Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
April 29, 2017 at 12:39 pm (This post was last modified: April 29, 2017 at 12:39 pm by Jehanne.)
Science and religion are in the profoundest of conflicts, and any scientist who denies this simply has a bag over his/her head. Any religious claim or tenet, of which there are an infinite number, is not falsifiable, which is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for an idea to be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge. The word "science", after all, is a descendant of the Latin word "scire," which simply means "to know". The existence of a god or gods is not falsifiable, even in principle on empirical grounds, and while many have suggested the incoherence and/or contradictory nature of such a being or beings on philosophical or theological grounds, ad hoc explains can always be concocted as to why that is not the case. Atheism, on the other hand, is completely falsifiable, as would be evidenced by the instantaneous healing of an adult amputee. As such, it is good science to be an atheist, and at least suspend judgment (and, hence, withhold belief) in the existence of a god or gods until good empirical evidence is discovered that such a being or beings exist. Until then, lack of empirical evidence over entities that are invisible versus those that do not exist is an exercise in futility. No good scientist is going to waste his/her time and research funding trying to disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns with spotted rainbow stripes, hence, the common comparison. In this regard, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
RE: Why Science and religious faith are in conflict.
April 29, 2017 at 5:16 pm
(April 29, 2017 at 12:39 pm)Jehanne Wrote:
Science and religion are in the profoundest of conflicts, and any scientist who denies this simply has a bag over his/her head. Any religious claim or tenet, of which there are an infinite number, is not falsifiable, which is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for an idea to be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge. The word "science", after all, is a descendant of the Latin word "scire," which simply means "to know". The existence of a god or gods is not falsifiable, even in principle on empirical grounds, and while many have suggested the incoherence and/or contradictory nature of such a being or beings on philosophical or theological grounds, ad hoc explains can always be concocted as to why that is not the case. Atheism, on the other hand, is completely falsifiable, as would be evidenced by the instantaneous healing of an adult amputee. As such, it is good science to be an atheist, and at least suspend judgment (and, hence, withhold belief) in the existence of a god or gods until good empirical evidence is discovered that such a being or beings exist. Until then, lack of empirical evidence over entities that are invisible versus those that do not exist is an exercise in futility. No good scientist is going to waste his/her time and research funding trying to disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns with spotted rainbow stripes, hence, the common comparison. In this regard, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
That doesn't make religion any more in conflict with science, then any other non-scientific epistemology. Being outside of the category of science, does not a conflict make.
Also, I don't think, that you can say that atheism is falsifiable, while theism is not. And the example of instantaneous healing of an amputee, wouldn't falsify atheism. Atheism is after all, only means a lack of belief in Gods. One can be an atheist, and believe in a sudden re-growing of limbs (although it may provide difficulty for a materialist. Also, I think that your main tenet (being unjustifiable) would make the claim of evidence of absence difficult. You need to pick one, and go with that. Together they are incoherent!
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
RE: Why Science and religious faith are in conflict.
April 29, 2017 at 5:19 pm
(April 29, 2017 at 5:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(April 29, 2017 at 12:39 pm)Jehanne Wrote:
Science and religion are in the profoundest of conflicts, and any scientist who denies this simply has a bag over his/her head. Any religious claim or tenet, of which there are an infinite number, is not falsifiable, which is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for an idea to be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge. The word "science", after all, is a descendant of the Latin word "scire," which simply means "to know". The existence of a god or gods is not falsifiable, even in principle on empirical grounds, and while many have suggested the incoherence and/or contradictory nature of such a being or beings on philosophical or theological grounds, ad hoc explains can always be concocted as to why that is not the case. Atheism, on the other hand, is completely falsifiable, as would be evidenced by the instantaneous healing of an adult amputee. As such, it is good science to be an atheist, and at least suspend judgment (and, hence, withhold belief) in the existence of a god or gods until good empirical evidence is discovered that such a being or beings exist. Until then, lack of empirical evidence over entities that are invisible versus those that do not exist is an exercise in futility. No good scientist is going to waste his/her time and research funding trying to disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns with spotted rainbow stripes, hence, the common comparison. In this regard, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
That doesn't make religion any more in conflict with science, then any other non-scientific epistemology. Being outside of the category of science, does not a conflict make.
Also, I don't think, that you can say that atheism is falsifiable, while theism is not. And the example of instantaneous healing of an amputee, wouldn't falsify atheism. Atheism is after all, only means a lack of belief in Gods. One can be an atheist, and believe in a sudden re-growing of limbs (although it may provide difficulty for a materialist. Also, I think that your main tenet (being unjustifiable) would make the claim of evidence of absence difficult. You need to pick one, and go with that. Together they are incoherent!
So you say that there can't be evidence for God that would falsify atheism? Interesting.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
RE: Why Science and religious faith are in conflict.
April 29, 2017 at 5:34 pm
(April 29, 2017 at 5:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(April 29, 2017 at 12:39 pm)Jehanne Wrote:
Science and religion are in the profoundest of conflicts, and any scientist who denies this simply has a bag over his/her head. Any religious claim or tenet, of which there are an infinite number, is not falsifiable, which is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for an idea to be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge. The word "science", after all, is a descendant of the Latin word "scire," which simply means "to know". The existence of a god or gods is not falsifiable, even in principle on empirical grounds, and while many have suggested the incoherence and/or contradictory nature of such a being or beings on philosophical or theological grounds, ad hoc explains can always be concocted as to why that is not the case. Atheism, on the other hand, is completely falsifiable, as would be evidenced by the instantaneous healing of an adult amputee. As such, it is good science to be an atheist, and at least suspend judgment (and, hence, withhold belief) in the existence of a god or gods until good empirical evidence is discovered that such a being or beings exist. Until then, lack of empirical evidence over entities that are invisible versus those that do not exist is an exercise in futility. No good scientist is going to waste his/her time and research funding trying to disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns with spotted rainbow stripes, hence, the common comparison. In this regard, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
That doesn't make religion any more in conflict with science, then any other non-scientific epistemology. Being outside of the category of science, does not a conflict make.
Also, I don't think, that you can say that atheism is falsifiable, while theism is not. And the example of instantaneous healing of an amputee, wouldn't falsify atheism. Atheism is after all, only means a lack of belief in Gods. One can be an atheist, and believe in a sudden re-growing of limbs (although it may provide difficulty for a materialist. Also, I think that your main tenet (being unjustifiable) would make the claim of evidence of absence difficult. You need to pick one, and go with that. Together they are incoherent!
It would be very hard to justify physicalism, which is the basis at least for my atheism, if an adult amputee regrew his/her lost limb. I suppose that everyone is different, though. But, yes, I think that atheism, unlike theism, is falsifiable. If an omnipotent God truly existed, then such a Being would know what evidence it would take to convince each of us, no?
RE: Why Science and religious faith are in conflict.
April 29, 2017 at 5:39 pm
I do believe there is evidence.... do you think the things testified to in the Bible if true, would falsify atheism?
This kind of reminds me of a story I heard the one time. . An atheist was talking to a preacher, and said that he would believe in God, if this chair, suddenly flew through the air, smashed against the wall, and spelled out "God". Just then the chair did exactly as he described. Astounded, the atheist went to tell a fellow atheist what they had seen. As they where telling the story, a chair suddenly flew up, and smashed against the wall, doing the same thing again. With much excitement, the two went to a third atheist; as they where telling of what occurred, the same thing happened again. However the third atheist wasn't impressed, and said, that's just what chairs do!
But I was really commenting on the evidence either way, but more to the idea, that you can't have your cake and eat it too. I was discussing with a person once, who demanded that God was unfalsifiable, and then proceeded to tell me why it was false
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
RE: Why Science and religious faith are in conflict.
April 29, 2017 at 5:45 pm
Quote:Charles Darwin destroyed the foundation of orthodox Christianity. There is nothing left but faith in what we know could not and did not happen. Religion and science are enemies. One is a superstition; the other is a fact. One rests upon the false, the other upon the true. One is the result of fear and faith, the other of investigation and reason.”
RE: Why Science and religious faith are in conflict.
April 29, 2017 at 5:51 pm
(April 29, 2017 at 5:39 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I do believe there is evidence.... do you think the things testified to in the Bible if true, would falsify atheism?
This kind of reminds me of a story I heard the one time. . An atheist was talking to a preacher, and said that he would believe in God, if this chair, suddenly flew through the air, smashed against the wall, and spelled out "God". Just then the chair did exactly as he described. Astounded, the atheist went to tell a fellow atheist what they had seen. As they where telling the story, a chair suddenly flew up, and smashed against the wall, doing the same thing again. With much excitement, the two went to a third atheist; as they where telling of what occurred, the same thing happened again. However the third atheist wasn't impressed, and said, that's just what chairs do!
But I was really commenting on the evidence either way, but more to the idea, that you can't have your cake and eat it too. I was discussing with a person once, who demanded that God was unfalsifiable, and then proceeded to tell me why it was false
Your story is a perfect example of how mythology made its way into the Bible; someone told a story, who told a story, and then told it to someone else, etc. Over time the story grew and changed, before, eventually, being written down, but even after that, the story got changed further as it was copied from one person to the next until the copies became numerous enough that it was no longer "fashionable" to change the story any further. And, so, the story became a "fact" for some while still being a myth for others.
