and the winner is...... SCIENCE

[_Gadianton]

I think someone can be entirely lazy and still easily make the judgement call that belief in science is far superior to belief in religion. Not everyone was born to be a scientist. Granted, those who bark loudly on the topic ought to know something of the subject matter. But most can easily observe the track record of both. One tell-tale sign that religion is on the run is the ever more popular effort to ditch any testable claims and pretend that there are two entirely separate "domains" and that the core elements of religion can't be investigated by science.

Which core religious claims can be investigated by science? What do you (or those that use this argument) mean by "core"?

b,

You bring up a good point. What do we mean by core? I left that intentionally vague as it depends on the apologist. I'm merely noting that a standard apologetic claim is that there are in fact, two domains that don't cross, and that when science makes the attempt, it becomes what they call "scientism". What I think is interesting is how those boundries tend to shrink for religion and expand for science.

A FARMS attempt I wrote a many part response to on my old blog is here:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/viewaut ... thorID=538

My first introduction to the idea came from a somewhat old book years before I really had an interest called, "Beyond the postmodern mind" by Huston Smith.

The ways god can be salvaged in his core are endless. Runtu had a post a while back about an article by Terry Eagleton who, sharing with religion a mutual adversity to naturalism, reinvented God as a ham-fisted matter of continental philosophy out of bounds for science. In a case like this, 99.999% of people wouldn't agree on the definition of God given anyway.

Which is another point, funny enough. If God is an indestructable man living near kolob, then science in principle shares both an ontological and epistemological domain with religion. His operations are a matter of technology.

The most sterile and likely condidate for separating domains in some way falls along the lines of theological exercises in logic and semantics. Attempts to align God with "meaning" and "purpose" - stuff like that.

[_Runtu]

Well if they all can be tested what is the debate over? I'm assuming there are some core claims that (as of yet) can not be tested or else the debate wouldn't continue? Or perhaps I'm naïve assuming that the debate wouldn't continue.

Anyway, I was just curious to hear what claims were in dispute that could not be tested for scientifically.

The debate isn't over strictly because people come to irrational conclusions! That's what so amazing about religious folks! That's why they're often accused of stupidity! Evidence is not as important to them as their "feelings."

Let's take a simplified example: Was mary a virgin when she had Jesus?

Well, given the number of documented cases of virgin births, and the vast amounts of data that have been compiled concerning human reproduction, it can be proven with a high degree of certainty that mary was not a virgin if/when she did, indeed, give birth to Jesus.

But does all this evidence matter to someone who believes in mary's "purity?" Not in the least. They've invested many years in that belief, including time and thought energy, and it "feels" right to them. So no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to convince them, and the debate rages on... "Supernatural, I tells ya!! It was a supernatural event! God can do anything! He's like... a superhero!"

Or something like that.

Some things can never be proven and must be taken on faith or dismissed as pure fantasy. The problem with Mormonism is that many of its claims can be tested (such as the accuracy of the Book of Abraham translation or whether there were Nephites), but Mormons cloud the issue by insisting that all of these claims must be approached as faith assertions, not testable facts.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I think someone can be entirely lazy and still easily make the judgement call that belief in science is far superior to belief in religion. Not everyone was born to be a scientist. Granted, those who bark loudly on the topic ought to know something of the subject matter. But most can easily observe the track record of both. One tell-tale sign that religion is on the run is the ever more popular effort to ditch any testable claims and pretend that there are two entirely separate "domains" and that the core elements of religion can't be investigated by science.

Which core religious claims can be investigated by science? What do you (or those that use this argument) mean by "core"?

I assume that what is meant is that when you die if you're still around and before God's throne you can poke him to see if he's real. If you go to Hell and are before Lucifer's throne, I advise you not to poke him. There can be only 2 results; he will say one of the following:

1. "Stop poking me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (He then shreds you)
-or-
2. "That was kind of nice." (The shredding would be like a mother's caress by comparison)

Belial, might want to study up on anatomy. I don't have the equipment to poke and shred. I really have resisted the urge the last few days to be freaky and scare you away. Don't make me be compulsive and freak that TBM out of that puppet.

[_Ren]

If science is accepted as the comparison of theories, and choosing the 'best' scientific theory over other available theories, then even questions like 'Does a deistic God exist?' would fall under the investigation of science - in the sense of if a superior theory can be found that explains the same 'outcomes' with greater potential for falsification, greater elegance etc. - then the 'inferior' theory (e.g. deistic God) - scientifically speaking - can no longer be justified.

It's a point that I'm fairly convinced of now, but has only just really sunk in. I think it was mainly because of the epistemology thread...

[_barrelomonkeys]

I think someone can be entirely lazy and still easily make the judgement call that belief in science is far superior to belief in religion. Not everyone was born to be a scientist. Granted, those who bark loudly on the topic ought to know something of the subject matter. But most can easily observe the track record of both. One tell-tale sign that religion is on the run is the ever more popular effort to ditch any testable claims and pretend that there are two entirely separate "domains" and that the core elements of religion can't be investigated by science.

Which core religious claims can be investigated by science? What do you (or those that use this argument) mean by "core"?

b,

You bring up a good point. What do we mean by core? I left that intentionally vague as it depends on the apologist. I'm merely noting that a standard apologetic claim is that there are in fact, two domains that don't cross, and that when science makes the attempt, it becomes what they call "scientism". What I think is interesting is how those boundries tend to shrink for religion and expand for science.

Well I'm not an apologist and have often thought that there were two domains that could not meet on some points. Of course I haven't really given much thought to it. I think religious claims are often times easy to refute and yet often thought that the overall claim of a "God" isn't really something science could refute.

A FARMS attempt I wrote a many part response to on my old blog is here:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/viewaut ... thorID=538

Thanks for that link, I've just printed it out and will read it later. Where's your response?

My first introduction to the idea came from a somewhat old book years before I really had an interest called, "Beyond the postmodern mind" by Huston Smith.

The ways god can be salvaged in his core are endless. Runtu had a post a while back about an article by Terry Eagleton who, sharing with religion a mutual adversity to naturalism, reinvented God as a ham-fisted matter of continental philosophy out of bounds for science. In a case like this, 99.999% of people wouldn't agree on the definition of God given anyway.

Which is another point, funny enough. If God is an indestructable man living near kolob, then science in principle shares both an ontological and epistemological domain with religion. His operations are a matter of technology.

The most sterile and likely condidate for separating domains in some way falls along the lines of theological exercises in logic and semantics. Attempts to align God with "meaning" and "purpose" - stuff like that.

Thanks for expanding and answering.

[_Some Schmo]

Some things can never be proven and must be taken on faith or dismissed as pure fantasy. The problem with Mormonism is that many of its claims can be tested (such as the accuracy of the Book of Abraham translation or whether there were Nephites), but Mormons cloud the issue by insisting that all of these claims must be approached as faith assertions, not testable facts.

Well, there's a difference between what's testable and what's provable. We can test many of the core beliefs to see how they stack up against the available data without actually proving anything, as we've seen many times before.

Religious types know you can't prove god doesn't exist, and they think that's actually a compelling argument for her, despite the available evidence.

But yes... they think they've got a get out of jail free card simply because they can play the silly faith card.

[_barrelomonkeys]

If science is accepted as the comparison of theories, and choosing the 'best' scientific theory over other available theories, then even questions like 'Does a deistic God exist?' would fall under the investigation of science - in the sense of if a superior theory can be found that explains the same 'outcomes' with greater potential for falsification, greater elegance etc. - then the 'inferior' theory (e.g. deistic God) - scientifically speaking - can no longer be justified.

It's a point that I'm fairly convinced of now, but has only just really sunk in. I think it was mainly because of the epistemology thread...

But how do you test for a deistic God? Surely there are theories and discoveries that illuminate our perceptions of our natural world but how does that ever refute a deistic God? That's where I have problems understanding how science could even look at such a question.

[_Belial]

I think someone can be entirely lazy and still easily make the judgement call that belief in science is far superior to belief in religion. Not everyone was born to be a scientist. Granted, those who bark loudly on the topic ought to know something of the subject matter. But most can easily observe the track record of both. One tell-tale sign that religion is on the run is the ever more popular effort to ditch any testable claims and pretend that there are two entirely separate "domains" and that the core elements of religion can't be investigated by science.

Which core religious claims can be investigated by science? What do you (or those that use this argument) mean by "core"?

I assume that what is meant is that when you die if you're still around and before God's throne you can poke him to see if he's real. If you go to Hell and are before Lucifer's throne, I advise you not to poke him. There can be only 2 results; he will say one of the following:

1. "Stop poking me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (He then shreds you)
-or-
2. "That was kind of nice." (The shredding would be like a mother's caress by comparison)

Belial, might want to study up on anatomy. I don't have the equipment to poke and shred. I really have resisted the urge the last few days to be freaky and scare you away. Don't make me be compulsive and freak that TBM out of that puppet.

Lucifer is very open about different parts of the anatomy. I didn't specify what the poking object was. To him finger, toe, and nose are all pretty much the same. He's very equal-opportunity.

[Guest]

But how do you test for a deistic God? Surely there are theories and discoveries that illuminate our perceptions of our natural world but how does that ever refute a deistic God? That's where I have problems understanding how science could even look at such a question.

I actually thought the same way for a long time - as an atheist.
I thought that concepts like a 'Deistic God' were beyond the realm of science.

But science CAN make a judgment on such an idea as a deistic God. It can say that it makes absolutely ZERO sense - scientifically speaking.
If you have perfectly rational, evidenced, falsifiable and elegant theories that explain how the universe works without the need for such a being, then of course those theories 'win'.

It doesn't mean that such a being doesn't exist. You can't ultimately 'disprove' it. But then, that would rely on the notion that you can 'ultimately' disprove anything in science...

What science can surely do is dismiss the 'theory' of a deistic God. It simply doesn't cut the mustard...

Now - I used to think that meant that the concept of a deistic God is BEYOND scientific inspection.
...but if you think of science as comparing competing theories and always choosing the superior theory, then this comparison is no different.

It CAN be determined that the theory of a deistic God is clearly far inferior to other alternatives - scientifically speaking. Therefore, science CAN actively reject it, in favour of superior theories...

...you see what I mean? Not expecting you to agree :) Just wondering if I'm explaining how I see it clearly...

[_barrelomonkeys]

Well if they all can be tested what is the debate over? I'm assuming there are some core claims that (as of yet) can not be tested or else the debate wouldn't continue? Or perhaps I'm naïve assuming that the debate wouldn't continue.

Anyway, I was just curious to hear what claims were in dispute that could not be tested for scientifically.

The debate isn't over strictly because people come to irrational conclusions! That's what so amazing about religious folks! That's why they're often accused of stupidity! Evidence is not as important to them as their "feelings."

Let's take a simplified example: Was mary a virgin when she had Jesus?

Well, given the number of documented cases of virgin births, and the vast amounts of data that have been compiled concerning human reproduction, it can be proven with a high degree of certainty that mary was not a virgin if/when she did, indeed, give birth to Jesus.

But does all this evidence matter to someone who believes in mary's "purity?" Not in the least. They've invested many years in that belief, including time and thought energy, and it "feels" right to them. So no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to convince them, and the debate rages on... "Supernatural, I tells ya!! It was a supernatural event! God can do anything! He's like... a superhero!"

Or something like that.

Some things can never be proven and must be taken on faith or dismissed as pure fantasy. The problem with Mormonism is that many of its claims can be tested (such as the accuracy of the Book of Abraham translation or whether there were Nephites), but Mormons cloud the issue by insisting that all of these claims must be approached as faith assertions, not testable facts.

Ah! Well that is ludicrous. I think religion that makes claims (based on myths and theories created by men) can easily be tested by scientific inquiry and refuted. Why have faith in something that has been proven false? That astounds me.

by the way, the other day at MAD some man mentioned in your thread over there some sort of stuff that seemed absolutely bizarre to me. Some sort of healings and what not. That was rather startling to me.... I wasn't sure if that was the norm for LDS to believe in all sorts of "spiritual" healings. It occurred to me that perhaps the "faith" put into believing things that are far from factual (and actually dismissing scientific discovery altogether) could also make a person not use reason in other aspects of their lives. It was troubling to me.