Science must destroy religion

[ASimon]

Why does everyone have to agree with the shrill braying of Sam Harris? Who died and made him Pope?

Christopher Hitchens.

 

[tomarin]

Christopher Hitchens.

Good one.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I won’t deny that there is an apologist strain in the scientific community that has long tried to play the “non-overlapping magesteria” card. I’m assuming they fear retribution for appearing to challenge the claims of religion too directly. No matter - history has shown countless examples of questions that religion once presumed to answer (and with authority), and whose answers have long since been debunked and/or eclipsed by science.

The idea that science and religion represent “different ways of knowing” and need never be in conflict is false. There is a conflict, and it is zero-sum. There is no reason, whatsoever, why science cannot offer answers to supernatural questions, even while acknowledging that complete answers may not be within grasp. Certain claims are unfalsfiable, but if they remain so, it’s not to do with the inadequacy of scientific tools. It’s because the claim itself was so extravagant in the first place.

Again, from above:

Statement by the American National Academy of Sciences (NAS), emphasis mine:

“Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

This is a correct description of the natural sciences. If you want to combat it, feel free to do so. But you will be shooting yourself in the foot, revealing your ignorance about how science works and what it is about.

 

[edwest2]

I’m surprised no one has brought up sam harris’s latest attack on religion in his paper titled “science must destroy religion”. I’m assuming the reason its not being discussed is that its a banned topic here. If it is does anyone know where Catholics are discussing it? So far i’m seeing it largely unchallenged on the internet and wondering why Catholics are ignoring it.

Good old Sam Harris. I’m not surprised he’s at it again. Here’s one of my favorite really bad examples:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=harris_27_2&section=library

His writing is based on fear, not reason. There are no priests or nuns protesting outside science labs. He is a rabble-rouser who gains some attention because he is a scientist, but his "the sky will fall’ if we (scientists) don’t do something is so much personal fantasy.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ASimon]

Again, from above:

Statement by the American National Academy of Sciences (NAS), emphasis mine:

“Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

This is a correct description of the natural sciences. If you want to combat it, feel free to do so. But you will be shooting yourself in the foot, revealing your ignorance about how science works and what it is about.

I do disagree with their understanding of science (and yours), and again, you (and they) have yet to account for why, if there is no conflict between science and religion, did religion use to claim expertise on the origins of disease, or natural disasters, or any number of other questions, and now cedes this expertise to science?

 

[DCNBILL]

It would seem that there is some distorted concept here that having faith and the practice of science is mutually exclusive. This has never been the case, in fact quite to the contrary.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I do disagree with their understanding of science (and yours), and again, you (and they) have yet to account for why, if there is no conflict between science and religion, did religion use to claim expertise on the origins of disease, or natural disasters, or any number of other questions, and now cedes this expertise to science?

This appears to be nothing more than a personal interpretation on your part. If you mean that religion delt with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, that does not equate to the methodical study of the material world.

 

[ASimon]

It would seem that there is some distorted concept here that having faith and the practice of science is mutually exclusive. This has never been the case, in fact quite to the contrary.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

This isn’t really what we’re discussing. Yes, there are scientists who are also religious believers. There are also people who think God is protecting their health and safety, but who still lock their doors at night and go to the doctor for checkups twice a year. It’s simple congnitive dissonance, and probably everyone has it to some degree or another.

 

[ASimon]

This appears to be nothing more than a personal interpretation on your part. If you mean that religion delt with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, that does not equate to the methodical study of the material world.

No, I’m saying that religion used to, and in some cases, still does claim to know the reason people get sick, or why natural disasters happen. One religion, in particular and to this day, claims that a piece of unleavened bread and a goblet of grape wine can be transformed literally into the body and blood of a man who lived 2,000 years ago, simply by saying a few Latin words over it. And I’m being told that is a claim upon which science can have no opinion.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

No, I’m saying that religion used to, and in some cases, still does claim to know the reason people get sick, or why natural disasters happen. One religion, in particular and to this day, claims that a piece of unleavened bread and a goblet of grape wine can be transformed literally into the body and blood of a man who lived 2,000 years ago, simply by saying a few Latin words over it. And I’m being told that is a claim upon which science can have no opinion.

Historically speaking, there was no distinction between philosophy, theology, et. al and there was no “science” to speak of. Eventually, natural philosophy arose from philosophy, which in turn evolved into science. Historical legacy appears to be the main issue as to why people are under this misimpression of overt conflict.

In your example, your characterization of the Eurcharist is highly flawed and not reflective of the claims made. Transubstantiation uses Aristotelian language and philosophical thought, which you are completely misinterpreting and/or failed to comprehend.

 

[edwest2]

Let’s get to the point, Mr. Harris is missing the big picture.

Religion does not inhibit scientific research.
And those good, old Islamic terrorists - the new boogeymen. So, can anyone tell me which religion the Bolsheviks were dying for during World War II?

So one day, Mr. Harris wakes up and all religions are gone. But then he makes a disturbing discovery. Human beings still have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and some will not want to play by the rules - even if they have no religious beliefs whatsoever. They can and will threaten each other and attack each other to get something they want. War, after all, is simply another form of negotiation, winner takes all.

With scientists as the heads of the new Technocracy, he will see something that will also be disturbing. Factions will form, favoring this scientist over another. Groups will form behind Scientist Bob because other scientists, and the public, believe he has better ideas than Scientist Jim. Yes, people will split into factions because This Guy is describing reality better than That Guy.

And he will also be shocked and amazed when some people falsify data just long enough to get them in a better position regarding which way they think humanity shall go. Because science is not neutral - it is meant to be used. And people will still want to have power and control over others even if it means they decide to lie or don’t play by the rules.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

No, I’m saying that religion used to, and in some cases, still does claim to know the reason people get sick, or why natural disasters happen. One religion, in particular and to this day, claims that a piece of unleavened bread and a goblet of grape wine can be transformed literally into the body and blood of a man who lived 2,000 years ago, simply by saying a few Latin words over it. And I’m being told that is a claim upon which science can have no opinion.

Since science tells us nothing about the origin of existence it is impotent as far as questions about substance, the mind or persons are concerned. Materialism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality.

 

[Candide_West]

Since science tells us nothing about the origin of existence it is impotent as far as questions about substance, the mind or persons are concerned. Materialism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality.

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.

 

[Candide_West]

Let’s get to the point, Mr. Harris is missing the big picture.

Religion does not inhibit scientific research.

I’m afraid I must disagree there. Religions have a long history of banning research or books on topics which conflict with the interests or views of the adherents or leadership of religions.*

Even today a number of branches of medical research are actively campaigned against on religious grounds. Now perhaps you could argue that IF the claims of the religion are accurate then inhibiting that scientific research may be a good thing. But clearly it is incorrect to claim that religion doesn’t inhibit scientific research at all.

Of course ultimately I’m sure that scientific research will overcome the obstacle. It has an excellent track record in this department. But that doesn’t mean the obstacle never existed.

So one day, Mr. Harris wakes up and all religions are gone. But then he makes a disturbing discovery. Human beings still have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and some will not want to play by the rules - even if they have no religious beliefs whatsoever. They can and will threaten each other and attack each other to get something they want. War, after all, is simply another form of *negotiation, winner takes all.

With scientists as the heads of the new Technocracy, he will see something that will also be disturbing. Factions will form, favoring this scientist over another. Groups will form behind Scientist Bob because other scientists, and the public, believe he has better ideas than Scientist Jim. Yes, people will split into factions because This Guy is describing reality better than That Guy.

And he will also be shocked and amazed when some people falsify data just long enough to get them in a better position regarding which way they think humanity shall go. Because science is not neutral - it is meant to be used. And people will still want to have power and control over others even if it means they decide to lie or don’t play by the rules.

So what you are saying is that if religion no longer existed then humans would still be humans, and they would still find reasons for conflict. They’d just have one less reason.*

If so then I think I agree with you. The human race continues to develop technologically, socially and ethically and I’m sure will continue to do so. But it would be erroneous to think that any single social change would solve all ills.

 

[cjmclark]

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 think what he’s saying is that because we don’t have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the only thing we can scientifically investigate are materials, which TR is saying gives us an impoverished understanding of the universe. I think.

 

[tonyrey]

Since science tells us nothing about the origin of existence it is impotent as far as questions about substance, the mind or persons are concerned. Materialism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality.

It’s a very accurate statement, CW! What has science told us about the origin of matter or energy - or the Big Bang if you like?

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.

“yet” reveals blind faith in the power of science to explain everything even though there is no reason to believe that is possible - unless you can produce one…

 

[ASimon]

I think what he’s saying is that because we don’t have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the only thing we can scientifically investigate are materials, which TR is saying gives us an impoverished understanding of the universe. I think.

He’s wrong in any case. We do have an incomplete scientific understanding for the origins of the universe, and it’s simply wrong to suggest that science “tells us nothing” about it.

 

[tonyrey]

I think what he’s saying is that because we don’t have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the only thing we can scientifically investigate are materials, which TR is saying gives us an impoverished understanding of the universe. I think.

Precisely. Persons don’t even come into the picture!
If science destroys religion it destroys itself because science is based on the Christian belief that the universe is intelligible and we are rational!

 

[samiam1611]

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

You need Christian belief to understand that the universe is intelligible? You can’t figure that out on your own, you need a bible to tell you that or something?
Wow.

 

[exoflare]

I recall there being a thread or two where some individuals indicated they would be less inclinded to moral behaviour if there was no God.* Ostensibly, these sorts of statements are hyperbole intended to illustrate a point*.

That’s still not even close to the extreme statements atheistgirl claims people made on here (and continues to repeat even though she still can’t provide any evidence).