It Is Ridiculous To Say That Religious Beliefs Conflict With Science

[David Sklansky]

Yet another thing that irritates me. Putting aside true nutcases who claim things like the sun moves around the earth, religious people are happy to admit that the laws of physics and chemistry will determine what happens to something. EXCEPT for the one exception that occurs when God wants to suspend those laws. Scientists on the other hand are busy deducing the laws that apply to all cases except specifically the ones where God intervenes. It is not a scientific statement to say "God never intervenes". YOU CANNOT USE SCIENCE TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION.

You can however, use statistics and evidence evaluation to form a probability judgement that God has never intervened. (Especially if you don't count the Big Bang or the moment humans became conscious). And I'm pretty sure this method would lead to a probability near 100%.

I AM positive that this method (statistics, knowledge of magicians tricks, knowledge of hallucinations and dreams, etc) shows that if God ever does usurp the laws of physics, chemistry, or probability he has done so incredibly rarely. And this fact itself has implications. Perhaps his reason for allowing his science laws to determine the vast majority of outcomes, is that he doesn't want people to have slam dunk evidence of him in order to test their faith. Perhaps there is another reason.

But one thing is for sure. If he insists on accomplishing goals WITHIN the laws of physics he handcuffs himself away from omnipotence as we normally define it. Religious people laugh off the silly statement that God can't build a rock he can't lift. That logical dilemma is unimportant so they don't mind admitting that even an otherwise omnipotent being is trapped by that conumdrum. But what about if the goals are simultaneously to keep rational humans from being certain about him even without "faith" and to heal amputees. Or to divert a succession of tornados. Or to keep not 43 scud missiles, but rather 2000 scud missiles, from killing anyone in Israel?

See where I am going with this?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
You can however, use statistics and evidence evaluation to form a probability judgement that God has never intervened.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wrong. There is no scientific definition of 'God'. 'God' is at best a metaphor.

[thylacine]

It Is Ridiculous To Say `It Is Ridiculous To Say That Religious Beliefs Conflict With Science.' It is ludicrous. It is preposterous. It is downright loony.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
If he insists on accomplishing goals WITHIN the laws of physics he handcuffs himself away from omnipotence as we normally define it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I were God, I doubt I'd find a need for doing things in the usually defined way, either. I'd simply set up the initial conditions (or equivalently, the covariant state of the universe) such that it had some weird properties -- like, for example, that the universe only contains people praying to me immediately before an unlikely answer to their prayers presents itself. I.E. the illusion of "usual definition" omnipotence and prayer-answering could be built into the state of the universe itself -- and so I never have to violate the laws of physics.

Nevertheless, this doesn't really contradict your point about contradictory goals.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
But what about if the goals are simultaneously to keep rational humans from being certain about him even without "faith" and to heal amputees. Or to divert a succession of tornados. Or to keep not 43 scud missiles, but rather 2000 scud missiles, from killing anyone in Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes that god actually wants to heal amputees, divert tornadoes, or stop scud missles. Why would you assume he would want to do these things? Any assumptions like this are an attempt to project your human idea of what's morally right onto god. For all we know a bunch of kids dying in a tornado is a wonderful thing (at least that's what Christians will try and have you believe).

Perhaps testing our faith is the most important item on god's agenda, and it trumps everything else. The moment he performs a major obvious "miracle" (even if it would save lives and prevent untold suffering), it will then become too easy for us to believe.

[Arp220]

I think the conflict is on a more fundamental level.

What you say is reasonable, but it seems to be along the lines of 'lets assume a deity exists. Ok, now lets work out how much that deity has intervened in human affairs, using the scientific method'.

The conflict between religion and science, as I see it (for what that's worth) is that there is no evidence obtained via the 'scientific method' that supports the existence of a deity. Therefore, for the purposes of scientific research, one assumes that such a deity does not exist. That of course does not mean that science has shown that a deity does not exist, or even that there is strong evidence in favor of the non-existence of a deity. It simply means that a deity is not required to understand what we see, and therefore a deity does not enter into scientific discussions.

Religious people, naturally, do not agree with this view.

Ergo, conflict.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet another thing that irritates me. Putting aside true nutcases who claim things like the sun moves around the earth, religious people are happy to admit that the laws of physics and chemistry will determine what happens to something. EXCEPT for the one exception that occurs when God wants to suspend those laws. Scientists on the other hand are busy deducing the laws that apply to all cases except specifically the ones where God intervenes. It is not a scientific statement to say "God never intervenes". YOU CANNOT USE SCIENCE TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION.

You can however, use statistics and evidence evaluation to form a probability judgement that God has never intervened. (Especially if you don't count the Big Bang or the moment humans became conscious). And I'm pretty sure this method would lead to a probability near 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all true about the laws of physics themselves, too. Those can't be proven in any way more rigorous than what you offer here. So, epistemologically, I think you can put the two on the same footing.

[hemstock]

[ QUOTE ]
That of course does not mean that science has shown that a deity does not exist, or even that there is strong evidence in favor of the non-existence of a deity. It simply means that a deity is not required to understand what we see, and therefore a deity does not enter into scientific discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even that is true, why does science has to prove that god does not exist and not the people who believe in the existanse of God have to show the opposite?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
But what about if the goals are simultaneously to keep rational humans from being certain about him even without "faith" and to heal amputees. Or to divert a succession of tornados. Or to keep not 43 scud missiles, but rather 2000 scud missiles, from killing anyone in Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are ways that this is easily achieved. Remember that he has an infinite canvas and infinite power when creating the universe. He could easily create a world in which there were no amputees (i.e. regrowing body parts), in which there was no ebola virus, in which people didn't get dementia and piss their pants, while still giving no indication of his existence.

The fact that amputees exist means that God does not wish or does not care that amputees get healed.