Addressing conflict between religion and science

[cho_pilo]

God according to scientific methods will never work.

So Atheism according to scientific methods will work? Atheism = Scientism?
If so, I’m still having trouble figuring out that not all atheists have any scientific background or understanding of basic science.

Why do you think that religious people recognize a connection between the creation of light and its assessment as good by God with the creation of scientific knowledge by humans? Why do you think truly devoted people would seek out science as an avenue to doing God’s will?

 

[lynx]

So Atheism according to scientific methods will work? Atheism = Scientism?

I have not claimed this in any post in this thread. Scientifically, you might have an easier time refuting a higher power than supporting one. Although you cannot disprove a universal negative such as “there is always no God”. So, logically and to a degree scientifically such efforts are useless. Each atheist has a reason for being so, it just so happens that I try and use scientific proof in my criteria for a God. Another example could be anecdotal, such as a person never acquiring the life experiences to believe in a God.

Why do you think that religious people recognize a connection between the creation of light and its assessment as good by God with the creation of scientific knowledge by humans?

I’m not sure how to answer this. Light is neither good nor evil, it is a neutral electromagnetic field. Not enough and most life on earth would die. Too much and we bake like a cake.

Why do you think truly devoted people would seek out science as an avenue to doing God’s will?

People, as a whole, seek avenues which reinforce their personal beliefs. I would think the religious turn to science to better validate their beliefs, but such efforts seem futile when religion is faith based.

 

[cho_pilo]

I’m not sure how to answer this. Light is neither good nor evil, it is a neutral electromagnetic field. Not enough and most life on earth would die. Too much and we bake like a cake.

Ok, but I see how evil is often attracted to goodness (to pervert or attack its servants) and thus how much of science is appropriated by those with a will to evil (or attempted to anyway).

People, as a whole, seek avenues which reinforce their personal beliefs. I would think the religious turn to science to better validate their beliefs, but such efforts seem futile when religion is faith based.

Do you think Atheists in general open to studying the philosophies of religion to see how the logic of good and evil work before judging them as primitive superstitions that are outdated and empty?

 

[ADouglass]

Clarification, for his **lack **of faith. One does not need to have faith to have no faith.

The unexplained does not fall to existence of God. No legitimate study will prove His existence. God according to scientific methods will never work.

This btw is an example of your faith.

I didn’t say unexplained, I said unseen. And there are many scientific explanations of the unseen, one of which is that there is one supreme being. Since this is a thread about addressing the conflict between religion and science I suppose you would like to show how “God according to scientific methods will never work.” Have you studied the philosophy of science? Cite books that you have used if this is the case, I’m all for seeing what conclusions an atheist comes to about the philosophy of science.

 

[ADouglass]

An example of the faith of an inductionist: all the humans I have seen have white skin, therefore, all humans have white skin. Likewise, past scientific laws have been replaced with new laws that more accurately explain the world. Or are they really more accurate? They are certainly more useful than past laws, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t be replaced at somepoint in the future when another Einstein or Newton comes along. It has been observed that two different theories can come up with the same predictions. Are laws of science truth? Now matter what view of the world you have, somewhere in that view is faith, whether it is faith that the sun will “rise” tomorrow, or faith in the Trinity, or something else.

 

[cho_pilo]

Each atheist has a reason for being so, it just so happens that I try and use scientific proof in my criteria for a God. Another example could be anecdotal, such as a person never acquiring the life experiences to believe in a God.

Have you tried to study the difference between spirituality and materiality? Have you tried to entertain the idea that God does exist WITHIN people and that this is a form of existence that is sufficient to believe in “God’s existence?” Many people can’t understand how I can call subjective existence a form of true existence, but I think if it is sufficient to convince people who truly believe in God’s existence that God in fact does exist (even objectively/externally), then it has as strong an effect as if God DID in fact exist externally/objectively. So I still don’t think that God exists materially in the same way as, say, a road but I think He/She/It does exist in people’s subjectivity and in theological discourse, and that is sufficient to drive all religious practice of humanity as if God existed external to all that.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

How can we resolve this problem? Do you all agree if we say that there is no contradiction between God and science, only between people of different religious persuasions? If not, please give a brief statement of reasons so we could discuss further.

Assuming that the Universe is Unitary, and that while the “exterior” of things is constant for all, and yet we find interpretive differences, we need to look at the reason for those interpretive differences. Two areas in which to look are the “interior” nameable as “I” and “we” and the “exterior” nameable as “it” and “its.” The latter is quantifiable and the former is interpretive. Both are subject, if not to error, than certainly to incompleteness. Both exist in the quale called “Universe” and therefore must have some kind and degree of connectivity.

The difficulty comes when one or the other is called upon or expected to explain the entirety of the phenomenon. I submit that due to the incompleteness factor that individuals who have a predilection for one or the other tend to think the other deficient for reasons within the quale of their preference.

Those preferences are usually somewhere between adamantine and open to dialog. We might agree that starting at the “open to dialog” end we have individuals who can, indeed, address the seeming conflict, while at the other end it approaches impossibility. At what I hope is “our” end, we can yet hold discourse. The proviso is that a maturity that includes the ability to gain emotional and cognitive distance is applied, and that is no easy trick. Given the structure of the human mind we can see that it has elements that would tend to defeat this. One is the hypnotic aspect of much of what is acquired before the nominal age of reason, 7yo, another is the hard wired tendency to see oneself as right despite any evidence to the contrary, and yet another is the force of habit as distinct from hypnosis. Each of those, of course, has its commensurate “logic.”

The difficulty of overcoming these is attested to in everything from brainwashing to shocks administered to spiritual aspirants to attempting a conversation with someone clearly of another mindset. And while the usual tool for ether side is reason, it is clear that what we reason from is a crucial factor. Most often those reasoning from a common premise come to a common conclusion if they accept the same factors along the way to the end. Similarly, there is no hope if the premises are adverse or exclusive of one another, despite the factor that both arguants have minds that function in demonstrably very similar ways. It appears, in a sense, to be a matter of software differences, not hardware. And it is complicated by the idea that the software in either case is meant to explain the hardware in every case.

If y’all are with me so far, I will continue. Otherwise I’m spinning my wheels. What say you? Any takers?

 

[buffalo]

No. Science inherently believes only things that are supported by evidence. Belief in God is supported faith (no evidence necessary, faith is blind). One can analyze religion from a scientific perspective, but it is not meant to be. Scientific fact should technically have no bearing on religious faith. If the Pope said that man and dinosaur walked on the earth at the same time then that’s what Catholics would have to believe, regardless of science. When religion is held to the same rigorous standards of current scientific method then there will be a resolution. But, to do so would remove the faith component, making the endeavor worthless.

11 Dimensions is not supported by evidence.

 

[lynx]

11 Dimensions is not supported by evidence.

Good to know I’ll continue to interact in my 3.5 dimensional space blissfully unaware

 

[ADouglass]

Assuming that the Universe is Unitary, and that while the “exterior” of things is constant for all, and yet we find interpretive differences, we need to look at the reason for those interpretive differences. Two areas in which to look are the “interior” nameable as “I” and “we” and the “exterior” nameable as “it” and “its.” The latter is quantifiable and the former is interpretive. Both are subject, if not to error, than certainly to incompleteness. Both exist in the quale called “Universe” and therefore must have some kind and degree of connectivity.

The difficulty comes when one or the other is called upon or expected to explain the entirety of the phenomenon. I submit that due to the incompleteness factor that individuals who have a predilection for one or the other tend to think the other deficient for reasons within the quale of their preference.

Those preferences are usually somewhere between adamantine and open to dialog. We might agree that starting at the “open to dialog” end we have individuals who can, indeed, address the seeming conflict, while at the other end it approaches impossibility. At what I hope is “our” end, we can yet hold discourse. The proviso is that a maturity that includes the ability to gain emotional and cognitive distance is applied, and that is no easy trick. Given the structure of the human mind we can see that it has elements that would tend to defeat this. One is the hypnotic aspect of much of what is acquired before the nominal age of reason, 7yo, another is the hard wired tendency to see oneself as right despite any evidence to the contrary, and yet another is the force of habit as distinct from hypnosis. Each of those, of course, has its commensurate “logic.”

The difficulty of overcoming these is attested to in everything from brainwashing to shocks administered to spiritual aspirants to attempting a conversation with someone clearly of another mindset. And while the usual tool for ether side is reason, it is clear that what we reason from is a crucial factor. Most often those reasoning from a common premise come to a common conclusion if they accept the same factors along the way to the end. Similarly, there is no hope if the premises are adverse or exclusive of one another, despite the factor that both arguants have minds that function in demonstrably very similar ways. It appears, in a sense, to be a matter of software differences, not hardware. And it is complicated by the idea that the software in either case is meant to explain the hardware in every case.

If y’all are with me so far, I will continue. Otherwise I’m spinning my wheels. What say you? Any takers?

Please continue. I hope your focus will be the part about “Similarly, there is no hope if the premises are adverse or exclusive of one another,”

Do you have some common premises in mind?

 

[cho_pilo]

I would say start a thread that discusses the conflicts between atheism and science…

Atheists tend to be predictable, but science should be open to the truly new, and thus possibly quite unpredictable.

 

[lynx]

Atheists tend to be predictable, but science should be open to the truly new, and thus possibly quite unpredictable.

Atheism is predictable in its existence. It really only speaks to one aspect of life…

 

[cho_pilo]

Atheism is predictable in its existence. It really only speaks to one aspect of life…

What aspect of life?

Scientifically, there has been no evidence to suggest that there is no God, so why don’t atheists believe in a Creator? If you are an atheist, what are your reasons for becoming one? Was it based on extensive studies of any religious texts or was it just through a sudden whim? Some people look for answers by analyzing this century’s greatest scientific minds (e.g. Albert Einstein) and their beliefs and adopting their views without a single thought. Others think that morally every individual has the equal ability of distinguishing the difference between right and wrong and based on these understandings they can select a religion which best suits their own ideals/values. And if they are wrong, they go to Hell, get reincarnated or just die whatever the case may be.

If atheism is wrong however, you’d be risking your whole after-life in the Hell-fire, according to some religions, so my question is why take the risk in not believing in God? The rewards for believing in a God in some religions are infinite happiness (and other positive feelings that we are unable to comprehend in this life) and the punishment is infinite pain (and other negative feelings that we are unable to comprehend in this life). If atheism is right, then we all just die. In either case, the atheist is in a lose-lose situation. I think it’s also rather pessimistic to not believe in an after-life. So, my question stands, why do atheists choose not to believe in God/s?

 

[cho_pilo]

If y’all are with me so far, I will continue. Otherwise I’m spinning my wheels. What say you? Any takers?

Please continue.

 

[greylorn]

Assuming that the Universe is Unitary, and that while the “exterior” of things is constant for all, and yet we find interpretive differences, we need to look at the reason for those interpretive differences. Two areas in which to look are the “interior” nameable as “I” and “we” and the “exterior” nameable as “it” and “its.” The latter is quantifiable and the former is interpretive. Both are subject, if not to error, than certainly to incompleteness. Both exist in the quale called “Universe” and therefore must have some kind and degree of connectivity.

The difficulty comes when one or the other is called upon or expected to explain the entirety of the phenomenon. I submit that due to the incompleteness factor that individuals who have a predilection for one or the other tend to think the other deficient for reasons within the quale of their preference.

Those preferences are usually somewhere between adamantine and open to dialog. We might agree that starting at the “open to dialog” end we have individuals who can, indeed, address the seeming conflict, while at the other end it approaches impossibility. At what I hope is “our” end, we can yet hold discourse. The proviso is that a maturity that includes the ability to gain emotional and cognitive distance is applied, and that is no easy trick. Given the structure of the human mind we can see that it has elements that would tend to defeat this. One is the hypnotic aspect of much of what is acquired before the nominal age of reason, 7yo, another is the hard wired tendency to see oneself as right despite any evidence to the contrary, and yet another is the force of habit as distinct from hypnosis. Each of those, of course, has its commensurate “logic.”

The difficulty of overcoming these is attested to in everything from brainwashing to shocks administered to spiritual aspirants to attempting a conversation with someone clearly of another mindset. And while the usual tool for ether side is reason, it is clear that what we reason from is a crucial factor. Most often those reasoning from a common premise come to a common conclusion if they accept the same factors along the way to the end. Similarly, there is no hope if the premises are adverse or exclusive of one another, despite the factor that both arguants have minds that function in demonstrably very similar ways. It appears, in a sense, to be a matter of software differences, not hardware. And it is complicated by the idea that the software in either case is meant to explain the hardware in every case.

If y’all are with me so far, I will continue. Otherwise I’m spinning my wheels. What say you? Any takers?

RF,
That was the most thoughtful and cogent post I’ve seen on CAF in a long time. Good perspective on a divisive subject. Must be read twice, of course, like any concisely presented thesis, and not all readers will be up for that. I want you to keep going, and won’t interrupt unless it seems important.

 

[greylorn]

That isn’t true. Only nothing comes from nothing. Quantum Mechanics can’t test this because even it takes place inside the Universe where there obviously is something. Nothing comes from nothing, and God is immaterial but omnipotent - capable of creation from nothing. You obviously know nothing about Catholic philosophy.

Since the universe seems to be full of dark matter and dark energy, both undetectable, anyone who claims that quantum particles appear from “nothing” needs some practice connecting the dots in physics. He can do the same in Catholic philosophy later.

 

[greylorn]

How can we resolve this problem? Do you all agree if we say that there is no contradiction between God and science, only between people of different religious persuasions? If not, please give a brief statement of reasons so we could discuss further.

Cho,
I addressed this question way back in Post #8. Perhaps you ought to deal with it before claiming an agreement between God and science, because “we” in your context includes me.

Admittedly, the issue I raised there is non-trivial, unlike the simple questions you keep posting in hopes of a simple answer. So if that stuff was hard to understand, read it a few times, maybe ask some questions. Whatever, why not do what it takes to wrap your mind around what is a serious contradiction between the currently popular God-concept and at least one extremely fundamental principle of physics?

That contradiction has nothing to do with religious persuasion. The exception might be some Eastern sects which do not include an omnipotent creator in their belief systems. Their contradictions with science lie elsewhere.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

(continued; thank y’all for asking.)

So how is it that the software is different? It is necessarily different because of two factors. One is that each individual as a biological unit is constrained by the mechanisms of survival to adopt and hold true as a matter of life and death those circumstances that allowed that individual to survive. And this has to include everything from the very healthy infant who grows up sane and competent through those who are seemingly or actually irreparable damaged. We know for instance that abused children often take on the role of their abuser and live it out as a survival mechanism. The abuser is powerful and controls the circumstances, the victim does not. When the family dynamic is such that the victim is in the relational position of their abuser, the it all comes down to what’s been ingrained as pattern in the mind of the individual. That patterning carries with it a tremendous emotional charge, as is know by anyone dealing with either or both ends of this dynamic.

But we notice that one because it has clear negative impact on several spheres of society. At least we do now, as that pattern was extremely common in all societies throughout history as far as best I know. It is with the rise of awareness of the value of the individual that this dynamic is being addressed along with woman’s rights, racial equality, etc. We do not yet notice that the parochialisms of religion are part and parcel of that entire situation, along with politics, attitudes towards, money, social station, etc, etc, And while of course there are exceptions, this seems generally the case. We can agree at least that it is highly unlikely for a baby to become a Roman Catholic in the middle of Tibet, or an Eskimo to spontaneously practice Shinto.

But all of the people in every culture now have to some degree or other a unique advantage that was not available at all times in human history. As if we have discovered alien races in the cosmos, we have discovered that we live in a world that is trapped on a limited surface the variations of which has made necessary in some cases exceptionally different understandings of what constitutes living and survival. Those who live in the frozen regions have adaptations necessary for that requirement. It is difficult, or was, to convey to an Inuit what a “lamb” or a “fig Tree” might be. Similarly with South Sea Islanders, who understand fishing, it is was difficult to get across other ideas, like great expanses of land, or technology, hence cargo cults.

Even perceptions are required to be different. A scientist doing work in Africa hired a man from a jungle village to help him with a study that required travel to a mountain top. The helper first threw up in the jeep, for he’d never gone faster than a run and couldn’t process such speed. His life depended on careful observation of everything around him in great detail. It was overload for him. And that same requirement led him to comment, once on the mountain, about the tiny animals he saw grazing and was amazed anything that small existed. He had to be taken to the herd to be convinced of their actual size. He had never in his life been required to see more than two or three hundred feet. He had no sense nor experience of such perspective. Similarly with the plainsman who didn’t, couldn’t see the steam locomotive in front of him because it just didn’t exists to his abilities of perception. There are abundant examples of this principle, and our experience with stage magic is most likely our closest to home example. Or is it? How would we know that we hadn’t seen something that we hadn’t seen?

So today, while we do share many things in common, things that are the benefit of discovering physical laws that are universal and can be used anywhere and are physically undeniable, we yet are incorporating those things into our lives on the left over basis of many, many generations of habitual thinking. We all know the story of the ham that always had it’s ends cut off before cooking. Are we so different than that family and their story?

More soon. I have to be up early tomorrow & saddle up, so to speak. Brrrrrrrr… Low of 21F tonight…

 

[ADouglass]

(continued; thank y’all for asking.)

So how is it that the software is different? It is necessarily different because of two factors. One is that each individual as a biological unit is constrained by the mechanisms of survival to adopt and hold true as a matter of life and death those circumstances that allowed that individual to survive. And this has to include everything from the very healthy infant who grows up sane and competent through those who are seemingly or actually irreparable damaged. We know for instance that abused children often take on the role of their abuser and live it out as a survival mechanism. The abuser is powerful and controls the circumstances, the victim does not. When the family dynamic is such that the victim is in the relational position of their abuser, the it all comes down to what’s been ingrained as pattern in the mind of the individual. That patterning carries with it a tremendous emotional charge, as is know by anyone dealing with either or both ends of this dynamic.

But we notice that one because it has clear negative impact on several spheres of society. At least we do now, as that pattern was extremely common in all societies throughout history as far as best I know. It is with the rise of awareness of the value of the individual that this dynamic is being addressed along with woman’s rights, racial equality, etc. We do not yet notice that the parochialisms of religion are part and parcel of that entire situation, along with politics, attitudes towards, money, social station, etc, etc, And while of course there are exceptions, this seems generally the case. We can agree at least that it is highly unlikely for a baby to become a Roman Catholic in the middle of Tibet, or an Eskimo to spontaneously practice Shinto.

But all of the people in every culture now have to some degree or other a unique advantage that was not available at all times in human history. As if we have discovered alien races in the cosmos, we have discovered that we live in a world that is trapped on a limited surface the variations of which has made necessary in some cases exceptionally different understandings of what constitutes living and survival. Those who live in the frozen regions have adaptations necessary for that requirement. It is difficult, or was, to convey to an Inuit what a “lamb” or a “fig Tree” might be. Similarly with South Sea Islanders, who understand fishing, it is was difficult to get across other ideas, like great expanses of land, or technology, hence cargo cults.

Even perceptions are required to be different. A scientist doing work in Africa hired a man from a jungle village to help him with a study that required travel to a mountain top. The helper first threw up in the jeep, for he’d never gone faster than a run and couldn’t process such speed. His life depended on careful observation of everything around him in great detail. It was overload for him. And that same requirement led him to comment, once on the mountain, about the tiny animals he saw grazing and was amazed anything that small existed. He had to be taken to the herd to be convinced of their actual size. He had never in his life been required to see more than two or three hundred feet. He had no sense nor experience of such perspective. Similarly with the plainsman who didn’t, couldn’t see the steam locomotive in front of him because it just didn’t exists to his abilities of perception. There are abundant examples of this principle, and our experience with stage magic is most likely our closest to home example. Or is it? How would we know that we hadn’t seen something that we hadn’t seen?

So today, while we do share many things in common, things that are the benefit of discovering physical laws that are universal and can be used anywhere and are physically undeniable, we yet are incorporating those things into our lives on the left over basis of many, many generations of habitual thinking. We all know the story of the ham that always had it’s ends cut off before cooking. Are we so different than that family and their story?

More soon. I have to be up early tomorrow & saddle up, so to speak. Brrrrrrrr… Low of 21F tonight…

You might like www.corrupt.org. I find it useful at times.

 

[Pieman333272]

Since the universe seems to be full of dark matter and dark energy, both undetectable, anyone who claims that quantum particles appear from “nothing” needs some practice connecting the dots in physics. He can do the same in Catholic philosophy later.

Yes - true nothing, I believe, cannot be found within this Universe. Even in the realm of physics, not only philosophy.

Even when virtual particles appear in a vacuum, it is not a property of nothing for virtual particles to show up but a property of the universe to make virtual particles show up in a vacuum.