Science has disproved religion

[ChumpChange]

Agreed good sir, agreed. I posted some similar thoughts at http://undebunked.yuku.com a few days ago.

[Wyrdsmyth]

Has science disproved leprechauns? Has science disproved the supernatural beliefs of other mythologies and religions and folklore? Can one make the argument that none of these sorts of beliefs can be debunked, even in principle, and therefore they are all equally valid?

[ZAROVE]

Actually I think the whole problem is the politrisaiton in such debates, which is base don a flase dichotomy.

We posit Science agaisnt religion, and int he firts post we even see Religion proving Sicnece wrong or see it as Science proving religion wrong.

But, this is an absurd way of goign aboutthings.


Science is not a Philosophy, it is a method of observation and testign results to discover sequential patters and thus how thigns ork.


Religion is a worldview adopted that enables us to make decisions and understand the owrld aroudn us.

Religion is based upon pre-set and already-determiend starting points, known poitns of reference, and so is Science, but the two arne't the same thing, and aren't at oddswith each other.

Science is a means of discovering how thigns work and Religion is a means of understanding the reason they work and forming better actions in regards o them.

As a reault, Science is never disproiven by religion, and religion by Science.

Science doens't say, as the initial poster says, that Miralces cannot happen, as Science is not, as osme vianlybeleive, based soley in materialism and naturalism. Science is base din the ability to observe a Phoenomenon, and as I said elsewhere on the other baord, if Angels can be seen on a regular basis, even if one counts them as Supernatural, they'd still be able to be tested Scientificlaly beause the Scientific method of observign a Phoenomenon and creatign a Hypothesis regardign it woudl be viable.

S cience therefore doens't say Miralces cannot happen, as Science doesn't preclude anything. We make a mistek in ou htinkign if we beleive Science must be limited ot Naturlaism and is somehow an adopted matierlaistic worldview.


Just as we make a mistake if we think that the conclusiosn we presently have base don Sicnece must be seen as hat Science itself teaches us, and if they cotnradct an earlier religiosu claim as this beign sicnece VS Relgiioon.


If a Miracle happens, if a prayer is answered, Scince isn't proven wrong by Religion, rather a new observed Phoenomenon for Science to investigate happens to chance upon us, and Science has somethign enw to study.


Let snto ausme, as soem do now, that Sicnes is a naturlaistic philosophy, with tis own rules and dogma, and let snto ausme religion i so limited either, and tat he to stand at odds wit each other.

[Metacrock]

Has science disproved leprechauns? Has science disproved the supernatural beliefs of other mythologies and religions and folklore? Can one make the argument that none of these sorts of beliefs can be debunked, even in principle, and therefore they are all equally valid?

The point is not that they are disproved. i think Most scientific thinkers and modernists would say that it's not that they are disproved per se, but that we don't need them to explain anything. there is a lack of evidence for their existence and we don't need them to make a workable understandable system of how the universe works.

this argument cannot be made about God. I am not saying that belief in God is about explaining the way the physical world works, but there are several reasons why this doesn't apply.

(1) God is not about explaining why it rains or where babies come from or anything of that nature, so the lack of physical evidence or empirical evidence is not an issue. It's a different kind of question.

(2) there are lots of reasons why we need to appeal to God; for example moral law.

(3) the effects of religious experinces in our lives should be construed as direct empirical evidence since the co determinate of God is empirical.

(3) certain things can't be explained, such as why there is something rather than nothing.

[Antimatter]

Great post, Meta! It still amazes me how few theists on the internet understand the atheist's view on science and god. I don't know of any (sane) atheist who thinks science can disprove god. It's more accurate to say that god, to the best of our knowledge, is not necessary to explain the observations of science. That said, I have a few beefs with your last points:

(2) there are lots of reasons why we need to appeal to God; for example moral law.

If I kill someone, the universe doesn't punish me. Man does. But only if I live in a culture where murder in my particular situation was considered wrong. These moral sentiments do not appear extend to any other species in this universe. We kill other animals mercilessly for food, and animals kill each other for food, mates, and territory. Even humans kill other humans in the right situations. This would lead me to conclude that any "moral law" on killing is not a property of the universe but a convention of human kind, much like the laws of language, mathematics, and logic. An appeal to god is not necessary.

(3) the effects of religious experinces in our lives should be construed as direct empirical evidence since the co determinate of God is empirical.

Esoteric philosophical terms aside, if anecdotal evidence should be considered empirical, then let's not overlook astrology, feng shui, psychic powers, UFOs, or homeopathy.

(3) certain things can't be explained, such as why there is something rather than nothing.

Theism doesn't make that problem any easier. Why should there be a god at all rather than a non-god?

[Metacrock]

Great post, Meta! It still amazes me how few theists on the internet understand the atheist's view on science and god. I don't know of any (sane) atheist who thinks science can disprove god. It's more accurate to say that god, to the best of our knowledge, is not necessary to explain the observations of science.

well you know I was an atheist.



That said, I have a few beefs with your last points:

(2) there are lots of reasons why we need to appeal to God; for example moral law.

If I kill someone, the universe doesn't punish me. Man does. But only if I live in a culture where murder in my particular situation was considered wrong. These moral sentiments do not appear extend to any other species in this universe. We kill other animals mercilessly for food, and animals kill each other for food, mates, and territory. Even humans kill other humans in the right situations. This would lead me to conclude that any "moral law" on killing is not a property of the universe but a convention of human kind, much like the laws of language, mathematics, and logic. An appeal to god is not necessary.

That's not really what it means to say "moral law." why should the universe punish anyone? It's not conscious, gravity is not a punishment for trying to fly. Other species are not held to a moral because they are not moral agents. That's part of what it means to bear the Imgo Die. (Image of God).

(3) the effects of religious experinces in our lives should be construed as direct empirical evidence since the co determinate of God is empirical.

Esoteric philosophical terms aside, if anecdotal evidence should be considered empirical, then let's not overlook astrology, feng shui, psychic powers, UFOs, or homeopathy.

why is that analogous to RE? what about astrology makes it even remotely like RE? RE has been demonstrated to be real, to change lives to be positive and trans formative in dramatic ways across the board over and over and over again. But astrology only makes you more flaky. It has no such transformational value at all.

I mean come on give me a real reason. why is any of that analogous? You are begging the question with half the list anyway. why put these on the same par? Only because "experience" doesn't fit the emotional image scientistic atheists want to their self agrandizing sense of techno supremecy.

homopathology! how dare you! I'm a Christian!


esoteric philosophical terms--what's makes it fun! kill joy.

(3) certain things can't be explained, such as why there is something rather than nothing.

Theism doesn't make that problem any easier. Why should there be a god at all rather than a non-god?[/quote]

what does it mean to say "why should there be?" Is the nature of reality up for election?

[QuantumTroll]

That's not really what it means to say "moral law." why should the universe punish anyone? It's not conscious, gravity is not a punishment for trying to fly. Other species are not held to a moral because they are not moral agents. That's part of what it means to bear the Imgo Die. (Image of God).

Moral law isn't anything transcendent. It's the product of instincts and culture, honed over eons of human existence in small tribes. Many of the fundamental mores ("thou shalt not kill") are present in animals. The equality of the sexes, on the other hand, is a relatively recent cultural phenomenon. Stuff is considered immoral because people (for some reason) think it's bad. This is often a self-fulfilling prophecy where the universe punishes the incestuous by increasing the number of miscarriages and abnormalities. The universe doesn't punish us because we're acting immorally, our actions are defined as immoral because the universe appears to punish us. Hmm, this was a bit of a ramble. Let me know if I made no sense, ok thx.

(3) the effects of religious experinces in our lives should be construed as direct empirical evidence since the co determinate of God is empirical.

Does RE require the actions or existence of a God? I contend that mundane brain activity is a more likely scenario. Here we go again Actually, let's leave this one lie for now. I also want to assert that if God were real, one would expect Him to limit RE events to people who want something to do with Jesus. That's clearly not the case.

esoteric philosophical terms--what's makes it fun! kill joy.

Tee hee. I can jargon in five sciences in four languages. Baryonic entropy beta-sheet cellular-automaton anticline modulus. As long as you're prepared with a concise definition and a good understanding of the words, esoteric is fine by me

[Metacrock]

That's not really what it means to say "moral law." why should the universe punish anyone? It's not conscious, gravity is not a punishment for trying to fly. Other species are not held to a moral because they are not moral agents. That's part of what it means to bear the Imgo Die. (Image of God).

Moral law isn't anything transcendent. It's the product of instincts and culture, honed over eons of human existence in small tribes.

just depends upon whose is using it. For Aquinas it meant something transcendent; the way most theists use it, it is transcendent.

Many of the fundamental mores ("thou shalt not kill") are present in animals.

No they are not. Animals don't act moral they don't make moral deicisons. Now they may refrain from killing at times but they don't hold courts and punish each other when they do.
they don't have a concept of moral decision making.

The equality of the sexes, on the other hand, is a relatively recent cultural phenomenon. Stuff is considered immoral because people (for some reason) think it's bad.

begging the question. social consciousness issues pertain to larger abstractions such as justice and fairness. discrimination against when isn't wrong because it's a violation of a moral law called "be kind to women" it's wrong because its an example of injustice.

This is often a self-fulfilling prophecy where the universe punishes the incestuous by increasing the number of miscarriages and abnormalities. The universe doesn't punish us because we're acting immorally, our actions are defined as immoral because the universe appears to punish us. Hmm, this was a bit of a ramble. Let me know if I made no sense, ok thx.

sorry I vheimently disagree with this kind of thinking. This is the emotive school which tries to reduce moral decisions to nill and render them meaningless by defining them in ways other than morally. this is wrong. Moore (George?) is the leader of the school, emerged around 1900. so called as it takes moral thinking to be based upon purely emotive terms. Of course in that reductionist era emotive mean bad. they felt emotively about emotion.

(3) the effects of religious experinces in our lives should be construed as direct empirical evidence since the co determinate of God is empirical.

Does RE require the actions or existence of a God? I contend that mundane brain activity is a more likely scenario. Here we go again

Actually, let's leave this one lie for now. I also want to assert that if God were real, one would expect Him to limit RE events to people who want something to do with Jesus. That's clearly not the case.

ahahahahahaah, wow.

esoteric philosophical terms--what's makes it fun! kill joy.

[/quote]
Tee hee. I can jargon in five sciences in four languages. Baryonic entropy beta-sheet cellular-automaton anticline modulus. As long as you're prepared with a concise definition and a good understanding of the words, esoteric is fine by me [/quote]


aahhahaahah, glad to have you back my friend.

[QuantumTroll]

aahhahaahah, glad to have you back my friend.

Good to be back, mate.

Moral law isn't anything transcendent. It's the product of instincts and culture, honed over eons of human existence in small tribes.

just depends upon whose is using it. For Aquinas it meant something transcendent; the way most theists use it, it is transcendent.

Just because you mean something transcendent, that doesn't imply that it really is transcendent. Antimatter and I have both tried explaining why we believe moral law is not transcendent, and your response seems to consist of "oh, but it is". I hope you have a better explanation. Can you think of a reason that an atheist might accept for believing human moral law is not naturally explainable?

Many of the fundamental mores ("thou shalt not kill") are present in animals.

No they are not. Animals don't act moral they don't make moral deicisons. Now they may refrain from killing at times but they don't hold courts and punish each other when they do.
they don't have a concept of moral decision making.

They may not have courts, but neither do all human societies. They have different ways of dealing with transgressors. And how moral are humans, without the threat of law? (Baltimore Police Strike indicates people go nuts)

I will admit that there's a difference in the degree of sophistication and expression of morality, but it's a difference in degree only, not in kind. There's nothing in human morality that seems wholly out of whack for a small tribe of bright apes. If you think there is, I think you ought to share what we do that is so special that it requires an explanation beyond what evolutionary theory provides.

The equality of the sexes, on the other hand, is a relatively recent cultural phenomenon. Stuff is considered immoral because people (for some reason) think it's bad.

begging the question. social consciousness issues pertain to larger abstractions such as justice and fairness. discrimination against when isn't wrong because it's a violation of a moral law called "be kind to women" it's wrong because its an example of injustice.

The authors of the constitution didn't even mention women in the document. They didn't even consider whether women should be able to vote, even when slaves were given partial votes. The larger abstractions of Justice and Fairness didn't used to include women. If our sense of Justice was given to us by God, then why did it take 19 amendments to give women suffrage in the US? 200 years ago, most men didn't have the faintest clue that women might be capable of equality. If there was a nagging feeling of grotesque and pervasive injustice in the hearts of men, then most of them did a good job of hiding it. Our concept of justice and fairness changes with time.

This is often a self-fulfilling prophecy where the universe punishes the incestuous by increasing the number of miscarriages and abnormalities. The universe doesn't punish us because we're acting immorally, our actions are defined as immoral because the universe appears to punish us. Hmm, this was a bit of a ramble. Let me know if I made no sense, ok thx.

sorry I vheimently disagree with this kind of thinking. This is the emotive school which tries to reduce moral decisions to nill and render them meaningless by defining them in ways other than morally. this is wrong. Moore (George?) is the leader of the school, emerged around 1900. so called as it takes moral thinking to be based upon purely emotive terms. Of course in that reductionist era emotive mean bad. they felt emotively about emotion.

No, I'm taking my thinking about morals from ideas like the ones listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality. There are biological, cultural, anthropological, and evolutionary factors that together make up that which we call morality. Religious people get to tack that on to the list as well, but I've seen nothing that indicates the sort of transcendent Moral Law that requires a God. Of course, I'm probably mangling your viewpoint as badly as you mangled mine!

[Metacrock]

aahhahaahah, glad to have you back my friend.

Good to be back, mate.

Moral law isn't anything transcendent. It's the product of instincts and culture, honed over eons of human existence in small tribes.

just depends upon whose is using it. For Aquinas it meant something transcendent; the way most theists use it, it is transcendent.

Just because you mean something transcendent, that doesn't imply that it really is transcendent. Antimatter and I have both tried explaining why we believe moral law is not transcendent, and your response seems to consist of "oh, but it is".

ah I see. you are just saying "I don't believe that." We know that! tell us something we don't know.

I hope you have a better explanation. Can you think of a reason that an atheist might accept for believing human moral law is not naturally explainable?

sure, God is real Now you will say "I said one an atheist would buy." Well, sure an atheist will buy it after he reads my book. Of course, they wont be an atheist anymore then!


seriously, if you are saying "can you prove your view point to me?" Well how many years have I known you? I haven't proven it so far, so I doubt that I can. But, only because you refuse to accept my view point! ahahahaah. have you read my moral law God argument?

Many of the fundamental mores ("thou shalt not kill") are present in animals.

No they are not. Animals don't act moral they don't make moral deicisons. Now they may refrain from killing at times but they don't hold courts and punish each other when they do.
they don't have a concept of moral decision making.

They may not have courts, but neither do all human societies. They have different ways of dealing with transgressors. And how moral are humans, without the threat of law? (Baltimore Police Strike indicates people go nuts)

they don't make moral decisions. they don't say "I will not kill this other animal for that is immoral." they just do what instinct tells them. Moral decisions require that one act based upon value system, duty and obligation. Moral decisions conscious thinking on the part of an individual, a free decision between two alternatives and decision made according to conscience. non of this is within the capability of any animals.

I will admit that there's a difference in the degree of sophistication and expression of morality, but it's a difference in degree only, not in kind.

ridiculous, show me on scintilla of evidence that animals have any of the qualities I mentioned?

There's nothing in human morality that seems wholly out of whack for a small tribe of bright apes. If you think there is, I think you ought to share what we do that is so special that it requires an explanation beyond what evolutionary theory provides.

I think that's only because, really please don't take this wrong, but it's only because you don't know what morality is. modern schools and modern society have so stripped us of the capacity to understand morality and ethics that we once had, that most people don't know shit compared to their great grand parents in terms of moral decision making.

No ape is capable of saying "Ok this other ape is an end in himself. He is not a means to an end for me, he is my brother because God created us both with eternal spirits and thus we must love the eternal and use the temporal. I must grant him the apish dignity to which he is entitled because that is the basis of apish morality. no they can't say that. But that is the basis of Christian morality.

The equality of the sexes, on the other hand, is a relatively recent cultural phenomenon. Stuff is considered immoral because people (for some reason) think it's bad.

begging the question. social consciousness issues pertain to larger abstractions such as justice and fairness. discrimination against when isn't wrong because it's a violation of a moral law called "be kind to women" it's wrong because its an example of injustice.

The authors of the constitution didn't even mention women in the document. They didn't even consider whether women should be able to vote, even when slaves were given partial votes. The larger abstractions of Justice and Fairness didn't used to include women.

see first of all, you are trying to use the imperfect understanding of the founding fathers as proof that morality is culturally relative. But that doesn't prove your argument. Yes our understanding of morality changes as culture evolves. That doesn't mean there isn't a prefect moral position in the mind of God. It only means we have to evolve to the point where we understand it. That is a process of cultural and social evolution, of consciousness not of physical evolution. Just because the founders didn't have it down pat doesn't mean we can't get it together. Just people didn't understand the full implications of the abstractions doesn't mean those implications aren't there in the mind of God. We have to discover them as situations change. They could have seen it then. There were people who did. Read Locke's second tretus on government, he understood women's equality before there was any such things as woman's suffrage.

If our sense of Justice was given to us by God, then why did it take 19 amendments to give women suffrage in the US? 200 years ago, most men didn't have the faintest clue that women might be capable of equality. If there was a nagging feeling of grotesque and pervasive injustice in the hearts of men, then most of them did a good job of hiding it. Our concept of justice and fairness changes with time.

what do you mean by "given to us by God?" There are three general ways we know of God's laws: special revelation (ten commandments for example) natural law (logic) the heart (intuitive). Our understanding of all of these can be clouded because they compete with our desires, our sin nature, our perceived and imagined necessities. Self interest and power stood in the way of understanding the needs of women the rights of people of color until our society reached a point such that too many people understood and objected to the injustice and those in power were forced to ponder the matter honestly.

This is often a self-fulfilling prophecy where the universe punishes the incestuous by increasing the number of miscarriages and abnormalities. The universe doesn't punish us because we're acting immorally, our actions are defined as immoral because the universe appears to punish us. Hmm, this was a bit of a ramble. Let me know if I made no sense, ok thx.

sorry I vheimently disagree with this kind of thinking. This is the emotive school which tries to reduce moral decisions to nill and render them meaningless by defining them in ways other than morally. this is wrong. Moore (George?) is the leader of the school, emerged around 1900. so called as it takes moral thinking to be based upon purely emotive terms. Of course in that reductionist era emotive mean bad. they felt emotively about emotion.

No, I'm taking my thinking about morals from ideas like the ones listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality. There are biological, cultural, anthropological, and evolutionary factors that together make up that which we call morality. Religious people get to tack that on to the list as well, but I've seen nothing that indicates the sort of transcendent Moral Law that requires a God. Of course, I'm probably mangling your viewpoint as badly as you mangled mine![/quote]


no ethical system based upon biology has ever held the interest of ethicists, and none ever will. Because it violates the basic nature of moral decision making; it must be free and not instinctive. There has to be something to make the "ought," such as the will of God. biology alone is merely Hume's fork: can't get an ought from an is. Just because you say "I feel an instinct to do x" that doesn't mean doing x is moral. that's just what is, instinct, I feel the urge to do x, that is just he way it is. Not not necessarily what one "ought" to do.

I'm sure that there is a basis in genetics for some moral behaviors, but that basis is not what makes them moral. An act is not a moral act just because it is carried out by instinct. that is not what makes it moral.