Science & Religion

[levinas12]

Science does not say that God initiated that beginning, for the very good reason that science cannot say anything about the existence of a supernatural, nonmaterial agency. However, how is saying"God started the Big Bang" scientifically helpful? What testable predictions can be made from it? What hypotheses which can be tested by experiment follow from it? All it does is block further exploration which might one day find an answer.

God is invoked to explain the “order”, the “intelligibility”, the “beautiful equations”, the very helpful but inexplicable “constants” …

 

[buffalo]

Depends on the explanation. If it says that all sand was only created last Tuesday out of leftover Big Mac wrappers and that God put left footprints in it to show that he only created our left leg, but the right leg was created by the devil, I would have to say no, it does not illuminate anything. If it read, “I am a veteran who lost his right leg in the gulf war; I’m resting under that tree with the lightning-forked trunk right ahead of you since my leg hurts from hopping all this way. If you would go back to my camp and bring my crutches which I left there, I will reward you,” that would make more sense. But Genesis to me reads more like the first message than the second.

“Revelation” has meant all sorts of things to all sorts of people depending on the point they want to make. First we have to determine whether God made a revelation at all (presuming there is a God who wants to); second, if he did, whether the Bible is it. Third, we have to know why it says what it says about God, and in what literary forms, and how to establish what the writers mean by what they say, to know whether or not to trust it to reveal God accurately. In order to establish all this, we have to compare scripture with the world as we know it to see how compatible they are, since the Bible claims that the God whose actions and motives it describes created the universe. Does the world we live in seem the sort of world that the God the Bible describes would have made? And is the Bible’s portrayal of that God internally consistent? That is, do his actions match his attributes? Since the Bible is the book we are investigating, we cannot rely on its authority, or on the authority of any organization claiming to validate or to be based on its authority, to answer these questions without circular reasoning.
After 20 years of reading apologetic and controversial books on both sides of the question, my considered opinion at this point is that the Bible is a book written by human beings without any more divine guidance, inspiration, or authoritative revelation than God gives to any other author or any other book. Therefore, I judge its claims on their merits. Scientifically, it is worthless. Poetically, parts of it are sublime (I especially like Psalms and Isaiah). Morally, it is a mixed bag, with the New Testament better than the Old, but neither anywhere close to perfect.

The Magisterium is the protector of the Deposit of Faith. Catholics understand it as to what the author intended to convey. We look to the constant teaching and understanding as protected by the Holy Spirit.

Revelation is a constant. It illuminates our reasoning.

Science by its own definition is limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. It has a limited say about the universe. Then man has to reason his observations. They are subject to man changing them tomorrow. I find that unconvincing and irrational. You have to believe that is all there is. I am free from this self imposed restriction.

The whole Bible is about hope (eternal reward) and the way to get there. It all boils down to God’s love for His special creation, man.

Perhaps you will need to read one more book.

 

[SGWessells]

No the manual does not go in the trash. It was not written by us. It is written for our welfare and shows us the way to God.

If an elevator came down from heaven right now would you get on it? Why or why not?

Hey, it’s my manual. If it’s worthless, it goes in the trash, unless it’s recyclable. Come to think of it, Christians have been recycling it for centuries

As for the elevator, how would I know it’s from heaven? Supposedly the devil can appear as an angel of light. I thought I was on that elevator once, but it turned out to go to the land of self-delusion and narrow-mindedness and self-imposed ignorance. If going to heaven requires those things, no thanks. But no heaven worth going to would, in my opinion.

 

[buffalo]

Hey, it’s my manual. If it’s worthless, it goes in the trash, unless it’s recyclable. Come to think of it, Christians have been recycling it for centuries

As for the elevator, how would I know it’s from heaven? Supposedly the devil can appear as an angel of light. I thought I was on that elevator once, but it turned out to go to the land of self-delusion and narrow-mindedness and self-imposed ignorance. If going to heaven requires those things, no thanks. But no heaven worth going to would, in my opinion.

The elevator has a sign on it. The hypothetical I gave you is the elevator came down from heaven and you understand that it did. Answer the question on that basis.

The devil can appear as a deceiver. His major accomplishment is to convince you God does not exist. I think he succeeded. His most effective way is through pride and arrogance.

So, you have set up your own conditions for heaven. Catholics know the conditions to be different and we look forward seeing God. God asks that we have a personal relationship with Him and we face towards Him. You have chosen to turn your back to Him. Why? Because He has failed to prove Himself to you. Should you expect the creator to subject Himself to your lab tests?

But, He still is open to you.

 

[SGWessells]

Your whole basis rests on the accuracy of science. As we all know it changes as time goes on. How reliable is it at any one time? How does one measure it? If the neutrino results are real the whole shebang could change tomorrow as it did in the 30’s with the big bang.

The Bible and Tradition are the gold standard. Science changes with time and is subject to flawed human reasoning.

Come on, Buff, you know better than that. You yourself wrote that if God were as cruel as the OT portrays him as being, we would have to give up inerrancy. In the fourth century, many Church fathers took the 6 day creation of Genesis literally; now, only a few die-hard crackpots on the lunatic fringe do. During the Reformation, splinter groups proliferated, with their own interpretations. Catholics insist that the Church has the correct interpretation, which would not be necessary if the Bible could be understood by every ploughboy, as Luther claimed, but even the church has repeatedly changed its mind as well.
The difference between the changes of science and those of revelation is that science has a way to confirm which changes fit our current observational knowledge; and that later changes do not always cancel out earlier ones; sometimes they build on them, as Sandage built on Hubble, Peebles on Sandage, and so on. Shoulders of giants. And yes, Aquinas built on Aristotle and Augustine, and so forth, but there is no way to confirm any theological speculations by experiment. Theories keep being recycled. But nobody is trying to revive Phlogiston or the Luminiferous Ether.

 

[SGWessells]

Although the Bible, or parts of the Bible, may be outside our experience or field of knowledge, that does not change the Bible from being the truth to being a myth. Not too long ago mankind thought that space travel and walking on the moon were a myth, but mankind’s early thoughts did not change the truth of the matter. And the same goes for the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Some of the passages of the Bible are hard to understand, continuing perhaps for a season outside our experience or field of knowledge, but those hard to understand passages by no means negates the truth and reality of the Bible.

If the Bible were just “outside” our current knowledge, you might have a point (though to confirm its truth, it would have to be brought “inside” at some point, wouldn’t it?). But Genesis is not just “outside” our knowledge, it is, taken literally, completely opposed to and contradictory of it. The problem isn’t the parts that are hard to understand; the problem is the parts that are easy to understand, and completely wrong.

Your space travel analogy doesn’t work because science is a growing field, in which new knowledge is added every day, which modifies what went before. Some who want certain, thus unchanging, convictions, think this is a flaw, but it is how knowledge grows. However, the Bible is closed and nothing can be added except more absurd interpretations.

 

[levinas12]

Yes it is, but science has built-in safeguards that correct its tendency to adopt ideology. When I see religious people admitting that their ideology is mistaken as often as I see scientists doing it, I will have more respect for their truth claims. But they can’t because religion is not built on fact, but on faith, and no one can refute a determination to believe something no matter what evidence pops up to the contrary.

What are the built-in safeguards to ensure that scientists recognize the limitations of the scientific method, that it cannot establish all the facts?

For example, we do not use the scientific method (equations, experiments, etc) to adjudicate truth claims associated with art criticism, history, legal proceedings, etc.

In fact, the scientific method cannot account for the “fact” of “truth” itself. A fortiori, the scientific method cannot account for science.

 

[SGWessells]

God is invoked to explain the “order”, the “intelligibility”, the “beautiful equations”, the very helpful but inexplicable “constants” …

But he doesn’t explain them. He only rephrases them in mythological terms. In other words, the adjectives you have already used to describe the universe are just applied to God without changing or explaining them. The universe is ordered, intelligible, and shows constant values because God is intelligent, ordered, and constant in nature. It’s the same adjectives with the words “God is” put in front of them. How does that add to our knowledge of the cosmos? This seems reasonable because people have no other explanation, but that is just the argument from ignorance. The constants are inexplicable so God must have made them. Close up the lab and let’s go to church and give thanks.

 

[Lui]

In the fourth century, many Church fathers took the 6 day creation of Genesis literally;** now, only a few die-hard crackpots on the lunatic fringe do**.

They even have an own Theme park
jewsonfirst.org/noahspark.html#parks

 

[levinas12]

But he doesn’t explain them. He only rephrases them in mythological terms. In other words, the adjectives you have already used to describe the universe are just applied to God without changing or explaining them. The universe is ordered, intelligible, and shows constant values because God is intelligent, ordered, and constant in nature. It’s the same adjectives with the words “God is” put in front of them. How does that add to our knowledge of the cosmos? This seems reasonable because people have no other explanation, but that is just the argument from ignorance. The constants are inexplicable so God must have made them. Close up the lab and let’s go to church and give thanks.

I disagree. We do not have to account for noise but we do have to account for information.

Chaos is to be expected. But order should give us pause.

Certainly everyone would agree that the question of “why the order?” is enticing.

!

 

[SGWessells]

What are the built-in safeguards to ensure that scientists recognize the limitations of the scientific method, that it cannot establish all the facts?

For example, the scientific method is of no help in determining the meaning of poetry and painting, legal decisions, etc. The scientific method cannot account for the reality of persons (and the truth of “first-person” narratives).

Who says it does, or could? I was responding to your comment regarding ideology in science specifically, not in poetry, art, or jurisprudence (even though you never specified what that ideology was, or offered any examples). During the Soviet era, Lysenko adopted a particular and erroneous view of biology because it was compatible with Marxist ideology, and persecuted or killed everyone who opposed him. But he was not doing science, he was doing propaganda.
The safeguards science has are that for any theory to be widely accepted, it must be confirmed by repeated experiments. Also, the best route to fame and fortune for young scientists is overthrowing or adding to a consensus theory, so they are continually challenged. Scientists are interested in science in the first place by a curiosity about how the world works and an interest in finding out. All these trends resist ossification, though a new theory might have to wait until the old guard retires to make headway. But not always.
Religion has fads and fashions, but no way of finally refuting anything, since it relies on revelation, not observation. Old heresies just keep being recycled without ever going away. Jehovah’s Witnesses are just Arians with new clothes, and Gnosticism is even making a comeback.

 

[levinas12]

Who says it does, or could? I was responding to your comment regarding ideology in science specifically, not in poetry, art, or jurisprudence (even though you never specified what that ideology was, or offered any examples).

Good point. “Ideology” maybe was not the best word. “Philosophical presuppositions” might be better way to put it. In Einstein’s case, “action at a distance” may have been suspect because it suggested “immaterial causes”.

But, speaking of philosophical presuppositions, I have noticed that some “posters” on this forum believe that the scientific method is the only way to establish any facts.

I think

 

[tonyrey]

Your ad hominem does not alter the truth of my statement…

Then please explain how you **know **that you can know that you know nothing if you know nothing!

He who claims to be modest is obviously very proud of his imagined modesty!

Well, at least I don’t think the"reward" of my belief will send me to Heaven.

Irrelevant.

I’m modest enough not to think I’m better than others who will go to Hell because they’re not as morally correct as I am.

Irrelevant.

How modest are you since you seem to like to pick an argument with anybody who doesn’t share your opinion?

Irrelevant.

You stated “I’m only modest” thereby showing you are proud of your alleged modesty.

You manage to live your life on assumptions

On what else should I base it?

Assumptions you can justify.

you cannot even justify and yet you dismiss the Bible as a bunch of fairy tales without giving the slightest reason for that assumption!

Did I say fairy tales or are those your words

You implied it with the words “I don’t believe in fairies” immediately following your statement “I consider the Bible as a book of stories written by a bunch of unknown authors”.

Why do I need to prove that I consider the Bible as a book of stories written by men(my words btw)?

No one said you have to!

I never claimed the Bible IS wrong so I don’t have to prove anything.

You have implied it as I have already pointed out.

Are you convinced that anyone knows for a fact that religion is a bunch of fairy tales?

Again, fairy tales are your words. I never said it is a fact that religion is wrong. I said the opposite: it is not a fact that religion is right. Ok, tell me who knows that religion is a fact if you don’t agree. If it was a fact it wouldn’t be called faith and the person who can prove it’s 100% an undeniable fact would win the Nobel prize. I’ve never seen that happen. Those who claim that Christianity is a 100% proven undeniable fact are deluding themselves.

Those who claim that Christianity is a 100% proven false are deluding themselves!

“can” is the key word. It leads precisely nowhere…

Why does it lead to nowhere if a person doesn’t believe in any religions? I still don’t get it. If I don’t believe in fairies(as I mentioned), Big Foot, the monster of Loch Ness, Aliens, Santa Claus it all leads to nowhere? Explain something if you have the urge to make that claim.

Your statement “They can insist all they want but at the end of the day all religions can be pure wishful thinking” applies to any belief or disbelief whatsoever - according to you - and therefore leads precisely nowhere…

You just can’t seem to accept the beliefs of other people.

Non sequitur.

I merely said I have an agnostic belief. Why do you need to argue about my belief?

Your dogmatic statement that there is no objective moral code contradicts your assertion that you know nothing - and it amounts to more than a belief or assumption…

 

[Lui]

Then please explain how you **know **that you can know that you know nothing if you know nothing!

I don’t know because I know nothing

Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.

Whatever, whatever, whatever.

You stated “I’m only modest” thereby showing you are proud of your alleged modesty.

Whatever.

Assumptions you can justify.

Sorry, I don’t need to justify my life to you.

You implied it with the words “I don’t believe in fairies” immediately following your statement “I consider the Bible as a book of stories written by a bunch of unknown authors”.

No, I didn’t. That’s your misinterpretation,

No one said you have to!

Good that we cleared that one up.

You have implied it as I have already pointed out.

No, I didn’t. I implied that I believe the stories of the Bible are written by unknown authors, nothing more. See my explanation above…

Those who claim that Christianity is a 100% proven false are deluding themselves!

It’s not my problem what others do. I never made that claim and don’t know anyone who has.

Your statement “They can insist all they want but at the end of the day all religions can be pure wishful thinking” applies to any belief or disbelief whatsoever - according to you - and therefore leads precisely nowhere…

So a person has to either be convinced that Christianity or a different religion is the truth or believe it is all false? He can’t have the position that he doesn’t know because he has no proof for either position?

Non sequitur

Then why are you debating with me purely because I have agnostic views. I neither say there is a God nor do I say there isn’t. Your view is that it leads to nowhere. I do admit that I’m pretty sure that certain stories of the Bible are not too be taken literally like the complete Genesis. I’m pretty convinced that Adam and Eve never existed and neither did Noah or Moses.

Your dogmatic statement that there is no objective moral code contradicts your assertion that you know nothing - and it amounts to more than a belief or assumption…

Again, there is a difference in saying there is no objective moral code or saying(which I did) that an objective moral code is a theory and not a fact. What you call dogmatic is purely based on your own misinterpretation…again.

 

[levinas12]

Who says it does, or could? I was responding to your comment regarding ideology in science specifically, not in poetry, art, or jurisprudence (even though you never specified what that ideology was, or offered any examples).

First, ideology. This word was not the best because it is often used to refer to a false belief system. I was really referring to what you might call “philosophical presuppositions.”

In Einstein’s case, I suspect that he was uncomfortable with “action at a distance” because it seemed “medieval”, conjuring up perhaps “immaterial causes”. The rejection of immateriality is what I mean by a philosophical presupposition.

Now I have noticed that some posters on this forum seem to be guilty of “scientism”, i.e., that the scientific method is the only way to establish truth. This is a philosophical presupposition that we can argue about.

As I mentioned in the previous posting, there is a category of truth claims that cannot be adjudicated by the scientific method.

Does religion fall into this category? And what method would we use to adjudicate truth claims here? Would it be similar to what we use in adjudicating truth claims in philosophy, ethics, literary and art criticism, history, jurisprudence, etc?

I think the answer is a qualified yes.

 

[SGWessells]

What are the built-in safeguards to ensure that scientists recognize the limitations of the scientific method, that it cannot establish all the facts?

For example, we do not use the scientific method (equations, experiments, etc) to adjudicate truth claims associated with art criticism, history, legal proceedings, etc.

In fact, the scientific method cannot account for the “fact” of “truth” itself. A fortiori, the scientific method cannot account for science.

Reply obj. 1: scientists recognize this without needing a built-in mechanism.

Reply Obj. 2: Neither can religion adjudicate these truth claims. Are you implying that because science cannot determine whether Michaelangelo is greater than Da Vinci, it cannot confirm the inverse square law? If not, I fail to see the point. Science has never claimed to adjudicate in these areas.

Reply obj. 3: this is semantic word games. In its areas of competence, science can confirm that some things are true, and other things are not true. How much more factuality do you need? “Truth” is by definition factual, and therefore needs no confirmation of its factuality. The technological results of the scientific method are more than sufficient to establish that its conclusions conform to reality.

 

[SGWessells]

First, ideology. This word was not the best because it is often used to refer to a false belief system. I was really referring to what you might call “philosophical presuppositions.”

In Einstein’s case, I suspect that he was uncomfortable with “action at a distance” because it seemed “medieval”, conjuring up perhaps “immaterial causes”. The rejection of immateriality is what I mean by a philosophical presupposition.

Now I have noticed that some posters on this forum seem to be guilty of “scientism”, i.e., that the scientific method is the only way to establish truth. This is a philosophical presupposition that we can argue about.

As I mentioned in the previous posting, there is a category of truth claims that cannot be adjudicated by the scientific method.

Does religion fall into this category? And what method would we use to adjudicate truth claims here? Would it be similar to what we use in adjudicating truth claims in philosophy, ethics, literary and art criticism, history, jurisprudence, etc?

I think the answer is a qualified yes.

Thank you for clarifying the “ideology” confusion. My view of “immateriality” as a scientific presupposition is that the scientific method requires it as a methodology, since science deals with what can be verified by observation and experiment, as well as what can be imagined and theorized. The latter has to be confirmed by the former. I don’t think most scientists believe that science is the “only way” to establish truth. I would not say so. But I would say that of all the methods, science is most insulated from the effects of subjectivism and the desire that some things be true and others false. For example, how many have posted on this and other threads complaining that materialism leads to a meaningless universe with no morality, a complaint based on emotion and irrelevant to truth? And how many of those have been on the scientific side of the debate, and how many on the religious?
The methods for adjudicating truth claims in religion are indeed similar to those in philosophy, ethics, literary and art criticism, history, and jurisprudence. Unfortunately, the method used in none of those fields offers the safeguards that science enjoys against subjective bias and determining beliefs from emotional need rather than, or in addition to, reason and evidence. That happens in science as well, of course, but in science, the necessity to reproduce results, and the constant challenges from other researchers tend to eliminate such influences gradually. The other fields you mention either lack such safeguards, or use them less efficiently.
Does that clarify matters?

 

[levinas12]

Reply obj. 1: scientists recognize this without needing a built-in mechanism.

Reply Obj. 2: Neither can religion adjudicate these truth claims. Are you implying that because science cannot determine whether Michaelangelo is greater than Da Vinci, it cannot confirm the inverse square law? If not, I fail to see the point. Science has never claimed to adjudicate in these areas.

Reply obj. 3: this is semantic word games. In its areas of competence, science can confirm that some things are true, and other things are not true. How much more factuality do you need? “Truth” is by definition factual, and therefore needs no confirmation of its factuality. The technological results of the scientific method are more than sufficient to establish that its conclusions conform to reality.

We are like ships passing in the night …

My point is that there is truth that falls outside the hard sciences. Literature, for example, discloses the world too. There is a form of disclosure in religion as well.

The question about “truth” is not a semantic word game. Like Kant, I’m only asking about the conditions of possibility for there being such an activity as science.

The same applies to the question about “truth”. What does “truth” itself mean? What are its “conditions of possibility”? This is where philosophy begins. For example, some say “truth” is correspondence between our private ideas and the world outside. But there are problems with this approach.

Some take a more pragmatic view. After all, consider the technological results. The bridge hasn’t collapsed yet. And the black box is spewing the correct answers. But how does it really work?

Newtonian science produced good technological results.

But then again quantum mechanics has produced good technological results.

And also relativity.

But what’s really going on out there?

 

[levinas12]

Thank you for clarifying the “ideology” confusion. My view of “immateriality” as a scientific presupposition is that the scientific method requires it as a methodology, since science deals with what can be verified by observation and experiment, as well as what can be imagined and theorized. The latter has to be confirmed by the former. I don’t think most scientists believe that science is the “only way” to establish truth. I would not say so. But I would say that of all the methods, science is most insulated from the effects of subjectivism and the desire that some things be true and others false. For example, how many have posted on this and other threads complaining that materialism leads to a meaningless universe with no morality, a complaint based on emotion and irrelevant to truth? And how many of those have been on the scientific side of the debate, and how many on the religious?
The methods for adjudicating truth claims in religion are indeed similar to those in philosophy, ethics, literary and art criticism, history, and jurisprudence. Unfortunately, the method used in none of those fields offers the safeguards that science enjoys against subjective bias and determining beliefs from emotional need rather than, or in addition to, reason and evidence. That happens in science as well, of course, but in science, the necessity to reproduce results, and the constant challenges from other researchers tend to eliminate such influences gradually. The other fields you mention either lack such safeguards, or use them less efficiently.
Does that clarify matters?

Yes and no.

Your recognition of truth in areas other than science does clarify matters. And I would agree that science has its own integrity.

But I’m afraid I’m going to say something provocative.

Scientific truth is not ultimately satisfying. The discovery of,quarks and photons is mind-blowing. But a quark does not explain who I am, or who you are. And a photon does not account for the “good” and the “beautiful”.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Blinded by Scientism:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174

Recovering Sight after Scientism:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184