Science and religion

[jstrodel]

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.

Ouch! I almost feel bad for jstrodel and co.

Can't see a single point in there. Would you mind putting the argument in the form of an argument? This is why it is reasonable to accept what atheist scientists say but not Christian scientists (because atheist scientists are unbiased because atheism isn't belief, it is non-belief, but Christians are biased by their belief). I can't really understand that, do you think you could make it simpler for me? Could you put that it some sort of formal argument form?

Science is 40-55% theistic, it may be even higher than that. I didn't see a single point in there, typical for atheists, that deals with the fact that perhaps a majority of scientists are theists. If you are trying to argue that science has considered faith incompatible with Christianity, that doesn't include atheists like Michael Ruse who don't necessarily see an incompatibility with the modern understand of biology and science.

Atheists typically feel no responsibility to deal with facts that exist outside of their worldview. That is why the person posting did not care to deal with the statistics that I have posted in other threads that refute the false idea that science is largely atheistic. If there is a majority of agnostics and atheists in science, it is a razor thin majority.

If you are saying abiogenesis disproves Christianity, that is laughable. Richard Dawkins himself admitted that the origin of life could be spores sown on earth from outer space. Anyone who considers abiogenesis to present problems with theistic belief is obviously deluded as to the epistemological status of abiogenesis.

[Silver]

Science is 40-55% theistic, it may be even higher than that.

You really do need to provide an academic source to back up your statistics, because I think you are simply pulling the numbers from your ass.

---

Atheists typically feel no responsibility to deal with facts that exist outside of their worldview.

Views based on creation-science, pseudoscience to be more precise, are not factual.

[Darkstar]

Science is 40-55% theistic, it may be even higher than that.

Science is 0% theistic, scientists on the other hand, may be theists.

I didn't see a single point in there, typical for atheists, that deals with the fact that perhaps a majority of scientists are theists.

Don't you think this would be a point against your argument? If so many scientists are theists, why haven't they proven god yet? What happened to the "atheist agenda" of science?

Atheists typically feel no responsibility to deal with facts that exist outside of their worldview. That is why the person posting did not care to deal with the statistics that I have posted in other threads that refute the false idea that science is largely atheistic. If there is a majority of agnostics and atheists in science, it is a razor thin majority.

So are we finally going to decide whether it is 20-30%, 40-60%, or 80-90% of atheists that are punk rocker Marxist liberal fascists?

If you are saying abiogenesis disproves Christianity, that is laughable. Richard Dawkins himself admitted that the origin of life could be spores sown on earth from outer space.

Taken out of context:

---

---

Anyone who considers abiogenesis to present problems with theistic belief is obviously deluded as to the epistemological status of abiogenesis.

Well, not theistic specifically. It could be a deistic god, for instance.

[Ryantology]

That is why the person posting did not care to deal with the statistics that I have posted in other threads that refute the false idea that science is largely atheistic.

Please show the class a list of scientific theories and conclusions supported by a plurality of the scientific community which rely on the existence of the Christian God to work.

I'll wait.

[NoraBrimstone]

Science is totally indifferent to theism or atheism, right? No law or theory makes any mention of gods because they are irrelevant.

[Joel]

Science is totally indifferent to theism or atheism, right? No law or theory makes any mention of gods because they are irrelevant.

You could say that it's non-theistic, as the God subject doesn't actually come into it at any place...

Other than "The God particle" of course.

[NoraBrimstone]

Science is totally indifferent to theism or atheism, right? No law or theory makes any mention of gods because they are irrelevant.

You could say that it's non-theistic, as the God subject doesn't actually come into it at any place...

Other than "The God particle" of course.

I know that was a joke, but if you call it "The God Particle" again, I will e-punch you in the face.

[Joel]

You could say that it's non-theistic, as the God subject doesn't actually come into it at any place...

Other than "The God particle" of course.

I know that was a joke, but if you call it "The God Particle" again, I will e-punch you in the face.

Please do. It irritates even I, when I hear someone call it that.

[jstrodel]

Science is 0% theistic, scientists on the other hand, may be theists.

You just made a massive claim, that Christianity, which has been the most influential and defining aspect of western civilization, not to mention Aristotle and many Roman philosophers (who believed in God) had zero percent impact on modern science. You asserted your claim with zero evidence.

Do you think that science exists in a vacuum? Do you think that the cultures that surround scientific understanding have any effect on themt

Don't you think this would be a point against your argument? If so many scientists are theists, why haven't they proven god yet? What happened to the "atheist agenda" of science?

The point is that science does not prove God does not exist, not the very different and much more serious claim that science proves that God exists. I never claimed that God doesn't exist, but it is a stretch to say that science proves that God exists when arguably a majority of scientists are religious (one estimate was 55%).

Also, the fact that science, in its present form, cannot prove that God does not exist does not entail the proposition that God's existence cannot be proven, unless first it is demonstrated that science alone is the sole mediator of all knowledge. Obviously this is false and extreme.

The fact that science cannot prove something does not mean that its existence cannot be proven some other way. Science does not have a monopoly on the concept of truth.

So are we finally going to decide whether it is 20-30%, 40-60%, or 80-90% of atheists that are punk rocker Marxist liberal fascists?

Does it matter? Look around you. How many punk rock Marxist liberal fascists do you know? Be honest, if you are honest, you won't split hairs and try and define your terms in a way that obscures the original meaning, you will impartially view the nature of the left wing atheist movement and its youth culture manifestation in the counterculture. If you are honest, you will probably name several.

Your name is "darkstar" after all. How many people have called themselves "darkstar" 100 years ago? Don't you think you are a product of your culture, whether that be punk rock Marxist or technology or computer games or whatever it is? Don't you think there are other ways that people hold the beliefs that they do other than logic and reasoning? Don't you think that is intentional?

All of those things above seem self evident to me, you can trivialize the point and prove you aren't interested in honest inquiry, but if you look at the facts you will see that atheism is a culture that spreads through the culture of atheism. It doesn't spread through PhD studies, primarily. It spreads through non-academic culture and non-academic writing, such as the writing on this message board.

Taken out of context:

---

---

The video you posted proves my point, assuming that you grant the very questionable claim that Richard Dawkins is an authority on anything in life.
1. If abiogenesis can inhibit belief in God, it must be on sound epistemological footing
2. Abiogenisis is not on sound epistemological footing, as demonstrated by Richard Dawkins willingness to accept spores from outer space as possible explanation for an unknown idea
3. Abiogenesis cannot inhibit belief in God (MT 1,2)

Well, not theistic specifically. It could be a deistic god, for instance.

You completely missed the point of what I said.

[Ryantology]

The fact that science cannot prove something does not mean that its existence cannot be proven some other way.

Nobody has proven it in any other way, either.