Science vs. Religious Faith

Mpride · Apr 13, 2011

My second question:

Are SCIENCE and RELIGION at odds?

Short answer-- I believe no. I think it is wrong to believe that somehow science and faith are at odds-- I believe they complement one another quite well.

New Atheists conjecture that the preponderance of evidence and the burden of proof rests with believers to prove God. In other words, one needn't do anything to prove something isn't true. However the lack of a proven atheistic alternative to account for such mysteries as the origin of life, while not proof of God, certainly provides as much reasonable doubt as faith in Him. Any competing alternative to God require as much faith to sustain as that found in the hearts of believers, but without hope and moral guidelines that drive varies human institutional laws.

To hold as true that God does not exists requires in my opinion a willing suspension of empirical faith in circumstantial evidence that reasonably suggests a Higher Being. While presumably oxymoronic, the term empirical faith in the context of this discussion is evidence of the unseen as reasonable. It is a faith in a empiricial nature of scienctific theory driven by observations and reasoning, such as for instance, gravity. Though you cannot touch and smell gravity, its effects are part of everything and felt everywhere. Consider the great mystery of the origin of life:

Imagine yourself holding a small bag of marbles four feet above a granite tiled floor. Within the bag, there are five blue marbles, five red marbles, and five green marbles, all equally weighted and equally sized. Now imagine that you turn the bag upside down and release the fifteen marbles. You watch as they freely fall to the tiled floor. Now, what do you think is the probability that the marbles would eventually come to rest separated in order by color, evenly distributed and spatially symmetrical throughout the system within a close proximity to one another? What is the possibility that the system will organize itself? Its fair to assume the probability of that outcome is near, if not completely impossible.

In my example, the marbles hitting the floor produced a forceful burst of energy bringing about a scattering effect, sending the objects across the boundless floor. As exampled by the second law of thermodynamics, when you add energy to a closed system, especially one principally driven by extreme heat as in popular atheistic theories of creation (the big bang theory), unless otherwise constrained, the system will move closer to chaos instead of order. This concept is called entropy. How is it reasonable then to assume that within a vacuum, similar, if not exact to the conditions measured in outer space today, an immeasurable spontaneous combustion released an indeterminate force of energy which instantly (or at least eventually) ordered matter according to like qualities, distributed evenly and spatially symmetrical. Futhermore, not only did Matter come to exists, it did not only accidently organize symmetrically and evenly distributed within a close proximity of other matter (in most cases, microscopically close), but matter was then spontaneously constrained by rules and laws of nature not only essential to maintaining order, but necessary to propagating new sub-systems within the larger system. Simply put, there is no other smaller example of this anywhere in nature.

And yet suppose scientifically the link is established. Suppose scientists somehow establish a reasonable linkage between the ignition of cosmic stardust billions of years ago and the formation of coastlines and the stratosphere we see today. Scientists cannot, and will never explain the link between igniting stardust and the inspiriation for Van Gogh's Starry Night. It is unfathomable that an erupting burning ball of fire would ever result, in however length of time, to an eruption of thought and reason, philosophy and poetry, and the abstract essense of human nature. This soulful nature of humanity may never be explained away by formula and scientific equation.

Maxx · Apr 13, 2011

Mpride said:
Futhermore, not only did Matter come to exists, it did not only accidently organize symmetrically and evenly distributed within a close proximity of other matter (in most cases, microscopically close), but matter was then spontaneously constrained by rules and laws of nature not only essential to maintaining order, but necessary to propagating new sub-systems within the larger system. Simply put, there is no other smaller example of this anywhere in nature.

There's no other smaller example of the universe as a whole so when we discuss how the universe works we can't invoke comparative order or disorder. This universe may be more orderly or disorderly than other universes, but there's really no grounds at all for judging its relative order or disorder. For all we know, we live in the state closest to total disorder that any universe has ever known.

rwam · Apr 13, 2011

I think on one of your points, at least, you are SPOT ON. I was thinking along the very same lines that, since it's theoretically impossible to prove that God exists, to not believe in Him requires just as much faith as it does to believe in Him. Me loves irony.

Maxx · Apr 13, 2011

rwam said:
I think on one of your points, at least, you are SPOT ON. I was thinking along the very same lines that, since it's theoretically impossible to prove that God exists, to not believe in Him requires just as much faith as it does to believe in Him. Me loves irony.

If one's theory includes the idea that if there is no evidence at all of something within your observational protocol then it probably doesn't have much to do with your observational protocol, then by that protocol, there's no reason to prove or disprove anything about any gods at all. Me loves a good protocol.

Or to put it another way: in particle physics there is a concept called "background" which can be considered a statistical problem in getting a clear resonance. Anything that might be observed is put in the background statistics. Oddly enough, the most powerful and omnipotent being never even makes it into the background observational statistics.
This is observationally very interesting: that a superhyperpowerful entity is postulated as universally present and totally extant, but never causes even the suspicion of the most minute possible blip in anything ever (in terms of background statistics).

Sarpedon · Apr 13, 2011

I think that religious faith and science is at odds.

Because one is ultimately based on authority; Things are said to be true because the person in charge says so. "[the church said that] God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Most religions disallow people from disagreeing or questioning the authority, or only allow it in a controllable way.

The other relies on evidence, mathematics and reason. Even the most famous scientists can be questioned, and are often shown to be wrong.

These are two entirely different ways of thinking, and they are not complementary.

AMCrenshaw · Apr 13, 2011

people give authority to 'evidence,' though.

Sarpedon · Apr 13, 2011

Could you please elaborate on that point?

In science, there are definite rules, guidelines and procedures which govern what can be concluded from evidence.

Torgo · Apr 13, 2011

Mpride said:
My second question:

Are SCIENCE and RELIGION at odds?

Yep! At least where Religion contradicts stuff that we can easily see to be factual, such as evolution.

New Atheists conjecture that the preponderance of evidence and the burden of proof rests with believers to prove God. In other words, one needn't do anything to prove something isn't true. However the lack of a proven atheistic alternative to account for such mysteries as the origin of life, while not proof of God, certainly provides as much reasonable doubt as faith in Him.

We've got plenty of theories - check the wiki page for Abiogenesis. There's some good experimental evidence as to how amino acids arose to begin with. On the other side, we only have the Bible's word for its account of the origin of life. I think that while we're bringing in terms like reasonable doubt, you would find that a court saw a big difference between circumstancial evidence on the one hand, and hearsay on the other.

Any competing alternative to God require as much faith to sustain as that found in the hearts of believers, but without hope and moral guidelines that drive varies human institutional laws.

This is a common theist canard. Faith is about the absence of evidence; whereas evolution, for example, has mountains of it - in museums, in the natural world around us, in our own bodies. I also find that I do have hope and morality - so you can't claim that they are unique to theism.

To hold as true that God does not exists requires in my opinion a willing suspension of empirical faith in circumstantial evidence that reasonably suggests a Higher Being.

You'll need to cite that evidence.

Imagine yourself holding a small bag of marbles four feet above a granite tiled floor. Within the bag, there are five blue marbles, five red marbles, and five green marbles, all equally weighted and equally sized. Now imagine that you turn the bag upside down and release the fifteen marbles. You watch as they freely fall to the tiled floor. Now, what do you think is the probability that the marbles would eventually come to rest separated in order by color, evenly distributed and spatially symmetrical throughout the system within a close proximity to one another? What is the possibility that the system will organize itself? Its fair to assume the probability of that outcome is near, if not completely impossible.

I'm afraid this is a bogus argument. First of all the anthropic principle tends to exclude all arguments from improbability (you're here to pose the question, so we can reasonably assume we were the lucky break.) Second, the analogy isn't really a close fit at all - even if we agree that the success conditions you cite are improbable, what does that mean? Third, you're only positing one particular success condition, when there are probably all sorts of different ways the 'marbles' could produce life. Fourthly, biochemistry isn't governed by chance alone. Fifthly, you don't just get one throw of the dice, you get bazillions, simultaneously. And so on.

As exampled by the second law of thermodynamics, when you add energy to a closed system, especially one principally driven by extreme heat as in popular atheistic theories of creation (the big bang theory), unless otherwise constrained, the system will move closer to chaos instead of order. This concept is called entropy. How is it reasonable then to assume that within a vacuum, similar, if not exact to the conditions measured in outer space today, an immeasurable spontaneous combustion released an indeterminate force of energy which instantly (or at least eventually) ordered matter according to like qualities, distributed evenly and spatially symmetrical.

The universe has more entropy than it did prior to the Big Bang. Back then everything was compressed to a point. Following expansion, it's wilder and woolier. There's no violation of the Second Law. Furthermore, to say there was a 'vacuum similar to outer space' prior to the Big Bang is, AFAIK, fundamentally wrong. Space and time didn't exist. There wasn't anything to be empty.

Maxx · Apr 13, 2011

Sarpedon said:
Could you please elaborate on that point?

In science, there are definite rules, guidelines and procedures which govern what can be concluded from evidence.

Quite true. In scientific practice evidence is derived according to some specified methods and reported with lots of context (such as standard statistical evaluations).

For example there is currently a set of events from Fermilab that has a three-sigma level of suggesting there is such a thing as supersymmetric technicolor forces. But this interesting evidence is noted as not necessarily the whole story.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-at-fermilab-hints-at-technicolour-force.html

AMCrenshaw · Apr 13, 2011

Sarpedon said:
Could you please elaborate on that point?

no problem.

In science, there are definite rules, guidelines and procedures which govern what can be concluded from evidence.

so science is another unconscious arbiter of knowledge, but it's no more direct than religious beliefs. i.e., one must make a choice to believe as hard fact what someone else has claimed to have discovered.

if i'm not a scientist, and i don't have an education in science at all, and their claims are about something like, idk, the number of galaxies in the universe, if i go around spouting how i believe there are x number of galaxies in the universe and i know this because the researchers said so...i've deferred my authority to scientists. i've given them the authority.

a more practical example might be medicine. i often feel that when i don't go to the doctor, i'm not sick. the moment i go to the doctor, i got something.

just like when i drive my vehicle around, there might be wear and tear on the brake pads, etc., but typically there's not much wrong with it that i can see. if i take it to the shop, they run a full body diagnostic test and i rarely get out of there without being billed a couple grand (or given a wag of the finger when i say i'll take the vehicle elsewhere). i have to trust they're telling the truth. i give them the authority.

Torgo · Apr 13, 2011

There is an argument-from-authority issue, AMC - it's just that a) science is built on the open publication and review of results, so if I wanted to I could go and check it out for myself; and b) it seems to work, in that theories that don't work evaporate pretty quickly. As a layman I am in a sense taking the pronouncements of scientists on faith, but the structure that produces them seems sound to me. With religion, I basically end up with a 2000-year old book and no way to investigate its claims.

AMCrenshaw · Apr 13, 2011

also, i want to add, i just don't see as harsh of a conflict as i used to. a teacher once told me, for example, accept what is, because what is practical can also be considered sacred.

i don't equate facts with truths, per se: it might have to do with some semantics. knowledge or understanding. i understand certain things from reading fairy tales and novels i might never have learned from a scientist. not saying, science wouldn't have something to say about what i've learned, but that my understanding had come from some source besides the scientific method.

Maxx · Apr 13, 2011

AMCrenshaw said:
no problem.

so science is another unconscious arbiter of knowledge, but it's no more direct than religious beliefs. i.e., one must make a choice to believe as hard fact what someone else has claimed to have discovered.

if i'm not a scientist, and i don't have an education in science at all, and their claims are about something like, idk, the number of galaxies in the universe, if i go around spouting how i believe there are x number of galaxies in the universe and i know this because the researchers said so...i've deferred my authority to scientists. i've given them the authority.

a more practical example might be medicine. i often feel that when i don't go to the doctor, i'm not sick. the moment i go to the doctor, i got something.

just like when i drive my vehicle around, there might be wear and tear on the brake pads, etc., but typically there's not much wrong with it that i can see. if i take it to the shop, they run a full body diagnostic test and i rarely get out of there without being billed a couple grand (or given a wag of the finger when i say i'll take the vehicle elsewhere). i have to trust they're telling the truth. i give them the authority.

You're confusing expertise and authority. If I don't know how to fix something and I pay somebody to fix it, I'm not deferring to their authority, I'm using their expertise.

It's a different situation if I know that a particular prelate
has never been near a radio telescope in his whole life, but I defer to him on some astronomical topic because he is in the Church hierarchy.

Maxx · Apr 13, 2011

Torgo said:
With religion, I basically end up with a 2000-year old book and no way to investigate its claims.

If you're lucky. With religion, you might get some skinny, screaming school girl covered with chicken blood and certain she is possessed by a minor deity.

AMCrenshaw · Apr 13, 2011

Torgo said:
There is an argument-from-authority issue, AMC - it's just that a) science is built on the open publication and review of results, so if I wanted to I could go and check it out for myself; and b) it seems to work, in that theories that don't work evaporate pretty quickly. As a layman I am in a sense taking the pronouncements of scientists on faith, but the structure that produces them seems sound to me. With religion, I basically end up with a 2000-year old book and no way to investigate its claims.

well, i don't see belief in science as faith-based.

what you write here tells me what you value, what computes or jives for you. what you consider knowledge, what you trust. you trust appearances, logic, math, *and rigor*. good.

if i read a 2000 year old book, i don't need to invest all sorts of FACTUAL authority in it (i have difficulty sympathizing with why people do, but that's beside the point), and i can still cultivate some meaningful understanding of the world i live in.

either way, it seems to me there are maps between us and reality.

AMCrenshaw · Apr 13, 2011

Maxx said:
If you're lucky. With religion, you might get some skinny, screaming school girl covered with chicken blood and certain she is possessed by a minor deity.

lol, is this fair?

with science, you might get massively destructive weapons of warfare, or pricey, addictive prescriptions that ice your body and mind so you can act to science's prescription of socially functional.

Maxx said:
You're confusing expertise and authority. If I don't know how to fix something and I pay somebody to fix it, I'm not deferring to their authority, I'm using their expertise.

that's also a semantic distinction, imo. if one is trusted as an expert on some subject, they're trusted as an authority on that same subject.

Maxx · Apr 13, 2011

AMCrenshaw said:
lol, is this fair?

with science, you might get massively destructive weapons of warfare, or pricey, addictive prescriptions that ice your body and mind so you can act to science's prescription of socially functional.

I'm not knocking religion. I'm just suggesting it takes diverse forms, some of which would require a pretty quick and direct response. Not all religious events are dull recitals of thousands of years-old and more or less incomprehensible verbiage. Okay, maybe most of them are.

By the same token, if you are a scientist (and not a psychiatric social worker dealing with the need to dose the religious with scientific substances), you probably aren't going to spend much of your time deciding on who gets what drugs and who gets bombed. You might be inclined to leave these decisions to the religiously approved authorities who have been dealing with the insane and those in need of bombing for thousands of years.

Diana Hignutt · Apr 13, 2011

As many of you know, I usually can't stay out of this type of debate, but:

a) not in the mood, today
b) I'm kinda tired
c) my WIP seeks to settle this debate once and for all (and I can't just give that shit away for free).

Carry on.

Maxx · Apr 13, 2011

AMCrenshaw said:
that's also a semantic distinction, imo. if one is trusted as an expert on some subject, they're trusted as an authority on that same subject.

A semantic distinction, but one that reflects a some social realities. For example, the guys who fix my car offer only comically intended advice about my x-wives, my bishop might have more serious strictures on their number.

Maxx · Apr 13, 2011

Diana Hignutt said:
As many of you know, I usually can't stay out of this type of debate, but:

a) not in the mood, today
b) I'm kinda tired
c) my WIP seeks to settle this debate once and for all (and I can't just give that shit away for free).

Carry on.

Well, I'm a big fan of John Dee, so I hope things go well with the WIP.

AMCrenshaw · Apr 13, 2011

Maxx said:
I'm not knocking religion. I'm just suggesting it takes diverse forms, some of which would require a pretty quick and direct response. Not all religious events are dull recitals of thousands of years-old and more or less incomprehensible verbiage. Okay, maybe most of them are.

what you see as incomprehensible verbiage ...

By the same token, if you are a scientist (and not a psychiatric social worker dealing with the need to dose the religious with scientific substances), you probably aren't going to spend much of your time deciding on who gets what drugs and who gets bombed.

maybe not who gets bombed, but who gets what drugs, yes you will: that's why they're called prescriptions.

AMCrenshaw · Apr 13, 2011

i think it's equally unfair to somehow conjoin religion and politics, but not science and politics.

Maxx · Apr 13, 2011

AMCrenshaw said:
i think it's equally unfair to somehow conjoin religion and politics, but not science and politics.

Religion works better with politics. The two definitely have a much longer history together. In fact, if you look around the world today, you find religious and political alignments constantly reinforce each other whereas there's no discernable similar alignments between say string theorists and say Basque separatism.

You can say what you want about religion, but it has played a big role in politics for the last 5000 years.

Maxx · Apr 13, 2011

AMCrenshaw said:
what you see as incomprehensible verbiage ...

maybe not who gets bombed, but who gets what drugs, yes you will: that's why they're called prescriptions.

The drugs are designed to have certain effects. It's not up to scientists to decide who needs to have those effects.

As for bombing: I firmly believe that if the Pope Gregory the Great had had a squadron or two of fighterbombers, things would have turned out differently for Papal Sovereignty.

AMCrenshaw · Apr 13, 2011

i have no doubts about the history-long marriage between religion and politics. your argument made it seem like religion was inherently political. i'm saying, so is science. ideally, neither would be. practically, both are. and each hierarchy is rooted in authority on a subject, a given map of the world.

as far as string theory is concerned: when it matters in our daily lives, more than to tease our humanly curiosity, it'll become part of the political realm.

Science vs. Religious Faith

Duty, Honor, Country

Got the hang of it, here

Got the hang of it, here

...

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Got the hang of it, here

...

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

...

Got the hang of it, here

Got the hang of it, here

...

...

Got the hang of it, here

Very Tired

Got the hang of it, here

Got the hang of it, here

...

...

Got the hang of it, here

Got the hang of it, here

...