The pointlesness of trying to support religion with science.

[Rum]

There is a tendency - and a common one - amongst religious people who enter into debate with the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens and others, so try to suggest that religion and science are compatible. Indeed often they will try to recruit scientific 'evidence' of one sort or another, or at the very least an uncertain area of science, to support a religious view.

It struck me a little earlier that this is terribly insecure of people of religion.

If they believe what they believe they should put science to one side surely and simply stand on their faith. They should be able to say openly that their religion does transcend the petty limits of the material world, the laws of logic and physics and cause and effect and simply declare themselves to trust in their faith and their faith alone!

[Feck]

Having seen a few arguments on-line ID ists /fundies and other pond scum quite often START the argument with Science but end up with Appeals to faith and personal knowledge ,It's one of the fall back positions ,just like appealing for tolerance of Religious beliefs (that annoys the crap out of me fucking hypocrites ).

[Thumpalumpacus]

There is a tendency - and a common one - amongst religious people who enter into debate with the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens and others, so try to suggest that religion and science are compatible. Indeed often they will try to recruit scientific 'evidence' of one sort or another, or at the very least an uncertain area of science, to support a religious view.

It struck me a little earlier that this is terribly insecure of people of religion.

If they believe what they believe they should put science to one side surely and simply stand on their faith. They should be able to say openly that their religion does transcend the petty limits of the material world, the laws of logic and physics and cause and effect and simply declare themselves to trust in their faith and their faith alone!

Indeed, the search for evidence is indicative of either 1) a lack of faith on the part of the searcher, or 2) the acceptance of debate in terms defined by one's interlocutor.

The first is understandable, the latter, folly.

[Robert_S]

I see either utterly lame and sad misunderstandings/blatant distortions and lies from young earthers or I see quantum woo. I can sympathize more with the people who believe the woo, because what I've seen tends to be less weird than what real physicists talk about.

22 Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the LORD’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”

Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”

25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.

Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which had been torn down. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs[a] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”

34 “Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.

“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.

36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”

38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The LORD—he is God! The LORD—he is God!”

[charlou]

It's akin to those theists who take that "well, you're just as bad" approach to debate with atheists. They acknowledge their thinking/attitude/behaviour is bollocks by being intent on convincing themselves us it's acceptable because ours is just as unsound.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, I don't think that's why they look up "evidence", myself. You're right that they lay the charge of faith upon science in general and evolutionary biology in particular; but that really is the exact opposite . Instead of them looking for evidence, in your example they are saying, "See, you practice faith as well," which is a different kettle of fish.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

To those that would advocate the use of science to prove the existence of god, I say...

Either:

1) The scientific method is valid. It can then be used to validate both religion (very very very poorly) and evolution (just about as cat-iron, watertightly as you can get!)

or

2) The scientific method is invalid. In which case, shut the fuck up, ignore everything that science has taught us about the world, rely on faith like you're supposed to, and pray for oxygenation instead of breathing for the next 20 minutes.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The two are incompatible. Religion demands faith; science abjures it.

[charlou]

Well, I don't think that's why they look up "evidence", myself. You're right that they lay the charge of faith upon science in general and evolutionary biology in particular; but that really is the exact opposite . Instead of them looking for evidence, in your example they are saying, "See, you practice faith as well," which is a different kettle of fish.

I know they're wrong about how many atheists approach science, but my point is the way I have seen some theists try to validate their own approach by stating ours is 'just as bad', while not even getting the irony of that belief.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh, I hear you. I was just on a different track.

You're right in what you say. When a theist says "'Darwinism' is just a belief," he doesn't even realize that he's damned his own point with that one little word, "just".

[Feck]

To those that would advocate the use of science to prove the existence of god, I say...

Either:

1) The scientific method is valid. It can then be used to validate both religion (very very very poorly) and evolution (just about as cat-iron, watertightly as you can get!)

or

2) The scientific method is invalid. In which case, shut the fuck up, ignore everything that science has taught us about the world, rely on faith like you're supposed to, and pray for oxygenation instead of breathing for the next 20 minutes.

Mental picture of you grinning over a convulsing theist with a plastic bag on his face

[charlou]

When a theist says "'Darwinism' is just a belief," he doesn't even realize that he's damned his own point with that one little word, "just".

Ayep, that's it.


Your track ... yes, there's a kinda distorted variation of confirmation bias going on among theists, not only in the genuine misunderstanding, but in the more arrogant misapplication of evidence. From what I can tell, that's the point of most frustration for debaters on both sides of the argument.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Really, it's two different epistemologies. This is why they can never be compatible. For my own money, I think that Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" idea is simply a half-hearted compromise, too.

While I cannot say there is no god, I certainly need not permit him a setting at the dinner-table.

[charlou]

Really, it's two different epistemologies. This is why they can never be compatible. For my own money, I think that Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" idea is simply a half-hearted compromise, too.

While I cannot say there is no god, I certainly need not permit him a setting at the dinner-table.

NOMA ... I quite liked the way Dawkins dealt with that in teh god delusion ...


As for no god ... it depends on ones definition ... Mine is that while a god is considered to be a supernatural entity, ie exist outside nature, on that basis I say there is no god.

[Rum]

..and of course those who do believe one can 'prove' the existence of god with 'evidence' nearly always start out with the argument:- Firstly, you can't prove the non-existence of god.

This is the point at which I either fall asleep or stick my fingers in my ears and go LA la LAA laaa LAAA!