# Look, Islam is not going away **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2015, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695 "2015-11-16T14:34:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/241 "2015-12-02T13:09:06Z")
S/b “rules out all supernatural hypotheses…” Missed edit window in my friggin’ haste to get to some real work. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/242 "2015-12-02T13:39:09Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Uh, no, that’s not how proof works. Science can _predict_ with a very high degree of _confidence_ that the claim is bullshit, because there is no known causal mechanism operating in accordance with the premises of scientific materialist rationalism via which human same-sex sexual behavior would result in swarming locusts. And science overall has had very good success with limiting its premises to that kind of materialist rationalism and disallowing all supernatural assumptions or explanations. > > But that is not the same thing as _proving_ such a claim is bullshit, much less disproving the existence of a deity or other postulated supernatural being. Science, by its very definition, cannot do any such thing (see: “limiting its premises” etc., above). I know you’re not talking to me, but science is not _required_ to disprove the existence of deities or other postulated supernatural beings. By its very existence and by its established track record, science requires those postulating deities or supernatural communication with them to prove their claim. Otherwise, those claims are assumed false. This is what makes CP’s position in this debate much more correct than tomndebb’s. You can argue about technicalities, but in substance he is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/243 "2015-12-02T14:56:19Z")
All this confusion stems from a false equivalence between Science and Religion. As if the two were seperate realms. But Science is not seperate from anything. If anything 'spiritual’were to exist it would also fall into the ‘realm of Science’. Because _Science_ is just a fancy word for Knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/244 "2015-12-02T16:22:57Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > I know you’re not talking to me, but science is not _required_ to disprove the existence of deities or other postulated supernatural beings. By its very existence and by its established track record, science requires those postulating deities or supernatural communication with them to prove their claim. Otherwise, those claims are assumed false. This is what makes CP’s position in this debate much more correct than tomndebb’s. You can argue about technicalities, but in substance he is correct. You are still letting CP’s religious beliefs control your views. A statement regarding the spiritual that claims a material result is presumed not true until evidence is presented. Science addresses anything in the physical world. However, it is not true that science presumes all statements false until evidence is presented; it addresses only physical phenomena. It is a philosophical position that only the physical is real. Might even be correct. But it is outside the scope of science to address that issue. CP’s material-is-all religious beliefs do not actually have a bearing on what science genuinely addresses. ---
**Author:** ![IDtenT\_Error](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@IDtenT\_Error](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IDtenT_Error)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/245 "2015-12-02T17:01:31Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > You are ignoring the fact that to science, any claim is false until shown by the scientific method to be (provisionally) true. So, in other words, X-rays didn’t exist until someone thought to do an experiment that would demonstrate that they do, and then they suddenly popped into existence and we’ve had them ever since? That’s the logical conclusion from your claim. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/246 "2015-12-02T18:59:29Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > I know you’re not talking to me, but science is not _required_ to disprove the existence of deities or other postulated supernatural beings. I never claimed that it is required to do so. I’m just pointing out that it can’t. [QUOTE=bldysabba] By its very existence and by its established track record, science requires those postulating deities or supernatural communication with them to prove their claim. Otherwise, those claims are assumed false. [/quote] You are quite correct about that, _within the context of science’s own epistemic premises_. In other words, automatically assuming that supernatural hypotheses are false unless they can be rationally and empirically demonstrated _is part of the premises of science itself_. It can’t be used to evaluate truth claims about alleged supernatural entities that allegedly **transcend** the rational and empirical material consistency that science relies on to perform its tests. **Trying to use science to detect or test something that is inconsistent with the fundamental assumptions of science is like an object trying to exert a force on itself. It’s circular and doesn’t accomplish anything.** The more you go on saying _“this alleged non-scientific supernatural phenomenon is impossible/disproved because [science]”_, the more you’re just tugging on your own bootstraps in an attempt to lift yourself off the ground. You’re working very hard but you’re not getting anywhere, because it’s built into the very nature of what you’re attempting that you **can’t** get anywhere. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > I’m not sure you will personally get confused about what to believe, but unfortunately the masses do, which is why I am so startled to see the Science Advisor and other mods here so passionately protecting these particular giant white women with nice breasts and hairless perineums as a non-falsifiable phenomenon. Around here, “the masses” have to take their chances with the dangers of inconvenient facts and complex arguments. We don’t get to deny the actual epistemological subtleties of human thought just because we’re afraid that “the masses” will seize on them as a justification for believing scientifically indefensible but theoretically unfalsifiable claims. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/247 "2015-12-02T21:04:53Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > You are ignoring the fact that to science, any claim is false until shown by the scientific method to be (provisionally) true. Nobody needs to go around disproving every claim that is made. Those claims are false by default, until shown to true. . . . Not quite. There is the “null hypothesis,” which says that a claim is hypothesized to be false until proven true, but that’s very different from formally declared to be false. Also, this only applies to claims that fall with science’s ability to assess. Religious claims of the sort that are not falsifiable are not presumed “false.” They’re presumed uninteresting, and science ignores them wholly. So…you’re wrong on two separate grounds here. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/248 "2015-12-02T21:11:57Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > All this confusion stems from a false equivalence between Science and Religion. > As if the two were seperate realms. > > But Science is not seperate from anything. If anything 'spiritual’were to exist it would also fall into the ‘realm of Science’. Because _Science_ is just a fancy word for Knowledge. Even so, there are propositions that science is not equipped to deal with. Many religious claims fall into this category. Anything involving the “supernatural” is beyond science’s bailiwick. How would you even begin scientific testing regarding, say, theological predestination? This is even true regarding physical claims about material reality which are, at this point, beyond our technical ability to assess. “There is life on a planet of Rho Eridanus.” This is a perfectly valid material claim, and trivially tested: go there and see. We just can’t do that right now. The proposition is not ruled “false” by science, but is simply set aside as not testable. It isn’t falsifiable. It would be completely wrong for anyone to say, “No. That claim is false.” You don’t know that. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/249 "2015-12-02T21:49:45Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Even so, there are propositions that science is not equipped to deal with. Many religious claims fall into this category. Anything involving the “supernatural” is beyond science’s bailiwick. How would you even begin scientific testing regarding, say, theological predestination? > > This is even true regarding physical claims about material reality which are, at this point, beyond our technical ability to assess. “There is life on a planet of Rho Eridanus.” This is a perfectly valid material claim, and trivially tested: go there and see. We just can’t do that right now. The proposition is not ruled “false” by science, but is simply set aside as not testable. It isn’t falsifiable. > > It would be completely wrong for anyone to say, “No. That claim is false.” You don’t know that. But it would be completely right to say, “No. That claim is bullshit” since there is no way for anyone to know either way. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/250 "2015-12-02T21:52:30Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Even so, there are propositions that science is not equipped to deal with. Many religious claims fall into this category. Anything involving the “supernatural” is beyond science’s bailiwick. How would you even begin scientific testing regarding, say, theological predestination? Exactly. You would have to specify constraints on predestination that would make it empirically testable by reproducible experiments. And if you did, I am willing to guarantee that you would find that all the claims made for it were totally false. _But it wouldn’t be a supernatural phenomenon anymore._ You would have gone to all that work just to confirm the tautology that _“Claims that have no scientific meaning or basis are not scientifically true.”_ [QUOTE=Trinopus] This is even true regarding physical claims about material reality which are, at this point, beyond our technical ability to assess. “There is life on a planet of Rho Eridanus.” This is a perfectly valid material claim, and trivially tested: go there and see. We just can’t do that right now. The proposition is not ruled “false” by science, but is simply set aside as not testable. It isn’t falsifiable. [/quote] Careful: your statement is correct, but you are running the risk of confusing some people who are rather emotionally stirred up on this subject. It should be clearly emphasized that there’s a fundamental difference between the unfalsifiability of _theoretically testable empirical_ claims that are consistent with the rational-materialism premises of science, and the unfalsifiability of _supernatural_ claims that do not accept those premises. Some day, if science keeps chugging along, we will probably be able to assess the truth value of the claim “There is life on a planet of Rho Eridanus”. And if so, we’ll assess it in the same way we assess all other scientific truth claims: set up a repeatable test that would conclusively determine whether there is or isn’t any life there, and carry it out as often as necessary to yield empirically certain results. But, by definition, we will **never** be able to scientifically assess the truth value of the claim “There is a supernatural entity that is not constrained by the properties of material reality”. The truth of that claim is not merely _unknown_ to science; it is, as you noted, entirely _irrelevant_ to science. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/251 "2015-12-02T22:07:11Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > But it would be completely right to say, “No. That claim is bullshit” since there is no way for anyone to know either way. Not exactly, as the term “bullshit” is both undefined and unnecessarily perjorative. It is too easily mistaken for “false.” It’s a bad term of art. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/252 "2015-12-02T22:14:12Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > . . . Careful: your statement is correct, but you are running the risk of confusing some people who are rather emotionally stirred up on this subject. Caution successfully invoked. I’m not a real scientist, nor even a real philosopher of science. Mostly just an “Asimov-educated” bloke. > [@](#): > > . . . Some day, if science keeps chugging along, we will probably be able to assess the truth value of the claim “There is life on a planet of Rho Eridanus”. > > . . . But, by definition, we will **never** be able to scientifically assess the truth value of the claim “There is a supernatural entity that is not constrained by the properties of material reality”. The truth of that claim is not merely _unknown_ to science; it is, as you noted, entirely _irrelevant_ to science. All true and I agree. I meant to imply that technological advances can make claims fall into the realm of testable that weren’t at an earlier time. For instance, one scientist, in the 1700’s (?) said that we would never be able to know the chemical composition of the stars. He hadn’t foreseen spectanalysis! (How could he have?) So, a claim of “untestability” was true at one point, but isn’t true today. Same for life on a distant planet: we can’t just go there and look…today. But maybe someday! Meanwhile, certainly, questions that fall outside science’s ability to assess by definition – such as theological predestination – are never going to be scientific. They aren’t falsifiable, simply in the way they’re defined. Anyway, the key to this debate is…such claims aren’t “false.” They’re just not of scientific interest. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/253 "2015-12-02T22:18:41Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Not exactly, as the term “bullshit” is both undefined and unnecessarily perjorative. It is too easily mistaken for “false.” It’s a bad term of art. I don’t know about that. All words have different meanings to different people, and in different contexts, including ‘proof’ and ‘false’. As far as I understand the term, an unsupported claim about the existence of life on an extra-solar planet is about as perfect of an example of _bullshit_ as is possible. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/254 "2015-12-02T23:06:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > For instance, one scientist, in the 1700’s (?) said that we would never be able to know the chemical composition of the stars. He hadn’t foreseen spectanalysis! (How could he have?) So, a claim of “untestability” was true at one point, but isn’t true today. Yup, and I think the “one point” you’re referring to was even more recent than you claim, if you’re thinking of the positivist philosopher Auguste Comte, who [wrote in 1842](https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=xxTkozhjgT0C&pg=PA132): > [@](#): > > Of all objects, the planets are those which appear to us under the least varied aspect. We see how we may determine their forms, their distances, their bulk, and their motions, but we can never know anything of their chemical or mineralogical structure; and, much less, that of organized beings living on their surface. […] all physical, chemical, physiological, and social researches, for which our powers fit us on our own earth, are out of the question in regard to the planets. […] The only case in which this rule will be pronounced too severe is that of questions of temperatures. The mathematical thermology created by Fourier may tempt us to hope that, as he has estimated the temperature of the space in which we move, we may in time ascertain the mean temperature of the heavenly bodies: but I regard this order of facts as for ever excluded from our recognition. We can never learn their internal constitution […] ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/255 "2015-12-03T07:42:35Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You are quite correct about that, _within the context of science’s own epistemic premises_. > > In other words, automatically assuming that supernatural hypotheses are false unless they can be rationally and empirically demonstrated _is part of the premises of science itself_. It can’t be used to evaluate truth claims about alleged supernatural entities that allegedly **transcend** the rational and empirical material consistency that science relies on to perform its tests. > > **Trying to use science to detect or test something that is inconsistent with the fundamental assumptions of science is like an object trying to exert a force on itself. It’s circular and doesn’t accomplish anything.** But that’s not all I’ve been saying. I have also said that if the claim is said to somehow magically transcend the epistemological boundaries of science, and have value within another epistemology, to take such a claim seriously and not dismiss it purely because it fails to make sense to science the burden is still on the claimant to show that this new epistemology is valuable. Science, because it exists and because it has proven itself extremely valuable has set a high bar for epistemology. Any claim that claims to transcend science’s epistemological boundaries is thus still worthless until it also comes with an epistemological paradigm that shows itself to be at least in the same neighbourhood as science in terms of usefulness ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/256 "2015-12-03T08:28:13Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Science, because it exists and because it has proven itself extremely valuable has set a high bar for epistemology. Any claim that claims to transcend science’s epistemological boundaries is thus still worthless until it also comes with an epistemological paradigm that shows itself to be at least in the same neighbourhood as science in terms of usefulness Personally, I’d settle for “even just a little bit useful”. Which is apparently still too high a bar for supernatural epistemologies to reach. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/257 "2015-12-03T09:24:33Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Not quite. There is the “null hypothesis,” which says that a claim is hypothesized to be false until proven true, but that’s very different from formally declared to be false. Only for any logical or mathematical proposition (which are the only things you can ‘formally’ say to be false). For everything else, it’s just hypotheses and degrees of confidence. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Also, this only applies to claims that fall with science’s ability to assess. Religious claims of the sort that are not falsifiable are not presumed “false.” They’re presumed uninteresting, and science ignores them wholly. > > So…you’re wrong on two separate grounds here. And no, non-testable claims are not just presumed ‘uninteresting’, they’re given a lot less respect than that. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/258 "2015-12-03T09:57:29Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > But that’s not all I’ve been saying. I have also said that if the claim is said to somehow magically transcend the epistemological boundaries of science, and have value within another epistemology, to take such a claim seriously and not dismiss it purely because it fails to make sense to science the burden is still on the claimant to show that this new epistemology is valuable. That’s a perfectly reasonable position, and I don’t have any quarrel with it. But it’s a philosophical stance, not a scientific fact. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/259 "2015-12-03T11:30:10Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s a perfectly reasonable position, and I don’t have any quarrel with it. But it’s a philosophical stance, not a scientific fact. But do you just consider it _a_ philosophical stance, equivalent to all other stances, including ones that claim alternate epistemologies have as much value as science? Because that’s what it would take for tomndebb’s position to be more correct than CP’s. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2015, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695/260 "2015-12-03T11:36:17Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > But do you just consider it _a_ philosophical stance, equivalent to all other stances, including ones that claim alternate epistemologies have as much value as science? Because that’s what it would take for tomndebb’s position to be more correct than CP’s. You seem to want to impute more to my statements than they contain. I have made no judgment regarding the quality of any philosophical perspective. I have simply noted that a claim that “science” has proven or disproven anything regarding the spiritual is nonsense because it is outside the realm of the physical, which is all that science addresses. Beyond that, one may draw whatever philosophical conclusions one wishes, based on one’s _a priori_ philosophical view of the world, supporting it, if one wishes, by conclusions drawn from science. However, science has not, itself, actually provided those conclusions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-islam-is-not-going-away/737695.md?page=14)