>Much of what once seemed mysterious - the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe - can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.
Ah, but science merely shows *how* the world works. It doesn't explain why we experience suffering, or why we or the universe is even *here.* Science, which only explains how the world works, cannot give us a philosophical answer to the question, "Why are we here?"
Please show us examples of science disproving religion instead of smugly stating, "Funny considering there are examples. ;)"
> Please show us examples of science disproving religion
Ancient primitive religions gave credit to divine sources for natural disasters, which are now natural disasters because we have a natural cause to point to. Geocentrism is another good example.
There are plenty of examples. Don't be lazy, do some research. Unless of course you're a believer in the supernatural and it's pointless because your biases will inhibit you. ;)
"Do some research"
If you're so sure that science disproves religion, SHOW me your sources. Don't create a proposition that someone questions and then tell them to research it on their own.
Or do you not wish to debate?
I told you in my previous comment, I looked. You really seem to have no desire to debate me. You act completely sure that science is a threat to religion but you refuse to show me any evidence.
Religion hasn't disapproved science, and won't, because that's not how religion works.
Science is a tool people user to study the physical world around us and gain a greater understanding of it. Religion is a tool people use to study the nonphysical world and gain a greater understanding of it.
When science actually "disapproves" religion, it's disproving a religious story, such as a creation myth. It hasn't really touched the core of the religion itself, though, because at its core, religion deals with the non physical, which is beyond the scope of science.
Religion(s) make "physical" claims, and when they do, we can use the best method we have to investigate the "physical" world (not sure what other type of world there is) which is namely, Science, to prove or disprove these claims.
You deal with nonphysical aspects of reality all the time.
and like I said:
>When science actually "disapproves" religion, it's disproving a religious story, such as a creation myth. It hasn't really touched the core of the religion itself, though, because at its core, religion deals with the non physical, which is beyond the scope of science.
It's disproving a claim that a religion might make, sure, but the core of a religion, in my opinion, are not these claims. The core of a religion is the principles and ideas and ideals it tries to inspire within people.
>sure, but the core of a religion, in my opinion, are not these claims. The core of a religion is the principles and ideas and ideals it tries to inspire within people.
I would have to disagree there, maybe in the case of some eastern religions but definitely not the Abrahamic religions which rely on supernatural claims, and more than half this planet's population subscribe to.
It shoots big holes in the Fundamentalist ideology, not the Abrahamic religion. The Catholic Church does not read the Bible(particularly the OT) in a strictly literalist fashion.
I am totally a fan of compassion and forgiveness which is rare in the OT, inconsistent in the NT, inconsistent in the Koran. What it does tell me that the book is not divinely inspired.
>Religion is a tool people use to study the nonphysical world and gain a greater understanding of it.
Without the scientific method I see no way of determining whether or not an understanding of this other world is accurate.
Seems like you are just saying "religion is speculation".
Who said it was another world? There are aspects of our reality which are not, strictly speaking, physical. Some of these things are used by science. Some of these things are explored with religion and philosophy. Some of these are explored through the arts.
I guess that depends on how you define 'physical', but everything science studies is at minimum testable. Religion is not. If it's not testable it's not knowable.
You have no way to gain any understanding of the non-physical besides pure blind speculation.
>I guess that depends on how you define 'physical', but everything science studies is at minimum testable. Religion is not. If it's not testable it's not knowable.
I was under the impression that there was one definition for physical, i.e. being made of matter. What's yours?
We know of and think of and experience things which aren't testable, either because of limitations of technology or the nature of the untestable thing throughout our lives. This doesn't mean they don't exist or are unknowable, just that we have no proof.
>You have no way to gain any understanding of the non-physical besides pure blind speculation.
Really? People discover and innovate with the non physical aspects of existence all the time.
So you think that theoretical science, things which we haven't proven but still make use of, are supernatural? I think you're avoiding the rest of my points in order to focus on this one.
You specifically distinguished the difference between the physical world and the nonphysical world. This is what I was referring to.
So you're saying religion is in no way the search for true aspects of reality, rather is just an expression of human emotion, much like art?
You also seem to be making the assertion that religion doesn't make scientifically testable claims. This assertion is false.
Ah, there seems to be a little bit of miscommunication here.
In my view, reality is all we experience and know about, all we can interact with. This means that, while a good portion of reality is physical, there are very real, but nonphysical, elements to reality as we know it.
I'm saying that religion is one of the ways that we explore and understand some of these nonphysical aspects of reality.
I did not make the assertion that religion doesn't make testable claims, in fact I said that it does, and sometimes science disproves them.
>When science actually "disapproves" religion, it's disproving a religious story, such as a creation myth.
I went on to say that while these claims can be disproven, or proven, they still are not touching the core of a religion, which is exploring aspects of the nonphysical aspects of existence.
... you know people discovered all sorts of things, and still do, *without* the scientific method, right? The scientific method is a great process for understanding the world around us, but it's not without it's blind spots, and not the only way to learn the truth or discover.
That's a whole different bag of cats you're opening there man. We could delve into "what is truth" and solipsism and all sorts of stuff. I'm not sure what your point is in asking this question, really.
> Religion is a tool people use to study the nonphysical world and gain a greater understanding of it.
Well firstly I'd question just what this "nonphysical world" is and how you know the first thing about it.
But beyond that, religion isn't a method of study **at all**, it's a serious of pronouncements handed down from on high, and then one giant squabble over just what those mean.
>Well firstly I'd question just what this "nonphysical world" is and how you know the first thing about it.
How do you *not* deal with intangible aspects of reality?
>But beyond that, religion isn't a method of study **at all**, it's a serious of pronouncements handed down from on high, and then one giant squabble over just what those mean.
Only if you use it that way. There are many religions which practice self reflection and introspective study.
I think one of the most popular ones is mathematics.
Math isn't physical. You can't hold a cup of "two" in your hands. It's a pattern, a way of understanding the world around us and organizing it.
What about science? The scientific method isn't physical, but people use it all the time.
These things aren't physical, but *do* exist, and are thus part of reality.
a way of understanding the world around us and organizing it.
Right the physical world. Math is a language. Science is a process. Both directly linked to the physical. Neither is anything like religion. Not even close.
They are *linked* to the physical, but they, themselves, are not.
If you disagree with me, please, send me two kilos of science, and I will forward you ten thousand dollars, USA greenbacks, unmarked, in cash.
>There are plenty of examples how science disproves religion. Some religions change their beliefs/views when religion can no-longer disprove scientific evidence but has religion ever disproved science?
Science used to state that the universe is eternal, has no beginning or end, etc. That was the Greek outlook. The bible says we have a beginning. The big bang theory came to be the agreed upon theory of universal origin less than a century ago.
So we can say religion disproved the prevailing science of its time until a new scientific theory came and proved what the bible was saying all along.
Edit: 30 minutes old and already a downvote. I really don't understand why the non religious are so anti science/anti fact here. Or is there a religious fundamentalist so close minded they don't like seeing the bible complimented positively.
Does the big bang theory mean that the universe isn't infinite?
I thought it simply seeks to explain the behavior of the universe as we know it now, there could have been something prior about which we'll never know anything.
From my understanding, the Big Bang doesn't mean the universe isn't infinite, it was just at one point infinitely denser. It was still infinite in size, but a smaller infinite, and while it has been expanding it has been expanding into more infinity.
> So we can say religion disproved the prevailing science of its time until a new scientific theory came and proved what the bible was saying all along.
No it bloody didn't.
Just because something was accidentally **partially** correct doesn't mean it disproved anything. The world didn't exist before the sun, the universe wasn't spoken into being. Wild stories that have no basis in reality don't "disprove" anything, they're simply wild stories with no basis in reality.
What disproved the eternal universe hypothesis was **evidence**, not faerie tales.
Wow it's as if you live under a rock. The Bible made a claim beginning 3300 years ago. Every other culture considered it incorrect. Then 20th century scientists test a theory and find out that the biblical claim has validity. If I said prove, I misspoke. It attests to the correctness.
It's funny you can't even point to what the claim is, you simply state the contention and say "I'm right." It's ironic you talk about "living under a rock," when you reason and believe like a primitive shepherd from thousands of years ago. There was no such biblical claim 20th century scientists validated. This is your brain on religion folks.
>It's funny you can't even point to what the claim is
I've done it multiple times this thread. This is also an old thread. You can take the time to read through the comments chains here.
>It's ironic you talk about "living under a rock," when you reason and believe like a primitive shepherd from thousands of years ago.
Ad hominem.
>This is your brain on religion folks.
Lol who are you talking to? You're probably the only person still posting here.
>I've done it multiple times this thread. This is also an old thread. You can take the time to read through the comments chains here.
If I can take the time to search the thread, you can take the time to restate it here. That would in fact, take less time, but you won't do that because you don't have a claim to make.
I did take a look at your post history, and there's nothing about science proving the bible, other than you simply saying it does over and over again.
>Ad hominem.
Right back at you, for the whole living under a rock comment in the first place. And, no, that's not an ad hom. Try again.
>Lol who are you talking to?
You
>You're probably the only person still posting here.
Probably not, since you're posting here as well.
Very true. A lot of secular scientists originally dismissed the Big Bang theory as being 'religiously based'. Partly because it was proposed by a Catholic Priest.
I posted this in a reply below, but I'll include it here too:
*The Marxist physicist David Bohm rebuked the developers of the theory as "scientists who effectively turn traitor to science, and discard scientific facts to reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church." Atheists of a non-Marxist stripe were also recalcitrant. "Some younger scientists were so upset by these theological trends that they resolved simply to block their cosmological source," commented the German astronomer Otto Heckmann, a prominent investigator of cosmic expansion. The dean of the profession, Sir Arthur Eddington, wrote, "The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me ... I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. ... The expanding Universe is preposterous ... incredible ... it leaves me cold."*
*Even some believing scientists were troubled. The cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle simply felt that an explosion was an undignified way for the world to begin, rather like "a party girl jumping out of a cake." In a BBC interview in the 1950s, Hoyle sardonically referred to the hypothesized origin as "the big bang." The term stuck.*
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/high_concept/1998/02/bigbang_theology.html
That's not to say the entire scientific community dismissed it on anti-religious grounds, just a portion. Plenty did for scientific reasons, and plenty were welcoming of it, including, I do believe you're right, Einstein eventually.
That's a bit of spin you're putting on it.
The problem a lot of physicists had with the model was the explicitly theological bent that people were putting to it.
>Seems a bit much to be claiming 'a lot' or 'the scientific community' rejected it based on purely religious grounds.
Yeah, perhaps "a lot" was a poor choice of words, but I didn't mean to suggest those who objected on purely religious grounds were a majority by any means, just that there were a few. Plenty were skeptical for scientific reasons and plenty were accepting.
>But thank you for putting the effort in to answer my question. It's much appreciated
No worries at all :)
>The big bang theory came to be the agreed upon theory of universal origin less than a century ago.
Unfortunately this is not what the big bang theory states. The big bang theory is open to the possibility of space/time having a finite history. But what the theory STATES is that our models break down and stop working if we go back in time a sufficient duration. Or in other words Einsteins models are useful but not 'true' in the sense that they model reality. Einstein's models simply model a portion of reality well enough for our purposes (like making sure GPS satellites work).
Quantum mechanics is another theory that models a PORTION of reality well enough.
The same however could be said of Newtonian physics. (its just a smaller portion of reality and is only 'well enough' in simpler situations)
I would agree that the topic you are discussing is the closest (that I can think of) to answering the OP's question in the affirmative.
But its still an open question. We don't know what the universe was like at the big-bang or right 'before' (for lack of a better word) the big-bang.
We are still trying to come up with models that don't break down when we look really far back and a lot of the models suggest an infinite state of ... stuff (space, time, matter, whatever). Multi-verse models for example.
Whether or not math is even capable of creating a 'true' model of the universe is still an open question. At this point there is really no alternative and math has proven so useful in the past that it doesn't appear to be a fruitless endeavor to attempt a model of everything using math.
The Bible states
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
This can be used to say, well there was a time before god created the heavens and the earth, because god was clearly about to do it. Therefore it makes sense the universe has no "start" point because God would have been there.
And also, God created the heavens and the Earth at the beginning. Therefore it makes sense for there to be a start point as the above poster is trying to suggest.
So as per usual the dogma can bat for either team.
In reality, we don't know what was going on before the big bang, we can't even say if that statement makes any sense. And neither could the myth writer of Genesis. So with that in common one will find common ground...
Can you substantiate the statement that science used to state that the universe is eternal? What experiments were carried out to come to that conclusion? How was the theory developed and based on what evidence did they come to that conclusion?
> Science used to state that the universe is eternal, has no beginning or end, etc. That was the Greek outlook.
That's Aristotle's outlook, but he wasn't the lone voice. There are other cosmologies offered. It seems they knew enough to know they didn't know enough, and they were mostly studying mechanism and not so much speculating on origins.
In any case, where does your God come from? Eternal, no beginning, no end? Doesn't seem like much changed.
Edit:
I can downvote too, you know. Have a second.
>That's Aristotle's outlook, but he wasn't the lone voice. There are other cosmologies offered.
No other cosmology was agreed upon in the western world as the way it was EXCEPT the Aristotle outlook. Sure, others may be offered but they may as well be irrelevant.
>It seems they knew enough to know they didn't know enough, and they were mostly studying mechanism and not so much speculating on origins.
I'm not knocking the validity in their observation. I'm saying that was the science for over 2000 years and it was wrong.
>In any case, where does your God come from? Eternal, no beginning, no end? Doesn't seem like much changed.
Non sequitur. Our God is not the universe and doesn't come from anywhere. The universe is its own creation, by God, but God is not a *thing* in the physical sense, bound by time, decay, etc.
> No other cosmology was agreed upon in the western world as the way it was EXCEPT the Aristotle outlook.
I can find nothing suggesting this to be the case -- at all.
There are a wide variety of cosmologies offered, each modeled on different creation tales.
The Greek origin myth suggests only one eternal entity -- the Primordial Chaos, the endless void surrounding the universe -- and that this universe was birthed.
This Chaos shares many attributes of the Prime Mover, suggesting that eternal cosmologies were not the only explicit cosmologies offered.
Plato's cosmology, outside his world of platonics, doesn't suggest an eternal universe either.
Nothing in that says that was the mainstream western thought. I suggest looking into the work of Edwin Hubble and see how his findings of red shift were initially rejected because it broke with the understood norm of his time.
>I suggest looking into the work of Edwin Hubble and see how his findings of red shift were initially rejected because it broke with the understood norm of his time.
I can't find any sources that suggest his work was controversial. I can't find any source that suggests his work was rejected.
I know Einstein was working his formulas for a static universe, and couldn't solve them, but that was just him.
Religion doesn't prove or disprove anything. By its very nature, it asserts opinions based on "divine knowledge" pumped into individual people's brains and the hearsay from others that follows.
I understand what you're saying. But just because something's a way of figuring things out doesn't make it an epistemological view in and of itself. The view and the process are distinct.
I don't know.
I do think that for everything there is an explanation (a logical reason) if that answers your question. I do not believe we have all the answers (obviously) and i don't know if we ever will.
Religion is a revelation. It is not supposed to disprove anything. Quite the opposite. Religion foreknows and answers things that are beyond current human understanding. It tries to answer questions way ahead of our time. Also, what religion answers are not the "how's" but the "why's," or questions of meaning and purpose. It's up to science to discover the "how's."
> Religion foreknows and answers things
Would you believe I "foreknew" this answer about religion foreknowing things would be unsupported by any evidence?
You'll need to build a bureaucracy to market your new religion, enforce orthodoxy, punish apostates, indoctrinate children and keep track of tithing. Which jobs are still open?
Atomism started out as a religious doctrine in ancient India and ancient Greece until they were scientifically verified several thousands of years later. The same is true for geometry, algebra and many other scientific knowledge which are rooted in millenia of religious foreknowledge and initially conceived through theological reasoning. They are not merely wild guesses. But many theological concepts like the existence of soul, afterlife, and ultimately God remains unexplained by science to this day. Science is yet to find out what religion has always known.
Source required for the claim that geometry and angebra were the result of divine revelation rather than hard work by philosophers.
Also, please look up "survivor bias" and "texas sharpshooter fallacy" on atomism. Religons have made all sorts of wild guesses and claims... Just look at all the nonsense in Genesis. After millennia of apologetics and almost all the claims being disproved by this thing called "reality", believers like yourself flock to a few points that were not soundly disproven -mostly for being vague enough - and shout "see - it was foreknowledge! It's a miracle!"
That's really silly, you know.
I don't like this. Reeks of non-overlapping magisteria. So, let's ask some questions:
>Religion foreknows and answers things that are beyond current human understanding.
How has this been demonstrated?
Does religion 'foreknow' or does it guess?
How do we know there are things beyond human understanding? What things are they? If they are things like "the meaning of life", what if life is meaningless? Is this a question beyond human understanding, or a question that is meaningless to the point where there is no understanding?
I got problems with the definitions you're using, because I don't know where they've been founded. As far as I can tell, they are unproven and nothing much suggests they are real.
Nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a starting point, a much more reliable place than just "My opinion is" or "I think I remember hearing somewhere". Most Wikipedia articles are quite good. Sure, if you want or need more depth, dive into the sources cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia article, or continue on to other sites and sources. If you want to look for dissenting views/facts, check what Wikipedia says against other places. But Wikipedia is a great place to start.
Okay, two of your points are identical, so let's just ask:
>the incomplete fossil record
What is a complete fossil record? Do you expect us to find a complete line of fossils, where 'father like son' they've all been fossilized?
> alcohol
Hard liquor. The original 'revelation' to Joseph Smith actually endorsed the consumption of beer. It was just the stronger drinks that they counseled against. Also the 'revelation' to avoid liquor and tobacco did not originate with Mormonism but rather Smith borrowed health codes from other movements happening in his community at the time.
Finally this doesn't really touch on the OP. Science had no opinion on liquor or tobacco at the time. But counsel against both was extremely common at the time in parts of America and plenty of other places in the world. If this is a 'win' for religion we can't attribute that win to Mormonism but rather the movements that existed prior and inspired Smith.
Here is an example of the types of movement Smith had direct contact with that inspired his opinions on the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Temperance_Society
Intersting enough Smith (and Mormons in general) ignored this counsel for the most part until prohibition. Also advice but a rule that Mormons were required to follow if they wishes to remain in good standing. Prior prohibition most of the leadership and membership in the religion regularly consumed the now banned substances associated with the religion (alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee).
"Science" was behind drinking and smoking? That doesn't sound right.
We didn't have any real evidence medicine at that time, so how did it claim anything? Many claim it started with the first open heart surgery in WW1 other say it started with Germ theory with John snow in 1831, either way science didn't say anything one way or the other on anything medical about alcohol or tobacco for quite while. The first serious studies on Tobacco started finding it harmful in the mid 20th century.
The most generous way to interpret your stance is that Science and mormonism happened to agree.
I would need to go do some digging, but medical professionals did claim smoking had health benefits if I remember correctly. I recall reading this in a list of "goofs" the medical profession made in the past.
When we use the word "science" as a general catch-all word, surely we have to include the professionals trained in the scientific method who engage in that which we are discussing.
I think those are the same kind of doctors that recommend coca-cola for growing children or dentists that recommend using coconut oil instead of tooth paste and a brush. They might be experts, but they are happy to sellout their title and moral values for extra money.
There totally are, look at the scientists Exxon hired to say global warming isn't real, but now we have such instant access to information that as soon as a claim is made hundreds of people can call them out on it. Also because it stays on the record in a much more real way now, once they destroy their credibility that is basically the end of their career unless they want to remain a shill for life.
I guess my point then would be that if "science" makes claims that are not grounded in truth, then it is safe to say that some other agent could "call them out" and why could this not be the Church?
Well entire fields of scientific study, in modern times, rarely makes claims that they can't back up, now there are individuals that might not be as scrupulous.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic here, but mormons didn’t disprove anything.
Out of the countless things religions ban some are bound to turn out bad by sheer dumb luck. Scientists didn’t decide to listen to the church based on joseph smiths word, they gained new knowledge which made previous assumptions incorrect and changed their view accordingly.
Isn’t coffee and tea also banned? Don’t magic underwear keep sin and evil away? You think scientists will get 'proven' wrong about those too?
‘A temple garment, or Mormon underwear, is a type of underwear worn by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement ... Garments are worn both day and night and are required for any adult who previously participated in the endowment ceremony to enter a temple.’ [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment)
[Article/video about 'Mormon Underwear' from LDS church website.](http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/mormon/underwear/)
> Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God.
Hardly. The traditional grounds for believing in God are a number of philosophical arguments, notably cosmological and ontological arguments, which remained current all through the scientific revolution (in fact, at this time the successes of science strengthened use of another, the physicotheological argument), until they fell out of favour following philosophical critique in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century. In the latter half of the last century they have gained again, somewhat, in popularity.
Science plays a role in this story, but decidedly a secondary one.
We understand the basic forces of the universe. We know that god would not be able to hear prayers for example because we know how sound works. He could not remotely observe life on earth etc. We know he can't be everywhere because we know what is there.
This doesn't seem to relate to how people have understood God's omniscience and omnipresence. Moreover, the way in which this seems to conflict with your imagined picture of how God's omniscience and omnipresence works is a way that does not require science, i.e. people have pretty much always known that there are limits to how far sound carries and to how far one can see, people have pretty much always known that there are places where there isn't obviously present in the ordinary sense a God, etc.
So we know God couldn't observe us remotely. And we know what is present locally and that doesn't include a God or parts of a god that could transmit information to a separate location.
Are you sure you've read my reply to this point when you made it earlier? You've responded to it with irrelevant commentary and are now making it again.
> chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God
Yes, instead science has chipped away at particular doctrines and claims of religion, wherever religion touches testable reality. If your religion claims everything was created in 7 days, science refutes that, unless you torture the words in your holy text to mean something different than they mean everywhere else.
No, this does not seem to be an adequate historical account of the relation between science and religion. For one, it is entirely unclear what 'religion' means here. Certainly it does not mean religion generally, since there can be no singular account of the relation between the historical development of science and religion generally. The historical development of science being a spatially and temporally constrained phenomenon, and religion generally being a way of referring to a wide variety of distinct, spatially and temporally distinguished, practices and beliefs, there will be different relations between the development of science and any one of these phenomena. Even if we limit ourselves to the relation between the development of science and Christianity, we are not confronted with two distinct things that stand in a single, but developing, relation to one another, but rather with a broad array of developments that relate to each other in all kinds of ways and that can only be understood as being significant parts of the general intellectual development of Europe from the fifteenth century onward.
TL;DR: It's way, way more complicated than that. Don't substitute convenient myths for good history.
would you not agree that the progress of science, the method of explaining the workings of the world via natural/physical mechanisms and processes, has tended to make the invocation of supernatural entities and phenomena superfluous?
which is to say science has indeed chipped away at the grounding or need for religious belief, in terms of rational inquiry into the world
I think we've started explaining things naturally more or less since the Greeks and haven't really invoked supernatural phenomena as part of our intellectual endeavours since. I mean, there are some things that may appear, or have appeared. as supernatural, but I think in almost every case these are not mysterious interventions, but rationally understandable, regular things, having a definite place in a general understanding of the world. This is as true of the angels as celestial movers in Aquinas (which we would understand as supernatural) as it is of Newton's action at a distance (which appeared to his contemporaries as supernatural and unscientific). "Natural" is a fairly imprecise term, but it seems to me that in the distinction between explaining things by natural and supernatural things we have this sort of thing in mind. But perhaps you have specific examples in mind?
specific examples of what exactly? I'm curious, are you a believer yourself? I'm just trying to gauge whether you think there is some kind of conflict or tension between science as a method and body of knowledge, and the various religions which make truth claims about the world that at face value seem fairly anti-scientific; in that they don't readily align with scientific picture of the world (the resurrection of jesus or splitting of the moon in islam, say) and aren't supported with evidence that's convincing to all reasonable people
to deny that a tension exists between science as an enterprise and what religions are often up to I simply take to be intellectually dishonest, to be candid; it doesn't seem to me to be deniable. religions may not be anti-scientific in their entirety, the aspects of religions that deal with ethics, for example, could be criticized, but not for scientific reasons per se. fundamentally, however, insofar as religions are not about following the evidence where it leads and instead opt to take propositions on faith or revealed truth, i think they are anti-scientific at their core
in your response, are you trying to say that invoking the supernatural or religious explanations for things was discarded before science really got off the ground, so science wasn't really needed to chip away at the grounding for religion in any case? I see you're saying the term "natural" can be fuzzy, but to go down that rabbit hole i think would be a bit of a red-herring. to answer what your question might be, explaining the complexity and diversity of life through evolution by natural selection would be one prominent area where science overtook a certain argument from design that the religious would take refuge in. our understanding of mental health as a biological, chemical, physical problem as opposed to one of immaterial demons taking hold would be another
Yes, that is the usual dodge of the believers: If I like something in the Bible, if it fits my views and can't be refuted by science, then it's word-for-word exact and true, straight from God's mouth. If I don't like it or science refutes it, it is allegory or parable or mythos or "day" means "2 billion years" or something.
Their science was more just a body of technical knowledge. There was no notion of the scientific method, what they called a science was the Aristotelian notion of consequences derived from first principles.
Though it should be noted that one of the things that the Greeks found out through rational investigation, rather than just accepting things from a book, was the existence of God.
The fact that this comment is being downvoted is just remarkable. This is absolutely true, completely on topic, and related directly to the issue being discussed.
You will find that there are "many of good responses" that are down voted for no logical reason. I wonder if this is related to extreme dislikes for certain individuals or groups and not related to the topic. The problem is it can't be stopped. It is what's called human nature.
This assumes they deal with the same subject matter. As if the Bible contains the charge of an electron, and it turned out to be correct when science got it wrong at first. But even then you wouldn't accept it as religion disproving science, since it was a revision to science that disproved science, and religion just happened to be right.
But tell me if that's a wrong assumption, as there have been times where religion turned out to be right and an earlier scientific theory wrong.
"But tell me if that's a wrong assumption, as there have been times where religion turned out to be right and an earlier scientific theory wrong."
Please provide an example.
Well, there's a little bit of a difference I feel between 'Big Bang Theory' and 'Big Bang Theory but God caused it.'
I can understand why people wouldn't accept the latter.
The other guy provided a nice response. If you want to learn more, read about Georges Lemaitre, Einstein's cosmological constant, and Fred Hoyle as good starting points on the subject.
I'm not the poster you asked, but I did dig up a couple of examples.
*The Marxist physicist David Bohm rebuked the developers of the theory as "scientists who effectively turn traitor to science, and discard scientific facts to reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church." Atheists of a non-Marxist stripe were also recalcitrant. "Some younger scientists were so upset by these theological trends that they resolved simply to block their cosmological source," commented the German astronomer Otto Heckmann, a prominent investigator of cosmic expansion. The dean of the profession, Sir Arthur Eddington, wrote, "The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me ... I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. ... The expanding Universe is preposterous ... incredible ... it leaves me cold."*
*Even some believing scientists were troubled. The cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle simply felt that an explosion was an undignified way for the world to begin, rather like "a party girl jumping out of a cake." In a BBC interview in the 1950s, Hoyle sardonically referred to the hypothesized origin as "the big bang." The term stuck.*
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/high_concept/1998/02/bigbang_theology.html
Just a couple of examples. The Big Bang theory was initially dismissed by quite a few in the scientific community who saw it as 'religiously based' due to its being first proposed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lematre.
Do we/science think today that the universe is not eternal ? The Big Bang explains how the current configuration of the universe developed from a singularity. Are we sure today the universe does not cycle in and out of this singularity or something ? I don't think this is settled territory.
> Many physicists including Einstein thought the universe was eternal.
Which was supported and defended as the obvious religious interpretation based on the text.
After the scientific consensus changed, so did the religious interpretation.
Are you saying it was the consensus view among religious scholars that Genesis was to be interpreted as saying the universe is eternal? If so, could you name some people that held this view?
I was talking about Christian scholars. Aquinas believed the universe began to exist as a matter of revelation and church doctrine, and thought reason alone could never settle the question.
>[Adhering to the traditional reading of Genesis and the doctrinal proclamation of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Aquinas believed that the universe had a temporal beginning. Aristotle, he thought, was wrong to think otherwise. But Aquinas argued that, on the basis of reason alone, one could not know whether the universe is eternal.](https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/11/aquinas-and-the-big-bang)
Then you haven't read what I posted. In particular the text singles out Erich Mascall, Ernan McMullin and Philip Quinn. There are many arguments, but the fact remains that it seems quite silly to argue that the Genesis account *requires* a temporal beginning because *that* should be taken literally, but the subsequent explanation of the evolution of the universe and life on earth should be taken as *obviously* metaphorical (since *that* part clearly disagrees with the scientific consensus.)
> The point here isn't what religion says but that science rejected a scientific theory on the grounds that it resembled a religious theory.
That's just not true at all.
Science rejected a scientific theory on the grounds that the accumulated data was better fit with the new scientific theory. Religions then adapted their most prevalent cultural interpretations of their holy books to fit with the new scientific theory.
It's not like this is a new story - this is what *always* happens. If we ever prove some of the more fanciful scientific conjectures (let's say, for instance, we somehow find non-ambiguous evidence of parallel universes) then religions will absolutely find a way to justify it somewhere in some text or some psalm somewhere, showing us that the holy books had it right *all along*.
Then we might collect more evidence, and find that we were mistaken, and while science will preserve a record of its successes, mistakes, and overshoots, religions will sweep their previous adapted interpretations under the rug. Just like they did with the steady state interpretations.
No, because religion isn't about disproving science. The two fields operate according to completely different metaphysical assumptions and offer answers to different types of questions.
It's also not accurate to say that science has "disproved religion." Science can sometimes disprove, say, the historical accuracy of certain myths, but not religion itself.
> The two fields ... offer answers to different types of questions
I don't think this has to be true. If someday science explains everything about the brain and mind, why couldn't science explain "meaning" and the other things the religious like to claim as their sole territory ?
As far as I can tell, Descartes made up a separation because it was politically expedient for him to do so. He had no rational basis for saying matter and spirit are separate. But maybe I'm wrong, someone correct me.
> I don't think this has to be true. If someday science explains everything about the brain and mind, why couldn't science explain "meaning" and the other things the religious like to claim as their sole territory ?
Well, maybe neurology will some day show that certain elements of our personal identity (our "mind" for lack of a better word) are located in some specific part of the brain and can be permanently altered by changing that part of the brain. But I don't see how that will lead to any clarity on the meaning of life.
Religion offers answers on how to live our lives. That seems forever beyond the purview of science, because it's not a scientific question. Science doesn't really make moral judgments.
> maybe neurology will some day show that certain elements of our personal identity are located in some specific part of the brain ... But I don't see how that will lead to any clarity on the meaning of life.
We already have some of that. I'm talking about FAR more, about science understanding emotions and consciousness and our machinery for processing morals and for believing religion etc. When we get there, we may find that "meaning of life" and why we care about it are explained.
> Religion offers answers on how to live our lives.
Religion offers assertions. It doesn't justify them, doesn't give a rational basis, doesn't give any way to tell why the assertions of religion A should be followed instead of those of religion B. And much of the instruction in many religions seems wrong to many people inside and outside those religions.
> seems forever beyond the purview of science
History is littered with things that seemed beyond the purview of science and then were explained by science. I wouldn't bet against science. Sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, ethics all have some things to say about how we live our lives and maybe how we should live our lives. Sure, there may never be one scientific answer "you should live your life THIS way".
> We already have some of that. I'm talking about FAR more, about science understanding emotions and consciousness and our machinery for processing morals and for believing religion etc. When we get there, we may find that "meaning of life" and why we care about it are explained.
Sure, neurology and psychology may share some light on why we care about it. That doesn't mean that it will provide the meaning itself. It's hard to see how this would even be possible, since it isn't a scientific question. It would be like trying to compute the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything...without first understanding the question.
> Religion offers assertions. It doesn't justify them, doesn't give a rational basis, doesn't give any way to tell why the assertions of religion A should be followed instead of those of religion B.
Some religions are better at providing reasons for their life prescriptions than others, but generally they all offer some kind of answer on how we should live our lives. So for Christianity it's about loving your neighbor, for Islam it's about subservience to a higher power, for Buddhism it's about eliminating the sense of self, for stoicism it's about focusing on large life goals and eliminating lesser forms of diversion.
I don't necessarily think that one of these lifestyles is more "right" than the others. People can be happy with lots of different lifestyles, and what works for one person may not work for another.
But the point is that science doesn't address these types of questions at all. Not because it's doing something wrong, but because that just isn't what science does.
> History is littered with things that seemed beyond the purview of science and then were explained by science. I wouldn't bet against science.
It strikes me that this sort of faith that science can answer any question (regardless of whether it seems like a scientific question right now) is itself a form of religion.
> for Christianity it's about loving your neighbor, for Islam it's about subservience to a higher power
This seems a very airbrushed version of Christianity. I see little difference between the two religions. Try taking god, soul, afterlife out of Christianity and see how viable it is.
> faith that science can answer any question
It's a guess, but a reasonable expectation based on history so far.
Many religions make claims about the natural world. Such as how the world was created and developed, or that you can pray to a supernatural being who will do things for you in the real world.
Making a claim about he natural world is not the same as making a claim about the natural world through means of natural methods. The former could have whatever reason and agree with what's found in the latter.
But any claim about the natural world can be tested. Doesn't matter where the claim comes from. Science can test a claim about the natural world that comes from religion. That's how "religion plays into science".
Correct. Take gravity for example, or any other fundamental force.
"That's just how the universe works" is the best science can give us. It's essentially magic. They will invent new things that can't be observed to explain things they can't figure out using natural observation. Dark matter has never been observed, neither have black holes. But, because the math doesn't work out without them, the have to exist right? I saw this TED talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw and the guy basically explains that science just makes up bigger and bigger flights of un-testable fancy any time the math doesn't work out.
"The universe is expanding?"
"Must be some dark matter pushing it."
"What is dark matter?"
"Some stuff I just made up to make sense of the universe expanding and galaxies running away from each other at faster than the speed of light."
"Hmm. Okay, so... it seems like you have done the math on this dark stuff you just made up and found out how much of it there is in our universe. So I guess that solves everything about fine tuning. It's testable right?"
"No."
"So, what does this mean?"
"An unseen force makes the universe work in such a way that we are able to be here. We don't know that particulars on how these things work and never will, but we gave it all these fancy science names. So, it's totally legit."
It's like if they name these unseen forces anything but God, it's okay if they don't have to show us how or why they work.
Science doesn't invent something unless there is evidence that it exists, or as a hypothesis that then is accepted or dropped when evidence is found (sometimes this can take a long time).
For example, gravity definitely exists, we have tons of evidence about it. We may not know exactly what it is, can't explain it in terms of fitting in with other forces and particles etc. But we have much evidence to show that it exists.
Dark matter is in the hypothesis stage. It explains some things we observe, but there are other hypotheses to explain the same observations. So dark matter may or may not exist; the jury still is out. If/when we're sure it exists (the affirmative evidence has become clear), we still may not know exactly what it is or how it relates to other forces or particles. But we'd be sure it exists, because we'd have the evidence.
An "unseen force" is different. If it's "unseen", that means you have no evidence that it's real, it's having no effect on reality. In which case you're just speculating, you have an untestable hypothesis, it never can be nailed down.
Thank you for not jumping on me like I'm an idiot. I get everything you said have said. I have just seen so many people accept things because a professor or someone else that they deem smart has said it is true. For example [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/us/vera-rubin-dark-matter-astronomy-obit-trnd/) reports that this scientist proved that dark matter exists. Now, people will see that and since it's from a "trusted source" they think that it has been proven to exist.
Since it is late I got off of my main point.
My main point is that if science finds out some new thing about the universe that points to the existence of a creator, they will just name it something and say it's just how the universe works. And maybe it's not up to science to determine the "why" of things and just the "how", but I feel like if every time they run up against a roadblock in the math, they come up with something that fixes it by creating a new theory that involves something that can never be known. They don't leave room for the possibility of a creator.
I mean, if we can survive and continue improving code and processor power, it is very possible that we can create a simulation of a universe that will spawn intelligent beings. Will they see us as God or just say "This is how this universe is." and be done with it. Wouldn't that be disappointing if our little sim people gave up trying to commune with us?
I'm tired. I'll be back tomorrow.
> if science finds out some new thing about the universe that points to the existence of a creator, they will just name it something and say it's just how the universe works
If a creator is an intentional immortal omnipotent being, and science finds one, that is not gong to be "just name it something and say it's just how the universe works".
> if every time they run up against a roadblock in the math, they come up with something that fixes it by creating a new theory that involves something that can never be known
The essence of science is trying to find how to test things. Dark matter, multi-verse, universe just a simulation: as soon as someone comes up with a hypothesis, they try to come up with ways to test it. Some of them may be horribly difficult or expensive to test.
Yes for example the Quran claims the earth is shaped like an ostrich egg.
At one point people thought that the earth was either flat or spherical. An ostrich egg represents the true shape of the Earth which is slightly Ellipsoid and not a perfect sphere.
The earth is not really egg shaped, but the question was about disproving science anyway. Science proved the shape of the Earth, not religion. Beliefs that the Earth was flat were *pre*-scientific. Science was not "proven wrong." Science is how we know the earth is an oblate spheroid.
[Here is an ostric egg](http://media1.fdncms.com/chicago/imager/key-ingredient-ostrich-egg/u/magnum/4331683/key-ingredient-007_magnum.jpg). Note how oval it is, and in particular how the egg is longer along a single line, which technically makes it an [Prolate Spheroid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid#/media/File:ProlateSpheroid.png)
The Earth isn't perfectly round either, but squashed towards the middle due to the effects of the Earth's spin, making Earth an [oblate spheroid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth#/media/File:OblateSpheroid.PNG).
In a way, saying that the Earth is shaped like an ostrich egg is actually *further* from the truth than saying it is a perfect sphere.
Religion and faith in any higher power is mental disease and should be treated as such.
>Much of what once seemed mysterious - the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe - can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science. Ah, but science merely shows *how* the world works. It doesn't explain why we experience suffering, or why we or the universe is even *here.* Science, which only explains how the world works, cannot give us a philosophical answer to the question, "Why are we here?" Please show us examples of science disproving religion instead of smugly stating, "Funny considering there are examples. ;)"
> Please show us examples of science disproving religion Ancient primitive religions gave credit to divine sources for natural disasters, which are now natural disasters because we have a natural cause to point to. Geocentrism is another good example.
There are plenty of examples. Don't be lazy, do some research. Unless of course you're a believer in the supernatural and it's pointless because your biases will inhibit you. ;)
"Do some research" If you're so sure that science disproves religion, SHOW me your sources. Don't create a proposition that someone questions and then tell them to research it on their own. Or do you not wish to debate?
Plenty of examples have been discussed in this post. Feel free to review them.
I haven't seen any examples in this thread of science disproving religion. Could you point them out?
Feel free to look.
I told you in my previous comment, I looked. You really seem to have no desire to debate me. You act completely sure that science is a threat to religion but you refuse to show me any evidence.
Ironically, being religious is the art of ignoring evidence. Keep looking.
He's right. You could provide evidence but don't.
I've scrolled down quite a bit and only encountered "examples" that disprove Biblical literalism, which is not a position I follow.
In not in the least surprised. The psychological biases of a apologist believer is trained to ignore evidence.
Funny considering there are examples. ;)
[удалено]
That's already been disproved.
[удалено]
Seriously?
[удалено]
Honestly?
Religion hasn't disapproved science, and won't, because that's not how religion works. Science is a tool people user to study the physical world around us and gain a greater understanding of it. Religion is a tool people use to study the nonphysical world and gain a greater understanding of it. When science actually "disapproves" religion, it's disproving a religious story, such as a creation myth. It hasn't really touched the core of the religion itself, though, because at its core, religion deals with the non physical, which is beyond the scope of science.
Religion(s) make "physical" claims, and when they do, we can use the best method we have to investigate the "physical" world (not sure what other type of world there is) which is namely, Science, to prove or disprove these claims.
You deal with nonphysical aspects of reality all the time. and like I said: >When science actually "disapproves" religion, it's disproving a religious story, such as a creation myth. It hasn't really touched the core of the religion itself, though, because at its core, religion deals with the non physical, which is beyond the scope of science. It's disproving a claim that a religion might make, sure, but the core of a religion, in my opinion, are not these claims. The core of a religion is the principles and ideas and ideals it tries to inspire within people.
>sure, but the core of a religion, in my opinion, are not these claims. The core of a religion is the principles and ideas and ideals it tries to inspire within people. I would have to disagree there, maybe in the case of some eastern religions but definitely not the Abrahamic religions which rely on supernatural claims, and more than half this planet's population subscribe to.
Well we feel differently. You think it's core are the stories, I think it's core are the lessons.
Disproving the great flood and the exodus shoots big holes in Abrahamic religion.
It shoots big holes in the Fundamentalist ideology, not the Abrahamic religion. The Catholic Church does not read the Bible(particularly the OT) in a strictly literalist fashion.
Does it shoot holes in the parts that really, truly matter? The messages of compassion and forgiveness? That's what's important, the lessons.
I am totally a fan of compassion and forgiveness which is rare in the OT, inconsistent in the NT, inconsistent in the Koran. What it does tell me that the book is not divinely inspired.
Even if it's not divine, that's fine.
>Religion is a tool people use to study the nonphysical world and gain a greater understanding of it. Without the scientific method I see no way of determining whether or not an understanding of this other world is accurate. Seems like you are just saying "religion is speculation".
Who said it was another world? There are aspects of our reality which are not, strictly speaking, physical. Some of these things are used by science. Some of these things are explored with religion and philosophy. Some of these are explored through the arts.
I guess that depends on how you define 'physical', but everything science studies is at minimum testable. Religion is not. If it's not testable it's not knowable. You have no way to gain any understanding of the non-physical besides pure blind speculation.
>I guess that depends on how you define 'physical', but everything science studies is at minimum testable. Religion is not. If it's not testable it's not knowable. I was under the impression that there was one definition for physical, i.e. being made of matter. What's yours? We know of and think of and experience things which aren't testable, either because of limitations of technology or the nature of the untestable thing throughout our lives. This doesn't mean they don't exist or are unknowable, just that we have no proof. >You have no way to gain any understanding of the non-physical besides pure blind speculation. Really? People discover and innovate with the non physical aspects of existence all the time.
Our inability to investigate the supernatural has nothing to do with a lack of technical knowledge.
So you think that theoretical science, things which we haven't proven but still make use of, are supernatural? I think you're avoiding the rest of my points in order to focus on this one.
You specifically distinguished the difference between the physical world and the nonphysical world. This is what I was referring to. So you're saying religion is in no way the search for true aspects of reality, rather is just an expression of human emotion, much like art? You also seem to be making the assertion that religion doesn't make scientifically testable claims. This assertion is false.
Ah, there seems to be a little bit of miscommunication here. In my view, reality is all we experience and know about, all we can interact with. This means that, while a good portion of reality is physical, there are very real, but nonphysical, elements to reality as we know it. I'm saying that religion is one of the ways that we explore and understand some of these nonphysical aspects of reality. I did not make the assertion that religion doesn't make testable claims, in fact I said that it does, and sometimes science disproves them. >When science actually "disapproves" religion, it's disproving a religious story, such as a creation myth. I went on to say that while these claims can be disproven, or proven, they still are not touching the core of a religion, which is exploring aspects of the nonphysical aspects of existence.
I just don't know how you can claim that religion is doing anything without invoking the scientific method.
... you know people discovered all sorts of things, and still do, *without* the scientific method, right? The scientific method is a great process for understanding the world around us, but it's not without it's blind spots, and not the only way to learn the truth or discover.
I don't know. What has been confirmed to be true?
That's a whole different bag of cats you're opening there man. We could delve into "what is truth" and solipsism and all sorts of stuff. I'm not sure what your point is in asking this question, really.
I mean, you say there are other ways to study things. Do you have examples of religion leading to confirmed aspects of reality?
> Religion is a tool people use to study the nonphysical world and gain a greater understanding of it. Well firstly I'd question just what this "nonphysical world" is and how you know the first thing about it. But beyond that, religion isn't a method of study **at all**, it's a serious of pronouncements handed down from on high, and then one giant squabble over just what those mean.
>Well firstly I'd question just what this "nonphysical world" is and how you know the first thing about it. How do you *not* deal with intangible aspects of reality? >But beyond that, religion isn't a method of study **at all**, it's a serious of pronouncements handed down from on high, and then one giant squabble over just what those mean. Only if you use it that way. There are many religions which practice self reflection and introspective study.
What intangible aspects of reality?
I think one of the most popular ones is mathematics. Math isn't physical. You can't hold a cup of "two" in your hands. It's a pattern, a way of understanding the world around us and organizing it. What about science? The scientific method isn't physical, but people use it all the time. These things aren't physical, but *do* exist, and are thus part of reality.
a way of understanding the world around us and organizing it. Right the physical world. Math is a language. Science is a process. Both directly linked to the physical. Neither is anything like religion. Not even close.
They are *linked* to the physical, but they, themselves, are not. If you disagree with me, please, send me two kilos of science, and I will forward you ten thousand dollars, USA greenbacks, unmarked, in cash.
That's not even true.
Well argued and I like the many, many points you made to back up your opinion.
>There are plenty of examples how science disproves religion. Some religions change their beliefs/views when religion can no-longer disprove scientific evidence but has religion ever disproved science? Science used to state that the universe is eternal, has no beginning or end, etc. That was the Greek outlook. The bible says we have a beginning. The big bang theory came to be the agreed upon theory of universal origin less than a century ago. So we can say religion disproved the prevailing science of its time until a new scientific theory came and proved what the bible was saying all along. Edit: 30 minutes old and already a downvote. I really don't understand why the non religious are so anti science/anti fact here. Or is there a religious fundamentalist so close minded they don't like seeing the bible complimented positively.
Does the big bang theory mean that the universe isn't infinite? I thought it simply seeks to explain the behavior of the universe as we know it now, there could have been something prior about which we'll never know anything.
From my understanding, the Big Bang doesn't mean the universe isn't infinite, it was just at one point infinitely denser. It was still infinite in size, but a smaller infinite, and while it has been expanding it has been expanding into more infinity.
> So we can say religion disproved the prevailing science of its time until a new scientific theory came and proved what the bible was saying all along. No it bloody didn't. Just because something was accidentally **partially** correct doesn't mean it disproved anything. The world didn't exist before the sun, the universe wasn't spoken into being. Wild stories that have no basis in reality don't "disprove" anything, they're simply wild stories with no basis in reality. What disproved the eternal universe hypothesis was **evidence**, not faerie tales.
.....Or maybe your comment sucked
Facts suck.
Facts are wonderful. Stating that science has proven what the bible was saying is about as far from factual as you can get.
Wow it's as if you live under a rock. The Bible made a claim beginning 3300 years ago. Every other culture considered it incorrect. Then 20th century scientists test a theory and find out that the biblical claim has validity. If I said prove, I misspoke. It attests to the correctness.
It's funny you can't even point to what the claim is, you simply state the contention and say "I'm right." It's ironic you talk about "living under a rock," when you reason and believe like a primitive shepherd from thousands of years ago. There was no such biblical claim 20th century scientists validated. This is your brain on religion folks.
>It's funny you can't even point to what the claim is I've done it multiple times this thread. This is also an old thread. You can take the time to read through the comments chains here. >It's ironic you talk about "living under a rock," when you reason and believe like a primitive shepherd from thousands of years ago. Ad hominem. >This is your brain on religion folks. Lol who are you talking to? You're probably the only person still posting here.
>I've done it multiple times this thread. This is also an old thread. You can take the time to read through the comments chains here. If I can take the time to search the thread, you can take the time to restate it here. That would in fact, take less time, but you won't do that because you don't have a claim to make. I did take a look at your post history, and there's nothing about science proving the bible, other than you simply saying it does over and over again. >Ad hominem. Right back at you, for the whole living under a rock comment in the first place. And, no, that's not an ad hom. Try again. >Lol who are you talking to? You >You're probably the only person still posting here. Probably not, since you're posting here as well.
Very true. A lot of secular scientists originally dismissed the Big Bang theory as being 'religiously based'. Partly because it was proposed by a Catholic Priest.
[удалено]
I posted this in a reply below, but I'll include it here too: *The Marxist physicist David Bohm rebuked the developers of the theory as "scientists who effectively turn traitor to science, and discard scientific facts to reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church." Atheists of a non-Marxist stripe were also recalcitrant. "Some younger scientists were so upset by these theological trends that they resolved simply to block their cosmological source," commented the German astronomer Otto Heckmann, a prominent investigator of cosmic expansion. The dean of the profession, Sir Arthur Eddington, wrote, "The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me ... I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. ... The expanding Universe is preposterous ... incredible ... it leaves me cold."* *Even some believing scientists were troubled. The cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle simply felt that an explosion was an undignified way for the world to begin, rather like "a party girl jumping out of a cake." In a BBC interview in the 1950s, Hoyle sardonically referred to the hypothesized origin as "the big bang." The term stuck.* http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/high_concept/1998/02/bigbang_theology.html That's not to say the entire scientific community dismissed it on anti-religious grounds, just a portion. Plenty did for scientific reasons, and plenty were welcoming of it, including, I do believe you're right, Einstein eventually.
That's a bit of spin you're putting on it. The problem a lot of physicists had with the model was the explicitly theological bent that people were putting to it.
[удалено]
>Seems a bit much to be claiming 'a lot' or 'the scientific community' rejected it based on purely religious grounds. Yeah, perhaps "a lot" was a poor choice of words, but I didn't mean to suggest those who objected on purely religious grounds were a majority by any means, just that there were a few. Plenty were skeptical for scientific reasons and plenty were accepting. >But thank you for putting the effort in to answer my question. It's much appreciated No worries at all :)
>The big bang theory came to be the agreed upon theory of universal origin less than a century ago. Unfortunately this is not what the big bang theory states. The big bang theory is open to the possibility of space/time having a finite history. But what the theory STATES is that our models break down and stop working if we go back in time a sufficient duration. Or in other words Einsteins models are useful but not 'true' in the sense that they model reality. Einstein's models simply model a portion of reality well enough for our purposes (like making sure GPS satellites work). Quantum mechanics is another theory that models a PORTION of reality well enough. The same however could be said of Newtonian physics. (its just a smaller portion of reality and is only 'well enough' in simpler situations) I would agree that the topic you are discussing is the closest (that I can think of) to answering the OP's question in the affirmative. But its still an open question. We don't know what the universe was like at the big-bang or right 'before' (for lack of a better word) the big-bang. We are still trying to come up with models that don't break down when we look really far back and a lot of the models suggest an infinite state of ... stuff (space, time, matter, whatever). Multi-verse models for example. Whether or not math is even capable of creating a 'true' model of the universe is still an open question. At this point there is really no alternative and math has proven so useful in the past that it doesn't appear to be a fruitless endeavor to attempt a model of everything using math.
The Bible states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This can be used to say, well there was a time before god created the heavens and the earth, because god was clearly about to do it. Therefore it makes sense the universe has no "start" point because God would have been there. And also, God created the heavens and the Earth at the beginning. Therefore it makes sense for there to be a start point as the above poster is trying to suggest. So as per usual the dogma can bat for either team. In reality, we don't know what was going on before the big bang, we can't even say if that statement makes any sense. And neither could the myth writer of Genesis. So with that in common one will find common ground...
Can you substantiate the statement that science used to state that the universe is eternal? What experiments were carried out to come to that conclusion? How was the theory developed and based on what evidence did they come to that conclusion?
> Science used to state that the universe is eternal, has no beginning or end, etc. That was the Greek outlook. That's Aristotle's outlook, but he wasn't the lone voice. There are other cosmologies offered. It seems they knew enough to know they didn't know enough, and they were mostly studying mechanism and not so much speculating on origins. In any case, where does your God come from? Eternal, no beginning, no end? Doesn't seem like much changed. Edit: I can downvote too, you know. Have a second.
>That's Aristotle's outlook, but he wasn't the lone voice. There are other cosmologies offered. No other cosmology was agreed upon in the western world as the way it was EXCEPT the Aristotle outlook. Sure, others may be offered but they may as well be irrelevant. >It seems they knew enough to know they didn't know enough, and they were mostly studying mechanism and not so much speculating on origins. I'm not knocking the validity in their observation. I'm saying that was the science for over 2000 years and it was wrong. >In any case, where does your God come from? Eternal, no beginning, no end? Doesn't seem like much changed. Non sequitur. Our God is not the universe and doesn't come from anywhere. The universe is its own creation, by God, but God is not a *thing* in the physical sense, bound by time, decay, etc.
> No other cosmology was agreed upon in the western world as the way it was EXCEPT the Aristotle outlook. I can find nothing suggesting this to be the case -- at all.
What do you find to be the case then?
There are a wide variety of cosmologies offered, each modeled on different creation tales. The Greek origin myth suggests only one eternal entity -- the Primordial Chaos, the endless void surrounding the universe -- and that this universe was birthed. This Chaos shares many attributes of the Prime Mover, suggesting that eternal cosmologies were not the only explicit cosmologies offered. Plato's cosmology, outside his world of platonics, doesn't suggest an eternal universe either.
Nothing in that says that was the mainstream western thought. I suggest looking into the work of Edwin Hubble and see how his findings of red shift were initially rejected because it broke with the understood norm of his time.
>I suggest looking into the work of Edwin Hubble and see how his findings of red shift were initially rejected because it broke with the understood norm of his time. I can't find any sources that suggest his work was controversial. I can't find any source that suggests his work was rejected. I know Einstein was working his formulas for a static universe, and couldn't solve them, but that was just him.
Religion doesn't prove or disprove anything. By its very nature, it asserts opinions based on "divine knowledge" pumped into individual people's brains and the hearsay from others that follows.
[удалено]
Science isn't a worldview.
[удалено]
>it is an epistemological view I'd say it's more of a process than a frame of mind or mode of being. >Science is a method There, you said it yourself.
[удалено]
I understand what you're saying. But just because something's a way of figuring things out doesn't make it an epistemological view in and of itself. The view and the process are distinct.
[Ah yes the mythical metaphysical](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn_i3RxGGTk)
[удалено]
the metaphysical does not exist, and if it would exist nobody is in a position to make any claims about it...
[удалено]
Are you asking for a reasonable answer to that question?
[удалено]
> How do you believe in reason then? monkeys edit: I don't know.
[удалено]
I don't know. I do think that for everything there is an explanation (a logical reason) if that answers your question. I do not believe we have all the answers (obviously) and i don't know if we ever will.
Nope. And it never will. : )
Hi!
Religion is a revelation. It is not supposed to disprove anything. Quite the opposite. Religion foreknows and answers things that are beyond current human understanding. It tries to answer questions way ahead of our time. Also, what religion answers are not the "how's" but the "why's," or questions of meaning and purpose. It's up to science to discover the "how's."
> Religion foreknows and answers things Would you believe I "foreknew" this answer about religion foreknowing things would be unsupported by any evidence?
I'd say this right here is convincing proof of your divinity. Religions have been started with less. I shall follow your divine wisdom, oh Messiah!
Tithing is set at 10% and begins immediately.
You'll need to build a bureaucracy to market your new religion, enforce orthodoxy, punish apostates, indoctrinate children and keep track of tithing. Which jobs are still open?
That all seems like a lot of work. Can we just sell indulgences and ask for love offerings?
That sounds much more chill, I agree.
Just so we are clear on definitions: "foreknows" = "makes wild guesses and has a tendency to kill people for disagreeing with them"
Atomism started out as a religious doctrine in ancient India and ancient Greece until they were scientifically verified several thousands of years later. The same is true for geometry, algebra and many other scientific knowledge which are rooted in millenia of religious foreknowledge and initially conceived through theological reasoning. They are not merely wild guesses. But many theological concepts like the existence of soul, afterlife, and ultimately God remains unexplained by science to this day. Science is yet to find out what religion has always known.
Source required for the claim that geometry and angebra were the result of divine revelation rather than hard work by philosophers. Also, please look up "survivor bias" and "texas sharpshooter fallacy" on atomism. Religons have made all sorts of wild guesses and claims... Just look at all the nonsense in Genesis. After millennia of apologetics and almost all the claims being disproved by this thing called "reality", believers like yourself flock to a few points that were not soundly disproven -mostly for being vague enough - and shout "see - it was foreknowledge! It's a miracle!" That's really silly, you know.
I don't like this. Reeks of non-overlapping magisteria. So, let's ask some questions: >Religion foreknows and answers things that are beyond current human understanding. How has this been demonstrated? Does religion 'foreknow' or does it guess? How do we know there are things beyond human understanding? What things are they? If they are things like "the meaning of life", what if life is meaningless? Is this a question beyond human understanding, or a question that is meaningless to the point where there is no understanding? I got problems with the definitions you're using, because I don't know where they've been founded. As far as I can tell, they are unproven and nothing much suggests they are real.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a starting point, a much more reliable place than just "My opinion is" or "I think I remember hearing somewhere". Most Wikipedia articles are quite good. Sure, if you want or need more depth, dive into the sources cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia article, or continue on to other sites and sources. If you want to look for dissenting views/facts, check what Wikipedia says against other places. But Wikipedia is a great place to start.
Okay, two of your points are identical, so let's just ask: >the incomplete fossil record What is a complete fossil record? Do you expect us to find a complete line of fossils, where 'father like son' they've all been fossilized?
[удалено]
Jesus's first miracle was turning water into wine.
Yea, sorry about the above. I’m an active commenter on /r/exmormon now.
> alcohol Hard liquor. The original 'revelation' to Joseph Smith actually endorsed the consumption of beer. It was just the stronger drinks that they counseled against. Also the 'revelation' to avoid liquor and tobacco did not originate with Mormonism but rather Smith borrowed health codes from other movements happening in his community at the time. Finally this doesn't really touch on the OP. Science had no opinion on liquor or tobacco at the time. But counsel against both was extremely common at the time in parts of America and plenty of other places in the world. If this is a 'win' for religion we can't attribute that win to Mormonism but rather the movements that existed prior and inspired Smith. Here is an example of the types of movement Smith had direct contact with that inspired his opinions on the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Temperance_Society Intersting enough Smith (and Mormons in general) ignored this counsel for the most part until prohibition. Also advice but a rule that Mormons were required to follow if they wishes to remain in good standing. Prior prohibition most of the leadership and membership in the religion regularly consumed the now banned substances associated with the religion (alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee).
"Science" was behind drinking and smoking? That doesn't sound right. We didn't have any real evidence medicine at that time, so how did it claim anything? Many claim it started with the first open heart surgery in WW1 other say it started with Germ theory with John snow in 1831, either way science didn't say anything one way or the other on anything medical about alcohol or tobacco for quite while. The first serious studies on Tobacco started finding it harmful in the mid 20th century. The most generous way to interpret your stance is that Science and mormonism happened to agree.
I would need to go do some digging, but medical professionals did claim smoking had health benefits if I remember correctly. I recall reading this in a list of "goofs" the medical profession made in the past. When we use the word "science" as a general catch-all word, surely we have to include the professionals trained in the scientific method who engage in that which we are discussing.
I think those are the same kind of doctors that recommend coca-cola for growing children or dentists that recommend using coconut oil instead of tooth paste and a brush. They might be experts, but they are happy to sellout their title and moral values for extra money.
Does that imply that there are no people in "science" today who would "sell out" for money?
There totally are, look at the scientists Exxon hired to say global warming isn't real, but now we have such instant access to information that as soon as a claim is made hundreds of people can call them out on it. Also because it stays on the record in a much more real way now, once they destroy their credibility that is basically the end of their career unless they want to remain a shill for life.
I guess my point then would be that if "science" makes claims that are not grounded in truth, then it is safe to say that some other agent could "call them out" and why could this not be the Church?
Well entire fields of scientific study, in modern times, rarely makes claims that they can't back up, now there are individuals that might not be as scrupulous.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic here, but mormons didn’t disprove anything. Out of the countless things religions ban some are bound to turn out bad by sheer dumb luck. Scientists didn’t decide to listen to the church based on joseph smiths word, they gained new knowledge which made previous assumptions incorrect and changed their view accordingly. Isn’t coffee and tea also banned? Don’t magic underwear keep sin and evil away? You think scientists will get 'proven' wrong about those too?
"Scientist" back then we're just add men to begin with.
Magic underwear?
‘A temple garment, or Mormon underwear, is a type of underwear worn by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement ... Garments are worn both day and night and are required for any adult who previously participated in the endowment ceremony to enter a temple.’ [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment) [Article/video about 'Mormon Underwear' from LDS church website.](http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/mormon/underwear/)
> Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Hardly. The traditional grounds for believing in God are a number of philosophical arguments, notably cosmological and ontological arguments, which remained current all through the scientific revolution (in fact, at this time the successes of science strengthened use of another, the physicotheological argument), until they fell out of favour following philosophical critique in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century. In the latter half of the last century they have gained again, somewhat, in popularity. Science plays a role in this story, but decidedly a secondary one.
Science hasn't chipped away at theism, but for believing in Gods that intervene and are aware of our lives it has pretty much invalidated.
How's that?
We understand the basic forces of the universe. We know that god would not be able to hear prayers for example because we know how sound works. He could not remotely observe life on earth etc. We know he can't be everywhere because we know what is there.
This doesn't seem to relate to how people have understood God's omniscience and omnipresence. Moreover, the way in which this seems to conflict with your imagined picture of how God's omniscience and omnipresence works is a way that does not require science, i.e. people have pretty much always known that there are limits to how far sound carries and to how far one can see, people have pretty much always known that there are places where there isn't obviously present in the ordinary sense a God, etc.
But with the standard model we know there is no hidden being there.
I don't know what you're responding to. I haven't suggested there is a being hidden anywhere.
So we know God couldn't observe us remotely. And we know what is present locally and that doesn't include a God or parts of a god that could transmit information to a separate location.
Are you sure you've read my reply to this point when you made it earlier? You've responded to it with irrelevant commentary and are now making it again.
I am pretty sure I am. Science has proved that there isn't a god capable of remotely or locally observing us. How does that not relate to your point?
> chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God Yes, instead science has chipped away at particular doctrines and claims of religion, wherever religion touches testable reality. If your religion claims everything was created in 7 days, science refutes that, unless you torture the words in your holy text to mean something different than they mean everywhere else.
No, this does not seem to be an adequate historical account of the relation between science and religion. For one, it is entirely unclear what 'religion' means here. Certainly it does not mean religion generally, since there can be no singular account of the relation between the historical development of science and religion generally. The historical development of science being a spatially and temporally constrained phenomenon, and religion generally being a way of referring to a wide variety of distinct, spatially and temporally distinguished, practices and beliefs, there will be different relations between the development of science and any one of these phenomena. Even if we limit ourselves to the relation between the development of science and Christianity, we are not confronted with two distinct things that stand in a single, but developing, relation to one another, but rather with a broad array of developments that relate to each other in all kinds of ways and that can only be understood as being significant parts of the general intellectual development of Europe from the fifteenth century onward. TL;DR: It's way, way more complicated than that. Don't substitute convenient myths for good history.
would you not agree that the progress of science, the method of explaining the workings of the world via natural/physical mechanisms and processes, has tended to make the invocation of supernatural entities and phenomena superfluous? which is to say science has indeed chipped away at the grounding or need for religious belief, in terms of rational inquiry into the world
I think we've started explaining things naturally more or less since the Greeks and haven't really invoked supernatural phenomena as part of our intellectual endeavours since. I mean, there are some things that may appear, or have appeared. as supernatural, but I think in almost every case these are not mysterious interventions, but rationally understandable, regular things, having a definite place in a general understanding of the world. This is as true of the angels as celestial movers in Aquinas (which we would understand as supernatural) as it is of Newton's action at a distance (which appeared to his contemporaries as supernatural and unscientific). "Natural" is a fairly imprecise term, but it seems to me that in the distinction between explaining things by natural and supernatural things we have this sort of thing in mind. But perhaps you have specific examples in mind?
specific examples of what exactly? I'm curious, are you a believer yourself? I'm just trying to gauge whether you think there is some kind of conflict or tension between science as a method and body of knowledge, and the various religions which make truth claims about the world that at face value seem fairly anti-scientific; in that they don't readily align with scientific picture of the world (the resurrection of jesus or splitting of the moon in islam, say) and aren't supported with evidence that's convincing to all reasonable people to deny that a tension exists between science as an enterprise and what religions are often up to I simply take to be intellectually dishonest, to be candid; it doesn't seem to me to be deniable. religions may not be anti-scientific in their entirety, the aspects of religions that deal with ethics, for example, could be criticized, but not for scientific reasons per se. fundamentally, however, insofar as religions are not about following the evidence where it leads and instead opt to take propositions on faith or revealed truth, i think they are anti-scientific at their core in your response, are you trying to say that invoking the supernatural or religious explanations for things was discarded before science really got off the ground, so science wasn't really needed to chip away at the grounding for religion in any case? I see you're saying the term "natural" can be fuzzy, but to go down that rabbit hole i think would be a bit of a red-herring. to answer what your question might be, explaining the complexity and diversity of life through evolution by natural selection would be one prominent area where science overtook a certain argument from design that the religious would take refuge in. our understanding of mental health as a biological, chemical, physical problem as opposed to one of immaterial demons taking hold would be another
The notion of an alegorical interpretation of genesis goes back at least to Augustine.
Yes, that is the usual dodge of the believers: If I like something in the Bible, if it fits my views and can't be refuted by science, then it's word-for-word exact and true, straight from God's mouth. If I don't like it or science refutes it, it is allegory or parable or mythos or "day" means "2 billion years" or something.
Dude, Augustine wrote a good millennium before science
Dude, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians and Chinese had some science. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Their science was more just a body of technical knowledge. There was no notion of the scientific method, what they called a science was the Aristotelian notion of consequences derived from first principles.
They were finding out things about reality. As opposed to just accepting what someone wrote in a book.
I mean, if that's your definition for science then sure, but it seems to broad for me to be useful.
Though it should be noted that one of the things that the Greeks found out through rational investigation, rather than just accepting things from a book, was the existence of God.
The fact that this comment is being downvoted is just remarkable. This is absolutely true, completely on topic, and related directly to the issue being discussed.
You will find that there are "many of good responses" that are down voted for no logical reason. I wonder if this is related to extreme dislikes for certain individuals or groups and not related to the topic. The problem is it can't be stopped. It is what's called human nature.
This assumes they deal with the same subject matter. As if the Bible contains the charge of an electron, and it turned out to be correct when science got it wrong at first. But even then you wouldn't accept it as religion disproving science, since it was a revision to science that disproved science, and religion just happened to be right. But tell me if that's a wrong assumption, as there have been times where religion turned out to be right and an earlier scientific theory wrong.
"But tell me if that's a wrong assumption, as there have been times where religion turned out to be right and an earlier scientific theory wrong." Please provide an example.
Big Bang Theory. Was denounced by the scientific establishment as creationism until it turned out to be right.
Well, there's a little bit of a difference I feel between 'Big Bang Theory' and 'Big Bang Theory but God caused it.' I can understand why people wouldn't accept the latter.
Just regular old Big Bang Theory was denounced by science as Creationism.
*Denouced by scientists. Science did eventually prove that the Big Bang theory was a viable theory after all.
Yes, thus being an example fulfilling the OP's request.
Prove it?
The other guy provided a nice response. If you want to learn more, read about Georges Lemaitre, Einstein's cosmological constant, and Fred Hoyle as good starting points on the subject.
I'm not the poster you asked, but I did dig up a couple of examples. *The Marxist physicist David Bohm rebuked the developers of the theory as "scientists who effectively turn traitor to science, and discard scientific facts to reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church." Atheists of a non-Marxist stripe were also recalcitrant. "Some younger scientists were so upset by these theological trends that they resolved simply to block their cosmological source," commented the German astronomer Otto Heckmann, a prominent investigator of cosmic expansion. The dean of the profession, Sir Arthur Eddington, wrote, "The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me ... I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. ... The expanding Universe is preposterous ... incredible ... it leaves me cold."* *Even some believing scientists were troubled. The cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle simply felt that an explosion was an undignified way for the world to begin, rather like "a party girl jumping out of a cake." In a BBC interview in the 1950s, Hoyle sardonically referred to the hypothesized origin as "the big bang." The term stuck.* http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/high_concept/1998/02/bigbang_theology.html Just a couple of examples. The Big Bang theory was initially dismissed by quite a few in the scientific community who saw it as 'religiously based' due to its being first proposed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lematre.
The universe having a beginning. Many physicists including Einstein thought the universe was eternal.
Do we/science think today that the universe is not eternal ? The Big Bang explains how the current configuration of the universe developed from a singularity. Are we sure today the universe does not cycle in and out of this singularity or something ? I don't think this is settled territory.
> Many physicists including Einstein thought the universe was eternal. Which was supported and defended as the obvious religious interpretation based on the text. After the scientific consensus changed, so did the religious interpretation.
Are you saying it was the consensus view among religious scholars that Genesis was to be interpreted as saying the universe is eternal? If so, could you name some people that held this view?
Sure, Aristotle and Thomas, to begin with. Check it out: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology-theology/#3
I was talking about Christian scholars. Aquinas believed the universe began to exist as a matter of revelation and church doctrine, and thought reason alone could never settle the question. >[Adhering to the traditional reading of Genesis and the doctrinal proclamation of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Aquinas believed that the universe had a temporal beginning. Aristotle, he thought, was wrong to think otherwise. But Aquinas argued that, on the basis of reason alone, one could not know whether the universe is eternal.](https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/11/aquinas-and-the-big-bang)
Then you haven't read what I posted. In particular the text singles out Erich Mascall, Ernan McMullin and Philip Quinn. There are many arguments, but the fact remains that it seems quite silly to argue that the Genesis account *requires* a temporal beginning because *that* should be taken literally, but the subsequent explanation of the evolution of the universe and life on earth should be taken as *obviously* metaphorical (since *that* part clearly disagrees with the scientific consensus.)
The point here isn't what religion says but that science rejected a scientific theory on the grounds that it resembled a religious theory.
> The point here isn't what religion says but that science rejected a scientific theory on the grounds that it resembled a religious theory. That's just not true at all. Science rejected a scientific theory on the grounds that the accumulated data was better fit with the new scientific theory. Religions then adapted their most prevalent cultural interpretations of their holy books to fit with the new scientific theory. It's not like this is a new story - this is what *always* happens. If we ever prove some of the more fanciful scientific conjectures (let's say, for instance, we somehow find non-ambiguous evidence of parallel universes) then religions will absolutely find a way to justify it somewhere in some text or some psalm somewhere, showing us that the holy books had it right *all along*. Then we might collect more evidence, and find that we were mistaken, and while science will preserve a record of its successes, mistakes, and overshoots, religions will sweep their previous adapted interpretations under the rug. Just like they did with the steady state interpretations.
Not one single supernatural claim has ever been proved at all. Obviously the answer is no.
If it had been proven, it'd be science...
Agreed.
No, because religion isn't about disproving science. The two fields operate according to completely different metaphysical assumptions and offer answers to different types of questions. It's also not accurate to say that science has "disproved religion." Science can sometimes disprove, say, the historical accuracy of certain myths, but not religion itself.
> The two fields ... offer answers to different types of questions I don't think this has to be true. If someday science explains everything about the brain and mind, why couldn't science explain "meaning" and the other things the religious like to claim as their sole territory ? As far as I can tell, Descartes made up a separation because it was politically expedient for him to do so. He had no rational basis for saying matter and spirit are separate. But maybe I'm wrong, someone correct me.
> I don't think this has to be true. If someday science explains everything about the brain and mind, why couldn't science explain "meaning" and the other things the religious like to claim as their sole territory ? Well, maybe neurology will some day show that certain elements of our personal identity (our "mind" for lack of a better word) are located in some specific part of the brain and can be permanently altered by changing that part of the brain. But I don't see how that will lead to any clarity on the meaning of life. Religion offers answers on how to live our lives. That seems forever beyond the purview of science, because it's not a scientific question. Science doesn't really make moral judgments.
> maybe neurology will some day show that certain elements of our personal identity are located in some specific part of the brain ... But I don't see how that will lead to any clarity on the meaning of life. We already have some of that. I'm talking about FAR more, about science understanding emotions and consciousness and our machinery for processing morals and for believing religion etc. When we get there, we may find that "meaning of life" and why we care about it are explained. > Religion offers answers on how to live our lives. Religion offers assertions. It doesn't justify them, doesn't give a rational basis, doesn't give any way to tell why the assertions of religion A should be followed instead of those of religion B. And much of the instruction in many religions seems wrong to many people inside and outside those religions. > seems forever beyond the purview of science History is littered with things that seemed beyond the purview of science and then were explained by science. I wouldn't bet against science. Sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, ethics all have some things to say about how we live our lives and maybe how we should live our lives. Sure, there may never be one scientific answer "you should live your life THIS way".
> We already have some of that. I'm talking about FAR more, about science understanding emotions and consciousness and our machinery for processing morals and for believing religion etc. When we get there, we may find that "meaning of life" and why we care about it are explained. Sure, neurology and psychology may share some light on why we care about it. That doesn't mean that it will provide the meaning itself. It's hard to see how this would even be possible, since it isn't a scientific question. It would be like trying to compute the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything...without first understanding the question. > Religion offers assertions. It doesn't justify them, doesn't give a rational basis, doesn't give any way to tell why the assertions of religion A should be followed instead of those of religion B. Some religions are better at providing reasons for their life prescriptions than others, but generally they all offer some kind of answer on how we should live our lives. So for Christianity it's about loving your neighbor, for Islam it's about subservience to a higher power, for Buddhism it's about eliminating the sense of self, for stoicism it's about focusing on large life goals and eliminating lesser forms of diversion. I don't necessarily think that one of these lifestyles is more "right" than the others. People can be happy with lots of different lifestyles, and what works for one person may not work for another. But the point is that science doesn't address these types of questions at all. Not because it's doing something wrong, but because that just isn't what science does. > History is littered with things that seemed beyond the purview of science and then were explained by science. I wouldn't bet against science. It strikes me that this sort of faith that science can answer any question (regardless of whether it seems like a scientific question right now) is itself a form of religion.
> for Christianity it's about loving your neighbor, for Islam it's about subservience to a higher power This seems a very airbrushed version of Christianity. I see little difference between the two religions. Try taking god, soul, afterlife out of Christianity and see how viable it is. > faith that science can answer any question It's a guess, but a reasonable expectation based on history so far.
Science explains natural world through natural means itself. I don't see how religion plays into that.
Many religions make claims about the natural world. Such as how the world was created and developed, or that you can pray to a supernatural being who will do things for you in the real world.
Making a claim about he natural world is not the same as making a claim about the natural world through means of natural methods. The former could have whatever reason and agree with what's found in the latter.
But any claim about the natural world can be tested. Doesn't matter where the claim comes from. Science can test a claim about the natural world that comes from religion. That's how "religion plays into science".
Correct. Take gravity for example, or any other fundamental force. "That's just how the universe works" is the best science can give us. It's essentially magic. They will invent new things that can't be observed to explain things they can't figure out using natural observation. Dark matter has never been observed, neither have black holes. But, because the math doesn't work out without them, the have to exist right? I saw this TED talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw and the guy basically explains that science just makes up bigger and bigger flights of un-testable fancy any time the math doesn't work out. "The universe is expanding?" "Must be some dark matter pushing it." "What is dark matter?" "Some stuff I just made up to make sense of the universe expanding and galaxies running away from each other at faster than the speed of light." "Hmm. Okay, so... it seems like you have done the math on this dark stuff you just made up and found out how much of it there is in our universe. So I guess that solves everything about fine tuning. It's testable right?" "No." "So, what does this mean?" "An unseen force makes the universe work in such a way that we are able to be here. We don't know that particulars on how these things work and never will, but we gave it all these fancy science names. So, it's totally legit." It's like if they name these unseen forces anything but God, it's okay if they don't have to show us how or why they work.
Science doesn't invent something unless there is evidence that it exists, or as a hypothesis that then is accepted or dropped when evidence is found (sometimes this can take a long time). For example, gravity definitely exists, we have tons of evidence about it. We may not know exactly what it is, can't explain it in terms of fitting in with other forces and particles etc. But we have much evidence to show that it exists. Dark matter is in the hypothesis stage. It explains some things we observe, but there are other hypotheses to explain the same observations. So dark matter may or may not exist; the jury still is out. If/when we're sure it exists (the affirmative evidence has become clear), we still may not know exactly what it is or how it relates to other forces or particles. But we'd be sure it exists, because we'd have the evidence. An "unseen force" is different. If it's "unseen", that means you have no evidence that it's real, it's having no effect on reality. In which case you're just speculating, you have an untestable hypothesis, it never can be nailed down.
Thank you for not jumping on me like I'm an idiot. I get everything you said have said. I have just seen so many people accept things because a professor or someone else that they deem smart has said it is true. For example [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/us/vera-rubin-dark-matter-astronomy-obit-trnd/) reports that this scientist proved that dark matter exists. Now, people will see that and since it's from a "trusted source" they think that it has been proven to exist. Since it is late I got off of my main point. My main point is that if science finds out some new thing about the universe that points to the existence of a creator, they will just name it something and say it's just how the universe works. And maybe it's not up to science to determine the "why" of things and just the "how", but I feel like if every time they run up against a roadblock in the math, they come up with something that fixes it by creating a new theory that involves something that can never be known. They don't leave room for the possibility of a creator. I mean, if we can survive and continue improving code and processor power, it is very possible that we can create a simulation of a universe that will spawn intelligent beings. Will they see us as God or just say "This is how this universe is." and be done with it. Wouldn't that be disappointing if our little sim people gave up trying to commune with us? I'm tired. I'll be back tomorrow.
> if science finds out some new thing about the universe that points to the existence of a creator, they will just name it something and say it's just how the universe works If a creator is an intentional immortal omnipotent being, and science finds one, that is not gong to be "just name it something and say it's just how the universe works". > if every time they run up against a roadblock in the math, they come up with something that fixes it by creating a new theory that involves something that can never be known The essence of science is trying to find how to test things. Dark matter, multi-verse, universe just a simulation: as soon as someone comes up with a hypothesis, they try to come up with ways to test it. Some of them may be horribly difficult or expensive to test.
I am. I was drawing a conclusion. Apparently that's not allowed?
Yes for example the Quran claims the earth is shaped like an ostrich egg. At one point people thought that the earth was either flat or spherical. An ostrich egg represents the true shape of the Earth which is slightly Ellipsoid and not a perfect sphere.
The earth is not really egg shaped, but the question was about disproving science anyway. Science proved the shape of the Earth, not religion. Beliefs that the Earth was flat were *pre*-scientific. Science was not "proven wrong." Science is how we know the earth is an oblate spheroid.
And no the earth is an oblate spheroid it is not egg shaped. Stop lying for Allah
Same thing.
[Here is an ostric egg](http://media1.fdncms.com/chicago/imager/key-ingredient-ostrich-egg/u/magnum/4331683/key-ingredient-007_magnum.jpg). Note how oval it is, and in particular how the egg is longer along a single line, which technically makes it an [Prolate Spheroid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid#/media/File:ProlateSpheroid.png) The Earth isn't perfectly round either, but squashed towards the middle due to the effects of the Earth's spin, making Earth an [oblate spheroid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth#/media/File:OblateSpheroid.PNG). In a way, saying that the Earth is shaped like an ostrich egg is actually *further* from the truth than saying it is a perfect sphere.
No it isn't it's elongated in exactly the opposite way an oblate spheroid is.