Religion vs. science?

Great Debates
21

This is an interesting question, but inexact. Whose definition of “a miracle” is to be applied? What is the standard for verification of the miracle? If they truly follow the laws of the universe (as we understand them) can they even be termed “miraculous”?

I for one think that the fact Earth has a natural satellite the exact size, distance and orbital plane to allow perfect solar eclipses is miraculous, but it’s certainly not unexplainable by science.

I think DrFidelius phrased it appropriately:

Perhaps true miracles occur when natural forces defy the odds to produce serendipitous results. The fact that at other times freak occurences produce tragic results does not diminish the power of the miraculous to inspire us to great heights of devotion or endeavor.

22

If miracles are real, then science should not be able to explain them. Science should be able to examine the miracle and determine that there is no known way it could have happened, however.

For example, if somebody could turn water into wine today, scientists could put together test conditions to make sure there was no trickery going on. If repeated experiments showed that indeed water was being turned into wine, and there was no known explanation, we might have a miracle. But being a miracle, science would have no explanation for it – it just happens.

23

Science, and Religion.

They are teams, right? You have to join up on one side, and then you don’t get to agree with anyone from the other side? “Rah Rah, block that particle accelerator!” “ Oh yeah? Well evolve dis!”

I think I will pass on the whole dichotomy, thanks. I don’t see a conflict. My Lord has not bidden me to close my eyes to the nature of the world I live in, nor has my investigation of the universe as I find it shown me evidence that He is not. Miracles are not scientific mysteries, and they aren’t special effects, either. Miracles are events that create faith. Examining them with science is not going to change the fact that faith was created. Charlatan preachers occasionally spread the real word of God. That doesn’t change the hypocrisy of their own hearts. Faith is not a thing which science can examine. Faith is the real miracle.

Faith won’t help you build a bridge, though. Nor will it bring you the plans for a new microchip. Science is a tool, and a very powerful one. Within the scope of its appropriate use the limits are beyond what we know now. (Beyond what we know now is kinda the point with science, but that’s another issue.) Faith is less reliable than algebra when you try to compute vectors and resultant motions. But learning and studying will not teach you how to let your heart open, and be filled with love.

The statement that “religious people won’t accept evolution” is polemics. Lots of religious people accept evolution. Some don’t. Some atheists don’t accept it either. That’s the way people are. Some scientists deny the existence of God. Some are profoundly religious. For a whole lot of people, the two ideas are not in conflict. For people who cannot accept thinking for themselves it is far more comforting to define ideas according to authorities. That happens in religion. If you think it doesn’t happen in science, you should spend some time in academia. Authoritarianism is neither religious, nor scientific in its source. It comes from people’s desire to control. It is not about thinking, it is about ruling.

Tris

24

Tris - well put!

25

Questions of Religion of Science can be refined down to definitions of REALITY and KNOWLEDGE, and I suggest the following from the WHOLE SPECIES DICTIONARY:

REALITY
totality of objective existence

KNOWLEDGE
element(s) of REALITY understood by an entity well enough to be applied toward desired results; degree of accuracy/completeness evidenced by degree of reliable repeatability

Does god exist? Are there ‘parallel universes’? The fact is we don’t KNOW.

Our goal should be to increase our KNOWLEDGE of REALITY, and we may eventually be able to answer these questions.

26

OLdscratch:

Incidentally, science does not/can not help us explain “all things,” It can only help us explain those things that are directly observable to us. Whatever you may think about physics, for instance, they are great at explaining how the Earth revolves around the sun (as that is directly observable) but lousy at explaining the beginning of the universe (as that is not). Not that they don’try, but much of the “big Bang” type theories you hear about are based on mathematics (and hence are pure speculation) not observable data*.

  • As a side note, I am familiar with the doppler-effect “Rising raisin bread” theory, although this, to me, would seem to be easy to explain via alternative theories.
27

I know a few people have mentioned something this, but maybe this will help a little. I’m not sure what the name of it is, but it has to do with both of these theories working together to explain the universe and why it is the way it is. The main thing this theory states is that God created the universe through the Big Bang and allowed evolution to take it’s course. Sort of a rough theory at the moment, but, a very interesting one.

28

Orestes:

Sounds like Deism.

29

The OP completely ignores how real people in the real world are influenced by both science and religion. They simply aren’t mutually exclusive.

This looks way too much for call for an extremist argument, namely the CSICOP types vs. credulous types to get at it. Just because your’re an extremist doesn’t mean that people who hold different views than you are, nor does it mean that anything of use can come from the now cliched “arguments” that extremists tend to have.

30

And there’s something that makes you think us CSICOP types are extremists?

31

An organization that does no scientific research or investigations (regardless of what the name tells you), except once which turned out to be a comedy of errors, that exists only to decry (with no formal investigation) what CSICOP considers taboo subjects.

An organization that really only produces a commercial magazine and organizes boycotts to any media outlet which airs what they don’t like, taking the low road of censorship instead the high road of open discussion. Also providing media contact names for lobbying to remove programming they don’t like through their mailing list.

The testimony of ex-CSICOP officer Dennis Rawlins explaining the prejudice of CSICOP and why he left.

The “daring debunkings” of known and self-confessed STAGE-magician David Blaine by uber-“skeptic” and CSICOP member James Randi. Randi’s famous PR trick of giving 1mil to anyone proving paranormal events yet giving himself the power to make up new rules for every applicant and refusing to use any statistical methods or expert judges for verification of the results. Randi makes himself the only authority on what did and didn’t happen. Yeah, real scientific.

Behaving exactly like past pseudo-skeptics known for such absurdities like the impossibility of heavier than air travel. I think Carl Sagan really sums it up in his Demon-Haunted World:

*CSICOP [Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal] is imperfect. It’s hostile to every new idea… will go to absurd lengths in its knee-jerk debunking, is a vigilante organization, a New Inquisition. *

32

A couple links I didn’t add:

A well written article on CSICOP, Warning its a PDF file:

http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~irdial/scicop.pdf
A page with lots of links against prejuiced “skepticism”:

http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~irdial/scicop.pdf

The sci.skeptic faq that admits CSICOP cheated and lied in the Rawlins case, just a small cite but coming from a like-minded skeptics means alot:

http://www.burtcom.com/mtrsn/sfaq_007.htm

Badly formatted yet interesting and full of links about skepticults like CSICOP :

http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm

There’s simply nothing scientific about a PR campaign, CSICOPppers are extremists protecting their ideology, if you know the facts.

33

Horselover:

I know very little about CSICOP, but regarding the Demon Haunted World, as I remember, Sagan was actually kind of enthusiastic about James Randi. And the Demon Haunted world really was pretty negative on paranormal events in and of itself as I recollect.

34

Horselover:

There are numerous problems with your attack on CSICOP, but I don’t have time to hit them all right now. I know that Phil Klass has written a rebuttal to the “Starbaby” article you cite (called, I believe, “Crybaby”) but I don’t know if it’s on the web. I imagine it is somewhere.

Also, you associate Randi with CSICOP. Randi hasn’t been officially associated with CSICOP in a while, and his challenge is his own, not CSICOP’s. So why you blame them for his challenge, I don’t know. Not to mention that you mischaracterize the challenge by claiming he can change the rules, etc.

From his web page describing the challenge:

“Together with independent scientists, researchers, and statisticians, JREF designs a test for the claim being made. The terms of the test are then agreed to in advance by the applicant.”

That kinda kills your claim that he doesn’t use experts.

I’d also like to know what page your Sagan quote about CSICOP is on. I’d like to see the context.

Anyway, as I said, I don’t have time to go into more detail right now, but the main problem is that this is a thread about science and religion, and CSICOP takes no position on issues of faith. So it’s really a misplaced rant (yes, I know, somebody brought it up before you did).

35

I know I said I didn’t have time, but my son may actually be asleep for a few minutes more (it sounded like he was waking up, but now he’s quiet, so I’m typing quickly).

Horselover, I’m calling you out. In fact, I’m calling you a liar.

I decided not to wait for you to tell me where Sagan said that about CSICOP, but to check myself. I found it. In the hardcover edition, it’s page 298-9.

Now let’s tell everybody here what Sagan really said:

"The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal is an organization of scientists, academics, magicians, and others dedicated to skeptical scrutiny of emerging or full-blown pseudosciences. It was founded by the University of Buffalo philosopher Paul Kurtz in 1976. I’ve been affiliated with it since its beginning. Its acronym, CSICOP, is pronounced ‘sci-cop’ – as if it’s an organization of scientists performing a police function. Those wounded by CSICOP’s analyses sometimes make just such a complaint: It’s hostile to every new idea, they say, will go to absurd lengths in its knee-jerk debunking, is a vigilante organization, a New Inquisition, and so on. [Emphasis Mine]

CSICOP is imperfect. In certain cases such a critique is to some degree justified. But from my point of view CSICOP serves an important social function – as a well-known organization to which media can apply when they wish to hear the other side of the story, especially when some amazing claim of pseudoscience is adjudged newsworthy. … CSICOP represents a counterbalance, although not yet nearly a loud enough voice, to the pseudoscientific gullibility that seems second nature to so much of the media."

He then goes on to talk about how he always took home CSICOP’s magazine, Skeptical Inquirer to read immediately when it arrived, etc.

From reading this, we can see that Sagan is saying CSICOP isn’t perfect – OK, who is? But he wants them to have a larger role in society!

This is 180 degrees different from what Horselover made it seem to be. Well, now I know what to expect from Horselover. I certainly won’t presume anything that comes from that keyboard is truth. Indeed, until I see a reason to think otherwise, I will probably tend to presume the opposite. :frowning:

36

Thanks, David! I’ve been digging through boxes trying to find my copy of The Demon Haunted World as I suspected the quote was manipulated by HorseloverFat. Now I still want to find the book, but just because I want to read it again.

Horselover, shame on you.

But thanks for that skeptic faq link you provided. Good stuff there. Here’s some more useful links:

http://www.csicop.org/ and http://skepdic.com

You’ll notice while perusing these pages that skeptics don’t spend their time attacking the demeanor or motives of paranormal claimants (often these are painfully obvious); they examine the claims of these people. The fact that these claims are frequently subjected to heavy ridicule has to do with the fact that they are frequently ridiculous.

In any case, DavidB is correct that this is a thread about science and religion. If you start a thread about CSICOP, I’ll be glad to engage you there.

37

Randi being a founding member, 1 of the three founders neither of which are professional scientists is important in creating CSICOP policy. Randi was asked to leave because he was accumulating so many libel suits that also always had CSICOP down as co-defendants. A famous case is when he accused a friend of Uri Geller of being a child molester. Not nice.

As to the Sagan quote, its been a while since I’ve read that book and I actually thought it was authentic when I came across it recently. I didn’t think much of it considering Sagan talks about how some parapsychological studies like RNG and ganzfeld tests might very well be true. Being a true skeptic who knows absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Regardless it doesn’t change the fact that CSICOP isn’t scientific and highly unethical.

38

I’ve read SI and its full of childish ridicule, defend that as you please but it proves my point that CSICOP isn’t scientific its propaganda. Even Fate magazine has published full aricles from skeptics yet SI only prints opposing views in the letter columns never a full article.

39

Actually the link is this:

*Tests will be designed in such a way that no “judging” procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place. *

That means no independant judging of the results (i should have wrote indepedant impartial experts), just Randi and his buddies. That leaves arbitration strictly up Randi, classic conflict of interest. Hardly fair.

40

Horseliar said:

This is the best you can do when blown completely out of the water and shown to be a liar? Pretty pathetic attempt, if you ask me.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t think you are in any position to judge ethics right now.

Nice try, but like your attempt to weasel out of the misquote, no go. You were attacking Randi for something he is doing now, which has nothing to do with what was going on when he was a part of CSICOP. And since he is no longer a part of CSICOP, he cannot possibly have importance in creating CSICOP policy. Two strikes in one sentence.

Mmmm. Would that be the case when the jury found him guilty but fined him nothing (or next to nothing) because the person, while not being a child molester by the proper definition, did indeed do things that a moral adult shouldn’t do? Should Randi have said it? No. Does that say anything about the scientific nature of CSICOP? No. Nice try, but again, no go. Your ad hominems of Randi won’t get you out of the jam you’ve gotten yourself into here.

I’d ask you for a quote, but you’d probably just make it up anyway.

What part of this don’t you understand? There doesn’t need to be independent judging if the results are self-evident.

For example, in his tests of dowsing, he and the dowsers agree ahead of time how many “hits” will be considered a success. It’s yes or no. Either they hit or they don’t. Where, exactly, would an outside judge come into play?

What “arbitration”? The conditions are all agreed to up front. Either they meet those conditions or they don’t. You’re trying to make something out of nothing.

Your dislike for CSICOP, Randi, and skeptics is evident. You have made up quotes, lied, ad hominemed, tried to link irrelevant things, etc.

Frankly, an overall lousy showing on your part.