Does science make belief in God obsolete?

I think your view of science involving itself with religion must have a necessary prerequisite in order to be valid- namely it must be objective, unbiased and most importantly true. Sadly what we have seen is that science can be just as biased as a religion and we have seen time and time again how science gets it wrong...over and over and over again. Kinda hard to accept Science as an authority when it is constantly changing what the "truth" or the"facts" are.....

Just my .02

Thanks!

 

I am not going to comment on this as this is where I get accused of taking it off topic. Sorry!

 

yea, more and more data is coming out that the Egyptians built their momuments with well taken care of paid workers.

 

That's hardly an argument against classifying religion as philosophy as each philosophy is absolute in itself. Read Kant. Read Schopenhauer. Read Buddhism. Read Descartes. Read the post-structuralists. They all arrive at absolutes just like religion does.

But they didn't start being abstinent. My views of the Pope aside, if they actually listened to the guy AIDS wouldn't be nearly as rampant as it is. One of the main reasons condoms aren't widely used in Africa isn't the Pope but the fact that many men believe that they detract from sexual pleasure. They use their religion as an excuse not to use them but they don't actually adhere to the religious doctrine by staying abstinent as well. You can't blame the Pope for people misusing his doctrine.

As for the Manhattan Project, I didn't blame it solely on science. I used it as an example of the vacuum that arises from not applying ethics to science.

I didn't assume that. In fact, assuming it would make me immoral because I'm not in the least bit religious. You have to adhere to a code of ethics to be moral. Christianity - or religion in general - is one such code. There are others and that's why I prefer to use a broader term like philosophy in this case. I don't much care which code of ethics you adhere to as long as it's a sensible one and that's exactly where I observe a certain lack not only in science but in virtually each area of public life. Science, politics, economy ... they don't exactly lack religion but they lack a coherent code of ethics.

Ethics in general tell us what we are allowed to do. Religion is just one code of ethics out of many. It happens to be a quite popular one (there's certainly a lot more people adhering to the Christian code of ethics than to Kant's categorical imperative, which by the way, I somewhat pity) so it's got a certain influence.

 

But that's the nature of science. It errs. It realizes. It evolves from its errors. No credible scientist would call his theory an absolute truth - he'd call it a theory because he's aware that there are no absolute truths. Personally, I find it much easier to accept something that's able to err and evolve from its errors as an authority than something that's claiming to be absolutely right and absolutely true and providing no proof whatsoever. But that's just me. As I said before, I respect everyone who does feel more comfortable believing otherwise. But I think that this respect works both ways and one side should acknowledge the value of the other. When it comes to hard facts (say, how old is that neat little planet of ours?) religion should accept that science has the authority on that matter as it can prove. When it comes to ethics, science needs to accept that quite a lot of people are defining their moral values through religious doctrines.

 

Hey I hear ya Brother. I like science. I really do. I just don't like the part of science that claims to be an authority on things they have no way of knowing , like age of the earth, age of rocks, age of dinosuars etc....Uniformitarianism that what we see today has been constant in the past, or increasing/decreasing at a steady rate etc.....

There is no way to know this for sure, yet science makes it look and sound like it is fact. There is an awful lot of guesswork and assumption involved - and belief if I may.

I would rather believe in a God who makes himself evident to me through personal experience, nature, the bible and the person of Jesus, and who has all the answers already- than to put my faith in men who are still looking for the answers.

But that is just my .02

Good discussion Thanks!

 

Sort of. You're speaking in terms of doctrine and ideals. In that regard, yes, religion is philosophy. In some ways you can say the same about some science. However, this discussion has been about the real world and practical application of religion. That is why I said it was inaccurate. We are talking about religion as group of entities, not nebulous concepts. The difference is that religion, by its very nature, is an organized structure of people, built around common beliefs. Hence, Buddha, was a philosopher, yet, Buddhism is considered by many to be a religion. Religion has always been away to explain things that we couldn't. Its no surprise that as science/math began to expand we went from people who believed in gods that made the sun rise and set to gods that that teach us about human behavior, (we still have yet to nail that down completely yet, but we know why the sun moves through the sky.) Now what we have is these entities, imposing their will and morals upon others. Whether it be through suicide bombings or banning homosexual marriage. Beliefs, like most things, become stronger in numbers, especially to the point where those people refuse to change their beliefs, regardless, of facts. The more people involved, the more chance for abuse of those beliefs.

Not the point. The point is, everyone knows people as a whole aren't going to be abstinent. They never have, never will. To tell people not to use protection, with that knowledge, is flat out irresponsible. There is no good reason to preach abstinence WHILE saying protection is wrong. Just as irresponsible as the Manhattan Project, and ultimately just as deadly.

Ok, but when you claim that religion is the same as philosophy, and then say that without philosophy, science is left to run amok of ethics, then in your post, you essentially did blame science. The point I was trying to make, was that it wasn't just scientists, but the people of religious belief were there, guiding the project, in fact, and it still came about. That guidance you said was vital, was there, and it didn't matter. Simple fact of the matter, is people as a whole suck. We have agendas and lack of compassion. Science recognizes this too, and says be as objective as possible. Religion realizes this too, yet does what it can to remove objectiveness and replace it with faith.

I didn't mean to imply you did. I'm sorry about that.

Regardless, the Christian ethical code is built around different ideals than that of scientific ethics. They are not compatible. Which is why, again, they should be separate. Christian ethics don't work for Muslims, hence they should both stay out of each other's affairs. There is no way to tell universally who is right and wrong. Science on the other hand, subscribes to facts.

 

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. The evidence isn't enough to change what you believe, but that doesn't mean its not a fact. I hope that you do not take the same approach if you are on a jury.

That's great it works for you. Some people never find the comfort you feel. But you can believe what you will, regardless of what science says, so there is no need to claim its wrong with no basis for that claim. In the end, you have the option of saying to yourself, God wanted it to appear the Earth was 4.5 billion years old.

 

Or one day science will confirm that the earth is really only less than 100,000 years old, despite the belief that it isn't.

I do not want to get into a protracted debate about the so called "facts" of science.

People believe what they want.

You believe science has factually proven the age of the earth.

I don't.

To each his own.

 

Not really. The term "religion" neither implies organization nor structure. But I see where you are coming from ... I just don't see in how far that contradicts my argument. Want to help me along?

Exactly the point. Religion, by its very nature, isn't a self-service outlet. You cannot pick which doctrines you want to adhere and which you want to ignore. In this specific case, you either accept the Catholic doctrine of prevention as a sin or you don't. If you don't, then you're not Catholic. You've just invented your own personal religion. But then you can't blame the Pope because he isn't head of Fred's or Jane's religion but head of the Catholic Church whose fundamental doctrine you just chose to ignore.

I'm absolutely with you that abstinence isn't a particularly realistic concept. Immaculate conception isn't either. But if someone's saying, gee, I don't care what that old geezer back in Rome says about sexuality, I'm horny, then we're back at Fred's religion. Can't blame the Pope because Fred just wants to be a half Catholic. You can't be a little bit Catholic any more than you can be a little bit pregnant.

It's not the Pope who's being irresponsible here (he's just narrow-minded), it's Fred. He wants to have sex whenever he wants - go right ahead, use condoms and let the old geezer mumble all day long. The problem is that Fred wants both: He wants to feel like he's being a good Catholic and he wants to have sex like he pleases. That doesn't work, however.

Besides, even if the Pope was to say, okay, you guys got me, use condoms, they wouldn't. That's the real issue humanitarians working in these regions deal with.

No, it wasn't. See: You were talking about people again while I was talking about a set of beliefs. The fact that there were people present claiming to have these beliefs doesn't mean that the actual beliefs were present. When I turn on the TV I see a lot of Christians or Muslims who aren't acting according to their beliefs at all. Which brings us back to Fred. I'm not saying the world needs more Freds. Quite the contrary: The world needs a lot more Kants and Schopenhauers and Christians and Muslims and Jews and whatnot who aren't turning ethics into a self-service outlet.

It's okay.

Could you please elaborate on what exactly you mean by "scientific ethics".

 

The problem is science has facts supporting its claim. Facts. The half-life of a given isotope is constant. That can be verified and proven. With this basic principle we can date things. A concept that it is unsubstantiated by any evidence, (like Uniformitarism isn't true) is not evidence of anything. Its merely a question. Being able to question something does not make it untrue. You don't have to believe facts. I can drop a pen a hundred times, and a hundred times it will fall. That is a fact. However, if you believe it didn't fall, that's fine. You cannot mix your beliefs with your facts. Beliefs are based on faith. Facts are based on tangible evidence. Faith, by its definition, is believing something without evidence.

I do not believe science has figured out the age of the Earth. Its a fact that they have. It has nothing to do with belief or faith. Again, though, if you believe your god to be all powerful, then he can do what he wants, and if he wants science to see that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, when it is really 100,000 years old, then it shouldn't be an issue for you.

 

Because religion doesn't exist without the people that believe it. Religion is as much about the belief as the people who believe it. You can't have one without the other. You are talking about concepts. Once a concept is spoken or thought of, it exists. But we are talking about religions. Like Catholicism. If it was proven that Jesus never existed, the concept of Christianity would still be a concept, but the organized religion of Catholicism could go away.[/QUOTE]

Actually, every religion from a practical sense, picks and chooses what they follow. Gays can't get married but women on their periods don't have to leave town. Every religion does this. Again, what you're talking about is idealistic not realistic.

I don't like wearing condoms anymore than the next guy, but if I had a belief structure telling me not use them, then I've now been given a justifiable reason not to wear one. If the Pope or anyone thought they couldn't convince people of doing something or not doing something, then why even give the speech.

That's exactly it though. We are talking about people. People are the ones that believe or not. People are the ones practicing science. Gravity existed before Newton, but it wasn't a problem until people said it was. Philosophy and religion just don't exist out of thin air, on the other hand. They are thought up by people.

Well first and foremost, one of the main ethical standards of science is to be objective. That is absolutely counter to many religious ethics.

 

so what you are saying is the entire population of Egypt with the exception of the Priests and Pharohs were slaves? 'cause that's who built the pyramids. they did because they believed their kings were living Gods and the Kings commanded that they build the temples for their after life. and, yes, they were reimbursed for their time, like i said, with food and shelter.

 

Hey the half life of isotopes measured today is constant, but what we don't know is this:

1. Has it always been constant?
2. Has there been any other sources of decay other than radio active?
3. What was the original conditions at the formation of the rock?

Science has shown that decay rates can be accelerated. Science has shown that chemical environment has effected decay rates. There is no known way to know what the original composition of an object was when it was first formed - we weren't there, except when we can see first hand when a rock is formed let's say by a volcano, and the amount of parent/daughter elements doesn't match the assumptions being made on rocks we didn't witness being made.

And then there is inconsistencies in dating rocks with known ages.

If you ever get some free time I suggest reading up on the famous RATE project - Radio-isotope and the age of the earth.

So again getting back to the original question - Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Again it depends on what you choose to believe in, or put your faith in.

And it is entirely possible that God created everything in an aged state.

I don't stand or fall on whether earth is young or old.

But science does.

 

If the decay rates can be accelerated wouldn't that show that the Earth would be older than even 4.5 billion yrs old? But if the "evidence" for 100,000 yrs old is the Bible, than which is closer to the truth? Do you hold the same requirements of proof from the bible?

My point about the topic, has been consistently that science and religion should stay out of each other's hair. The burden of proof between the two is vastly different. They are completely incompatible.

 

Celt - I don't know why the Rate Project is not published in Evolution dominated journals. You would have to ask them if they tried to get peer review from evolutionists. Does that invalidate their research? I don't think so.

Hey if science is so open minded to research that bucks the status quo, why aren't they reproducing what the Rate Project started? I don't have an answer to that question, but my guess would be because the conclusions don't fit the bias belief, but that is just my opinion. I mean if a scientist/engineerr/researcher stakes his whole life and profession on evolutionary theory, why would he be interested in research that disproves his belief system?

Think about what you are suggesting. If the NSF funded research that proved a young earth, how do you think that would fly? You think that would be accepted? Hardly. Would you accept it? IF it was funded and performed by the NSF or (pick your organization) would you accept it then? If so why the difference. Why not accept the Rate Project now?

I think the problem is people don't accept the messenger, so they fail to see the message.

So what if the on call doctor comes out of the OR and gives you an update on your loved one, and not the doctor who performed the surgery? The message is that your loved one is doing fine.

Again - people can believe what they want.

Some put thier faith that science has all the answers, and that it is unbiased, and that it is right and factual and true.

I don't have such faith in science, or men of science.

 

I think any "science" project where they've set their goals ahead of time, and do their research to prove that goal is suspect. And from the sound of things that what the RATE group did.

We can argue that all scientists have some agenda, but this group is so blatant with it it's hard to accept them at face value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioi...adioisotopes_and_the_Age_of_the_Earth_project

 

sorry to just pinpoint this of your conversation. But this is a particular point where I tend to have issues with the Catholic church.

The church has rejected the use of condoms under the idea that sex is merely to be done in order to reproduce. So condoms and any other type of contraceptive are not allowable by the church. YET the church does admit the rythm method (y'know when you count down the days to realize what days the woman is not fertile so that you can have unprotected sex on those days) therefore understanding that sex can be had without the intention of procreating. So why is it that they still reject other contraceptives? Either sex is only to have children, or it isn't... ah the church.

The problem of AIDS in Africa is so incredibly complex that it cannot be left at simply not using a condom. It strongly has to do with a society that has historically had trouble treating women in any way that might be sensible (the amount of rape victims in the Congo area should be a good example) and a society that has just recently become independent after barbaric treatment by their colonizers (again, referring to the Congo, where more than 10 million people where murdered by the Belgium regime). You could drop condoms there, and I doubt you would make a difference.

 

it is???? my sister is going to be happy about that.

 

Bro, i'm not trying to pick on you, but none of what you're saying is accurate. First of all, you're projecting your fondness for the answers you've been given on scientists. Real scientists, don't care what answer they come up with. They just care about coming up with answers, regardless of what they are. If the answer is popular or offends people does not play into their findings. I think why you're making this leap is because to you belief and fact are one in the same. They aren't though. I fact is a fact, whether it is believed or not. Belief is belief whether its a fact or not. Its a fact that the sky appears blue, but if I don't believe it does, then the sky doesn't change color because I don't believe its blue.

Secondly, it is a bit ironic, that you quote a study done by a group with obvious biases and agendas, yet science done by any other group that doesn't have the same agenda as that group is well...biased. Also, the people of this group you consider scientists, yet you put no faith in scientists by your own admission. I also, would assume, that since you have such contempt for science and men of science, that you don't go to the doctor, take medication, drive a car, use a telephone, or AC, or ovens, or even the internet...

 

and i think the problem is that some people make the messenger more important than the message. not to say the messenger is not an important part of the equation. so, what if the messenger brings news of a prize, but the only way to accept the prize is to canonize and worship the messenger before you can claim the prize. that seems a bit odd.

i don't think it has anything to do with people not accepting the messenger as you put it. people accept and understand. updates from the OR are always welcome and accepted regardless of the person giving the update. but it is still expected that when all is said and done, the Doctor/s that performed the operation will confer with the family for a more precise explanation of the operation.

as far as weather the Earth is 100,000 or 4.5 million years old, it doesn't change how i believe in God. the notion that the Earth is 4.5 million years old doesn't mean that God didn't jump start evolution and create man 100,000 thousand years ago. life isn't always about absolutes, black and white. one can happen with the other.

 

I am interested in your examples.

I'm not saying that at all. What i am saying is that if done right science is merely about finding facts. When religion is done right, they are about offering already specific answers.
They both can be abused, which is why I said before people as a whole suck.

 

Bravo! I feel that science needs that little boy, too.

In reading this thread I'm struck by those who feel that they have to prove why they believe or prove that someone else should believe. I'm happy in my belief system and wish the same for others. If someone ask; I am more than willing to try and explain why I believe the way I do. What they do with what I say is purely up to them.

Science, to me is not about faith it is about proveable/proven facts, where as faith is all about beliefs. My Stepfather always warned me about fanatics in any field, they are the enemies of us all, I fear.

I want to search for God, in fact, I love and welcome it. If we could prove that God "is" he wouldn't be God. As for questioning the Bible and finding some of it questionable/questioned is only part of my search and proves nothing, one way or the other, of my faith and belief in God.

 

True. But religion and the people believing in it exist on two different levels. I'm idealistic in so far as I claim that there's an ideal and people adhering (or not adhering) to that ideal. When we're talking about a religion, we're talking about the ideal. The fact that the ideal might not exist without the believers doesn't make the two synonymous. That's another reason why I tend to classify religion as a philosophy in the ethical sense. It's not as if Kant's categorical imperative or Plato's idea of good have believers - yet those concepts still exist and it's valid to put them to use.

I don't think it would. It has been proven that the Genesis didn't exist in the Biblical sense. Did that make Judaism go away? If we assume for a moment that it was indeed proven that Jesus never existed - the Catholic Church would either not acknowledge the fact or simply declare him a metaphorical figure just like theologians nowadays think of Genesis as a metaphorical account.

Yes and no. There's an inherent difference between an organized religion like Catholicism and the rather loose structure of Protestantism or Buddhism. If you decide to follow Catholicism you have to accept that there's a guy who interprets the Bible for you and has final authority in these matters because he's God's representative on Earth. In this case, a religion tells you exactly what doctrines to follow and if you don't, you sin. If, on the other hand, you chose to follow Protestantism, you can be somewhat picky yourself. There's no earthly authority and the interpretation of the Bible is basically up to you. Yes, it's about the people in a way, but fundamentally, it's about the concepts first.

Because it's the doctrine and because, let's put it bluntly, the guy believes that if they do not listen to him, they'll burn in hell. Put yourself in his shoes: If you believe in this stuff, you'd probably give the speech too even if most of them wouldn't listen. It's about their immortal souls, after all. Now, why I would want to live in eternity with a God that condems people to eternal suffering because they used a rubber is beyond me ... but that's the doctrine. I'm glad I wasn't born Catholic. I wouldn't know whether to leave this nonsense or stay in order to tell them that they don't make any sense at all.

Well ... I could start an ontological debate about this claim now ... but I refrain. Let's just say that this is philosophically debateable.

That's not an ethical standard. It's a scientific one.

 

No need to be sorry. Honestly, I have a lot of issues with the Catholic church as well. It starts with its dishonest premise (the whole papacy is build on a lie) and ends with its stance towards homosexuality. In between you have a myriad of doctrines and beliefs making absolutely no sense whatsoever. I'm generally very tolerant towards religions but in this case, I genuinely believe the world would be a better place without the Catholic church. Not their believers, just the whole organization.

In the case of AIDS, however, I have to concede that while the Pope might be a narrow-minded, power-hungry fellow, he isn't really responsible for the spreading of the disease like a lot of critics claim.

True. Eventually, however, it does boil down to prevention and the general reluctance of people living there to use it. This has numerous reasons of course. Superstition, for instance, playing a major role.

 

First let me say that, I'm in no way trying to be disrespectful to you and your faith. If it came across that way, I 'm sorry, it was not my intent.

I think however, you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not in anyway saying that people of faith should not use medicine or TV's. I'm speaking on a more grand scale. For example, evolution. The study of evolution is scientific, therefore it should be taught in science classes. Creationism is faith based and should be taught in faith based classes. Religion should stay out of scientific research while science should stay out religion based studies. I say this because the preponderance of evidence between the two is incompatible. They require two vastly different sets of proof. Now people as yourself, who've actually studied their faith and science, realize, much of science can easily be rectified with a particular belief. But where as the average scientist is learned in their field of study, the average religious person is not learned in their belief, nor in science. This is where the majority of the issues come in. Precursory knowledge of science and faith, creates a defensive stance. Faith does not require provable facts, in fact it is believing something to be true with no facts at all. So why does religion concern itself with the findings of science? Science on the other hand, can't exist by putting any significance on faith.

Of course nothing is pure. Everything is touched by people, therefore it is forever tainted. However, with science, the inherent system of checks and balances is far more appealing to me than anything religion has to offer. That is because it is as close to a perfect system for circumventing man's own vanities as we have. Science the concept is perfect, science the practice is not.

Yes, everything needs to have an alternate viewpoint, because the emperor may well be naked. However, it is not the role of the religious to be science's police or vice versa. It is up to each to police themselves. That has to be that way, because the rules are different for each. It's like asking a boxing referee to ref a football game.

 

I don't know any other way to explain this. The discussion going on between you and me is similar to me telling you about a car accident I had, and you explaining the history of transportation and why we have that visceral feeling of freedom when driving fast. Again, for this discussion, saying a religion is the same as philosophy, isn't valid, because we are discussing religion as a whole, which includes the ideals AND the people who believe those ideals.

Which is precisely my point. They are incompatible. Regardless of what science proves, religion doesn't have to accept it, because facts are irrelevant to belief. Just as whatever religion says, is irrelevant to science because belief, in many ways, is opposite of facts.

Again, bro, your arguing from an idealistic standpoint. Every single religion picks and chooses which vows, laws, ideals, philosophies, rules, commandments, dogmatic law, parables, hymns and gospels, they will follow, from there one religion. This has nothing to do with the Vatican versus a prayer meeting.

The problem is rectifying belief with reality. He can believe its a sin, and still know giving them all an excuse to not wear condoms, is gonna start an epidemic. Ignoring the reality of a situation for beliefs, is irresponsible, when dealing in matters of life and death.

I'm sorry but a force pulled things to the ground, before Newton. He named it, but it was there before him.

It is ethical for science. A scientist can not have that ethical approach and still find answers through the scientific method.

 

Ah Wikipedia.....nuff said. You can count on two things when it comes to research that bucks the evolutionary belief system:

1. The research was performed by untrained or uneducated men.
2. It was not peer reviewed by evolutionists and those who hold to a differeing belief system.

Watch Ben Steins Movie to see how this plays out.

What was interesting to me about the Rate project is that they sent samples to several independent labs who had no prior knowledge of the samples; where they came from, what was the expected date etc....and received inconsistant dates.

Why would that be?

 

Hey Celt - We all have our beliefs systems don't we?

Don't ever lose your skepticism, you may need it one day Brother!

 

This is were we disagree. There is bias on both sides of the equation. If you believe that "real science" isn't biased, you really need to reconsider that opinion.

The Rate Project is definitely biased. No one is arguing that point. Of course they are biased, but so is evolution!

You see the evolutionist will tell you they believe in evolution because it has been "proven", but the reality is there is a pre-supposition being made before any research has been conducted. That is Bias!

As I have stated on many occasions, I like science and discovery. I like technology and medicine and all those great things science gives us that make our lives better. I should clarify though that I strongly oppose science when it comes to things they have no way of knowing, like how we got here, and how old things are.

 

Hey I don't have a problem with the earth being old or young. The bible doesn't say how old it is. The problem I have with science is how it has stated as fact things it can in no way prove beyond any reasonable doubt. Read any research article and they use words like, maybe, possibly, could have, probably, etc.....and yet read any highschool text book and go to any secular college and evolution and the 4.5 billion year old earth are considered, and taught, as fact. Not only that, but there is this good old boys network that won't allow any controversial evidence into the classroom or research lab unless it subscribes to the evolutionary theory and the old earth age. Thus no peer reviewed research for alternative possibilities to origins and age of the earth are accepted or allowed. They are furvently discredited, slay the messenger, and ignore the message.

This reminds me of the Noah Era. Noah was told to build an Ark and that it would rain, and the people laughed and mocked him, having never heard of rain and wondering just what the Ark was all about. It didn't fit their world view. It made no sense. They discredited the messenger, and thus missed the message. And they know better now.

All I am saying is - Science on the subject of origins and the age of the earth are not experts. A healthy reserve of sketicism is warranted. Don't trust these guys. Their world view is biased and ultimately wrong. Listen to the message that bucks the current world order/world view. Give it creedance.

Crap just watch the fiasco over Global Warming/Cooling. Can't get any consensus on it, yet they supposedly have the age of the earth and the origins of mankind all figured out?

I recall a quote from a Chinese Scientist, and I paraphrase:

In my country, you can question the science, but you can't question the government.
In your country (America), you can question the government, but you can't question science.

I love that quote.

 

Please re-read my post, I didn't say science is never biased. I said you're source is biased. And you believe your source is right, while claiming others are biased. That is hypocritical.

Dating does not the evolution argument make. Complain about dating all you want, but there is still DNA and fossils. Or are they bunk too?

You don't know what they can and can't prove, because you already have preconceived notions, (notions not based on one ounce of credible, tangible evidence) so when science says one thing, if it contradicts with the bible, you call it false. What exactly is your evidence of the Earth being 100,000 yrs old? Does it stand to the same scrutiny that you apply to dating?