The Notre Dame brouhaha...

[finknottle]

Were you talking about Invisible Sky Man and Alpha male priests, or was it Finknottle? Honest science does not prove god does not exist. You seem to have some real angst against organized religion. Leave me out of it.

 

It wasn't me. You said you thought the belief in God was hard-wired, and challanged the difficulty of denying that. I said that what was actually hard-wired was a predisposition towards explanations and certaintity, and religious conviction was the easiest way to find it. The result would be the same: most people throughout history believing in God. Or Gods. Or giant turtles that you don't want to rock.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Were you talking about Invisible Sky Man and Alpha male priests, or was it Finknottle? Honest science does not prove god does not exist. You seem to have some real angst against organized religion. Leave me out of it.

 

I will happily oblige, given your poor reading comprehension skills on top of your peculiar unwillingness to acknowledge the efficacy of the theory of evolution. I have agreed 100% with your claim that "honest science doesn't prove that God doesn't exist," but you're too thick-headed to realize that. And yes, I do have some genuine angst against organized religion and the scientifically illiterate, but only because this nonsensical horsesh!t has been seeping into our political system for too long.

[finknottle]

I thought finknottle’s explanation for religion was sound, but maybe somewhat incomplete?

 

I wasn't addressing in a comprehensive way the behaviorial question of 'why is a belief in God persistent,' which was claimed to be hard-wired, but simply 'is there another explanation which accounts for the persistence?' There are many, with varying degrees of plausibility, and you gave some others.

[/dev/null]

Science = How

Faith = Why

 

To the religious, I say scientific discoveries are just further proof that God is omnipotent and knows more than you, or somebody that wrote a 2000 years old text, knows about the universe

 

To the atheists, I ask what caused the big bang?

 

Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive

 

I employ similar arguments against the Global Warming® Climate Change® nutjobs.

 

Do we end all debate now? Or do we accept the Torah/Bible/Koran/L Ron Hubbard/UN Report at face value, or try to find the real truth?

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

It wasn't me. You said you thought the belief in God was hard-wired, and challanged the difficulty of denying that. I said that what was actually hard-wired was a predisposition towards explanations and certaintity, and religious conviction was the easiest way to find it. The result would be the same: most people throughout history believing in God. Or Gods. Or giant turtles that you don't want to rock.

 

I was pointing out, to someone else, that choosing not to believe could take just as much imagination as believing; and I was not responding to you at the time. Very small children often seem to have a concept of God. I don't know why that is, unless maybe it's just in them. I don't know this to be proof of God's existence. But the natural selection biology theory seems no more complete, to me.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Science = How

Faith = Why

 

To the religious, I say scientific discoveries are just further proof that God is omnipotent and knows more than you, or somebody that wrote a 2000 years old text, knows about the universe

 

To the atheists, I ask what caused the big bang?

 

Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive

 

I employ similar arguments against the Global Warming® Climate Change® nutjobs.

 

Do we end all debate now? Or do we accept the Torah/Bible/Koran/L Ron Hubbard/UN Report at face value, or try to find the real truth?

 

What he said.... So much more eloquently than I. Thanks bro. That was what I trying to say.

[/dev/null]

What he said.... So much more eloquent than I. Thanks bro. That was what I trying to say.

no problem. sometimes it takes a 6 pack to find the common ground between the religious zealots and godless heathens

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

I will happily oblige, given your poor reading comprehension skills on top of your peculiar unwillingness to acknowledge the efficacy of the theory of evolution. I have agreed 100% with your claim that "honest science doesn't prove that God doesn't exist," but you're too thick-headed to realize that. And yes, I do have some genuine angst against organized religion and the scientifically illiterate, but only because this nonsensical horsesh!t has been seeping into our political system for too long.

 

Well, how would you expect a thick-headed, intellectually lazy, definitely irrational total dumbass, with poor reading comprehension, to behave? And what does any of this have to do with Notre Dame?

[DC Tom]

Science = How

Faith = Why

 

To the religious, I say scientific discoveries are just further proof that God is omnipotent and knows more than you, or somebody that wrote a 2000 years old text, knows about the universe

 

To the atheists, I ask what caused the big bang?

 

Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive

 

I employ similar arguments against the Global Warming® Climate Change® nutjobs.

 

Do we end all debate now? Or do we accept the Torah/Bible/Koran/L Ron Hubbard/UN Report at face value, or try to find the real truth?

 

Actually, science and religion are mutually exclusive. Science is the gathering of empirical knowledge of the observable universe. Religion requires the antithesis of that - faith in the unobservable and unmeasurable. The simple question "What existed before the Big Bang?" illustrates that distinction: anything that did cannot be known to science; that is a hard observational boundary that can't be penetrated. Anything that exists outside that boundary can't be empirically known, God as creator of the universe (e.g. initiator of the Big Bang) must preexist that creation, Q.E.D. God cannot be completely "known", and is unscientific.

 

The two may coexist, they may even complement each other to a degree. But neither can be used as an effective criticism or proof of the other, since they are both fundamentally antithetical. Science can no more explain God than religion can describe the observable universe.

[finknottle]

The two may coexist, they may even complement each other to a degree. But neither can be used as an effective criticism or proof of the other, since they are both fundamentally antithetical. Science can no more explain God than religion can describe the observable universe.

 

Why do you say that religion cannot offer an effective criticism of science? Why can I not reject science as part of my faith? And have there not been several periods in which faith has won this battle, effectively banning science and labeling it as wichcraft?

[DC Tom]

Why do you say that religion cannot offer an effective criticism of science? Why can I not reject science as part of my faith? And have there not been several periods in which faith has won this battle, effectively banning science and labeling it as wichcraft?

 

And the examples you mention are the exact opposite of effective criticism.

 

The reason religion can't offer effective criticism of science is because any such criticism will always boil down to "My belief is truer than all your empirical evidence." It's not that either one's incorrect; it's that they're two fundamentally different modes of thought and analysis, and any attempt to justify or criticize one using the other is fallacious.

[Booster4324]

And the examples you mention are the exact opposite of effective criticism.

 

The reason religion can't offer effective criticism of science is because any such criticism will always boil down to "My belief is truer than all your empirical evidence." It's not that either one's incorrect; it's that they're two fundamentally different modes of thought and analysis, and any attempt to justify or criticize one using the other is fallacious.

 

 

Isn't it possible science might one day be able to prove that God exists (assuming one does)? Of course, since it is based on faith, it is impossible for science to disprove it.

[DC Tom]

Isn't it possible science might one day be able to prove that God exists (assuming one does)? Of course, since it is based on faith, it is impossible for science to disprove it.

 

No. See earlier post. God cannot be empirically knowable and the creator of everything.

[Booster4324]

No. See earlier post. God cannot be empirically knowable and the creator of everything.

 

Aren't you ruling out possible advances in science? A greater understanding of how the universe works? I am not saying it is likely or even achievable in my son's lifetime. Just a possibility. Are you actually saying that if there is a God, science can never prove it? Not even in centuries from now? Sure this is way hypothetical (or BS if you prefer), I am simply curious as to your take.

 

I understand what you mean by empirical, but if we can demonstrate there is a design every time...

[K-9]

Honest science does not prove god does not exist.

 

Loving a good double negative as I do, does this mean that DIS-honest science DOES prove that God DOES exist? Like, say, creationism beint taught as part of a science curriculum?

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Loving a good double negative as I do, does this mean that DIS-honest science DOES prove that God DOES exist? Like, say, creationism beint taught as part of a science curriculum?

 

I don't think so Tim.

[finknottle]

And the examples you mention are the exact opposite of effective criticism.

 

The reason religion can't offer effective criticism of science is because any such criticism will always boil down to "My belief is truer than all your empirical evidence." It's not that either one's incorrect; it's that they're two fundamentally different modes of thought and analysis, and any attempt to justify or criticize one using the other is fallacious.

 

So if by effective criticism you mean making a case by your rules which will be excepted by the other's rules, then ok.

 

I took 'effective' literally. The clampdown on rationale thought in the Middle Ages may not have been effective criticism, but it was pretty damn effective nonetheless.

[finknottle]

Aren't you ruling out possible advances in science? A greater understanding of how the universe works? I am not saying it is likely or even achievable in my son's lifetime. Just a possibility. Are you actually saying that if there is a God, science can never prove it? Not even in centuries from now? Sure this is way hypothetical (or BS if you prefer), I am simply curious as to your take.

 

I understand what you mean by empirical, but if we can demonstrate there is a design every time...

 

First you would have come up with a definition of God. This is seemingly impossible..

 

Then you would have to decide what constitutes proof. A proof based soley on logic, I am absolutely confident, cannot be - it has to do with certain provable limitations of logic and mathematics themselves.

 

On the other hand a proof based on empirical evidence (whether ancient rocks saying "God was here", or dissatisfication in the models have right now for things like the big bang, the genesis of life, or evolution) are unlikely to sway scientific opinion.

 

As to your last comment, I am unaware that design has been demonstrated once, let alone every time. At least not demonstrated to the point that mainstream scientists are convinced. And, after all, that is the bar you set when you ask if science can prove the existance of God.

[Booster4324]

First you would have come up with a definition of God. This is seemingly impossible..

 

Then you would have to decide what constitutes proof. A proof based soley on logic, I am absolutely confident, cannot be - it has to do with certain provable limitations of logic and mathematics themselves.

 

On the other hand a proof based on empirical evidence (whether ancient rocks saying "God was here", or dissatisfication in the models have right now for things like the big bang, the genesis of life, or evolution) are unlikely to sway scientific opinion.

 

As to your last comment, I am unaware that design has been demonstrated once, let alone every time. At least not demonstrated to the point that mainstream scientists are convinced. And, after all, that is the bar you set when you ask if science can prove the existance of God.

 

You do work with numbers right? What part of centuries later escapes you?

[finknottle]

You do work with numbers right? What part of centuries later escapes you?

 

No part. The crux of my argument doesn't depend on time.

 

There will be no mathematical proof, ever. Mathematical proofs are not subject to the same kind of revision that the sciences are, and mathematics has already proven limitations on its own ability to prove 'big things.' This proof (of its limitations) is never going to be overturned.(*)

 

As to an empirical proof, it hinges on a supernatural explanation fitting the observed facts better than and being simpler than the alternatives. But there will always be alternatives which don't require as many leaps of faith (religious details like god having a son and a posse of angels, or caring what we do), even if the alternative is so lame as the existence of a yet not understood god force (like gravity) doing incredibly complicated things.

 

 

(*) At best, we can say it doesn't apply. We'd have to make some startling changes in our assumptions about logic, basically either agreeing that two-valued logic doesn't apply to the universe, or that addition doesn't work like we think. This in turn makes existence a pretty iffy notion.