Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would it be better to say, christian God, islam God, hindu God and so on?

IMO, the term "Christian God" describes many different god-concepts.

 

[exchemist]

Would it be better to say, christian God, islam God, hindu God and so on?

Perhaps, though that might not be clear to a participant who was not familiar with the teachings.

Ideally, I would have thought, one should give a short paragraph outlining the key features of the God one has in mind. In fact, I suspect that a gentle interrogation of someone's conception of God, to get it clear, would in the process tease out a lot of the issues arising between science and religion.

 

[exchemist]

There are a few terms that I wish people would be clearer about.

A lot of the time, when people say that science has no bearing on their belief in God, I hear "I treat God as an aesthetic preference instead of an empirical fact; effectively, I'm an atheist who's just really invested in my cosplay."

God obviously is not an empirical fact, though. If God were, He would be accepted and would have become the subject of scientific enquiry.

So the issue becomes whether you are right to present the only alternative to empirical fact as being this "atheist cosplay" idea of yours.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I will read it when i get home, on phone now

Ok. Realized it's a book not article.

No rush

 

[Unveiled Artist]

IMO, the term "Christian God" describes many different god-concepts.

It does? How so?

The great consensus is its a creator and it interreacts with creation.

 

[halbhh]

Rural Indiana, the MidWest, the so-called "Heartland of America."
Belief in Hell is very common there. It's such a conservative, religious ****hole of a state you can't even by alcohol at the store to cook with (or any other reason) on a Sunday. It's so bad that many companies there require men to have short hair.

Wow, are there still places in the U.S. where you can't buy liquor on a Sunday!?

Ufh! I thought that silliness ended decades ago.

Christ made wine for a Jewish wedding, which I assume was the kind that lasts for days, and the people drink more than just a bit.... In the account, it's huge water jug size amounts of wine -- perhaps dozens of gallons. Someone call the cops.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Is this because you don't see the existence of God as a factual claim?

If you like.

It’s also because, as exercises in futility go, circuitous arguments about who has the burden of proof are pretty hard to beat.

For those who believe the universe has a divine purpose, no proof is necessary; for those who don’t, no proof is possible. Probably best to just leave it at that tbh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The existence of God is a matter of belief, is it not, rather than a matter of fact?

It's a matter of belief about fact. Whether the belief is true or not, or justified or not, is the question.

God obviously is not an empirical fact, though.

I would take this sentence to mean that God obviously does not exist. I assume you mean something else by it.

If God were, He would be accepted and would have become the subject of scientific enquiry.

It's more a question of whether God is a subject of empirical investigation. Whether the claim "God exists" is falsifiable.

So the issue becomes whether you are right to present the only alternative to empirical fact as being this "atheist cosplay" idea of yours.

I would say that anyone who does not believe that God exists in a real, literal way is an atheist, including people who use God as a metaphor or people who use the label "God" to denote their "ultimate concern."

Some of these people engage with the trappings of religion and theism in a way that I don't think is unfair to call "cosplay" if there isn't real belief behind it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does? How so?

Well, for one thing, "the Christian God" covers both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian god-concepts, so those are two broad categories of "Christian God" right there.

The "Trinitarian" label covers at least two god-concepts; the difference between these two god-concepts was a major factor in the split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

As for non-Trinitarian god-concepts... there are more than you could shake a stick at. Some of the bigger ones are Oneness Theology and the LDS Church's tritheistic idea of a Godhead. You can find many other non-Trinitarian Christian god-concepts listed here.

 

[exchemist]

It's a matter of belief about fact. Whether the belief is true or not, or justified or not, is the question.



I would take this sentence to mean that God obviously does not exist. I assume you mean something else by it.


It's more a question of whether God is a subject of empirical investigation. Whether the claim "God exists" is falsifiable.


I would say that anyone who does not believe that God exists in a real, literal way is an atheist, including people who use God as a metaphor or people who use the label "God" to denote their "ultimate concern."

Some of these people engage with the trappings of religion and theism in a way that I don't think is unfair to call "cosplay" if there isn't real belief behind it.

In the context of science, I take an empirical fact to be one that can be verified by reproducible observation. Is that what you also mean, or are we talking at cross-purposes?

 

[osgart]

It doesn't?

Yeah I've never heard of anyone addressing the subject. They don't take it seriously. And I see that it would be impossible for them to determine on a scientific basis. They can tell you how things behave, and their properties from observation, but they can't determine anything else.

So like any stance on intelligence in nature would be philosophical. There's no such test.

 

[exchemist]

Yeah I've never heard of anyone addressing the subject. They don't take it seriously. And I see that it would be impossible for them to determine on a scientific basis. They can tell you how things behave, and their properties from observation, but they can't determine anything else.

So like any stance on intelligence in nature would be philosophical. There's no such test.

What, then, do you think these researchers are doing: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/biosci...ntelligence-of-the-llama--abigail-tansley.pdf

 

[osgart]

What, then, do you think these researchers are doing: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/biosci...ntelligence-of-the-llama--abigail-tansley.pdf

I mean intelligence as the cause of life in nature. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

 

[exchemist]

I mean intelligence as the cause of life in nature. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Biochemistry seems to be the cause of life in nature. Intelligence does not seem to have anything to do with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the context of science, I take an empirical fact to be one that can be verified by reproducible observation. Is that what you also mean, or are we talking at cross-purposes?

Pretty close. I wouldn't say that the observation necessarily has to be reproducible, and "observation" can include direct or indirect measurement.

 

[osgart]

Biochemistry seems to be the cause of life in nature. Intelligence does not seem to have anything to do with it.

Ok but that's your philosophy. I've seen no such test for your conclusion

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah I've never heard of anyone addressing the subject. They don't take it seriously. And I see that it would be impossible for them to determine on a scientific basis. They can tell you how things behave, and their properties from observation, but they can't determine anything else.

So like any stance on intelligence in nature would be philosophical. There's no such test.

I think it's addressed indirectly. Establishing that one factor (e.g. random mutation) explains some aspect of observation implies that all other factors (e.g. Lamarckian "progression," the intervention of intelligent deities, the colour of the scientist's hat, etc.) is not playing a role in that aspect of observation.

 

[exchemist]

Pretty close. I wouldn't say that the observation necessarily has to be reproducible, and "observation" can include direct or indirect measurement.

Why not reproducible? Lots of people think they observe things that can't be corroborated. In what sense can we call such observations empirical facts?

 

[exchemist]

Ok but that's your philosophy. I've seen no such test for your conclusion

It's just applying Ockham's Razor.

 

[John1.12]

Maybe this question comes as a "shock" to someone that i ask since i am known for not trusting science
(meaning i am not afraid of science, just not see it as a valid way to answer certain questions)

But here we go...
1: Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?
2: Is there truly a way for science to disprove God or deities?
3: IF there is no "verifiable" proof of God, does that means God can not exist?
4: If science one day did discover Gods existence, does all religions fall away then? or does this part of science fall away?

Whos 'afraid ' ? Or are they skeptical of it ,and afraid that its misleading. I personally love science . When its science . Repeatable and observable.