Science and religion

[Creed of Heresy]

No, strodel that entirely depends on whether you're claiming that fallacy based on the number of scientists or the fact that they are scientists at all.

Yes. The former would be ad populum, the latter would be appeals to authority. The latter wouldn't exactly be a fallacy if the scientists being cited had qualifications in some form of religious study, and qualifications in whatever field of science they were saying was or was not compatible with the religion they were talking about that they also were qualified in. The problem we also must take into account is bias, both of the atheistic variety and of the theistic as well. One must look at the circumstances that led the individual to believe or not believe as well to make a qualified judgment on fallacy or not. For example, Richard Dawkins was a follower of the Church of England starting at the age of 13 but later when he was studying evolution he began to lose faith which inevitably led him to atheism. He lacks formal education in Christianity but I can at least suppose that he is at least learned in some respects of it, since he would have needed to know rather certain elements about Christian doctrines in order to actually have his faith affected so heavily by his studies into biology. Otherwise were he not aware of them he probably would have stayed as a lip-service scientist. (This I largely suspect is why there are many scientists who say that science and religion are not incompatible, except in the field of biology where atheists are VERY prevalent; something about the study of biology itself seems to lead people to ask questions of the bible that the bible fails to answer.)

That all said I can't exactly claim him as a man who is "qualified" to speak on matters of theism in comparison to science; HOWEVER, I also can't really see why he would be so rabidly atheistic for any other reason than reasonable conclusions he has come to; he is well-known as a very reasonable man, quick-witted, and undeniably pleasant to speak to, even when he is speaking to theists. He gains nothing from openly supporting atheism, and I can't even say he's doing it to try to fit in and be more accepted in the biological field of study since he was one of the first openly atheistic biologists in this time. Something about biology has him very convinced of his stance regarding religion, and given that biology is one the many scientific fields in which evidence and studies and tests and results are all made publicly accessible, I can probably go looking around and start finding quite a few examples; hell, I already have in the recent past. The theories of abiogenesis, evolution, and genetics have their incredibly heavy share of the responsibility for ultimately becoming a complete non-believer, and the "devil is in the details" if I may hijack a phrase.

Now, if you can provide an example man who is learned of religion and qualified in scientific studies without a pre-conceived bias towards either direction, I would accept that appeal to authority is valid but I am pretty sure you actually will not. Even more difficult is in which field of study you have to go for, too, since it'd probably have to include a natural scientist of some kind since these are often the sciences most relating to claims the bible makes.

I do not envy you this task, since few indeed are the accomplished scientists who can actually square away certain aspects of the bible with their own studies, or the studies of others. But such is the life of the religious apologist, isn't it? Always the struggle to square the circle, to wrestle with the ever-shrinking domain of god that science has not yet dynamited into obsolescence, the endless marathon of running the goal posts further and further back, away from the inexorable juggernaut of understanding that is scientific explanation.

Really, the effort would be quite noble if it wasn't wasted on such a lost and, frankly, unworthy cause.

[jstrodel]

How many scientists are true, dedicated, believing and actively practicing Christians, and how many of them pay lip service?

Well, many scientists have written on theology and pondered the Christian faith deeply (such as Pascal or the priest who first proposed the big bang).

If you want to create an endless number of qualifications to wedge between yourself and knowing God, I'm not going to stop you, but you won't know God in the end.

[The Grand Nudger]

In the end, Ryan will "know god" as well as you do Strodel, which is to say, not at all.

[jstrodel]

No, strodel that entirely depends on whether you're claiming that fallacy based on the number of scientists or the fact that they are scientists at all.

I am claiming, as an argument from authority, "hundreds of thousands or millions of scientists have, in their professional knowledge of science, failed to see a problem reconciling the scientific method or scientific knowledge with Christian belief". That is an argument from authority and the number of scientists is certainly relevant, it is not ad populum, that is an undergraduate application of that principle.

Any fool can look up a list of fallacies and apply them willy nilly to advance his case.

---

In the end, Ryan will "know god" as well as you do Strodel, which is to say, not at all.

Prove it.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be more compelling if you could show their work - how they reached that conclusion, as what a scientist (or a million scientists) believes or feels about a religion is inconsequential as to whether or not science is compatible with any given faith.

No, no, Strodel, prove me wrong......

[jstrodel]

Care to actually cite some?

Here is one. It does not prove that the Christian God exists, but it raises the question of what does. It goes along with big bang cosmology.


1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

1. A human experience of morality is observed.
2. God is seen to be the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
3. Therefore, God exists.


"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"
—Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34

1 Who has believed our message ? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed ? 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground ; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief ; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried ; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities ; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way ; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth ; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? 9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief ; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
Isa 53:1-10, written 700 years before Christ

The arguments work when you study all of them together. God has the power to explain many serious problems that are not explained by science, and is a valid hypothesis for explanation. When you seek God further, God reveals Gods nature to you confirming the hypothesis with miracles.

---

It would be more compelling if you could show their work - how they reached that conclusion, as what a scientist (or a million scientists) believes or feels about a religion is inconsequential as to whether or not science is compatible with any given faith.

No, no, Strodel, prove me wrong......

Go read one of the many books written. It is not like I am making this up. Go on amazon and buy a book if you want to know all that.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Stop preaching.

[Creed of Heresy]

See here the problem Strodel is that you're now citing scripture as if it's somehow scientifically valid or it has done something more than make vague claims and vaguer allusions...except it has not.

To address above:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

Then who created the creator? If everything that has a beginning has a cause of its existence, what, then, in your claim, created god? Because god would have to have a beginning as well, if we compare this to the Big Bang. Because, see, prior to the Big Bang, there was no time before it...and what has no time cannot be measured with a beginning. Ergo the Big Bang did not have a "beginning" since it was necessarily "before time," so therefore it has no cause of its existence.

1. A human experience of morality is observed.
2. God is seen to be the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Uh, no, god is not seen to be the best or only explanation of moral experience, in fact biological morality has much stronger claims and evidence to show for it. Most of the arguments of those who are atheistic are, quite often, that god's supposed teachings are anything BUT moral; in fact to a growing number they're amoral more than they are even immoral. This is also a really weak apologetic stance; "goddidit."

Allow Neil deGrasse Tyson to explain what exactly is wrong with your stance, here:



Isn't he so dreamy? *sighs longingly*

But seriously, that is pretty much the argument you are trying to make. You are GotGing.

Also on fallacies of logic; you're the one that started opening up against other people on this forum claiming fallacies of logic. Now that all everything you take a stance on is logically fallacious you're suddenly accusing people of picking and choosing fallacies? No, sir. It is YOUR fault that the fallacies are being levied against you because you are the one making them. Man up and own your arguments or just give up and deconvert because if you're actively proclaiming your stance to be above mere logic then there's no point to debating with you and you're intellectually dishonest and disingenuous knowing full well that what you believe is in error with reality but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Seriously, what DID atheism supposedly do to you to drive you to this sort of illogical chain of arguments? I am just assuming but I think your, uh, faith is actually the result of an emotional response...meaning, not thought-out and knee-jerk instinctual response rather than formulated, reasoned, and clinically addressed.

Rhythm: I don't think he's so much preaching as just quoting scripture in an attempt to justify his point.

It's not working.

[archangle]

Science is a process of data collection.

Religion is an expression of the human emotional connections to our surroundings.

don't confuse scientist fighting a priest with science and religion. People are the problem here. Not science or religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Go read one of the many books written. It is not like I am making this up. Go on amazon and buy a book if you want to know all that.

Go read Grimms.