A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd also add that scientific observations conclusively refute various statements of fact made in a number of holy books, both about the nature God and his contact with the human race.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're including the Bible in that number, please provide specifics.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Human intelligence is all we have to work with.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all we have to work with, we atheists. If you want us to "see the light," first you'll have to lead us out of the darkness. For whatever reason we don't feel any of this "connection with god" you theists are always going on about, and thus we must judge your position based on reason.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're not asking anyone to listen to God; you're asking us to listen to the theists who, being less intelligent than the atheists, are less credible


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think intelligence equates to credibility? You might also consider the fact that most definitions of science exclude the supernatural so any statement made by a scientist purporting to deny God is by definition unscientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think intelligence is strongly correlated with credibility. Smart people are right more often, at least in everything we can measure. And yes, of course it's unscientific - but that doesn't mean it's irrational.

[David Sklansky]

"Genuine scientific facts do not contradict a correct interpretation of the Bible.

Augustine said something much like that in the 4th century A.D.

The post I made was concerning the religious nature (often hidden or disguised) of statements made by scientists, which isn't the same thing as a scientific statement.

I've addressed your fixation on intelligence before. If you wish to trust the human intellect over God's revelation, I'm sure you won't complain about the results."

Taking your last point first. I see no reason to think that it is unlikely that if there is God he will be more inclined to reward those who have seriously studied the intracacies of the physics and chemical laws he has created while having contempt for and possibly punishing mere sycophants who don't study those things and try to rationalize their laziness with the mistaken idea that they are pleasing him with their mere "belief".

As to scientist's take on religion, it is important to understand that only some actually come right out and say that they are positive there is no personal god. Those who do say that, I disagree with. What they say is that it is stupid to think that the physical evidence points to a personal god. You once said that all one need do is "look around you". Godboy made the more specific comment that eclipses were obviously God's work. Two reasonable comments 300 years ago. But we now know that this stuff could easily happen without a personal God. A deistic God might be the explanation but you have already pointed out that philophically, deism is the same as atheism.

The fact that mountains, eyeballs, eclipses, and whatever could come into being without a personal god doesn't mean that God isn't the actual explanation. Maybe he is. The problem though is that most "believers" are basing their belief to a large degree on their mistaken idea that the stuff they see, could not occur without a designer that was at work in the recent past. Whereas it has been shown irrefutably, that all this stuff could (not "did") occur without a recent designer. (Possible exception, human consciousness).

If you want to invoke "God's revelation" to make your point, I'll let you argue with the hi falloootin philosophers. But you absolutely can't invoke the physical things you see as any kind of evidence for a biblical type god. Because scientists, magicians, and statisticans, can rip that "evidence" to shreds.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That's all we have to work with, we atheists.


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume by human intelligence you mean human reason. Again, how do you establish that's all humans have to work with?

[ QUOTE ]

I think intelligence is strongly correlated with credibility.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people in the legal profession would disagree with you. You may be confusing credibility with expertise.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I see no reason to think that it is unlikely that if there is God he will be more inclined to reward those who have seriously studied the intracacies of the physics and chemical laws he has created while having contempt for and possibly punishing mere sycophants who don't study those things and try to rationalize their laziness with the mistaken idea that they are pleasing him with their mere "belief".


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any Christian advocates not studying scientific matters if they have the ability and opportunity. I personally love true science and sometimes wish I had pursued it, but I went another direction. Perhaps it was a mistake but I seriously doubt science has lost anything through my absence. But to think that the pursuit of science is God's road to salvation is completely untenable - at best, it's wishful thinking.

[ QUOTE ]

You once said that all one need do is "look around you".


[/ QUOTE ]

I do remember saying something like this. If I didn't make it clear at the time I was referring to existence as such. Why does something exist, rather than nothing. And another place I said that if God did create everything then obviously everything is evidence of God. But I'm not referring to the scientific method. I'm not claiming you can find God at the end of a telescope or microscope except as stated above.

[ QUOTE ]

But we now know that this stuff could easily happen without a personal God.


[/ QUOTE ]

But we don't. That's the whole question and asserting the universe could happen without a personal God is unscientific.

[ QUOTE ]

The problem though is that most "believers" are basing their belief to a large degree on their mistaken idea that the stuff they see, could not occur without a designer that was at work in the recent past. Whereas it has been shown irrefutably, that all this stuff could (not "did") occur without a recent designer.


[/ QUOTE ]

But it hasn't been so shown. Even if evolution were conclusively proved to be true, even if science could show that life magically appeared from non-life, that would not show it could happen without a personal God. You can't even show that the next breath you take could happen without a personal God.

[ QUOTE ]

Because scientists, magicians, and statisticans, can rip that "evidence" to shreds


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one who has.

[David Sklansky]

"But we don't. That's the whole question and asserting the universe could happen without a personal God is unscientific."

I'm not talking about the "universe happening". Scientists do not claim with certainty that the universe could just happen. (Although if it was necessary that something created it, it certainly doesn't have to be the God of the bible). I'm talking about the stuff afterwards. The stuff that most believers point to as evidence for God. The pancreas, the speed of a cheetah, the fact that the moon doesn't fall into the earth. All these things would be true even if there was no god (given there is a universe) or alternatively if there was only a deistic God.

The above is an argument that is not specific to religion. It is akin to the argument that given enough billions of years, the best surviving poker players would play as if they had read my books, even if they hadn't.

As for someone who rips evidence to shreds, I give you Houdini or Randi. (Of course you personally are very careful not to offer up evidence that is susceptible to ripping.)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The above is an argument that is not specific to religion. It is akin to the argument that given enough billions of years, the best surviving poker players would play as if they had read my books, even if they hadn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Good one and probably true unless they felt they had to adjust their games because so many knew how to play! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[sexypanda]

I highly recommend watching the forum itself which could be found at: http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch

I saw the first segment last night and found it extremely interesting.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's all we have to work with, we atheists.


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume by human intelligence you mean human reason. Again, how do you establish that's all humans have to work with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily just human reason, but it works fine for the purpose of argument.

And I can hardly prove that's all humans have to work with, but given that the atheists on this forum claim not to have any "special" capabilities, unless they're lying (and I happen to be the only one) then it seems they don't. Even if there is something "other than" reason, you can't convince those of us who've never experienced it of that. You can't convince a blind man with a power point presentation - if you're communicating something to a blind man, you must make use of the senses he has available to him - hearing in particular. It's foolish to use visual stimuli in an attempt to communicate with a blind man. In a similar sense, if we are "blind" regarding God, then using God to convince us is absurd. Even if you believe our blindness can be "cured," it hasn't been cured yet and at the present moment visual stimuli will prove 100% ineffective for us.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think intelligence is strongly correlated with credibility.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people in the legal profession would disagree with you. You may be confusing credibility with expertise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expertise is a major component of credibility. Assuming no deception, it's the main component. Are you suggesting that smart people are all lying about this issue?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

All these things would be true even if there was no god (given there is a universe) or alternatively if there was only a deistic God.


[/ QUOTE ]

But to say there is a universe even if there was no God is to settle the question prior to any evidence. The Bible says, not only that God created all things but that all things constantly depend on Him. A sparrow doesn't fall to the ground apart from the Father's will. Science can never comment on this.

I'm not sure what evidence Houdini and Randi are ripping.