Can Science prove Religion?

[RichardE]

Is it possible for science to prove religion, or vice versa. I have heard all the side of religions views, has real peer reviewed science ever been used to prove religious theories?

(Disclaimer: Im a high school grad going into University next year so I might not have learned this yet)

Another Disclaimer: This is not a troll thread, I'm not religious, or anti religious, I'm in love with science and history, this is just a curiosity of mine.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Even if you could prove "the big bang" or any other non theological creation theory, the devote would simply deny it or change their views to assimilate it. I mean... we have hundreds of ways to test the age of fossils and whatnot, and can even use data to discern the general age of the universe, and yet people still believe the earth is only 6000 or however many odd years old. The end result is... it's impossible to prove or disprove the existance of an entity which has no physical manfestation in our realm of reality. Look up the Invisible Pink Unicorn paradox.

"It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove she does not exist. This is a parody of similar theistic claims about God, i.e. that because God is omnipresent, inability to detect him does not reduce his believability. The IPU serves as a parodic demonstration that utilising a lack of evidence as proof of a deity's nature is ultimately absurd; that by this logic the IPU is just as credible as God. The IPU's two defining attributes, "invisibility" and "pinkness", are inconsistent and contradictory; this is part of the satire. The paradox of something being invisible yet having visible characteristics (eg. color) is reflected in the mythology of some East Asian cultures, wherein an "invisible red string" is said to connect people who have a shared or linked destiny." -Wikipedia

 

[cheesehead]

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Believing in God is a belief in something that mankind cannot inherently understand, and denying doubt.

Science is about taking something and proving it to the point where there's overwhelming proof, and comprehending every aspect of it.


That said, I'm an athiest.

 

[Evadman]

Really, when you get down to it, science only disproves things. So no.

 

[bsobel]

Wrong forum

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Wrong forum

It's technical. So far people have misunderstood the question.

We know science can disprove religion.


Has science been used to prove religious theories was the question.

 

[RossGr]

Science is about the measurable, religion about the immeasurable. If it cannot be observed, if it cannot be measured, it is not in the realm of science.

Religious belief cannot be addressed by science simply because it cannot be measured. It is therefore, unobservable.

We can prove wrong geological claims but that is not proving the religion wrong, only the interpretations of some ancient texts.

No, science can not prove religion wrong, nor can it prove it is right.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I agree that this is a topic that might be more appropriately posted elsewhere, but what the heck...

What we refer to as science might be better described as the scientific method of arriving at a belief by collecting facts and then identifying the best explanation for those facts (e.g. Newton and gravity). Notice that I didn't say the correct explanation, just the best explanation. We gather more facts over time and it often turns out that the previous explanation is no longer best (e.g. Einstien and relativity). But what we're limited to determining through science is essentially what will happen under certain circumstances. Science can not answer questions about why.

On the other hand, religion/philosophy is all about answering questions of why.

Science and religion/philosophy never come into conflict as long as people don't try to apply them improperly -- trying to use science to answer why, or trying to use religion to answer what will/has happened. One familiar example of the latter is religious belief in the literal biblical creation story. It's enough of a challenge for religion to try to answer why man was created without getting hung up on the physical processes by which it was accomplished.

So, my bottom line is that science will never prove or disprove religion. By definition, (proper) questions about religion can not be answered by using the scientific method.

 

[AlabamaCajun]

Amen to the last to posts. They are like oil and water, mix them and the results are cloudy. Other factions should stay out of religion but I have to abstain from that subject per board rules.

 

[CycloWizard]

I would argue that, while neither can be used to make definitive claims about the other, the two are quite complementary. Science tells us that the initiation of the universe was a single event - the big bang. This has caused many atheistic philosophers to change their minds about whether any god exists, because they recognize that truth cannot contradict truth, just as faith cannot contradict faith. The facts are what they are and do not contradict each other. We can argue about what the facts mean, but any model of reality that does not allow for all documented facts is simply a false model. Thus, it is up to each of us to discern whether we can accurately describe the existing universe with or without a supreme being as an additional term in the equation.

 

[alpha88]

There are many scientists who are Christians, but also 'believe' in science. One person whom I know is the chair of the physics department at Harvard.

Many of us have views that can be described as "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (Stephen Jay Gould, an agnostic).

 

[MrDudeMan]

these kinds of topics really piss me off because people are so ignorant to facts from all sides of the arguement. im a christian, but im also a huge science buff. why do people make it mutually exclusive? it isnt. if you believe in god, you have to believe god created science or he didnt actually create everything thus disproving an omnipowerful god. why couldnt god have made the big bang? i dont have faith because it is something that was force fed to me.

the bible is not contradicted by science, either. god created the heavens and the earth...great, he did it in 7 days. are those metaphoric days or 7 actual days? wait, who gives a sh!t? if he is all powerful, he could do it in 7 literal earth days. if he didnt do it in 7 literal earth days, it still doesnt make a bit of difference. the point is he created it, and beyond that it is inconsequential. dont get too big of a hard-on for carbon dating either since we have no real clue how accurate that is. ive done multiple tests in lab at school with known values showing how inaccurate it can be. science does not explain what anything is or prove any ideas or observables to be true. all science does is attempt to explain what we see and how it acts. religion is a totally different ballgame and neither proves or disproves the other. they can co-exist just fine...it is humans that cause the problem. people with an agenda to force feed their beliefs on other people cause the rift, and that is not nearly pinned on religious people alone. half of you in here have a completely ignorant and naive view of what religion actually is, whether it be a lack of exposure or a concious effort to avoid it, but that doesnt change the fact that you dont understand it. it isnt about a magical fairy in the sky who we bow to in holy reverence because it seems like fun.

i love science and believe it is how we create new things and increase our capacity to understand our surroundings, but in no way does that nullify my belief in god.

 

[soccerballtux]

I think the more important question is what can science prove without a basis in religion? I brought this up in another post, but I'll mention it here to. Science assumes logic, as if appealing to a "higher standard" by which truth can be derrived if we follow the rules of logic. But the problem is in the jump from observation to inference. Sure, we can see that the universe is expanding, but the second we try to infer that this was because of the big bang, we have a problem. We're assuming that if we follow the rules of logic, we will reach truth. But thats the problem, it is an assumption. Assuming logic is a self-defeating task. Logic says you can't assume anything, but you go ahead and assume logic. So we're left with nothing but our observations. To use logic, we must base it on something else. We can back up the chain of basis as far as we want, but ultimitely if we want our logic to be anything but foolishness we have to end at something that does not need a basis. This is why science cannot exist in a logical form without religion. We still can use the scientific method to prove things of course. We can choose to ignore our illogical assumption of logic, but the science we then are left with isn't a science but a religion (an assumption).

Its ok to assume things, we all have to to get anywhere. All that matters is that what we assume comports with itself. Assuming logic does not verify with itself. But assuming God, from whom logic flows out as part of his character, and who needs no basis for existence, will allow us to have a logical and truly firm basis with which we can conduct our logical endeavors.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I think the more important question is what can science prove without a basis in religion?

Nothing, science can no PROVE anything and no one is claming that it can. The whole point of the modern scitentific method is that we are only trying to disprove theories (which is also means that a theori which can non IN PRINCIPLE be disproven is not scientific).
Theories that have "survived" for a long time and no one has been able to disprove become generally accepted and for practical puposes (e.g. in engineering) they are assumed to be correct. However, no one can prove anything in science.

The main difference between science and religion from a philosophical point of view is that there are no "absolutes" in science, there are no "truths" and you can not use science to motivate e.g. ethical or policital decisions; science is ultimately amoral.

The only time there is a real conflict between the two is when people try to derive "scientific" theories from religion (about e.g. how old the earth is), many of these theories can be easily disproved and others are simply not scientific to start with, creationism falls into the latter category (since it can not, by definition, be proven false).

 

[silverdj]

Who cares if science can prove or disprove religion, why don't you let the religious be religious and the nonreligious be nonreligious. You are never going to prove anything about anything that has to do with "GOD" so it is impossible to know for certain if he exists or not.

 

[Shadowmage]

Science can use empirical evidence to prove/disprove God's actions... eg if prayer actually works.

However, people believe crazy things even if there's overwhelming evidence against it (eg creationism), so it doesn't really matter. Even if the concept of God was completely disproven, people will still refuse to examine the evidence.

 

[byosys]

Faith, by definition, is the belief in something with out need for measurable, objective evidence. Science is pretty much the exact opposite. That said, science will never be able to prove "Religion" because so many diverse and often conflicting religions exist. If science ever did manage to prove "religion" in any sense of the word, religion would stop being faith (ie belief not based in measurable evidence) and become science (ie belief based in objective, measurable evidence).

Edit: typos and syntax.

 

[PowerEngineer]

My intention in my previous post was to point out that science and religion do not have to be at odds with one another if people do not try to respond to scientific questions (what happens) with faith-based answers or to respond to religious questions (why) with pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo. I agree that you can be a good "scientist" regardless of your religious beliefs. I gather this didn't come through as clearly as I intended.

That said (and it the risk of "pissing off" MrDudeMan), I have to point out that believing in a literal 7-day creation is something you arrive at through faith in biblical truth rather than scientific reasoning. In doing so, you are giving a religious answer to a question that should be recognized as needing a scientific answer. I suggest that those who do not consistently apply scientific thinking to all questions about "what happens/ed" could be called "sunshine scientists" in the sense that they only accept scientific answers that mesh with their personal sensibilities.

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
This is why science cannot exist in a logical form without religion. We still can use the scientific method to prove things of course. We can choose to ignore our illogical assumption of logic, but the science we then are left with isn't a science but a religion (an assumption).

I believe your posting touches on a very interesting topic. One of my favorite Einstein quotes is: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible." It is fortunate that logic, mathematics, and scientific reasoning actually produce usable results. It's hard to imagine how we could cope with a universe that wasn't so well behaved.

However, I can't agree that the universe's comprehensibility must be tied to the existence of a god (or gods) in order to justify science. Science tries to identify the best and simplest explanation for known facts. We know that these explanations are all assumptions and that they are all subject to change and refinement as new facts emerge. Then it seems only fitting that science starts from the assumption that this way of thinking about the universe yields useful results.

 

[f95toli]

And I can't really agree that the universe is comprehensible. As you know Einsten never accepted really accepted quantum mechanics and I believe that is one reason why he said that.
We can DESCRIBE the universe using mathematics but no one truly understands it, modern physics involves many phenomena that are incomprehensible to the human mind simply because they are so different from our everyday experience.

I am currently designining an experiment which will involve some pretty "exotic" quanum mechanical effects and I am litterally trying NOT to think about what I am actually doing, because when I do I get extremely confused because nothing really "makes sense". However, as long as I stick to using math everything is fine.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Is it possible for science to prove religion, or vice versa. I have heard all the side of religions views, has real peer reviewed science ever been used to prove religious theories?

(Disclaimer: Im a high school grad going into University next year so I might not have learned this yet)

Another Disclaimer: This is not a troll thread, I'm not religious, or anti religious, I'm in love with science and history, this is just a curiosity of mine.

There is an empirical domain. This is what natural science is concerned with. The "ultimate purpose", or aim, or morality, or good of this domain are outside of the view of science and science does not even affirm (or deny) that there are such things.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Shadowmage
Science can use empirical evidence to prove/disprove God's actions... eg if prayer actually works.

However, people believe crazy things even if there's overwhelming evidence against it (eg creationism), so it doesn't really matter. Even if the concept of God was completely disproven, people will still refuse to examine the evidence.

how can you prove prayer does or does not work? if you pray for a million dollars and dont get it, that doesnt mean prayer doesnt work. part of praying is understanding what you are asking for. asking god to do what you think is best does not mean it is the best choice nor does god have to do it. god is an infinite being, and given a much greater understanding, the choices we make and the things we ask for may or may not be sensible. also, even if the prayer is answered, why does it need to be answered in a way you see fit? do you get the exact answer to every question you ask? if you ask a question because you dont understand a concept, a good teacher will ask you a question in return and make you think about it so you can figure it out for yourself. applying this to god is no different except god as the master teacher would have a way for you to get your answer while figuring it out for yourself.

let me give you an example of differentiating between our understanding of what we see and the understanding god would have of our lives. lets say a bear gets trapped in a bear trap. it is in pain, scared, and thinks its going to die. a human approaches and feels sorry for the bear, so the human attempts to free the bear from the trap. given our far superior intellect and conciousness over the bear, we know what is right and what to do to fix the bears suffering. we have to free it from the trap. however, the bear thinks you are going to hurt it, and doesnt understand that to free the trap it is going to hurt worse for a moment, and then it will be free. all it knows is pain, fear, and there is a being approaching which can decide its fate. now, put us in the position of the bear, and god in the position of the human, except the gap is much, much bigger. we may experience something we find uncomfortable, painful, fearful, etc., but could it not be god working to "free us from the trap?". im not trying to give you religious psycho-babble...think about that. whether or not you believe in god makes no difference in terms of understanding what im saying and how it applies to religious people.

being religious isnt about believing in the magic man in the coulds...it is about living life to its fullest and experiencing what it has to offer you. i am not trying to convert you (i hate when people say they want to convert others. that is so stupid. you cant convert people nor would i want to - it has to be their choice anyway).

finally, please show me how creationism has been disproven or been strongly suggested to be false. i believe in god and believe he created the heavens and the earth...why could he not have created it how we see it or how we think it was created? why is believing a "disturbance in the force" caused an infinitely dense point to explode and some rocks flew together over a period of time and poof, a time later, here we are...concious, living, breathing organisms. that seems like just as much of a stretch, but you will probably deny that because it is what YOU believe. not being able to entertain another possibility is a perfect example of when science is no longer being used and close-minded, humanness gets in the way. also, even if the big bang was the actual start, why again is it impossible for god to have created it?

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Shadowmage

what a load of crap, believe what you want to but your arguement falls flat in my book.....how about you make an arguement for god that doesnt rely on some emotional crap and i'll listen to you

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
what a load of crap, believe what you want to but your arguement falls flat in my book.....how about you make an arguement for god that doesnt rely on some emotional crap and i'll listen to you

That's not the point of the thread, nor the primary point of his post. And, notably, you've gone the entire thread without offering any reasons why a god might not exist.

So, if you want to go that route, how can you explain the existence of the universe without including something capable of initiating a creation event (i.e. the Big Bang)?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Shadowmage
Science can use empirical evidence to prove/disprove God's actions... eg if prayer actually works.

However, people believe crazy things even if there's overwhelming evidence against it (eg creationism), so it doesn't really matter. Even if the concept of God was completely disproven, people will still refuse to examine the evidence.

I'm not sure your example of empiracle evidence works.
Exxadurated Statiscical Example:
I call your telephone a certain number of times to make a request of you. Not a single time, do you answer, or have you ever returned my call.
Now, do I have empiracle evidence that supports a claim that you do not exist? No.

You may be on vacation. I may have the wrong number. Your telephone may be broken. You may be screening your calls and choosing to not answer. You may even hear my message, dislike what I say, and never call me back. Or you may be planning to return my call in 2008.

Statistical Empiracle evidence does not really do anything when concious thought and decision making happens.

God may exist, and not hear your prayers.
He may choose to ignore them for one reason or another.
He may not be ready to answer you yet, awaiting his chosen time.


I'm not leaning one way or the other, just that empiracle evidence is broken when it comes to conscious thoughts and decision making.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
what a load of crap, believe what you want to but your arguement falls flat in my book.....how about you make an arguement for god that doesnt rely on some emotional crap and i'll listen to you

That's not the point of the thread, nor the primary point of his post. And, notably, you've gone the entire thread without offering any reasons why a god might not exist.

So, if you want to go that route, how can you explain the existence of the universe without including something capable of initiating a creation event (i.e. the Big Bang)?

thank you for understanding.

lumbergtech, as i was alluding to in my post, try to read a post about religion without automatically assuming a defensive stance. if you wont try to understand an argument based on emotion, what makes you think you will listen and understand an argument based on something else? the bear in the trap example is a flawless example based on our everyday experience of how we could possibly be misunderstanding the intent and will of a more powerful being. i make no claim that it proves his existence. you read it how you wanted to, but your interpretation was not the truth of my meaning. im not here to challenge you and/or win, so you can drop that attitude at the door.

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Shadowmage
Science can use empirical evidence to prove/disprove God's actions... eg if prayer actually works.

However, people believe crazy things even if there's overwhelming evidence against it (eg creationism), so it doesn't really matter. Even if the concept of God was completely disproven, people will still refuse to examine the evidence.

I'm not sure your example of empiracle evidence works.
Exxadurated Statiscical Example:
I call your telephone a certain number of times to make a request of you. Not a single time, do you answer, or have you ever returned my call.
Now, do I have empiracle evidence that supports a claim that you do not exist? No.

You may be on vacation. I may have the wrong number. Your telephone may be broken. You may be screening your calls and choosing to not answer. You may even hear my message, dislike what I say, and never call me back. Or you may be planning to return my call in 2008.

Statistical Empiracle evidence does not really do anything when concious thought and decision making happens.

God may exist, and not hear your prayers.
He may choose to ignore them for one reason or another.
He may not be ready to answer you yet, awaiting his chosen time.


I'm not leaning one way or the other, just that empiracle evidence is broken when it comes to conscious thoughts and decision making.

good post...that made a lot of sense.