# Can a discussion of science and religion with intelligence from both sides change your opinion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 27, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328 "2015-07-27T16:48:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/61 "2015-07-30T05:28:11Z")
> [@SeniorCitizen007](#): > > There’s an “in between world” of ‘Existential phenomena’ that negates the beliefs of both sides. Science does not have beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/62 "2015-07-30T05:48:02Z")
Can a discussion of science and astrology with intelligence from both sides change your opinion? — fixed the sentence for you in other words, religion is completely irrational , just like voodoo or astrology or a bigfoot hunt ---
**Author:** ![SeniorCitizen007](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8baadc/32.png) [@SeniorCitizen007](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeniorCitizen007)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/63 "2015-07-30T07:37:47Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Science does not have beliefs. … but scientists do. Research using equipment that shows the subject’s brain activity on a screen in front of them demonstrates to the subject that their understanding of complex data is influenced by belief-orientated thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/64 "2015-07-30T11:53:56Z")
> [@SeniorCitizen007](#): > > … but scientists do. Research using equipment that shows the subject’s brain activity on a screen in front of them demonstrates to the subject that their understanding of complex data is influenced by belief-orientated thinking. Please show this research. ---
**Author:** ![Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ac8455/32.png) [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Your_Great_Darsh_Face)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/65 "2015-07-30T14:24:17Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Can a discussion of science and astrology with intelligence from both sides change your opinion? > > — fixed the sentence for you > in other words, religion is completely irrational , just like voodoo or astrology or a bigfoot hunt So your answer to the question posed initially is “No. I’ve made up my mind and I know I’m right”. Well, that’s a data point, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/66 "2015-07-30T17:21:01Z")
No. A _debate_ could change my mind, but as I have pointed out before, such a debate never has and (probably) never will take place. Science is the product of rigorous formal debate about data, and any premise forwarded by science may be challenged by more data and more debate. But, given the data, only certain conclusions will remain valid. A ‘discussion’ between science and religion can’t be a debate. Religion doesn’t bring any evidence to the ‘debate’, and doesn’t engage in debate, no matter how intelligent the proponent or how much it appears to be a debate. Religion is defended via [apologia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics), which can continue forever past the point when a formal debate would have been settled in the eyes of an honest observer. I said such a debate will probably never take place. I don’t know everything. If God suddenly started providing all kinds of compelling evidence for His existence, why then we would have the foundation for a real debate. But why bother? At that point science would co-opt religion and conclude that there was a God, and here’s what we know about it from the evidence uncovered so far, yada yada. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/67 "2015-07-30T18:38:16Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > A lot of intelligent and educated people are religious, so it’s a mistake to assume that only fools are religious. I agree it’s a mistake to assume that only fools are religious, but that doesn’t mean that belief in God isn’t in itself foolish. Plenty of intelligent people do some otherwise foolish things. Smoking, overeating, and so on. I know a guy who’s a chemist and engineer who thinks they should teach intelligent design in school. He’s not a dingbat, but a stupid, foolish idea got under his armor where he can’t assess it intelligently. Now personally, I base my dismissal of God on the fact that there is no evidence for Him. When I ask people for that evidence, they mewl about, “you haven’t felt what I felt!” or come up with some nonsense about how Jesus fulfilled every single OT prophecy, so He must be God. If actual evidence existed, I’d certainly be amenable to being convinced. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/68 "2015-07-30T18:40:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Or that they are good at keeping a solid wall between the foolishness and the science. Yes. So what does that tell you? I’ve read so many of these threads, and it always seems that the atheists jump from “Belief in a god is illogical and irrational” to “religion is illogical and irrational”. Yet every human culture ever recorded has _some_ form of religious belief and ritual practice. The forms of these religions vary - though not infinitely - but it seems that almost all humans need a name to yell when they stub their toes getting up in the middle of the night to answer a wrong number. 😛 It’s almost as if the belief in the supernatural is somehow hard-wired in our primate brains. So what conclusion might a hard-nosed atheistic scientist, committed to empirical evidence, rationality, and the scientific method, draw from this? Perhaps she muses to herself, “Hey, this religion thing is panspecific, and has been for as long as we have any records of our species. Maybe it arises from a cognitive module that evolved to determine agency and intentionality in other beings, kinda the way a module evolved to recognize human faces! And since in both cases, a false positive has a much lower cost than a false negative, maybe humans see intentionality in random events, the same way we see faces in clouds or Jesus on a piece of toast.” “So,” she continues to herself, “religion then is just a side effect of our agency-detecting brains? But on the other hand, a common religion is a great way to foster in-group bonds! As well as aggression to out-groups! After all, it’s easy to rationalize stealing from or killing those heathen bastards over the hill if you think they’re condemned by God. Religion can also promote reciprocal altruism, compassion, and alleviate the fear of death and the pain of loss. Hmm, as a rational scientist, I know that there is no valid evidence of a god, gods, or the supernatural. But I can see that as a social structure, a religion offers enough evolutionary benefit to appeal to most people, even intelligent, scientifically literate ones. Scientology is still bullshit, though.” Last weekend I drove from Pennsylvania to Georgia listening to a series of lectures on evolutionary psychology, so this is all still fresh in my mind. Point is, religion is not just foolishness - there’s a rational, nonsupernatural reason why so many people are adherents. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/69 "2015-07-30T18:50:51Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > To be fair to the theists, this would do nothing for me, as it’s simply more “god of the gaps” BS. We currently don’t know of any biological mechanism by which a human could spontaneously regrow a limb, but if it suddenly happened, my first thought would be A) it’s bullshit, and then if it started happening a lot, that B) there’s a new biological mechanism for spontaneously regrowing human limbs that we may or may not figure out at some point. Well, that’s why I capitalized ‘COULD’ there. However, there is nothing short of supernatural that could regenerate an entire human limb as specified (i.e. overnight), regardless of what we do or don’t understand about biology, so it would be an indication of something interesting going on, assuming it could be confirmed. > [@](#): > > Which is why this: > > is such a compelling answer. It’s not enough for “miracles” to happen, religious adherents need to connect the dots to their specific deity as SeniorBeef describes. Show me that cancer goes into remission more often for people who pray to Ganesh or whatever. Heck, show me that bad things happen more often to atheists or people from all of the “wrong” religions when controlling for various factors. Any sort of study that supported a religious belief would work. > > Conveniently, Christianity invalidates the very _idea_ of testing religion with controlled studies because god says he’s not to be tested. Frankly, it’s so convenient that it makes me think that even people at the time suspected god was made up. But really, doesn’t this raise some fascinating philosophical questions? If god cures cancer sometimes, but he doesn’t cure cancer if people are studying the effect of prayer because he refuses to be tested, then can the entire earthly power of god be nullified by scientists with clipboards? Could the ancient armies destroyed by the Hebrews in the old testament have thwarted defeat by declaring, prior to the battle, the that battle itself was a test of the Hebrew god’s existence? Honestly not seeing it. If we were talking about belief in magic, then it would be a good point, but all it would show to a theist, playing devils advocate (:p) is that God or the gods listened to prayers but made their own choices for their own inscrutable reasons. Expecting God or the gods to answer prayers 70% or some other arbitrary percentage seems pretty silly, and really this only addresses people who are convinced that prayer works, not the basic question of whether or not God or the gods exist. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/70 "2015-07-30T18:57:38Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > there’s a rational, nonsupernatural reason why so many people are adherents. If there is a nonsupernatural reason people are religious why does it follow it is rational? ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/71 "2015-07-30T19:13:49Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Science does not have beliefs. Nitpick. Science requires assumptions that are essentially equivalent to beliefs, such as the assumption that there is an objective reality. Science requires fewer beliefs than just about anything other than solipsism, and the beliefs are justified because it works. Religious people also claim that their beliefs “work,” but I say that for me, they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/72 "2015-07-30T19:17:22Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I agree it’s a mistake to assume that only fools are religious, but that doesn’t mean that belief in God isn’t in itself foolish. No argument. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/73 "2015-07-30T19:41:50Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > If there is a nonsupernatural reason people are religious why does it follow it is rational? Fair point. Okay, there’s an evolutionarily advantageous, nonsupernatural reason people follow religions. The religion itself is not rational, but the adherence _is_. Or at least, comprehensible, given how we naked plains apes think. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/74 "2015-07-30T20:13:13Z")
> [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](#): > > So your answer to the question posed initially is “No. I’ve made up my mind and I know I’m right”. Well, that’s a data point, anyway. No, actually, it’s more like: every religious claim I’ve ever heard of is unsupported by fact and the majority of them are nonsensical or illogical ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/75 "2015-07-30T20:19:40Z")
Both Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins came off as rather cowardly. Neither took a firm stand for reason and science, but seemed to cautiously avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. Dawkins only hinted at being an atheist, and Tyson didn’t voice the obvious objections to the Jesuit’s statements. Because of this, the Jesuit’s statements went unchallenged, and he seems to have “won.” The whole thing was rather disappointing. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/76 "2015-07-30T20:43:46Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > Fair point. Okay, there’s an evolutionarily advantageous, nonsupernatural reason people follow religions. The religion itself is not rational, but the adherence _is_. Or at least, comprehensible, given how we naked plains apes think. Well sure, religion is a effective social binder. I don’t think that concept is fresh or controversial at all. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/77 "2015-07-30T23:33:14Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > No. … > A ‘discussion’ between science and religion can’t be a debate. Religion doesn’t bring any evidence to the ‘debate’, and doesn’t engage in debate, no matter how intelligent the proponent or how much it appears to be a debate. Religion is defended via [apologia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics), which can continue forever… Fair enough and well presented. I’ll note though that you have not ruled out a _philosophic discussion_. It is my understanding that the existence of God is still a matter for serious debate. Philosophers have by and large moved on from the proof of God song and dance: instead they debate whether it’s reasonable to believe in a God, a contention that requires a lower burden of proof. Cite: I think it was [this book](https://philosophynow.org/issues/80/Philosophy_Through_Science_Fiction), but I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/78 "2015-07-31T01:05:45Z")
M4M: Sure, a philosophic discussion is always on the table, but ITSM the nature of those is to define some kind of inconsistency with the accepted way of viewing things- or an inconsistency with seemingly _every_ way of viewing things- without coming to any solid conclusions. But maybe I just need you to expand on what you’re saying. If the question is “Is it reasonable to believe in a god?”, I can see big problems with that right from the start. For example, what is reasonable depends on one’s circumstances, no? If you are being tortured to death, it may seem reasonable to confess to a crime you didn’t commit. If you are born a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness or one of many varieties of evangelical, you will be shunned or even tossed out of your family/community if you question the script, which can make believing/toeing the line seem reasonable, without at all addressing the core questions. Did you know that prisoners are more than 30x more likely to be religious believers than non-prisoners? Locked up in solitary for life without parole, it may be reasonable to seek a perfect, all-powerful imaginary friend. But what does that really say about reality? Philosophers do debate these questions, yes. But, _sans_ conclusions, what’s the point (if you are an undergraduate, yes, take all the philosophy you can, don’t get me wrong)? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/79 "2015-07-31T01:40:31Z")
Well, I’ve found my copy of the book: it turns out my cite was accurate. Rah rah. Chapter 3. Though frankly I may have overstated matters somewhat. The argument given didn’t touch upon circumstance: it was [epistemological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) in nature. And epistemology is a legitimate empirical and non-empirical subject for investigation. So yeah, I think the discussion is worthwhile, if only to shed light on the nature of knowing something or not. It’s also mostly over my head: I am not a philosopher. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328/80 "2015-07-31T01:46:38Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Well sure, religion is a effective social binder. I don’t think that concept is fresh or controversial at all. Maybe not. But it seems to me that in these discussions, the default position for nonbelievers is “Religion is just irrational nonsense”. Which casually dismisses a complex and universal human phenomenon. You don’t have to believe in God, or think religion is a good thing, to recognize that it _is_ a significant part of human society. And thus worthy of discussion and even scientific analysis. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-discussion-of-science-and-religion-with-intelligence-from-both-sides-change-your-opinion/726328.md?page=5)