Is science incompatible with religion?

[Rapier]

Look at the title of your thread. What the title says is "overall."

I've read it. It says:

Is science incompatible with religion?

It's not even a statement, it's a question, lol.

[Skynstein]

Many scientists are religious, but if they for example found evidence that God doesn't exist, how could they sustain their beliefs?

[Chiki]

I've read it. It says:

Is science incompatible with religion?

It's not even a statement, it's a question, lol.

Uh.. just ask anyone you like, what that question says is "is science overall incompatible with religion?" It's just common sense.

[Rapier]

Uh.. just ask anyone you like, what that question says is "is science overall incompatible with religion?" It's just common sense.

Ok, but it doesn't make any sense for you to deduce from that data that I'm trying to defend an overall compatibility between both. Haven't I been arguing that it is sometimes compatible (when science describles phenomenons, but does not expound on their origins) since the beginning? You're making a strawman. -_-

Many scientists are religious, but if they for example found evidence that God doesn't exist, how could they sustain their beliefs?

Unless science can find a way to prove without a shred of doubt that the universe was created by something that definitely was not God, I think it's not scientifically possible to disprove the existance of God.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Rapier

[Chiki]

Ok, but it doesn't make any sense for you to deduce from that data that I'm trying to defend an overall compatibility between both. Haven't I been arguing that it is sometimes compatible (when science describles phenomenons, but does not expound on their origins) since the beginning? You're making a strawman. -_-

It's not a strawman, since the thread title is what I was responding to. I don't want to have a trivial retarded argument about the importance of a thread title.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Chiki

[Blaze The Great]

Many scientists are religious, but if they for example found evidence that God doesn't exist, how could they sustain their beliefs?

Most likely cognitive dissonance. Also, it is very unlikely that we will ever find empirical evidence that either proves or disproves the existence of a god. What we will find/already have found are pieces of evidence that either support or rebutt religion. There is a big difference there.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Blaze The Great

[Rapier]

It's not a strawman, since the thread title is what I was responding to. I don't want to have a trivial retarded argument about the importance of a thread title.

I give up trying to tell you neither I nor the thread title is trying to establish an overall (in)compatibility between science and religion.

I've yet to see evidence that both are always conflictuous from dondon and Phoenix Wright. If they aren't always conflictuous, it follows that they are sometimes compatible. Basic reasoning, which I haven't seen a refutation since my first presentation on the beginning of the topic.

Also

Hopefully this topic doesn't explode like most topics involving religion do.

Hopefully the mods will keep watch in this topic as closely as they watched Chiki's, but one can only hope.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

I've yet to see evidence that both are always conflictuous from dondon and Phoenix Wright. If they aren't always conflictuous, it follows that they are sometimes compatible. Basic reasoning, which I haven't seen a refutation since my first presentation on the beginning of the topic.

what kind of evidence are you looking for

the first way in which science is incompatible with religion is that most religions make claims about the physical world in their holy texts that contradict what we know about the physical world through observation. these claims have never been observed, recorded, and corroborated except for in these holy texts. the sun stood still in the sky when joshua sacked jericho. god communicated to moses through a bush alight with flame but never consumed by it. jesus died and was raised. jesus turned water into wine and bread into fish. muhammad traveled from mecca to jerusalem in a single night on what was basically a pegasus before ascending to heaven. and so on.

science will suggest that the sun has never stood still in the sky, flames consume fuel, people die when they are killed, water and bread can't be turned to fish and wine, and winged horses don't exist except for in fire emblem.

this is where some believers will backpedal and state that physically impossible events in holy texts are allegorical, not literal. this works in some cases, although no christian would accept the death and raising of jesus as allegorical.

some of the religious will claim that science can't know everything, so the remainder is in the domain of faith. this is the second way in which science is incompatible with religion. in science, you may not make a claim with certainty if you don't have evidence to support that claim. it's not appropriate to, for example, believe that a soul exists because the existence of souls has neither been proven nor disproven. there is no need of a soul to explain the physical phenomena that we observe.

Edited July 12, 2015 by dondon151

[Phoenix Wright]

I've yet to see evidence that both are always conflictuous from dondon and Phoenix Wright. If they aren't always conflictuous, it follows that they are sometimes compatible. Basic reasoning, which I haven't seen a refutation since my first presentation on the beginning of the topic.

this is a geniuine question: since a reason for fundamental incompatibility has been presented--faith v. evidence--and subsequently ignored, shouldn't those that support your claim be the ones providing evidence? i don't get why the burden of proof lies upon us when the other side is the one actually making claims!

[Chiki]

I give up trying to tell you neither I nor the thread title is trying to establish an overall (in)compatibility between science and religion.

I've yet to see evidence that both are always conflictuous from dondon and Phoenix Wright. If they aren't always conflictuous, it follows that they are sometimes compatible. Basic reasoning, which I haven't seen a refutation since my first presentation on the beginning of the topic.

Also

Hopefully the mods will keep watch in this topic as closely as they watched Chiki's, but one can only hope.

I never said you were trying to establish anything. All I did was answer the question "is science, overall, incompatible with religion?" which is the title of your thread...

So what if they're sometimes compatible? All that matters is that they're overall incompatible.

[Yojinbo]

i don't get why the burden of proof lies upon us when the other side is the one actually making claims!

Because as dondon has pointed out most people don't actually know how science works. Case in point:

Unless science can find a way to prove without a shred of doubt that the universe was created by something that definitely was not God, I think it's not scientifically possible to disprove the existance of God.

[Chiki]

Unless science can find a way to prove without a shred of doubt that the universe was created by something that definitely was not God, I think it's not scientifically possible to disprove the existance of God.

I didn't see this gem. No one who is studying logic should make asinine arguments like this.

We also can't disprove the existence of a scientifically undetectable pink unicorn. Why take God seriously, but ignore the possibility of the existence of a pink unicorn?

Occam's razor is used for this problem: even if we can't disprove the existence of God, pink unicorns etc. we can still reject their existence simply because they're unneeded in our theories.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Chiki

[Dwalin2010]

Occam's razor is used for this problem: even if we can't disprove the existence of God, pink unicorns etc. we can still reject their existence simply because they're unneeded in our theories.

That's a weird position. On one hand, you admit you can't disprove the existence of something, on the other you say we should reject its existence. What if science in the future will be able to prove the existence of such things? Won't your today's argument seem outdated then? If something can't be proven or disproven, ignore it as irrelevant to the CURRENT state of science, but acting like you "know" it doesn't exist is a strange approach unless you 100% REALLY KNOW it doesn't.

Tell me anyway please, do you believe science does evolve and there possibly will be more discoveries in the future than we can't think of today? Just to understand you position better.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

That's a weird position. On one hand, you admit you can't disprove the existence of something, on the other you say we should reject its existence. What if science in the future will be able to prove the existence of such things? Won't your today's argument seem outdated then? If something can't be proven or disproven, ignore it as irrelevant to the CURRENT state of science, but acting like you "know" it doesn't exist is a strange approach unless you 100% REALLY KNOW it doesn't.

Tell me anyway please, do you believe science does evolve and there possibly will be more discoveries in the future that we can't think of today? Just to understand you position better.

It's not weird at all, it's reasoning that is accepted by every scientist and philosopher lol. Some draw a line on removing God via Occam's razor, though.

We can't disprove its existence, and we can't ultimately reject its existence with 100% certainty, but we can reject its existence with great certainty.

The science of the future will never be able to prove the existence of invisible pink unicorns, because they obviously don't exist. End of story.

However, obviously there are going to be more exciting discoveries in the future that we couldn't imagine of today, that actually fit in with our scientific theories unlike pink unicorns.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Chiki

[Dwalin2010]

However, obviously there are going to be more exciting discoveries in the future that we couldn't imagine of today, that actually fit in with our scientific theories unlike pink unicorns.

Yes, but do you agree at least that there may be some discoveries that maybe wouldn't seem "fit" or "logical" to you at all if announced "today"? I mean, if we talked about television and bombs in the middle ages, wouldn't we be considered nuts and "illogical" even by people who didn't blindly follow religion?

Edited July 12, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

Yes, but do you agree at least that there may be some discoveries that maybe wouldn't seem "fit" or "logical" to you at all if announced "today"? I mean, if we talked about television and bombs in the middle ages, wouldn't we be considered nuts and "illogical" even by people who didn't blindly follow religion?

Of course, but it doesn't mean that that discovery will be about God or pink unicorns.

[BBM]

Except most scientific theories that posit that the universe grew from nothing require some sort of outside impetus to start the process? Saying that we can reject the existence of God with great certainty is false; we can't do anything like that at all.

We can dispute the exact written word of most religions, but that doesn't really matter. Religion is a theory made up of many different parts. Disproving one part of it doesn't mean the entire thing is wrong.

[Dwalin2010]

Forgot about one quote in the previous post:

The science of the future will never be able to prove the existence of invisible pink unicorns, because they obviously don't exist. End of story.

I don't believe in the existence of pink unicorns, but isn't the formulation "it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist" by itself a bit lacking of logic? If I said "God exists because he DOES exist and that's all", would you have taken me seriously?

Curiosity: are you a scientist yourself? How close you are to the science research? That's not to mock you or be ironical, I am genuinely curious.

[Chiki]

Forgot about one quote in the previous post:

I don't believe in the existence of pink unicorns, but isn't the formulation "it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist" by itself a bit lacking of logic? If I said "God exists because he DOES exist and that's all", would you have taken me seriously?

Curiosity: are you a scientist yourself? How close you are to the science research? That's not to mock you or be ironical, I am genuinely curious.

I told you earlier already that a completely rational agent can't 100% reject the existence of a pink unicorn.

But speaking to you as an irrational, flawed human being, I can tell you that a pink unicorn doesn't exist. End of story.

What do you think? People should trust me because of my ideas, not because of my credentials. I've noticed that a lot of people on Serenes freak out after seeing some of my opinions, even though they don't realize that such ideas are very popular among professional scientists/philosophers (depending on the topic we're discussing)...

Edited July 12, 2015 by Chiki

[Yojinbo]

There's no such thing as "disproving" something. Stop using that word.

A claim or a hypothesis is acceptable if it a.) doesn't contradict any of the known empirical evidence b.) contains no self-contradiction and c.) can't be occam'd into a simpler result [ie Einstein 'overruling' a lot of Newton's discoveries despite them being correct]. All three requirements must be met or else the theory is either false [in case of a.) and b.) ] or it's obsolete [in case of c.) ].

Based on our current level of knowlegde Einstein's theory of gravity is correct because it fits all of the criteria mentioned above. There's no self-contradiction and no "simpler" theory exists that sufficiently explains a lot of the phenomena described by the ToG. Up until now, no empirical evidence has been found that stands in contradiction to it so for all we know the ToG still stands. However, should only one single piece of evidence be discovered that stands in contradiction to ToG the entire thing becomes invalid and new theories must be taken into consideration - that's when a theory is "falsified".

Making outrageous, baseless claims and expecting the other side to "disprove" it is essentially a step back into the middle ages.

I don't believe in the existence of pink unicorns, but isn't the formulation "it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist" by itself a bit lacking of logic?

The claim that pink unicorns don't exist requires a smaller amount of assumptions to be made than the claim that pink unicorns do exist. If you make the claim that pink unicorns exist you have to explain why nobody has ever seen a pink unicorn and why no empirical evidence exists that would hint at the existence of such a being.

The more assumptions required to justify a statement the less likely it is to be true. That's why saying "pink unicorns don't exist because they don't exist" is a correct statement from a scientific point of view whereas the statement that "pink unicorns exist [despite the fact that no evidence for its existence is available]" is false. It requires less baseless assumptions to sufficiently explain how we perceive the lack of pink unicorns in our world.

[Dwalin2010]

Making outrageous, baseless claims and expecting the other side to "disprove" it is essentially a step back into the middle ages.

I don't think anyone had said anything "outrageous" in this topic except for a few cases when it came to personal attacks (not on your part). As for "disproving", with this word I mean "presenting counter-arguments". If a thing n.1 is proven and its existence excludes the possibility of the existence of thing n.2, you can say that "thing n.2" is "disproven". At least that's what I meant, sorry if that's not correct from a linguistical point of view.

And just to be clear: I don't absolutely mind people having points of view completely opposite to mine, I respect the point of view of any atheist who calmly present their arguments.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

I personally want to know how a religious person can stay religious after seeing these arguments. A rational religious agent should look at these arguments and say, "why am I even religious?"

But of course, religious belief is based on faith, but it seems like the people here also care equally about reason, and religion is not compatible with reason, as we've seen.

[Dwalin2010]

I personally want to know how a religious person can stay religious after seeing these arguments. A rational religious agent should look at these arguments and say, "why am I even religious?"

But of course, religious belief is based on faith, but it seems like the people here also care equally about reason, and religion is not compatible with reason, as we've seen.

It's a matter of faith of course, and because people want to hope for the better. Pure emotionless rationality would make the world too dry in my opinion, and basing life on the belief there is no after-life, no immortal soul, no "supreme good", and that there is only "emptiness and void" after death would make my personal perception of life "boring" (in the better of cases) or "hopelessly desperate" (in the worst of cases). I wasn't even religious until my teens. Don't know about other religious people, and call me "weak" or "delusional" if you want, but you said you wanted to know the religious people's position, and I give you mine.

I think it's better if I am finished with the discussion, the only thing I would ask beforehand to everybody who want to reply to this post is please not to be condescending or rude, after all I have been respectful towards your beliefs.

[Yojinbo]

I don't think anyone had said anything "outrageous" in this topic [...]

I think the quote I posted on top of this page is pretty outrageous but that just might be my opinion.

[Chiki]

It's a matter of faith of course, and because people want to hope for the better. Pure emotionless rationality would make the world too dry in my opinion, and basing life on the belief there is no after-life, no immortal soul, no "supreme good", and that there is only "emptiness and void" after death would make my personal perception of life "boring" (in the better of cases) or "hopelessly desperate" (in the worst of cases). I wasn't even religious until my teens. Don't know about other religious people, and call me "weak" or "delusional" if you want, but you said you wanted to know the religious people's position, and I give you mine.

I think it's better if I am finished with the discussion, the only thing I would ask beforehand to everybody who want to reply to this post is please not to be condescending or rude, after all I have been respectful towards your beliefs.

Yeah well, it sucks that there's only emptiness and void after death. We just have to deal with it.

An eternity in Heaven would be pretty boring too though. If I had to spend an eternity in Heaven I'd probably just try to kill myself, but it wouldn't work out lol. Maybe it's for the best in the end.