Science and Religion

[Bad Writer]

Your analogy falls flat, as the others have pointed out, because driving a car invented by demonstrable designers in no way compares to how someone interacts with religion.

What? If you had read it properly, you would realise that the person saw a "chunk of metal" and had no "a-priori" knowledge of what it was.

The person based on his logic concluded the car was designed, but was completely ignorant as to how the car works mechanically. He praised the designer.

Then as time went, people found out how the car worked, ie, combustion etc etc.

People don't say, "well, we now know how the car works mechanically, you are an idiot for thinking it was designed".

This is a classic example of the 2 parties talking past each other.

You still have failed to properly show how this man driving a designed car has anything to do with how someone interacts with religion. In fact, all it shows is that this guy found something he thought came from nature and made use of it.

So if this guy had no prior experience when he came upon this "chunk of metal", what clued him in that it came from a designer and not from nature? Be careful here; we don't want to go down the path of calling things from nature designed.

[Angrboda]

Introducing yourself as a metaphorical used car salesman would probably not be my first choice of an opening move on an atheist forum.

[Doubting Thomas]

So you're going to claim that a cell looks designed rather than became that way over millions of years of evolution?

This is why science is at odds with religion. Mainly because religion has already made up its mind with an erroneous conclusion and then fits all evidence to support that conclusion, while science just goes where the evidence takes it. And the evidence has taken science to the place where evolution is not only a rational explanation, it is through repeatable testing the only explanation of how life came to be, not just saying, "this looks designed, therefore Goddidit."

[Minimalist]

Science and religion answer DIFFERENT questions and attempt to gain different knowledge about the world.

Science answers questions. Religion makes up answers to things it does not understand.

[Brian37]

You seem to now want to discuss something outside of your original post.

Originally you asked why religion and science were perceived to be at odds. Now you are pushing design.

And that is why religion and science are at odds.

""Would you agree that as a general rule of thumb, the more complex something appears, the more likely it is designed?"

No. All the most complex things we see are living life-forms and they show no signs of design.

I am tired of scientists trying to coddle superstition. Science should be at odds with anything that starts out as a naked assertion. To placate the insecurities of superstitious humans is to allow bad claims to fester.

[Heir Apparent]

Complexity is not evidence of creation. That's got to be one of the oldest/most tiring/most refuted claim out there. "Just LOOK at all this around you!" Okay, I do on a daily basis but I can explain why many things are the way they are with science if l do enough research. For the things I can't, I'm okay with admitting I don't know, but I'm sure as hell not stopping there and subbing in god.

Also science and religion are inherently not compatible. It's fine if you want to say that evolution is true but god started it, but don't expect us to accept that either.

[Faith No More]

---

I think one of the biggest myths is that religion / Theism is at odds with science. That is, the more we discover, the more it "buries" God.
This post typically looks at how "naïve" ancient religious were and that they did not have an understanding of the world, and the more we discover the world, it highlights how ignorant people were back then.

Science and religion answer DIFFERENT questions and attempt to gain different knowledge about the world.

Let me use an analogy.

Suppose we are in the late 17th century (the year the first motor vehicle) was built.

Lets suppose you are walking down a country track by yourself and you see this motor vehicle parked and their is no one around it. Lets also assume, you don't know what you are seeing, you never knew anything about a motor vehicle, you don't know its purpose. Basically, you see a chunk of metal in front of you.

You go up to it and look with amazement, you kick the wheel softly and you go inside and you think "what is this"?. Then slowly, slowly you turn the steering wheel and you realise the wheel turns etc etc. You turn on the engine etc etc and you begin to realise that this is a transporter. It transports you from location to location. It has a purpose. You are happy, ecstatic. You look around you and their is no one around The designer is not around, no one. No one knew anything about it. Days go past and you realise this is the best thing. You are happy. It is taking you from place to place. What a difference it has made to your life. Logically, it is reasonable to expect that this thing Is designed with the intent of transporting you. All at the same time, you are IGNORANT of the mechanics of how the thing works, ie, mechanics, combustion etc etc. You have no idea how it works. However, everyday, you are praising everyday in your mind the creator of this great machinery. "What a great designer, how smart is he etc etc". This person in my example is like the Theist. Based on what he sees, he is reasonable to conclude that this piece of machinery is designed, even though he has never seen the designer, never had any "a priori' knowledge of cars etc etc.

Now, as time goes along, other people see this car and they investigate it, observe it, test it and find out how it works. In my example, this is like scientists. They are working out how things work, gaining knowledge etc etc.

Now, aren't BOTH parties correct and rational? The person who found the car, even though he was ignorant on how it worked, he just praised the designer he never saw and basically said "someone did this".....and the mechanics who figured out how it works? Aren't BOTH views correct?

Science is the study of the natural world, how things work, ie, thunder, lightning, weather, oceans etc etc etc. Theology is the study of the designer ete etc.

I don't see the conflict. They both attempt to answer different questions and attempt to gain different knowledge.

---

Your analogy fails, because religion makes many claims as to how the car works. Adam and Eve, the soul, the existence of heaven and hell, et al all make claims as to the nature of the universe and how it operates. Science then comes along and either shows there is no evidence for such claims, or that those claims are patently false. Religious people then provide ad hoc explanations to try and shoehorn the new knowledge to be compatible with their religion.

The only way to accept the two as compatible is to ignore all of the claims as to the nature of reality that religion makes.

[Brian37]

So you're going to claim that a cell looks designed rather than became that way over millions of years of evolution?

This is why science is at odds with religion. Mainly because religion has already made up its mind with an erroneous conclusion and then fits all evidence to support that conclusion, while science just goes where the evidence takes it. And the evidence has taken science to the place where evolution is not only a rational explanation, it is through repeatable testing the only explanation of how life came to be, not just saying, "this looks designed, therefore Goddidit."

The "design" argument is a really bad one, because it relies on focusing on all the pretty stuff in reality while ignoring all the nasty shit(that is also complex). Cockroaches are complex and outnumber humans. Bacteria are complex also and also outnumber humans.

Complexity is not a starting point, it is an emergent property. Like a zygote is less complex than an adult human. Just as an atom is not complex compared to a molecule as compared to an entire organism. Just like one raindrop is not as complex as a puddle.

Biological life is "not designed" anymore than a hurricane occurs because of an ocean god.

Biological life exists because of natural conditions and do not need "god did it" to explain.

[Doubting Thomas]

The design argument also fails because it assumes that all plants & animals alive today always existed exactly the same as they do now, and we know that's just not so. Go back several million years and the planet wasn't nearly the same as it is today, so there are a lot of animals which wouldn't be able to survive. For example, before we had abundant plant life we humans couldn't have even survived on earth because the CO2 level was too high and the oxygen levels too low. But some animals thrived.

[Brian37]

The design argument also fails because it assumes that all plants & animals alive today always existed exactly the same as they do now, and we know that's just not so. Go back several million years and the planet wasn't nearly the same as it is today, so there are a lot of animals which wouldn't be able to survive. For example, before we had abundant plant life we humans couldn't have even survived on earth because the CO2 level was too high and the oxygen levels too low. But some animals thrived.

Don't present believers with facts, you do know that is why it is called "faith".