Science vs religion

[Baruch]

Examples of what you were referring to-- the claim that scientific discovery supports faith in God.

Scientists being human, may or may not support faith in G-d.  Galileo and Newton did.  But unlike posters here, they weren't BLM aka highly trained Marxists.

[aitm]

OK sober note. That's what it feels like when people say this is stupid that is stupid for everything they don't like. That's how your response sounds like, not mine. Are you projecting or was that the easiest answer to come to mind as a one liner? 

It’s a simple reminder that we are still an atheist forum, we have been insulting and bashing religionists for my 14 odd years here but suddenly you’re on a high horse trying to suggest you are now the protector of civility. I was going to say, “get off your pony” but the metaphor may have confused you. 😘

[drunkenshoe]

It’s a simple reminder that we are still an atheist forum, we have been insulting and bashing religionists for my 14 odd years here but suddenly you’re on a high horse trying to suggest you are now the protector of civility. I was going to say, “get off your pony” but the metaphor may have confused you. 😘

Then you completely misunderstand me. I'm not being 'moral' or 'good', I'm being curious. 'Stupidity' is not a good answer for religious people because human behaviour is too complex. It's actually a stupid answer itself. It's like religous people calling anything they don't like 'evil' without even trying to understand it. Think how stupid that sounds.   

It's not sudden. I have said this exact thing many times before in years. We actually had this very conversation before because you write that very often. LOL :*

[aitm]

Yes human behavior is complex. Stupid it still stupid even if you put it on a float and call it a parade.

[Mike Cl]

Then you completely misunderstand me. I'm not being 'moral' or 'good', I'm being curious. 'Stupidity' is not a good answer for religious people because human behaviour is too complex. It's actually a stupid answer itself. It's like religous people calling anything they don't like 'evil' without even trying to understand it. Think how stupid that sounds.   

It's not sudden. I have said this exact thing many times before in years. We actually had this very conversation before because you write that very often. LOL :*

I use the word 'stupid' as defined by me.  To me, stupid means unable to learn.  Ignorant means without that particular set of facts, but willing to learn them when possible.  So, the religious are both ignorant (they are unaware of some information) and stupid, because even if aware of certain facts, they won't accept those facts and simply rely on their beliefs/faith.  The religious leaders are not stupid, they are much like trump in that they know what they are doing and why--fleecing the flock. 

[SGOS]

Examples of what you were referring to-- the claim that scientific discovery supports faith in God.

Must we assume that?

P1) atoms exist
P2) atoms are held together by - you guessed it - atomic forces
C) God?

Planck knew nothing of the strong or weak nuclear forces, so he used an argument from ignorance.

Science will never support the existence of a god because it cannot.  It does not deny a god, just as it does not support one.  Many scientists believe in a god, but that is not the same thing as "scientific discovery supports faith in God."  Planck took science as far as he could, until he ran into a problem that he could not explain, and there he drops any further scientific inquiry, and fills the gap with a god.  This is not a transition between science and god.  It's a lapse in logic that satisfies the believer.

I would ask Planck how his reasoning proves the existence of a god.  Any answer he came up with would be just another time worn apologetic.  There's no bridge there.  It's just a simple non sequitur.

[Baruch]

I use the word 'stupid' as defined by me.  To me, stupid means unable to learn.  Ignorant means without that particular set of facts, but willing to learn them when possible.  So, the religious are both ignorant (they are unaware of some information) and stupid, because even if aware of certain facts, they won't accept those facts and simply rely on their beliefs/faith.  The religious leaders are not stupid, they are much like trump in that they know what they are doing and why--fleecing the flock.

Ignorant -> Stupid -> Foolish .. not the same words ... different meanings.

Ignorant = lacking in knowledge (most people)
Stupid = unable to process knowledge (some people)
Foolish = not wise (everyone)



Look who is Humpty-Dumpty now ;-)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

So you are The Master?  Good thing Dr Who isn't around ;-))

[Baruch]

Science will never support the existence of a god because it cannot.  It does not deny a god, just as it does not support one.  Many scientists believe in a god, but that is not the same thing as "scientific discovery supports faith in God."  Planck took science as far as he could, until he ran into a problem that he could not explain, and there he drops any further scientific inquiry, and fills the gap with a god.  This is not a transition between science and god.  It's a lapse in logic that satisfies the believer.

I would ask Planck how his reasoning proves the existence of a god.  Any answer he came up with would be just another time worn apologetic.  There's no bridge there.  It's just a simple non sequitur.

There is no bridge from "is" to "ought" ... science is about "is".  Politics is about "ought".

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - Mao Tse Tung (not tea and crumpets at nice people's homes discussing natural law).

Of course legality, morality, ethics are all ... political topics.  This is why you can't keep religious people or people with integrity or conscience from interfering in the political reality of godlessness, corruption or sociopathy.

[GSOgymrat]

There is no bridge from "is" to "ought" ... science is about "is".  Politics is about "ought".

Yes, religion encompasses more than science. Science tells me how to kill my neighbor, not whether I should kill my neighbor.

[SGOS]

I remember some sage wannabe guy saying that science answers the how questions, but religion answers the why questions.  I was very young and thought it was quite profound, but I started thinking about this and decided it wasn't an accurate claim about science or religion, and that it wasn't even profound to begin with.  I think his tone of voice and the way he finished his claim with such authoritative finality made it sound profound.  I think he was trying to make a point that religion and science are separate but equal, because why is as important as how. 

I no longer see the value of questions like, "Why does God love us so much?" or "Why did God create the universe?"  I think those are stupid questions.  But some 'how' questions are stupid questions too like "How did God create the Universe?"

But one difference between religion and science is that religion is great at giving answers to really stupid questions.  Science is better at avoiding stupid questions, so it doesn't have as many answers.  Some would say that religion wins because it's methodology can answer more questions.

[GSOgymrat]

Some would say that religion wins because it's methodology can answer more questions.

Does Christianity have a methodology beyond "Refer to manual"?

[aitm]

Does Christianity have a methodology beyond "Refer to manual"?

They all do....but the masses don’t read them. Too hard to read, much easier to pay a guy to tell you what it says.

[Unbeliever]

Science cannot accommodate religion because of science's default to metaphysical naturalism, which denies any sort of supernaturalism. For the same reason religion cannot accommodate science, so never the twain shall meet.

[Baruch]

Yes, religion encompasses more than science. Science tells me how to kill my neighbor, not whether I should kill my neighbor.

Religion encompasses more than science?  In religious cults maybe (see Scientology).  The Catholic Church doesn't still teach the flat Earth etc.  Science is practiced by humans, a species of negligible value.  Of course, like PC operating systems, scientists do dispute hotly the boundaries where it touches philosophy (say what lies behind quantum mechanics).  This is because politics is involved ... academic ranks etc.

[Baruch]

Does Christianity have a methodology beyond "Refer to manual"?

That is Protestant!  For Catholics/Orthodox it is "refer to priest" ;-)  They were quite correct to prevent the laity from reading the Bible, it only confused them ;-))