Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?

[John1.12]

I haven't asked any questions.

You claim to love science and I don't think you do, based on your comments.

Ok your statements don't fit my situation ..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm afraid when scientists deal with these sorts of questions without God .
'Has the stuff of the universe always existed. Is the universe eternal?

Why does that frighten you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there is intelligence then there is the capacity to form purposes and goals and then carry out processes to achieve those purposes and goals.

When you say "carry out processes to achieve those purposes and goals," it sure sounds to me that you're talking about physical effects that could be measured. No?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

1: Why are some religious people "afraid" of science?

Frankly, I think in many instances they are not -- they trust the science that gives them telephones and televisions, computers and cars, medical procedures, and on and on. But sometimes, science has something to say about some religious beliefs, and that can cause a big problem for those who have a need to take their beliefs literally.

If you are supposed to believe, literally, that God created the universe and Adam and Eve a little more than 6,000 years ago, well, science tells you that you are not only wrong, you are ludicrously wrong.

If you are supposed to believe, literally, that God hates gay people, and science can show that homosexuality is a perfectly natural and unalterable shade of human sexuality, then what are you supposed to do about that?

Those who can adjust their religious beliefs to accept what science has shown to be true will usually have little trouble keeping both their religion and their trust in science. Those who can't, unfortunately, have little choice to but to rage on and on and on forever against sciences like Evolution, as futile as that raging is.

2: Is there truly a way for science to disprove God or deities?

No, there is not. The definitions of deities almost universally declare that they are "immaterial" or "not part of this world." Science can only answer questions about what it can observe.

However, science does show that many of the things that are believed to be caused by God or deities have perfectly natural, perfectly reasonable explanations, which mostly seem to suggest that, in those cases at least, there is no need at all for God or deities. That doesn't prove that God or deities don't exist, only that all too often they're not required.

3: IF there is no "verifiable" proof of God, does that means God can not exist?

No. At present, we have no "verifiable proof" that life exists elsewhere in our universe, and yet, it seems to many that not only is life possible elsewhere, it seems to be actually extremely likely.

The best you can do with this question is to ask yourself questions like "why do I believe that God (or life elsewhere) exists?" If you answer honestly, and your answer satisfies you, then you have at least done your due diligence and have no reason to feel ashamed for holding your belief.

4: If science one day did discover Gods existence, does all religions fall away then? or does this part of science fall away?

I strongly doubt that either religion or science would fall away. Relgion might become a little less variable all over the world -- which would be a good thing. And science will still be needed because, since we already know that IF God exists, He is still not getting involved in everyday human things -- so we must expect that we would still be left to our own devices.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Do numbers or mathematical operations exist as an empirical fact? Does money exist as an empirical fact? Do first person experiences exist as an empirical fact?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do numbers or mathematical operations exist as an empirical fact? Does money exist as an empirical fact? Do first person experiences exist as an empirical fact?

It's certainly useful to think of, say, numbers as existing independent of the objects they represent, but if you were to argue that, say, numbers or mathematical concepts have an objective "existence" separate from the numbers they represent or the minds that conceive them, I'm not sure I would know what you're getting at.

In any case, are you trying to imply that God's "existence" is akin to the existence of concepts like money or mathematical operations?

If so, then I'd suggest that you may be one of those "atheists doing cosplay" I mentioned earlier: while I personally have issues with the idea that something could "exist as a concept," there are plenty of atheists who acknowledge the existence of God "as a concept." IMO, the thing that makes a theist a theist is that they believe that their god(s) exist in reality, not merely as concepts.

 

[wellwisher]

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?

What the main problem is, science does not have its own resources. Science is beholden to others to provide resources. This means the truth can become compromised by company politics and the source of money.

For example, if you were a scientist working for a tobacco company and your research showed something bad, it would never be published since ti would create a conflict of interests. While promotions in that company would require you use your science skills to that makes the company look better. Scientists are humans with a good career and this has an impact on their future and family so compromise will appear.

Government donates a lot to science. Science is beholden to the politician in charge.
For example, Progressive politics makes it difficult to do any science that paints LGBTQ in a negative light even if valid science. The universities are Liberal and those subject of science will become lop sided. What is published will have been PC sanitize instead of science sanitized. This then helps the politicians .

Real science should be free to follow all angles and see where the data goes. But science does not have its own money. The term "deniers", in the context of climate change is a political mantra that shows which track the gravy train is running on. And which track the PC assassination squad is monitoring. The result is a well paid consensus of mercenary science.

 

[osgart]

When you say "carry out processes to achieve those purposes and goals," it sure sounds to me that you're talking about physical effects that could be measured. No?

Measured for how the physical effects behave sure. But then to determine anything of purposes and goals you would have to interpret what's going on philosophically. Science won't tell you anything beyond how something behaves. Anything beyond behaviour is out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophical explanations.

 

[sayak83]

It's certainly useful to think of, say, numbers as existing independent of the objects they represent, but if you were to argue that, say, numbers or mathematical concepts have an objective "existence" separate from the numbers they represent or the minds that conceive them, I'm not sure I would know what you're getting at.

In any case, are you trying to imply that God's "existence" is akin to the existence of concepts like money or mathematical operations?

If so, then I'd suggest that you may be one of those "atheists doing cosplay" I mentioned earlier: while I personally have issues with the idea that sonething could "exist as a concept," there are plenty of atheists who acknowledge the existence of God "as a concept." IMO, the thing that makes a theist a theist is that they believe that their god(s) exist in reality, not merely as concepts.

I am saying that there are more ways in which things can exist apart from empirically or as conceptual creations of the mind.
I would say that mathematical structures do have a separate objective existence apart from their physical or conceptual instantiations. Obviously, not all of mathematics is (or can be) physically instantiated. Also obviously, they are not mental constructs, since true mathematical relations will not cease to be true if minds cease to exist (but Harry Potter or Hamlet or English language will).
Another such entity whose existence is neither a mind construct nor fully physical is information. We have full blown sciences of Information Theory, Quantum Information etc. But information, while it can be instantiated physically, is something that is not truly physical.
I would put consciousness there as well, but I do not want to derail the discussion.

Regarding my concept of God: See the about me section I guess.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Measured for how the physical effects behave sure. But then to determine anything of purposes and goals you would have to interpret what's going on philosophically. Science won't tell you anything beyond how something behaves. Anything beyond behaviour is out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophical explanations.

Our actions - i.e. physical effects - are an indicator of the purposes and goals behind them.

If you're asking about purposes and goals that don't produce any actions... things that have the capacity for action but haven't caused any... well, I'm fine with not splitting that hair. If someone asks me "can that guy over there speak English?" then my test is going to be talking to him in English and see if he responds, even though, hypothetically, a person who can speak English might choose not to speak.

 

[Psalm23]

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?

There can be in the church the stigma against asking certain questions. Oftentimes in peoples experiences, doubt and questioning is looked down on. Some will say you need to just have faith. This is an attitude that turns people away.

There are also those in the church who are more welcoming to people asking questions and kind to those who have doubts. Some churches as a whole may be more welcoming and some may be more strict.

 

[Valjean]

"Atheism assumes you can disprove the existe

The more a person understands science the less ' threatened ' they would be .
Now I don't agree with everything Ray teaches but he does make some interesting points .

The respondent should not have stated that we're still fish. That's a highly technical point that requires a lot of explanation and, on it's face, makes the man -- and biology in general -- seem patently ridiculous.

Another bad response: "Atheism assumes we can disprove the existence of a God." Balderdash! It assumes nothing of the sort.

"Canine kind, feline kind." "Human kind." "Still fish," "still bacteria," -- So "kind" can be anything from a genus to a kingdom? That makes it a colloquialism, not a scientifically meaningful term. The respondent should have pointed this out, and asked for a concise definition of "kind,"

"Can you give me an example of Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kind." What is he asking for?
Why are these people not immediately asking for a definition of "kind?" Why are they not asking what the questioner means by "Darwinian evolution, if not adaptation and speciation?
Why don't they point out some of the common ancestors of divergent families, orders or phyla?

The video is a carefully edited, creationist screed.

 

[Ponder This]

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?

I usually don't have to go very far to find people who have some difficulty with science; it doesn't matter what their religion is.

 

[John1.12]

"Atheism assumes you can disprove the existe

The respondent should not have stated that we're still fish. That's a highly technical point that requires a lot of explanation and, on it's face, makes the man -- and biology in general -- seem patently ridiculous.

Another bad response: "Atheism assumes we can disprove the existence of a God." Balderdash! It assumes nothing of the sort.

"Canine kind, feline kind." "Human kind." "Still fish," "still bacteria," -- So "kind" can be anything from a genus to a kingdom? That makes it a colloquialism, not a scientifically meaningful term. The respondent should have pointed this out, and asked for a concise definition of "kind,"

"Can you give me an example of Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kind." What is he asking for?
Why are these people not immediately asking for a definition of "kind?" Why are they not asking what the questioner means by "Darwinian evolution, if not adaptation and speciation?
Why don't they point out some of the common ancestors of divergent families, orders or phyla?

The video is a carefully edited, creationist screed.

Its Just a snippet from the full video . The full video explains more . The answers are no better in detail.

 

[whosetosay...]

Such as?

Anything which involves the very first life and how humans need two one of each male and female to procreate.
Why try to provocation when you it is really obvious. Are you saying you have never come across the most important question science cannot answer?

Which is?

SEE ABOVE.

This is verified how?

Science not having an answer.

Too late? What is too late? What happens that makes it too late?

Gods words come to pass as they are doing right now. DID you know that the one monetary union was foretold years before it happened? You see you have to look at everything everywhere and not just what you want your beliefs to fit into.

 

[whosetosay...]

Wrong, science does not deal in woo and supernatural.



Such as?



That is not verifiable, it is simply opinion based on bronze age ignorance.



?

I think you need to be able to answer from a personal understanding and view point instead of just repeating what you have read which has been written by others. After all, Christine you don't want to make anything you say look foolish because you have no personal back up.

 

[whosetosay...]

Can not and will not? Science would love to study deities, it's just that none have been detected; no evidence of any has been found.
What are these most difficult questions?
Huh?
First, Goddidit is not an answer to anything except who did it. Second, we have a pretty good idea of how life may have arisen, and many of the steps in the process are observed in the lab every day. Third, not understanding something is not evidence that Goddidit.
When will mankind realize that God exists? Are you expecting some trove of evidence suddenly to be discovered?
Too late? What does that mean?

[/QUOTE]

Keep up with the times. We answered questions posed at the beginning of the thread. You need to study the bible, science and also not repeat what you have read elsewhere. Being an atheist does not make you right, or repeating what other useless arguments atheist have made. Good Luck finding something new to say.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Anything which involves the very first life and how humans need two one of each male and female to procreate.
Why try to provocation when you it is really obvious. Are you saying you have never come across the most important question science cannot answer?

That has nothing to do with science amd god, nor scientific theories regarding god.
The very first life reproduced asexually.

Science not having an answer.

That says nothing. Science used to not know about germ theory, but that doesn't mean there was a timd god or other spiritual entity or energies were behind it and willing someone to be ill.

Gods words come to pass as they are doing right now. DID you know that the one monetary union was foretold years before it happened? You see you have to look at everything everywhere and not just what you want your beliefs to fit into.

One monetary union? What fantasy stuff ia this? It does not exist in our world where we have dozens, if not hundreds all different currencies that are all unrelated.
I think you are the one trying to force fit the world around your beliefs. Over this claim especially. A monetary union years before it happened? It's not happened.

 

[whosetosay...]

That has nothing to do with science amd god, nor scientific theories regarding god.
The very first life reproduced asexually.

That says nothing. Science used to not know about germ theory, but that doesn't mean there was a timd god or other spiritual entity or energies were behind it and willing someone to be ill.

One monetary union? What fantasy stuff ia this? It does not exist in our world where we have dozens, if not hundreds all different currencies that are all unrelated.
I think you are the one trying to force fit the world around your beliefs. Over this claim especially. A monetary union years before it happened? It's not happened.

I stopped at the very first reply. Scientist would laugh at that answer. The very first life they have no answer too. Life begats life but you have to have life even before asexual reproduction can begin. HUMANS show no sign or evidence of such a thing.

 

[ChristineM]

I think you need to be able to answer from a personal understanding and view point instead of just repeating what you have read which has been written by others. After all, Christine you don't want to make anything you say look foolish because you have no personal back up.

Tell ya what, you answer from subjective personal woo and ill stick with the science, after all i wouldn't want to look foolish by getting the woo wrong in public would i?