Science only contributes atheism? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Jhud -> Science only contributes atheism? (8/28/2008 6:28:43 PM)

A recent letter to Nature, by Matthew Cobb of the University of Manchester, and Jerry Coyne of the The University of Chicago concluded this way:

In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

They were basically disputing a Nature editorial praising the Templeton Foundation, an organization devoted to being a, "philanthropic catalyst for scientific discovery on what scientists and philosophers call the 'Big Questions.' Ranging from questions about the laws of nature to the nature of creativity and consciousness, the Foundation’s philanthropic vision is derived from Sir John’s resolute belief that rigorous research and cutting-edge scholarship is at the very heart of new discoveries and human progress". The Templeton Foundation is open to research which explores the nature and contributions of religious ideas.

Contrary to many atheists, who claim science is neutral in regards to religion, the authors of the letter seem to think that scientific exploration inevitably leads to atheism.

What do you think?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (8/28/2008 6:44:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.


Well, at least they tacitly acknowledges that atheism is a religion.

So basically they are saying that, no matter what the evidence, exploration of the evidence always leads to atheism. Sorry, that's not science. Science does not assume atheism to be true and explore the evidence with that assumption. Science does not explore the evidence with the assumption that the evidence must support atheism. Science doesn't care about the implications of the evidence and it explores the evidence with an open mind wherever the evidence leads. If the implications of the evidence suggest theism, then science does not try to dispute that. The fact that they would say such a thing demonstrates that they are not interested in science, they are interested in promoting their metaphysical beliefs. If Nature takes their position on the issue, then that makes the integrity of their scientific quest very suspect. It suggests that Nature is not interested in what the evidence actually shows because they will always try to side with the atheistic position no matter what the evidence shows.

Though, I will say this. I'm glad to see that nature is actually being more fair on the matter. Hopefully they will not give in to pressure from the likes of Cobb and Coyne to take their position. The reason why naturalism and naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) have gotten the tax funded indoctrination that they have is because committed naturalists put a lot of pressure (ie: by writing to publications like nature and by writing to the government (ie: George Bush)) into persuading secular (tax funded) sources into only funding their position and censoring criticisms and opposing views from public forums. It's important that creationists and intelligent design advocates also act in a coordinated manner (like atheists/naturalists do) to prevent such political efforts from succeeding.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (8/28/2008 7:09:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

Contrary to many atheists, who claim science is neutral in regards to religion, the authors of the letter seem to think that scientific exploration inevitably leads to atheism.

What do you think?


I'm not entirely sure I know what they meant, but I don't think they were saying that "scientific exploration inevitably leads to atheism," as though the practice of science were corrosive to faith.
Rather, I think they were saying that when science actually manages to explain something, it invariably(*) does so without introducing supernatural agents or miracles. So when meteorologists demonstrate that rain is caused by such-and-so, this eliminates the theistic explanation that rain is Jove micturating in a sieve. Meteorology is not 'atheistic' in the positive sense; it just doesn't make any use of the god hypothesis. Alternative theories that rely on little gods to do the work get disproven.

To take another example:

Theist: God makes the planets go around the sun in their orbits.
Scientist: No, that's well explained by the theory of gravity.
Theist: Oh yeah? Well, who wrote the law of gravity and set it into force, Mr. SmartyPants?
Scientist: That's not part of the theory. I dunno.
Theist: Ha! God wrote the law of gravity.
Scientist: I can neither confirm nor deny that.


[(*) Some maintain that science could never prove the 'supernatural' or the miraculous or the existence of gods. I'm not so pessimistic. If a woman showed up and walked on water in the lab to everyone's satisfaction, I don't think physicists would try to look for a modification of general relativity that would allow this phenomenon in a naturalistic theory of gravity. It would become, for lack of a better words, a scientifically verified miracle/supernatural occurence. Sadly, miracles of this sort do not seem to occur nowadays in a setting where they can be evaluated by science. Until we have some miracles to study, there's nothing for science to evaluate that could lead to a conclusion of miracle.]



Jhud -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (8/28/2008 8:05:12 PM)

quote:

I'm not entirely sure I know what they meant, but I don't think they were saying that "scientific exploration inevitably leads to atheism," as though the practice of science were corrosive to faith.
Rather, I think they were saying that when science actually manages to explain something, it invariably(*) does so without introducing supernatural agents or miracles. So when meteorologists demonstrate that rain is caused by such-and-so, this eliminates the theistic explanation that rain is Jove micturating in a sieve. Meteorology is not 'atheistic' in the positive sense; it just doesn't make any use of the god hypothesis. Alternative theories that rely on little gods to do the work get disproven.

To take another example:

Theist: God makes the planets go around the sun in their orbits.
Scientist: No, that's well explained by the theory of gravity.
Theist: Oh yeah? Well, who wrote the law of gravity and set it into force, Mr. SmartyPants?
Scientist: That's not part of the theory. I dunno.
Theist: Ha! God wrote the law of gravity.
Scientist: I can neither confirm nor deny that.


I don't think the authors are that magnanimous:

There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution.

That seems to be a pretty straight forward argument that, at least from the materialist perspective, the conflict is inherent.

quote:

[(*) Some maintain that science could never prove the 'supernatural' or the miraculous or the existence of gods. I'm not so pessimistic. If a woman showed up and walked on water in the lab to everyone's satisfaction, I don't think physicists would try to look for a modification of general relativity that would allow this phenomenon in a naturalistic theory of gravity. It would become, for lack of a better words, a scientifically verified miracle/supernatural occurence. Sadly, miracles of this sort do not seem to occur nowadays in a setting where they can be evaluated by science. Until we have some miracles to study, there's nothing for science to evaluate that could lead to a conclusion of miracle.]


Actually, I think if people could routinely do that which we now consider to be miraculous in a way that was amenable to scientific observation, then by definition it would cease being miraculous because it would be ordinary.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (8/28/2008 8:32:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:


Theist: God makes the planets go around the sun in their orbits.
Scientist: No, that's well explained by the theory of gravity.
Theist: Oh yeah? Well, who wrote the law of gravity and set it into force, Mr. SmartyPants?
Scientist: That's not part of the theory. I dunno.
Theist: Ha! God wrote the law of gravity.
Scientist: I can neither confirm nor deny that.


I don't think the authors are that magnanimous:

There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution.

That seems to be a pretty straight forward argument that, at least from the materialist perspective, the conflict is inherent.


I guess it depends how broadly they mean "the nature of reality." The theory of gravity has kicked gods off the stage of the observable universe when it comes to planetary motion.
Is the statement that gods wrote or enacted or maintain physical laws a statement about "the nature of reality". I suppose it is, but it's not really a scientific question accessible to experiment.
I would agree with the authors that, unaided by scientific practices, philosophy, theology and religion don't have much business trying to answer science questions. But the boundary may not be so easy to distinguish.

quote:

Actually, I think if people could routinely do that which we now consider to be miraculous in a way that was amenable to scientific observation, then by definition it would cease being miraculous because it would be ordinary.

It might be ordinary, but it would disobey the 'universal' law of gravitation if people could walk on water. Maybe the only people who would worry about its miraculousness would be the physicists. That would be a fine situation - everyone is blase about it, except the physicists, who declare it a miracle.



DanJames -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (8/28/2008 8:38:36 PM)

I personally think that the end of science is to prove in the most naturalistic way possible the cause and effect of every phenomenon in the universe to include the creative acts of God (if you can believe in Him as the Agent of creation). I don't think that science can only contribute to atheism, but I can see how the quest for naturalistic explanations can lead to that conclusion. I oftentimes marvel at God's arm-span when I consider the size of the universe and his dexterity when I consider the intricacies of living systems, so I don't know. Maybe if I read the whole article I could better understand what he's talking about.



steve7150 -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/11/2008 9:10:46 PM)

quote:

Contrary to many atheists, who claim science is neutral in regards to religion, the authors of the letter seem to think that scientific exploration inevitably leads to atheism.




Scientific exploration observes events in the universe but does'nt explain the first causes of these events, the precision of the universe or the beauty of it. It's simply observation of material transactions but it could be that a mindset develops of only looking for material natural answers by overestimating man's ability.
Perhaps it's a subconscience rejection of anything supernatural by focusing so much on the natural.



Theophile2 -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/14/2008 2:24:27 PM)

quote:

A recent letter to Nature, by Matthew Cobb of the University of Manchester, and Jerry Coyne of the The University of Chicago concluded this way:

In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.


Interesting, but uninformed article. That would mean all of the scientists who were Christians listed on the below website would have had to give up their faith and espouse atheism.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

[sm=icon_smile_fish.gif]



KaseyTom -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/14/2008 3:52:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

A recent letter to Nature, by Matthew Cobb of the University of Manchester, and Jerry Coyne of the The University of Chicago concluded this way:

In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

They were basically disputing a Nature editorial praising the Templeton Foundation, an organization devoted to being a, "philanthropic catalyst for scientific discovery on what scientists and philosophers call the 'Big Questions.' Ranging from questions about the laws of nature to the nature of creativity and consciousness, the Foundation’s philanthropic vision is derived from Sir John’s resolute belief that rigorous research and cutting-edge scholarship is at the very heart of new discoveries and human progress". The Templeton Foundation is open to research which explores the nature and contributions of religious ideas.

Contrary to many atheists, who claim science is neutral in regards to religion, the authors of the letter seem to think that scientific exploration inevitably leads to atheism.

What do you think?


Scientific exploration certainly leads to the rejection of paranormal events and supernatural explanations of natural phenomena.



Jhud -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/14/2008 8:25:41 PM)

quote:

Scientific exploration certainly leads to the rejection of paranormal events and supernatural explanations of natural phenomena.


Why would science lead to a de facto rejection of a supernatural explanation?



drmark -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/14/2008 10:32:57 PM)

quote:

Why would science lead to a de facto rejection of a supernatural explanation?
By definition, observational science can only detect or measure or study natural phenomena or objects or processes.



Jhud -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 9:49:39 AM)

quote:

By definition, observational science can only detect or measure or study natural phenomena or objects or processes.


Sure, but that shouldn't lead to a rejection of a supernatural explanations per se, but an acknowledgement of a limitation of the tool. It's rather like trying to measure the distance from earth to the moon with a tape measure - the fact that it's impossible to do so doesn't mean we reject the existence of the moon - or deny that there is some distance in between the two bodies.



drmark -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 11:23:24 AM)

I think you may be confusing things, Jack. No one rejects the existence of the moon, only that the moon was created on day 4 by supernatural design and fiat. The conflict remains: What is the explanation for the moon's existence, not what are the parameters of its existence (such as distance from Earth).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 11:24:46 AM)

The criteria for something to be scientific is falsifiability. As long as something is falsifiable, then it's scientific. Intelligent design, for example, is falsifiable. UCD (universal common descent) is unfalsifiable.



Jhud -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 12:00:34 PM)

quote:

I think you may be confusing things, Jack. No one rejects the existence of the moon, only that the moon was created on day 4 by supernatural design and fiat. The conflict remains: What is the explanation for the moon's existence, not what are the parameters of its existence (such as distance from Earth).


Well, I am certainly capable of confusing things, though I think not this time. You can't 'reject' something based on the inability to detect or measure it with a particular set of tools. I don't 'reject' the existence of human rights because there is no scientific or empirical method by which to detect them - and interestingly neither do most materialists.

In terms of an explanation, I think your example maybe actually be asking two different questions - the first being 'why' does the moon exist, a convenient satellite that stabilizes our planet's movement on it's access ad aids in the regular rhythm of our tides so beneficial for life? Science of course can't really tell us why - it's just there as far as science is concerned.

As to 'how' it came to be there (and by corollary, when) science can offer some interesting scientific speculation and even some demonstrable mechanisms, though obviously no certain proof for a unique past events. But even if it could point to a certain set of events leading to the eventuality of the existence of the moon, it wouldn't be a 'rejection' of a 'supernatural' explanation of the moon's existence as the science is by necessity limited to only investigating the natural aspects of the existence of the moon to begin with.



drmark -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 1:09:45 PM)

quote:

But even if it could point to a certain set of events leading to the eventuality of the existence of the moon, it wouldn't be a 'rejection' of a 'supernatural' explanation of the moon's existence as the science is by necessity limited to only investigating the natural aspects of the existence of the moon to begin with.
Okay, I will buy that line of reasoning, but I doubt many naturalists will! I guess that's the point I was trying to make in post #11. You and I agree that the limits of observational science should not preclude supernatural explanation, but the other side is unwilling or unable to accede this position, preferring to cling to their faith as tenaciously as we cling to ours.



KaseyTom -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 2:35:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

The criteria for something to be scientific is falsifiability. As long as something is falsifiable, then it's scientific. Intelligent design, for example, is falsifiable. UCD (universal common descent) is unfalsifiable.


Only ID proponents believe ID to be falsifiable. Scientists do not.
UCD is clearly falsifiable. There are endless scientific scenarios that could disprove UCD. None have occured.



KaseyTom -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 2:48:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I think you may be confusing things, Jack. No one rejects the existence of the moon, only that the moon was created on day 4 by supernatural design and fiat. The conflict remains: What is the explanation for the moon's existence, not what are the parameters of its existence (such as distance from Earth).


Well, I am certainly capable of confusing things, though I think not this time. You can't 'reject' something based on the inability to detect or measure it with a particular set of tools. I don't 'reject' the existence of human rights because there is no scientific or empirical method by which to detect them - and interestingly neither do most materialists.

In terms of an explanation, I think your example maybe actually be asking two different questions - the first being 'why' does the moon exist, a convenient satellite that stabilizes our planet's movement on it's access ad aids in the regular rhythm of our tides so beneficial for life? Science of course can't really tell us why - it's just there as far as science is concerned.

As to 'how' it came to be there (and by corollary, when) science can offer some interesting scientific speculation and even some demonstrable mechanisms, though obviously no certain proof for a unique past events. But even if it could point to a certain set of events leading to the eventuality of the existence of the moon, it wouldn't be a 'rejection' of a 'supernatural' explanation of the moon's existence as the science is by necessity limited to only investigating the natural aspects of the existence of the moon to begin with.


The why and the "how it came to be there" are the same question. Anything beyond that is outside the realm of science.



drmark -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 2:57:28 PM)

quote:

Only ID proponents believe ID to be falsifiable. Scientists do not.
There are lots of ways to falsify ID. Many of them have been discussed on other threads. Here is a recent one titled ID is not Science if you wish to review it.



Jhud -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 3:00:05 PM)

quote:

The why and the "how it came to be there" are the same question. Anything beyond that is outside the realm of science.


No they aren't - if 'how it came to be' is the product of unguided incidental forces, then ultimately there is no answer to 'why' - it just is.



KaseyTom -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 3:12:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The why and the "how it came to be there" are the same question. Anything beyond that is outside the realm of science.


No they aren't - if 'how it came to be' is the product of unguided incidental forces, then ultimately there is no answer to 'why' - it just is.


Why is the sky blue?

Is exactly the same question as: How did the sky come to be blue?

Is the blueness of the sky the result of ID or unguided incidental forces? This is not a question science even attempts to address. It is outside the realm of science and should be addressed by philosophers and theologists.



Jhud -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 3:23:50 PM)

quote:

Why is the sky blue?

Is exactly the same question as: How did the sky come to be blue?

Is the blueness of the sky the result of ID or unguided incidental forces? This is not a question science even attempts to address. It is outside the realm of science and should be addressed by philosophers and theologists.


Actually, the answer to the question doesn't really answer the question - we always answer that question by explaining what set of circumstances make the sky blue - but that isn't really an answer to why (which properly understood means 'to what purpose?').

I know English is a bit messy, but I think clarity is important.



drmark -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 3:33:24 PM)

quote:

Why is the sky blue?

Is exactly the same question as: How did the sky come to be blue?
Only in a very simplistic semantic manner are these two questions identical. How the sky appears blue is a result of basic natural features of light diffusion through gaseous particles as DESCRIBED HERE. Why these multiple mechanisms are present and functional in the first place is a whole different ball of wax!



KaseyTom -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 3:35:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Why is the sky blue?

Is exactly the same question as: How did the sky come to be blue?

Is the blueness of the sky the result of ID or unguided incidental forces? This is not a question science even attempts to address. It is outside the realm of science and should be addressed by philosophers and theologists.


Actually, the answer to the question doesn't really answer the question - we always answer that question by explaining what set of circumstances make the sky blue - but that isn't really an answer to why (which properly understood means 'to what purpose?').

I know English is a bit messy, but I think clarity is important.



The very question "to what purpose" implies design and belongs in the realm of philosophy, not science. The exception is biology where design is the well understood product of evolution.



drmark -> RE: Science only contributes atheism? (9/15/2008 3:45:12 PM)

The fact that that evolutionary theory works so poorly in explaining the natural origin of earth's biodiversity would explain why evolutionists resort to their philosophical arguments in biology!



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI