Can Science prove Religion?

[PowerEngineer]

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.

I fear that this thread is moving away from a "highly technical" discussion into one that is better fitted to "off topic", but I can't resist adding my thoughts on measuring the effectiveness of prayer. There have actually been several experiments undertaken to measure this; but as you can imagine, the results are very controversial. A quick google will show you that many religious sites claim that studies prove that prayer is effective, while the skeptics claim the opposite. Given the predisposition that both sides approach the question with, I'm not crediting any of the ones I read as real "science".

That said, I think that a scientific study of the effectiveness of prayer could be undertaken.

To take on your telephone example, I'll agree that one should not jump to the conclusion that you do not exist just because you fail to answer repeated calls to your telephone (although it certainly is consistent with that rash conclusion). On the other hand, it does seem reasonable to conclude that calling you on the telephone is a fruitless endeavour (for any or all of the reasons you offered). You may well exist, but trying to call you is a waste of time. Similarly, god may exist whether or not prayers are answered; but if prayers are often not heard, ignored, or "put on hold" we might fairly conclude that praying is rarely effective.

And back to the point of the OP, I've been reminded of one thing that might "prove" (at least to my satisfaction) that there was some intelligence behind the creation of the universe. In Carl Sagan's novel "Contact", it's suggested that a message might be hidden in the digits of pi. If we calculate out to the millionth or billionth decimal point, perhaps we'll run into a string of just 0's and 1's that are equal in number to the product of two prime numbers. If we take the hint and arrange these 0's and 1's in rows and columns, maybe it'd be a picture of a nice circle of 1's against a background of 0's. That'd show me that pi's relationship to the circle was appreciated by an intelligence that established its value while forming the universe (or at least that would seem to be the best explanation). It would be the most important discovery of all time IMHO.

 

[harrkev]

Let me throw in my $0.02 to this...

First, people have assumptions that we start with. Everybody is human and we all have it.

Radiocarbon dating (how they know stuff is 12 million years old) is based on the ASSUMPTION that there is a constant ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14. If this ratio is not constant, then all figures from radiocarbon dating are bogus. Now, if the universe WAS created 6000 years ago, it could have been created without any carbon-14.

People also tend to believe what they are told. Case in point: "Lucy," the famous Australopithecus afarensis sample from Ethoipia is commonly regarded as a "missing link" between man and apes. Lucy has a flat pelvis, and was therfore incapable of walking like a human being. Also, the finger bones of similar specimins are curved, which suggests that Lucy swung from trees. I actually saw on an episode of the "Nova" TV show where a guy claims that lucy MUST be bipedal. So he "modified" a copy of her pelvis with a dremel. This is another case of finding what you are looking for, not what the evidence suggests.

There are follilized footprints that look exactly like human footprints. But they are not human because no humans existed at the time that those footprints were supposed to have been made. That is a CLEAR example of bias, yet you do not hear about it. Might it be possible that they ARE human and evolution is wrong? Nope. Evolutionists are every bit as dogmatic as creationists.

By the way, did you know that you can make coal in your own home? All you need is some wood, about $10 worth of supplies from your local hardware store, and the use of your oven for one year. So all of that stuff about needing millions of years to make coal is not necessarily true.

Did I mention that there are ancient cave paintings that look a lot like a brontosaurus and a pterodactyl? How would people a thousand years ago know about dinosaurs?

Another thing to think about: Physicists claim that visible matter only accounts for about 5% of the universe. About 25% consists of unknown matter, and 70% of unknown energy. They recently found that neutrinos do indeed have a tiny mass, so that accounts for some of the unknown 25%. What is it? Who knows. How do we detect it? Not a clue. Where did it come from? Beats me (and every other scientist in the world). Also, cosmologists believe that the universe underwent a period of "inflation" where it expanded faster than the speed of light. So, in your mind you can either imagine a creator, or you can imagine a bunch of stuff that you can't see, can't feel, can't measure, and you don't know what it is, and that somehow, for some unknown reason, the universe did something rather strange. Which one is a bigger leap of faith?

I am not trying to change your mind about what you believe. I am just trying to point out that things are not as clear-cut as they seem, and even scientists have a LOT of biases of their own.

 

[VertexShader]

^ Wow, here comes God of the Gaps. Religious people love holes in currrent scientific knowledge because then by default GOD wins. Carbon dating may be wrong in some cases, I don't know, but it isn't the only form of dating there is. For instance, there's Electron Spin Resonance dating. Not to mention, you can use elements other than carbon.

Scientists have nothing to lose by being proven wrong. Infact they enjoy being proven wrong. Darwinian evolution may not be right on all matters, but that doesn't mean there isn't some other natural explanation of evolution. Not all theories of evolution have to be darwinian.

Its the religious people who have everything to lose by being wrong.

Hell, did you guys know there are people who absolutely believe the earth is the center of the universe...STILL? Goes to show the type of thinking "faith" inspires.

 

[networkman]

Speaking from a Judeo-Christian background: I consider myself a "creation scientist" and allow for aspects of both arenas. To me, it makes little difference whether God created the Universe in 6 literal days or 6 seconds, or 6 picoseconds. Aside from the story providing that He rested on the 7th day, it really matters little(to me) what the actual time-frame happen to be.

I also happen to believe that God put together a set of rules that govern the Creation. Laws concerning gravity, motion and thermodynamics all have their place in the Universe; I also believe that we haven't discovered all of the rules yet. So any miracles mentioned in the Bible may well be possible but conform to rules we haven't yet learned.

Just because one has a personal faith in a higher power doesn't mean one can't embrace the scientific method.

 

[VertexShader]

Here are some geocentrism websites:

http://www.geocentricity.com/
http://www.fixedearth.com/

Give them a chance, trust me. You will see that everything they have taught you is wrong, and that the Earth is the center of the universe as God intended.

Praise the Lord.

Now tell me, why is this so much "crazier" than believing the earth is 6000 years old? They're both equally ludarcris.

 

[BirdDad]

I really enjoy this topic.
Newton said something really profound(I can't remember exactly),something like the creator's existance is proved through study of his creation.
I do believe in God but I don't believe the bibles account of creation.
I also believe in science.I believe there is evolution,an intelligence drives the mutations(mind of God).

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: VertexShader
Here are some geocentrism websites:

http://www.geocentricity.com/
http://www.fixedearth.com/

Give them a chance, trust me. You will see that everything they have taught you is wrong, and that the Earth is the center of the universe as God intended.

Praise the Lord.

Now tell me, why is this so much "crazier" than believing the earth is 6000 years old? They're both equally ludarcris.

Dont you have a bridge to eat BillyGoats on?
:roll:

 

[VertexShader]

^ I was being satirical

 

[networkman]

"Satirical" is one word for it.

 

[harrkev]

Originally posted by: VertexShader
^ Wow, here comes God of the Gaps. Religious people love holes in currrent scientific knowledge because then by default GOD wins.

<<SNIP>>

Scientists have nothing to lose by being proven wrong. Infact they enjoy being proven wrong.
<<SNIP>>

And yet he takes it so personally when somebody disagrees with him.

BTW: I was NOT trying to convince people to believe like I do. I was just trying to show that not all of the evidence points one way, and that scientists have their own pre-conceived ideas that they DO hold on to for dear life. To do otherwise is career suicide. A person starting out in academia also has to worry about trying to get tenure, so they will not step too far out of line. Now, there are some things that are considered fair game, and some things that are not. The search for a theory of quantum gravity is still up for grabs, and nobody takes it personally (as far as I know) if you prefer loop quantum gravity over string theory. But there are other things that scientists have been ostracized over -- and NOT about "creationism" stuff.

 

[byosys]

Also, cosmologists believe that the universe underwent a period of "inflation" where it expanded faster than the speed of light.

Careful here. Some cosmologists do beleive that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. What people often don't get is that the universe dosn't necessarly consist of matter or energy - empty space (devoid of energy and matter) is still in the universe so the universe can expand faster than light but at the same time, matter does not have to travel faster than light.

You will see that everything they have taught you is wrong, and that the Earth is the center of the universe as God intended.

I know you were poking fun, but here is a somewhat random fact that makes alot of people's heads spin. Given that the universe is infinite in all directions, every point in the universe is the center of it. Hence, you really *are* the center of the universe. And so am I

Back to the orginal question. As I said before, it all comes down to how you define science and religion. I define science to be thoes beleifs supported by objective observations and religion as thoes beleifs not supported by objective data (ie beleif (or faith if you will) in something not proven to exist/be true). If science could somehow prove a God(s) existed, religion would cease to become religion and become science.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: byosys

Also, cosmologists believe that the universe underwent a period of "inflation" where it expanded faster than the speed of light.

Careful here. Some cosmologists do beleive that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. What people often don't get is that the universe dosn't necessarly consist of matter or energy - empty space (devoid of energy and matter) is still in the universe so the universe can expand faster than light but at the same time, matter does not have to travel faster than light.

You will see that everything they have taught you is wrong, and that the Earth is the center of the universe as God intended.

I know you were poking fun, but here is a somewhat random fact that makes alot of people's heads spin. Given that the universe is infinite in all directions, every point in the universe is the center of it. Hence, you really *are* the center of the universe. And so am I

Back to the orginal question. As I said before, it all comes down to how you define science and religion. I define science to be thoes beleifs supported by objective observations and religion as thoes beleifs not supported by objective data (ie beleif (or faith if you will) in something not proven to exist/be true). If science could somehow prove a God(s) existed, religion would cease to become religion and become science.

If science could prove that a God existed, would science then become religion?

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: harrkev

Originally posted by: VertexShader
^ Wow, here comes God of the Gaps. Religious people love holes in currrent scientific knowledge because then by default GOD wins.

<<SNIP>>

Scientists have nothing to lose by being proven wrong. Infact they enjoy being proven wrong.
<<SNIP>>

And yet he takes it so personally when somebody disagrees with him.

BTW: I was NOT trying to convince people to believe like I do. I was just trying to show that not all of the evidence points one way, and that scientists have their own pre-conceived ideas that they DO hold on to for dear life. To do otherwise is career suicide. A person starting out in academia also has to worry about trying to get tenure, so they will not step too far out of line. Now, there are some things that are considered fair game, and some things that are not. The search for a theory of quantum gravity is still up for grabs, and nobody takes it personally (as far as I know) if you prefer loop quantum gravity over string theory. But there are other things that scientists have been ostracized over -- and NOT about "creationism" stuff.

A good scientist does not "believe" in anything. There are number of assumptions in science, e.g. that the total energy of a closed system is always conserved. And while no one has ever been able to (or ever will be able to) prove that energy is always conserved is is a reasonable assumption simply because it agrees with all known experiments.
Science is a system, not a religion, and strictly speaking it does not matter if a theory is "correct" on a more fundamental "philosopical" level or not as long as it can correctly predict the outcome of an experiment.
Moreover, science can never replace religion simply because the "truths" in religion are suppose to be "real", eternal truths, and the latter does not exist in science. In science we always need to be prepared to change our minds if new evidence comes to light; nothing is ever certain.

 

[harrkev]

Originally posted by: f95toli
A good scientist does not "believe" in anything. There are number of assumptions in science, e.g. that the total energy of a closed system is always conserved. And while no one has ever been able to (or ever will be able to) prove that energy is always conserved is is a reasonable assumption simply because it agrees with all known experiments.
Science is a system, not a religion, and strictly speaking it does not matter if a theory is "correct" on a more fundamental "philosopical" level or not as long as it can correctly predict the outcome of an experiment.
Moreover, science can never replace religion simply because the "truths" in religion are suppose to be "real", eternal truths, and the latter does not exist in science. In science we always need to be prepared to change our minds if new evidence comes to light; nothing is ever certain.

Presented for your approval, from the very pages of Discover magazine itself:
http://www.discover.com/issues/nov-05/features/two-against-the-big-bang/

This is NOT an article about two creationists. It is an aritcle about two people with a different theory, and they have been personally attacked for it.

Science is NOT a religioin, but people do have pre-conceived notions of what is right, and they will smack down anybody that they do not agree with. What you say is true in pricnciple. But the problem remains that people still have egos, they still have their own careers and reputations to worry about, and they can be stubborn. Personality also plays a big part in it.

 

[f95toli]

And what is the problem? Apparantly these people still publish papers and attend conferences, no one is stopping them from publishing their work. Moreover, as far as I can tell they hold permanent positions.

The problem of course is that it is a new theory, and unless their theory can explain all known observations as well as (or better) than the Big Bang theory AND it can make predictions which makes it possible to compare their theory to the Big Bang theory they won't get anywhere. That is the rules of the game.

I know of a somewhat similar case in my own field (superconductivity). Up until a few years ago there were two competing theories about the symmetry of the order parameter in high-temperature superconductors: The symmetry was either s-wave or d-wave (or a mixture, but let's not get into the details). For a number of years these theories co-existed, mainly because all samples were "dirty" making it difficult to interpret the data. Hence, you could make both theories "fit".
However, eventually a number of "clean" expermiments were done and they showed that the symmetry was indeed d-wave. This was eventually confirmed by a number of groups in many different experiments and is now generally accepted.
Now, most of the people who had been advocating the s-wave scenario accepted that they had been wrong and there was no problem.

However, one guy who is relatively well known kept on arguing for the s-wave scenario. Fair enough, but the problem was that HIS predictions did not agree with the experiments. His explanation: All the samples were bad.
Now, this WAS a valid argument to a point. However, nowadays we have learned how to make very "clean" samples and when we measure those the data agrees with the d-wave scenario. What was his explanation now? He started saying that the people making the measurments were incompetent (for some reason he actually targeted a paper written by me, I was apparantly not incompentent but my samples where for some mysterious reason not "clean enugh").
I shouls also say that during all this time he has been publishing papers and attending conferences.

There is nothing wrong in arguing about the interpretation of data and indeed that is what physics is all about. However, people doing measurements (including me) do take pride in their work and they don't like being called incompetent, especially not when the person making the accusations can't specify what they are doing wrong.

Eventually this got out of hand and he had insulted too many people at the place where he was working and he got fired from his position (he did, however, manage to find a new job and he is still publishing papers).
I know for a fact that he claims that his career was ruined because of "politics" but that is simply not correct, he was fired because he kept insulting people and was impossible to work with.





Now, most of the people

 

[randay]

I can prove both science and religion are fake, with my almighty ignorance.

 

[AnandtechPirate]

As a muslim, I haven't yet found contradiction in the Quran against science. And there's no battle with science as their is in Christianity.

I am quite amazed that you can actually determine the speed of light from a verse in the Quran, which also speaks of embryology, cosmology, water cycle...etc. tons of stuff accurately.

Article is located here ---> Link

here are some scientists thoughts on the Quran, ---> Link

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: AnandtechPirate
As a muslim, I haven't yet found contradiction in the Quran against science. And there's no battle with science as their is in Christianity.

I am quite amazed that you can actually determine the speed of light from a verse in the Quran, which also speaks of embryology, cosmology, water cycle...etc. tons of stuff accurately.

Article is located here ---> Link

here are some scientists thoughts on the Quran, ---> Link

I know if I haven't communicated my central point in my previous posts then I'm unlikely to do any better with this post . . . but it's this desire to look for faith-based answers to "what has/will happen" questions in religious teachings or texts that becomes that basis for conflict with science. I suggest to you that both the Bible and the Qur'an incorporate some accepted answers for "what has/will happen" questions at the time they were written. If believers must hold to these answers as a matter of faith even though the scientific explanations change over time (as new theroies better fit additional facts), then contradictions are inevitable.

As an example, this page from the website you cited on Collapse of Evolution seeks to dismiss the theory of evolution based on the perception that it supports "materialism" and communism ideology, both of which are seen as objectionable to its author. I'm sure there is a book that seeks out "facts" that don't fit current evolutionary theory, but the important thing here is that the conclusion comes first and the facts are filtered to support the conclusion. It's certainly my impression that the arguments offered up here are virtually identical to those made by some Christains motivated by the same needs.

Please believe me when I say I am not anti-religious, and I'm not meaning to insult anyone's beliefs. I would like to convince people that the nature of the question determines the appropriate approach (i.e. sceince or religion) to answering it. Science for "what has/will happen"; religion for "why".

 

[AnandtechPirate]

Right now evolution is just a theory, it hasn't been proven.

And your right about science changing over time, it?s sort of like how people 500 years ago believed the sun to revolve around the earth. Back then that wasn't even a theory, it was established fact. What we know to be the scientific truth or think the scientific truth to be, there is always a possibility that it can be false.

I think the link I provided had sufficient information to show that at least in the Quran there is scientific knowledge to be extracted. Now after 1400 years since its revelation, the Quran has been quite remarkable to avoid contradictions, imho, to established (& accurate) scientific facts, ie... the speed of light isn't going to be changing in the near future or we know accurately that the earth revolves around the sun.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: AnandtechPirate

I am quite amazed that you can actually determine the speed of light from a verse in the Quran, which also speaks of embryology, cosmology, water cycle...etc. tons of stuff accurately.

Is it really one verse? It seems to be three different verses? Also in this verse:

"GOD rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the earth. Then this affair travels, to Him (i.e. through the whole universe) in one day, where the measure is one thousand years of your reckoning"(32:5)

Does it actually say "(i.e. through the whole universe)" in the Quaran?

I guess what I am trying to say is that the Quaran doesnt actually give the speed of light, nor does it state any equation or process for figuring out the speed of light.

 

[concernedsophist]

The word ?theory? is ambiguous and can often mean something like ?opinion? in everyday speech, this seems to say that theories are unreliable. However, as it applies to evolution and other hypothetical/explanatory reasoning the word ?theory? is a technical term. Here a theory is an explanation of the how and why of the facts. A theory can be just as justified or unjustified as any other belief. So, dismissing an explanation because it is ?just a theory? merely dodges the issue.

Back to the original topic, science is a method of empirical observation and testing. In a sense science cannot ?prove? anything. However, it can lend justification to propositions that are supported by the empirical data. Science can give us good reasons to believe something even if it cannot provide certainty. But then again there is almost nothing that we can be ?certain? about.

When the question moves to any specific claim made by a particular religion the scientific method could be used, in principle, to verify or refute that claim. If the claim is made about the way that that things are then we can see if things really are that way by making observations and experimentation.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: concernedsophist
When the question moves to any specific claim made by a particular religion the scientific method could be used, in principle, to verify or refute that claim. If the claim is made about the way that that things are then we can see if things really are that way by making observations and experimentation.

This isn't necessarily true. Religion, by its nature, deals with things that are not observable using the senses. Further, 'miracles' - the bread and butter of religion - are pretty much by definition data that science cannot explain. You can claim that said miracles never occurred, but if you're trying to scientifically disprove religion, this would be nothing more than begging the question. Thus, unless you can at the very least develop a scientific model that accounts for the data that are miracles, then you can't hope to have any success.

 

[VertexShader]

Originally posted by: AnandtechPirate
I am quite amazed that you can actually determine the speed of light from a verse in the Quran, which also speaks of embryology, cosmology, water cycle...etc. tons of stuff accurately.

Sorry, Pirate, but its no surprise that you are wrong regarding that speed of light BS. You guys try so hard....but it never turns out.

Heres the equation that they so perfectly use to find the speed of light:

C = 12,000 [lunar revolutions about the earth] x 3682.07 [average orbital velocity of the moon today in km/hr] x 0.89157 [compensation factor for heliocentric gravitation] x 655.71986 [length in hours of one complete lunar orbit transit today] / 86164.0906 seconds [one sidereal day on earth today] = 299792.5 km/s

Notice anything funny? Howabout the "heliocentric gravitation" bullshit. Its a number they inserted so the equation would come out with the speed of light. Its completely fabricated. So sorry, try again.

That summed it up, but heres the url which debunks it more thoroughly.

http://humanists.net/avijit/article/alam_light.htm

 

[f95toli]

I had a look at NISTs website
There is actually such a thing as a "heliocentric gravitation constant" but its value is (0.017 202 098 95)2 ua3·d-2

 

[blackllotus]

The theory of the existence of a God is not falsifiable, which means that it cannot be proven wrong (remember its super-natural, not natural). However, this means that there is only one way to prove it correct and that is for the Divine Being itself to come and show us its existence (not likely).