does science disprove religion?

Well, science can certainly disprove certain tenets of religion, which this seems to acknowledge, but this is rather spineless, and as you say, politicized.

I love the opening sentence, it really bodes well for the rest of the article

there will always be untestable claims in religion, but the attitude of science is not & should not be that it's ok to believe any batshit theory as long as its untestable

http://f.screensavers.com/OMS/img/407/matthewmoney_215.jpg

i think i agree with the point the writer is trying to make, but it's phrased really poorly, in that i have no idea what science disproving religion would entail. science can maybe disprove some aspects of some religions, like the factuality of some religious myths, but it cannot "disprove" religion as a whole

only if you go out of your way to find stuff that cant be disproved

yeah i'd leave that up to philosophy (xp)

anything that meaningfully defines religion is disprovable, otherwise it's just philosophy or social sciences

ya i think it's the unbruising thing. like hey dudes dont worry we're just trying to figure out the same stuff!

you might even look at it like we're just trying to unravel the mysteries of god's creation!

the whole concept of faith is based around the idea that even if someone "disproves" something you believe in, you still believe in it

something not yet explained scientifically must be attributed to a supernatural deity

wtf, I disagree with this entirely and where is it written that this is the case? If something has not yet been explained I believe it will eventually.

so uh good luck with that

i mean, is a claim like 'meditation can aid mental well-being' a religious one? i think thats verified by psychology & medical science. religious claims are magical by definition, otherwise they're part of the natural world and observable science

Of course science can't ultimately disprove the existence of God, as the realm he supposedly inhabits can just move further into the abstract and unquantifiable as science continues to debunk more and more of the specifics of religious beliefs. However, as has been said a million times by a million people before, this does not mean God's existence is a certainty.

religion likes to claim non-religious stuff for itself to gain credibility (see creationists whole 'we're the modern galileos!!' schtick) but in the end its only a religious belief if it's supernatural

the whole concept of faith is based around the idea that even if someone "disproves" something you believe in, you still believe in it

No that's blind stupidity, 'faith' is believing in something you have no proof of. Actually that maybe depends on what you mean by putting inverted commas round 'disproves'.

so are you arguing that science does not disprove religion?

xpost to and what

no, science disproves supernatural beliefs, in favor of natural ones

Science has disproved a large number of the specifics of various belief systems. It cannot disprove the central tenant of any of them, ie there is a supernatural entity (or entities) which created us and guides our lives.

(which I don't believe myself, by the way)

(Erm, there are unproven theories in science that are nonetheless accepted by large numbers of scientists)

if you have faith in a religious belief, and then someone provides you with evidence that that belief is untrue, and you stop holding that belief, then your faith is not very faithful. so having faith in something means believing in it even in the face of evidence against it

But faith shouldn't require proof or disproof in the first place, that's the point of faith! If you have absolute proof that a unicorn exists then you don't need to have faith in one, if you have absolute proof that a unicorn does exist then that's delusion, not faith.

(I don't believe that unicorns exist)

Sorry but this question is stupid.

Science can't disprove a lot of things that can't be proved in any other way,

AND?

My desk fan can't drive me to the cinema tonight

If you have absolute proof that a unicorn exists then you don't need to have faith in one, if you have absolute proof that a unicorn does exist then that's delusion, not faith

wouldn't having faith in something you know to be untrue qualify as delusion much more neatly than this example?

i think he made a typo, pretty sure the second "does" was supposed to be "doesn't," right?

anyway, if you need/want religion that badly then i guess you are gonna believe whatever you want to.

hello scientology.

there's no reason for religion to exist anymore, we should agree to can it for civics instead.

You can't have absolute proof a unicorn doesn't exist though. There might be one somewhere you didn't look. That's kind of the point.

Erm, yes, that was a typo. I agree with Darragh.

Most of the broad discussion about science/philosophy/religion is way too general and annoying.

Science can disprove theories about the natural world. Sometimes, this aggravates religious people who hold erroneous beliefs about the natural world, and who hold these beliefs to be essential to their religion.

Can science disprove religion? WTF does that mean?

nicely put. shut thread!

i think people who have faith in stuff thats socially accepted & harder to disprove are less crazy than those who have faith in stuff that's easy to disprove but that has nothing to do with whether the stuff they have faith in is actually true

Surely everyone here agrees that?

socially accepted stuff is still usually rong.

believing something isn't necessarily a great indicator of faith, i think believing in something when it's hard to do so or tested is faith.

believing in something crazy/stupid against all evidence, or without any evidence, is just crazy/stupid.

i mean, if you're a biblical literalist who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, you're going against a volume of observed evidence. if you believe that the earth is 4 billion years old but that god invisibly guided its creation in an unseeable, immeasureable way, while that claim may be set up in a way that makes it harder to immediately disprove there's still no reason to believe it. believing the latter claim makes you less isolated than someone who believes the former, but the ultimate beliefs are equally false

most people put a lot of stock in their religious beliefs & youll never win them over by saying that the basic understanding of the physical universe contradicts everything that religion claims (aside from morality claims, which should be left to philosophy, but considering the authority of those claims is derived from a supernatural god i think science can brush those aside too), but science shouldnt be in the business of selling itself - you don't have an obligation to make it palatable to fundies by hedging on the big facts in the hopes that theyll see the truth about smaller ones

what about the (christian) religious belief that we should let justice roll down like the waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream? it's hard to see how the scientific method could "disprove" this, yet i don't really see that belief as very magical or outlandish

i mean, even just setting religion aside completely, can you prove that love exists? disprove it?

as a philosophical concept, sure

/psychological/sociological

haha i'm looking forward to it

xpost

im sort of weirded out by the idea of two big monolithic things called "science" and "religion" being given some degree of agency and purpose

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/lovengf.htm

All people hold irrational beliefs, or in the very least act on non-rational impulses. The limits of our capacity for understanding, combined with the limits of science (both practically and theoretically), will forever outline a vast, gaping hole of mystery.

I don't begrudge people their non-rational reactions to the mystery. I begrudge the literalists, be they dualists or materialists, because literalism ultimately means subjugation to human authority and doubt and skepticism lead us toward freedom and liberty.

this doesn't mean the object of love actually exists in any meaningful or verifiable sense outside the head of those affected

Part of the problem is defining religion. Are we talking about wishy-washy spiritualism? Are we talking about some sort of practical philosophy? Are we talking about an authoritative text about life, the universe, and everything?

Sometimes religious beliefs are contradicted by science.

What are the religious sources of knowledge? It's either an external authority, like a text or a leader or a "revelation", or it's an a priori mystical knowledge. It may be purportedly experiential, but it's not empirical and it's not rational.

http://thethreattoreason.blogspot.com/

^^^^ this guy, Dan Hind, just had a great editorial in New Scientist

also YOU ARE ALL PLAYING RIGHT INTO JARVIK'S HANDS

I'm going to have a heart attack now?

JARVIK IZ WATCHIN US FROM A DISTANCE

WITH GOAT EYES

i. a richards to thread: no, it doesn't, they concern different things. EXCEPT many religious people don't understand this either...

I have a much more pressing question than "religion vs science":

HAS ANYONE EVER SEEN BETTE MIDDLER AND JARVIK IN THE SAME ROOM AT THE SAME TIME???????

like anyone will stay in a room with bette midler

Is there a jarvik who is not the heart dude, or is there some inside joek about the heart dude?

^^^^ this guy, Dan Hind, just had a great editorial in New Scientist

I stopped reading at the Star Wars anecdote, sorry

xpost
there is an inside joek about the heart dude
i dont remember what it is, though

the inside joke is that jarvik is no joke he is watching us, he is watching us, he is watching us, from a distance

http://a592.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/79/l_bb2a64ef4430bfe6aeaf85d449375a7f.jpg

Sometimes religious beliefs are contradicted by science.

i have yet to see valid scientific fact contradicted by religion, however.

apart from christ on that toast tha one time, but that was sheer pot luck i reckon.

nabisco, for fucks sake, i don't want to live in some damned future where polemic cracker bullshit hasn't been resolved fully and permanently. i should know all of math, all the languages, etc, but capitalist creationist fuckmared my whole business because my parents had to work real hard to perpetuate a cycle of corpocratic nonsense that everyone's brainwashed into not realizing the world is a unified subject that shares thought

AGENT OF JARVIK

I don't know what that means or why my name precedes it

that's the way arms spells "OTM"

issues, real issues.

possibly whole volumes.

hey!! you fuckmared my whole business!!

for fucks sake, i don't want to live in some damned future where polemic cracker bullshit hasn't been resolved fully and permanently. i should know all of math, all the languages, etc, but capitalist

sob...changeable usernames RIP

We don't discussfuckmare business at the table.

As for myself, I believe that science has proved that there has to be a creator (The best mathematicians, physicists, biologists, astronomers,etc all admit they cannot explain how the DNA data gets into each cell/gene and can only be put there by intelligent design. But a campaign of disinformation from the atheist scientific communtity was exposed on British TV (I have the documentary), that proves that even the atheists admitted in secret scientific unpublished journals that all organic life in the universe had to come from a designer creator, and cannot appear randomly. The documentary exposed these findings and carried the atheist scientists through to their final statement and conclusion (which was pretty weak) that all artificial intelligence can appear randomly, but they admit that all organic life has to have a creator. THAT WAS THE COVER UP! THIS WAS EXPOSED AND THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WERE INFILTRATED BY OCCULT SECRET SOCIETIES AND PAID TO NOT PUBLISH THEIR FINDINGS. (MOSTLY HIGH RANKING FREEMASONS, ROSICRUCIANS, ORDER TEMPLAR ORIENTALIS,ETC). tHE DOCUMENTARY PART 2 STATES THAT 90% OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BUT AGREE WITH CHRISTIANS SCIENTISTS THAT NATURAL SELECTION IS A CORRECT THESIS, BUT THEY CANNOT ADMIT THIS, BECAUSE THEIR FUNDS WILL BE STOPPED BY POWERFUL INSTITUTES CONTROLLED BY THESE OCCULT FREEMASONS/BUSINESSMEN WHO OWN MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS

ye shall know the truth, and the truth will be in all caps

i would buy one of those NIV bibles if instead of red print they promised christs words in all caps like tim @ kfc.edu

if i had any talent w/ that sort of thing, i'd be really tempted to whip up a version of the Lord's Prayer in tim @ kfc. edu language.

hahaha i like how that starts out at least semi, uh, not reasonable, but calmly outlining a POV and then leaps into frothy-mouthed screaming. well done crazy person

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece

Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
Richard Owen in Rome

The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.

A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.

Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said that at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as “poor theology and poor science”. Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said.

The conference is seen as a landmark in relations between faith and science. Three years ago advocates of Intelligent Design seized on the Pope’s reference to an “intelligent project” as proof that he favoured their views.

The teaching of evolution as fact vs a theory of looking at things is propaganda and bad science thru and thru. The proof is in the fossil record, the record does not support millions of years. This is such a good example of good vs evil. Evolutionists consider creationist evil and vise versa. The one thing I know firsthand is, creationist study all the scientific literature and consider its relevance and accuracy, the evolutionists will not even consider reading the creationists research journals. There may be some that are closeted readers, etc. but most do not. Also, if creationism is not such a threat to their very existence, why can one be fired for NOT believing in evolution. One cannot work at Woods Hole if you do not explicitly say you believe in evolution as the best and only argument for how we all got here as we are today. That is insane and totally negates the “science” they do there. And Woods Hole is a big place with alot of research money both from private and govt sources. It is a travesty what is going on. Everyone reading this needs to make a trip and tour the Creation Museum, your eyes will be opened, unless you have them shut over with duct tape already. True science and true scientists look at everything and consider everything, they DO NOT sensor! Most if not all of the most important scientists we know of in the past hundreds of years since the enlightenment, all believed in a super power. Even Darwin had doubts about his theory all of his life. He dissed God in a way after losing his child. He was hurt and emotionally bruised. Out of this came a set of ideas that we now consider fact! Isn’t that wonderful. Full Stop.

i'm a little alarmed by the number of apparent fundies in my med school class

darwin dissed god

the evolutionists will not even consider reading the creationists research journals

These things exist? I thought the Bible was the only creationist research journal.

And they don't read it. Even though it's peer reviewed (by The Son and The Holy Ghost).

said billions of times, but bears repeating: why do dummy creationists put so much stock in the fossil record??? that is, is there a molecular biologist out there that seriously aims creationism?

i'm a little alarmed by the number of apparent fundies in my med school class

yeah um me too...

the evolutionists will not even consider reading the creationists research journals

These things exist? I thought the Bible was the only creationist research journal.

― WmC, Thursday, 12 February 2009 15:30 (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science and go on from there. not exactly the most rigorous "science", but it is kinda fascinating.

it's basically bible fanfic - "noah had dinosaurs on the ark! man lived 1000 years because there was more oxygen in the atomosphere!"

I used to believe that stuff. That we didn't really know why people lived longer in Bible times but maybe it was because they were genetically closer to the pure Created state, DNA not yet corrupted (by what??).

oh man that link is liable to destroy any of today's productivity

xp my aunt went through a creationist phase. she claimed dinosaurs died out because they couldn't fit on the Ark.

The other day my roommate said she can't believe in God because if there was one, we would've been intelligently designed, and clearly we aren't. Also, deer would not die in wildfires. It is a good point. Unfortunately, my response to that is a totally sympathetic but really unhelpful "i see your point, but i don't think we can realistically second guess the laws of physics, evolution, and the history of the natural world." I don't mean rational questioning is BAD, just that I don't think we can imagine a good standard of how the world would work without its current problems (problems = natural evils, in this context, as opposed to moral evils).

DNA not yet corrupted (by what??)

My Satan.

I mean by Satan.

that is, is there a molecular biologist out there that seriously aims creationism?

― i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:32 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this doofus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

xp Suuuure you do.

My Satan.

Starring Chris Makepeace and Satan.

Satan as himself.

http://ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

Jersey's own Rev William A Williams can argue against Evolution in 50 ways.

zzz aren't Chick tracts free, at least?