Religion proves itself unscientific.

[Enai de a lukal]

But the subject of THIS thread is whether or not "Religion proves itself unscientific". The subject of your thread is not relevant to THIS discussion or any of my comments here.

Since you've claimed that religion is based on faith (i.e. alone), it would seem it IS relevant.

Straw-man arguments do not advance your position. It WAS warranted based on the second part of my response.

You should probably look up "strawman" and see what that means before you start tossing that accusation around; no misrepresentation of your position, since it was based on an anecdote and a non-sequitur (i.e. "the second part"). Clearly, a non-sequitur cannot provide warrant for your universal claim any more than limited personal experience can.

That doesn't necessitate justifying them in scientific terms to other people!

Now we're moving the goalposts...

 

[captainbryce]

Since you've claimed that religion is based on faith (i.e. alone), it would seem it IS relevant.

I didn't say it was based on faith ALONE. You're misrepresenting my position and attacking a straw man. My point is, your thread is not relevant to this one.

You should probably look up "strawman" and see what that means before

That's not necessary. I'm well aware of the definition of the particular fallacy you are guilty of here, thanks!

no misrepresentation of your position, since it was based on an anecdote and a non-sequitur (i.e. "the second part"). Clearly, a non-sequitur cannot provide warrant for your universal claim any more than limited personal experience can.

Lemme get this straight....The OP makes a broad generalization about "religion", I counter that by explaining that "religion" isn't the single entity concept that he claims it is, and you are attacking me for making a generalization? You're some peice of work do you know that! I already admitted to making a generalization. But it was a very logical one given how generalized the OP's post was concerning "religion" in the first place. Perhaps you are barking up the wrong tree here! Perhaps you should be taking this up with the OP FIRST, since he's the one that started with the generalizations. Or is it that you AGREE with his generalization, and find it more convenient to support it by attacking my position? I'd like you to explain to me how my statement is a non-sequitur exactly. And the statement we are referring to is this one:

"The other part is based on logic. If your religion is based on faith, then the only person you'd have to reconcile science with faith is yourself. Not other people! Unless you are actively "evangelizing", then outward reconciliation of this type is unnecessary."

Now we're moving the goalposts...

I don't think so. I think this is the same goal that the OP initially set in his failed post. Let me remind you what his position is:

"Is the fact that religion has to make a continuous effort to prove itself being scientific proof that it is unscientific to begin with?"

Yup, SAME goalpost! :yes:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It has always been bizarre as to why a religious organization must tie itself into science so badly there must be an entire sect to mesh it in successfully by the mere usage of the name.
It has always occurred to me that because such schools of thought exists that it is essentially proof religion is not compatible with science.

Theological thoughts such as Christian Science and Mu'tazilah are movements within religions that try to promote the coexistence of science and religion yet they seem to only prove the incompatibility of the two.

Is the fact that religion has to make a continuous effort to prove itself being scientific proof that it is unscientific to begin with?

First off, science has limitations. Science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain. Second, the existence of God can be argued for based on logical reasoning alone, and these logical arguments do not need nor use science as the backbone for its premises. Third, naturalism is a self-refuting concept, and anything that is self-refuting need not be believed.

So I will stick to my Christianity.

 

[cottage]

First off, science has limitations. Science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain. Second, the existence of God can be argued for based on logical reasoning alone, and these logical arguments do not need nor use science as the backbone for its premises. Third, naturalism is a self-refuting concept, and anything that is self-refuting need not be believed.

So I will stick to my Christianity.

Everything has its limitations. Science cannot be used to explain science just as logic cannot be used to explain logic. But at least science for all its limitations is relevant to experience and what actually exists, whereas logic is only relevant to concepts and tautologies and can never demonstrate the existence of any object.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

First off, science has limitations. Science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain. Second, the existence of God can be argued for based on logical reasoning alone, and these logical arguments do not need nor use science as the backbone for its premises. Third, naturalism is a self-refuting concept, and anything that is self-refuting need not be believed.

So I will stick to my Christianity.

What are the limitations of science? Is it splitting an atom? Cloning a living creature? Stopping light? Space travel? Manipulating genes? What exactly is the limit?

 

[sonofdad]

First off, science has limitations. Science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain. Second, the existence of God can be argued for based on logical reasoning alone, and these logical arguments do not need nor use science as the backbone for its premises. Third, naturalism is a self-refuting concept, and anything that is self-refuting need not be believed.

So I will stick to my Christianity.

1. What do you mean? Are you saying the methodology of naturalistic science cannot be used to explain the origins of natural phenomenons?

2. We can argue for the existence of space munching fairy princesses using logical arguments, as long as we modify our logical principles so that premises are automatically assumed to be true.

3. How is naturalism self-refuting?

 

[Larry0048]

1. What do you mean? Are you saying the methodology of naturalistic science cannot be used to explain the origins of natural phenomenons?

2. We can argue for the existence of space munching fairy princesses using logical arguments, as long as we modify our logical principles so that premises are automatically assumed to be true.

3. How is naturalism self-refuting?

Hi,

I am curious about argument #2. I wonder if someone could provide a convincing illustration of that kind of an argument?

For argument #3.

Scientists who accept Christianity - the Christian faith - have to adopt methodological naturalism when they do science. That is, they have to limit their explanations to
natural causes - they cannot make appeals to God in their science.

That's different than saying that God does not exist - which is another way of saying that the physical space / time/ energy / matter cosmos is all that does exist.

Different than thinking that only the cosmos and the physical realities that science investigates and properly seeks to account for in naturalistic ways is all that exists.

That claim is self refuting if it is dogmatically stated to be truth because the person making that claim in effect claims to be omniscient.

After all, an immensely knowledgeable - but not omniscient - person would be without total knowledge. Would have no knowledge of at least one fact. That one fact just might turn out to be God - or something else that stands outside of the physical cosmos.

Sorry, I read the post and couldn't resist butting in.

Larry

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Everything has its limitations. Science cannot be used to explain science just as logic cannot be used to explain logic. But at least science for all its limitations is relevant to experience and what actually exists, whereas logic is only relevant to concepts and tautologies and can never demonstrate the existence of any object.

My point is as long as the universe is contingent, science cannot be used to explain its origins.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What are the limitations of science? Is it splitting an atom? Cloning a living creature? Stopping light? Space travel? Manipulating genes? What exactly is the limit?

Science cannot be used to explain the ORIGINS of its own domain. To use science to explain the origins of nature is absurd. Second, science cannot be used to explain morality. Third, science cannot be used to explain the origin of life. Fourth, science cannot be used to explain the existence of consciousness.

Need I say more?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. What do you mean? Are you saying the methodology of naturalistic science cannot be used to explain the origins of natural phenomenons?

I will tell you like I told cottage...as long as the universe is contingent, no scientific explanation is sufficient enough to explain its origins. And by "universe", I mean everything that physically exists, even physical reality that we don't know about.

2. We can argue for the existence of space munching fairy princesses using logical arguments, as long as we modify our logical principles so that premises are automatically assumed to be true.

Be my guest, although that is not something that I would do.

3. How is naturalism self-refuting?

Before I do that, do you believe that we should only believe things that can be scientifically proven?

 

[cottage]

Hi,

I am curious about argument #2. I wonder if someone could provide a convincing illustration of that kind of an argument?


Larry

I've paraphrased Descartes' cosmological argument.

I have it in my mind that God exists, a clear and distinct concept of absolute perfection, infinite, eternal, immutable, supremely intelligent and omnipotent. Only God could cause that idea in me for I find none of those attributes in myself and therefore the idea could not have originated in me as the effect must be adequate to the cause. Hence God exists.

Then there is this:

Descartes knows that God, the perfect being, is not a deceiver and thus whatever Descartes understands clearly and distinctly is true, therefore God exists because God has implanted in Descartes the faculty of judgement that is the clear and distinct ideas (This fallacious question-begging is known as the Cartesian Circle).

 

[cottage]

My point is as long as the universe is contingent, science cannot be used to explain its origins.

And my point was that the existence of things cannot be explained by tautological propositions.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And my point was that the existence of things cannot be explained by tautological propositions.

Well, call it what you want, but as long as the statement "science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain" is intuitively true, the fact still remains.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Science cannot be used to explain the ORIGINS of its own domain. To use science to explain the origins of nature is absurd. Second, science cannot be used to explain morality. Third, science cannot be used to explain the origin of life. Fourth, science cannot be used to explain the existence of consciousness.

Need I say more?

1. Does it seek to? What is the Origin of it's domain supposed to mean? The universe, the formation of nature...?

2. Science cannot be used to explain morality? What is morality? I mean i'm sure you have a "strict" definition of it based on the bible, but it would appear that morality even in the bible has changed over time (like is it morally acceptable to own a person, no i'm not asking about how you treat them, but just is it morally acceptable to own another human being as property?). However there are research in psychology which answers those type of questions because that's psychologies domain. Science as well can maybe scratch the surface.

3. The origin of life? What says that it can't? They have working hypothesis, we have the pieces, viruses, prions, creatures that are not truly alive but contain the basic components of life (DNA, RNA and Proteins) and reproduce using other things including each other (Yes there are viruses that infect other viruses). We know that under certain conditions that simple amino acids can be created. Now I won't discount the "hands" of God not taking a part of it as well though.

4. What is Consciousness? Simply saying something doesn't mean anything because I'm not sure if you mean it in laymen terms or in biological terms, or or in psychological terms, or philosophical? Because we know a lot more about the brain now and there is so much more to learn.

Here's the problem with your statement "science will never" it's an absolute...which makes no sense since...we aren't all extinct. When we are down to the last two humans on earth, who cannot possibly reproduce because they are both infertile...then you can say "science will never", but while there are new discoveries being made every day, new theories tested, new hypothesis created to be tested...I think it's a little premature to say "Science will never" because the people who have said that have been proven wrong quite a few times.

Not to mention Modern Science as we know it is what? 200+ years old...maybe even less, and the advances we've done in technology from the 60's to now...take a look at a computer in the 60's look at your computer now...it's faster, more powerful...and cheaper...give things time. What's the point of being given brains, and the ability to reason if using it is such a detriment?

 

[cottage]

Well, call it what you want, but as long as the statement "science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain" is intuitively true, the fact still remains.

But I was responding to your second point, which you’ve now answered again with your first!

 

[Larry0048]

2. We can argue for the existence of space munching fairy princesses using logical arguments, as long as we modify our logical principles so that premises are automatically assumed to be true.

I agree that logical arguments will always fall short of convincing skeptics. There are no "proofs" as such - but there are reasons for beliefs that - and these reasons are rational. I think Descartes , Pascal and others found validity in their arguments because those arguments corresponded to something they had personally experienced.
Before I posted I had read the following from a discussion two scientists were engaged in:
" …science and our detailed scientific understanding of the Big Bang doesnʼt actually address the question of meaning. That ʼs not science - doesnʼt mean itʼs untrue but it is different from science, and that ʼs where bringing in other truths about the reality of human existence comes in. And I would say that thatʼs still evidence, but this time weʼre talking about evidence from other parts of life, evidence from other experience within life…maybe thatʼs where we stop saying, ʻIʼm a scientist, Iʼm just a brain on legsʼ and we start saying, ʻActually Iʼm a human being with emotions and with the ability to relate to other people. ʼ And I would say that a big part of truth about our life and truth about our living comes from the way we relate to other people, and the way we relate to God, and thatʼs evidence too.Answered prayers are evidence of the intervention of God in our existence on earth. Now you canʼt put God in a test tube and you canʼt make measurements of God but that doesnʼt mean that our experience of relating to God isnʼt valid experience that we bring to bear in a whole picture of what the universe and life and everything is all about."
So , for the believer, there are experiences and other kinds of reasons for faith. If the philosophies of such as Descartes and Pascal fall short , I think so do all other human philosophies. At least I am not aware of any human philosophies that are without counter arguments or critics.
But to say you can argue for "space munching fairy princesses" on the basis of logic , I think too readily dismisses something that many people find makes a lot of sense - gives them an understanding of reality that is deeply satisfying for them.
Something that acts like the Sun - it may be hard to look directly at it but you can see other things by its light. People who have faith may not - I don't think do - have all the answers. But they have something that leads to increased understanding as the move through life.
Much like the way that scientists lack total understanding but do have increased knowledge as time goes on.
It might also be worth pointing out that we all argue in circles when we are arguing for our basic beliefs.
Suppose you are a philosophical naturalist as opposed to merely a methodological one - you want to prove your basic belief - philosophical naturalism - that the physical universe is all there is.
How would you prove that empirically? How would you prove it logically?
It could be argued that you are actually functionally slipping into my worldview - borrowing it , if you will, when you argue against it.
Genesis chapter One and Two tell us that the Universe was created by an orderly and rational God and that we were created in His image - we were created to " have dominion " over creation.
So we can trust that the world is orderly and that we can gain real knowledge of it - we are that sort of being that can discover and know.
Consider that science seems to indicate that there is a rationality to the universe. Mathematics has tremendous explanatory power - but why should it have that kind of power?
Why are the laws of physics discoverable?
How does your worldview fair when you ask yourself those questions?
Or do you think my thinking is on a par with arguing for "space munching fairy princesses"?
Larry​

 

[cottage]

I agree that logical arguments will always fall short of convincing skeptics. There are no "proofs" as such - but there are reasons for beliefs that - and these reasons are rational. I think Descartes , Pascal and others found validity in their arguments because those arguments corresponded to something they had personally experienced.
Before I posted I had read the following from a discussion two scientists were engaged in:
" …science and our detailed scientific understanding of the Big Bang doesnʼt actually address the question of meaning. That ʼs not science - doesnʼt mean itʼs untrue but it is different from science, and that ʼs where bringing in other truths about the reality of human existence comes in. And I would say that thatʼs still evidence, but this time weʼre talking about evidence from other parts of life, evidence from other experience within life…maybe thatʼs where we stop saying, ʻIʼm a scientist, Iʼm just a brain on legsʼ and we start saying, ʻActually Iʼm a human being with emotions and with the ability to relate to other people.ʼ And I would say that a big part of truth about our life and truth about our living comes from the way we relate to other people, and the way we relate to God, and thatʼs evidence too.Answered prayers are evidence of the intervention of God in our existence on earth. Now you canʼt put God in a test tube and you canʼt make measurements of God but that doesnʼt mean that our experience of relating to God isnʼt valid experience that we bring to bear in a whole picture of what the universe and life and everything is all about."
So , for the believer, there are experiences and other kinds of reasons for faith. If the philosophies of such as Descartes and Pascal fall short , I think so do all other human philosophies. At least I am not aware of any human philosophies that are without counter arguments or critics.
But to say you can argue for "space munching fairy princesses" on the basis of logic , I think too readily dismisses something that many people find makes a lot of sense - gives them an understanding of reality that is deeply satisfying for them.
Something that acts like the Sun - it may be hard to look directly at it but you can see other things by its light. People who have faith may not - I don't think do - have all the answers. But they have something that leads to increased understanding as the move through life.
Much like the way that scientists lack total understanding but do have increased knowledge as time goes on.
It might also be worth pointing out that we all argue in circles when we are arguing for our basic beliefs.
Suppose you are a philosophical naturalist as opposed to merely a methodological one - you want to prove your basic belief - philosophical naturalism - that the physical universe is all there is.
How would you prove that empirically? How would you prove it logically?
It could be argued that you are actually functionally slipping into my worldview - borrowing it , if you will, when you argue against it.
Genesis chapter One and Two tell us that the Universe was created by an orderly and rational God and that we were created in His image - we were created to " have dominion " over creation.
So we can trust that the world is orderly and that we can gain real knowledge of it - we are that sort of being that can discover and know.
Consider that science seems to indicate that there is a rationality to the universe. Mathematics has tremendous explanatory power - but why should it have that kind of power?
Why are the laws of physics discoverable?
How does your worldview fair when you ask yourself those questions?
Or do you think my thinking is on a par with arguing for "space munching fairy princesses"?​

Larry​

I think something is being overlooked here, a crucial distinction that is made evident by that passage with the two scientists in discussion. A scientific fact is only as true, albeit in a highly probable sense, as the next observed occurrence, and every scientific hypothesis or theory is open at any time to be rejected or modified. And because of that understanding not even the most single-minded scientists expose themselves to the ridicule of their peers by claiming that naturally occurring phenomena are some form of absolute or certain truth. And yet religious faith does presume that very thing, that God exists is a true belief, that is to say absolute and certain, while allowing no arguments to count against that belief as faith. Theist philosophers always find for the conclusion that God exists from that same premise, which is either given or already held in advance. So belief in God is not a genuine enquiry for it seeks to understand the world only according to pre-conceived notions that are not subject to change, dogma in other words, while scientific discovery can never be constrained in that way.

 

[Larry0048]

I think something is being overlooked here, a crucial distinction that is made evident by that passage with the two scientists in discussion. A scientific fact is only as true, albeit in a highly probable sense, as the next observed occurrence, and every scientific hypothesis or theory is open at any time to be rejected or modified. And because of that understanding not even the most single-minded scientists expose themselves to the ridicule of their peers by claiming that naturally occurring phenomena are some form of absolute or certain truth. And yet religious faith does presume that very thing, that God exists is a true belief, that is to say absolute and certain, while allowing no arguments to count against that belief as faith. Theist philosophers always find for the conclusion that God exists from that same premise, which is either given or already held in advance. So belief in God is not a genuine enquiry for it seeks to understand the world only according to pre-conceived notions that are not subject to change, dogma in other words, while scientific discovery can never be constrained in that way.

Many scientists are also believers. Certainly they make enquires. They demand rational
reasons for holding their beliefs.

Some of those reasons can be congruent with scientific facts. Our understanding of scientific theories change but well tested facts do hold up. Einstein's theories find application where Newton's would not - but Newton's still apply and work well for
many applications.

Modern science is very congruent with belief. It always will even though science will advance. Because one of the things you need in order to do science - in order to have it - is and orderly universe. A universe where things are repeatable and you need the expectation that that state of affairs will continue into the future.

Else why bother to do the work?

So the fact that the universe reveals itself to be orderly - that the laws of physics can be discovered at all , that math yields insights at all are facts that are congruent with faith.

Science yields discoveries - well tested ideas that stand up to scrutiny - that provide intimations of God's existence.

That carbon can only be formed in stars and that under very exacting conditions is a fact that is not likely to change. The forces of gravity and electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces have to pretty much be what they are - the constants
or formulas that describe those forces and the way they interact are not likely to change or the ideas of the way the molecules have to interact - but there is an amazing process there - just one example.

But these are intimations of a Creator and it is rational to accept them as such. maybe some day we will have an even better understanding of this but that understanding would likely only be more of an intimation rather than otherwise.

Some might be historical reasons. Thinking about the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. That is a rational inquiry. The facts have to be explainable in an intellectually satisfying way.

Some reasons are personal - come by way of personal experience - to the believer there is a relationship - an interaction - that provides rational belief to him or her.

I believe I have experienced providential care over the course of my life, for instance.
On the battlefield when I was in Vietnam. How I fell into my career.

These involved answered prayer and an improbable chain of events.

So this sense of being cared for and the way life progressed in a fairly satisfactory way - sometimes when I would have made other choices had I been able to - these become reasons that support my faith.

I have other reasons - that the Gospels ring true for me. Prophecies about the nation
of Israel that I see coming true today. the statements were made in the Old Testament - the people would be dispersed fro disobedience- but then later restored to the land - which though it had become a desert would be made to flourish.

Those are recorded in the Dead Sea Manuscripts so we know they are at least that old - yet they are coming true today. There is a congruence there.

These are not trivial reasons - they may not prove anything to you - they can be explained away. If you adopt a position that says the supernatural does not exist, you will discount them.

But then may only be holding on to your faith - your basics philosophical beliefs - in the dogmatic fashion you accuse believers of doing.

BTW , I think many individual believers would abandon their faith were it not intellectually satisfying and plausible to hold it. Some may not but I think many would.

There is a difference between having a plausible faith - one where several different
kinds of reasons seem to be congruent and has a breadth of explanatory power and works in the life of an individual and holding a faith or belief that does not have rational support.

Larry

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Many scientists are also believers. Certainly they make enquires. They demand rational
reasons for holding their beliefs.

Some of those reasons can be congruent with scientific facts. Our understanding of scientific theories change but well tested facts do hold up. Einstein's theories find application where Newton's would not - but Newton's still apply and work well for
many applications.

Modern science is very congruent with belief. It always will even though science will advance. Because one of the things you need in order to do science - in order to have it - is and orderly universe. A universe where things are repeatable and you need the expectation that that state of affairs will continue into the future.

Else why bother to do the work?

So the fact that the universe reveals itself to be orderly - that the laws of physics can be discovered at all , that math yields insights at all are facts that are congruent with faith.

Science yields discoveries - well tested ideas that stand up to scrutiny - that provide intimations of God's existence.

That carbon can only be formed in stars and that under very exacting conditions is a fact that is not likely to change. The forces of gravity and electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces have to pretty much be what they are - the constants
or formulas that describe those forces and the way they interact are not likely to change or the ideas of the way the molecules have to interact - but there is an amazing process there - just one example.

But these are intimations of a Creator and it is rational to accept them as such. maybe some day we will have an even better understanding of this but that understanding would likely only be more of an intimation rather than otherwise.

Some might be historical reasons. Thinking about the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. That is a rational inquiry. The facts have to be explainable in an intellectually satisfying way.

Some reasons are personal - come by way of personal experience - to the believer there is a relationship - an interaction - that provides rational belief to him or her.

I believe I have experienced providential care over the course of my life, for instance.
On the battlefield when I was in Vietnam. How I fell into my career.

These involved answered prayer and an improbable chain of events.

So this sense of being cared for and the way life progressed in a fairly satisfactory way - sometimes when I would have made other choices had I been able to - these become reasons that support my faith.

I have other reasons - that the Gospels ring true for me. Prophecies about the nation
of Israel that I see coming true today. the statements were made in the Old Testament - the people would be dispersed fro disobedience- but then later restored to the land - which though it had become a desert would be made to flourish.

Those are recorded in the Dead Sea Manuscripts so we know they are at least that old - yet they are coming true today. There is a congruence there.

These are not trivial reasons - they may not prove anything to you - they can be explained away. If you adopt a position that says the supernatural does not exist, you will discount them.

But then may only be holding on to your faith - your basics philosophical beliefs - in the dogmatic fashion you accuse believers of doing.

BTW , I think many individual believers would abandon their faith were it not intellectually satisfying and plausible to hold it. Some may not but I think many would.

There is a difference between having a plausible faith - one where several different
kinds of reasons seem to be congruent and has a breadth of explanatory power and works in the life of an individual and holding a faith or belief that does not have rational support.

Larry

Or it works for them? I believe in God, or more specifically I believe in following the Path that Jesus says will lead to God. That to me is rational because I see what Jesus told us are things that coincide with the natural world. So to me there isn't any non-rationale thought in there.

 

[Larry0048]

Or it works for them? I believe in God, or more specifically I believe in following the Path that Jesus says will lead to God. That to me is rational because I see what Jesus told us are things that coincide with the natural world. So to me there isn't any non-rationale thought in there.

Yes! I believe that Christianity is rationally consistent and fully congruent with the world of science.

It certainly has worked for me!

Larry