Science and Religion

[LoneZero]

My opinion

I have story time too it's very long sorry about that =/


The problem with all religions, is there are always people involved who cannot agree among themselves how to correctly interpret.

which is why there are fundamentalists, extremists, and moderates among
Claiming that the Bible, the Quran, or any holy book is perfect and without error is simply nonsense, and every religious sect/denomination proves it by the actions of its believers.

Extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary evidence – Carl Sagan

No one can prove a negative. I can't prove that god does not exist. I also can't prove Santa Claus does not exist. But in life, we decide what is real and not real, based on what we feel is probable.

I think we can rule out god, in the same way we rule out any other mythological creature. We can't prove vampires or werewolves or fairies don't exist. But, I bet you would agree, that they're not real. They just don't fit in with reality.

So, we can look for attributes of god, that should provide evidence that He exists. If positive evidence is found, we should conclude that god probably exists. If positive evidence is not found, then we should conclude that the Christian God, beyond a reasonable doubt, does not exist. Just like Santa. Just like fairies. Just like vampires.

One of the most compelling reasons for rejecting god, is the fact that there are so many versions of god(s). Some, not even human (The elephant-faced god – Ganesha etc.). Each religion, each denomination of each religion, defines god's wants differently. All of these religions cannot be right. But they can all be wrong. Perhaps man has not yet found the one true god, or perhaps He does not exist.

Why would the Christian god leave room for confusion? If He exists, wouldn't He want everyone to know He exists and is the one true god?

1 Timothy 2: 3 – 5 says the Christian god does desire this:

3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1. If the Christian God existed, this fact would be obvious.
So obvious in fact, that EVERYONE, or nearly everyone would believe in His existence. There would be only worshipers of the one true god.

2. The Christian God's existence is not, in fact, as obvious as we would expect, if he existed. This fact is evidenced by all the different religions, plus atheists and agnostics.

3. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

In the same vein as the above, notice how many denominations of Christianity there are (~ 38,000). Each denomination can show you scripture, that "proves" they understand the wants of Jesus/god.
All of the denominations could not be correctly interpreting the bible. Many are contradictory. Many of these denominations believe only their members will be saved. If the Christian god exists, and He is all knowing and all powerful and all good, why didn't He provide a bible that could not be misinterpreted? That everyone's comprehension of His wants would be the same?

ambiguity – a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways : an ambiguous word or expression

1. If the Christian god exists, He would want everyone to know His wants, without ambiguity. People attempt to discover and comprehend god's wants, by reading the bible.

2. The bible god provided, is ambiguous.
This fact is evidenced by there being 38,000 different denominations of Christianity.

3. Therefore, the Christian god does not exist.

Another reason to reject the idea of a god, is because there appears to be no need for one. Each hour of each day, science fills another gap in man's knowledge, that god once filled. We don't want to postulate what isn't necessary. And so far, science has found no need for a god.

John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

If the Christian god so loves the world, why does he allow / cause so much suffering? Disease, famine, floods, earthquakes etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. ?

I can explain the existence of these horrors as being due to natural causes, and evolution. But, my explanation fails when I include an all loving Creator in the equation. I keep getting a "Can't divide by zero" error.

Christians say their god is omnibenevolent (all good); omnipotent (all powerful); omniscient (all knowing)

1. If the Christian god is all good, He would want to rid the world of suffering / evil.

2. If the Christian god is all powerful, He would be able to rid the world of suffering / evil.

3. Yet, evil persists.

Therefore, Either the Christian god does not care, or He does not exist.

The Christian god is said to be omniscient and omnipotent. But these attributes are not compatible.

If the Christian god is all knowing, if the future can be known, then even god would be bound by events in the future. Everything would be predetermined.

1. If the Christian god, knows what will happen in the future, and does something else...then, He is not all knowing.

2. If the Christian god knows the future and cannot change it, then He is not all powerful.

3. The attributes attributed to the Christian god conflict with one another. The Christian god cannot exist.

Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.

If god created all the organisms on the planet, then He must have created even the diseases that have caused and are causing so much death and misery for humans and animals. He would have had to fashion the tick and the flea. The mosquito and blood flukes. And worms that bore into a child's eye. How could an all good god do such a thing? Why would He spend His time creating gruesome things to cause human suffering? Yet, these horrors exist. And if god didn't create them, who did?

Evolution explains the diversity of the planet's organisms, including the pathogens and the parasites that have caused so much human death and misery.

If the Creation Story is a fable, then Adam and Eve did not exist.

If Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin.

If there was no original sin, then it cannot be the reason god allows so much suffering in the world.

If there was no original sin, then there was no need for a redeemer.

If there was no redeemer, then Christianity is a based on a false premise. The resurrection never happen.

If the Creation story is a myth, then there is no reason to believe any of the bible. which is why the fundamentalist fight so hard against evolution.

The Christian god is no more likely to exist than unicorns, satyrs, fiery serpents, or talking snakes.

Just my opinion through research and life experiences ^^''

 

[Mash]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

 

[LoneZero]

thanks, sorry that it was overly long

I'm not against religion, our constitution says we have freedom of and from religion. just my opinion on why I don't personally believe in it. People are free to believe in or not believe in anything they want here.

The only time I have an issue with a religion is when it tries to impose laws that take away peoples rights on what they can and can't do, turning people into 2nd class citizens with nothing but a scripture to justify the reason and with no other evidence to prove or validate it's existence.

When that doesn't happen coexisting is not an issue or a bother. =)

 

[Mash]

I have an issue with religion when they believe that they have the right to infringe on what science can and can't do. We're at least a thousand years behind technologically thanks to religion, and I'm a little pissed off to see that it is STILL setting us back.

 

[PurpleStyle]

thanks, sorry that it was overly long

I'm not against religion, our constitution says we have freedom of and from religion. just my opinion on why I don't personally believe in it. People are free to believe in or not believe in anything they want here.

The only time I have an issue with a religion is when it tries to impose laws that take away peoples rights on what they can and can't do, turning people into 2nd class citizens with nothing but a scripture to justify the reason and with no other evidence to prove or validate it's existence.

When that doesn't happen coexisting is not an issue or a bother. =)

So I guess you haven't heard that 41 out of 50 states prohibit same-sex marriage. Co-existing with willfully-ignorant bigots who can attack the very nature of secularism with immoral laws can't happen.

 

[LoneZero]

Oh i have, I live in a state that prohibits it but if history has shown us anything is that were doomed to repeat it, do you remember when religion was against inter gender marriage? The majority was against it, it was voted to be prohibit, When the issue went to court do you remember what happen?

Those against it had no proof, evidence, or an actually reason why it should be prohibited, the judges asked over and over for evidence and when they couldn't provide it was over turned unconstitutional.

sound familiar? I'm in California where prop 8 was passed and what happen? A judged overturned it because it was unconstitutional and those against it once again had no real proof, evidence, or reason to prohibited it. The judge was begging them to bring in something but they couldn't. Sound familiar?

It's just history repeating itself it may talk away the courts are slow and those against it know that very well and will try to stall the inevitable for as long as they can.

Speaking of prop 8 the latest update reported the judges laughing at them because there reasoning is more for why we should ban divorce then same-sex marriages. It's all just a matter of time, for this state and many others. It's sad in this day and age were we still have to fight like this for equal rights and treatment ignoring history dooming us to repeat it again.

 

[Mash]

While it's true that it's just a matter of time, the factor here is how much time. Christianity has been around for thousands of years and has only grown since then. A third of the world's population falls into some category of Christianity, so it's not like they don't have any influence.

We're only seeing the beginning of this battle. I imagine that the bigotry won't stop affecting the lives of innocent people for a couple hundred more years.

 

[nivek_nailgun]

I've always stuck to the old approach (VERY old) in that science uncovers God's work. Never understood the 'god of the gaps' approach. Just because a causal chain can be discovered makes it no less miraculous. The Bible itself talks about God using nature in various times. Not everything has to be a 'magic trick'. 🙂
www.reasonablefaith.org
www.paulcopan.com

Both pretty good.

 

[Tom Tickle]

Science and religion are both veins of philosophy, but that is where the similarity ends. Relgion is dogmatic. It deals in divinely revealed knowledge that cannot be tested, for it is the word of God.

Science, despite the claims of some (not just theists), is the opposite by its very nature. Everything is in doubt, because the inductive logic of science prevents absolute certainty, unlike in mathematics. Infact, Science is our way of merely mitigating uncertainty, but at this it is very thorough, and it is because of this method of closing in on truth via evidence that I can communicate these ideas to you via the computer, and also how I survived cancer. It wasn't a miracle, or the universe being kind. It was the efforts of specialists using the scientific method, because blind nature has no empathy, and would've simply killed me, as it has done to trillions of other animals. It was science that saved my life when I suffered renal failure aged 13, and allowed me to have a transplant. No prayers were made by me during either battle.

The whole 'God' question, removed from moral trappings of religion and in an ontological and epistemological sense, is now limited to semantics: what I would call the universe/ cosmos/ existence, some have taken to calling God. This i'm not bothered about. It is a loose, deist-Buddhist philosophy that I don't agree with, but as long as there are no moral judgements, I don't worry.

I am quite happy to say that I'm agnostic about God because I don't -can't- know, it is just one of several things that I am agnostic about that cannot be empirically disproven, but even if there were a creator, what are the chances it will be the petulant psychopath of Abraham?

 

[Mash]

After all of this, I am an Agnostic, because whatever I believe, I do not know.

Of course you don't. Nobody does. Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism are just beliefs. Nobody can claim that they know anything, because it is a belief system. Although Atheism and Agnosticism are beliefs based off of a lack of evidence, whereas Theism is based off of nothing at all.

Science is what we use to determine what is true and what is false, and until we can use empirical evidence to validate or falsify the existence of a God, nobody will ever know.

 

[Tom Tickle]

Agnosticism has more of a logical foundation than either Atheism or Theism, if we're going by the criteria of falsification. The God hypothesis may not have much in the way of evidence, but we have no means of testing it so we can falsify it. Logically, one could say Theism and Atheism are less tenable than Agnosticism, and that Agnosticism is the likely synthesis of the thesis-antithesis of Theism vs Atheism.

For that reason, where many might think i'm an atheist, I think it's inaccurate unless you really believe there cannot be a God, but that's an issue of semantics. Bertrand Russell called himself both, depending on the situation.

Anyway, please excuse me; I have to go and draw the boobs of an atheist and a deist being tickled!

 

[Mash]

Well, this is how I see it.

Let's say you are in a room that is completely empty except for you. Someone calls you on the phone and tells you that there is a large pink elephant in the room with you. Now, there are three mindsets you can have in regards to this.

You can ignore the surrounding evidence and believe what the person on the phone just told you; you can believe that there is no elephant in the room based on the lack of evidence that would normally be associated with an elephant; or you can just say that you don't really know, and decide not to think about it any longer.

I would take the second mindset in this particular analogy, because the other two would be me lying to myself. Clearly there is no pink elephant in the room you are in.

That analogy is a bit crappy, considering that we don't know what evidence would normally be associated with a God, but it gets my point across. We have come across no evidence that can be definitively labeled as the work of a God; therefore, there is no logical reason for us to believe there is one.

To be perfectly honest, agnostics annoy me. Not because of their belief, because it isn't a belief. It is a lack of a belief.

In the end, whether Atheism or Theism is correct, 'I don't know' will never be the right answer.

 

[Relent<]

Honestly? I don't believe in attributing too much authority to either.
Science is too easy to bullshit when the masses are stupid.
Religion is an altogether more easily manipulated means of mass manipulation, but enough has been said about that already.

In the end, its just easier not to believe in anything.

 

[Mash]

If you don't believe in science, you may as well not be believing in anything.
Science is the reason we have all of the modern technology, medicine, and knowledge that we do.

People seem to have the misconception that science is just about people standing around in sterilized lab coats pushing needles into animals. It's much more than that. Science is the only tool that humans have for discovering and testing the physical world. The scientific method is what people use to figure out how they like their coffee for fuck's sake.

 

[Relent<]

I'm not bashing science any more than I'm bashing religion. I'm a biochemistry major in college, so I'm quite familiar with the scientific method, etc and whatnot.
All I'm saying is that science has been misused in the last 100 years as much as anything else.
Look at all this weight loss shit that will kill you.
People are still using "science" to debate global warming.
People are still using "science" to claim racial or sexual superiority.
The fact is that if one has the means, he can use anything to support anything, whether it be science, religion, personal critique, or genocide.
What it comes down to is still true and false. While one has more in way of proof, both have their detrimental applications.

 

[Mash]

Well, for me, science is the highest authority. I appreciate what it has given to the world, and I can see past the detrimental uses, because I know that without it, we'd be chasing squirrels with sticks and huddling around in caves.

Without religion, we'd have been to Mars already.

 

[Relent<]

Very speculative, which is dangerous in science. Hypothesis are only justified after factual occurrence.
Science is an inevitability, much like religion, spawning from the art of philosophy and logic. And madness.
Yes, the crazy bastards that first pursued science were probably the few who would starve to death otherwise. Like musicians, or artist, or the people who drink coffee in starbucks while pretending to type.

 

[Mash]

It's not even speculation. We are less than 100 years away from getting to Mars, and Religion has set us back MUCH farther than 100 years.

Science is an inevitability yes, but Religion doesn't have to be. Religion is a place holder at best; people look at something, don't understand it, so then rather than taking the logical path and exploring it and testing it until you figure it out, they give up and attribute it to something of a higher power.
Now, I don't have a problem with it...so long as they drop the placeholder when science gives them the actual answer. Science has explained how old the Earth is, and how planets and stars form...and yet, here we are, still arguing about it. Well, half-arguing; only one side of the argument has put any actual evidence on the table.

 

[LoneZero]

While it's true that it's just a matter of time, the factor here is how much time. Christianity has been around for thousands of years and has only grown since then. A third of the world's population falls into some category of Christianity, so it's not like they don't have any influence.

We're only seeing the beginning of this battle. I imagine that the bigotry won't stop affecting the lives of innocent people for a couple hundred more years.

In a way that's true it could the beginning of a bigger battle but from what I've seen it's mostly a minority within Christianity that tries to impose it's views on others. Most Christians tend to not force their views on others, live and let live, and not judge others and our generally respectful and good people but when you have over 2.1 billion in the world with over 38,000 different denominations of it your bound to find a small group with a more radical or extremist approach, taking scripture too literal to the point a law is made or a movement against certain individuals is created.

Sometimes it's good that things like DADT and Prop 8 are passed and appealed, it causes facts, evidence, reasoning, and the truth to come out in the open (which in turn discredits these small minority groups showing who they really are and takes away any creditability as well). Also, it leads to people getting off their lazy butts and doing something about it, like actually voting or protesting instead of "it doesn't affect me, why should I care" type of thinking, that allowed it to happen in the first place.

 

[LoneZero]

For me too, I do think science is a high authority.

the way we use the scientific method and how with new information or new line of thinking that comes into play, we go back and try finding the truth in new ways that we couldn't before. science is always changing and evolving.

 

[Mash]

For me too, I do think science is a high authority.

the way we use the scientific method and how with new information or new line of thinking that comes into play, we go back and try finding the truth in new ways that we couldn't before. science is always changing and evolving.

Yep. Christianity has been using the same circular logic for thousands of years now.

Two unverifiable things, like God and the Bible, cannot be used to verify each other. It just doesn't work like that.

 

[Mash]

Also, I doubt any of you have seen this yet, but I found it on a blog that I frequent and got a good laugh out of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U&feature=player_embedded#at=580

Enjoy.

 

[Tom Tickle]

Mash16, the problem with saying Agnosticism cannot be the right answer does not explain why it cannot be the right answer, when empricism, which is limited to what is falsifiable, dictates that Agnosticism is the only answer that can be gained from the available evidence. If you are making the case for God having to either exist or not exist, that doesn't and cannot work unless the fact is observed. Is light manifested as particles or waves? You don't know until either is observed. Until God's state of existence or non-existence is confirmed, ideas of a final empirical answer are hopeless. Until one can say; 'We know for a fact that God doesn't exist', Atheism is on shaky epistemological ground.

That is why Agnosticism is a more logically tenable answer, because Theism and Atheism are belief, not actual knowledge. If you believe there must be a God/cannot be a God, you should ask 'why believe that' when there is no empirical means to resolve the question. The fact that agnosticism annoys you doesn't say much about agnosticism, just your own view that empiricism is the highest authority, which it clearly isn't. It is based on inductive logic, and its quantitative nature is derived from mathematics that uses deductive logic - the answer of four is right regardless of the process in finding the solution to two plus two. This is a final proof within mathematics. The scientific method is unable to formulate final proofs of anything. This doesn't mean I don't trust science, as I have previously explained, but I know enough to realise that science is a limited model of explanation, and cannot rule out what it cannot test for, and that includes most concepts of a God, especially the pantheist definition.

I am an atheistic agnostic, but atheism comes from certainty of nonbelief, and that isn't me.

I strenuously recommend reading about the philosophy of science.

 

[Mash]

Well, the thing is, if we do ever find out, then I can say without a shadow of a doubt that 'I don't know' will not be the answer to this question.

It will either be that a God does exist, or that a God does not exist. Agnosticism is a fine standpoint now, but scientists never take 'I don't know' for an answer.

 

[LoneZero]

Well as for as Atheist go, most Atheists aren't seeking to prove there isn't a God, they're saying there isn't any evidence that God exists, which why Atheists don't believe in any Deity. Agnostic is more or less stating you just have no way to prove nor disprove any Deity's existences.

If there was simply more proof, evidence, facts, and a clear message that such a God exist we would have less Agnostic and Atheist in the world. Most Atheist are just asking for proof and evidence leading to existence of a God and would start believing once their questions are answered and proven.

Religion is very fascinating here are the big three at the moment.


Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

every other religion is still in the millions or thousands.