Does religion need to stop scientific research?

[SSG Schwartz]

After reading this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=357350), I started thinking about how religions throughout history have attempted to stop scientific discoveries from being shared. From heliocentric theory to intelligent design, various churches have tried to go counter to scientific facts. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any that actively encourage discovery. Is this because the religious groups believe that their central tenets may be disproved? If that is the case, doesn't that tend to discount faith? Wouldn't that be similar to saying that you doubt your own faith so much that there is probibly proof out there that God doesn't exist and people cannot be allowed to discover that? Or is it something about faith that does not even allow others from outside the faith to challenge it?

Sgt Schwartz

[JThunder]

After reading this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=357350), I started thinking about how religions throughout history have attempted to stop scientific discoveries from being shared. From heliocentric theory to intelligent design, various churches have tried to go counter to scientific facts. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any that actively encourage discovery.
With all due respect, I believe you are indeed wrong. True, some sects have occasionally voiced opposition to certain lines of scientific teaching or research. However, this does not mean that religion as a whole (or even Christianity) oppose science. Various Catholic and Protestant universities, for example, have science departments that have astronomical observatories, research laboratories, and so forth.

Blaise Pascal was Christian philosopher. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic Monk. Heck, the chairman of my Physics department was a Jesuit priest. I would argue that Christianity most certainly does actively encourage scientific discovery, especially insofar as it exhorts people to be proper stewards of their talents and to work for the betterment of mankind.

[Wesley Clark]

After reading this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=357350), I started thinking about how religions throughout history have attempted to stop scientific discoveries from being shared. From heliocentric theory to intelligent design, various churches have tried to go counter to scientific facts. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any that actively encourage discovery. Is this because the religious groups believe that their central tenets may be disproved? If that is the case, doesn't that tend to discount faith? Wouldn't that be similar to saying that you doubt your own faith so much that there is probibly proof out there that God doesn't exist and people cannot be allowed to discover that? Or is it something about faith that does not even allow others from outside the faith to challenge it?

Sgt Schwartz

American Jewish people have higher rates of education than non-Jewish people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jew

American Jews are generally more educated than the American public as a whole. 55% of Jewish adults 18 years of age and older have at least a bachelor's degree, and 24% have a graduate degree. The comparable numbers for the general population are 29% with a bachelor’s degree or higher and 6% with a graduate degree.


One of the reasons for this that I've heard from Jews is the culture of education Judaism provides. However that may be an ethnic thing and not a religious one.

Many of Al Qaeda's top terrorists have bachelor or graduate degrees in hard scientific fields like engineering or medicine. Bin Ladin and Zawahiri are an engineer and physician respectively. Several of the 9/11 hijackers were students in fields like engineering.

Plus many educational fields have nothing to do with religion. Medicine or engineering are not a threat to religious faith. Evolutionary biology, maybe, but most fields are not going to make any difference in the idea of a creator god.

I can't think of any branches of faith that encourage science and discover at the moment but I'm sure some exist.

[cosmosdan]

Those who claim to worship the one "true" God should make discovering and discerning truth a priority. That includes scientific, archaological, and other academic evidence. Trying to surpress the truth for fear of certain traditional beliefs being threatened seems counterproductive to the cause they give lip service to.

[Wendell Wagner]

A long thread about science and religion, with an interesting discussion of whether Galileo's problems with the Catholic church were really about religion:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=272916

[AFAIKnow]

Only the ones that are supposed to already have an answer for everything.

[tomndebb]

Gregor Mendel was a Catholic Monk. Not to mention Theodore Dobzhanski--a devout Christian--who applied Mendel's findings to Darwin's theory, providing the "engine" that made it work, thus establishing the train of thought known as neo-Darwinism.

[hlanelee]

What the world needs is more blind faith...more followers...too much free thinking is a baaad thing. :rolleyes:


We really need a sheep Smilie.

[tomndebb]

I don't agree that we need followers or that free thinking is a bad thing, but the world certainly could use more Blind Faith (http://www.angelfire.com/wi/blindfaith/index.html).

[AFAIKnow]

I don't agree that we need followers or that free thinking is a bad thing, but the world certainly could use more Blind Faith (http://www.angelfire.com/wi/blindfaith/index.html).


On an obscure band trip today, eh?

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

On an obscure band trip today, eh?
Obscure????? :eek:

<<shakes head sadly>>

[jayjay]

Obscure????? :eek:

<<shakes head sadly>>

'Cause he's wasted and he can't find his way home...

[Voyager]

Obscure????? :eek:

<<shakes head sadly>>
Double :eek: :eek: from me.
*grumble* kids today, don't know what good music is *grumble*

[Voyager]

Ahem. About the OP, besides the stuff already mentioned, I'm surprised no one said Jesuit.

When I was in Bell Labs, one of the supervisors was a nun. She was very cool, and very smart.

[JThunder]

Ahem. About the OP, besides the stuff already mentioned, I'm surprised no one said Jesuit.
Well, I did mention my old Jesuit physics professor.

[Princhester]

I think those in this thread who give specific examples of particular religious people or movements who embrace science are too busy pointing at certain tall trees to notice the average height of the forest.

Religion is based on faith, and science on the rejection of faith in favour of repeatable observation and testing. There are plenty of influential religious people who understand (explicitly or intuitively) that the spread of the scientific movement is broadly incompatible with attracting the masses to religion and who show distaste for the scientific movement as a consequence.

[JThunder]

I think those in this thread who give specific examples of particular religious people or movements who embrace science are too busy pointing at certain tall trees to notice the average height of the forest.
Well first, the OP asked if there were ANY religous groups that encouraged scientific inquiry. A few examples (heck, even a single one!) are sufficient to show that there are.
Religion is based on faith, and science on the rejection of faith in favour of repeatable observation and testing.
I think that distinction is both false and irrelevant.

Irrelevant, because science pertains to the physical universe and religion pertains primarily to spiritual matters. While there can be some overlap (for example, when miraculous claims are made), their realms are mostly separate. For example, how would one scientifically determine that it is wrong to rape little children, or to steal from one's neighbor? It can't be done, since such questions do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry.

Additionally, despite the protestations of many on this board, religious faith does not (necessarily) mean abandoning all observation and evidence whatsoever. That's certainly not what the New Testament writers meant by faith. Matthew, for example, repeatedly appealed to the alleged fulfillments of Old Testment prophecies. One might disagree with Matthew's intepretations of these prophecies, or their alleged fulfillments, but the point remains -- at no point did he ever say, "Look, just trust me! Don't ask for any evidence, just trust me!" Nor did the Apostle Paul, for in Acts 17:17, he is said to have “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshippers, and in the marketplace with those that happened to be there."

Jesus himself is recorded as having healed a paralytic "so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." (Matthew 9:6). Again, a skeptic may disbelieve this account, but the point remains... According to the gospels themselves, Jesus did not expect people to believe by abandoning all evidence.

Then you have people like Sir William Ramsay, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Peter Stoner, Frank Morison and more... People who came to belief through investigation of the scientific and historical facts. These people are highly respected within Christianity. Several of these individuals even sought to disprove the case for Christianity, and yet were forced to conclude that Christianity was worthy of belief. Again, one might disagree with their conclusion, but that's ultimately irrelevant. The point is that Christian faith does not require that one ignore all evidence and take a blind leap of a cliff.




Even Jesus is recorded as having performed

[Shalmanese]

For all the talk about Faith and Science being compatible, all the evidence does seem to suggest that they tend to be hard to reconcile with each other:


Science is also a rival to other worldviews that most people find more congenial. In hopes of allaying the sense of rivalry, it is often said that science and religious faith are compatible, since the former deals with "how" questions, the latter with "why" questions. As an empirical matter, however, that does not seem to be true. On the whole, around 9 in 10 Americans say they believe in a personal God. When scientists are surveyed, that figure falls to 4 in 10. Among the scientific elite - members of the National Academy of Sciences - fewer than 1 in 10 say they believe in God, with the biologists in particular professing agnosticism or atheism at a rate of 95 percent.


New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11wwln_lead.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=ade7ccf8af5938ff&ex=1139374800)

[Princhester]

Well first, the OP asked if there were ANY religous groups that encouraged scientific inquiry. A few examples (heck, even a single one!) are sufficient to show that there are.

Point taken, although the OP also asks (see the title) whether religion needs to stop scientific research and "is it something about faith that does not even allow others from outside the faith to challenge it?" which invoke broader consideration.

I think that distinction is both false and irrelevant.

Irrelevant, because science pertains to the physical universe and religion pertains primarily to spiritual matters.

No, you are just illustrating my point. The scientific viewpoint can be applied to the whole universe. The scientific viewpoint discounts the whole idea that there are any such things as "spriritual matters" outside the physical universe. The whole idea that such matters exist is one that is unsupported by evidence and therefore not scientific

For example, how would one scientifically determine that it is wrong to rape little children, or to steal from one's neighbor? It can't be done, since such questions do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry.

Scientifically, one could discuss such things in terms of the human brain and how it works, using certain memes such as "right" and "wrong" as ways of thinking about certain behaviours, and about evolutionary biology and why it is in the evolutionary interest of the herd for it to restrain particular behaviours and so on.

You may well think that science does not adequately explain such matters and I would agree, but the difference between us is that I just think science has more work to do, while you think that science cannot explain such matters while religion can. If everybody thought like I do, where would religion be? And every scientific breakthrough that people can understand attracts people to a scientific viewpoint.

Additionally, despite the protestations of many on this board, religious faith does not (necessarily) mean abandoning all observation and evidence whatsoever. That's certainly not what the New Testament writers meant by faith. Matthew, for example, repeatedly appealed to the alleged fulfillments of Old Testment prophecies. One might disagree with Matthew's intepretations of these prophecies, or their alleged fulfillments, but the point remains -- at no point did he ever say, "Look, just trust me! Don't ask for any evidence, just trust me!" Nor did the Apostle Paul, for in Acts 17:17, he is said to have “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshippers, and in the marketplace with those that happened to be there."

Jesus himself is recorded as having healed a paralytic "so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." (Matthew 9:6). Again, a skeptic may disbelieve this account, but the point remains... According to the gospels themselves, Jesus did not expect people to believe by abandoning all evidence.

Then you have people like Sir William Ramsay, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Peter Stoner, Frank Morison and more... People who came to belief through investigation of the scientific and historical facts. These people are highly respected within Christianity. Several of these individuals even sought to disprove the case for Christianity, and yet were forced to conclude that Christianity was worthy of belief. Again, one might disagree with their conclusion, but that's ultimately irrelevant. The point is that Christian faith does not require that one ignore all evidence and take a blind leap of a cliff.

[Emphasis added]

The qualifications you make to your comments (as emphasised in my quote) are all important. One can (as you appear to do) apply science and religion to different aspects of your thought, just as one can stand with each foot in a different camp. It's often not optimal, though.

[AFAIKnow]

Double :eek: :eek: from me.
*grumble* kids today, don't know what good music is *grumble*


Hey, I can't help it ifyou guys done got old. I actually grew up listening to the "classic rock" of the time and know the name but couldn't place a song to them. BTW, I am getting up there in years myself. ;)

[tomndebb]

The scientific viewpoint discounts the whole idea that there are any such things as "spriritual matters" outside the physical universe. The whole idea that such matters exist is one that is unsupported by evidence and therefore not scientific Your two sentences have nothing to do with each other. Your second sentence is correct. However, science does not "discount" extra-physical situations except in the limited perspective of "not addressing" them. There may be persons who espouse a "scientific" approach to the world who "discount" the non-physical, but to do so they must step outside science and engage in philosophical ruminations. There are no peer-reviewed papers asserting that the "spiritual" does not exist (and I am not even sure what journal would be an appropriate venue to submit such papers).

[Princhester]

Your two sentences have nothing to do with each other. Your second sentence is correct. However, science does not "discount" extra-physical situations except in the limited perspective of "not addressing" them. There may be persons who espouse a "scientific" approach to the world who "discount" the non-physical, but to do so they must step outside science and engage in philosophical ruminations. There are no peer-reviewed papers asserting that the "spiritual" does not exist (and I am not even sure what journal would be an appropriate venue to submit such papers).

I chose the word "discount" deliberately because that is exactly what science does concerning extra-physical allegations. Science does not say that no such things exist because there is no evidence either way. But it does discount, ie fail to give credence to, the suggestion that such things do exist because there is no evidence that they do.

There are no more peer-reviewed papers asserting that the "spiritual" does not exist than there are peer reviewed papers asserting that IPU's do not exist. The reason in each case is the same: there is no evidence (and no peer reviewed papers) asserting the contrary.

I reject your suggestion that you must step outside science to discount the non-physical. You must step outside science to deny that there may be things for which we as yet have no evidence, but that is quite different. In fact, you must step outside science to give credence to the non physical, because there is no evidence for it.

Bring it back to the subject of the OP ie religion: Religion does not espouse mere philisophical possibilities. It posits certain definite facts: gods, miracles, efficacy of prayer on future events etc. but proposes that, by and large, people should consider these facts to be true through an unswerving determination to consider these facts to be true ie faith.

That way of thinking just has to be entirely at odds with a way of thinking that says "if you can't observe it and test it, don't consider it to be true until such time as you can".

I don't deny that people can and do decide to apply a scientific approach sometimes and another approach other times, but I don't see anything about science that limits itself in that way.

[alaricthegoth]

I don't agree that we need followers or that free thinking is a bad thing, but the world certainly could use more Blind Faith (http://www.angelfire.com/wi/blindfaith/index.html).
"I have finally found the way to live....."

[Joey Jo Jo]

I chose the word "discount" deliberately because that is exactly what science does concerning extra-physical allegations. Science does not say that no such things exist because there is no evidence either way. But it does discount, ie fail to give credence to, the suggestion that such things do exist because there is no evidence that they do.

There are no more peer-reviewed papers asserting that the "spiritual" does not exist than there are peer reviewed papers asserting that IPU's do not exist. The reason in each case is the same: there is no evidence (and no peer reviewed papers) asserting the contrary.

I reject your suggestion that you must step outside science to discount the non-physical. You must step outside science to deny that there may be things for which we as yet have no evidence, but that is quite different. In fact, you must step outside science to give credence to the non physical, because there is no evidence for it.

Bring it back to the subject of the OP ie religion: Religion does not espouse mere philisophical possibilities. It posits certain definite facts: gods, miracles, efficacy of prayer on future events etc. but proposes that, by and large, people should consider these facts to be true through an unswerving determination to consider these facts to be true ie faith.

That way of thinking just has to be entirely at odds with a way of thinking that says "if you can't observe it and test it, don't consider it to be true until such time as you can".

I don't deny that people can and do decide to apply a scientific approach sometimes and another approach other times, but I don't see anything about science that limits itself in that way.

No offense Princhester, but do you even have any sort of science education? Or are you one of those people who studied humanities at university and therefore feel qualified to speak on science? Because as someone who holds a PhD in science (from a secular university) and as an evangelical Christian it really sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.

Have you ever even read a scientific journal? They have articles on a frankly minute range of topics, in the grand scheme of things. If you limit what you believe down to just "science" then you will have a very shallow life indeed. Science says nothing about things like beauty, or love or justice or a wide range of things. Nevertheless all these things are part of the human experience. No-one, not even scientists shut themselves off from all of these things. Science remains mute on these topics not because it assumes none of this stuff exits, it remains mute because it cannot be investigated with the empirical method, and therefore is outside the scope experiment.

Really what you are positing as the "scientific" view is really just a tarted up naturalism. Not all scientists (in fact I would say not even a majority) hold this view to be true. You can unify religious belief with science in any number of ways. For instance myself I reject the premise that there is a "natural" and a "supernatural" phenomenom. I claim that everything, from the miraculous to the mundane is all God's action. That being said God for the most part works in precisely ordered ways, and as a scientist my job is to discover and rationalise how God chooses to work.

Joey Jo Jo

[Princhester]

No offense Princhester, but do you even have any sort of science education? Or are you one of those people who studied humanities at university and therefore feel qualified to speak on science? Because as someone who holds a PhD in science (from a secular university) and as an evangelical Christian it really sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.

Don't waste your time on arguments from authority around here.

Have you ever even read a scientific journal? They have articles on a frankly minute range of topics, in the grand scheme of things. If you limit what you believe down to just "science" then you will have a very shallow life indeed. Science says nothing about things like beauty, or love or justice or a wide range of things. Nevertheless all these things are part of the human experience. No-one, not even scientists shut themselves off from all of these things. Science remains mute on these topics not because it assumes none of this stuff exits, it remains mute because it cannot be investigated with the empirical method, and therefore is outside the scope experiment.

Tosh. I've read scientific commentary on every one of the topics you name. Your basic factual premise is faulty.

Further, I can enjoy the beauty of a sunset or being in love without understanding what the heck it is or why I enjoy it. I just also appreciate the wonder inherent in the fact that I have a soggy bundles of neurones in a box of bone that has evolved for various reasons into something that sees and experiences things in certain ways that I experience as enjoyable.

I do try to limit what I believe down to "just" science but haven't stopped learning since I took my first breath. If you find science limiting or shallow, I don't think the problems lies with science.

Really what you are positing as the "scientific" view is really just a tarted up naturalism.

I assure you that calling my viewpoint by certain names has me totally convinced.

Not all scientists (in fact I would say not even a majority) hold this view to be true.

So?

You can unify religious belief with science in any number of ways. For instance myself I reject the premise that there is a "natural" and a "supernatural" phenomenom. I claim that everything, from the miraculous to the mundane is all God's action. That being said God for the most part works in precisely ordered ways, and as a scientist my job is to discover and rationalise how God chooses to work.

In other words you take the scientific bus some of the way, but then you jump off and go with faith.

I know many choose to do that. But nonetheless (to get back to the OP) if I were promoting religion, I could see the downside to having the scientific bus available: the more people who choose to take it some of the way, the more who are not going to jump off at any point.

[Joey Jo Jo]

Don't waste your time on arguments from authority around here.

So is that an admission that your scientific education is conspicuously lacking?
If you want to talk about the philosophy of science and assert what science says then I would assume that you should have at least some idea as to how science is conducted and the philosophy underlying it. Because your posts show that you understand very little. And in my experience the ones that are quickest to tell you what science is all about are the ones that understand science the least.


Tosh. I've read scientific commentary on every one of the topics you name. Your basic factual premise is faulty.

Care to cite some journal articles. I must have missed the "justice" and the "beauty" issue of the Journal of Chemical Physics. Also note that I am looking for peer-reviewed articles, not some populist pseudo-science.


I do try to limit what I believe down to "just" science but haven't stopped learning since I took my first breath. If you find science limiting or shallow, I don't think the problems lies with science.

First off, I think either you don't understand what "science" really is, or you are lying. Take your pick.

Secondly, you do realise that if you don't personally understand the arguments that scientists use for justifying their theories, but believe them anyway, you are engaging in "faith". All you have done is substitute the priest for the scientist. Do you believe in evolution? If so I hope you can provide an extensive and up-to-date summary of why evolution is true, otherwise you are no better than the religious people that you denigrate.


I assure you that calling my viewpoint by certain names has me totally convinced.

It should, because what you believe is not "science" at all



So?

If there is a isgnificant disagreement amoungst scientists about the correctness of your worldview, how can it be deemed "scientific"?



In other words you take the scientific bus some of the way, but then you jump off and go with faith.

I know many choose to do that. But nonetheless (to get back to the OP) if I were promoting religion, I could see the downside to having the scientific bus available: the more people who choose to take it some of the way, the more who are not going to jump off at any point.
One of the things that you seem to be missing is that the scientific method relies on a few assumptions about the natural world. One of these is that the world operates in a uniformity of cause and effect. In other words if you de something a certain way, repeating that initial conditions will lead to the exact same outcome. Reuslts are reproducible. Without this the scientific method is doomed to failure because without a uniformity of cause and effect there is no natural laws, only randomness.

So, if your view is so free from any matter of faith, how do you know that there is any uniformity of cause and effect in the world. Do you have some sort of proof that this is the case and that therefore the scientific method may work, or do you just take it on faith that this is the case. You can claim to be free of the "faith bus" all you like, but I would suggest that the only reason that you think you are free of faith is that you haven't really thought through your own worldview.

Besides you are completely misunderstanding my view of God and science. In my view there is no distinction between the two. There are no "scientific events" and "miraculous God events", there is only the work of God in all things. I am not saying that we should believe "science" for some things and "religion" for others. I would say that both ultimately are about the work of God. Religion is about how God has specifically revealed himself to us. Science is about how God works in creation. There is no disagreement between them because they are both about the same God. I am not thinking in different ways about the two subjects, I am thinking the same way about both.

Joey Jo Jo.

[JThunder]

I do try to limit what I believe down to "just" science
Why? Are you saying that science is the only valid path to knowledge? If so, then what scientific methodology did you use to determine that to be true? For that matter, what scientific methodology did you employ to establish that science itself is a valid way to gain knowledge?

[Wendell Wagner]

Shalmanese writes:

> As an empirical matter, however, that does not seem to be true. On the whole,
> around 9 in 10 Americans say they believe in a personal God. When scientists
> are surveyed, that figure falls to 4 in 10. Among the scientific elite - members of
> the National Academy of Sciences - fewer than 1 in 10 say they believe in God,
> with the biologists in particular professing agnosticism or atheism at a rate of
> 95 percent.

I'm a little dubious about polls like this. All this says (at most) is that in a particular place and a particular time there's a correlation between belief in a personal God and scientific training. This is like saying that in the present-day U.S. there's a correlation between religious belief and one's political beliefs. Quite possibly that's true at the moment, but it's not clear that it was even true in the U.S. fifty years ago. It's not clear that it's true at the moment in other countries. I also wonder if scientists and nonscientists are defining the idea of "belief in a personal God" in the same way. I know I have a similar problem with the claims that most journalists in the U.S. are more liberal than the average person. This is done by simply asking people if they are liberals or conservatives. The problem is that journalists may define liberalism and conservatism differently than most people.

I suspect that the sort of people you hang around with are more important to your professed religious beliefs than your scientific training. Ask the scientists this question: "You must have some friends and family with little scientific training. Are they religious?" I suspect that the answer will be "No." Ask the people who say they are religious this question: "Do you have any scientifically trained friends or family? Are they religious?" I suspect the answer will be "Yes." I suspect that scientists and nonscientists come from different social groups. I suspect that your socialization is more important to your religious beliefs than your scientific training.

[Princhester]

Why? Are you saying that science is the only valid path to knowledge? If so, then what scientific methodology did you use to determine that to be true? For that matter, what scientific methodology did you employ to establish that science itself is a valid way to gain knowledge?

As I seem to find myself saying every other post in this thread, let's bring it back to the OP. We are not debating the validity of science nor of my views. My point is just that a scientific viewpoint does not sit easily with a religious viewpoint.

[JThunder]

As I seem to find myself saying every other post in this thread, let's bring it back to the OP. We are not debating the validity of science nor of my views.
Princhester, we are criticizing your views because they are erroneous and (contrary to your claims) do not support the OP. (BTW, nobody claimed that we are "debating the validity of science," nor has anyone remotely hinted at such. Our point is that science does not mean what you think it does.)

My point is just that a scientific viewpoint does not sit easily with a religious viewpoint.[/QUOTE]
And you say that on the grounds that
"Religion is based on faith, and science on the rejection of faith in favour of repeatable observation and testing."
and
"[Religion] proposes that, by and large, people should consider these facts to be true through an unswerving determination to consider these facts to be true
"
It is on these grounds that you consider science and religion to be at odds.

Our point is that this is a false dichotomy. Religion may be based on faith, but this "faith" does not inheretly require abandoning observation, testing or logic. Contrary to your claim, religion does not require accepting doctrine "through an unswerving determination to consider these facts to be true." That is certainly not the Biblical model, for reasons that I already elucidated.

And, as Joey Jo Jo said, science itself requires accepting a certain number of unprovable tenets, such as the uniformity of cause and effect. Can we prove that this uniformity is always true? Of course not! Yet we must accept that it is, in order to conduct science in a meaningful manner.

[Princhester]

If you want to talk about the philosophy of science and assert what science says then I would assume that you should have at least some idea as to how science is conducted and the philosophy underlying it. Because your posts show that you understand very little. And in my experience the ones that are quickest to tell you what science is all about are the ones that understand science the least.

and

First off, I think either you don't understand what "science" really is, or you are lying. Take your pick.

Secondly, you do realise that if you don't personally understand the arguments that scientists use for justifying their theories, but believe them anyway, you are engaging in "faith". All you have done is substitute the priest for the scientist. Do you believe in evolution? If so I hope you can provide an extensive and up-to-date summary of why evolution is true, otherwise you are no better than the religious people that you denigrate.

and

It should, because what you believe is not "science" at all

Thing is, JJJ, telling me I'm not qualified, telling me that I don't have any idea, and that I don't understand is just hand waving and is not going to convince me of anything. You're wasting electrons. You will find that many if not most people around here are far too self confident to back down like frightened mice the moment some guy with qualifications tells them they are wrong with nothing more.

If you want to convince me that I'm wrong and you're right you are going to have to set out, chapter and verse, what science is and why that differs from what I suggest it is. Facts, cites, reasoning.

Care to cite some journal articles. I must have missed the "justice" and the "beauty" issue of the Journal of Chemical Physics. Also note that I am looking for peer-reviewed articles, not some populist pseudo-science.

Chemical Physics, eh? You're just trying to make this hard.

Anyway, I don't have the time or readily available resources to be able to dig out actual papers, but the sort of stuff you deny exists is everywhere. Cast your eyes over these:

Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Attractiveness (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/psychology/rmk/ShortPaper/FacialAttr.pdf)

"Sexual selection and the biology of beauty" (http://biology.unm.edu/Biology/Thornhill/rthorn.htm) (listed part way down)

The "Beauty" of Homo sapiens sapiens: standard canons, ethnical, geometrical and morphological facial biotypes. (http://vjo.it/vjo052t.htm) (can't get into paper, requires registration, but it clearly exists)

The Nature of Love (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Harlow/love.htm)

A Cross–cultural comparison of Organizational Justice between an American and Indian Sample. (http://psychology.tamu.edu/posters.php?year=2004)

Forgiveness and justice: Physiological and self-report effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies, St. Petersburg, Florida. (http://www.hope.edu/academic/psychology/witvliet/publications.htm)

Oh wait, don't tell me, let me guess: I have no idea how to recognise or understand a True Scotsman.

If there is a isgnificant disagreement amoungst scientists about the correctness of your worldview, how can it be deemed "scientific"?

Science is not a democracy.

But if you want to try to decide the issue by popular belief, as Shalmanese points out, US scientists are less religious than the US average. Which suggests that I'm right.

One of the things that you seem to be missing is that the scientific method relies on a few assumptions about the natural world. One of these is that the world operates in a uniformity of cause and effect. In other words if you de something a certain way, repeating that initial conditions will lead to the exact same outcome. Reuslts are reproducible. Without this the scientific method is doomed to failure because without a uniformity of cause and effect there is no natural laws, only randomness.

So, if your view is so free from any matter of faith, how do you know that there is any uniformity of cause and effect in the world. Do you have some sort of proof that this is the case and that therefore the scientific method may work, or do you just take it on faith that this is the case. You can claim to be free of the "faith bus" all you like, but I would suggest that the only reason that you think you are free of faith is that you haven't really thought through your own worldview.

No, the scientific approach is to adopt the simplest theory that fits the facts until such time as empirical evidence suggests that some other theory is necessary. There may not be uniformity of cause and effect. But there's no evidence that it isn't so we're using that as our working hypothesis.

Besides you are completely misunderstanding my view of God and science. In my view there is no distinction between the two. There are no "scientific events" and "miraculous God events", there is only the work of God in all things. I am not saying that we should believe "science" for some things and "religion" for others. I would say that both ultimately are about the work of God. Religion is about how God has specifically revealed himself to us. Science is about how God works in creation. There is no disagreement between them because they are both about the same God. I am not thinking in different ways about the two subjects, I am thinking the same way about both.

Sure you are. What are God's characteristics? What is your empirical evidence for each of those characteristics? Would the standard of empirical evidence that you consider sufficient to conclude that there is a God with certain characteristics be sufficient for you to be able to get a scientific paper on a particular phenomenon in your field past peer review?

Don't make me laugh.

[Princhester]

Princhester, we are criticizing your views because they are erroneous and (contrary to your claims) do not support the OP. (BTW, nobody claimed that we are "debating the validity of science," nor has anyone remotely hinted at such. Our point is that science does not mean what you think it does.)

Go back and read your last post. I have never said science was valid. It could be total crap for all that it matters as far as my point is concerned. And yet you said "Are you saying that science is the only valid path to knowledge? If so, then what scientific methodology did you use to determine that to be true? For that matter, what scientific methodology did you employ to establish that science itself is a valid way to gain knowledge?" Which is totally irrelevant.


Our point is that this is a false dichotomy. Religion may be based on faith, but this "faith" does not inheretly require abandoning observation, testing or logic. Contrary to your claim, religion does not require accepting doctrine "through an unswerving determination to consider these facts to be true." That is certainly not the Biblical model, for reasons that I already elucidated.

I've already pointed out why you are wrong about this, and you ignored my comments. But I'll try again. Religion may not "inherently require abandoning observation, testing and logic" and "Christian faith does not require that one ignore all evidence" and "religious faith does not (necessarily) mean abandoning all observation and evidence whatsoever".

Listen to yourself. You carefully qualify your statements, now face up to why you need to do so: you need to do so because religion may not require an abandonment of empiricism, but is sure helps the pill go down more smoothly.

And, as Joey Jo Jo said, science itself requires accepting a certain number of unprovable tenets, such as the uniformity of cause and effect. Can we prove that this uniformity is always true? Of course not! Yet we must accept that it is, in order to conduct science in a meaningful manner.

Done and dusted, see previous post.

[EEMan]

Not to mention Theodore Dobzhanski--a devout Christian--who applied Mendel's findings to Darwin's theory, providing the "engine" that made it work, thus establishing the train of thought known as neo-Darwinism.


Not to mention Darwin himself was Christian... the furvor over ID is the same as the furvor over Darwin's theories when they first started being taught (ala Scopes Monkey Trial)...

There is no firm concrete proof for the theory of evolution... so how exactly is it scientific fact... heck we found out that Newtonian Physicis (long held as THE scientific fact) was only applicible over a limited range... and only as a sutible approximation...

ID is another theory... and one that MANY scientists (both present and past) have held... Einstien himself saw too much order to believe that there was no structure... if you choose to call that underlying structure a designer, you are not in the ID camp...

What is happening, is 'scientists' are the new 'priests'... that is they are held to be above reproach.. they can NOT be wrong in the eyes of many (which is silly, just as priests of the past and present, there is significant divergance of theory within ANY field)...

What is 'evolution' anyway? It is an overloaded term meant to cover any NON-creator theory of how we came to be.. everything from Natural Selection to Mutations within species.. to divergance of species... it isn't a single 'theory' but rather a family of them...

Those who close their mind to the possibilities (scientists included) are not doing themselves any favors...

The way to discredit a theory it is to attempt to gather evidence for it... and in studies such as creation/evolution there is no way to 'prove' it...

Evolution (no matter what anyone tells you) is NOT a 'pure science' you can not do an expirement to prove or disprove it.. it is a philosphical arguement.. and as such, how can you discredit one theory in favor of another?

To be absolutely clear... genetics CAN be tested... Evolution can NOT

[JThunder]

Go back and read your last post. I have never said science was valid. It could be total crap for all that it matters as far as my point is concerned. And yet you said "Are you saying that science is the only valid path to knowledge? If so, then what scientific methodology did you use to determine that to be true? For that matter, what scientific methodology did you employ to establish that science itself is a valid way to gain knowledge?" Which is totally irrelevant.
No, it's not. You specifically said "I do try to limit what I believe down to "just" science..." Why say such a thing, if one is not convinced that science not just valid, but the only legitimate form of inquiry?

I've already pointed out why you are wrong about this, and you ignored my comments. But I'll try again. Religion may not "inherently require abandoning observation, testing and logic" and "Christian faith does not require that one ignore all evidence" and "religious faith does not (necessarily) mean abandoning all observation and evidence whatsoever".

Listen to yourself. You carefully qualify your statements, now face up to why you need to do so: you need to do so because religion may not require an abandonment of empiricism, but is sure helps the pill go down more smoothly.[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Sure, one can concoct a religious belief system that is well served bya bandoning empiricism; however, this is not characteristic of religion in general. It's certainly not true of Christianity, for reasons that I've already listed (and which you have ignored).

Done and dusted, see previous post.
Not by a long shot, IMO. None of the articles that you cited prove the uniformity of cause and effect. Indeed, they implicitly assume this tenet, as all science must.

Also, where do those publications touch on, say, why an action is just or not? How would you scientifically justify the claim that it is wrong to torture homosexuals for fun? You can't. Psychology may provide insight into people's minds, but it cannot justify moral claims.

[Der Trihs]

Irrelevant, because science pertains to the physical universe and religion pertains primarily to spiritual matters. Because religion lost.Go back 500 years, and religion had a religious explanation for just about everything in the physical world. Mainstream religion these days mostly confines itself to spiritual matters because the people who run it know that they can't compete in any area where science has anything to say. Science at least tries to be right; religion is wholly lies/delusions/subjective, and therefore has nothing accurate to say.

For example, how would one scientifically determine that it is wrong to rape little children, or to steal from one's neighbor? It can't be done, since such questions do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry. Nor does religion have anything productive to say. "God says so" is not a good definition of morality, and quite a bit worse than "the government says so", since governments actually enforce what they say.

Science at least can tell you the actual consequences for doing evil things; religion just makes stuff up.

If you limit what you believe down to just "science" then you will have a very shallow life indeed. Science says nothing about things like beauty, or love or justice or a wide range of things. Like Princhester said, there have been mathematical, evolutionary and psychological analysises of beauty; psychological, biochemical and physiological studies of love, and game theory at least touches on justice.

Do you believe in evolution? If so I hope you can provide an extensive and up-to-date summary of why evolution is true, otherwise you are no better than the religious people that you denigrate. Hardly. Scientists on the whole are honest about their work, and they actualy produce and discover real things. That puts them a giant step above religious leaders, who have always been liars, useless parasites, predators, insane, or a combination. Science works; religion fails; therefore science can be ( largely ) trusted and religion can not.

There is no firm concrete proof for the theory of evolution... so how exactly is it scientific fact... heck we found out that Newtonian Physicis (long held as THE scientific fact) was only applicible over a limited range... and only as a sutible approximation...

< snip >

Evolution (no matter what anyone tells you) is NOT a 'pure science' you can not do an expirement to prove or disprove it.. it is a philosphical arguement.. and as such, how can you discredit one theory in favor of another?

To be absolutely clear... genetics CAN be tested... Evolution can NOTIncorrect. There is an enormous amount of proof of evolution; it's one of the most well evidenced theories in science. Also, evolution can and is proven in the lab, in everything from the evolution of drug resistance to the evolution of HeLa cells. (http://www.answers.com/topic/hela)

HeLa cells are an example where a complex multicellular organism has evolved into a simple, self-replicating, single-cell organism. It may also represent the first documented creation of a new species. As such HeLa cells were given the name Helacyton gartleri.

[Princhester]

No, it's not. You specifically said "I do try to limit what I believe down to "just" science..." Why say such a thing, if one is not convinced that science not just valid, but the only legitimate form of inquiry?

My personal beliefs are not relevant to this debate or my point. JJJ seemed to want to personalise the debate for some reason, and I responded.

Nonsense. Sure, one can concoct a religious belief system that is well served bya bandoning empiricism; however, this is not characteristic of religion in general. It's certainly not true of Christianity, for reasons that I've already listed (and which you have ignored).

The "reasons" you've listed are unconvincing. Some religious people may have said that religion in general and Christianity in particiular do not rely on faith, but that is at best a half truth and, frankly, more like total codswallop.*

If you disagree, feel free to list empirical evidence supporting the major tenets of your religion. Start with the existence of God and work out from there, if you like.

Not by a long shot, IMO. None of the articles that you cited prove the uniformity of cause and effect. Indeed, they implicitly assume this tenet, as all science must.

Which is exactly what I said. The uniformity of cause and effect is assumed by science because it seems to work, so we stick with it. If someone comes up with a convincing reason for believing that cause and effect are not uniform, then science will adapt to that. It's not a matter of "faith" in cause and effect, it's a matter of assumptions based on the best evidence available.

Also, where do those publications touch on, say, why an action is just or not? How would you scientifically justify the claim that it is wrong to torture homosexuals for fun? You can't. Psychology may provide insight into people's minds, but it cannot justify moral claims.

Your belief that things are "wrong" or "just" is just a construct of your brain. And your brain is susceptible to scientific study. Your beliefs about why an action is or is not just, similarly.

* It's a funny thing, but when one is not having this sort of argument with a Christian, but rather just observing them "in the wild" as it were, they talk about faith endlessly. But get into an argument like this one, and suddenly its "Faith? Moi?"

[Joey Jo Jo]

Thing is, JJJ, telling me I'm not qualified, telling me that I don't have any idea, and that I don't understand is just hand waving and is not going to convince me of anything. You're wasting electrons. You will find that many if not most people around here are far too self confident to back down like frightened mice the moment some guy with qualifications tells them they are wrong with nothing more.

If you want to convince me that I'm wrong and you're right you are going to have to set out, chapter and verse, what science is and why that differs from what I suggest it is. Facts, cites, reasoning.


Well, its just nice to know that those that want to tell you what science is all about actually have some idea as to what they are talking about.

Anyway, the way in which you talk about science reeks of what could be called inductionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductionism). That is we make observations and then from these we induce the way in which the world works. According to this view man essentially starts with a blank slate, and as work continues he knows more and more.

This view of science hasn't been the dominant philosophy for more than 50 years. It was replaced by Karl Popper's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) philosophy of falsificationism. In this view science is not determining how the world works, but more to the point determining the way in which the world does not work. Popper's philosophy is that science discovers things by making falsifiable predictions about the world, and then seeing if these match with experiment. If they do not then we have learned that the thery is not true and can be discounted. If it does agree then ironically we haven't really learned much, because while that theory may be true, so to may any other theory that accords with those results. In contranst to the "inductionism" philosophy in this view of science humanity starts with every possible theory about how the world works, and progresses by discounting those that do not fit experimental evidence

In essense science is NOT the "discovery of truth" that you seem to think it is. Science is like the Sherlock Holms quote, "When you eliminate all the impossible, whatever left, no matter how improbabile, is the truth". No theory in science is ever "true", it only is "not yet falsified". Besides if you wish to claim that science reveals "truth" then you have to admit that "truth" has changed significantly over the years. There is another famous quote from a scientist (I can't remmeber which one) that "It is disconcerting the number of students that we have failed for not knowing what we have later on found to be incorrect" :D

The other point though to make about falsiificationism is that if a statement is none falsifiable, it does not mean it is necessarily true or false. All that it meas is that the validity of the statement cannot be tested via experimentation, and therefore the truth value of the statement is unknown. So for instance the statement "I love my wife" is non-falsifiable. Doesn't make it not true, nor does it mean that me saying that to her means nothing.


Chemical Physics, eh? You're just trying to make this hard.

Anyway, I don't have the time or readily available resources to be able to dig out actual papers, but the sort of stuff you deny exists is everywhere. Cast your eyes over these:

Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Attractiveness (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/psychology/rmk/ShortPaper/FacialAttr.pdf)

"Sexual selection and the biology of beauty" (http://biology.unm.edu/Biology/Thornhill/rthorn.htm) (listed part way down)

The "Beauty" of Homo sapiens sapiens: standard canons, ethnical, geometrical and morphological facial biotypes. (http://vjo.it/vjo052t.htm) (can't get into paper, requires registration, but it clearly exists)

The Nature of Love (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Harlow/love.htm)

A Cross–cultural comparison of Organizational Justice between an American and Indian Sample. (http://psychology.tamu.edu/posters.php?year=2004)

Forgiveness and justice: Physiological and self-report effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies, St. Petersburg, Florida. (http://www.hope.edu/academic/psychology/witvliet/publications.htm)

Oh wait, don't tell me, let me guess: I have no idea how to recognise or understand a True Scotsman.

I'm not trying to make it hard, I am a chemical physicist by training, so that is what I lean to.

The cites, while interesting, don't actually prove your point. The point I was making is that there is no scientific definition of what things like beauty actually are. The studies in these cites are all about cataloging what people say beauty, justice, ect are. They are not about trying to determine what beauty, justice, ect actually are. It is a subtle but important point.

Again it comes down to the distinction between falsifiable and non-falsifiable. The statement, "Person A is beautiful" is a non-falsifiable statement. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and therefore it is impossible to determine whether that statement is inherently true or not. The statement "a majority of people would say person A is beautiful" is a falsifiable statement, and therefore can be the subject of a scientific study. Such a study though would not be about what beauty actually IS, only what people say that beauty is.

The other thing particularly about the face studies is that even if we can determine what people generally see as "beautiful" in a face, that still doesn't mean we understand beauty in any meainingful way. Faces are probably the easiest thing to study, because there is not a lot of variance in faces. When you move to things that are more subjective (art, music, ect) there is very little agreement as to what is beautiful, and there really isn't much of a way you could find the average or whatever.


Science is not a democracy.

But if you want to try to decide the issue by popular belief, as Shalmanese points out, US scientists are less religious than the US average. Which suggests that I'm right.

1) Science may not be a democracy, but it certainly not a toltalitarian regime run by you
2) Despite what George Bush thinks, the US != the world. Besides most of the great scientists of the past were devoutly religious. People like Mendel, Darwin, Newton, Faraday, Pascal, ect (note that I said "religious", not "Christian").
3) Please forgive me if I am skeptical of an unreferenced survey quoted in an opinion piece. Didn't you know that 56% of statistics are made up on the spot? :D


No, the scientific approach is to adopt the simplest theory that fits the facts until such time as empirical evidence suggests that some other theory is necessary. There may not be uniformity of cause and effect. But there's no evidence that it isn't so we're using that as our working hypothesis.

No, the scientific method is to discount whatever doesn't fit the facts and acklowedge that everything that fits the facts could be true. If there is no evidence to discount the non-uniformity of cause and effect it is NOT scientific to discount it.

Besides, why is it that when you make unsupported assumptions it is called a "working hypothesis", yet if any religious person does it is called "faith". Hide behind Occam's razor all you want, but if you can't PROVE it then it must be faith.


Sure you are. What are God's characteristics? What is your empirical evidence for each of those characteristics? Would the standard of empirical evidence that you consider sufficient to conclude that there is a God with certain characteristics be sufficient for you to be able to get a scientific paper on a particular phenomenon in your field past peer review?

Don't make me laugh.
Since I don't claim that only things that are "scientific" are true, then I don't have to prove to you that my religious beliefs are true using science. However using your inductivism approach, I would say that the problem with belief in God (at least from the Christian point of view) is NOT that there is no empirical reason to believe in Christianity. The disagreement comes over whether the stated empirical facts are true or not. So I am a Christian because Jesus really did rise from the dead, and the Christian view of reality best explains this. As best I can tell your argument would not be that Christianity best explains Jesus rising from the dead, your argument is that Jesus never actually rose from the dead, and therefore the empirical data that I am basing my claim on is false. Nevertheless the disagreement is not between an empirical vs non-empirical worldview. The disagreement is over the nature of the empirical evidence.


Because religion lost.Go back 500 years, and religion had a religious explanation for just about everything in the physical world. Mainstream religion these days mostly confines itself to spiritual matters because the people who run it know that they can't compete in any area where science has anything to say. Science at least tries to be right; religion is wholly lies/delusions/subjective, and therefore has nothing accurate to say.

I think you are the only one who thinks that there was some sort of competition. The problem is that you are taking a modernist viewpoint and trying to claim that everyone must therefore think in this same way.

The overarching question of our age is "How?". We live in a technological age in which we natuarally want to know how everything works. That is not the same outlook that people had 500 years ago. For the most part people in history really didn't care how things happened. They were much more concerned with why, something that science cannot answer. And if you would actually bother to read the writings of religous people 500 years ago you would find that there is a conspicuous lack of any real falsifiable statements as to how the world worked, because they didn't care.

All you are doing is inventing some sort of conflict and then proclaiming yourself the victor. And of course I suppose you have proof that all of religion is false. Because I would hate to think that you are using unscientific arguments to proclaim that science has won over religion :rolleyes:


Nor does religion have anything productive to say. "God says so" is not a good definition of morality, and quite a bit worse than "the government says so", since governments actually enforce what they say.

And the atheisitic "I say so" is better than "God says so"....... how? And by what standard are you judging "worse". If by "worse" you mean "further from my personal belief system" then I hope you will excuse another :rolleyes:


Science at least can tell you the actual consequences for doing evil things; religion just makes stuff up.

It seems the only one making stuff up is you. Here you are falling into a fallacy so well known in philosophy it even has its own name. The ontological fallacy. You can't determine what should be from what is. All a knowledge of science will do is assure that the actual outcomes of your actions match your intentions. Science doesn't tell you what is food or evil, it just tells you what is.


Like Princhester said, there have been mathematical, evolutionary and psychological analysises of beauty; psychological, biochemical and physiological studies of love, and game theory at least touches on justice.

Incorrect. There have been studies on what people say these things are, but their definition is non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot be studied by science.


Hardly. Scientists on the whole are honest about their work, and they actualy produce and discover real things. That puts them a giant step above religious leaders, who have always been liars, useless parasites, predators, insane, or a combination. Science works; religion fails; therefore science can be ( largely ) trusted and religion can not.

"liars, useless parasites, predators, insane, or a combination". Wow, that is a pretty sweeping generalisation, even for you. Of course we can't all have your kindness and love of all mankind :rolleyes:

Of course that doesn't answer the question. Why is your faith in scientists to be commended and someone else's faith in a religion to be condemned. If you don't understand the science, then you don't know if you are being lied to or not. And let me assure as a scientist there is plenty of reasons to be suspicious of scientists. If you don't think that more than a few scientists value personal glory over truth, then I think you need a reality check. There is plenty of intentionally sloppy, misleading or outright false stuff published in journals, especially the lower quality ones. There is a lot of good stuff too, but just because a scientist told you doesn't make it true.

And again, I assume that you have some sort of proof that religion "doesn't work". Can you prove that every religious claim ever made by anyone is inherently false. If not, then you deserve another :rolleyes:

Joey Jo Jo.

[Joey Jo Jo]

To go back to answering the OP, I think that the premise that underlines the question is flawed.

First off historically science arose (in Europe at least) out of Christianity and was then later hi-jacked by naturalistic atheists and agnostics. And history bears this out, as much of the conflict between the church and scientists is mostly imaginary. So for instance Galileo's problems had much more to do with the fact that
1) His model of the solar-system sucked compared to the established Ptolomaic model, yet he insisted it was true regardless (kind of like what people accuse "fundamentalists of")
2) He had a go at the Pope, strongly implying he was a fool.
There were numerous astronomers throughout history who supported the heliocentric model that were left alone by the church. Galileo brought his problems on himself.
Of opposition of religion to science the only real example I can think of is Christianity against evolution. But even then the dabate is highly nuanced. So for instance evolution was initially widely adopted by racists and other elitists and used to bolster arguments that some people were just plain better than others. In the Scopes trial it was this attitude more than the actual science that people objected to. To frame it as a purely science vs. religion battle is to miss many of the shades of the debate.

Secondly the OP reveals a false dichotomy between religious people who have faith, and non-religious people who have no faith. I think everyone takes things of faith, different people just choose to trust different things. Since science cannot prove, only disprove, if you assert anything to be ture then it must be on faith. There is no-one who has no faith in anything. Even the scientific method itself rests on certain unprovable assumptions that we must merely take on faith. The uniformity of cause and effect. The ability of our senses to correctly view the world around us. Even to believe in science you have to have faith.

In terms of Christianity, I think that the central tenets of the faith are non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot be studied by science. I respectfully disagree with the YEC creationists that the bible necessarily describes a 6,000 year old earth. Therefore since Christianity is not falsifiable, then it will never be proven wrong by science. Of course nor will it ever be proven right. The point is that scientific enquiry is no danger to Christianity.

Joey Jo Jo.

[Tevildo]

First off historically science arose (in Europe at least) out of Christianity and was then later hi-jacked by naturalistic atheists and agnostics.
While I don't disagree with your basic points, I don't think this statement is really justifiable. What we now call "the scientific method" goes back to Aristotle; it's true that the mediaeval theologians and philosophers spent a lot of time _reconciling_ Christianity with Aristotelanism, but there was, and still is, a definite conflict between the two. And remember that much of the mathematical groundwork for science was done by Islamic, rather than Christian, philosophers.

Science, as a distinct discipline, has three basic roots: Practical engineering (mining, metalworking, architecture, ballistics) with no philosophical underpinnings, Christian or otherwise; astrology, which is based on a fatalistic/deterministic view of the world that's not really compatible with the Christian view of free will; and alchemy, which is based on some rather woolly post-hoc mysticism that we'd describe as "New Age" today - and the universal desire to make money, of course.

It's true that modern science did arise in Christian countries. But I would say that's just an historical coincidence, rather than making any claims about the superior qualities of Christianity itself.

[Joey Jo Jo]

While I don't disagree with your basic points, I don't think this statement is really justifiable. What we now call "the scientific method" goes back to Aristotle; it's true that the mediaeval theologians and philosophers spent a lot of time _reconciling_ Christianity with Aristotelanism, but there was, and still is, a definite conflict between the two. And remember that much of the mathematical groundwork for science was done by Islamic, rather than Christian, philosophers.

Science, as a distinct discipline, has three basic roots: Practical engineering (mining, metalworking, architecture, ballistics) with no philosophical underpinnings, Christian or otherwise; astrology, which is based on a fatalistic/deterministic view of the world that's not really compatible with the Christian view of free will; and alchemy, which is based on some rather woolly post-hoc mysticism that we'd describe as "New Age" today - and the universal desire to make money, of course.

It's true that modern science did arise in Christian countries. But I would say that's just an historical coincidence, rather than making any claims about the superior qualities of Christianity itself.
My point really was to say that historically the statement that "science is the enemy of faith in general" is clearly absurd. Science was not invented by materialistic atheists, but throughout history has been nurtured and furthered by people of faith.

I don't doubt that Aristotle had a profound impact on medieval philosophers. However the general acceptance of the empiricism of Aristotle within Christianity shows that I think there isn't really much of a problem incorporating that into the Christian worldview. Many people here (yourself included) have made vauge references to some sort of theological conflict between empiricism and Christianity. I have yet though to see any good argument why this is necessarily the case save for "but, but.....FAITH!!!".

Also I think that historically monotheism (which includes Islam, which you are right did contribute valuable things to the European scientific knowledge) was central in the rise of science. When push comes to shove many of the early scientific theories were of little practical use. Astronomy, which was probably one of the most advanced sciences in the ancient world is a classic example of this. Most things that were actually worth knowing were generally discovered by trial and error as exercises in engineering, without real concern for the underlying phenomena. For science to flurish what is needed is some extra reason why science is useful beyond the practical.

Historically monotheism provided this reason. In a monotheistic world where all things are done by God, then the study of science is valuable. In this world the study of science is the study of the actions of God, and therefore can be seen to be valuable in of themselves. In an atheistic worldview, or in a polytheist worldview, where there is either a weak connection between God and nature, then there is no real reason why any piece of information is valuable in of itself. And as such many such societies have typically shown little interest in science. A good example is the Romans. They were outstanding engineers, yet quite poor scientists. The Romans had the resources and the talent to become great scientists, yet they seemed to show very little interest in it. In contrast medieval Christians seemed to show a much greater interest in science.

I don't think you can dismess the rise of science in monotheistic nations as a mere coincidence. There are many other societies around the world that were as advanced as the medieval Europeans, yet did not make the same efforts at fundamental science. The fact that it occured in Europe and not in other places requires some explaination, and I think monotheism certainly has a lot going for it.

Joey Jo Jo.

[EEMan]

Incorrect. There is an enormous amount of proof of evolution; it's one of the most well evidenced theories in science. Also, evolution can and is proven in the lab, in everything from the evolution of drug resistance to the evolution of HeLa cells. (http://www.answers.com/topic/hela)

Drug resistance is an example of Natural selection... not of evolution... related, but not the same thing

HeLa cells are not spontanious... therefore not germain to a conversation on evolution (a spontanious process)... all that proves is that new species can be created... the irony being, by an intelligent designer...

There is no PROOF of evolution, as we can not test it... we do not have enough time nor historical evidence (to show the changes)... we have EVIDENCE that gives it credance, much like we have evidence for Newtonian Physics... but as we saw that was an imperfect model as well...

I would say the existance of HeLa cells actually gives EVIDENCE that Intelligent Design is possible (as does cross breeding, and sub-speices specialization)

There is a large measure between proof and evidence... evidence may support something, but does not PROVE it...

You can not TEST evolution... as the 'test' would be long term observation, which we have not had sufficent length from the time of the development of the theory..

[cosmosdan]

Joey Jo Jo, as you've already seen Der Trihs is our resident extremist fundamentalist of atheism. He makes wild unfounded unproven statements while criticizing believers for doing that same thing. It's an odd mix of annoying and entertaining.

I appreciate your posts here. I agree there is no necessecary conflict between science and religious belief. While some find it illogical to believe without objective evidence I see subjective evidence just as valid in ih the area of personal belief. IMHO when it comes to moral decisions and personal growth I think all people operate on a certain faith on their own subjective evidence.

I do think there are areas where academic evidence conflicts with tradtional beliefs. It's reasonable for some things to be a matter of faith and personal choice when the evidence leaves the options open. When the evidence weighs heavily against I think it's a disservice to the commitment to truth to cling to tradition. In the same way when scientists place personal glory and money above strict honest inquiry they betray scientific principles.

[Wendell Wagner]

You know, EEMan, if you want to debate whether evolution has been well established by science, you might want to start a separate thread. That's quite a different thing than what this thread is discussing. It's really worthy of a separate thread.

[EEMan]

You know, EEMan, if you want to debate whether evolution has been well established by science, you might want to start a separate thread. That's quite a different thing than what this thread is discussing. It's really worthy of a separate thread.

I'm sorry.. I let a comment hijack the thread itself...

My point initially (it really was.. I swear) was that science is the new 'religion'... where the 'priests' are scientists... you are no more allowed to put forward ideas and ideals that are outside their realm, than you could in the 15th century...

MOST of the Scientists prior to 1860 were also religious people... and many sense... I have never understood why one believes there is any kind of active supression of science by religion...

[Voyager]

Drug resistance is an example of Natural selection... not of evolution... related, but not the same thing

HeLa cells are not spontanious... therefore not germain to a conversation on evolution (a spontanious process)... all that proves is that new species can be created... the irony being, by an intelligent designer...

That's incorrect. These experiments are done starting with one bacteria, which is pure and which does not have resistance. The resistance comes from a mutation, which then dominates through natural selection. If the experiment were done with a heterogenous population, some of which had the immune gene and some not, then you would be correct.

(sorry for the continued hijack, but I don't want these statements to go unchallenged.)


There is no PROOF of evolution, as we can not test it... we do not have enough time nor historical evidence (to show the changes)... we have EVIDENCE that gives it credance, much like we have evidence for Newtonian Physics... but as we saw that was an imperfect model as well...

Sorry, evolution is tested every time we find a fossil, and every time we do an experiment. Testing can just falsify evolution, never prove it, so you are correct that there is no proof - but then there isn't proof for just about any scientific theory. That's not how science works.

I would say the existance of HeLa cells actually gives EVIDENCE that Intelligent Design is possible (as does cross breeding, and sub-speices specialization)


Intelligent design in principle is not impossible. We just have never seen any evidence of it, and don't need it to explain anything, so it is pointless to consider it.

[EEMan]

That's incorrect. These experiments are done starting with one bacteria, which is pure and which does not have resistance. The resistance comes from a mutation, which then dominates through natural selection. If the experiment were done with a heterogenous population, some of which had the immune gene and some not, then you would be correct.

(sorry for the continued hijack, but I don't want these statements to go unchallenged.)

Maybe a new thread should be started...

[Voyager]

I read an interesting book (which I think was a dissertation) on the rise of disbelief in the US in the 19th Century. One of its points was that in the early 19th century there was support of science by many religious leaders, on the grounds that they expected science to provide support for the Bible. The discovery of the ruins of the cities mentioned in the Bible helped this. There was resistance to this trend by the more fundamentalist types.

The discovery of the age of the earth was no big problem, since it did not fundamentally change anything about Genesis, and could be easily explained away. The main thing they cared about was mankind's special position as in the image of god.

Darwin blew that away, since it was clear, even if he didn't explicitly state it in the Origin, that man was not specially created but a product of evolution. The science loving faction was terribly embarrassed, and the science rejecting faction felt vindicated.

That split lasts to this day, but imagine how religion and science would cooperate if science had confirmed religion.

[Tevildo]

My point really was to say that historically the statement that "science is the enemy of faith in general" is clearly absurd. Science was not invented by materialistic atheists, but throughout history has been nurtured and furthered by people of faith.
This comes back to the word "Faith", and I'm sure we're both familiar with the controversies surrounding it. Using less ambiguous language, I would say something like, "Knowledge is the enemy of dogma, but this does not imply that science is the enemy of religion."

you are no more allowed to put forward ideas and ideals that are outside their realm, than you could in the 15th century
This isn't true. Anyone is free to put forward whatever ridiculous ideas that they like, without any risk of persecution (as opposed to ridicule) from the scientific community. The problems arise when political power is used to support ideas which are in conflict with science; the blame for any conflict lies with the politicians, not the scientists.

I have never understood why one believes there is any kind of active supression of science by religion...
I gather from what you've said already that you'd describe yourself as a creationist. Isn't your goal, or the goal of the organizations that represent your viewpoint (the Discovery Institute, the ICR, etc) exactly that - the supression one particular branch of science (evolutionary biology) by one particular religion (fundamentalist Christianity)?

[EEMan]

This isn't true. Anyone is free to put forward whatever ridiculous ideas that they like, without any risk of persecution (as opposed to ridicule) from the scientific community. <snip>


But that is exactly what happens ... those too far outside the realm (those who say there are no angels.. instead of arguing how many on the head of a pin), DO get persecuted.. to the point of losing tenure in some examples... but I was actually speaking about the 'educated' at large...

I gather from what you've said already that you'd describe yourself as a creationist.

You would be wrong... I just believe there is room for scientific study of the emergance of life, outside of evolution...

I personally believe evolution is the most likely model we have (currently).. but is far from perfect.. in fact so far, in some situations, that it might describe only an approixmation of what happens (newtonian physics example.. and why I used it)

Isn't your goal, or the goal of the organizations that represent your viewpoint (the Discovery Institute, the ICR, etc) exactly that - the supression one particular branch of science (evolutionary biology) by one particular religion (fundamentalist Christianity)?

As stated, it is not MY viewpoint.. however, I believe the exclusion of a possibly, because it does not conform to our current viewpoint, is no different than what happened early in the 20th century (scopes trial anyone?) ... or even the 15th...

[Der Trihs]

Joey Jo Jo, as you've already seen Der Trihs is our resident extremist fundamentalist of atheism. Bolding mine. Yeah right, because having strong opinions is the same as wanting to install a theocracy. The atheism vrs religion double standard. "Militant atheist" yes, but I'm hardly a one man Al Quaeda.

Darwin blew that away, since it was clear, even if he didn't explicitly state it in the Origin, that man was not specially created but a product of evolution. The science loving faction was terribly embarrassed, and the science rejecting faction felt vindicated. I've heard that another problem was the cruelty they found in nature. IIRC it was called "natural theology"; the idea was to understand the mind of God by studying nature. The more they looked, the more nastiness they found, and the worse it made God look - the believers didn't like that, either.

And if you would actually bother to read the writings of religous people 500 years ago you would find that there is a conspicuous lack of any real falsifiable statements as to how the world worked, because they didn't care. You mean like the Book of Genesis ? The religious attachment to the nonmaterial nature of the Sun ( Sunspots ?! Impossible ! The Sun is perfect, not mere earthly matter ! ), circular planetary orbits, the created nature of humans, the divine direction of lightning ( using a lightning rod is a sin, you know ), and so on ? We practice cultural amnesia on this subject because it's so embarrassing for religion, but that doesn't change history.

And of course I suppose you have proof that all of religion is false Of course not, nor do I need to. It's the burden of believers to prove themselves right, not for me to prove a negative.

And the atheisitic "I say so" is better than "God says so"....... how? Because we actually exist.

And by what standard are you judging "worse". If by "worse" you mean "further from my personal belief system" then I hope you will excuse another :rolleyes: Do you actually read what I say ? In the very quote you dislike, I say ( bolded ) :

"God says so" is not a good definition of morality, and quite a bit worse than "the government says so", since governments actually enforce what they say.

It seems the only one making stuff up is you. Here you are falling into a fallacy so well known in philosophy it even has its own name. The ontological fallacy. You can't determine what should be from what is. All a knowledge of science will do is assure that the actual outcomes of your actions match your intentions. Science doesn't tell you what is food or evil, it just tells you what is. Like I said, do you actually read what I say ? The whole point was that science can only speak of the results of your actions, and religion can't even do that.

Incorrect. There have been studies on what people say these things are, but their definition is non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot be studied by science. So you think all of psychology is not a science ?

Why is your faith in scientists to be commended and someone else's faith in a religion to be condemned. I didn't say commended, nor is it faith. That's the point; science actually works, so you don't need faith.

Since science cannot prove, only disprove, if you assert anything to be ture then it must be on faith. There is no-one who has no faith in anything. Even the scientific method itself rests on certain unprovable assumptions that we must merely take on faith. The uniformity of cause and effect. The ability of our senses to correctly view the world around us. Even to believe in science you have to have faith. "Faith" with evidence ( like the fact that science actually works ) is not at all the same as faith without or against evidence. The latter two are what religion uses.

Science was not invented by materialistic atheists, but throughout history has been nurtured and furthered by people of faith. As long as they kept their faith out of their science. If they let the two mix, they stopped being able to do science, like Einstein's scientific crippling due to his religious objections to quantum mechanics, or Newton's alchemical preoccupation.

Besides, many of your "people of faith" were likely lying about how religious they were, in order to stay alive.

The fact that it occured in Europe and not in other places requires some explaination, and I think monotheism certainly has a lot going for it. The fact that European countries were large enough to support luxuries like science and art, but disunited so that no one ruler could suppress a particular line of inquiry is enough explanation.

HeLa cells are not spontanious... therefore not germain to a conversation on evolution (a spontanious process)... all that proves is that new species can be created... the irony being, by an intelligent designer... They were not only spontaneous, but also went rogue and escaped all over.

[she sells sea snails]

Last time I checked (last week) the Pope supported evolution and mocked thrying to force "intelligent design" into the science curriculum.

[cosmosdan]

Bolding mine. Yeah right, because having strong opinions is the same as wanting to install a theocracy. The atheism vrs religion double standard. "Militant atheist" yes, but I'm hardly a one man Al Quaeda


I really appreciate it, but we really all the statements making my point that we need.
Thanks for the confirmation though. :)

[Der Trihs]

I really appreciate it, but we really all the statements making my point that we need.
Thanks for the confirmation though. :)What ? :dubious:

[Voyager]

But that is exactly what happens ... those too far outside the realm (those who say there are no angels.. instead of arguing how many on the head of a pin), DO get persecuted.. to the point of losing tenure in some examples... but I was actually speaking about the 'educated' at large...

Losing tenure or never getting it? If the former, cite? If the latter, I believe it, since scientists working on wacky things have a hard time publishing in respectable journals, and publishing is a big part of getting tenure.

Nothing wrong with that - if one wants to go off the deep end at some point in his career, he needs to demonstrate he was on the deep end at some point.

[cosmosdan]

What ? :dubious:


LOL I was just kidding around because you responded to my comment with one more sweeping statement.

[Joey Jo Jo]

Losing tenure or never getting it? If the former, cite? If the latter, I believe it, since scientists working on wacky things have a hard time publishing in respectable journals, and publishing is a big part of getting tenure.

Nothing wrong with that - if one wants to go off the deep end at some point in his career, he needs to demonstrate he was on the deep end at some point.

Just to stir the pot, there is the case of Richard Sternberg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680_pf.html). He was a scientist respected by the scientific community who by his own description is someone who remains skeptical of all viwepoints (creationism, intelligent design and evolution). All he did was as editor agree to publish a peer reviewed article that was critical of evolution. For daring to question evolution he was then blackballed from his workplace, and a quite definite campaign of misinformation was started about him.

Of course none of this gives any evidence of the truth or falseness of evolution. However you have to wonder at groups that proclaim to be all about empirically discovering the truth, and yet act in this sort of way towards people who refuse to toe the party line. Whatever you believe I think you have to acknowledge that there is more going on than just dispassionate investigation going on from all sides.

Joey Jo Jo.

[Scott Plaid]

LOL I was just kidding around because you responded to my comment with one more sweeping statement.Such as?

Yes, I agree that he is not the best spokesperson, but I don't see what in his previous post is a "sweeping" (presumably easily refuted) statement.

[Siege]

When a child is blessed after being baptized in the Episcopal Church, the prayer reads, in part "give him an inquiring and discerning heart." In the Gospels, Christ says the greatest commandment is to love God with all one's hear and with all one's soul and with all one's mind (emphasis mine). I'm not a scientist; I'm a curious programmer who was raised by an agnostic engineer. Still, I see scientific research and religion as being perfectly compatible. Seeing the way the world works, whether it's the fascinating process of evolution and microevolution, or the way physics could be used to deduct the existence of Pluto and, I think, Neptune, before they were actually seen enhances my faith rather than destroys it. To me, the universe is a marvelous puzzle and we are supposed to ask questions and figure it out. Not doing so would be like getting a jigsaw puzzle from a friend and then not doing it because one assumes that "If my friend had wanted me to have the completed puzzle, he would have given it to me that way."

By the way, I'm with Tomndebb. When it comes to music, Blind Faith is definitely good!

CJ

[Princhester]

Sorry I've been flat out like a lizard drinking and haven't had time to make any substantial posts.

No theory in science is ever "true", it only is "not yet falsified". Besides if you wish to claim that science reveals "truth" then you have to admit that "truth" has changed significantly over the years.

What you are highlighting here is that science is on a never ending quest to find (as Popper would put it) ever more "fit" theories.

Religion does not have any such goal.

That never ending quest is not an easy fit with the religious viewpoint which accepts certain things without question, and in fact regards such acceptance as a virtue.

You will note that never have I said that religion and science are necessarily philisophically incompatible, but rather that the tendencies of the scientific mindset (to question and to falsify and to look for ever fitter theories) is not a comfortable fit with the tendencies of the religious mindset to accept.

The other point though to make about falsiificationism is that if a statement is none falsifiable, it does not mean it is necessarily true or false. All that it meas is that the validity of the statement cannot be tested via experimentation, and therefore the truth value of the statement is unknown.

No it is not unknown. It has no truth. It also has no falsity. It has nothing.

The cites, while interesting, don't actually prove your point. The point I was making is that there is no scientific definition of what things like beauty actually are. The studies in these cites are all about cataloging what people say beauty, justice, ect are. They are not about trying to determine what beauty, justice, ect actually are. It is a subtle but important point.

Beauty is just the reaction of an organism to certain sorts of stimuli. There is no reason to believe beauty has any other non-falsifiable existence.

Despite what George Bush thinks, the US != the world. Besides most of the great scientists of the past were devoutly religious. People like Mendel, Darwin, Newton, Faraday, Pascal, ect (note that I said "religious", not "Christian").

Most people in the past were devoutly religious. As I've said, the only relevant consideration would be whether less were devoutly religious than average.

3) Please forgive me if I am skeptical of an unreferenced survey quoted in an opinion piece. Didn't you know that 56% of statistics are made up on the spot? :D

Why are you skeptical? Why not just accept it? You accept other things which can't be falsified, why not accept things that can be but haven't been?

Besides, why is it that when you make unsupported assumptions it is called a "working hypothesis", yet if any religious person does it is called "faith". Hide behind Occam's razor all you want, but if you can't PROVE it then it must be faith.

Because an unsupported assumption is, to a scientist, an unsatisfactory but unfortunately sometimes unavoidable thing. Faith in an unsupported assumption of religious dogma is a virtue to a religious person.

One man crosses a shaky dangerous bridge because he has no choice. He dislikes having to do so, and aims to fix the bridge if he is ever able. One man crosses a shaky dangerous bridge and thinks that's a good thing, and his intention never to question the state of the bridge is a virtue.

If these two men were the same man, one would have cognitive dissonance.

Since I don't claim that only things that are "scientific" are true, then I don't have to prove to you that my religious beliefs are true using science.

You seem comfortable with at times taking a scientific approach, determining the fitness of theories by the inability to disprove them (a rational position), but at the same time in other areas of your life, being prepared to accept certain unfalsifiable things as true even though there are an infinite number of such thing and you don't accept the truth of them all (a non rational approach).

I think that shows a schism in your thinking. By that I don't mean your thinking is broken, but it is disjointed. I think that many would not accept that schism, and that having adopted a rational approach to one part of their life, they are less likely to adopt a non rational approach to another part of their life. Which is why I think that religion is more likely to flourish in an absence of scientific thinking.

However using your inductivism approach, I would say that the problem with belief in God (at least from the Christian point of view) is NOT that there is no empirical reason to believe in Christianity. The disagreement comes over whether the stated empirical facts are true or not. So I am a Christian because Jesus really did rise from the dead, and the Christian view of reality best explains this. As best I can tell your argument would not be that Christianity best explains Jesus rising from the dead, your argument is that Jesus never actually rose from the dead, and therefore the empirical data that I am basing my claim on is false. Nevertheless the disagreement is not between an empirical vs non-empirical worldview. The disagreement is over the nature of the empirical evidence.

No, you are adopting a non-empirical worldview in relation to biblical stories. If I showed you a book that said that long ago a genie popped out of a bottle you wouldn't consider that to be empirical evidence of anything at all other than the existence of the book. Furthermore, it is blatantly irrational to say that "the Christian view of reality best explains" Jesus rising from the dead, even assuming that he did so. That's like saying because I found a rock in the middle of my living room floor when I woke up this morning, that is best explained by my theory that there are rock dropping monsters named Jim who have green ears and mothers named Mandy who do lawn bowling on Tuesday afternoons: you are extrapolating way, way, way beyond what is needed to explain the facts at hand.

Frankly, when it comes to religion, you throw empiricism and the virtue of falsification and fitness of theories out the window.

Whatever, really, the choice is yours. But I can see how many other people, having adopted science as a way of thinking, wouldn't then find religion sitting comfortably.

[tomndebb]

Just to stir the pot, there is the case of Richard Sternberg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680_pf.html). He was a scientist respected by the scientific community who by his own description is someone who remains skeptical of all viwepoints (creationism, intelligent design and evolution). All he did was as editor agree to publish a peer reviewed article that was critical of evolution. For daring to question evolution he was then blackballed from his workplace, and a quite definite campaign of misinformation was started about him.
hmmmm?

We discussed this incident a while back. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=331027) Contrary to your "respected by the community" assertion, and your "skeptical of all viewpoints" assertion (bolding mine), a review of the actual issue revealed that Sternberg has been an open opponent of Evolutionary Theory, being a member of several organizations that promote Creationism and oppose Darwin without ever actually participating in scientific discourse on the topic. His "peer review" was done outside normal channels (indicating that he appeared to have stacked the deck in favor of the ID authors) and in violation of his own magazine's protocols. The articles he published were not topics generally addressed by that magazine, so they appear to have been wedged in for the purpose of proselytizing. The Bush administration-appointed "investigator" quoted in the article, McKay, was acting outside his area of authority, so the Smithsonian did not respond to his inappropriate questioning, and he then used their (legitimate) silence to condemn them.

Now, I agree that the human reaction of the scientific community was over the top and did nothing to bring credit to the notion of "dispassionate scientists." Sternberg's actions did not justify the personal attacks or the level of vitriol cast at him. However, the evidence indicates pretty clearly that Sternberg did not act in an honest manner and used his position as a shill for the Creationist camp.

[Voyager]

hmmmm?

We discussed this incident a while back. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=331027) Contrary to your "respected by the community" assertion, and your "skeptical of all viewpoints" assertion (bolding mine), a review of the actual issue revealed that Sternberg has been an open opponent of Evolutionary Theory, being a member of several organizations that promote Creationism and oppose Darwin without ever actually participating in scientific discourse on the topic. His "peer review" was done outside normal channels (indicating that he appeared to have stacked the deck in favor of the ID authors) and in violation of his own magazine's protocols. The articles he published were not topics generally addressed by that magazine, so they appear to have been wedged in for the purpose of proselytizing. The Bush administration-appointed "investigator" quoted in the article, McKay, was acting outside his area of authority, so the Smithsonian did not respond to his inappropriate questioning, and he then used their (legitimate) silence to condemn them.


Sorry I missed this. As I said in the cited thread, we don't know if the reviewers were properly picked, since their identity is confidential (as is appropriate.) However it is a breach of ethics for anyone to accept an article without some level of oversight. This is said from my experience as author, reviewer, program committee member, journal editor and program chair.
If this is the only way the ID community gets papers accepted, it is pretty sad.
Since we don't know what the reviewer's comments were, we don't know if the author addressed them. In journals I've been involved with, papers that got significant changes requested go back to the reviewers for a second round, where they can be accepted (the usual case) or rejected. Conferences don't have time for this. In reading about this case, including the note from Steinberg, I didn't see that this happened. It's easy enough for an author to ignore reviewers' comments if the editor allows it. (Sometimes that is the right thing to do - reviewers screw up also.)

[Ghanima]

After reading this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=357350), I started thinking about how religions throughout history have attempted to stop scientific discoveries from being shared. From heliocentric theory to intelligent design, various churches have tried to go counter to scientific facts. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any that actively encourage discovery. Is this because the religious groups believe that their central tenets may be disproved? If that is the case, doesn't that tend to discount faith? Wouldn't that be similar to saying that you doubt your own faith so much that there is probibly proof out there that God doesn't exist and people cannot be allowed to discover that? Or is it something about faith that does not even allow others from outside the faith to challenge it?

Sgt Schwartz

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, and I don't think there are any scientists or religious people that would tell you otherwise. But there have been many incidents where statements presented as facts in the Bible or other religious texts have been disproved through scientific methods.

This is where problems begin to arise because it opens the door to doubting the veracity of the entire book. Obviously there are many things in the Bible that cannot be proved or disproved. This does not make them true or untrue. It simply removes them entirely from the realm of science. Scientists tend to think that where there is no evidence, there is no validity; thus, they tend toward dismissing religion. Religious people tend to think that because the statements in their religious texts are not able to be disproven then they must be true.

The fact is that neither of them can say with authority that these beliefs are true or untrue. But as science continues to disprove more and more "facts" in religious text, it is building a pretty good case against the religious texts and thus the religions in general. Like a lawyer who demonstrates that the witness is unreliable, so science is demonstrating with religious texts.

So religious people are left with a problem. Do they pick and choose what to believe? What is their religion if the text it is based on is being discredited? I think this is where the enmity between science and faith arises.

Of course, scientists also have a problem. How can you believe in God/Gods in the glaring lack of evidence for God's existence? And yet how can you dismiss God/Gods in the glaring lack of evidence for God's non-existance?

Everyone has to make their peace with these questions. I think currently the difference between scientists and religion is that scientists can be comfortable with a God but no religion. Organized religion on the other hand by definition can not be.

[BrainGlutton]

From heliocentric theory to intelligent design, various churches have tried to go counter to scientific facts. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any that actively encourage discovery.

Well, of course there is! The Church of Scientology! I mean, why else would they call it that?! :)

[Der Trihs]

And yet how can you dismiss God/Gods in the glaring lack of evidence for God's non-existance?The same way one can dismiss unicorns and fairies. There is no less evidence for such creatures existence than for God.

[Ghanima]

The same way one can dismiss unicorns and fairies. There is no less evidence for such creatures existence than for God.
Respectfully, I disagree. While I agree that there is no scientific evidence, there is what could be considered evidence in things that outside of science's realm. Morality, for instance. The sheer beauty and wonder of the universe is another. I am an atheist at heart, but I do not disagree that life and consciousness aren't, for lack of a better term, miraculous.

Of course I do accept (and in fact embrace) the possibility that humans may one day be able to explain these things. That it is lack of understanding that causes us to call things like the emergence of life on earth miracles, or to believe we have a soul. I do not think it is unscientific to reserve judgement.

[Princhester]

You're just using one unfalsifiable proposition (the existence of morality other than as a construct of the human brain) to justifiy another.

[Voyager]

This is where problems begin to arise because it opens the door to doubting the veracity of the entire book. Obviously there are many things in the Bible that cannot be proved or disproved. This does not make them true or untrue. It simply removes them entirely from the realm of science. Scientists tend to think that where there is no evidence, there is no validity; thus, they tend toward dismissing religion. Religious people tend to think that because the statements in their religious texts are not able to be disproven then they must be true.


Of course, scientists also have a problem. How can you believe in God/Gods in the glaring lack of evidence for God's existence? And yet how can you dismiss God/Gods in the glaring lack of evidence for God's non-existance?


It is not true that scientists believe that when there is no evidence there is no validity. Say someone comes up with a hypothesis to explain something as yet unknown. What is the probability of this hypothesis being true? The answer is we cannot know. (50% is definitely the wrong answer.) The logical thing to do is to withhold belief in the hypothesis until there is evidence. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for evidence for it, or ways to falsify it, though.

What is the probability that some god exists? We don't know, though the lack of evidence for means we should withhold belief. When you ask about a specific god, the story can change, because there might be evidence against that one. As claims by a particular religion continue to be falsified, we might reasonably give up on believing in that religion. But there are lots of gods out there. Atheists can't be faulted for noting that none have evidence for them, and can't really be faulted for believing that none exist when god n+1 is as unsupported as god n. That doesn't mean anyone claims to be able to prove that no god exists, though.

[Der Trihs]

Respectfully, I disagree. While I agree that there is no scientific evidence, there is what could be considered evidence in things that outside of science's realm. Morality, for instance. Morality is a human invention, and has nothing to to do with a God. Frankly, I've always found it disgusting how religion tries to steal the credit for something so many have died for.

The sheer beauty and wonder of the universe is another. I am an atheist at heart, but I do not disagree that life and consciousness aren't, for lack of a better term, miraculous.Again, not evidence for a god of any kind.

Of course I do accept (and in fact embrace) the possibility that humans may one day be able to explain these things. That it is lack of understanding that causes us to call things like the emergence of life on earth miracles, or to believe we have a soul. I do not think it is unscientific to reserve judgement.The only people who call the emergence of life a "miracle" are religiously motivated; the is no evidence once was necessary. That's creationism, not reality. Nor is there any evidence for a soul; there isn't even evidence that one is possible.

It is not true that scientists believe that when there is no evidence there is no validity. Say someone comes up with a hypothesis to explain something as yet unknown. What is the probability of this hypothesis being true? The answer is we cannot know. (50% is definitely the wrong answer.) The logical thing to do is to withhold belief in the hypothesis until there is evidence. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for evidence for it, or ways to falsify it, though. The flaw in your comparison is that in religion's case, there is nothing to explain. It's like coming up with a hypothesis that violates a dozen physical laws to explain zeta-twist particles ( which violate even more physical laws ), without bothering to come up for evidence that zeta-twist particles even exist.

That doesn't mean anyone claims to be able to prove that no god exists, though. Since there is no evidence for a god, and the "god hypothesis" is so extreme is a scientific sense, I consider it as much disproven an fairies, like I said. The only reason this is considered an argument for considering gods is because of the word games people play with the word "proof" when religion is involved. By the standards applied to non-religious beliefs, believing in a god is just silly. After all, most people make fun of those who believe that the UN intends to conquer earth and is mutilating cattle in black helicopters; that's actually less silly and implausible than belief in God. After all, we know for a fact that the UN, cattle and helicopters all exist; that puts such conspiracy theories a massive step up in plausibility over religion.

[Green Fermina]

So religious people are left with a problem. Do they pick and choose what to believe? What is their religion if the text it is based on is being discredited? I think this is where the enmity between science and faith arises.




Or perhaps a religious person might admit his/her own fallibility in understanding the text. If it is truly divinely inspired, one would think the source of the problem would be obvious.

[Voyager]

The flaw in your comparison is that in religion's case, there is nothing to explain. It's like coming up with a hypothesis that violates a dozen physical laws to explain zeta-twist particles ( which violate even more physical laws ), without bothering to come up for evidence that zeta-twist particles even exist.

At the time the god hypothesis arose, there was plenty to explain. Sure, today religion is a far worse explanation than science.

As for your other argument, absurdity is not the same as a disproof. Plenty of quantum physics is absurd in the common sense meaning of the term - it's still true, so far as we can tell.

[Der Trihs]

As for your other argument, absurdity is not the same as a disproof. Plenty of quantum physics is absurd in the common sense meaning of the term - it's still true, so far as we can tell.Your analogy doesn't work. We have plenty of evidence for quantum mechanics, after; none for God. It's not "absurd" if we know it exists. Bizarre, perhaps, but it's never silly to believe the truth.

[kwakkerhead]

Religions and the various sects within, through the centuries, have been forced to adapt to the findings of the various fields of science. :eek: I believe that has been well established in the preceeding thread. Why then does it seem that the religious zealots of the world still cannot grasp that this is going to be a continual process as we become more cognizant of the workings of the universe around us? :smack: Why not just come out and say, "Hey, this writing/teaching/philosophy/explanation was presented as the best available at the time." I do not believe the people of biblical times would have hardly been expected to understand quantum mechanics and genetic theory. You want to ask someone to have "blind faith?" :confused: Many aspects of creationism, natural phenomena and the like were explained in allegories, easily understood by common people, or at least more easily understood than carbon-14 dating.

As such, I see the problem with religion and science as a problem of pride. :) As an engineer, a practical scientist, I do not see that science precludes religious tenants, but that the religious tenants, immobile and steadfast, preclude science.

Consider something: We were made in the image of God. That would suggest that many of the behaviors of man and society are similar to the behavior of the Diety. Why then, as suggested by my dialogue above, do we find it so unbelievable, that God would present his children with the basic fundamentals of knowledge to begin to grow with, allowing them to graduate to a higher level of understanding with time, while still allowing for the religious need for faith. We do not sit our two year old children down with lego expert builder sets and expect them to build a train, much less not choke on the parts. When we tell our children the sky is blue because God knew we would believe it was beautiful (or whatever other simplified explanation may be given), even when we know the long, drawn out, scientific answer, it is not because we intend to deceive them, so much as give them an answer that will satisfy them until a time when they will have a better understanding and appreciation for, as well as the patience to hear, the real answer. Seriously, if we were created in the image of God, then why do we have such an issue with equating God-nature with human-nature. Why would God not make himself subject to his own laws, the natural and physical laws which science holds so dearly?

As is the case in so many other arguments, there is no black and white answer to the question of science and religion. The case is convoluted and murky and I do not expect that to change any time soon. However, I do have to give the award for "More adult-like behavior" to science. Anyone who is a parent knows that "Because I said so" is a cop out and not what the perfect parent would say if he were not so busy abiding by his own natural laws to come and chit-chat.

[kwakkerhead]

Or perhaps a religious person might admit his/her own fallibility in understanding the text. If it is truly divinely inspired, one would think the source of the problem would be obvious.

Interesting how scientists are not so alarmed when the texts they base their beliefs on are discredited.

[kwakkerhead]

Interesting how scientists are not so alarmed when the texts they base their beliefs on are discredited.

Adding to my previous...

In fact, religions could truly benefit from the economics of science. How many here have had to spend another $100 on the next version of a textbook for a class because of the updates requires by new science or whatever discipline being studied? :mad: K-ching! ;j Not that this doesn't happen, but every few hundred years is not the way to do things. And consider how many volumes the Bible would have to be split into to incorporate the modern day understandings of events therein! This may even have a positive impact on reversing the decline in the rate of U.S. citizens studying the sciences and engineering! Yes, religion could have a positive impact on the state of the nation in international affairs!

[Voyager]

Your analogy doesn't work. We have plenty of evidence for quantum mechanics, after; none for God. It's not "absurd" if we know it exists. Bizarre, perhaps, but it's never silly to believe the truth.
Lack of evidence is an excellent reason not to believe in something, but different from a disproof.

Since we often get accused by theists of claiming that we can disprove god, I want to be very clear about the fact that we don't have to. They have to provide evidence for god, which they have not done very well. Why let them move the goalposts?

Certain types of gods we can disprove, at least beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Voyager]

Not that this doesn't happen, but every few hundred years is not the way to do things. And consider how many volumes the Bible would have to be split into to incorporate the modern day understandings of events therein! This may even have a positive impact on reversing the decline in the rate of U.S. citizens studying the sciences and engineering! Yes, religion could have a positive impact on the state of the nation in international affairs!
The difference is, when religions update their texts, they claim that both the mutually contradictory old ones and news ones are both 100% correct.

(Used up all the smilies yet? :) )

[kwakkerhead]

The difference is, when religions update their texts, they claim that both the mutually contradictory old ones and news ones are both 100% correct.

(Used up all the smilies yet? :) )

Is this the, "Ah, that was a good poop!" smiley? :p