Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[Retro Rob]

Belief in gods is not a "search for truth".

Searching for truth means looking at evidence and using reason and knowledge to determine what's true. Religion goes in the other direction -- it starts with declarations of what is true, and then tries to fit the evidence into that framework.

Both may claim to be related to understanding truth, but they are going about it in a very different way. Scientists are open to new ideas and evidence that challenge the status quo, if this would improve our understanding of reality. Most religions are not only not open to such challenges, they are actively hostile towards them.

Why should I care about what "most religions" do?

So?

 

[IronWing]

I have refused to sell many people computers . ON moral grounds . If you try to buy a water cooled gaming PC from me . The vary first thing that is required by me for you to purchase one . You have to show me your W2 , If you don't make $100,000 a year I will not sell you a $10,000-$15,000 gaming computer. RACE has nothing to do withit . Religion has nothing to do with it . I decide who can afford my machines no one else. So I do discriminate against the poor . SUE me .

Isn't that the Scientology approach? "Sorry, you don't make enough money to join us."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The question is where does religion come from?

That's a fair question. We seem to have an inborn predisposition towards faith, although that manifests itself in different forms. We all believe some things, and doubt others. We're hardwired for that.

A question I have is where does the conflation of science and religion come from?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The question is where does religion come from?

Good question. Religions are relatively new to mankind as they started appearing during the Neolithic Revolution which occurred around 10,000 BC (12,000 years ago). The transition from hunter/gatherers to agriculture marked a fundamental change for mankind which allowed humans to settle in relatively large populations and develop economic, political and social structure.

 

[Oldgamer]

So can atheism.

Uh...no

 

[IronWing]

A question I have is where does the conflation of science and religion come from?

<puts on Bill Moyers' hat> Science gained a myth-like stature as a source of benefits to the tribe. The people conferred onto science authority to sit in judgement*. The shamams who previously held this authority seek to regain their lost credibility by araying themselves in the trappings of science.</Bill Moyers>




* As a scientist, I think this is a bad idea and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the limitations of the scientific method.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good question. Religions are relatively new to mankind as they started appearing during the Neolithic Revolution which occurred around 10,000 BC (12,000 years ago). The transition from hunter/gatherers to agriculture marked a fundamental change for mankind which allowed humans to settle in relatively large populations and develop economic, political and social structure.

You may be talking about highly organized religions, but religion in the sense of the universe being intimately tied to a superior being goes far far back, perhaps 50k, and in a looser sense perhaps since we were human.

 

[Oldgamer]

By the way, anyone watch the HBO Documentary "Mea Maxima Culpa". Link: http://www.theday.com/article/20130204/ENT13/302049987/1044

Pretty good demonstration of "blind" followers and how irrational people who are extremely religious think.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

<puts on Bill Moyers' hat> Science gained a myth-like stature as a source of benefits to the tribe. The people conferred onto science authority to sit in judgement*. The shamams who previously held this authority seek to regain their lost credibility by araying themselves in the trappings of science.</Bill Moyers>




* As a scientist, I think this is a bad idea and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the limitations of the scientific method.

Moyers is just showing his ignorance. There is often a false dichotomy presented which makes one choose. Conform or be cast out is something either side demands. Of course there are agnostics who wonder what really lies beyond our comprehension and the religious who have no problem with evolution or any other scientific theory. To them the latter is a tool, not a guiding philosophy.

What's interesting is this division wasn't always there. Certainly many questioned Darwin, but many accepted evolution as an amazing thing and in no way contradictory to what was viewed as an allegorical creation story. It was in the Christian world a minor thing because the New Testament was of far more importance as to how people should live.

Then we got to the "Red Menace", and a fear of people like Stalin. That pushed us in the US overboard, responding to Stalin and Mao's amoral atrocities by conflating nationalism and religion, something I've referred to as "godandamericanism". That caused an attitude of suspicion on the atheist and then they pushed by using laws to attack traditional public american displays regarding things related to religion, even if tangentially so.

So what we see today is a good deal of irrational hatred of one side for the other, and an outright rejection of the principle of let people alone to their beliefs. Some of the religious get righteous, and so do the atheists. Many of the latter wear their beliefs like a cross and belittle anyone of faith. It may not be a belief in god, but it sure is a belief about god and there's something not right with anyone who has any faith at all because we're god and we have science and we know all, or that last is the natural conclusion.

That's what irks me about some. The religious have faith, which is a defining quality, but others have a faith in their selves, in their 3 pounds or so of gray goo, that allows them to know all. They have faith. Ok, that's cool, but don't be a dick about it.

Oddly enough I can have conversations about religion and philosophy that don't go south almost anywhere but on the internet. Wonder why that is?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You may be talking about highly organized religions, but religion in the sense of the universe being intimately tied to a superior being goes far far back, perhaps 50k, and in a looser sense perhaps since we were human.

Yes, I'm talking about organized religions. Spirituality does appear to be an innate human trait going back much further.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Isn't that the Scientology approach? "Sorry, you don't make enough money to join us."

were i live i only need to make half as much as you do and live a better more comfortable life , i have elbow room and everthing material I have evey wanted, what is enough?

I have no desire to lead only to live. I have no desire to tell my neighbor how to live so long as they stay out of my world . I will stay out of theirs. I will also wager you that I have more Gold in my safe than you have in yours by alot . You may have more paper money . I have all that I need . Gold is Gold and Since I have no plans in selling it its value is what I place it at.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think you're approaching this the wrong way. Belief in God and scienticfic research, in their noblest forms, is really the search for truth - they're trying to find answers to sincere questions.

Science is not a "search for truth." Science is a search for testable predictions.

I think the problems with both is that science seems to also be concerned with "proving" that belief in God is irrational, as if belief in God is somehow rejection of science, or visa versa. This is dogma... calling someone irrational for basically believing different than you regardless the reason.

No, the reason is quite specific: lack of evidence.

For me, my belief in God and science compliment each other just fine, as they should. My proof? To be honest, science does a great job of studying the human body, this actually helps me appreciate and deepen my faith in God when I see such good design and "purpose".

You are merely imagining the purpose and design.

Without science, I would say that my belief in God would be without sufficent proof.

Science does not supply proof, so you have no idea what you're talking about.

If scientists and cosmologists want to speculate about how this all happened, then they're free to do that. The study of the planets (particualry the earth) just has the opposite affect on someone like myself -- the more organization I see, the more I see intelligence in its design I see, and the better I rationalize my belief in God.

Again, you are only imagining the "intelligence and design."

Also:

The peak of irrationality is claiming to know the unknowable -- claiming to know that there is a God really isn't much different than claiming to know how the Universe came into existence in absence of said "creator".

Who has claimed this?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Look . One of the basic underlying reasons religions exist is because of the belief of an after life . Someone Sits on a throne in this place. I look at my own beliefs . I have to depend on GODS judgement. If I am honest with myself I can recall every wrong I have ever done . Many people cann't. Even My wife As she in our youth (Teens) commited a crime . I recall everthing about . She denies it . I know it took place . I know its something she should recall . As adrinelin was flowing and we were both scarred . Something you just cann't forget.
If I died and God said judge yourself . The heavens would be shaken by me . I would self condemn myself only a few would do this . I am lucky . I don't get to judge no man does only God . This is my only hope. For a good afterlife experiance

 

[OCNewbie]

Science is not a "search for truth." Science is a search for testable predictions.

Agreed. The "truth" is a conclusion you come to, settle on, and never look at again. There are no absolute "truths" in Science; everything is open to modification if new discoveries deem it necessary.

 

[Retro Rob]

Agreed. The "truth" is a conclusion you come to, settle on, and never look at again. There are no absolute "truths" in Science; everything is open to modification if new discoveries deem it necessary.

There's nothing wrong with "truth".

You agree that it's established "truth" that our earth is sperical in shape, and that it orbits the Sun. Are you going to "modify" that? If so, why? or How?

Those are not open to modification and are truths by definition.

Like I said ealier, science has only helped open-minded people to appreciate life a little more than they did before science hit the scene.

Seeing the details about the nartual world, things I didn't know before, is a good thing.

Some scientists are really trying to prove that there is no purpose, no nothing... just luck, accident... if you shoot enough arrows in every direction they're going to hit something.

I guess its ok to look at it that way. :|

 

[Juddog]

Some scientists are really trying to prove that there is no purpose, no nothing... just luck, accident... if you shoot enough arrows in every direction they're going to hit something.

I guess its ok to look at it that way. :|

Please - show me an actual published article in a scientific journal that says this.

No offense, but it really appears that you're just making stuff up.

 

[LunarRay]

Some scientists are really trying to prove that there is no purpose, no nothing... just luck, accident... if you shoot enough arrows in every direction they're going to hit something.

I guess its ok to look at it that way. :|

ANY scientist who'd go about their work having the objective of proving the non purpose of the universal existence are not scientists at all (in my book). It seems ludicrous to attempt to prove what does not exist. There is no evidence of purpose with which to start an examination.

The existence of God does not enter into the equation at all in any manner. Some scientists are 'religious'. Those that are simply adjust their interpretation of the Scriptures to conform with the evidence they can test and falsify or confirm... It is simple, actually.

That the earth goes about doing what it does is an example of this... There was a time Religion placed the Earth at the center of the universe which a 100 years ago was thought to be our galaxy.... but today no sane Religious leader or person would argue with the notion that even our galaxy is but a speck in a rather incomprehensible enormity of matter and energy.

 

[Retro Rob]

So what we see today is a good deal of irrational hatred of one side for the other, and an outright rejection of the principle of let people alone to their beliefs. Some of the religious get righteous, and so do the atheists. Many of the latter wear their beliefs like a cross and belittle anyone of faith. It may not be a belief in god, but it sure is a belief about god and there's something not right with anyone who has any faith at all because we're god and we have science and we know all, or that last is the natural conclusion.

This is true, and totally unecessary.

Life is about accepting certain things and making deisicions based on incomplete evidence, if not, we'd never make mistakes. This happens among all walks, all people - scientists and the religious.

 

[Retro Rob]

Please - show me an actual published article in a scientific journal that says this.

No offense, but it really appears that you're just making stuff up.

Listen to krauss' summation starting around 53:10.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/2/5/science-refutes-god-iq2-debates


Also, the very last sentence of a quote by Dawkins.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22201-the-total-amount-of-suffering-per-year-in-the-natural

If I find it published, I will show you -- but here are just a couple of guys that say that.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You agree that it's established "truth" that our earth is sperical in shape, and that it orbits the Sun. Are you going to "modify" that? If so, why? or How?

This isn't a true statement. The earth follows behind the sun . It is impossiable for the earth to ever be ahead of the sun .
Its like that new earth trojan we picked up . (Nasa) This is the exact same object That suppose to just miss hitting us on 2/16/13 It was this same object that nearly hit us on 2/17/12 . Now this object actually does get infront of the eath and is the reason we will hit it , Nasa has all the info up on their site . Go put it together. Satelites do not orbit other planet like objects the spiral behind them . If they get out in front they will spiral into that object in time . Its the nature of the Milky way a spiral galaxy. In time all stars will be pulled into the blackhole at its center this is clear by the vary fact are galaxy is spiralling inward. WE move with the center not against it. not around but behind it.

 

[Juddog]

Listen to krauss' summation starting around 53:10.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/2/5/science-refutes-god-iq2-debates


Also, the very last sentence of a quote by Dawkins.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22201-the-total-amount-of-suffering-per-year-in-the-natural

If I find it published, I will show you -- but here are just a couple of guys of say that.

Those are debates and opinion pieces.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There's nothing wrong with "truth".

It doesn't deal with reality.

You agree that it's established "truth" that our earth is sperical in shape, and that it orbits the Sun. Are you going to "modify" that? If so, why? or How?

The sphericity of the earth is not truth. It is fact. Truth is an attribute of statements, not reality.

Those are not open to modification and are truths by definition.

All truths are true by definition, but the the sphericity of the earth is not "true by definition." It is a fact by observation.

{snip}

Some scientists are really trying to prove that there is no purpose, no nothing... just luck, accident... if you shoot enough arrows in every direction they're going to hit something.

Are those like the scientists you think claim to know how the universe came into existence without a creator, but can't name?

In other words, who are these scientists "really trying to prove that there is no purpose"? Can you identify them?

 

[Retro Rob]

Those are debates and opinion pieces.

So?

They obviously believe what they're saying and, IMO, are sharing that opinion with others.

Keep being an apologist, though..

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So?

So pointing out that there is no evidence of purpose is not tantamount to "trying to prove that there is no purpose."

 

[Juddog]

So?

They obviously believe what they're saying and, IMO, are sharing that opinion with others.

Keep being an apologist, though..

Opinion pieces are just that - opinions. They aren't scientific study / research.

How is explaining the flaws in your argument the same as being an apologist?

Let me clarify a bit - if a scientist works on the CERN project, performs some experiments, etc., then goes home and blogs about how the Patriots didn't deserve to win the superbowl, that doesn't mean his opinion is science.