Zamboro: Fact Man: "Many religious people believe in evolution. Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, but our polarized nation twists it into that."

Well no, this isn't strictly true. In at least one sense, the two are irreconcilable; science asserts the necessity of supporting claims with evidence; religion denies that necessity, instead holding faith to be a legitimate foundation for belief.

I've posted this about a billion times, but it does a decent job of explaining how persons such as yourself help science to drive back religion. I realize you must take exception to that but I urge you to suspend judgement until after you've finished reading;

Zamboro: "Think of science as a spotlight on a map of knowledge. As time passes, the spotlight gradually grows, illuminating more and more. Historically there was no worry that science would discredit theism as God's roles were things like weather, the movement of the heavenly bodies, the origin of our planet, life...all questions which for a very long time were thought impossible to answer except through supernatural means. But the spotlight kept growing, eventually encompassing the water cycle and the other natural forces behind weather. So God was moved back a bit, just behind the border of light and darkness, just beyond science's reach. Those who moved him felt terribly modern. "Look, ours is a theism compatible with science and which always will be!" they said.

But the spotlight kept growing. Soon it encompassed the movement of the heavenly bodies. Believe it or not if you care to research it this was an enormous controversy in the middle ages. It was thought atheistic heresy to suggest that the heavenly bodies were actual worlds one might go to, and that their motion was not divinely controlled. Those who conceded that natural processes drove the planets felt terribly modern and enlightened, because their faith was not in conflict with the science of the day, so they could feel both men of science and of God.

But the spotlight kept growing. Charles Darwin's discovery of evolution unseated God as designer of life, and the controversy rages to this day. Some shifted God yet again to a removed creative position at the point of singularity, just beyond the reach of science. "Look," they said, "our faith is compatible with science and which always will be!"

...Meanwhile, the spotlight grows larger every day."

This is my attempt at explaining Carl Sagan's 'The Retreat from Copernicus'.

That makes sense, and I think any clear thinking people realize that, yes, there was a time when lighting was "God's wrath". And those have been disproven with scientific advancement.

But why can't God have made a world and universe that are governed by the laws of science? I think that's what most religious people believe in.

Zamboro:

I actually like that...

Isn't he just the athiest!

/ummmn-- sounding gay...
//I'm not gay dammit!

abb3w are anathema to

Anathema would be the part I was not coming up with. I understood the gist of what you were saying, though you are obviously much smrtr thn me ;p

Now you may return to proving pork = porn or whatever.

To all you that believe that Jesus is God...

You have one huge problem...

Thou shall not have any Gods before me

/oops

abb3w: masterskip: /Not good at this, obviously.

"are anathema to".

Kali-Yuga: /We can only hope.
Fact Man: Why?

The balance of evidence is against it, so having Faith cannot be justified.

But my point is, "we can only hope [religion disappears]?" Why is that like an ultimate goal? Is it really so bad? You can say it's not justified, but lots of things aren't. That doesn't mean it's like a goal of ours to eliminate it.

MajorityWhip: To all you that believe that Jesus is God...

You have one huge problem...

Thou shall not have any Gods before me

/oops

You obviously know nothing about the Catholic faith.

Fact Man: That makes sense, and I think any clear thinking people realize that, yes, there was a time when lighting was "God's wrath". And those have been disproven with scientific advancement.

That's one of the problems with religious people, any time something like this is disproven, you just "move the goalposts" like was quoted in Zamboro's post.

"So God was moved back a bit, just behind the border of light and darkness, just beyond science's reach. Those who moved him felt terribly modern. "Look, ours is a theism compatible with science and which always will be!" they said.

I'm going to the bar to prove the existence of God, so I'm getting a kick out of these ... bleearrrgh, oh God, I swear .... bleeaahhhh ... I'll stop drinking forever, just make it stop!

Kali-Yuga: That's one of the problems with religious people, any time something like this is disproven, you just "move the goalposts" like was quoted in Zamboro's post.

"So God was moved back a bit, just behind the border of light and darkness, just beyond science's reach. Those who moved him felt terribly modern. "Look, ours is a theism compatible with science and which always will be!" they said.

God of the gaps. Nobody believes in a deity that hides in dark corners and flees when we shine a light.

If you're going to argue against religion, try a version of God that somebody actually believes in.

Fact Man: "But why can't God have made a world and universe that are governed by the laws of science? I think that's what most religious people believe in."

They're free to, but they're placing all of their eggs in one basket; Placing God in a creative role at the moment of singularity is no different from placing God in a creative role as former of the Earth, as the author of weather, as the creator of life, etc. etc.

The assumption is that we can never prove that the universe came into being through natural means. But we already have. I suppose one might stick a deity in there regardless, but that's a bit like finding your parents putting presents under the tree and deciding that it doesn't disprove santa claus; after all, why can't it be both? Similarly, it would be like maintaining that evil spirits cause disease even after the arrival of germ theory. After all, couldn't it be both? Well sure, but the explanations are redundant, and only one is supported by evidence. And that's before you apply parsimony.

subby didn't RTFA. The first sentence is intended as a representation of conventional wisdom, it's not the article's position.

Kali-Yuga: Fact Man: That makes sense, and I think any clear thinking people realize that, yes, there was a time when lighting was "God's wrath". And those have been disproven with scientific advancement.

That's one of the problems with religious people, any time something like this is disproven, you just "move the goalposts" like was quoted in Zamboro's post.

A majority of religious people, though, don't set the goalposts in exact alignment with everything their religion believes. I've been in the Catholic church my whole life and I don't think I can name one person who has ever thought that the bible is set in stone, everything is 100% how it is and you can't argue with it.

GilRuiz1: "God of the gaps. Nobody believes in a deity that hides in dark corners and flees when we shine a light."

You're right, it is god of the gaps. They placed God wherever they believed science would forever be unable to check.

Of course they did not see it that way. Of course they rationalized it as something other than a retreat. But a spade by any other name is still a spade.

GilRuiz1: "If you're going to argue against religion, try a version of God that somebody actually believes in."

The thing is, each time science discovers something that reflects poorly on the possibility of that God's existence, a new one is dreampt up. Sort of like the refinement of a theory, but without the crucial step of checking the refined version against reality in order to ensure that it conforms better.

grotto_man: subby didn't RTFA. The first sentence is intended as a representation of conventional wisdom, it's not the article's position.

Subby RTFA, he is also laughing at the number of people who just seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

netweavr: ...laughing at the number of people who just seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

Welcome to the Internets! :)

abb3w:
The balance of evidence is against it, so having Faith cannot be justified.

How can the "balance of evidence" be against it?

What is the possible difference in evidence is there for an all-powerful, omnipresent, invisible, intangible being and the absence of such a being?

For that matter, what would be the possible evidence of all-powerfulness that could JUSTIFY Faith? (You wouldn't want to worship some stinking Demi-urge or alien imposter now, would you?)

God is a circular argument.

/you guys can end this thread now.

OhioKnight: "How can the "balance of evidence" be against it?

What is the possible difference in evidence is there for an all-powerful, omnipresent, invisible, intangible being and the absence of such a being?"

Depends whether we're talkin' the Biblical God or the intentionally vague, generic deist god whose existence is supposed to be indistinguishable from nonexistence, by way of borrowing the totality of modern scientific knowledge about the universe and shoehorning it into an ancient mythological belief system as though it were always there.

Also I'd like to get this out of the way before anyone brings it up, or in case anyone already has and I haven't seen it;

Zamboro: "The charge that atheism is based upon faith is underlied by two supporting suppositions; the first is that atheism entails absolute certainty that no god exists, and that the existence of such a being cannot be absolutely disproven.

Part of this misunderstanding stems from the fact that most people making the argument don't distinguish between an absolute standard of proof/disproof and a probabilistic one. The difference is that in order to satisfy an absolute standard of disproof with regards to god, you would need to prove that no such being had ever existed at any point in space at any point in history in any dimension or alternate reality. Likewise in order to prove the existence of God to an absolute standard, you would need to locate the entity and prove with 100% certainty that it's the only deity in existence and that it's not an illusion, a collective hallucination, or a 4-d projection courtesy of interdimensional aliens playing a cruel practical joke on us, or any of the infinite potential possibilities. As you can tell by this point, this standard is impossible to satisfy either way, as any good scientist will tell you that one cannot be 100% certain of anything no matter how well supported by evidence it may be. This is why science makes use of a probabilistic standard, in which absolute proof/disproof is not required but instead sufficient evidence to show that the veracity of a hypothesis is 90+% probable, depending on how stringent the conditions for proof are. Religion on the other hand makes use of an absolute standard of disproof re: God precisely because it's impossible to satisfy, while making use of either an extremely lax standard of proof or none whatsoever. One needn't prove the existence of God in order to justify belief, according to the theistic apologist, but one must prove to an absolute standard that God does not exist in order to justify disbelief. The double standard is evident.

On to the second issue; that God's existence cannot be disproven to an absolute standard is obvious, because no proposition (even one as thoroughly disproven by modern DNA testing and archaeology as the Mormon claim that native americans are a lost tribe of Israelites) can ever be proven false to an absolute standard. It's impossible to satisfy, even in principle. However, if we hold it instead to a probabilistic standard of proof/disproof, we're able to get somewhere. We cannot be 100% certain there is no God, but that doesn't mean there's a 50% chance by default that he does exist, probability doesn't work that way (even if you accept as the only two options that the Christian god exists or none exist) Because we cannot technically be 100% certain of anything (as I explained above) science is not based upon certainties but probabilities instead. We come to rest at whatever provisional conclusion appears most probable given the currently available evidence. Right now, that conclusion is atheism. It could change with new evidence, of course, which is what makes this conclusion a rational one and not a dogma."

OhioKnight: What is the possible difference in evidence is there for an all-powerful, omnipresent, invisible, intangible being and the absence of such a being?

For that matter, what would be the possible evidence of all-powerfulness that could JUSTIFY Faith? (You wouldn't want to worship some stinking Demi-urge or alien imposter now, would you?)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- David Hume --

shawn82: Ace Frehley's Ghost: shawn82: Ace Frehley's Ghost: shawn82: It is also extremely unlikely that any given individual will win the lottery. The fact that people do so doesn't mean that the lottery is rigged.

All that the "fined tuned universe" idea can really say is that we exist, ergo we exist. Anything beyond that gets into Behe and Dembski territory.

In the lottery millions of people play. We only have one universe(that we know of).

And there are multiple lotteries. That's the point, innit? We have a sample size of exactly one here and all that we know is that it worked in this single case, without knowing how many alternate cases that there are.

I'm not disputing that.

Except that you contend that the idea that we simply lucked out is "extremely unlikely." As far as I can tell, it's as likely or more likely than the alternative single shot universe.

Why? There are more than two possibilities.

More possiblities than a single shot universe and multiple universes? Would you care to enlighten me?

GilRuiz1: "If you're going to argue against religion, try a version of God that somebody actually believes in."

Conversely, instead of switching over to a vague, generic deist God for the sake of argument, why not stand by a specific deity as described in canonical holy texts for a change?

Seriously, look at it as a challenge.

Sum Dum Gai: Corpus Delecti
...but now that I'm done mocking the inherent stupidity of your argument, I'd like to point out that you're a lying sack of shiat. Plenty of his "contemporaries" wrote about him. In fact, far more people wrote about him than wrote about any other private individual of his time. Seriously, do you often find that fabricating arguments impresses people?

Who would those contemporaries be?

Apart from the Gospels, the only other record that I know of by a contemporary author would be Josephus, who mentions Jesus in two sentences. The first of those two has been pretty conclusively determined to be a forgery for a whole multitude of reasons, and the second is dubious as well.

I'm not aware of any other first-century text mentioning Jesus -- care to enlighten me?

-Pleni the younger, a roman scribe, also mentioned Jesus.

eqtworld: Corpus Delecti: you became such an annoying, self-satisfied asshole

"Whoever says "You Fool!" Shall Be in Danger of Hell Fire."

A warning from your Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ

--Matthew 5:22

"Alas, for you, blind guides! You say, 'If someone swears by the sanctuary, that is nothing: but if he swears by the gold in the sanctuary, he is bound by his oath.' Blind fools!"

--Matthew 23: 16-17 (spoken by Jesus)

Oops! Jesus in my hell? It's more likely than you think.

Zamboro: What? No, you've completely misunderstood what "the observer" means within the context of quantum mechanics. That language appears in and is most popularly known from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which describes a weird behavior in which a quantum waveform exists in a state of apparent flux (a quantum particle appears to be in two places at once) until its position is directly tested for by a scientist using the appropriate equiptment, at which point the waveform collapses and the particle's true position is revealed. Whether they simply give the appearance of existing in multiple locations until tested or they actually do resolve into a single spatial location when interfered with is still a question that needs to be resolved. Sufficed to say, by "observer", they most certainly do not mean any sort of deity. This and other misconceptions I've spotted in your posts make me wish fervently that you would pick up a few specific pop-sci books published in recent years.

I was thinking this, but my brain feels like mush so I couldn't think of how to say it, so thank you for saying it. Much better than my pathetic, late-Friday-afternoon attempt would have been. In short, THIS.

I noticed there's no response yet.

Kali-Yuga
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is the combination of good and evil necessarily malevolent?

Let me ask-- could you-- in your current state with your current memories and experiences-- exist in a world that had no evil?

If not, then to create you, God had to create EVIL-- does that constitute malevolence?

/For God so loved the world that he acted like a TOTAL DICK.

Zamboro: Conversely, instead of switching over to a vague, generic deist God for the sake of argument, why not stand by a specific deity as described in canonical holy texts for a change?

Seriously, look at it as a challenge.

I would if I was a vague deist. I'll let them deal with it.

Zamboro:
OhioKnight: "How can the "balance of evidence" be against it?

What is the possible difference in evidence is there for an all-powerful, omnipresent, invisible, intangible being and the absence of such a being?"

Depends whether we're talkin' the Biblical God or the intentionally vague, generic deist god...

OK, say we're talking about the Biblical God -- lets say Casual Protestant version... (Genesis is a metaphor, but actually raised Jesus from the dead, etc)

What is the possible difference in evidence?

GilRuiz1: "I would if I was a vague deist. I'll let them deal with it."

I don't think you understand. I wasn't asking you to make use of a deist god in argument, I was asking you to stop doing so. Because a generic, vague god is harder to gain a foothold against, you often make use of it instead of the Biblical god Yahweh, or any other specific deity as described in a holy text.

I'm not interested in getting into a derail here as I'd lose track of other conversations I'm participating in. Just take my suggestion to heart, as at the very least it would be a novel way to challenge yourself. It's a bit like fighting with one hand tied behind your back, if viewing it that way makes the prospect any more appealing...?

Kali-Yuga: Fact Man: That makes sense, and I think any clear thinking people realize that, yes, there was a time when lighting was "God's wrath". And those have been disproven with scientific advancement.

That's one of the problems with religious people, any time something like this is disproven, you just "move the goalposts" like was quoted in Zamboro's post.

"So God was moved back a bit, just behind the border of light and darkness, just beyond science's reach. Those who moved him felt terribly modern. "Look, ours is a theism compatible with science and which always will be!" they said.

It's simply put God-Of-Gaps. The knew gap of knowledge is the exact same as all the old ones, it assumes Q;x will never be solved so "God did it" just as it was "impossible" to solve biological origins so "God did it", etc.. but when or if we do solve this problem what curtain will he rush to next. As was said the spot light grows bigger the stage of life almost under it glow even the rise of mass with the Higgs might be the next, in the end what your doing is hopeing that the physical explanation never becomes full circle that way you idea will always have a safe spot. And if it has and people like Stephen Hawking, and Murray Gell-Mann are right that it has done this already you'll never admit it, you'll just become the next generation creationists in order to keep your religious idioms alive.

abb3w,

Sorry, I shouldn't get my quotes from other people's replies.

I would think the "balance of evidence" on the larger issue comes down to Occam's Razor-- which isn't really very applicable to fundamental questions of the basis of existence...

But then my only real argument is against the meaningfulness of "objective reality". I think you have to go to subjective mysticism to deal with existential questions

Though personally I would argue against God's existence because intelligence is inherently non-creative (rather it is derivative of existence) and therefore anything we could recognize as "intelligent" cannot possibly be the basis of existence.

but that's just me and I don't know squat.

OhioKnight: "but that's just me and I don't know squat."

Not at all, I've enjoyed your posts greatly so far.

OhioKnight: "But then my only real argument is against the meaningfulness of "objective reality"."

Have you considered that even if reality is an illusory bubble or something, provided that the properties of this bubble remain sufficiently consistent, science's discoveries remain every bit as valid? All that changes is the context, from "these are the properties of the universe" to "these are the properties of the illusory thought-bubble". There's nothing in the definition of universe that precludes it from being....well, whatever it is. All that matters is that it's constants and physical properties don't randomly change.

Zamboro: I don't think you understand. I wasn't asking you to make use of a deist god in argument, I was asking you to stop doing so. Because a generic, vague god is harder to gain a foothold against, you often make use of it instead of the Biblical god Yahweh, or any other specific deity as described in a holy text.

Or perhaps the Biblical God Yahweh isn't the straw-man caricature that a lot critics of religion think that Christians must surely believe in.

Perhaps it might be beneficial to you to consider what I said last time about the Gibraltar of science we're both standing on.


Zamboro: I'm not interested in getting into a derail here as I'd lose track of other conversations I'm participating in.

Ah, never mind then. Carry on.

Bevets: In the first place, there can be no living science unless there is a widespread instinctive conviction in the existence of an Order Of Things. And, in particular, of an Order Of Nature . . . The inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner . . . must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God . . . My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology. ~ Alfred North Whitehead

Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism. ~ Alvin Plantinga

Looks like he's still kicking.

Have fun. I had enough debating for a while.

You know, I wanted to make some kind of insightful, "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" post, but after reading the back and forth on this, it's just another internet argument, and being a moderate these days is pretty much impossible.



Anyone wanna go out and grab a beer and play some Halo or something?

Fact Man: MajorityWhip: To all you that believe that Jesus is God...

You have one huge problem...

Thou shall not have any Gods before me

/oops

You obviously know nothing about the Catholic faith.

yeah, they have a "trifecta" going on there

Kali-Yuga: So things like the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and the Catholic Church actively trying to stifle the works of people like: Galileo Galilei , Nicolaus Copernicus, Blaise Pascal, Francis Bacon, and many others didn't happen?

It certainly did happen. But the counter to the argument "religion stopped scientific progress during the Dark Ages" is not "religion is always and in all places conductive to science", it's "the growth in scientific learning continued during the so-called dark ages, at times in spite of and in time because of religious beliefs."

Moreover, the idea that progress stopped during the dark ages is heavily influenced by giving undue weight to the experiences of Western Europe, and ignoring the Eastern Empire and the Muslim world, neither of which were less pious than the West and both of which underwent significant periods of intellectual and scientific growth.

GilRuiz1: If you're going to argue against religion, try a version of God that somebody actually believes in.

Having spent time in the Midwest, I can assure you there are plenty of people who subscribe to this "strawman" God's newsletter, although they certainly aren't representative of the religious community as a whole

Or perhaps the Biblical God Yahweh isn't the straw-man caricature that a lot critics of religion think that Christians must surely believe in.

Being a bit vague here, no? What's the functional difference between a deistic God and the modern-day non-literal Christian God?

Science, Religion. Religion, Science. hmmmm. Are those my only two choices?

fontcase: Science, Religion. Religion, Science. hmmmm. Are those my only two choices?

If you take the red pill and the blue pill, you don't gain any profound insights but you do control your acid reflux disease.

fontcase: "Science, Religion. Religion, Science. hmmmm. Are those my only two choices?"

You could always be a humanist I guess.