Why Science and religious faith are in conflict.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

And based on what evidence or reason, do you base any of that on? If there isn't anything specific, then couldn't you deny anything with that reasoning? We don't see any evidence of these many copies becoming one ( at least not that I am aware of).

Also, don't you think that would falsify the religion of Christianity?

---

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?

Would you agree, that you need to be making a claim, in order for it to be falsifiable?

[Minimalist]

“Before he was born, his mother had a visitor from heaven who told her that her son would not be a mere mortal but in fact would be divine.  His birth 
was accompanied by unusual divine signs in the heaven.   As an adult he left his home to engage on an itinerant preaching ministry  . . . 
He gathered a number of followers around him who became convinced that he was no ordinary human, but that he was the Son of God . 
 And he did miracles to confirm them in their beliefs:  
he could heal the sick, cast out demons.
and raise the dead.
At the end of his life he aroused opposition among the ruling authorities of Rome and was put on trial.  But they could not kill his soul.
He ascended to heaven and continues to lives there till this day.  To prove that he lived on after leaving this earthly orb, he appeared again to at least one of his doubting followers , 
who became convinced that in fact he remains with us even now.  Later, some of his followers wrote books about him, and we can still read about him today.

Story sound familiar? 

It's about Apollonius of Tyana.  And it is no more true than your jesus bullshit.

[Jehanne]

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.

And based on what evidence or reason, do you base any of that on?  If there isn't anything specific, then couldn't you deny anything with that reasoning?  We don't see any evidence of these many copies becoming one ( at least not that I am aware of).

Also, don't you think that would falsify the religion of Christianity?

---

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?

Would you agree, that you need to be making a claim, in order for it to be falsifiable?

It is a fact, denied by no one, that copyists changed both the Old and New Testaments right up until the second millennium.  After that time in history, adding and/or changing the Biblical texts would be like someone trying to insert a new "lost" chapter into the Gospel of Matthew, or anywhere else for that matter; no one would believe that person(s) unless they had very good evidence for a very early copy of Matthew, which, of course, does not exist, at least not at present.

My claim is that miracles never occur; in fact, I hold that miracles (macroscopic violations of the Conservation Laws) are impossible, hence, the instantaneous healing and regeneration of an adult amputee's lost limb is impossible.  This claim, on my part, is completely falsifiable; if God exists, then, surely, it is not logically impossible for Him to heal an adult amputee?

[Minimalist]

It does seem to be beyond his reach.

https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Why won't God heal amputees?

[Little lunch]

I like that chair story, very clever. :-)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Science could give a fuck about what religion thinks.

Well, that's not the "party line":

https://www.aaas.org/news/religious-and-...-portrayed

Supposedly, only 27% of the AAAS membership thinks that there is a "conflict".  (Note that the other 73% does not want their funding cut!)

Did you misread my post with the intent of post that statistic?

[Jehanne]

Well, that's not the "party line":

https://www.aaas.org/news/religious-and-...-portrayed

Supposedly, only 27% of the AAAS membership thinks that there is a "conflict".  (Note that the other 73% does not want their funding cut!)

Did you misread my post with the intent of post that statistic?

Sorry if I misread your post!  I believe that you exist, unlike God, who is unwilling to take the time to correct the many interpretations of the sacred texts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Did you misread my post with the intent of post that statistic?

Sorry if I misread your post!  I believe that you exist, unlike God, who is unwilling to take the time to correct the many interpretations of the sacred texts.

I don't care if you exist.

[RoadRunner79]

And based on what evidence or reason, do you base any of that on?  If there isn't anything specific, then couldn't you deny anything with that reasoning?  We don't see any evidence of these many copies becoming one ( at least not that I am aware of).

Also, don't you think that would falsify the religion of Christianity?

---

Would you agree, that you need to be making a claim, in order for it to be falsifiable?

It is a fact, denied by no one, that copyists changed both the Old and New Testaments right up until the second millennium.  After that time in history, adding and/or changing the Biblical texts would be like someone trying to insert a new "lost" chapter into the Gospel of Matthew, or anywhere else for that matter; no one would believe that person(s) unless they had very good evidence for a very early copy of Matthew, which, of course, does not exist, at least not at present.

If you are talking about the fact, that there are variants in the manuscripts, then yes, I would agree.  However, if you are saying, that the text was constantly morphing and being added to up until the second millennium, then I think that I could find quite a few who would deny that.   Other than the short/long  endings of Mark, I at least am not aware of any evidence for anything like that.  And the early Church fathers rejected other works, for very much the same reason that you state after the 2nd millennium. 

Commenting on Bruce Metzgers and Bart Ehrmans revision of the "Text of the New Testament" Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason says the following:

Ehrman and Metzger state in that book that we can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare.  The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text.  The 4th edition of this work was published in 2005 – the same year Ehrman published Misquoting Jesus, which relies on the same body of information and offers no new or different evidence to state the opposite conclusion.

and in the appendix of "Misquoting Jesus" Erhman says the following:

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

My claim is that miracles never occur; in fact, I hold that miracles (macroscopic violations of the Conservation Laws) are impossible, hence, the instantaneous healing and regeneration of an adult amputee's lost limb is impossible.  This claim, on my part, is completely falsifiable; if God exists, then, surely, it is not logically impossible for Him to heal an adult amputee?

While I don't hold that a miracle need be a violation of the laws of physics, I don't hold that they cannot be either.  It would depend on the circumstances of the case.  For instance, your objection seems to be mostly in the timing involved ("instantaneous").   I do agree (especially for a human) that this would be a miracle as humans do not normally grow back limbs instantaneously or otherwise.  But then even if it grew back over the course of months, I would think the same (and I don't think either need to violate the law of conservation).

Here is an article, which I think reflects my position on miracles.   I am skeptical, and I do think that some extort others with flimsy claims of miracles.   I am more so wary of those who claim that they happen all the time with them, and then proceed to ask for money.  There are many miracle claims, and some I think are difficult to easily dismiss.
https://credohouse.org/blog/j-p-moreland...an-amputee

[Mermaid]

I work with some of the most talented and brilliant scientists in the world, many of whom are religious. Some of them are verrrrrry religious. I don't think it's about intelligence or denial, it's about the ability to rationalize things. I certainly can't do it, but apparently a lot of people can, and people who are smarter than I am.