and the winner is...... SCIENCE

[_huckelberry]

Beastie,

I find both the proposals that atheism is a religion and that science is a religion are both rather silly. I share your bemusement with Juliann use of fundamentalism. I just figured I must be a fundamentalist in her view and there is little point to argue it. After all I believe religious beliefs refer to reality in a way which they may be or false. I believe in Chrisian fundamentals and I believe science is a more reliable reflection of the mind of God than most prophets. Im a lock on fundamentalist.

There is some irony that Juliann is defending a thoroughly fundamentalist religion with attacks on fundamentalism. Or maybe she is not. I think she hids herself.

Beastie you made an interesting post a couple of weeks ago about a slippery slope of interpretation of the Bible which sees nonleral elements in the story. Me be an unapologetic holder of such views found your proposal that I should be lead to seeing the atonement and incarnation as metophor only curious but completely unconvincing. I was out of town for a while so did not reply. I actually thought what you said was well presented though a bit silent regards the mechanism of the slope.

I suspect the slope results from a desire to find proof of God in the miracles of the Bible. The flood would be a good demonstration of God if there was some good reason to believe the flood actually happened. There isn't so one goes on looking for the solid proof. It just is not found. No miricle from 2500 years ago can be proven to have happened and some stories are quite likely stories.

Do you think the slope still functions if ones reason for believing inGod is not resting on the fabulous stories of the Old Testament?

I do not think science and religion are completely seperate but there is a relative seperation. I think the way science shoots down some religous assumptions is good for human ego. It is good for the human mind and sprit to be freed from authority with limited knowledge and made to learn.

[_barrelomonkeys]

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.

Shoo

[cacheman]

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.

Let me amend my statement to say that some Mormons push everything over to the realm of untestable faith claims. Not everybody does that.

[_barrelomonkeys]

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.

Well as an agnostic I can't say that god does not exist because I don't know. I'm a skeptic but that does not allow me to say that I believe something is false if it hasn't been tested. There are many things science has not answered and I can't make a call either way because I just do not know.

[_barrelomonkeys]

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'.

Yes! Precisely. But do we have an answer? There are so many elegant theories which I become quite stimulated to read and ponder and yet I don't know! How do I choose between the competing theories and how does this allow me to refute a "God" theory when there is no proof to dispell the "God" notion as of yet?

Do we know how the universe works? I don't.... perhaps I don't watch Nova enough? ;P

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.

But why are the competing theories any better than the "God" theory? You know I don't believe in "God" but I still don't see why/how they are better? Other than just on the face of it it appears to be ludicrous to believe some spirit in the sky created everything. I mean sure it seems fantastical and bizarre but do we dismiss things simply because they appear fantastical?

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...

I do see what you mean... I just am not there yet. I'd probably be happier as an atheist. :)

[Guest]

But do we have an answer?

You mean an answer that everybody who calls themselves a 'scientist' is going to agree on?
...heh - I guess not :)

I think the main reason being that many (perhaps even most) scientists don't consider the question of God to be a scientific question. Or at least not a question they would think it 'useful' to consider in scientific terms...

How do I choose between the competing theories and how does this allow me to refute a "God" theory when there is no proof to dispell the "God" notion as of yet?

But this is the point I'm making. The assumption is that the 'God' theory has to be completely stamped on before we can dismiss it.
Once you view science not as 'stomped' theories vs. 'unstomped' theories, but instead as 'bad' theories vs. 'good' theories (where the two theories explain the same phenomenon), then the need to 'stomp' on the God theory is no longer present.

God doesn't need to be stamped on. He just needs to be recognized as utterly unessesary to the running of the universe.

That IS enough - scientifically.
It doesn't mean God doesn't exist - it just means that science IS able to make a judgment. One way or the other...

Do we know how the universe works?

We don't know how it all works yet. But the discovering has only been going one way.
The 'God' theory is consistently getting weaker and weaker - constantly being shoved further and further back into the history of the universe...

I don't.... perhaps I don't watch Nova enough? ;P

I think I have a few holes here and there too... :)
Tell ya what - you watch it, and then fill me in!

But why are the competing theories any better than the "God" theory?

Because most modern theories that revolve around 'God' are barely distinguishable from the 'standard' scientific model, except to say 'Ohh - and there's this guy who messes around with things - in ways that can't really be understood'.

Scientifically, that's trash. It's adding a superfluous entity that adds nothing of logical merit. It makes the theory 'inferior'.

I'd probably be happier as an atheist. :)

Well, I very much doubt you live like a theist. If you don't, then I can't help but think that -technically - you ARE an atheist. Just a very agnostic one...

[_huckelberry]

Lucifer is very open,,,,

I may not be intimate with lucifer but I get a different picture in my mind though it is formed by following a trajectory from his shadow. I suspect a very pious and a bit pompos fellow, one of enormous dimension in his own mind.

It may be a bit of a disappointment for all the party goers hoping hell will be quite a time. finding themselves sitting in a pew listening to some utterly boring story, on and on for eternity.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Oh dear! I have to deal with the quotes! Ack!

But do we have an answer?

You mean an answer that everybody who calls themselves a 'scientist' is going to agree on?
...heh - I guess not :)

I think the main reason being that many (perhaps even most) scientists don't consider the question of God to be a scientific question. Or at least not a question they would think it 'useful' to consider in scientific terms...

Well perhaps this is my stumbling block? It appears to me if there is no scientific scrutiny of the "question" then that would support my (perhaps naïve??!) belief that there is no scientific inquiry there? Of course I understand your point that other theories hold answers and that they should be looked upon as superior. But still I'm drawn back to the idea that science can not look at "God" and say one way or the other if there is some sort of deistic "God."

How do I choose between the competing theories and how does this allow me to refute a "God" theory when there is no proof to dispell the "God" notion as of yet?

But this is the point I'm making. The assumption is that the 'God' theory has to be completely stamped on before we can dismiss it.
Once you view science not as 'stomped' theories vs. 'unstomped' theories, but instead as 'bad' theories vs. 'good' theories (where the two theories explain the same phenomenon), then the need to 'stomp' on the God theory is no longer present.

Well I view theories not as just bad and good. For instance the "theory of evolution" is not really a "theory" in the sense that most of the public think of it. There is hard science that supports evolution. To say it's a "theory" and dismiss it as just a possible answer doesn't recognize that there is a mountain of evidence that suggests that the "theory" is indeed factual.

I'm not sure I've actually thought about this enough to be perfectly honest. Unlike most of the people on this board I have such little interest in religious beliefs that most of this is just new for me to think about.

I just am not convinced Ren that science can look at it....... perhaps some day I will be? Just right now I still don't understand how science can (with all the competing theories) pull back the curtain and equivocally state that God is false.

God doesn't need to be stamped on. He just needs to be recognized as utterly unessesary to the running of the universe.

Well I agree with you there. The old mantra of "How would the world/universe look if there was not a God?" is of course pertinent here.

Geez, as I'm writing this it seems bizarre to write this. Because it's almost like I'm having to defend the "God" theory and of course that makes me uncomfortable!

That IS enough - scientifically.
It doesn't mean God doesn't exist - it just means that science IS able to make a judgment. One way or the other...

Okay, I must be dense.... I don't understand what you mean here?

Do we know how the universe works?

We don't know how it all works yet. But the discovering has only been going one way.
The 'God' theory is consistently getting weaker and weaker - constantly being shoved further and further back into the history of the universe...

Oh, I know this! ;)

I was being silly when I asked that. I am actually very interested (just as a layperson) on scientific discovery and am always fascinated to learn of new discoveries. I recognize that there is so much we don't know and I will never know in my lifetime. I merely, still (sorry for being redundant) don't understand fully how each scientific discovery that explains (the universe, the beginning of life on earth) dispells the notion of God. Perhaps I'm just silly and have an overactive imagination?

I don't.... perhaps I don't watch Nova enough? ;P

I think I have a few holes here and there too... :)
Tell ya what - you watch it, and then fill me in!

You got it! ;P

But why are the competing theories any better than the "God" theory?

Because most modern theories that revolve around 'God' are barely distinguishable from the 'standard' scientific model, except to say 'Ohh - and there's this guy who messes around with things - in ways that can't really be understood'.

Scientifically, that's trash. It's adding a superfluous entity that adds nothing of logical merit. It makes the theory 'inferior'.

Well are these theories religious views? Is that what you're talking about? I would agree with you there. Again, feeling uncomfortable hashing this out because really I don't believe in God...... and feel like a weirdo now trying to think of what to write. Oh dear. :)

I'd probably be happier as an atheist. :)

Well, I very much doubt you live like a theist. If you don't, then I can't help but think that -technically - you ARE an atheist. Just a very agnostic one...

Well I may live like a theist (how do they live?) but I am just very confused.

[_Gadianton]

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.

Remember that deism had its hayday of respect before Darwin. Back when it seemed like the universe was a piece of sophisticated engineering. It's not so much that science can absolutely disprove that god, but evolution makes him pretty much extraneous. And to address some of your other comments, yeah, certain highly philosophical conceptions of God would be very difficult to disprove. Go back to Eagleton as I mentioned, his God framed in Kantian "condition of possibility" would be really tough for science to test. But the scope of such a God is pretty limited. If you ever peeked in on the Godel thread a while a back where Tarski and I were saying that if the God of logicians exists, it's a very open question as to the difference it really makes.

But God as promoted by Mormons and most everyone else clearly crosses the domain where science can say something.

the review of the review:

http://gadianton2.tripod.com/index.blog ... id=1063924

[_Ren]

*Resisting the urge to go crazy with quotes and send Monk mad...!* :)
...ok - I'll try and just hit the important bits...

It appears to me if there is no scientific scrutiny of the "question" then that would support my (perhaps naïve??!) belief that there is no scientific inquiry there?

In the terms that you appear to be framing it, I don't see how there could ever be any kind of 'scientific inquiry' into such a concept as a Deistic God. Never. It would be impossible. The whole point of a Deistic God is that it looks just like nature - it's indistinguishable.
You can look as long as you like, collect as much data as you like, and explain every single last damn thing there is to be explained. And yet STILL the deist can just lean back smugly and say 'Well done - but you still haven't even started to investigate MY God...'

THe Deistic God is always just a little bit further back. Just a little bit further out.

The only way science could attempt to make any judgement on a Deistic God is in the apprasial of the theory itself. In the sense that the notion of a Deistic God adds nothing to our explination of the universe, and how it works. It is utterly useless, and utterly superfluous - in scientific terms.

Again, that's not to say that such a being couldn't exist. All I'm saying is that the probability of such a being's existence or, non-existence, shouldn't be considered 'equal' with each-other in scientific terms. It also shoudln't be considered 'outside the scope' of science - because the bottom line is anything that is proposed to be in any way 'real' in the materialistic sense IS within the scope of science.
...I'm convinced of this way of thinking now...

Science has a clear conclusion on the 'theory' of a Deistic God. It is an extremely weak one, and can be easiely dismissed. There would be no way to disprove it in the sense you are thinking of. That would be literally impossible to do...
But science still has a clear say on the matter - as far as I can see. And as it should do.
Science should be able to say that the notion of a Deistic God is not worth thinking about. I don't think it would deserve too much respect if it didn't - to be blunt...

Well I view theories not as just bad and good. For instance the "theory of evolution" is not really a "theory" in the sense that most of the public think of it.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. I understand that the general public often have misconceptions about what the word 'theory' really means in scientific terms. But a theory it is. And I meant 'theory' in this same sense...

There is hard science that supports evolution. To say it's a "theory" and dismiss it as just a possible answer doesn't recognize that there is a mountain of evidence that suggests that the "theory" is indeed factual.

I agree. But I would say the exact same thing this way:
Evolution is a 'good' theory. Not only is there mounds of evidence for it, but it is potentially falsifiable. It is an elegent theory, and has a lot of explanatory power.
...I would argue that THAT'S why we consider evolution factual. It's not just the literal evidence. It's the fact that the evidence we have supports a GOOD, solid theory - the Theory of Evolution.
Not only that, but there is no other rival theory that can even touch it.

But here's the important point:
It's not out of the question that such a rival theory COULD appear...

Seems unthinkable to question the ToE - for those of us who know it well enough and understand it - but we have to remember that science is full of such upsets.
The biggest reminder - for me - has always been Newtonian gravity being 'overthrown' by Einstein and relativity. Nobody saw that one coming! Newtonian mechanics were considered 'factual'. Practically obvious.
...and yet it didn't tell the full story...! Einstein showed this to be the case by constructing an even better theory.

Will there be a theory that comes along that Trump's evolution? Explaining the same data in an even more elegent / logical / falsifiable way? Hard to imagine it - but this is what we have to accept within science. It's always possible a new theory could come along that is BETTER then our currently held one.

Just right now I still don't understand how science can (with all the competing theories) pull back the curtain and equivocally state that God is false.

I think this whole discussion is really about this word - equivocal.
In my mind - at this point - no theory is ever truly 'equivocally' disproven. It simply is shown to be a bad theory, and rival theories that are FAR BETTER simply resign them to the rubbish tip.

Once you think of theories this way, the idea that a theory becomes 'equivocally' disproven starts to lose relavance...

That IS enough - scientifically.
It doesn't mean God doesn't exist - it just means that science IS able to make a judgment. One way or the other...

Okay, I must be dense.... I don't understand what you mean here?

I just mean that even if science is capable of making a desision either way, that doesn't nessesarily mean anything. Science is just a set of rules that are played by. And the only reason we trust those rules is because they seem to give us the correct results.

What I'm saying is, so what if science does make a judgement on the matter of God? It doesn't have to mean anything to anybody - nessesrily... Plenty of people distrust science enough to not give a hoot...

I merely, still (sorry for being redundant) don't understand fully how each scientific discovery that explains (the universe, the beginning of life on earth) dispells the notion of God. Perhaps I'm just silly and have an overactive imagination?

You're not being silly at all! Or at least, if you are, then I've been silly for many, many years. Because I've believed exactly the same for a long time...
I don't beleive so now. But it's taken a lot of time for me to get here. And it's not like I'm sure I'm correct on this - I'm just telling you how I see it now.

I mean, rather than worry about how it logically works, just ask yourself the question: How can we NOT be discovering that all the mechanics of the universe require NO consious entity to guide them, and yet not think that we ARE dispelling the notion of such a being...?
...I mean, how can that NOT be the case...?!