Science and Religion Converge

[Skwim]

So far you've convinced me that my arguments are fairly sound because you haven't proven any of it false.

Ah, argumentum ad ignorantiam, haven't seen that one for awhile.

 

[Skeptisch]

You will never reason folks out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

One of the four horsemen says:
Are science and religion converging? No. There are modern scientists whose words sound religious but whose beliefs, on close examination, turn out to be identical to those of other scientists who straightforwardly call themselves atheists.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

To an honest judge, the alleged convergence between religion and science is a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

 

[McBell]

Why would I defend my assertions against arguments that don't exist?

Denial.
I hear tell that is merely the first step.

You can come in here and say that I haven't "proved" anything yet, but that means absolutely nothing.

Actually it means that you are making unsubstantiated claims.
The onus is on you to substantiate them.
If you do not even attempt to substantiate your claims, you are merely blowing hot air out your arse.

Someone with ill intentions or someone obstinate and unwilling to shift their opinion could simply say I haven't proven anything, no matter what assertions I make.

That is correct.
Because those of us who are not members of your choir want more than "I said so" to substantiate your claims.

So far you've convinced me that my arguments are fairly sound because you haven't proven any of it false.

If this intellectual dishonesty works for you, then by all means embrace it.
Just do not expect everyone else to be fooled by it.

Unfortunately you've gotten things backwards, and expect me to continuously make more and more assertions to prove my original assertions. It doesn't work that way. How would I know when I've afforded enough evidence to convince you of proof? I can't. Your claims are absurd.

And how would it be any different on your part?
Seems to me that you have just revealed your own argumental strategy.

. In the scientific sense, saying "God did it," is highly inaccurate and false and absurd; you are correct. But in the religious sense it could be the absolute truth.

Do you honestly see nothing wrong with this?

UNLESS one system crosses into the boundary of another system (ie. arguments of God's power contradict natural laws or something scientific.)

Yet religion is all the time attempting to impede science.
The latest being the ID "movement" of trying to force creation myths into science classrooms.

 

[McBell]

I think the key thing to note here is that they claim literal truth in the scientific sense. If they claim literal truth in the religious sense, like they should, this whole science vs. religion debate would be a non-issue.

What, exactly, is the difference between "scientific literal truth" and "religious literal truth"?

 

[PivotalSyntax]

@Skwim: Argumentum ad ignorantiam implies that what I'm asserting is true. It is true that I am arguing for it, but this whole process is to find out if it is true through discursive argumentation.

@Skeptisch: I have reasoned myself into this, which is exactly why I'm willing to be unreasoned out of it. You seem to be put negative connotations on being reasoned into something by someone else -- sometimes it is simply necessary to accept the truth of someone else, or we may spend our whole life reasoning.

What, exactly, is the difference between "scientific literal truth" and "religious literal truth"?

Scientific truths deal with the general laws of the Universe. It explains everything through these laws. Religious truths seek to explain the nature of the Universe. Science does it systematically, religion tries to look at it from afar. Science seems to use facts, figures, experiences -- anything empirical. Religion uses concepts and actual practices (eg. meditation). (This is very general, so bear with me.) I think the difference is best explained by an example, as my definition skills are lacking. The difference between these two truths is most evident when they clash. For example, when people with monotheistic beliefs try to use God to explain natural processes in this world. Unless God is controlling these natural processes, it is false. The natural processes of the world, or science, cannot be used to describe the nature of God, because generally he is believed to transcend all the limitations of our world.

 

[Skeptisch]

I have reasoned myself into this, which is exactly why I'm willing to be unreasoned out of it.

It seems you have unreasoned yourself into it, which is exactly why you should be willing to reason yourself out of it.

 

[logician]

"Why is it that atheists so vehemently reject all God and religion?"

Who is being "vehement" about it. It just amounts to lack of evidence.

 

[McBell]

Scientific truths deal with the general laws of the Universe. It explains everything through these laws. Religious truths seek to explain the nature of the Universe.

What do you mean by "the nature of the universe"?

Science does it systematically, religion tries to look at it from afar.

This makes no sense to me as written.

Science seems to use facts, figures, experiences -- anything empirical. Religion uses concepts and actual practices (eg. meditation). (This is very general, so bear with me.) I think the difference is best explained by an example, as my definition skills are lacking.

you will need to explain this further because it seems to me that you are saying that science uses reality and religion uses whatever it wants.

The difference between these two truths is most evident when they clash. For example, when people with monotheistic beliefs try to use God to explain natural processes in this world. Unless God is controlling these natural processes, it is false. The natural processes of the world, or science, cannot be used to describe the nature of God, because generally he is believed to transcend all the limitations of our world.

huh?

 

[brbubba]

"Why is it that atheists so vehemently reject all God and religion?"

Who is being "vehement" about it. It just amounts to lack of evidence.

I agree and as I found out from my, "Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist," thread there are some very differing opinions among atheists. For example there are Christian Atheists, who reject a Christian God but follow the teachings of the bible. Also there are people who consider themselves atheist because they reject traditional judeo/christian God views, but they could believe in God, albeit in a very different form.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Why is it that atheists so vehemently reject all God and religion?

Utter and complete lack of evidence for their claims, at least in my case, but I guess there could be different reasons for different atheists.
Remember that the word “atheist” simply means someone who does not believe in any god or gods. That’s all. It says nothing about how that person feels about science in general, and it is entirely possible to believe in all kinds of hogwash and still be an atheist.

But why do these approaches have to be taken literally?

Because that is what various religions have claimed for centuries. They don’t get to change their tune now just because it is more convenient. See, organised religion hinges on the authority of their scripture and their leaders. Thus they have claimed that their Bible/Quran/whatever is the enlightened word of their god of choice and thus eternally true. There is no way of getting out of that dilemma. Organised religion is built on a foundation of dogma. Therefore the only appropriate approach is to take it literarily.

I see them out-right rejected by atheists, rather than interpreted for their metaphorical meaning and message.

Why should we have to consider them at all? They have so far shown to have little in the way of accuracy and credibility, and they can hardly be seen to add much in the way of understanding the world we live in, except as a cultural/historical element. Scientifically they add absolutely nothing.

Religion should be a highly individual path...

What people believe in or not in their own living room is none of my business. Just keep it out of my schools, my society, my politics and my judicial system and we’ll have no problem. Oh, and it would be really nice if people stopped indoctrinating their children with this nonsense as well.

Religion has a myriad of approaches to explaining reality.

Religion has no viable explanations at all. Instead it asks for blind faith in whatever is put before you.

I have no issue with religions being refuted, disproved, etc., but in doing so, so many people ignore the UNDERLYING current and profess themselves atheists too quickly.

As mentioned an atheist is simply someone who doesn’t believe in a god or gods and I have yet to hear a credible argument for why believing in a god is the right thing to do, logically or otherwise.

From my experience, atheists reject God, and then proclaim that particular religion invalid because of that.

I have never heard an atheist word it like that, but you have to agree that the basis for most religions is the belief in a god or gods. Without the god(s) there is no religion. Hence, if there is no reason to believe in the god(s) then logically there is no reason to believe in the religion in question.

And if a scientific theory is thought to be proven, but in the end new discoveries bring us new knowledge that proves the theory obsolete, people do not instantly proclaim all of science to be wrong.

Outside of the realm of mathematics things are not “proven” at all. The scientific Theories we have are based on evidentially showing that they are overwhelmingly likely to be correct. Of course, from time to time a Theory is shown to be wrong, in which case it is usually replaced by a superior Theory, and this is the greatest strength of science. It continually improves and it is never satisfied with the answers it gets.

Religion is looked at too narrowly. People reject religious views, but fail to explore it on their own -- which is ultimately where real meaning can be derived from.

Forgive me if I am misreading you but it seems as if you take it as a given that religion has an intrinsic value of some kind. If that is what you mean then you need to show why this is so before you use it as an axiom in this discussion.

The goal should be unbiased search for truth!

To quote Michael Shermer: “Follow the data!”

 

[painted wolf]

Just to give my 2cents on the OP...

I'm a theist and a biologist... While I have no conflict between the two, I also realize that they are entirely separate from one another and do not converge except where I make them do so.

They address totally different aspects of reality. Science, tells us about the world around us and how it functions, including the biology behind how we function... religion on the other hand, tells us about ourselves and how we fit into the human experience from a cultural and moral perspective.

Expecting any more than that IMHO is where people get into trouble.

wa:do

ps... I can't speak to the atheism issue.... except that I think a false conclusion is made in the OP about "support for science" and atheism, as well as the reasons people pursue atheism.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm a theist and a biologist...

Interesting. I have a question, if you don't mind.
As a biologist I assume you rely on empiricism and evidence to make sense of the biological world.

Why is it that you do not apply the same standards to your Theistic notions?

 

[painted wolf]

Interesting. I have a question, if you don't mind.
As a biologist I assume you rely on empiricism and evidence to make sense of the biological world.

Why is it that you do not apply the same standards to your Theistic notions?

How does one empirically test an animist/pantheist deity?

You also seem to miss the point of religion as a cultural/philosophical experience.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

How does one empirically test an animist/pantheist deity?

That is my point exactly. In science we do not accept claims that are not backed up by evidence. Why should it be different with religion? What gives religion, if you'll forgive my bluntness, a free pass when it comes to making statements about reality?

You also seem to miss the point of religion as a cultural/philosophical experience.

No, I see that point very clearly, but while cultural and social experiences are very important it does not follow that the claims made on their basis are in any way true.

 

[painted wolf]

That is my point exactly. In science we do not accept claims that are not backed up by evidence.

We also know how naturalism works... how does one test the untestable? I make no scientific claims about my faith... nor do I make any faith based claims about the natural world.

Why should it be different with religion? What gives religion, if you'll forgive my bluntness, a free pass when it comes to making statements about reality?

Perhaps you missed where I said I felt religion belongs...?
What right does any philosophy have in helping me determine how I approach my place in the world and my inner struggles?
Empiricism can only inform me so far as I have something empirical to work with. How do I empirically quantify how I feel about maize, it's role in human history and it's place in Cherokee culture?

No, I see that point very clearly, but while cultural and social experiences are very important it does not follow that the claims made on their basis are in any way true.

Define truth in this instance. Truth is a tricky word.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

We also know how naturalism works... how does one test the untestable? I make no scientific claims about my faith... nor do I make any faith based claims about the natural world.

Personally I do not allow anything into my view of reality that we cannot empirically show is a fact.
Now, I willingly admit ignorance with regards to the beliefs of Native Americans so I won't get into that specifically, but what I am questioning here is the very claim that there is something supernatural to begin with. Souls, ghosts, gods, spirits, angels... It doesn't matter.

In science we do not accept the existence of anything without ample evidence. Why should this be different when it comes to religion?

Empiricism can only inform me so far as I have something empirical to work with. How do I empirically quantify how I feel about maize, it's role in human history and it's place in Cherokee culture?

Again, I am fairly ignorant with regards to your personal beliefs.
But in my opinion empiricism and evidence-based knowledge is all we have. And my question to you stems from the apparent discord between the demands we put on science and the complete lack of demands we allow religion to get away with.

I am not attacking you personally, or at all for that matter. I have asked this question of many science-minded Theists. I've just never gotten a good answer.

Why the inconsistency?
Why the differing standards?
Why give religion a free pass?

 

[Skeptisch]

painted wolf and jarofthoughts , what would you call someone who agrees with this:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Theism - Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theist

 

[jarofthoughts]

That quote is generally attributed to Einstein who, as far as I can call it, was at best a Deist. At the very least he did not believe in a personal god (by his own words) that intervenes in human actions, and thus he could not have been a Theist. In some respects it could be said that Einstein used the word "god" simply to express awe and amazement about the universe, and thus some consider him an atheist.

Whether Spinoza himself was a Deist or not is debatable. Some consider him to have been a Pantheist or an Animist, but his concept of god certainly differed from that of for instance Newton who attributed to his concept of god the role of "the first mover" or "first cause".

To answer your question I would, based solely on that quote, consider said person to be either an Agnostic Deist or an Agnostic Atheist. The difference isn't all that big though.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But Buddhism is quite the opposite of Christianity.

Except in this phrase.

 

[McBell]

I've just never gotten a good answer.

Define: "good answer"