Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

YH8

Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

Has Science Proven the Existence of God?  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

    • 1) Yes.
      4
    • 2) No, but it (science) can/has the ability to.
      6
    • 3) No, and it (science) can't/doesn't have the ability to.
      35
    • 4) I don't know.
      3
    • 5) Other (please explain below).
      4


Recommended Posts

I addressed what he wrote and I noticed he was deliberately deceptive by his choice of words and I explained.

You can't "notice" that someone is "deliberately deceptive." You can infer it, but it isn't an objectively, externally evident fact like his height. His "deliberations," his motives, must be inferred. And your odd reading of a few paragraphs on a Website doesn't seem sufficient to brand one of the leading physicists in the world, who is now also one of the most widely respected and widely published thinkers on the relationship between religion and science, "deliberately deceptive." You may well be the first person, even among his critics, to have dismissed him as dishonest. (Certainly I've never encountered that dismissal before.) And you do it on the basis of apparently little or no background in science, and backed by such meager awareness of his work that you can't even recall his name. The arrogance of your casual judgment appalls me.

If you want to communicate with me honestly . . .

There you go again, with yet another casual suggestion of dishonesty.

Why should anyone want to communicate with you at all?

Is this how you get your jollies Daniel?

No. I don't find the combination of arrogance and ignorance even slightly amusing.

if there is a sincere wish to communicate honestly but I don't get that sense when talking with you.

Yet again.

Mr. Polkinghorne was a disappointment in the sense I didn't think given his intelligence he was honest.

Yet again.

What I respect the most coming from someone is honesty.

But, for some odd reason, religious believers just keeping being dishonest!

I can't stand deceptive type game playing.  I can't stand people using logic to win an argument or make a point when it is obvious to me they are deliberately using fallacies or being misleading by choice of words.  The other night I read something by D. Oakes, sorry I'm not sure if that's the correct spelling and I saw so many fallacies.  It has to do with the historicity in the BOM.  I don't care how well he may be respected within the church or how intelligent he is or what his position is, but no one could have written would he did without knowing full well he was being deliberately deceptive.

Yet again.

If you  would like I will put that up on here some day.  Not today because I don't have the time to address it.  Of course on second that if you like him will only end up playing deceptive games, there isn't much point.

There's no point at all. I'm very familiar with Elder Oaks's talk. I think your suggestion that he was being "deliberately deceptive" is absurd, and that it says far more about you than it does about him.

I'm seeing how religious individuals respond to questions, how honest they are in their responses.

Somehow, this doesn't inspire me with confidence.

What I'm finding and I've been on other boards is that the majority of intelligent religious individuals, the ones who can think very logically are typically evasive and frankly dishonest in their responses.  That's what I keep seeing time and again.  And that is why I'm quick to notice it when I see it.

No further comment needed.

Share this post


Link to post
What I'm finding and I've been on other boards is that the majority of intelligent religious individuals, the ones who can think very logically are typically evasive and frankly dishonest in their responses.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know about paranoia (in the technical pysch sense), possibly preconceptions and uneducated prejudice though.

I do not understand why anyone would think that opinions need to be addressed as if they are substantive, especially when coupled with an admission that the person has no background in the area he is expressing an opinion about.

When did lack of education and awareness become a virtue?

Share this post


Link to post

C: I don't know about paranoia (in the technical pysch sense), possibly preconceptions and prejudice though.

You guys, D, C & J... are doing a marvelous job of convincing me how honest and sincere, religiously minded individuals are. And btw C to this point you haven't shown me anything of your knowledge in science for someone so keen to espouse its virtues.

C I do not understand why anyone would think that opinions need to be addressed as if they are substantive, especially when coupled with an admission that the person has no background in the area he is expressing an opinion about.

When did lack of education and awareness become a virtue?

I'm sure you don't understand lots of stuff, is that surprising to you? We haven't been discussing actual scientific theories C, other than scripture lover who has shown some knowledge regarding some theories. And whenever he made a point he gave support/examples.

My focus has been on the difference between the process of scientific method versus the process of religion in the search for knowledge. I think education and awareness is wonderful. However, having a lack of understanding of various scientific theories does not preclude one from discussing the scientific method, nor does it preclude the ability to understand the difference between science and religion. And as far as religion goes, the books upon which they are based are man created containing varying degrees of mythical stories, some all myth some partially myth. While myth may be useful in some regards for man perhaps emotional, moral & behavioral guidance, science, (that is scientist using the scientific method.. I added that for Daniel's benefit) has no interest in trying to support myths, just because myth believers would like science to.

Science does often counter religious claims not because that was ever the intent but simply because the observations yielded a particular result which happened to counter religious claims. i.e. the genetic DNA information which counters the historical understuding presented by the BOM (& mormonism leaders in its developmental history) that N. American indians came from the middle east and were Hebrew.

Religion adjusts its claims to fit in with science, science doesn't adjust its claims to fit in with religion.

Share this post


Link to post

It's difficult, reading "religiously free's" freewheeling moral condemnations of anybody and everybody who disagrees with her on religious matters, not to be reminded of the little boy who cried "Wolf!" The first charge of dishonesty is worrisome, but, after the fourth or fifth, it begins to lose its sting.

Frankly, I'm not too disturbed at being linked (in my supposed dishonesty) with Rev. Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS; Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Council of the Twelve Apostles (former acting dean of the University of Chicago Law School, president of Brigham Young University, and justice of the Utah Supreme Court); and "the majority of intelligent religious individuals." That's pretty good company.

Share this post


Link to post
And as far as religion goes, the books upon which they are based are man created containing varying degrees of mythical stories, some all myth some partially myth. While myth may be useful in some regards for man perhaps emotional, moral & behavioral guidance, science, (that is scientist using the scientific method.. I added that for Daniel's benefit) has no interest in trying to support myths, just because myth believers would like science to.

Oh, my....would it do any good to recommend that you take a course in the religion department of a reputable college? Or are they all liars, too?

Share this post


Link to post

D: You can't "notice" that someone is "deliberately deceptive." You can infer it, but it isn't an objectively, externally evident fact like his height. His "deliberations," his motives, must be inferred.

Are you saying that 'notice' can not be used as a verb? I've always used it as a verb...as in to observe. i.e. I observed by what he wrote that he was being deliberately deceptive. I don't see the problem with the choice of word. Basically I did note deception.

I've heard... things infer.. people imply..is that correct? I have difficulty at times using those words as do many people.

Of course "deliberately deceptive" is not an externally evident fact it is a subjective opinion and I was applying my opinion to a particular event not to his entire character. The event was his particular choice of words while he compared religion to science.

I think for now I'll leave the rest of your note, our discussions tend to get bogged down in off topic focus. I suppose that is a tactic of yours. I've noticed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Me:And as far as religion goes, the books upon which they are based are man created containing varying degrees of mythical stories, some all myth some partially myth. While myth may be useful in some regards for man perhaps emotional, moral & behavioral guidance, science, (that is scientist using the scientific method.. I added that for Daniel's benefit) has no interest in trying to support myths, just because myth believers would like science to.

J:Oh, my....would it do any good to recommend that you take a course in the religion department of a reputable college? Or are they all liars, too?

I have taken a few courses fairly recently logic and philosophy at the local college but with my current lifestyle, I've been doing some traveling recently I decided I couldn't continue so I've purchased some books from their book store. But I read whatever interests me, and don't have a planned out programme. Thank you for your condescending inputs in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Thank you for your condescending inputs in this thread.

And it's always a pleasure to have such a deserving recipient. :P I'd be happy to recommend some books for you so that you might come to a minimal understanding of what you are trying to discuss. Short of that, I guess you will have to stick to your sense of moral superiority.

Share this post


Link to post

I think for now I'll leave the rest of your note, our discussions tend to get bogged down in off topic focus.  I suppose that is a tactic of yours.  I've noticed that.

Silly, we are all liars and lying is by definition off-topic. You haven't noticed that?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest The Headless Laban

Science and religion are best kept separate - much like church and state. Religion is fine and all, but history has shown us what happens when religion mingles too heavily in government and academia. Go to church on Sunday, repent your sins to your religious leaders, that's all fine, but keep it out of government, education, and law.

I recently read an article in "Wired" magazine about the new fight over evolution. It looks like the religious folks are dressing up like scientists and sticking their noses into the classrooms again. Please, let the real scientists teach science, and the religious folks preach on sundays. That's my opinion.

Science and religion don't mix. One is based on tangible, emperical evidence, the other is based on faith which is the exact opposite of tangible, emperical evidence. It's like the two party system, we need both parties to keep one another honest, but they just don't mix. Science and religion each have their benefits to society, but they don't mix well. Keep them separated.

Share this post


Link to post
My focus has been on the difference between the process of scientific method versus the process of religion in the search for knowledge.
Which is why I have continually pointed toward increasing your knowledge about the philosophy of science and religion. I am beginning to wonder if you know what I mean when I'm speaking of the philosophy of science and why that would relate to an examination of the process of the scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post

Religiously Free -

My focus has been on the difference between the process of scientific method versus the process of religion in the search for knowledge. I think education and awareness is wonderful.

May I suggest something in the spirit of friendship here? I think what has gotten Dr. Peterson's gander (and rightly so, honestly) is your judgement against a world class Quantum Physicist while you have admitted not knowing about the Quantum. Honestly that surprised me as well. I think what is happening is you are appearing here at least to be almost anti-religious and pro science, yet you are unaware, by your own admission, of one of the absolute most fundamental physicist conceptions and scientific theories in all of history. Truly to not even have heard of it, let alone know the fundamentals of Quantum, yet to suggest one of the leading experts is being dishonest with words just honestly appears to be inconsistent. Does that make sense to you? I don't see Dr. Peterson as putting you down RF........I see you apparently being a little too harsh and judgmental because a scientist has religious ideas and publishes them. Not all scientists are atheists you know.............I hope you can simply move on here in our discussion and forget the name calling both from your end and others ends, and lets talk this out.

From what I have read, you appear to me to want to belittle religion and advance and support science. What is wrong with doing both, and, as Dr. Peterson, and Juliann have both suggested, as well as Calmorah, finding scientists who also have done both? To then see you simply label them as dishonest truly doesn't do much for your argument. I don't see scientists who happen to be religious and say so and try to advance their knowledge of what they think God is like as being dishonest or cowardly to the scientific enterprise while believing in mumbo jumbo. Perhaps it is your approach to religion as a subject of less credibility that bothers us. I don't know. But do you see why the reactions to you are the way they are?

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Headless Laban said:

Science and religion don't mix. One is based on tangible, emperical evidence, the other is based on faith which is the exact opposite of tangible, emperical evidence. It's like the two party system, we need both parties to keep one another honest, but they just don't mix. Science and religion each have their benefits to society, but they don't mix well. Keep them separated.

I agree with everything said except.... for one small word 'need'. The part about 'needing' religion I don't accept. I don't need religion, nor does anyone in my family and I'm beginning to suspect the more I learn that mankind would do just fine without organized religions such as christianity, islam and (I know this won't be liked) mormonism. I do look upon mormonism separate to christianity. I view it as ...mormonism is to christianity what christianity is to Judaism. Of the monotheisms at this point the one I have some respect for is Judaism. I think it served a beneficial purpose for the people it was intended for and has evolved to suit more modern living. I think on the whole it's pretty grounded in reality and its focus is on being a guidance system. That is my current impression..albeit I am deficient in facts regarding it. A negative mark against Judaism and this is why probably the other religions developed, is that it was set up to be intended for a select few. Christianity and mormonism I think have little grounding in reality and I think that's detrimental to mankind's rational thinking abilities. If an individual can believe in the sense of it really being true that man can be a god they can believe anything. I know that too isn't a popular opinion in religious circles.

So although religion may have provided some benefits i.e. perhaps some moral guidance it also has been immoral...and I don't think it is a necessity for moral guidance. I think the golden rule is pretty much inate..it's been a survival mechanism. Religious groups provide morals to their own group but have been immoral towards those outside their group hence I don't see how they can claim moral authority. Religious groups used morals because it benefited their group, helped them to survive and grow.

I believe (sheesh I'm beginning to sound like Kerry I think I've listened to him too much as of late) that mankind at this point would be better off shedding beliefs in any supernatural protectorate entity and an afterlife. I think without these beliefs, religions wouldn't have a hold on mankind and there would be one less thing which mankind could use to fight over or separate themselves from others. I think religion separate men rather than unites them.

Share this post


Link to post
I think religion separate men rather than unites them.

Yes, it can do this. But I have also seen the exact opposite also. I have seen religion unite mankind like nothing else, and cause a working together, and a forgiveness of weaknesses, and a spreading of love like nothing else also. Perhaps it's in our own predispositions to see what it is we want to see.........

Share this post


Link to post
I believe (sheesh I'm beginning to sound like Kerry I think I've listened to him too much as of late) that mankind at this point would be better off shedding beliefs in any supernatural protectorate entity and an afterlife.

This is one idea, to be sure. I have also seen the scientific writer, Stephen Jay Gould, say its perfectly fine and causes much good for those who wish to believe in the supernatural to do so, and live their lives accordingly. The world is a better place with this belief instilled in those who wish to have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps it's in our own predispositions to see what it is we want to see.........

Most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
May I suggest something in the spirit of friendship here? I think what has gotten Dr. Peterson's gander (and rightly so, honestly) is your judgement against a world class Quantum Physicist while you have admitted not knowing about the Quantum. Honestly that surprised me as well.

I don't know whether Mr. Peterson's gander has been gotten i won't speak for him. But I'll address your comments. Mr. Peterson gave me some names and the first one I looked up I wasn't pleased with a certain aspect. I don't want to repeat my previous post..I've already explained all this. I was not attacking Mr. P/the physicist knowledge re science. So what I brought up has nothing to do with quantum theory and Mr. P's knowledge/expertise in that area.

I think what is happening is you are appearing here at least to be almost anti-religious and pro science, yet you are unaware, by your own admission, of one of the absolute most fundamental physicist conceptions and scientific theories in all of history.

Again let me repeat I wasn't addressing Mr P's knowledge regarding science. And what I said didn't require knowledge of Quantum mechanics. I am pro the scientific method. I am anti religion when religion claims more than it should. I'm anti religion when I see dishonesty used being used to support it. Mr. Peterson didn't do this but many do and the physicist in a subtle way did which is what annoyed me and that is pit science against religion.

Truly to not even have heard of it, let alone know the fundamentals of Quantum, yet to suggest one of the leading experts is being dishonest with words just honestly appears to be inconsistent.

Well I quote the physicist and addressed his words and intent..I didn't address his knowledge in science.

i Does that make sense to you? I don't see Dr. Peterson as putting you down RF........I see you apparently being a little too harsh and judgmental because a scientist has religious ideas and publishes them.

Au contraire it was not the physicists ideas re science that was the problem..but I've explained this previously

Not all scientists are atheists you know.............I hope you can simply move on here in our discussion and forget the name calling both from your end and others ends, and lets talk this out.

S.L. more than move on I don't intend to continue discussions which are just games. Of course I realize not all scientist are atheists. But scientists are people and when it comes to their personal views (not the theories) they are as capable as anyone else in promoting their personal bias with less than honest methods and it's quite possible they aren't aware. Though the more intellgent they appear to have the more I suspect foul play.

From what I have read, you appear to me to want to belittle religion and advance and support science. What is wrong with doing both, and, as Dr. Peterson, and Juliann have both suggested, as well as Calmorah, finding scientists who also have done both?

Well I've supported science on here to extent of trying to explain how it differs to religion. I realize science isn't perfect and doesn't deal with associated ethics. I do belittle religion, but I also do try to look for the good. And when I see game playing going on I lose respect. Evasiveness, dishonesty, denial, lies, changing the focus of the discussion or shifting to a person attack etc ..I just have no respect for.

I still have another post of yours and there is a part I don't agree with you. If I have time I'll respond. If you respond to me with lack of honesty in some way ..and so far you haven't done that..that's what will annoy me. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me or expressing way out wacky religious ideas different to mine.

To then see you simply label them as dishonest truly doesn't do much for your argument. I don't see scientists who happen to be religious and say so and try to advance their knowledge of what they think God is like as being dishonest or cowardly to the scientific enterprise while believing in mumbo jumbo. Perhaps it is your approach to religion as a subject of less credibility that bothers us. I don't know. But do you see why the reactions to you are the way they are?

S.L. what is bothering these people is that I'm not a believer like they are. They express the notion that the RFM board is so terrible because of tight controls yet there are other ways of controlling boards. i.e. by encouraging only like minded individuals to participate and those with different ideas board members don't address the ideas but instead attack or belittle the messenger.

Let me explain again, the physicist in the paragraphs I copied and pasted explained science and religion and then went onto say in essence that religion is greater than science because it provides greater understanding. That is a personal opinion of his and he's using his credentials to advance this notion. The implication he gave was that religion gave greater understanding of the world we live in...and I beg to differ but religion does not give greater understanding of the world..despite how much knowledge he has in Quantum theory that statement he made was deliberately misleading. It wasn't anti science but it was pro religion yet using science to bolser the credibility of religion.

Regarding reactions to me it doesn't faze me in the least how people react. That is part of my test so to speak..to see how people react. It's part of my learning process. It gives me an idea of the mind set of individuals. I'm not bothered that people disagree with me or don't like what I say. And disagree with me on this board is of course something I expect.

Share this post


Link to post
 

Me; believe (sheesh I'm beginning to sound like Kerry I think I've listened to him too much as of late) that mankind at this point would be better off shedding beliefs in any supernatural protectorate entity and an afterlife.

S.L  This is one idea, to be sure. I have also seen the scientific writer, Stephen Jay Gould, say its perfectly fine and causes much good for those who wish to believe in the supernatural to do so, and live their lives accordingly. The world is a better place with this belief instilled in those who wish to have it.

On a personal level for the individual I can see how it can give comfort. Though having not been brought up religious and everyone I know not being religious, we don't think about or fear death at least not anyone I know. Yes when death is imminent I'm sure I'l probably fear it but up until this point it's not an interest or concern of mine. When it happens it happens and hopefully I'll have enjoyed most of my life. Actually the fact I've lived quite a few years, have 2 wonderful young well adjusted adults is really all I have expectation for..anything else is gravy.

The negatives re those beliefs and the associated fears are what religious organization have played off of. And without getting into it I'm not too thrilled with religious organizations..hence the reason why I think mankind would be better off without those beliefs.

( I must go do something else today )

Share this post


Link to post
Not all scientists are atheists you know.............

You know I would be curious as to just how many scientists are atheists. The number of atheist scientists definitely seems proportionatly higher than that of the general population. But its hard to make an objective judgement on that, I would be very interested to see an objective study done on the religious orientation of scientists. My experience has always been that most simply fall into the "non-religious and just don't care" crowd, and most who fall into a religion tends towards atheism/agnosticism (but certainly not all).

Though, that's just my personal experience, I would be very curious to see an objective study done on this.

Share this post


Link to post
 

Me:I think religion separate men rather than unites them.

Yes, it can do this. But I have also seen the exact opposite also. I have seen religion unite mankind like nothing else, and cause a working together, and a forgiveness of weaknesses, and a spreading of love like nothing else also. Perhaps it's in our own predispositions to see what it is we want to see.........

There is macro and micro affects. Religion unites those within a group I mentioned in a previous post that was one of the benefits for Judaism for Jews. But on a macro level, it separates people.

It's not just a question of predispositions, I think it's also a matter of the discussion being limited to short back and forth replies and gradual development of one's ideas presented.

Share this post


Link to post

Religiously Free -

But scientists are people and when it comes to their personal views (not the theories) they are as capable as anyone else in promoting their personal bias with less than honest methods and it's quite possible they aren't aware. Though the more intellgent they appear to have the more I suspect foul play.

Actually, the very theories they propose and wish to either refute or prove is also biased as James Gleick masterfully demonstrtaed in his book on "Chaos." Personal bias is simply rampant in the scientific method as well. They don't just simply put their humanness aside and become objective detatched individuals looking for "real truth" and then when it comes to other matters become human and wrong again. I think you are misunderstanding the very human nature of the entire scientific enterprise........not a crisis, to be sure......just something to remain aware of. Scientists are not robots, but very passionate loving and hating human beings like all of us, and their biases definitely get into their work, scientific or otherwise. Thank goodness it does. Can you imagine reading Stephen Wolfram's gigantic new book "A New Kind of Science" if he were not passionate about it? It would bore one to tears.

I think it is a better policy, personally, to allow the position that everyone in every field is honestly trying to grasp and understand, rather than ascribe dishonesty to them if they come up with something different in their thinking than we think. Instead of always suspecting foul play in one who understands something different than I do, I find it much easier and more refreshing and actually enjoyable to ascribe honesty to them, and then work from there on two things. 1. To understand their views better. and 2. To share mine. That way we come to an agreement of understanding the other instead of damning them to dishonesty.

Share this post


Link to post

Religiously Free -

Religion unites those within a group I mentioned in a previous post that was one of the benefits for Judaism for Jews. But on a macro level, it separates people.

I respectfully disagree. I believe there are many instances where religions of all kinds come together in a humanitarian way in this world, and we are getting better at it, not worse. The Dali Lamah is a prime example. The religious scholar Huston Smith has shown that diverse religions can and do come together in the name of brotherhood and love to work together in understanding, as well as succoring those who need physical comforts and help. The Mormon Church is another prime example of this as well. Behind the scenes, three is simply nothing quite like the Relief Society and the Priesthood in action around the world for anyone, religious faith being irrelevant to those in need of help. Again, I suspect, it may simply be what we are predisposed of to see in something. If you look for that glass as being half empty, that is what you will find. I find it half full.........

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...