wayfarers fault if someone manages to parse the words in a strained and implausible fashion. (An entire thread could be devoted to the general problem of uncharitable interpretation and the lack of effort to ascertain intended meaning.)
If a paraphrase is deliberately biased or used to misrepresent the original content to serve a specific agenda, it is considered unethical and misleading. Valid paraphrasing should prioritize accuracy, objectivity, and a faithful representation of the source material's content and meaning.
Claiming that "science disproves God" is clearly indicative of belief in scientism. None of them say that however, so you are forced to exaggerate what they say to make it appear that they believe in scientism. Your "paraphrasing" shows bias and is misrepresentative. That makes it invalid.
It's dishonest for anyone to do this. For a moderator of a philosophy forum to do this can lead to the degeneration of the integrity of the forum, I fear.
:lol: Speaking of...
Quoting Leontiskos
But thanks for agreeing that Wayfarer was exaggerating the truth, if only by 1.43%. Exaggeration is a misrepresentation. Why exaggerate and misrepresent if you have no agenda?
Again, valid paraphrasing should prioritize accuracy, objectivity, and a faithful representation of the source material's content and meaning.
We're attempting to use "religious fundamentalism" generically here, but there would be variations among the different groups. If we look at fundamentalist Protestant Christians, the basis for their emergence was in reaction to modernization and challenges brought forth by science to the religious belief. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3389#:~:text=The%20most%20prominent%20of%20the,that%20contradicted%20their%20religious%20beliefs.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-fundamentalism
From this emerged fundamentalist literalism, which holds that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God and that it is understandable by the common man, as each word clearly means what it says.
I do not believe this literalism and backlash to science resulted in stricter worship forms. The typical religious Protestant attends service one day a week at a church that offers serveral services each Sunday (sometimes divided by traditional and modern, where they plug in the electric guitars). The services varies in terms of what prayers are said, hymns sung, and sermons given.
That contrasts with the Catholic tradition, which is not particuraly growing in the US, but which does rely upon stricter worship services. Fundamentalist Protestantism is a modern creation, dating back largely to the early 1900s, so the argument seems to support a move toward modernity in some regards (worship service and church hierarchical structures), but toward a rigidity in Scripture interpretation, removing the role of the clergy as having a special ability to interpret and understand the text.
My reference to the "weakness" of the fundamentalist position relates to its logical, historical, and empirical defensibility. That someone might find more life fulfillment in believing the Ark truly housed every known animal than one who doesn't only means that person has figured out a way at blissful self-deception, but it doesn't offer me any likelihood to adopt that position because the insconsistency of such a belief with what else I hold as true makes that position impossible to adopt.
No, Wayfarer was not saying that Dawkins has a 7/7 certainty. That was your strained misinterpretation. You missed the point, just as you consistently missed Hanover's points. Do you have a desire to understand?
"Science disproves God"
A. True
B. More true than false
C. Neither true nor false
D. More false than true
E. False
For Dawkins & co. the answer is "B". If you want to understand why your posts are sophistic, then consider the fact that they have consistently obscured this fact with rhetoric and hair-splitting. A newcomer to Dawkins would come away with a more accurate understanding if they attended to Wayfarer's posts rather than your own.
The way I understand the qualifier "weakness" here is that it refers to what can also be called "minimal or minimalist theism". Such minimal/ist theism requires only "a belief in God or gods". This, however, is so minimal that no actual theistic religion veritably fits it, because it is such a gross oversimplification.
Holding "a belief in God or gods" doesn't make one an actual theist, such as a Catholic or a Muslim or a Vaishnavite or a Mahayani.
The god that many vocal atheists deny or are skeptical about is believed in in none of the major theistic religions. As such, the arguments of those atheists don't address the God that believers in the major theistic religions actually believe in. Those atheists aren't arguing against a strawman, they are arguing against what is a non-typical representative.
It seems that in the minds of most people, religion and science are not equals to begin with, by default, one is given more legitimacy than the other.
For one, religion was there before science, so it can claim primacy.
Such disproving would be possible only if science and religion were equals. But they're not.
There is more to "tangible results that benefit all of society" than just technological advancement through science. Offering answers to the meaning of life question is one such other tangible result.
His point was that Richard Dawkins and others believe in scientism. An accusation that is often used to discredit atheists and falaciously invalidate their arguments.
Dawkins himself has clarified his position by stating that he does not consider himself a proponent of scientism. He has expressed the view that while science is an incredibly powerful and reliable method for understanding the natural world, there are also limits to what science can address. He acknowledges that there are philosophical, ethical, and metaphysical questions that may fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
Quoting Leontiskos
What does B mean? That science mostly disproves the existence of God? That is nonsensical.
If it means that science can undermine religious beliefs such as creation stories, that doesn't seem very indicative of belief in scientism.
Let's try this:
"Richard Dawkins believes in scientism"
A. True
B. More true than false
C. Neither true nor false
D. More false than true
E. False
Quoting Leontiskos
I just reviewed my posts and I've practically said nothing about him, other than what he's said himself. I haven't "paraphrased" anything he's said or misrepresented him.
Scientism is, according to Wikipedia, 'the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.' Dawkins and Dennett both disavow it, because they realise it casts them in a negative light, but it is indisputable that this is what they both propogate. Daniel Dennett is a veritable Professor of Scientism but because of his own massive cognitive blind spot in this matter - the same blind spot that prevents him from recognising that humans are beings as distinct from moist robots - he's completely unable to see it. His first book, Consciousness Explained, was parodied by several of his peers as Consciousness Ignored. Galen Strawson said he should be sued under Trade Practices for false advertising (i.e. claiming to have explained something he hadn't.)
What I originally said was 'science disproves God or some such', it was a colloquial expression of his attitude. Picking a bunch of random material from the bona fide quotations on Wikiquote, we get:
[quote=Richard Dawkins]Just because science can't in practice explain things like the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet, that doesn't mean that religion can. It's a simple and logical fallacy to say, 'If science can't do something, therefore religion can'.....Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence......Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.... A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.....Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense.....evidence is the only good reason to believe anything.....[/quote]
Examples could be multiplied indefinitely
As for your fit of pique, get over it. I haven't said anything the least 'intellectually dishonest' in any of the above, and that is the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
Quoting Wayfarer
I do think science is the most reliable way (but not the only way) to acquire tentative knowledge about the world. I would not use the word truth.
The Dawkins quote above I would agree with for the most part, but I would not state my position with the same level of militancy.
I would think that Dawkins would say that science renders God superfluous. Disproving theism is a different, more technical exercise which I don't think can be done.
Another lie. Of course it's disputable. For example, Dawkins doesn't refuse to consider other forms of knowledge, such as philosophical, ethical, or experiential, as valid or meaningful, and he doesn't ignore or downplay the qualitative, subjective, or personal aspects of human experience, which cannot always be easily studied using the scientific method. This is evident in the quote that you post where he says:
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm insulted by your misrepresenting Dawkins and others???
Quoting Wayfarer
Just locker room talk, aye? Where have I heard that before? :roll:
That's what I should have said at the outset. Happy now, @praxis?
As an aside - I don't know if I've mentioned that the article that lead me to forums was Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion - Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching. That lead me to the Richard Dawkins forum, which was the first I joined, I think in 2008 or 9. (Eagleton is a leftie university lecturer, no religious apologist, although he oddly adopted a pose rather like that in the late noughties.)
Quoting praxis
He rarely says anything about it. Mostly he just bangs the drum about the Wonders of Science.
Laughably, he did in the quote that you picked.
I think it's an interesting point. Can religion explain the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet?
Want certainly. Need? I find that questionable.
In what sense do you mean "need"?
It depends on what is meant by religion. Plainly fundamentalist religion won't have anything useful to contribute other than trying to squeeze everyone into its procrustean bed. But the romantic poets - Wordsworth, Coleridge, William Blake and others - weren't anything like religious fundamentalists. I suppose they could be 'spiritual but not religious' although even that is probably not quite right. They have an intuitive sense of a kind of 'higher sensibility' (as they would have called it), awareness of which is often absent from "religion" as such, but also absent in the likes of Dawkins/Dennett.
Yes, I read that too. I've intermittently followed Eagleton's work in the area of literary theory and cultural criticism for some time.
I think it's easy be ambivalent or hostile towards Dawkins and like many atheists, he is often a polemicist. Many in the secular humanist community are now hostile to him owing to his perceived anti-trans comments.
Quoting praxis
Depends on the religion. Many apologists would argue that love emanates from God's nature and our ability to feel it is evidence of God in action in our lives.
Fundamentalists and both Dawkins and Dennett can't grasp romanticism? If you say so.
Quoting Tom Storm
I wonder how they would explain the emotions that motivate killers when they commit murder. Surely that doesn't emanate from God's nature.
That would be the other guy...
And humans don't actually love or hate as a matter of their own nature? It's God, or the other guy that God created, putting on a puppet show?
Persona non grata, in the well-deserved sense. Even his scientific colleagues began speaking out against him and distancing themselves, wary that he was dragging the scientific community into ideological skirmishes. He is a kind of zealot who lost himself in battles with those he considered to be the foes of science. At each point the proper remonstrance from his colleagues could have been, Richard, stop stooping down to their level! Your zeal for science is only harming it.
They do, according to old Darwinian ideas.
The theory of constructed emotion is a theory in affective science proposed by Lisa Feldman Barrett to explain the experience and perception of emotion. The theory posits that instances of emotion are constructed predictively by the brain in the moment as needed. It draws from social construction, psychological construction, and neuroconstruction.
God is not the one doing the constructing in this theory, but it's regarded as just a theory so hopefully no one will cry scientism! :snicker:
People have the uncanny ability to make a religion out of pretty much anything. Some people go about it systematically and explicitly, so there are the traditional religionists, and those who "created their own religion". Fans of celebrities, fashionistas, scientism, foodism, etc. etc. All these have in common a characteristic dogmatism that is of existential importance to the members, a community of devotees, a place of worship, the lives of those devotees revolving around certain persons, characters, objects, or ideas, and the willingness to defend them even by endangering their own existence.
Many people are not that systematic and explicit, but they still have that need for prevailing, for being right in what is of existential importance to a them and also having at least some other people on one's side, which is characteristic for religiosity.
IOW, what I mean here by "religious discourse" is a type of discourse that is characteristically dogmatic, of existential importance, and bound to a particular community. People generally do seem to exhibit this as a matter of a need (which, when unmet, manifests as narcissism/egotism).
But nomen est omen!
The common core of all versions of religion is dogma, an instance of faith. Faith is belief without appeal to evidence and is always intellectually regressive.
Well, only somewhat rigorously. With what accuracy can you measure how long something is? What would be the basis of your claim to accuracy?
Also, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Why would I believe you had a yardstick because of poof? Doesn't sound like a particularly rigorous process to me.
Let's switch to meters. Why should I believe that you are able to measure a meter in any rigorous way?
I'll take issue with that. All religions have dogmas, that's for sure, but 'a dogma' is simply 'a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority'. Many other kinds of associations have their dogmas - accountants, architects, even science. 'The central dogma of molecular biology is a theory stating that genetic information flows only in one direction, from DNA, to RNA, to protein, or RNA directly to protein.'
Religions are such a diverse set of cultural phenomena that it is arguable that the word really has no useful meaning. What it does have, is a set of references, which is usually very much a product of the culture in which it's situated. In other words, we think we know what we mean when we talk about it, but much of that is hearsay.
But behind all of that, there are the accounts of encounters with the transcendent. These accounts span cultures and are found throughout history. Of course, the fact that we ourselves rarely have such encounters, means that normally they are only heard of second-hand. Even more so, in a secular culture such as ours, where the living traditions are rarely encountered, all sense that their might be something behind the dogma is lost.
In any case dogma is one of the consequences of religious consciousness, not necessarily one of the causes.
Sound like you are saying that you aren't rigorous yourself, but you trust that other people are. Is that correct?
You have trouble recognizing religion? If so, that may be because you want to label something a religion that isnt a religion, like secularism. Am I right?
'In his best known and most controversial work The Meaning and End of Religion: A New Approach to the Religious Traditions of Mankind, Smith examines the concept of "religion" in the sense of "a systematic religious entity, conceptually identifiable and characterizing a distinct community". He concludes that it is a misleading term for both the practitioners and observers and it should be abandoned. The reasons for the objection are that the word 'religion' is "not definable" and its noun form ('religion' as opposed to the adjectival form 'religious') "distorts reality". Moreover, the term is unique to the Western civilization; there are no terms in the languages of other civilizations that correspond to it. He regards the term as having outlived its purpose.
Smith contends that the concept of religion, rather than being a universally valid category as is generally supposed, is a specifically European construct of recent origin. Religion, he argues, is a static concept that does not adequately address the complexity and flux of religious lives. Instead of the concept of religion, Smith proffers a new conceptual apparatus: the dynamic dialectic between cumulative tradition (all historically observable rituals, art, music, theologies, etc.) and individual faith.
The terms for major world religions today, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism, did not exist until the 19th century. Smith suggests that practitioners of any given faith do not historically come to regard what they do as religion until they have developed a degree of cultural self-regard, causing them to see their collective spiritual practices and beliefs as in some way significantly different from the other.'
In practise, most times when a people start a sentence with 'religion is...' what usually follows is a regurtitation of their inherited prejudices. Kind of an 'anti-dogma'.
It seems to me that the basic problem that WCS was trying to address is that most people, including both secular folks and people with a dynamic dialectic between cumulative tradition and individual faith, don't understand what religion is, and that quite naturally results in a hot mess of misunderstanding, which can result in a deep schism between the religious and the non-religious. The obvious solution is for people to better understand what religion is. I don't see how abandoning the concept of 'religion' will do that. Also, I don't think that people with cumulative tradition and individual faith are inclined to put their tradition and faith under a microscope. If religion is the 'opium of the people' that would be a total buzz kill.
I don't see how the concept of religion being new, Western, or somehow static, makes it invalid. Is any concept actually static? No, so why does he claim that it is? Maybe this suggests a reluctance to study and analyze cumulative tradition and faith because that might change our concept of it (and be a buzz kill).
Quoting Wayfarer
If cumulative tradition and individual faith were all good perhaps there wouldn't be such prejudices.
The salient question is whether that yearning is a sign of health or of disease.
Ill ask you the same question that I asked the thread starter (and they ignored). Do you know of anyone who religion has provided deliverance from sin and its consequences?
I don't think so. I guess the question is who is to be the judge when it comes to personal salvation...or enlightenment?
A) Salvation is really really hard.
B) People are really really stupid.
C) The goal of religion is not salvation.
If C is true that strongly indicates that most people dont understand religion. Of course, its very difficult or perhaps even impossible to define what you dont understand.
Indeed. I personally don't find the term all that useful but you have to start somewhere. Karen Armstrong, a mainstream scholar of religion, famously said religion may not be definable.
Quoting praxis
I'm assuming this only applies to Christian traditions. I don't know what 'deliverance from sin' means except as a tentative goal of the pious, subject to certain traditions and certain definitions of sin. The only person who knows if this is successful is the individual believer, I guess.
In that case salvation is an illusion and those who think they are saved are deluded. That delusion may be a happier state than desperately feeling a need for salvation, though. I don't think anything can be imposed on people en masse for long that does not satisfy, or appear to satisfy, some need they feel.
Deliverance from sin and its consequences. I think the consequences of sin is basically suffering and thats not unique to any tradition.
Clearly the need being fulfilled is not salvation so religion must be fulfilling other needs.
I think the question is vague. For whom are these consequences felt? The sinner or the sinned against? Or does it depend? There are many sinners who benefit enormously from sinning. But again, what counts as sinning? Blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, using curse words, killing?
And sin is not an idea I have encountered outside of Abrahamic traditions. Are you using the term loosely? Or are you referring to wrongdoing in general?
I don't think it is quite as clear as you seem to think it is. but I do agree that religion also fulfills other needs; it can provide a sense of community and caring for example. It can also satisfy tribal impulses; or the desire to belong to a group that stands for some ideal. It may even satisfy pride in some cases or the need to be told what to do.
Moving back on topic,
If you dont think science and religion go together, please bring up an argument. I do see how the quotes were cherry-picked, as many of those scientists lived in a society that forced religion into everyone. However, even with most scientists being atheists, believing in God is rational and there are scientific arguments for God. I wish for you to respond.
So you have an interpretation (or one seemingly borrowed form Jordan Peterson). How do you measure the validity of one interpretation against that of another?
Quoting ButyDude
I don't care what most scientists believe - atheist or Hindu. There are threads about whether gods are 'true' or not all over this site. I have participated in many. Not sure this is the place for arguments about the validity of gods. I am not aware of scientific arguments for gods. But I am aware of people using gaps in science to assert gods.
What's with the "we" bit? No one around today ever lived in the Garden of Eden, nor ate from the tree there. Rather, your god thinks that children should be punished for things done by their father - grossly immoral.
How did Adam and Eve choose to eat the apple, if it was the apple that made them conscious? If they were not self-aware, how was it that they wanted more?
How could your god "discover" their conscious state? There are things that god can discover - things that he doesn't' yet know? So he's (I bet your god is a "he") not omniscient, then.
Not very impressive.
And they are...?
Fine Tuning argument - the constants of physics, such as g, k, G, and many more, are so precise that if they were any different the universe would not be physically possible. There is simply no explanation for this. Infinite universes and bounce-back universe are disproven.
Cosmic Argument (Cause and Effect) - the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang, must have been caused by something outside of the universe. Everything in the universe has a cause. The causes go all the way back to the Big Bang. The Big Bang itself cant be the un-caused cause because it is inside the universe. Therefore, there must be an un-caused cause beyond our universe. This doesnt assert that the un-caused cause is a loving God or a hateful God, but that simply it is sort of god in the logical sense that it is beyond the universe itself.
Funny how apologists run away to metaphor at the first sign of critique. "I didn't mean it..."
Quoting ButyDude
I'm guessing you won't want to fill these out, and if we were to critique them, you'd say they also were "metaphor".
So why are you here? Why pretend to present your ideas for inspection, then doge and weave?
So how does this imply a creator? Anselm's "and this we all call god"? Finish the argument.
Quoting ButyDude
That's just not accepted, as Hawking showed, for example in "The boundary conditions of the universe". But also there are good reasons not to accept that every event must have a cause.
Can you prove that everything in the universe has a cause? Or is it just an assumption on your part?
Yes, slap yourself in the face. You will quickly see cause and effect. Seriously, you are questioning logic itself.
Article: https://www.opencollege.info/law-of-cause-and-effect/#:~:text=The%20law%20of%20cause%20and,cause%2C%20an%20original%20starting%20point.
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_causation#:~:text=7%20External%20links-,As%20axioms%20of%20causality,an%20equal%20and%20opposed%20reaction.
Quoting Banno
From the website, [Hawkings paper] was an attempt at explaining how the Universe could arise out of nothingness, applying quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle at the beginning of time. Space and time emerged at the same point, so if this is saying that quantum mechanics uncertainty principle was applied to space that was there before time, this notion is outdated. If he is saying that quantum mechanics existed before the universe itself, then logically, that could be our god. Or, how is there quantum mechanics with no universe?
Quoting Banno
Fine Tuning has three answers. One, there is a fine tuner, who is God. Two, there are many universes. This attempts to explain the extremely low chances of the fine constants allowing life, by saying there are infinite chances. Imagine flipping a coin, and trying to get heads fifty times in a row. If you flip a coin for an infinite amount of time, you will get there. Third, it should not even be answered. Some have said that as life living in the universe, we can not reasonably answer this question. Article: https://www.templeton.org/news/what-is-fine-tuning
Quoting Isaiasb
Quoting Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein
? Scientists and Belief · Pew Research Center · Nov 5, 2009
? Preliminary Survey results | What do philosophers believe? (2009)
? Survey Results | Philosophers on Philosophy: The 2020 PhilPapers Survey
I don't think those are scientific arguments as such. They are god of the gaps arguments. The argument is essentially - "How else can we explain x...?" It's also a fallacy from incredulity.
I'm not sure this is the place for atheism /theism arguments 101. They seem to crop up all over this site.
My position on any of this stuff - cosmological, ontological, Aquinas's five proofs, whatever it is is this: we don't have to know why the universe is what it is or what it is. I generally like, "I don't know," as my go to answer. But posing gods provides no explanation either because gods have no explanatory power, it is no different than saying 'the magic man did it, how else can you explain it." Problem with magic men is we still don't know how or why or what the situation was. So no explanation at all, just 'magic'.
Quoting ButyDude
I don't think the question is clear. It's so broad as to be virtually meaningless. Which science versus which religion?
So you are agnostic, more or less. There are two types of agnostics: those who dont know and those who dont care. I would assume you care somewhat, as the existence of God certainly affects your life. Within not knowing, you can say that you dont know, or that it is impossible to know. However, these are actually indistinguishable from each other, because we can not be fully certain of anything. It will always be impossible to objectively know, so it is more a matter of, Do you know God? That is, do you believe there is a god or not? And the answer to that has an objective effect on your life and how you will live it.
If you are interested in the Fine-Tuning argument:
Look up fine tuning argument and find the Stanford page. Should be plato.stanford.edu or something like that. It holds a very detailed account of the argument. Having looked at that website, I know that your simple refutation is not enough, as well as my simple explanation is not nearly enough.
I don't think that's logic, more like metaphysics. I guess causation must have a cause? Notice how neatly ampliative such arguments become. Composition fallacy.
I also like to think about the property of Conservation of Energy, stating that Energy cannot be created or destroyed. How could energy not be created or destroyed, but the universe also be finite? It implies that something outside of the universe caused energy to exist.
These arguments arent meant to show that God must exist, especially because they dont. Nothing will empirically prove God to exist. But it shows that belief in God is rational and reasonable, and is a huge step towards faith for non-believers.
No. These days many atheists would spell it out as follows. Gnosticism goes to knowledge, atheism goes to belief. I (like many contemporary atheists) am an agnostic atheist. In other words, I don't know whether or not there are gods, however I see no good reason to believe. It's pretty straight forward. But in the end labels don't really matter all that much.
Quoting ButyDude
I haven't refuted an argument since an argument has not been made. But I hear you. It can get complicated. Most theistic arguments I have heard (and I have been reading and listening to them for 35 years, along with extensive history in the Theosophical Society and growing up in the Baptist tradition) are (as I see it) basic fallacies - appeals to ignorance or fallacies from incredulity. But in the end, where you sit on this matter is based on how you interpret the inferences. Everyone is different. Argument is fairly pointless.
I think that the arguments in support of gods are just like belief in gods itself. You either believe or you don't. I don't. But as I have said a couple of times, this fits better with a range of other threads already commenced on the site.
I do not argue that it is irrational to believe in god. I do not argue that believers are mentally ill. Some atheists like some believers are shrill and fanatical.
This makes you an agnostic that is not concerned with God (does not care). I dont know I see no good reason to believe. I hesitate to say dont care, because you obviously have given this an immense amount of thought. It does not make you atheist, because atheist entails that you actively believe that there is no God. Lots of people say they are atheist when they are not actually, because they dont know the difference, and this has changed the popular meaning of what atheist means.
There are lots of good reasons to believe in God. Belief in God is necessary for moral realism and objective morality, and human dignity. I would hope that you are not a moral relativist. Also, it is very important to note that belief in God should entail a community, or Church. It is extremely difficult to be a single, individual person and believe in God. The role of the Church is to organize the followers of God in prayer, community, and action. It is through organization only that great charities and Churches across the world provide food, clothing, shelter, vaccines, medicine, and even surgery, to the billions of people around the globe.
This website can answer questions about faith: https://www.catholicscomehome.org/your-questions/catholic-resources/
Catholicism as a faith does embrace science quite strongly, and unlike most other faiths. Seriously, Catholicism may hold answers to any questions you have. They have about 2000 years of recorded theology which could definitely answer questions better than other faiths.
Thanks for the conversation.
The activity is continually thinking or vocalizing I believe there is no God? :snicker:
Quoting ButyDude
That is a very good reason to not believe because it inhibits moral developmental reasoning in followers and allows some rando religious authority to dictate what is moral and what is not.
Quoting ButyDude
Should it be easy? Most worthwhile things in life are challenging. If following is easy then perhaps it is rather worthless.
Quoting ButyDude
I personally don't attach a label to my "atheism", e.g. agnostic. In fact, I don't even put officially the label "atheist" on myself. I simply don't believe in the existence of God or gods, as these terms are commonly used. That's all.
Atheism is mainly an absence of belief in the existence of God, any god. (From Greek "a-theos" (= without god).) All other kinds of atheism are illogical or fallacies. E.g. "positive atheism" is a belief and affirmation that God doesn't exist. Which is a fallacy and esp. of the type of circular reasoning. How can one talk about, much less prove that something does not exist, the existence of which cannot be proven, and worse, if one already believes that it does not exist? That's kind of stupid, isn't it? E.g. Is there any meaning for me to prove that there are no angels flying in the heaven or existing among us, and so on? Besides, how can I? I just don't believe in the existence of angels. That's all.
So, "gnostic atheism" is baloneys. Gnostic theism, as well.
A true beilef in God is a personal affair. It is based on personal experience(s).
Exactly. The physical realm is where proof and logic reside. The metaphysical is where belief and faith rule.
Thus why "proofs" of the existence (or nonexistence) of gods are nonsensical on their face.
Right. Why all that sweat?
Just to mention from the OP. In Bacon's time people were religious. Rarely were people atheist. That science and atheism would hold hands came only far later.
Quoting praxis
How?
Science is objective. Religion is subjective. I think even in Antiquity people made the difference of the Mind and reasoning and the heart and issues of belief. The Bible (just to give one example of how one religion approaches this) is pretty clear about this difference. Or is it that to find Jesus you have to use your brain and think?
I haven't claimed that.
This is how that line appears in context:
Quoting praxis
I was addressing Wayfarer's misrepresentation of Dawkins and crew.
Well, there's a lot to say about Dawkins view. I think in a nutshell it is that you don't have an objective answer to subjective questions.
To be perfectly clear, Dawkins does not claim that "Science disproves God."
Wayfarer "paraphrased" him saying that, presumably to disparage Dawkins and others and make them appear irrational. Because that's how the moderators on this forum roll. :roll:
Why? Because the Modern religious live in a soviety that holds science and technology in high regard, therefore logic has more credibility that faith (even among the faithful) thus the draw towards proofs.
Didn't think he would have had said that. But what Dawkins says that there's no need for religion, and simply those questions on ethics that science cannot answer can be vaguely answered by general "humanity". Don't have a direct quote, but his general idea is this I think.
But how religious were the people in Bacon's time? Like modern American Christians, or like old-fashioned Catholics in traditionally Catholic countries?
I grew up with the latter. As such, it is my opinion that they think of religion as objective and public. Certainly not subjective.
It's not like people generally chose their religion. They were born and raised into it, it was normally not a matter of choice, nor was it perceived as a matter choice. (Religious people in traditionally religious countries seem to tend to be skeptical of adult converts.)
There is a general sense in which religion can be classed as faith-based, and science as evidence-based or it is a common trope that religion perpetuates superstition and science attempts to do away with it; but those are perhaps un-nuanced pictures.
Even if that were accepted the question remains as to what is meant by "versus": is it merely meant to signify a distinction between different approaches or is it meant to signify that the two must be adversaries? I guess on the view that religion is superstitious whereas science seeks to abolish superstition they would necessarily be seen as adversarial.
But do these systems contradict? Not especially, if they are setting out to do different things. I'm not sure I would go as far as Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, but I do think this frame has some merit.
But in the end, the question of contradiction or worse, conflict, all depends upon how militant and extreme the science or religion is and what each one seeks to action in the world and by what means.
In another way, the difference between religion and science is that a creator God employs material processes to create everything that is. Fiat Lux = the Big Bang. "DNA is the language of God" somebody said.
A believer, like all other people, can hold two contradictory ideas together in the same place. "God created the universe" on the one hand, and "Life is the result of the way chemicals and physics interact." So one can sing the beloved hymn that starts out...
Of the Fathers love begotten,
ere the worlds began to be,
He is Alpha and Omega,
He the Source, the Ending He,
of the things that are, that have been,
and that future years shall see
evermore and evermore!
but continue to believe that we live in a chilly deterministic universe governed by physical laws.
Some people will have no truck with religion and there is no reconciliation possible. Other people will have no truck with science, and there is no reconciliation possible with them either.
Of the two poles of opinion, the exclusively religious view which rejects science is clearly the most dangerous. When one throws out the bath water of science, one also throws out the baby of logic. The world ceases to be a place to which analytical thinking can be applied. Throwing out the bath water of science also shreds one's ability to think clearly about politics and society. Religion without grounding in the secular world (despite enjoining us to "judge not lest you be judged") tends to be pretty judgmental and is usually guided by a collection of reactionary ideas.
:100:
Agree. I think the majority of the worlds believers probably hold such a view. In my experience, even those who think their holy book is largely allegorical still hold that the rest of us should accept those allegories as critical and transformational and essentially true.
The scientific methodologies model cumulating evidence.
Because we don't start out knowing it all.
Hence electricity in your home, near-realtime worldwide communication over the Internet using complex electronic devices, GPS helping us navigate, cholera control, clean water, exploring Mars with rovers, fair treatments of schizophrenia, diabetes no longer a death sentence, helping paralyzed talk and move, ...
The most successful epistemic endeavor in human history.
As to Christianity, I guess, say, the 10 commandments have never changed?
Ethics and science work differently, though.
Apparently, Sunnism and Shaivism (among others) are competitors, if you will; can't all be right, but could all be wrong.
Science moves on regardless.