Are many dopers against religion?

[jjimm]

I was baptised into the Episcopalean church. Grew up in it, did confirmation classes, studied hard, was confirmed in my mid-teens. Lost all faith soon after. I still retained some vague woolly new-agey theistic feeling (rather than belief) but this slowly evaporated as I travelled the world. The more time I spent in different cultures, the more I realised that each group of followers believes as fervently as any other that their way is right. The final nail in the coffin of religion for me was the day I visited a temple in South Vietnam where there was a religion founded to worship a statue that had been found on top of a hill in the 1950s. It was not far from the Cao Dai temple where they worship Victor Hugo. And it struck me that day that the people of the world will worship pretty much anything.

This left me with the following mutually exclusive conclusions:[ol][li]There’s some supernatural thingy out there that all religions are worshipping in their own way[/li][li]One religion is right and all the others are wrong[/li][li]All religions are wrong[/ol]I note that liberals of most religions take point #1 as being closest to the truth. However, fundamentalists of those religions take point #2 as being closest to the truth. The liberal religious would therefore reject “truth” #2. Which makes point #1 as fundamental as point #2. This paradox, and the lack of any concrete evidence (in my eyes) for anything supernatural, leads me strongly to point #3. And that people tend to be able to argue the toss about the religion that, for the most part, they worship as an accident of birth (geography, lineage)… sure, it might be divinely inspired that you happen to be a [whatever] follower, but don’t you think it’s a little coincidental that it’s the faith of your forefathers…?[/li]
These boards have mellowed me in my attitude towards religion, and my respect for (liberal) religious followers has increased; I also think there’s a lot of wisdom in many religious teachings from which the non-faithful can learn. But I do find it difficult to comprehend how people can believe in it.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by scr4 *
I have shown that logically, the scientifc method is the only way to obtain the truth about the universe.

You have done no such thing. You have argued for the validity of the scientific method, but you have yet to prove that it can be applied in each and every circumstance. In fact, one of my prior links provides some reasons why science cannot prove everything.

In fact, since you have repeatedly attempted to (ahem) “prove” your case without resorting to experiments, your very own actions prove you to be wrong.

Since you insist on clinging to this self-refuting claim though, I hereby level a challenge to you. Using the scientific method, prove that it is wrong to torture homosexuals. I don’t want impassioned appeals to morality, and I don’t want expressions of outrage, no matter how eloquent. Design an experiment to prove that torturing homosexuals is wrong. Describe your methodology in detail, and then report on the results. Go ahead.

Would you prefer another challenge? Then using the scientific method, prove that the scientific method is valid… (We shall revisit this point later, at the end of this post.) Again, I don’t want impassioned argumentation, and I don’t want experiment-less appeals to logic. Design an experiment to prove that the scientific method is valid. Describe your methodology in detail, and then report on the results. (Remember, you are the one who said that the scientific method is the only means to truth. I’m asking you to play by your own rules. By your own logic, if we cannot prove this scientifically, then we cannot accept it to be true.)

**
You haven’t pointed out any flaws in the logic itself. Your only argument seems to be:

I’m saying that the scientific method assumes that the laws of logic are valid. ERGO, it cannot be used to prove their validity, as that would be circular reasoning.

Which, it seems to me, implies that you are challenging the concept of logic itself. Where am I wrong?**

Dude, you need a course in basic logic. BADLY. In particular, you need to learn the nature of circular reasoning.

Consider the statement “Susan claims to be a nun. Nuns would not lie. Ergo, Susan is a nun.” That’s a blatant example of circular reasoning, as it assumes the very statement which it purports to prove. This does not mean that Susan is a liar, nor does it mean she’s telling the truth. It simply means that the logic used is invalid, and thus, inconclusive. Other methods would be necessary to discern if she’s lying or not.

Similarly, it would be circular reasoning to attempt to prove the laws of logic, using science. This does not make the laws of logic valid, nor does it make it invalid. It simply means that this particular does not apply, and so their validity must be discerned through other means.

[

**
I cannot prove scientifically that the scientific method is valid. That by definition is circular logic, and you have already stated that you will not accept circular logic. **

Of course. That’s because circular reasoning is invalid. If you can’t use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is valid, then this demonstrates that the scientific method does not always apply. That doesn’t make it invalid; it simply means that there are circumstances wherein it cannot be used.

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by JThunder *
In fact, one of my prior links provides some reasons why science cannot prove everything.

Nope. There are several faults in the text you link to. For starters, there is no reason to believe nature is anything but real or rational. Nothing points in any other direction. “Good and worthy of study” and “should be controlled” are opinions, not facts and so cannot be shown to be true or false.

Moving on. Science can only describe physical phenomena, this is correct. There is nothing else to describe, when you get down to it. It cannot answer questions about meaning or ethics since these questions don’t have factual answers but are matters of opinion. They have nothing to do with truth. Science can, however, answer questions about our origin (depending on your definitions), so that’s just a lie. Finally, if a scientist’s “presuppositions and a priori commitments affect how the facts are interpreted”, then that scientist made a mistake. The very raison d’etre of the scientific method is to eliminate such mistakes, conscious or otherwise.

Since you insist on clinging to this self-refuting claim though, I hereby level a challenge to you. Using the scientific method, prove that it is wrong to torture homosexuals.

Impossible. Why? Because it isn’t wrong to torture homosexuals. “Right” and “wrong” are arbitrary designations assigned by humans. They’re not about facts, they’re about opinions. It’s impossible to prove opinions. They’re not subject to experimentation or proof.

What you are doing is basically this:

scr4: I have perfect eyesight.
JThunder: Oh yeah? Look at this invisible thing!
scr4: Umm… It’s invisible.
JThunder: You can’t see it can you?
scr4: No, because it’s invisible.
JThunder: So your eyesight isn’t perfect after all! Ha-ha!

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by Priceguy *
**Nope. There are several faults in the text you link to. For starters, there is no reason to believe nature is anything but real or rational. **

And what scientific method did you use to establish that?

Mind you, I happen to agree that nature is real and rational… but this is not something which is scientifically established. Your own argument proves my point.

[B Moving on. Science can only describe physical phenomena, this is correct. There is nothing else to describe, when you get down to it. ]/B]

Again, an unproven assertion. You are asserting that physical phenomena are the only things which exist. What experiment did you conduct in order to prove this?

**
It cannot answer questions about meaning or ethics since these questions don’t have factual answers but are matters of opinion. **

Again, what experiment did you conduct in order to prove this? Or did you establish this using some means other than the scientific method?

**

Since you insist on clinging to this self-refuting claim though, I hereby level a challenge to you. Using the scientific method, prove that it is wrong to torture homosexuals.

Impossible. Why? Because it isn’t wrong to torture homosexuals. **

A shocking claim. Well, at least you’re honest about your opinion on the matter.

[JThunder]

A word of warning, scr4 and Priceguy: Every single time you present an argument* without first citing a prior experiment, you are proving my point. Consider that, and choose your words carefully. If truth can only be uncovered through scientific experimentation, then you must be prepared to provide an experiment for every statement which you purport to be true.

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by JThunder *
And what scientific method did you use to establish that?

It’s called observation. Look into it.

Again, an unproven assertion. You are asserting that physical phenomena are the only things which exist. What experiment did you conduct in order to prove this?

See above.

Again, what experiment did you conduct in order to prove this? Or did you establish this using some means other than the scientific method?

You’re saying opinions are facts? You’re saying morals and ethics are matters of facts, subject to proof?

**A shocking claim. Well, at least you’re honest about your opinion on the matter. **

You’re cute, JThunder, I’ll grant you that. The way you cut the rest of my post is a tiny bit transparent, though…

[JThunder]

Keep it up, Priceguy. None of arguments you presented used the scientific method, which proves my point.

Keep going, please. I want to see how deep this hole you’re digging is going to get.

[Dunderman]

JThunder, how about answering my question and how about responding to the part of my post that you cut?

By the way, observation is a scientific method. Your denial of this shows your total lack of understanding.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by capacitor *
**But then situations such as the Tuskeegee experiments occured. Some skeptics want to discount these, but these came about on purely scientific principles. And such situations led to a massive distrust in science solving all of our problems, and indeed, may create worse ones. Sadly, that is especially true in the Black community. **

What in the world are you talking about?

[Ramanujan]

JThunder, maybe no one has answered your question because they feel it is a very daft line of questioning.

you want us to use science to prove the validity of science? ok:

assume:
P: science is valid. (that we can use science)
then:
P -> P
:.
P

there you have it, proof. circular, you say? well that’s what you asked for.

now, nowhere did i say that science is the only method of acquiring knowledge. i never claimed that “science is the only way to gain knowledge” was scientifically valid knowledge. i did not even claim that it was knowledge. that science is the only valid form of knowledge is not generally considered fact by scientists. it is believed. many people feel they have better reason to believe in science than in arbitrarily posited forces, but that’s not even relevant.

my claim is that when you are using science as your tool to gain knowledge, any “knowledge” you might “gain” without the use of scientific method falls outside the realm of science. when you are using science as your tool for acquiring knowledge, its rules and the limits it places apply to all possible knowledge you might acquire. any possible knowledge you might gain is dealt with scientifically. if you do not use science to gain a piece of knowledge, science is not your epistemology.

“invisible pink unicorns exist”, for example, is not scientific knowledge. if, in your system, things that are believed are considered knowledge, and you believe that invisible pink unicorns exist, then that is part of your knowledge. it is not part of scientific knowledge.

In that case, one shouldn’t reject religious belief on the grounds that it’s not “scientific.”

i agree, if the person doing the rejecting does not believe in science. if they do, then “god exists” is not part of scientific knowledge without adequate testable observational evidence. so when you say “god exists” you are not making a scientific claim.

[Tamex]

TVAA: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

jjimm: Isn’t it strange, though, that people are so willing and eager to worship anything, and that worship seems to be so universal? I often wonder why that is. However, it’s tough to ask questions of people of faith without them becoming defensive or trying to convert you or being completely baffled by the concept that there may not be “something” out there.

My personal feeling is that “God” is a state of mind. I mean, you can pray (or hope, or wish, etc.) and “feel” that your thoughts are “going” somewhere. It is, perhaps, a sort of altered state of consciousness. I can see how this is helpful in situations that really are beyond your control…you let the “supernatural” take over, and it’s comforting. It lets you do something even when there is nothing, really, that you can do. As a child, you are taught to do this by “praying to God”.

However, the ritual part of religion is quite perplexing to me. As I said before, I don’t get it. However, I do seem to be in the minority.

I also think that many religions I know of indoctrinate some harmful attitudes, especially in this modern, pluralistic society that the world is becoming. The SDMB is very much a part of this pluralistic society, and I think that many Dopers who are “against” religion are against it for this reason.

[g8rguy]

Inherently, unless you can show that there either are or are not other ways of gaining knowledge about the universe, the scientific method requires us to be silent on this question; scientists who believe that science is the only way of gaining knowledge or just as culpable as scientists who believe there are not, Priceguy. Similarly, unless we can show that all knowledge can or cannot be gained scientifically, we must be silent on the question.

If we can’t prove it scientifically, we must acknowledge that there may be other means of gaining knowledge out there, that they may be perfectly valid and reasonable, that there may be things beyond the scope of science, or there may not be. As a practical matter, we’ll probably incline towards thinking that science is enough, but strictly speaking, that’s a mistake if science encompasses your epistemology.

I’m not sure how relevant this is, mind you, but it should be obvious.

I’m a little surprised by statements lik:

No. It’s no myth, it’s the truth. Where one is, the other isn’t.

That’s not, of course, something that science has established, or even can establish, and if you’re so keen on science being your only epistemology, you really oughtn’t make such a statement. Science never delivers truth, nor does it claim to; it delivers explanations, predictions, and so on, but it never delivers truth, except in the extreme case that all possibilities have been tested and all but one have been shown false (here, you still need to prove that you’ve tested all possibilities of course).

Oh, and sc4, I want to remind you that, well, science makes unproven assumptions as well. As Priceguy pointed out, it assumes its own validity. It assumes the universe is rational, consistent, that things will work the same way now as they did yesterday, and so on, so that we can make testable and predictive explanations. These are reasonable assumptions, but they’re unproven assumptions. So let’s not get hung up on religion requiring unproven assumptions, eh? Admittedly, the assumptions in religion seem less reasonable, but that’s a different kettle of fish.

Lastly, rjung: grand, I think we are on the same page, or at least pretty close.

[Kyla]

*Originally posted by scr4 *
**I still don’t understand this view. Religion makes many unproven assumptions about the universe. When people say they believe in both science and religion, there seem to be two implications:
[ul]
[li]Our current understanding of science is not incompatible with their religious beliefes, so they can keep the faith and still accept and use the currently known laws and theories of science.[/li][li]Science is a way to bring us closer to god, i.e. to give physical evidence to their beliefs.[/li][/ul]
In the first case, they are merely accepting the results of the scientific method but not the method itself. The second case means doing science to prove a pre-conceived conclusion. Both cases are contradictory to the scientific method. **

So? Why should faith be required to meet strict scientific requirements? If it required proof, it wouldn’t be faith. I have issues with creationists because they try to twist science to their own means. But my faith which I cannot provide cites for because it is in my mind does allow for me to have a belief in god and science.

[Lilairen]

Science is a means for determining, as best as can be done with the methodology we have, objective truths.

I live in a universe where there are both objective and subjective truths: not merely fact, but beauty. Not merely verification, but inspiration. This is my observation.

Religious belief is a tool for processing subjective truths, as science is a tool for processing objective truths. If it doesn’t work for you, don’t use it; leave it to the people for whom it works.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by JThunder *
**While this is undeniably true, it is not something which is determined scientifically. Rather, it’s the sort of thing which all reasoning humans know through what philosophers describe as intuition. In fact, the scientific method assumes the validity of the laws of logic; ergo, it cannot be used to prove their validity! **

Incorrect.

We know that the world matches the premises of logical argument through observation only. More importantly, we can know the outcomes of such arguments only by observing the results of the computations our brains must go through to evaluate them.

How do we know that the argument you presented isn’t actually invalid, but some flaw in human cognition causes us to conclude that it is?

[Voyager]

JThunder’s request for “proof” of things indicates he does not understand the scientific method very well. Science does not prove anything, it just provides the best explanations. Since we don’t know what truth is, science is a way of getting closer to truth with time.

Ah, JThunder says, prove it! Easily done - but not a proof. Every time science is used to discover something, or to explain a feature of the world, it is testing itself. Have we found anything which cannot in principle be explained by science? Not so far, understanding of course that science does not have all the answers yet, and does not claim to, and in fact even proves some things are unknowable, such as what is on the other side of a singularity. If you want to put spirit there, be my guest, but understand that this spirit cannot affect our universe.

There were two hypotheses about how to understand the universe in days gone by - the supernatural one, and the scientific one. In all cases where the effectiveness was compared, science won. The supernatural hypothesis could not predict the effects of an action, could not explain the world, could not make our lives better, longer, or more comfortable. Science did.

Is science the only way to truth? No, if you consider mathematics not a part of science! Is logic correct? The theory is that it is, this theory is supported by millennia of logic use, and at this point if you want to dispute this contention you need to come up with a counterexample.

I’d suggest that offering a link to an explanation of the scientific method is far different from really understanding it.

[g8rguy]

Argh. This

proves some things are unknowable, such as what is on the other side of a singularity

is precisely the sort of thing that we really can’t say as scientists, isn’t it? And I think it gets at the heart of what JThunder is trying to say, if I’m not reading him incorrectly.

Science may tell us that, presuming our current understanding to be correct, we cannot see past a horizon. Science may tell us “and since we can’t see, we can’t know by science.” Science may not tell us “hence, we can’t know it all.” That last step requires the additional assumption that only that which we can know by means of science can be known at all. It may seem like a reasonable assumption to make, but it is not an assumption I’ve seen proven.

I presume you’d agree here, Voyager, since you said earlier in your own post that science proves nothing, but I wanted to point it out, as long as we’re turning this into a debate about the scientific method rather than about the hostility towards religion.

[elfkin477]

Anyway, back to the OP…

I’m about 60% certain that God created the universe etc etc. But I’m wary of organized religion. In a perfect world, religion would just be a way for like-minded people to get together to express a common joy in their beliefs, period. Solidarty and all that.

However, history has shown us that that’s not all organized religion is used for. It’s used for justifying wars, and hurting people who don’t belong to that religion, as a way to mark one’s enemies (hasn’t there been a lot of smiting?), a way to look down on and condemn non-believers, and justification for other things equally depraved. Religions don’t want to just worship, many want power.

I have no problems with people having their own personal realitionships with their diety of choice(or none), but anything like organized religion is bound to have other goals, and I’d rather not be a part of it. And I admit I worry about people who put a high priority on their religious membership; it seems a little sad that they feel that they need others to validate their beliefs.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by Voyager *
**JThunder’s request for “proof” of things indicates he does not understand the scientific method very well. Science does not prove anything, it just provides the best explanations. Since we don’t know what truth is, science is a way of getting closer to truth with time.
**

Quite the contrary; I’m the one who’s claiming that science IS NOT the one path to truth. You’ve cited one of the reasons why it isn’t.

Saying that science doesn’t “prove” anything is not a problem for me, but it’s a problem for those who claim that science (or more precisely, the scientific method is the only way we can know anything. Do we know that it’s the only way we can know anything? If so, then this must be provable using the scientific method — which it isn’t.

Originally posted by Priceguy**
JThunder, how about answering my question and how about responding to the part of my post that you cut?**

Not necessary. Every time you utter a statement that has not been scientifically proven (e.g. “‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are arbitrary designations assigned by humans.”) you are proving my point.

Originally posted by Priceguy**
By the way, observation is a scientific method. Your denial of this shows your total lack of understanding.**

Not by a long shot. Observation is not, in and of itself, a scientific methodology. It is merely the first step involved in the scientific method. You’ve got a long way to go from mere observation to true scientific methodology.

Originally posted by g8rguy
**
Argh. This

proves some things are unknowable, such as what is on the other side of a singularity

is precisely the sort of thing that we really can’t say as scientists, isn’t it? And I think it gets at the heart of what JThunder is trying to say, if I’m not reading him incorrectly.

Science may tell us that, presuming our current understanding to be correct, we cannot see past a horizon. Science may tell us “and since we can’t see, we can’t know by science.” Science may not tell us “hence, we can’t know it all.” That last step requires the additional assumption that only that which we can know by means of science can be known at all. It may seem like a reasonable assumption to make, but it is not an assumption I’ve seen proven.
**

g8rguy is precisely right. This is one of the reasons why we cannot profess science to be the be-all and end-all of knowledge. The scientific method is extremely important, but it has its limitations.

As g8rguy noted in the example above, for example, it requires the additional assumption that science is the only way we can know anything – which is an unproven assumption. What’s more, it’s not provable using science, which makes it a self-refuting, self-contradicting assertion.

A true scientist knows the limits of his craft. He knows that science requires assuming nature to be real and rational, and that the laws of logic are valid and consistent. Are these assumptions reasonable? Eminently so! Extremely so!.. but they are not scientifically proven. Nor can they be proven, without falling into the trap of circular reasoning.

[Skeptico]

LEADING SCIENTISTS STILL REJECT GOD

A survey in mid-1998 found that 93% of U.S. scientists do not profess belief in God, and 92.1 percent do not profess belief in immortality.

Cite: Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.