Science can't destroy Religion

[Marc_Anthony]

Science is firmly rooted in reality.

But I don’t think science will ever destroy religion.

Nothing will ever destroy religion.

We are a people of stories and folktales and we would be the poorer for losing that trait.

We will always tell each other fantastical tales and take delight in them.

Some people will always believe that man was created by a God, that the world is 6000 years old, that the world was flooded, and so on.

Sarah x

Sarah, I am a Catholic and yet I agree with your post 100%

 

[CopticChristian]

Science cannot “destroy” religion. But it can, I believe, demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a moot point to take religion seriously anymore.

View,

My father was a pharmacist, read philosophy, I am a scientist and steeped in life science and all the science I have studied and all the science I know causes me to disagree with you. You call it inanity and folley. That is one opinion.

 

[tonyrey]

Science cannot “destroy” religion. But it can, I believe, demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a moot point to take religion seriously anymore.

Welcome to the forum!

You need to justify your second statement.

 

[tonyrey]

Sarah, I am a Catholic and yet I agree with your post 100%

With the implication that it is a fantastical tale that man was created by a God?

 

[JDaniel]

Science cannot “destroy” religion. But it can, I believe, demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a moot point to take religion seriously anymore.

VS:

Yes: for some.

God bless,
jd

 

[DeepBlueSea]

View,

My father was a pharmacist, read philosophy, I am a scientist and steeped in life science and all the science I have studied and all the science I know causes me to disagree with you. You call it inanity and folley. That is one opinion.

Seconded.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

With the implication that it is a fantastical tale that man was created by a God?

No, that we are a people of stories and that the loss of religion would be a sad thing for society. Even the stories of the pagan religions of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, and Aztec mythology are all valuable and worth keeping.

 

[tonyrey]

No, that we are a people of stories and that the loss of religion would be a sad thing for society. Even the stories of the pagan religions of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, and Aztec mythology are all valuable and worth keeping.

Somehow I don’t think that was the primary intention of the post to which you responded…

 

[Viewscreen]

Explain the horrors of sin. Explain why we feel at odds in the very world that supposedly gave us life. Why the driving need to improve ourselves? Why do we want to go somewhere else and wish that “someone out there” will come down and make everything right?.

Well, let’s see. Is there even such a thing as sin? Or is it merely an anthropomorphic value judgment we humans specifically take to be real? In any case, what might “explain the horrors” of sin, is merely the fact that we live in an imperfect, material cosmos, liable to wear and tear, along with the many delusions, drives and psychological maladies which attach themselves to humankind.

Explain why we feel at odds in the very world that supposedly gave us life? Well, why should we not feel at odds in the very world that supposedly gave us life? What makes it incumbent upon nature to make us feel happy-pappy all the time? Thus, this is a pseudo-question that dictates the answer even as it asks for it.

Why do we want to go somewhere else and wish that “someone out there” will come down and make everything right?” This easily derives from the fact that humans, like other creatures, seek out comfort. We also seek out pain; thrills and chills and also the joys of cruelty (look at Family Guy!). The need for solace, oneness, is only one instinct pronounced more in some segments of the populace than others. Perhaps this has to bear on early life stages of coddling or inordinately seeking out some womb-like atmosphere and being conditioned by it. Scientifically explained, this is due to the millions of years of prior conditioning by evolution, making out survival to be the chief good along with those things that enhance survival (a comfortable atmosphere, liking fats and sugars, and so on).

Science cannot answer those things that pertain to man’s very essence. None has done so and none can because it is simply outside its purview.

You quite obviously underestimate science if you think that those questions are somehow difficult for it to answer…I have just given you cogent scientific responses to your questions. Why appeal to a supernatural realm? It is completely superfluous and unnecessary to explain reality.

 

[Della]

Well, let’s see. Is there even such a thing as sin? Or is it merely an anthropomorphic value judgment we humans specifically take to be real? In any case, what might “explain the horrors” of sin, is merely the fact that we live in an imperfect, material cosmos, liable to wear and tear, along with the many delusions, drives and psychological maladies which attach themselves to humankind.

Explain why we feel at odds in the very world that supposedly gave us life? Well, why should we not feel at odds in the very world that supposedly gave us life? What makes it incumbent upon nature to make us feel happy-pappy all the time? Thus, this is a pseudo-question that dictates the answer even as it asks for it.

Why do we want to go somewhere else and wish that “someone out there” will come down and make everything right?” This easily derives from the fact that humans, like other creatures, seek out comfort. We also seek out pain; thrills and chills and also the joys of cruelty (look at Family Guy!). The need for solace, oneness, is only one instinct pronounced more in some segments of the populace than others. Perhaps this has to bear on early life stages of coddling or inordinately seeking out some womb-like atmosphere and being conditioned by it. Scientifically explained, this is due to the millions of years of prior conditioning by evolution, making out survival to be the chief good along with those things that enhance survival (a comfortable atmosphere, liking fats and sugars, and so on).

You quite obviously underestimate science if you think that those questions are somehow difficult for it to answer…I have just given you cogent scientific responses to your questions. Why appeal to a supernatural realm? It is completely superfluous and unnecessary to explain reality.

Sorry but there wasn’t a word of “science” in your response, only supposings for things science can’t explain. But if you do have any real scientific answers, please post them.

 

[Viewscreen]

Sorry but there wasn’t a word of “science” in your response, only supposings for things science can’t explain. But if you do have any real scientific answers, please post them.

My responses are grounded in a scientific world-view. A world-view I think is sufficient to answering your questions and pseudo-questions. I am sorry you don’t find that to your liking, but they are adequate answers.

 

[tonyrey]

My responses are grounded in a scientific world-view. A world-view I think is sufficient to answering your questions and pseudo-questions. I am sorry you don’t find that to your liking, but they are adequate answers.

What is a scientific world-view grounded on?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Somehow I don’t think that was the primary intention of the post to which you responded…

I like my interpretation better

 

[Al_Moritz]

My responses are grounded in a scientific world-view.

There is no such thing as a “scientific” worldview. An atheist may argue that his/her positions are scientific and objective, since they are an extrapolation from what science tells us about the world. This, however, overlooks the fact that this extrapolation, while it may claim to be based on science, is a philosophical extrapolation, not a scientific one, since it transcends the realm of strictly scientific knowledge. The atheist’s position is no less philosophical than the theist’s position.

You may say, well, science shows that the natural world all develops by itself, via physical, chemical and biological evolution since the Big Bang. I happen to agree with you. But science proper can simply not make a distinction between the two scenarios:

a) not just everything that happens within the natural world has natural causes, but also nature itself (our universe) has been created by natural causes
b) nature develops on its own because God made it so

a) is just as much philosophy as b), since it is a philosophical extrapolation from science, not a scientific statement.

I say all this as a scientist (a biochemist) who has written a review of the research on the origin of life by natural causes (a highly likely event) for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

I love science, but I also insist on getting philosophy right and the borders between science and philosophy. Again, there is no such thing as a “scientific” worldview.

 

[tonyrey]

Somehow I don’t think that was the primary intention of the post to which you responded…

Time will tell - in the not too distant future - whether you are right! I await the sequel with interest (having had some experience in this particular context.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no such thing as a “scientific” worldview. An atheist may argue that his/her positions are scientific and objective, since they are an extrapolation from what science tells us about the world. This, however, overlooks the fact that this extrapolation, while it may claim to be based on science, is a philosophical extrapolation, not a scientific one, since it transcends the realm of strictly scientific knowledge. The atheist’s position is no less philosophical than the theist’s position.

You may say, well, science shows that the natural world all develops by itself, via physical, chemical and biological evolution since the Big Bang. I happen to agree with you. But science proper can simply not make a distinction between the two scenarios:

a) not just everything that happens within the natural world has natural causes, but also nature itself (our universe) has been created by natural causes
b) nature develops on its own because God made it so

a) is just as much philosophy as b), since it is a philosophical extrapolation from science, not a scientific statement.

I say all this as a scientist (a biochemist) who has written a review of the research on the origin of life by natural causes (a highly likely event) for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

I love science, but I also insist on getting philosophy right and the borders between science and philosophy. Again, there is no such thing as a “scientific” worldview.

Except in misguided minds…

 

[GaryTaylor]

What is a scientific world-view grounded on?

Universal Gravity of course

 

[Touchstone]

There is no such thing as a “scientific” worldview. An atheist may argue that his/her positions are scientific and objective, since they are an extrapolation from what science tells us about the world. This, however, overlooks the fact that this extrapolation, while it may claim to be based on science, is a philosophical extrapolation, not a scientific one, since it transcends the realm of strictly scientific knowledge. The atheist’s position is no less philosophical than the theist’s position.

First off, science is philosophy. “Science” is a late term for the practice which was long known simply as “natural philosophy”.

Second, while science is primarily concerned with physics, an empirical research program, it cannot be engaged or assessed without trafficking in metaphysics. Science without metaphysics cannot begin to get off the ground. It must commit to at least a minimal set of metaphysical axioms before it becomes coherent:

1. The extra-mental world is real.
2. Experience (sense-data) reflects extra-mental reality to a sufficient degree that we can build performative models based on those experiences.

Neither 1) or 2) is scientific, nor can it be possibly established empirically. These are necessary axioms that provide the transcendental foundation for all and any science.

So you are right to say that the “atheist’s position is no less philosophical than the the theist’s position”, but that undercuts your argument here. A scientific worldview has the bootstrapping metaphysical commitments that underwrite and inform its interpretation of experience, just as a “biblical worldview” or a “Thomistic worldview” does. The scientific worldview is the ‘lens we see all through’ for its subscribers, and this represents scientific epistemology and heuristics pushed into an overarching metaphysical foundation, the same way theists forge overarching metaphysical foundations for non-scientific epistemologies.

You may say, well, science shows that the natural world all develops by itself, via physical, chemical and biological evolution since the Big Bang. I happen to agree with you. But science proper can simply not make a distinction between the two scenarios:

a) not just everything that happens within the natural world has natural causes, but also nature itself (our universe) has been created by natural causes
b) nature develops on its own because God made it so

Yes, it can, and does, by a scientific principle – parsimony. All other things being equal, a) is the more economical and efficient model. A scientific worldview would “have no need of that hypothesis” in b). This is scientific epistemology applied to metaphysics, which is precisely the substance of the scientific worldview.

a) is just as much philosophy as b), since it is a philosophical extrapolation from science, not a scientific statement.

I think you are confusing the practical operations of experimental science with the philosophy of science. A scientific worldview applies philosophy of science into a governing interpretive framework, from the most fundamental metaphysical assumptions on down.

I say all this as a scientist (a biochemist) who has written a review of the research on the origin of life by natural causes (a highly likely event) for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

I love science, but I also insist on getting philosophy right and the borders between science and philosophy. Again, there is no such thing as a “scientific” worldview.

Yikes, well, we should get this right: science is philosophy. Demonstrably. And it’s not possibly detachable from metaphysical and analytic philosophy. It immediately collapses into incoherence as soon as this is attempted – it has no legs to stand on without them. If you read any philosophy of science, the problems in your statement are widely known and well established; there is no clean or principled demarcation between scientific philosophy qua science, and scientific philosophy as metaphysics and analytic philosophy (the kinds of philosophy you are thinking of when you use ‘philosophy’).

That science is not only inseparable from metaphysics, but is meaningless and inchoate without it I think is perfectly uncontroversial. Given that, it’s everything one needs to adopt as a worldview. One only need to embrace scientific epistemology as metaphysically obtaining, not just methodological in nature.

-TS

 

[Al_Moritz]

Yes, it can, and does, by a scientific principle – parsimony. All other things being equal, a) is the more economical and efficient model. A scientific worldview would “have no need of that hypothesis” in b). This is scientific epistemology applied to metaphysics, which is precisely the substance of the scientific worldview.

-TS

False. In this instance parsimony is not a scientific principle at work, since science simply cannot empirically establish that the natural world is all there is.

If you insist that science is philosophy, then you are in a trap here: You cannot establish that the natural world comes from a wider natural world, and that the natural world is all there is, by the scientific empirical method of observation and experiment – regardless if you call science a philosophy or not (that it does have philosophical underpinnings, I agree with you).

Thus, your philosophy goes beyond science, regardless if you call science a philosophy or not.

By the way, the “scientific” worldview is properly called the naturalistic worldview.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

First off, science is philosophy. “Science” is a late term for the practice which was long known simply as “natural philosophy”.

Both science and philosophy are based on rational reasoning. The difference is that science involves observable empirical evidence reproducible by experiments, whereas philosophy reasoning that remains words with no way to verify truth.

But I believe modern science has evolved towards application, which separates the domain of science away from philosophy. So in today’s context, they are different fields. But in antiquity time, I believe theology = philosophy = science. The relationship has already expired. But it is irrefutable that they all have common root.