Science must destroy religion

[Sair]

The notion of trying to pit science against religion is not only empty, it’s . . . um . . . , quite frankly -

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f75/kurtsbusa/smiley/crazy.gif

We’ve been subjected to some exceptionally unconvincing “arguments” on this thread . One is left to ponder whether those posters actually had any point to prove .

A Christian, were they to (ahem) “discover” that there was no God (even though Dr. Albert Einstein believed there is , and even though St. Thomas Aquinas says it can be proven ) could no more tell you what they would do then - in that impossible scenario, than they could in a real scenario ; the present is neither the past nor the future and speculation on unpredictable human behaviour is unreliable. Furthermore, God cannot cease to exist. The only thing less realistic than a purported “Christian” trying to tell you how they would act if they were to (impossibly) “discover” there was no God , is someone else reading/hearing it, believing it and then repeating it .

Considering how far religious apologists have gone in the effort to make god such a nebulous concept that no possible evidence could prove or disprove his/her/its existence, I suspect it might be a bit much to ask what any individual Christian might do if it was somehow proven that no such being existed. However, what Atheistgirl was pointing out was the claim, made by some Catholics on this forum, no less, that they - and anyone else - would assume that the nonexistence of their God would amount to a licence to do whatever they pleased, regardless of the consequences for their fellow sentient beings. That was the material point.

And just to clarify - Einstein was a deist, if he was anything by way of a religious believer; and Aquinas’s “proofs” of God have been thoroughly debunked, largely by the observation that just because we can imagine something, doesn’t mean it exists objectively.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Er, no. I was referring to the charitable work that the church does such as feeding the poor, providing shelter to the homeless etc. I don’t know of any anti-abortion charity work. I’m not even sure how the catholic churches political position of being anti-abortion could be connected to charity, unless you consider protest and political lobbying to be charitable activities? Surely nobody’s definition of charity is THAT unselective?*

Okay, just to review for a second, this is a Catholic forum and a philosophy forum , and considering that you were referring to a Catholic’s statement

. . . I don’t know of any **anti-abortion **charity work. I’m not even sure how the catholic churches political position of being **anti-abortion **could be connected to charity, unless you consider **protest and political lobbying *to be charitable activities? Surely nobody’s definition of charity is THAT unselective?

. . . is that you don’t believe the child in the womb is a human being.

That would place you in direct opposition of both the Catholic religion and medical science.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually the starting point of this exchange between us was where you said*

“If science destroys religion it destroys itself because science is based on the Christian belief that the universe is intelligible and we are rational!”

Without having provided a valid reason. In an irrational universe there is no rational basis for rationality.

You did also say in a previous exchange that

“Science without morality is a recipe for disaster.”

In response to another post of mine and I demonstrated back on post #36 why that was a total non-sequitur as well (essentially you were arguing against a position nobody had taken, or to put it another way, you were guilty of the straw man fallacy). Since you didn’t reply I assumed you had understood.

You are arguing that science provides a rational basis for morality which is absurd because science is concerned with “is” not “ought”- and with “how” not"why".

If science is the only valid explanation of reality science cannot explain morality. It follows that science without morality is a recipe for disaster.

Science explains why we have morality, and it explains why our morals are the way they are.

If morality is explained by science it ceases to be morality and becomes expediency.

It isn’t in itself a basis for morality, because science is just a process.

Then what is the** rational **basis of morality?

And again nobody argued against the statement “science without morality is a recipe for disaster” indeed you could equally replace the word “science” in that sentence with any number of alternate words - ie society, people, groups, exploration, art, medicine… Etc and the sentence still works fine. Or you could just say “people need morality”. Again you are arguing against a straw man since nobody is arguing that we don’t need morality.

You have implied that people don’t need morality because it is explained by science, therefore determined by physical causes and therefore beyond our control.

Without people there may be unused scientific instruments but they will be useless. The scientific *method will cease to work because there is no one to work it!

Not at all, science cares not one whit who, or what or when or even if it is used. The process is simply observation and test, you could argue that some animals (ie chimps) undertake a basic form of science. They observe (ie I did x and received a reward) and test (I’ll try that again and see if I get another reward). Obviously it’s not the formal scientific method but so what?

Science is a human invention which is totally insignificant if no human beings exist to use it. It’s like saying a horse is useful when its master is dead!

This is off the point in any case. Your original statement was that science is in some way dependent on religion. Clearly this is incorrect.

It has been clearly explained by Stanley Jaki that modern science would not even have developed without the Christian belief that both man and the universe have been created by God - and do not exist by chance. Otherwise there is no reason why man should be rational or the universe intelligible.

It is not silly but absurd to believe there will not be global holocaust without religion:
By all means, show that it follows then.

Read on:

1. Religion is a foundation for morality
   Disagree, indeed even many people who claim to take their morals from their religion in fact select some morals from the religion and ignore others. So clearly their foundation for their morality is not in fact their religion (otherwise they’d have no basis on which to make their selections from the religion).

What is their rational basis for selection?

And even if we accepted for the moment that it is a foundation upon which SOME people build their morality, it is perfectly clear that it is not the foundation upon which ALL people build their morality.

Indeed. Sceptics, cynics, materialists, hedonists and criminals prefer not to…

1. Science is not a foundation for morality

Incorrect, it could quite easily fill the role of religion in the dubious “foundation” sense you mentioned in 1.

How?

Personally, I’d argue that ultimately empathy is THE foundation of morality. And empathy is explained by our evolution as a social species. But if you want to use the term “a foundation” in the sense of what religion provides then there’s no reason the social sciences can’t fill that gap just fine.

Morality based on empathy alone is inadequate as the immense amount of unnecessary suffering in the world demonstrates beyond all shadow of doubt.

1. Therefore science without religion is a recipe for disaster

Which is a total non-sequitur EVEN IF we accepted both of your (incorrect) points above.

To demonstrate (just in case it’s not entirely clear to you why) you have said.

1. A is a foundation of x
2. B is not a foundation for x
   3a. (I guess you meant to add this one but forgot) without x we’d probably have a disaster
   3b. Therefore B without A would probably result in disaster.

But you forgot to eliminate all other possibilities from providing a foundation for x or indeed that x even requires a “foundation” to be useful.

So, all in all this is pretty weak,*first up try going back to the drawing board with 1 and 2, then eliminate all other possible foundations for morality. Then maybe you’ll have a cogent argument.

You have provided no rational foundation whatsoever for morality. Empathy alone is hopelessly inadequate and can lead to monstrous injustice like any other emotion divorced from reason…

 

[atheistgirl]

Church is never supposed to be interfering with the politics. (Really? Do you want me to go into the separation of Church and State? This is high school stuff…:doh2

:doh2:

Are you really suggesting the Catholic Church is not, and has not, been involved in politics

The Chruch speaks out loudly on issues it feels it must speak on, such as social justice, poverty, human rights, abortion, stem cell research, and so on.

The issue of womens suffrage is one of social justice and human rights.

Yet the Catholic church remained remarkably pedestrian on the issue, rather than shouting from the roof about how injust it was for half the population and more not to have a voice in the legislature, not to have a voice in the election of their representatives, and not to be able to fully partake in the life of their society.

Sarah x

 

[DeepBlueSea]

As I said, the great thing with science is that it doesn’t matter who funds it or why, because it’s a self correcting process and it’s results are cumulative.*

Could you elaborate on what you mean by self-correcting process and cumulative results? I don’t quite get that part.

So you are arguing that the people who are very powerful positions in capitalism should be less good at it and therefore lose those positions , thus inevitably get replaced by other people who are as good at it as the current set are.

Would you mind reading the reply again and judge for yourself whether that is really the argument I was expounding?

, being seen to do good works is one of their primary selling points, just as it is for secular charities.*

That’s quite a bold claim considering we always remain discreet doing charity work. I don’t think a lot of people know about St. Vincent de Paul society, Franciscan brothers.

As I said, if you have a better system available then by all means set to work getting it going.*

The Church never cease in her charitable duties. It has always been on-going.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Considering how far religious apologists have gone in the effort to make god such a nebulous concept that no possible evidence could prove or disprove his/her/its existence, I suspect it might be a bit much to ask what any individual Christian might do if it was somehow proven that no such being existed. However, what Atheistgirl was pointing out was the claim, made by some Catholics on this forum, no less, that they - and anyone else - would assume that the nonexistence of their God would amount to a licence to do whatever they pleased, regardless of the consequences for their fellow sentient beings. That was the material point.

And just to clarify - Einstein was a deist, if he was anything by way of a religious believer; and Aquinas’s “proofs” of God have been thoroughly debunked, largely by the observation that just because we can imagine something, doesn’t mean it exists objectively.

And just to clarify - Einstein was a deist, if he was anything by way of a religious believer

My material point is that people are unable to predict with any degree of accuracy how they will react in any given situation, particularly “imaginary” ones.

I provided links to St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs as a courtesy… Care to scientifically reciprocate ?

And this:

And just to clarify - Einstein was a deist, if he was anything by way of a religious believer

may not have needed any clarification, in my limited opinion. That is what I said , although, now that you mention it, there is some degree of interest in observing the interchangeability of the words “Church”, “religion” and “Catholic” being employed in some of the anti-religious argumentation . . .

 

[NeedImprovement]

Nope.

In that case, I might think the sacking of Beziers by the holy cruisaders, on a mission from their God, and the 20,000 deaths that followed, of men, women and children, might be a good thing.

Sarah x

While we’re on the subject of clarification, I’m still wondering if there was any point to be made in this post - or if it was just standard non-committal inflammatory accusatory rhetoric ?

 

[DeepBlueSea]

Are you really suggesting the Catholic Church is not, and has not, been involved in politics.

I said that is not the Church’s primary role. This is a quotation form Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical:

“The Church’s social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church’s responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church’s immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.”

, rather than shouting from the roof

Shouting is not very diplomatic, nor is it pleasant to be at the receiving end of it, nor does it make reasoning becomes clearer. Levelheadedness would be much appreciated.

 

[atheistgirl]

While we’re on the subject of clarification, I’m still wondering if there was any point to be made in this post - or if it was just standard non-committal inflammatory accusatory rhetoric ?

Read the post it is in reply to.

Sarah x

 

[thebookofesther]

:doh2:

Are you really suggesting the Catholic Church is not, and has not, been involved in politics

The Chruch speaks out loudly on issues it feels it must speak on, such as social justice, poverty, human rights, abortion, stem cell research, and so on.

The issue of womens suffrage is one of social justice and human rights.

Yet the Catholic church remained remarkably pedestrian on the issue, rather than shouting from the roof about how injust it was for half the population and more not to have a voice in the legislature, not to have a voice in the election of their representatives, and not to be able to fully partake in the life of their society.

Sarah x

I think we should end women’s suffrage! I don’t think any women deserves to suffrage!

 

[englishredrose]

I’m not ready to respond yet. i’m doing alot of reading right now. I just find it curious that for the most part Catholics and Other people of faith are letting it stand unchallenged for the time being.

so why start the topic then if you are not ready to challenge it or may be you have answered your own question here in that Catholics and other people of faith are letting it stand unchallenged for the time being because like yoursel they are doing a lot of reading right now.

 

[thebookofesther]

Church is never supposed to be interfering with the politics. (Really? Do you want me to go into the separation of Church and State? This is high school stuff…:doh2

Agnosticgirl is right the separation of Church and State is absolutely NOT the separation of religion and politics.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

Agnosticgirl is right the separation of Church and State is absolutely NOT the separation of religion and politics.

Well, my apologies if it has been misapprehended that way. I was trying to stick to the relevance of the topic. It is a bit counterproductive if the thread is being derailed into subject irrelevant to the topic discussed.

 

[atheistgirl]

Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church’s immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically."

So why was the Catholic church not leading the way then? The documentation I’ve found (and I’d be appreciative of other documents to the contrary if anyone has any) suggests the Church simply reflected the thinking of womens status at the time. Sure, some individual priests and Bishops did support a woman’s right to have a vote, but for the most part, the Church, when looking at and facing a most profound injustice of the time, didn’t have a corporate response; from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Catholic Church has made no doctrinal pronouncement on the question of women’s rights in the present meaning of that term.

The bishops of Ireland seem rather to favour women’s abstention from politics, and this is also the attitude of most American bishops, at least as far as public pronouncements are concerned.

In Christianized society also man was to act as the lawful representative of authority, and the lawful defender of rights, in the family, just as in the civil, national, and religious community. Therefore, the social position of woman remains in Christianity that of subordination to man, wherever the two sexes by necessity find themselves obliged to supplement each other in common activity. The woman develops her authority, founded in human dignity, in connection with, and subordinate to, the man in domestic society as the mistress of the home. At the same time the indispensable motherly influence extends from the home over the development of law and custom. While, however, man is called to share directly in the affairs of the state, female influence can be ordinarily exerted upon such matters only indirectly.

The societal norms of the time were unjust in regards to women. The place of the woman was subordinate to man, and in the home, raizing children. Brillant woman and men challeged these norms, and as with all things to do with the dignity of women, women had to fight on every front to have their rights recognized.

The Church at that time, does not seem to be speaking out against this injustice, rather it’s quite happy to reflect the norms of the time, almost like it doesn’t see any injustice here.

Which is odd, for an organization that claims to have as part of it’s role, the formation of the conscience of political leaders.

Shouting is not very diplomatic, nor is it pleasant to be at the receiving end of it, nor does it make reasoning becomes clearer. Levelheadedness would be much appreciated.

Any response in the affirmative from the leadership of any of the Christian churches on the issue of suffrage would have been good, whether whispered or shouted. It would also have been good, if this was ahead of time, forming the consciences of the politicians, rather than following along behind

Sarah x

 

[NeedImprovement]

Sarah x

Read the post it is in reply to.

Sarah x

I already did that and commented on (been there done that) and was trying to be kind when I asked, " facetious? "

In case you don’t realize it, you have just replied : “non-committal” .

You may perhaps wish to delude yourself into thinking you “talk with adults” , but the position of non-committal requires very little prerequisite debating skill, because - there is no debate ; the non-committal person lacks a sense of conviction.

Disclaimers mean very little if you’re going to go on offending people collectively anyway . So I was asking you to clarify your views on , but it doesn’t appear you have any. Which makes it a double puzzle why you posted that comment about Béziers in the first place.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

So why was the Catholic church not leading the way then? The documentation I’ve found (and I’d be appreciative of other documents to the contrary if anyone has any) suggests the Church simply reflected the thinking of womens status at the time. Sure, some individual priests and Bishops did support a woman’s right to have a vote, but for the most part, the Church, when looking at and facing a most profound injustice of the time, didn’t have a corporate response; from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The societal norms of the time were unjust in regards to women. The place of the woman was subordinate to man, and in the home, raizing children. Brillant woman and men challeged these norms, and as with all things to do with the dignity of women, women had to fight on every front to have their rights recognized.

The Church at that time, does not seem to be speaking out against this injustice, rather it’s quite happy to reflect the norms of the time, almost like it doesn’t see any injustice here.

Which is odd, for an organization that claims to have as part of it’s role, the formation of the conscience of political leaders.

Any response in the affirmative from the leadership of any of the Christian churches on the issue of suffrage would have been good, whether whispered or shouted. It would also have been good, if this was ahead of time, forming the consciences of the politicians, rather than following along behind

Sarah x

Does this still have any relevance to Science vs Religion. Well, if more people in this thread would like to talk suffrage, you can always start a new thread and proceed from there. After all, this is a thread about Science vs. Religion. I don’t think it is nice to start talking about another issue not relevant to what the thread starter intends to. I don’t want to derail further from what Cranster started.

 

[Sair]

I provided links to St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs as a courtesy… Care to scientifically reciprocate ?

Many apologies - not least for the fact that I may have been confusing Aquinas’s proofs with those of Anselm.

Be that as it may, here are a couple of relevant links discussing Aquinas’s Five Ways:

devilsdictionarydefiled.com/Essays/AquinasProofGod.html

much-ado-about-nothing-homar.blogspot.com.au/2007/10/five-ways-of-aquinas_07.html

There may be more to come…

 

[Sair]

, although, now that you mention it, there is some degree of interest in observing the interchangeability of the words “Church”, “religion” and “Catholic” being employed in some of the anti-religious argumentation . . .

That comes from the fact that the Catholic church claims - and has claimed, since its foundation - to be the one true church, and the repository of “the” truth, even though it has changed its stance on both dogmatic and social issues over the course of its history.

References to other religions are generally made in order to point out that religions - at least, the three monotheistic ones - have a tendency to claim that they are repositories of “the” truth, even though they disagree with each other. There is no sound basis for preferencing one such claim over another - the deciding factor seems to be the society in which one was born and raised. In short, all the major monotheisms are lumped together because of the similarity of their demonstrated characteristics - fine points of theology notwithstanding.

 

[cranster]

Seems like a very odd statement TR. you seem to be saying that without a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe we cannot scientifically investigate materials.

Obviously this is false. Because we don’t (yet) have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and we DO scientifically investigate materials.

I’m only a few pages into this thread so if this was addressed further down the road I apologize.

Here is the actual statement to which you responded “Since science tells us nothing about the origin of existence”. There is quite a difference between the origin of the universe and the origin of existence.

 

[ASimon]

I’m only a few pages into this thread so if this was addressed further down the road I apologize.

Here is the actual statement to which you responded “Since science tells us nothing about the origin of existence”. There is quite a difference between the origin of the universe and the origin of existence.

But believers would tell us that there’s no difference at all, as far as the answer is concerned.