Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Actually, the test is much simpler IMO, is it true and is it accurate, for me that is Science in a nutshell, no consensus needed, it speaks for itself.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/history-of-the-bible.htm

And this study about the accuracy of the New Testament is illuminating:

http://www.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter4.html

And more to the point, there are manuscript copies in existence, the "generator" documents for all copies of the Bible, each line is given a numerical value, if someone changes the number of words, the reconciling total will obviously be "off".

I want to say those are Masrah copies, needless to say, in the words of Greenleaf "...with so many competing sects, any change in the Bible will instantly be noticed ensuring the accuracy of..."

 

How about evolution? Stem cell research? Predisposition of homosexuality? Birth control? Global warming? Maybe, these issues don't carry the "gravity" (pardon the pun) of the "sun revolves around the Earth" argument, but they are still at opposition to many religious beliefs and the cause for many major issues in this day and age.

Now sure, science has had many political concessions of late, but not quite to the extant that religion has had throughout time till now. Like the "Creationism, oh wait that's not getting traction, okay Intelligent Design" issue. Besides Desides, (sorry I had to do that) science does not politicize itself. Politicians do it, and they often do it to get votes from mostly religious people who need a slightly less bitter pill to swallow.

 

First, thanks Celtkin, for starting this thread, but more important, to all of you. The honest, respectful, and open dialog is refreshing whatever your belief system. Besides that I'm learning and thats a very good thing at age 67. Again thank you all.

 

Stem Cell research? Life should be protected in all of our stages of development, thusly putting and emphasis on Mankind and the Right to Dignity that all mankind should enjoy.

Predisposition to Homosexuality: Has that been proven? Aside from the terribly flawed hippo campus study?

Gravity: Sir Issac Newton was a serious Christian and a Scientist.

Sun revolves around the Earth was a Pagan Greek argument that the Catholic Church picked up on, Magellian suggested a change that was not scientifically accurate BTW.

Global Wamring: A consensus is not "Science" 30,000 scientists have signed a document that man is not the cause of an increase in tempratures on the Earth, earlier in the "pro" camp, some 5,000 scientists formed a consensus that mankind was the locus of the increase, now a "new" paper claims that Man Centered Global Warming will decrease over the next 10-12 years as ocean currents shift in a natural process.

Seems that Man Centered Global Warming consensus builders do not have their ideas, nor statistical models in a row...if they don't know what they are speaking about, why should anyone lend particular credence to their theory?

Scientists are politicized, that is a compromise that they make, real science requires no consensus, it is demonstrable and repeatable and speaks for itself and in order to be adopted to fit a variety of circumstances, it must also be absolutely true...

IE if small organisms can evolve, then the same mechanism must be demonstrable for large ones, as well as creating transitional species in the meanwhile...

 

For that to be true, you'd have to accept and believe in the purity of people you've never met, and don't even know most of their names. You'd do that because that's what the bible alludes too. Yet, it is the accuracy of the bible that is being called into question. Its a catch-22. Just because people are men of the cloth, doesn't mean their intentions are pure. Look at the widespread cases of child molestation in the Catholic church. It is also a bit much to expect humans of that day, to not be driven by other agendas when dealing with divinity, when it happens on a daily basis in this day and age, even though we are more educated and have the benefit of more history to learn from.

Ultimately, my point is not to question your or anyone else's faith, but to question the absolute certainty of it that leads and has lead to wars, censorship, and injustice. And if someone can believe in something despite it having holes in its logic, history, and tangible evidence, then it shouldn't matter what science finds to be factually true by scientific standards. Belief is belief and science is science. It is time for religion to stop meddling in the affairs of science, since, people of faith will believe what they want regardless.

 

then couldn't an argument be made that just by having this conversation that God is inspiring a new path to be explored? by asking questions of someone as yourself that we are being guided in another direction? who is to say which side then is divine and which is not. i ask and challenge only because the concepts are vague to me and, in the truest meaning of the word, faith driven.

 

You've done nothing but prove my point.

The issues that science is trying to tackle are politicized. They've become pawns. Case in point, if a scientist does his research and due diligence, and concludes Global Warming is a real thing, then he's labeled a lefty, tree-hugger. That's done by other people, not by the scientist. Real scientists don't set out to prove a predisposed outcome. They set out to prove whatever the outcome may be. They ask a question and try to find an answer, not the answer they want.

 

You say it.

The statistical modeling that Man Centered Global Warming relies upon is not exact enough to make the case that 50 years from now "The tip of Florida will be under water" the recent 1-12 year current study refutes that, and such refutations happen all of the time, from cloud studies that cannot be used for modeling, to unexpected events like the Atlantic Ocean radiating excess heat into the atmosphere and dissipating one of the key pillars of the idea that "Global Warming is unstoppable".

I've seen the labeling work the other way, no matter how meticulous the study, undoubtably the Scientist involved is a shill for the oil companies.

Which points out the idea that Creation even this Earth, is not very well understood, not that it will always be thus, rather that mankind still has a long way to go.

 

so, your point is that because it is so widely distributed and translated that it must be accurate. but the Bible is different for the different sects. to say that the KJV is the same as the Roman Catholic version(which there are several versions of as well) is like saying the AL with it's DH is the same as the NL with out. even though they belong to the same league, they are different and members of each would tell you so. regardless of their numbers.

 

sorry Ohio, but i can attest to real persons of faith "bludgeoning" people into their way of thinking. they are short sighted and a bad representation of Christians as a whole, but they do exist and are considered people of "real" faith.

 

you know, this crap about weather global warming is real or if in fact it is global cooling or whatever is absolutely stupid. regardless of the modeling used or scientists involved or who backs it, the fact remains, this planet is in trouble. and as residents of this planet i think it behooves us all to consider this weather we are ultra right or left wing, Republican or Democrat, Christian or Jew(or any other religion). this behavior is just absurd!

 

Evolution: there's nothing in the Bible that states God's creations cannot change. The conflict comes when religious opponents attempt to claim that the theory of evolution means that there was no moment of creation.

Stem cell research: the attempt to discover how life forms in the womb. Don't see anything here that contracts the concept of a singular point of creation by an all-mighty entity.

Homosexuality: no one knows how homosexuality arises.

Birth control: science develops a pill, religion says abstain. Both seek the same goals. Don't see a problem here.

Global warming: haven't heard the Pope talk about this at all.

Intelligent Design's proponents believe in religion, but I know of no church that has officially endorsed it, nor do I believe any religion had a hand in the theory's development.

Scientists politicized themselves. Whether it's saying something to get grant money, placing their political beliefs above the scientific method, or just outright not caring, science today is extremely politicized.

 

I hear you, but if a scientist sets out to prove a preconceived notion, than that makes him no longer a scientist nor his findings scientific, by the very definition of science. His work is no scientifically valid. However, when people of faith, go by blind faith, they are often exalted, or given the honor of being the President's spiritual adviser. (Sorry, that was a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist).

Yes, there are definitely morons and idiots on each side. My whole point was to keep them out of each other's business.

 

For every "real" scientist who's out to find an honest answer you'll find a Nazi doctor or a chemist developing weapons of mass destruction or a physicist holding Wernher von Braun's coat. Science doesn't exactly deserve the moral high ground in this debate - yes, religion has been responsible for a multitude of heinous acts. Science, on the other hand, enabled a multitude of them. I agree with your definition of "real scientists" but I'm afraid we "non-believers" tend to romanticize science a bit too much all the while demonizing religion maybe a wee bit too much.

 

In this we can agree, not that the planet itself is in trouble, rather that mankind on the planet is in trouble, the Earth can do fine without our presence.

Now for me and my Faith, I do think we have the tools to fix the problems such as hunger and disease and the other problems that face us, now whether we have the will to do so, is another question D1.

 

it's all good. i think this thread has been very constructive and, though we may all come from different points of view, we do seem to agree on some basic principles of how man should conduct himself with others of his kind, but not necessarily his faith. i thank you for your time and patience.

 

Be well Pastor, you are an eloquent speaker, thank you.

 

i can be ok with that. i too believe that the Earth will take care of it's self. but can we set aside our differences to "fix" this situation before Mother Earth does.

 

that IS the bottom line question.

 

That is your interpretation. But the science community isn't out there saying there is no god. But many religious people are out there saying evolution is bunk. There saying it because they do in fact, feel it contradicts the bible's account of creation. To deny that, is to lie to yourself.

I've yet to hear any non believer, being against stem cell research. The only ones I hear are like Padre in his response to my post.

I'm sorry, I thought the majority of the religious voice out there "knows" for sure it a choice. That's what they claim anyway.

The problem with your point here and the other ones you made is, we are not debating your personal views on the issues of church and science. We are talking about the broad and general issues between the two. The have no business in each other's business.

I fail to see your point here as it pertains to this thread. We're talking about religion vs. science. The simple fact of the matter, this is a classic example of that issue in that religious people are trying to get an unsubstantiated hypothesis in a science class as scientific fact.

This is certainly a chicken/egg scenario. You say scientists have politicized themselves, yet I say the issues they try to investigate are political in nature. Yeah, they may have to say this or that to get funding. But most have to do that to get that funding from...well...politicians.

 

I'm not putting them on a higher moral ground. But science by its very nature allows for change and rethinking, where religion cannot. Again, the point of my part in this discussion, is to say that religion and science are built on two completely different ideals, and should stay out of each other's affairs.

 

That is not true at all, otherwise how could you explain the many denominations of the major faiths?

 

welcome. it's nice to see an old new face.

 

What a great thread! Lot's of great posts.

As to the original question - Does Science make belief in God obsolete?

I think that question is up to the individual.

Science does not, nor can it, prove or disprove God as an entity to be seen heard felt etc.....

Science can certainly observe and study evidences of God's Creation - Earth/Universe etc...and make it's own conclusions.

I don't believe science is out to disprove God, or get rid of God, but it does attempt to "remove God" from the possible explanations, resorting to only "natural" causes.

But I do believe that there are science "people" who believe in evolution to the point of eliminating God altogether...again it is an individual choice.

Science can be a great tool for mankind, but it can also be a great detriment.

 

nice to see you in this one. couple of points i'd like to make. first, true science, i don't believe attempts t remove anything but lack of knowledge. if God IS nature, then science only proves how God, or any deity you may believe in, works through nature. science is about discovering.

second, the same can be said about religions and some of their members. in the end, both can be said to be after the same thing. religions want to know how it works from the inside and science wants to know how it works from the outside. what makes either questionable is how individuals use each for their own personal agenda. not everyone is comfortable with the internal search for our meaning and look for it in external expressions, just as some are not comfortable with external meanings and look inward for their answers. in this manor, is one more correct than the other? as you said, that is up to the individual as to which is best for them.

 

I don't think they can and I certainly don't think they should. The interdependency between science and philosophy (I like to classify religion as a philosophy here; it has its own set of metaphysics, ontology, ethics and so forth) is actually quite healthy. If science isn't subject to a moral instance, it has a certain tendency to go wrong. I've already given several examples to that point and I could give a lot more. It's not a fault of science by any means. It's its inherent nature. Science inherently is concerned about what we can do. However, it isn't always concerned with what we should do. The Manhattan Project, for instance, perfectly illustrates this characteristic. If someone would have said, hey folks, we are about to build a weapon that might one day wipe out millions and billions of people or even every notable life form on this planet aside from the ****roaches ... don't you think someone else would have said, gee, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but that does not sound like the most brilliant idea ever?

Personally, I don't have a problem with abortion or stem cell research or genetics, but it's absolutely necessary that some people are asking: do we really want this? That's a legitimate and important question when it comes to science. Science says, we can do this, philosophy asks, okay, but do we want to? Should we? Science can't answer this question because it's a) not its job and b) scientists aren't trained for it. Now, like you, I despise people who get involved in these matters because they have a religious agenda beyond a fundamental ethical point of view. But that doesn't apply to religion in general. To ask a religion (or any philosophy for that matter) to refrain from mingling with science is to ask people to not only trust in the rationality of science but also in the absolute rightness of science. But science isn't always right when it comes to ethics. In fact, quite often it's very very wrong.

On the other hand, I firmly expect science to get involved in religious matters if necessary. When a religious nutjob claims that earth is only 30.000 years old, I expect science to come forward and say, sorry dude, but that's a load of bull and we can prove it. That's the responsibility of science. It's obliged to the truth. If the followers of the nutjob are still resolved to believe otherwise, believe away. I stop mingling right there. Science can lead the horse to the water but it can't make it drink. But science needs to get involved in religious matters. It's healthy for religion. A couple of hundred years ago, people believed in the Bible in a literal sense. Then science comes along and says, sorry to spoil the fun, folks, but here's a list of stuff that the Bible's got wrong. And people started to realize that the Bible might just be a metaphorical text. We know a lot more about the Bible today because science got involved. If I were a believer, I'd be thrilled by every new scientific find that seemingly contradicted a Biblical account because then I'd knew I had gotten it all wrong before and science had just given me the chance of figuring out what it's really about.

To make a long story short: There absolutely needs to be an interdependancy between science and religion. That's not to be confused with a mix of both, of course. There cannot be a religious science and there cannot be a scientific religion. But both still can and do profit from each other.

 

First of all, it is completely inaccurate to classify religion as philosophy, especially in this conversation. While philosophy and religion both ask questions, religion believes it has the answers, and those answers are absolute. Secondly, moral ambiguity does not belong solely to science, nor is having morals an exclusive of the religious. The AIDS epidemic in Africa perfectly illustrates this. The Pope said do not use condoms, abstinence is better. They stopped using condoms, and AIDS is and has been running rampant. As far as the Manhattan Project goes, it is unfair to blame that solely on science. Scientists didn't just get together and say hey let's build bombs. They were funded and started by government and industry. The members of which were mostly self considered to be Christians and Jews.

Science has codes of ethics. Both religion and science have done deplorable things. However, neither is here to police one another. Religion, ultimately, is about policing yourself, while science is about answering questions using the Scientific Method. Philosophy, in many ways is the mixture of the two. On a side note, I just find it infuriating that many assume you have to be religious to be moral.

Religion and science, at there base are pure and intend no harm. Any problems with the two, generally stem from corrupted people in search of wealth and power. The main differences for me, though, is 1. Science tells us what is possible, while religion tells us what we are allowed to do. And 2. Science has to prove its findings, while religion doesn't.

 

Nuances may change, but ultimately, if science proves that gravity is wrong, then its back to the drawing board. Now, if it was found out that Egyptians didn't have slaves, then Christianity and Judaism have a major problem, for example.

 

kinda funny that you say that because there is a belief that is building some following that states that the term "slave" is being used incorrectly. that, though the Jews were not the same class level as the Egyptians, they were "free" to move about and were actually paid for their services (though mostly with food and shelter). goes to the point that translations are not always accurate and the thought that the Jews were owned may prove to be incorrect.